Texas-Sized Solar!

[AndyH]

Took a little field trip last weekend...

The array is facing roughly SW - best to provide power during afternoon peak demand. The panels are on fixed mounts. The ground in the area - which until a bit more than year ago was a farm field - is hard as a rock. While the panels offer shade for strips of weeds, the area is probably only suitable for grazing (short) goats...

Today's EV World newsletter included info on the just-commissioned NRG Solar 'Roadrunner' facility in New Mexico across the border from El Paso.
http://evworld.com/mobile/InsiderEdition11.37.pdf
http://www.nrgsolarenergy.com/projects/PDFs/RoadRunner-factsheet_07.2011.pdf

210 acres, 340,000 FirstSolar thin film panels, 20 MW, single axis trackers.

 

[smkettner]

Now if we had spent the middle east war money on solar power we would be well on our way to energy independence and cleaner grid power.
I look forward to the day when daylight energy is abundant and cheep and overnight energy costs the premium.

 

[Yodrak]

Great pictures, thanks Andy.

If this were a 'normal' summer in Texas, would more be growing on the unshaded ground between the rows of panels?

 

[Herm]

Great pictures, thanks Andy.
If this were a 'normal' summer in Texas, would more be growing on the unshaded ground between the rows of panels?

it may have been irrigated, careful with the goats, they may chew on the wires, once

 

[Herm]

How do they wash the panels?, is there enough room for a water truck to squeeze by?

 

[AndyH]

Great pictures, thanks Andy.

If this were a 'normal' summer in Texas, would more be growing on the unshaded ground between the rows of panels?

My pleasure!

I guess if we had a 'chamber of commerce' 1971-2000 normal, then we should be just about ready to start the fall rain after May and June's precipitation.
http://atmo.tamu.edu/osc/norm/San_Antonio.txt

But considering that our last drought ran from fall of 2007 thru late Feb 2010 (broken by record snows!), and it was followed by the current drought (starting in Oct 2010), it's difficult to say what a 'normal' summer is these days... :?

http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2010/02/18/texas-drought-officially-over/
http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2010/10/21/texas-facing-another-drought/
http://atmo.tamu.edu/osc/press_releases/

 

[OilFreedom]

I applaud San Antonio's solar farm!

Cost and ROI calculations for various traditional power sources often miss the actual total cost of energy. These include: health care costs (created by pollutants, think smog, mercury emissions, radiological contamination, pipeline explosions, etc.), environmental impacts (oil leaks, acid rain, global warming, loss of habitat, etc.), and more direct costs to economic systems (exclusion zones created by contamination, loss of business, clean-up costs, loss of drilling rig, depletion of non-renewable resources, sick days that reduce productivity, etc.)

If the true costs (all-in) for the nuclear power plants in Japan had been factored in, I seriously doubt they would have been approved -- purely from a financial perspective (even without the human impacts).

The problem is that planning for new energy plants does not have to factor in all the other costs (human and economic). Those costs are put on others. So, when the ROI calculations are made, the energy producers can build polluting plants and make more profit because it is the wider society that carries the burdens.

We have to be realistic about the true cost of energy. When we pay for electricity, we generally do not pay the real cost of energy since it ignores all the hidden and long-term costs. In my opinion, if we paid a little more for our energy so that it is clean energy, it is actually a better long-term deal.

And, there's jobs in green energy! CO2 caps anyone?

 

[Herm]

Cost and ROI calculations for various traditional power sources often miss the actual total cost of energy. These include: health care costs (created by pollutants, think smog, mercury emissions, radiological contamination, pipeline explosions, etc.)

I bet if you add it all up the number of lives saved will vastly outnumber those that were killed..

If the true costs (all-in) for the nuclear power plants in Japan had been factored in, I seriously doubt they would have been approved -- purely from a financial perspective (even without the human impacts).

Perhaps they would have done a better job designing these plants, a country famous for tsunamis.. hello anyone!!! ?
Sometimes I wonder about the sloppy engineering practices of Japan when it comes to nuclear..

 

[AndyH]

Perhaps they would have done a better job designing these plants, a country famous for tsunamis.. hello anyone!!! ?
Sometimes I wonder about the sloppy engineering practices of Japan when it comes to nuclear..

Weren't these reactors from GE and/or Westinghouse?

 

[planet4ever]

Perhaps they would have done a better job designing these plants, a country famous for tsunamis.. hello anyone!!! ?
Sometimes I wonder about the sloppy engineering practices of Japan when it comes to nuclear..

Weren't these reactors from GE and/or Westinghouse?

I suspect the engineering Herm is referring to is that done for the specific plant, such as backup generators, siting, cooling tanks, etc.

Ray

 

[ERG4ALL]

I think that $0.21 is a little high for PV. Our array covers about 1/2 of the south facing slope of our roof (596 sq. ft.). It cost $48,000 excluding all Federal and State tax credits and excluding our electric utility's subsidy. From June 2, 2010 to June 2, 2011 it generated 16 mWh. Six mWh were sold back to the utility, so we were able to generate more electricity than we used with just 596 sq. ft. of space consumed.

