Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Reload this Page >

SolarEnergy 'Misleading & Deceptive'

Notices
Like Tree57Likes

SolarEnergy 'Misleading & Deceptive'

Old 05-21-2019, 07:05 AM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 364
Default SolarEnergy 'Misleading & Deceptive'

What many of US already knew.
Very interesting article..

But the plant won’t generate 5 MW of energy 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Much of the time it won’t produce anything. “Solar is an intermittent energy source, and therefore the maximum dependable capacity is 0 MW,”



https://www.carolinajournal.com/news...6npBRow3SMjUR0
crossthread is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:14 AM
  #2  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South Florida
Posts: 9,177
Default

Yes. How misleading. Who would have thought that solar power requires sunlight to generate electricity?

Maybe they should put something in the name to indicate that.
Flot is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:16 AM
  #3  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ramrod Key, FL
Posts: 2,784
Default

Originally Posted by crossthread View Post
“Solar is an intermittent energy source, and therefore the maximum dependable capacity is 0 MW,”
10:16 EST and I've already read the dumbest comment on the internet today.

Zardoz and TorFed like this.
burningdaylight is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:20 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Middle Sound, NC
Posts: 7,732
Default

Pretty obvious to this ex-power plant engr. Nothing new in the article.

Solar can make sense to run aircon in mid day when solar heating is at max, and can also charge e-car batts even with intermittent output.

Solar is not as easy to deal with as conventional base load generation, but it still has benefits. It will never replace base load gen, but it can augment. Just a little more work to manage.
Corndog38 is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:22 AM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,007
Default

He's correct. They should also de-rate the advertised value if you're planning on using it for more than just peak load. If you're using a battery system to cover off-hours, then the advertised rating should take into account the inefficiencies of the storage mechanisms.
kmoose, THT Mod 9 and clear like this.
km1125 is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:43 AM
  #6  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Maryland
Posts: 700
Default

The problem is that the sales pitch never discloses that solar energy is not stored. No sun=power purchased from power company. Nor is it guaranteed that the incumbent power company will credit you for excess energy.
t84a is online now  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:15 AM
  #7  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Jacksonville, FL.
Posts: 10,898
Default

I have solar hot water and have been using it since 2006. Love it but you have to understand it "helps" but isn't the only answer. Without a water heater, we would be taking cold showers during days of rain, etc. Again, love it, reduces my electricity usage(in conjunction with using CFL and now LED lighting) a little more than 30%. I think it can be a valuable piece of the energy puzzle but isn't the whole puzzle.
buxa likes this.
JAGSARE1 is online now  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:23 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 764
Default

This just in: Wind power does not generate power particularly well when there is no wind.
You heard it here first.
THT Mod 9 and alfnator like this.
superjag is online now  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:26 AM
  #9  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 7,614
Default

Originally Posted by superjag View Post
This just in: Wind power does not generate power particularly well when there is no wind.
You heard it here first.
And a coal power plant doesn't generate without coal. All energy options have their place. But those options should be chosen because it's a good idea not because someone wants it to be a good idea.
AGENT86 likes this.
mikefloyd is online now  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:27 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ & MV
Posts: 3,897
Default

Originally Posted by Corndog38 View Post
Pretty obvious to this ex-power plant engr. Nothing new in the article.

Solar can make sense to run aircon in mid day when solar heating is at max, and can also charge e-car batts even with intermittent output.

Solar is not as easy to deal with as conventional base load generation, but it still has benefits. It will never replace base load gen, but it can augment. Just a little more work to manage.
The question is, does the cost of stand by generation get included in the"cost" of solar, wind, etc?

Going further, does the cost burden of the stand by generation fall on the alternative energy companies or the legacy utilities? Like what happened when the cogen NUGS became popular.

Originally Posted by mikefloyd View Post
And a coal power plant doesn't generate without coal. All energy options have their place. But those options should be chosen because it's a good idea not because someone wants it to be a good idea.
bad analogy.t
aubv is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:32 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: CT / SWFL
Posts: 717
Default

Originally Posted by mikefloyd View Post
And a coal power plant doesn't generate without coal. All energy options have their place. But those options should be chosen because it's a good idea not because someone wants it to be a good idea.
And this is why the electric companies
have to diversify and have a range of power supply sources. Nuke, gas, coal, hydro, oil, wind, solar, trash all make up the portfolios. There are other more specialized plants too -
wood, tire burners, tidal, pumped hydro, methane. Good god, it’s like I’m back at
work!
SmokyMtnGrady likes this.
BLUESMAN is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:34 AM
  #12  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,054
Default

I'll never understand why some people have an ax to grind with any change around them.
LI Sound Grunt, TorFed and dev like this.
Lorne Greene is online now  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:45 AM
  #13  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 7,614
Default

