The Energy Production Figures for the "52 kW" solar system at MOCA are in for the year.

[NNadir]

The system can be viewed with its direct on line output in energy, peak power, power, etc here:

http://www.sunviewer.net/portals/MoCA/">The MOCA solar PV system. (MOCA is the Museum of Contemporary Art in North Adams Massachusetts.)

Click on "view data," and then "energy by month" and then "table." Sum the figures to get the total amount of energy that the $700,000 system produced.

That would be 49567.9 kWh of energy for the entire year of 2009. That's about 178,444,000,000J of energy. Wow! There are 31,556,700 seconds in a year, meaning that the average continuous power of the system was 5655 Watts, or 5.655 kW, or about 7 horsepower. The rated power of the system, which can be seen from the link is 52 "kW" where the "kW" is put in quotation marks because it is the rated peak power, which they system actually produced for zero seconds in the entire year of 2009.

Often it wasn't working at all. For instance, it is often taken off line by weather conditions in the area, one of which is called "night."

The capacity utilization of the system, a measure of its reliability, was therefore 10.9%.

A typical coal plant in the US runs in the low 70% range for reliability, a nuclear plant at better than 90%.

I haven't been to MOCA yet. I wonder if they hand out flash lights on cloudy days or if alternatively, they burn dangerous natural gas, dangerous petroleum, or dangerous coal to provide their power for the other 89.1% of the time.

Wow.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Damn son

pull some punches once in a while, ok? That was just cold.


PV sucks, I hope everyone already realizes that. Concentrating solar is much better. Use it to melt salt, and you can bleed off heat all night long. BUT, even that is nowhere near replacing even biomass or.. anything really. We will need Nuclear for some time to come, and as long as we aren't building more nuclear plants, we'll need coal too. Sucks, but that's the reality of it.

[NNadir]

2. I wouldn't be to confident with your "I hope everybody already realizes that."

We have lots and lots and lots and lots of people here year after year after year after year after year claiming that solar PV is about to save the world.

They're clueless, of course, but you may still expect a lot of breathless "world's largest solar installation" posts from them here, right up to the day that the mouth of the Ganges moves 200 km in land.

Here is the results of the last 8 years of "world's largest solar" posts at DU:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

Between 2002, when I joined this website and 2006, the last year for which the EIA gives data, 137 billion tons of dangerous fossil fuel waste have been dumped into earth's atmoshere. In 2006 that annual rate was 30,000 per year, meaning more than 200 billion tons have been dumped while these air heads sing the "world's largest solar" song.



http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

[jpak]

3. Ummmm....solar energy systems require sunlight and do not operate at night

your math is shit

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Not true.

Photovoltaic systems require sunlight and do not operate at night.

Concentrating solar systems can provide power 24h, through the night, and periodic weather effects, no problem.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-30-02.asp

PV is well... pretty dumb for most applications.

[NNadir]

5. Um, so solar advocates live in the dark at night?

That's not surprising, at all, actually. Mostly they're in the dark about everything.

How come zero anti-nukes when giggling over their "world's largest" brazillion watt PV systems never mention "night."

Mostly because they're, um, liars, I think.

They pretend to give a rat's ass about climate change, but what they do at night is do dump dangerous fossil fuel waste into the lungs of every living thing on this planet.

[TxRider]

6. No

Most people who live on PV solar off grid use batteries for storage for lights etc. at night.

Even more use grid electricity.

Also you math and assumptions suck. Just because the average of a PV setup in what is probably a very bad area for it due to weather, doesn't mean it never put out it's rated power ever. I would assume on the more rare clear days it quite likely did output 50kv or close to it.

Where I live and parts west that 50kv system would likely produce 4x the power I use for my house.

Still too expensive to make sense at present, but price per watt is consistently falling as power per sq meter is rising.


I'm no anti nuke, but the only plant I watched go up was supposed to cost 497 million, by the time it was completed and started producing power cost has escalated to 5.5 billion in 1980's dollars and takes up 12,000 acres for a 5000MW production.

Compare to 13,000 acres of west Texas desert that could produce 2000MW of solar.

Compare to 600MW for 36,000 acres for wind in west Texas for 1.5 billion of today's dollars,

Though with wind you can still use the land for other purposes, unlike solar and nukes, and you have no nuclear waste with wind and solar.

[NickB79]

7. At 10 cents per kWh, the system will pay for itself in only 140 years

Hooray!!!

[skids]

8. Try 15...

...MA rates are around 15 cents per hour for commercial/industrial.

Solar is usually expected to run between 10:1 and 8:1 of the nameplate capacity.
On the lesser side, if like this system, there is no tracking.

People that buy these systems know this. People that fund them know this.
People that sell them know this.

People that write screeds on the internet seem to think it's a big secret
catching unaware buyers by surprise. :eyes:

The good news is that by paying $700k for a 56KWp system -- well over $10/Wp --
the purchase contributed to the solar market which as a whole has responded
and three or so years later, could sell them another at 1/3 off that
price.

That's the thing with tech markets -- use them or they go nowhere.

Luckily, it does appear the solar industry has managed to navigate the
economic downturn -- in some ways it was well timed for the industry
which needed a downturn to make some "put up or shut up" calls on
some of the less serious companies.

Panel prices are falling (drastically, if you index in inflation) and
total system cost is also on the decline as mounting systems are
starting to consolidate, the workforce trains up, and installers
economize.

Barring cataclysm, it looks like solar is in a long term uptrend that
no amount of FUD will derail.

[TxRider]

9. Yes indeed

It has gone from out of the question for me to use for an off grid system due to cost per watt, to very thinkable for me to use for an off grid system in a fairly short time. Both due to higher power output per sq meter, and lower cost per sq meter.

And there are a few more nice improvements that seem around the corner so I believe it will be my front running option quite soon.

[bhikkhu]

10. and if you weren't on the grid already...

the cost of running power for even a few hundred feet would make the equation much better. Given improvements in battery technology and lower cost panels, its still a pricey set up but pretty comparable to coal-grid power.

[NNadir]

12. You're assuming, with no justification really, that the thing will last 15 years and...

...ignoring the fact that the inverters for this pile of electronic junk will need to be replaced every five years, at best, more frequently at worst. At 12,000 watt solar inverter costs around 4 grand, not counting the cost of disposing of the electronic waste that the previous inverter has become, nor installation costs, nor shipping costs. They need 4 of them every 5 years, adding another $48,000 to the cost over 15 years.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/inverter-folder/SB7000US.html

Even if the the cells themselves survive, they will face Staebler-Wronski effects and their power level will degrade, maybe as much as 30%.

With billions of dollars in subsidies around the world now running over decades, the solar industry hasn't done shit for climate change.

We couldn't even run the computers having this discussion on this $700,000 system today. It produced 3 kwh today, this $700,000 waste of money. On the 9th,10th, and 26th of this month it produced zero energy. It produced one kwh on the 7th, 8th, 13th, and less than 5 kwh for a total 12 days this month.

If I hooked up a generator to a lawnmower I could do better than that.

The money spent on this hair brained scheme could be used to perform the museum's primary task, to support art; hence it's is an incredible loser, I think.

The solar industry is a toxic industry that sucks subsidies out of the air to impoverish us by wasting our diminishing resources.

It's a waste.

[skids]

14. OK, so according to you a manufacturer...

...who sells a product that lasts an average of 5 years warranties it for 10 years? :eyes:

FWIW, the evergreen panels used there came with a 25 year power warranty which guarantees power ratings for that long.

The SCHOTT panels, being pure play Si probably have an even longer warranty.

As far as I know, the only people who can make money on a product that breaks more often then its warranty states is Microsoft's X-BOX division, and then only due to accessory and game sales...

As if the solar industry doesn't factor inverter failure rates into their project economics. As if.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea//news/article/2009/09/mtbf-and-reliability-a-misunderstood-relationship-in-solar-pv

You seem to like living with the delusion that everyone else is stupid, though, so don't let me rain or your parade.

[NNadir]

17. Vestas warrantied their windmills for 5 years. According to their company report for 2005

the result of putting a warranty on their product for 5 years lead to a loss.

http://www.vestas.com/files//Filer/EN/Investor/Company_announcements/2006/060329MFKUK16.pdf

Their solution was not to make windmills that could stand up for 5 years, but to reduce warranty time because they were losing money, and didn't know how to make windmills that could make money with a 5 year warranty.

Warranties don't mean shit, any more than investments with Madoff meant shit.

According to this 2005 presentation from NREL, which is NOT advertising, the following is true:

Reliability

The economics of long-life inverters are doubtful, but other considerations can change this conclusion.
•Based on NPV calculations, the case for developing inverters that can last more than 10 years appears weak.

•The behavior of consumers, who focus mainly on first cost and tend to require short payback periods, suggests that the discount rate to be used withresidential PV systems is high. This favors inverter development focused on first cost rather than extended lifetime.
However:

•If consumers who are buying PV systems today are not aware of the future liability associated with replacing or repairing an inverter, the frustration caused by this unexpected and significant expense could lead some consumers to abandon their systems, and it could tarnish the image of PV.

The bold is mine.


A Review of PV Inverter Technology Cost and Performance Projections


Now here is how I read this one: The solar industry wants 'em to buy one, and wait 5 to 10 years before being disappointed and kicking themselves in the ass.

Note this is from the NREL, not the marketing website.

You seem to be living in the delusion that if anyone disagrees with the rosy wishful thinking of the solar scam, that they are being smug or superior.

Whatever. I couldn't care less. I guarantee you that if the company making the warranties is solvent, that they will rely on people not seeking the "warranty" to be honored. If they end up honoring the warranties, and I don't believe they will, they will likely become insolvent, just like Vestas did.

In any case it's not like you're here to argue that these systems will last 60, 80, or 100 years. They clearly won't. As such, given their high capital cost, unreliability, the toxicity issues connected with disposing of obsolete equipment, solar energy is just another bit of blank consumerism, a planned obsolescence scheme of the junk culture.

By contrast, the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power station, which produces more energy than all the windmills in Denmark, and almost as much as all of the solar installations in the entire United States was finished in 1969. It's greenhouse gas costs, most of which involved concrete, have long been amortized and the only risk to the longer operation of the plant is from people crying out for other people to dumb themselves down to be "agreeable." That plant in its operating history - on just a few acres of land - has prevented the release of more than a billion tons of carbon dioxide in its operating life time.

That's the kind of investment I think we should give our children, not that there is one electronics waste pusher who gives much of a fuck about investing in the future of children. It's all "by 2050" bullshit.

I note that replacing inverters adds external costs in solar's weakest point, its toxicity issues.

The solar industry doesn't want its external costs examined, I think, since doing so would kick the shit out it.

When I first started on this website, almost 8 years ago, I actually had a positive view of solar energy. Over the years, based on research into the subject - much of it resulting from confronting what proved to be drivel - and after a view of events that actually transpired, many of which were colored by wishful thinking, I have changed my mind about solar energy. It is a terrible waste, with the exception of a few niche applications. It's like a video game fantasy, played out by oblivious children.

[kristopher]

18. No, the wrong estimate on the amount to "set aside" to meet warranty claims led to a loss in 2005

But in 2008 and looking to 2009:

Outlook for 2009
Vestas retains its earnings and revenue guidance for 2009 as initially announced on 6 November 2008 and most recently reiterated on 18 August 2009. EBIT margin is thus expected to amount to 11-13%, and revenue to EUR 7.2bn. Net working capital is expected to represent 10-20% of revenue by the end of 2009, as compared with the previously expected maximum of 10%. Delays in the signing of contracts for certain projects and high component inventories are the main reasons for the increase in net working capital. Of the total revenue of EUR 7.2bn, service revenue is still expected to amount to EUR 550m at an EBIT margin of 15%. Total investments in property, plant and equipment and intangible assets are expected to remain unchanged at EUR 800m and EUR 200m, respectively, or a total of EUR 1bn. Financial items are now expected to amount to EUR (40)m against the previous forecast of EUR (20)m. The effective tax rate is expected to remain unchanged at 28%. Warranty provisions are expected to make up 3-4% of revenue, reflecting strongly improved turbine reliability, enhanced uptime and performance.
http://wind.energy-business-review.com/news/vestas_reports_net_profit_of_eur165_million_in_q3_2009_091027/

The expected life span of a modern commercial wind turbine is 20+ years. During that time they deliver remarkably reliable performance.

Commissioning, Operation and Maintenance

Once construction is completed, commissioning will begin. The definition of ‘commissioning’ is not standardised, but generally covers all activities after all components of the wind turbine are installed. Commissioning of an individual turbine can take little more than two days with experienced staff.

Commissioning tests will usually involve standard electrical tests for the electrical infrastructure as well as the turbine, and inspection of routine civil engineering quality records. Careful testing at this stage is vital if a good quality wind farm is to be delivered and maintained.

The long-term availability of a commercial wind turbine is usually in excess of 97 per cent. This value means that for 97 per cent of the time, the turbine will be available to work if there is adequate wind. This value is superior to values quoted for conventional power stations. It will usually take a period of some six months for the wind farm to reach full, mature, commercial operation and hence, during that period, the availability will increase from a level of about 80-90 per cent after commissioning to the long-term level of 97 per cent or more.

It is normal practice for the supplier of the wind farm to provide a warranty for between two and five years. This warranty will often cover lost revenue, including downtime to correct faults, and a test of the power curve of the turbine. If the power curve is found to be defective then reimbursement will be made through the payment of liquidated damages. For modern wind farms, there is rarely any problem in meeting the warranted power curves, but availability, particularly for new models, can be lower than expected in the early years of operation. During the first year of operation of a turbine some ‘teething’ problems are usually experienced. For a new model this effect is more marked. As model use increases, these problems are resolved and availability rises.

After commissioning, the wind farm will be handed over to the operations and maintenance crew. A typical crew will consist of two people for every 20 to 30 wind turbines in a wind farm. For smaller wind farms there may not be a dedicated O&M crew but arrangements will be made for regular visits from a regional team. Typical routine maintenance time for a modern wind turbine is 40 hours per year. Non-routine maintenance may be of a similar order.

There is now much commercial experience with modern wind turbines and high levels of availability are regularly achieved. Third party operations companies are well-established in all of the major markets, and it is likely that this element of the industry will develop very much along the lines associated with other rotating plant and mechanical/electrical equipment.

The building permits obtained in order to allow the construction of the wind farm may have some ongoing environmental reporting requirements, for example the monitoring of noise, avian activity or other flora or fauna interest. Similarly there may, depending on the local regulations, be regulatory duties to perform in connection with the local electricity network operator. Therefore, in addition to the obvious operations and maintenance activity, there is often a management role to perform in parallel. Many wind farms are the subject of project finance and hence regular reporting activities to the lenders will also be required.
Commissioning, Operation and Maintenance

Once construction is completed, commissioning will begin. The definition of ‘commissioning’ is not standardised, but generally covers all activities after all components of the wind turbine are installed. Commissioning of an individual turbine can take little more than two days with experienced staff.

Commissioning tests will usually involve standard electrical tests for the electrical infrastructure as well as the turbine, and inspection of routine civil engineering quality records. Careful testing at this stage is vital if a good quality wind farm is to be delivered and maintained.

The long-term availability of a commercial wind turbine is usually in excess of 97 per cent. This value means that for 97 per cent of the time, the turbine will be available to work if there is adequate wind. This value is superior to values quoted for conventional power stations. It will usually take a period of some six months for the wind farm to reach full, mature, commercial operation and hence, during that period, the availability will increase from a level of about 80-90 per cent after commissioning to the long-term level of 97 per cent or more.

It is normal practice for the supplier of the wind farm to provide a warranty for between two and five years. This warranty will often cover lost revenue, including downtime to correct faults, and a test of the power curve of the turbine. If the power curve is found to be defective then reimbursement will be made through the payment of liquidated damages. For modern wind farms, there is rarely any problem in meeting the warranted power curves, but availability, particularly for new models, can be lower than expected in the early years of operation. During the first year of operation of a turbine some ‘teething’ problems are usually experienced. For a new model this effect is more marked. As model use increases, these problems are resolved and availability rises.

After commissioning, the wind farm will be handed over to the operations and maintenance crew. A typical crew will consist of two people for every 20 to 30 wind turbines in a wind farm. For smaller wind farms there may not be a dedicated O&M crew but arrangements will be made for regular visits from a regional team. Typical routine maintenance time for a modern wind turbine is 40 hours per year. Non-routine maintenance may be of a similar order.

There is now much commercial experience with modern wind turbines and high levels of availability are regularly achieved. Third party operations companies are well-established in all of the major markets, and it is likely that this element of the industry will develop very much along the lines associated with other rotating plant and mechanical/electrical equipment.

The building permits obtained in order to allow the construction of the wind farm may have some ongoing environmental reporting requirements, for example the monitoring of noise, avian activity or other flora or fauna interest. Similarly there may, depending on the local regulations, be regulatory duties to perform in connection with the local electricity network operator. Therefore, in addition to the obvious operations and maintenance activity, there is often a management role to perform in parallel. Many wind farms are the subject of project finance and hence regular reporting activities to the lenders will also be required. http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-i-technology/chapter-4-wind-farm-design/commissioning-operation-and-maintenance.html

Good site to bookmark if you are interested in wind: http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/home--about-the-project.html

[TxRider]

15. It certainly isn't going to work to well in that location

"..ignoring the fact that the inverters for this pile of electronic junk will need to be replaced every five years, at best, more frequently at worst. At 12,000 watt solar inverter costs around 4 grand, not counting the cost of disposing of the electronic waste that the previous inverter has become, nor installation costs, nor shipping costs. They need 4 of them every 5 years, adding another $48,000 to the cost over 15 years."

Try more like every 10-15 years for a decent inverter. So less that a third of the cost your talking about. Assuming technology doesn't extend that lifespan to 30 years or more in the 10-15 years before you need to replace them.

Or you can just go with DC powered devices and forget an inverter. They are generally more efficient than even energy start appliances.

"Even if the the cells themselves survive, they will face Staebler-Wronski effects and their power level will degrade, maybe as much as 30%."

Again with the crap, most of the effect is in the range of 10-15%, happens in the first 6 months then stabilizes, and most commercially sold cells ratings have already taken this drop into account and rate their cells for the power output -after- the Staebler-Wronski has stabilized.

The location of the system your griping about is in one of the worst areas for solar power in the country. With only 2-3 kWH/sqM per day which is 1/2 what you could get in Dallas in December.

Problems are being solved and power output per meter is rising yearly with newer technology as cost decreases.

I don't see a big future for industrial scale PV, though it may be there, concentrated solar is a better system at large scales. Either using salt and boilers for 24hr output, or using devices like Stirling engines. PV is better done on small scales at 15KV home systems IMHO.

[NickB79]

22. Location, location, location

Thank you for making that point. My previous post isn't meant to disregard all solar technology from being installed and expanded, but people have to realize that certain areas are simply not cost-effective for solar.

For $700,000 this building could have installed one hell of a geothermal heat pump that would have saved far more fossil fuel than these panels ever will. Why they went with solar in that location is beyond me.

[NickB79]

20. If it keeps producing 50,000 kWh/yr, at 15 cents per kWh, it will pay for itself in only 93 years

Again, hooray!!!

[TxRider]

23. And if electricity prices rise 7% a year like they have been?

Do the math.

[hunter]

24. If electricity prices continue to rise 7% a year like that then most of us won't have jobs...

... solar or no solar.

[OnlinePoker]

11. Better way is to say how much money was saved

Based on your figures of 49567.9 KWH for the entire year, and just using the price of $0.179 per KWH from the following link:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html

I come up with a total savings of $8872.65. At that rate, it would take almost 79 years to pay it off. It may make somewhat more sense in sunnier climates, but it's stupid to have wasted the money in Massachusetts.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Since the cells, much less the inverters and batteries won't last 79 years

It will never be paid off based on it's own savings. Ever.

Until that can be beaten, I'm not touching PV, beyond a few LED emergency lighting systems for my home.

[TxRider]

16. Quite a bad assumption

Calculating savings based on todays prices alone is ridiculous.

As if prices for electricity aren't going to rise for decades.

Heck, they could almost double just from passage of the cap and trade bill in a single year, and certainly will rise if/when the EPA starts strapping costs onto power plants in their newfound authority over C02 output. Never mind peak oil and increasing costs of coal mining.

MA rates have almost doubled just in the last 8 years rising at about 7% per year already.

Just based on that history the savings would grow by about 7% per year minimum and pay off long before 79 years.

[invader zim]

19. wow, check all that power

I just looked at the web site at 1:06pm today and power generated was 0.0kwh for the whole day !!! Quite a return on investment.

Zim

[madokie]

21. Well don't soil yourself there

in your glee and all