The panels are guaranteed to produce 80% of their rated power at 25 years. I am ignoring that in the calculations in order to offset the anticipated increase in electric rates over 25 years. That is .8% (.008) per year which I think is safe to say that electric rates will rise by at least that amount. (Actually it works out to even less than that when compounding is considered, the bottom line is, do we expect electricity to cost only 25% (20% loss/divided by 80% retained) more per kWh in 25 years?). The math works out to $0.12 per kWh ($48,000/25 = $1,920 per year. $1,920/16,000 kWh = $0.12/kWh).

My concern is in drawing generalizations that may discourage some people from investigating solar. We happen to live in an area of the country that has 275 sunny days per year (the mountains of AZ) and have taken advantage of it. Many other areas may work out as the $0.21 posting claims, but one shouldn't indicate that that applies everywhere.

 

[planet4ever]

Your point is valid, and I too think $0.21 is high, but you do need to consider replacement costs for the inverters. The warrantee on mine was only three years (and has expired).

Ray

 

[ERG4ALL]

We're using Enphase microinverters. Have you had to replace any inverters in 3 years?

 

[planet4ever]

Ah, so your inverters are part of the PV panel, and covered by the panel warrantee? No, I have two large Fronius units, and so far they are working fine, except that they both had defective display control switches that I had replaced free within the first year.

Ray

 

[AndyH]

Perhaps they would have done a better job designing these plants, a country famous for tsunamis.. hello anyone!!! ?
Sometimes I wonder about the sloppy engineering practices of Japan when it comes to nuclear..

Weren't these reactors from GE and/or Westinghouse?

I suspect the engineering Herm is referring to is that done for the specific plant, such as backup generators, siting, cooling tanks, etc.

Ray

Ok - thanks. The same type of engineers that put hospital emergency generators in the basement because it's easier, or the ones that put the New Orleans generators below the levees?

Not bashing engineers, but am interested in spotlighting the mindset that is more comfortable basing today's decisions on the past instead of modifying it for present/future. The insurance industry is making climate change related adjustments already. At least the trading community has their disclaimer: "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns..."

Let's start a new meme that combines preparedness, bling, and the old west. Emergency generators should have a minimum chrome requirement (or maybe a (quiet) exhaust system made by Harley), and the advertising slogan should include the phrase "hang 'em high!" "That's right - we're a prepared city! Just look at OUR emergency generators!"

 

[AndyH]

How do they wash the panels?, is there enough room for a water truck to squeeze by?

I don't know details of their maintenance plans, but the perimeter (and interior grid) roads are wide enough for a pair of Suburbans to pass each other. There were tire tracks between the arrays and it appears there's enough room to drive a large pickup-based water truck thru.

 

[Yodrak]

The reactors were GE BWRs, and the reactor systems are essentially standard designs, but power plants are each for the most part 'one-of-a kind' designs integrating the various sub-systems required for a complete facility.

Perhaps they would have done a better job designing these plants, a country famous for tsunamis.. hello anyone!!! ?
Sometimes I wonder about the sloppy engineering practices of Japan when it comes to nuclear..

Weren't these reactors from GE and/or Westinghouse?

 

[OilFreedom]

Nuclear power may need to be a part of the CO2 solution; however, safety standards and designs of any new plants built need to be upgraded to the "walk-away" level of safety. This means the plant's entire staff could literally walk away (or if they were incapacitated) during an emergency, natural disaster, or human error, and the plant would safely shut down on its own. These designs already exist. However, they seem to be better suited to smaller plants, and this dilutes the profitability. I am not aware of any existing commercial plants that meet this level of safety.

I just heard about the Climate Reality Project yesterday. Good stuff: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5735" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

 

[ERG4ALL]

I am just finishing reading Amanda Little's book "Power Trip", The Story of America's Love Affair with Energy. I highly recommend it. It is an easy read and she writes with some humor. It is just not her opinion on the energy topic because there are 44 pages of footnote references and six pages of bibliography where the quotes came from. It will open you eyes to the pervasiveness of oil and how energy dependent we are.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/power-trip-amanda-little/1016212497

 

[Herm]

safety standards and designs of any new plants built need to be upgraded to the "walk-away" level of safety. This means the plant's entire staff could literally walk away (or if they were incapacitated) during an emergency, natural disaster, or human error, and the plant would safely shut down on its own. These designs already exist. However, they seem to be better suited to smaller plants

They are working on it, as you say much easier to do with smaller plants.. I like small nukes, also less chance of losing a large portion of of your generating capacity if something happens. Steam can be piped easily, surround the steam turbines with a ring of small nukes at a distance (several miles).. and small nukes are easy to shutdown/restart and much easier to refuel. A refueling event at a big power plant every 18 months is a chinese fire drill of delayed maintenance, and god forbid if you damage anything while doing so. I'm sure the industry will come up with something practical (both economically, safety wise and national power needs wise) following the extreme German reaction after Fukushima.

Look at the French record on nuclear power, compare it to Japan's.. why such a discrepancy between automotive and nuclear engineering between the two countries?.