Originally Posted by aubv View Post
bad analogy.t
Try hitting it harder it might help.
mikefloyd is online now  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:02 AM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ & MV
Posts: 3,897
Default

Originally Posted by mikefloyd View Post
Try hitting it harder it might help.
aubv is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:19 AM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,007
Default

Originally Posted by mikefloyd View Post
And a coal power plant doesn't generate without coal. All energy options have their place. But those options should be chosen because it's a good idea not because someone wants it to be a good idea.
That would be a good analogy if you said "and you only get 1 ton of coal per day" or something like that,with the additional caveat that the shipment may or may not arrive each day.
km1125 is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:22 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: North NJ
Posts: 662
Default

Originally Posted by Lorne Greene View Post
I'll never understand why some people have an ax to grind with any change around them.
A change being forced by non-engineerings to solve engineering problems will always have controverys/people calling it out.

I'll elaborate on what was mentioned before... using current technology:

Do you expect to have electricity 24/7, 365?

In many cases having solar augment the grid costs more resources. You can't just flip a switch and turn on a combined cycle coal, oil, or nat gas power plant. You can't just turn on a nuke. So, when utilities have to be able to quickly adapt to changing loads and now changing power generation from solar, they have a few choices: Hydroelectric is relatively quick to take on load, but it isn't everywhere. Big old fashioned diesel / gas generators can very quickly run up and take on load, at a HUGE cost of efficiency vs the large combined cycle plants. Gas turbines (used more and more) have a pretty fast startup to full load time, at a cost of much reduced efficiency. I watched 130megawatt gas turbine start cylce, about 15-20 minutes from start, to warm up, sync, and then full load. Or... what many power companies do, is run spinning reserve. That coal power plant is still running during a bright sunny day, but its being used at 10% output. Again a huge loss of efficiency.

Grid dynamics are complicated, and should be handled by engineers, not politicians.

I've also been inside 24+ megawatt battery storage facilities, talk about costs and inefficiencies. It's tough to maintain boat batteries, imagine maintaining 10,000 lead acid batteries. Then the inverter rectifiers that make it all work.
buxa, clear and AUTiger98 like this.
TurboJoe is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:25 AM
  #17  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,054
Default

Originally Posted by TurboJoe View Post
A change being forced by non-engineerings to solve engineering problems will always have controverys/people calling it out.

I'll elaborate on what was mentioned before... using current technology:

Do you expect to have electricity 24/7, 365?

In many cases having solar augment the grid costs more resources. You can't just flip a switch and turn on a combined cycle coal, oil, or nat gas power plant. You can't just turn on a nuke. So, when utilities have to be able to quickly adapt to changing loads and now changing power generation from solar, they have a few choices: Hydroelectric is relatively quick to take on load, but it isn't everywhere. Big old fashioned diesel / gas generators can very quickly run up and take on load, at a HUGE cost of efficiency vs the large combined cycle plants. Gas turbines (used more and more) have a pretty fast startup to full load time, at a cost of much reduced efficiency. I watched 130megawatt gas turbine start cylce, about 15-20 minutes from start, to warm up, sync, and then full load. Or... what many power companies do, is run spinning reserve. That coal power plant is still running during a bright sunny day, but its being used at 10% output. Again a huge loss of efficiency.

Grid dynamics are complicated, and should be handled by engineers, not politicians.

I've also been inside 24+ megawatt battery storage facilities, talk about costs and inefficiencies. It's tough to maintain boat batteries, imagine maintaining 10,000 lead acid batteries. Then the inverter rectifiers that make it all work.
Imagine how different the world would be if everyone waited for technology to be 100% baked before it was deployed...
Lorne Greene is online now  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:26 AM
  #18  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,319
Default

I have a friend who is fully immeresed in the green...he says a new solar technology is just around the corner that will greatly increase teh effectivness of solar per squar foot of panel....anyone know anything about that?
jhendric is offline  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:28 AM
  #19  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 7,614
Default

Originally Posted by km1125 View Post
That would be a good analogy if you said "and you only get 1 ton of coal per day" or something like that,with the additional caveat that the shipment may or may not arrive each day.
If things had not changed in 2016 coal might not be an option at all.
mikefloyd is online now  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:29 AM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,007
Default

Originally Posted by jhendric View Post
I have a friend who is fully immeresed in the green...he says a new solar technology is just around the corner that will greatly increase teh effectivness of solar per squar foot of panel....anyone know anything about that?
I think I read about that in a Popular Mechanics or Popular Science article in 1966!!

Or maybe it was 1970, or 1973 (during the "energy crisis") or 1979, or 1984 or 1989 or 1992 or 1998 or 2003 or .....


Then again... it was probably in every one of those year and several others!!
rocksandblues, Insider and clear like this.
km1125 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread