The only one that seems completed and operating is Kentish Flats. It
has capacity of 82.5 MW installed. Its booklet forecasts 280 million
kWh per year, which is an average power slightly less than 32 MW, which
is a capacity factor of about 39%.
I can't find any actual data though. If it is actually delivering 280
million kWh per year, that is pretty good. Many come up quite short to
forecast. Are you able to find any ACTUAL production data locally.
--- On *Mon, 9/7/09, Martin Vlietstra /<[email protected]>/* wrote:
From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:45755] Re: Can journalists be cured of their affliction?
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, September 7, 2009, 3:06 PM
I looked at the figures shown below. I then looked at a UK website
- http://www.pmsc.org.uk/windfarms.htm. The scale of things is
quite different, and therefore so is the economics of the situatiom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
*On Behalf Of *Stan Jakuba
*Sent:* 07 September 2009 02:11
*To:* U.S. Metric Association
*Cc:* USMA
*Subject:* [USMA:45752] Re: Can journalists be cured of their
affliction?
Compare that Indiana "farmer's record" formulated by the usual
"green" (or greed?) propaganda with the real homeowner's record in
sunny Austin TX. Again, from my paper:
As for the usefulness of PV for small installations, below is a cost
analysis of a plant representing a typical system installed on the
roof of a family house in central Texas .
Installed name-plate power . . .
. 3.24 kW
Power actually measured over a year .
. . 0.44 kW
Utilization (capacity) factor on 24/7 basis .
. 13.6 %
Useful life of the structure . .
. . 20 years
Electricity produced in that life span . .
. 280 GJ
Sale (savings) of electricity in that life span will bring $7,700
Note: Supported by the net-metering law, the kWh rate is the utility
rate.
Purchasing price, installed . . .
. $22,500
Note: This cost was subsidized whereby the owner paid only 1/3 of
that amount.
Net gain (loss) at the end of the useful life:
. . $(14,800) or (66) %
That percentage is based on the assumption that the repair and
maintenance cost will be zero, insurance premiums zero, net-metering
will last, and taxes forgiven.
Notice that if the owner had invested his purchase amount (that one
third) at a reasonable interest, say 5.5 %, he would have $22,000 by
that 20^th year. On the basis of all three thirds he would have
$67,000. Instead, in addition to the monetary loss (mostly to the
taxpayers as of now), the owner will be facing the pain of financing
the dismantling and disposal of the plant or replacing the PV panels
and some electric/electronic components should he decide to continue
making his own electricity.
The bottom line is: This “free” PV electricity would have to sell at
240 $/GJ to break even instead of the 28 $/GJ (10 ¢/kWh) the owner
enjoys from the utility. In other words, a solar kWh costs almost
nine times more than the utility rate is, and the utility operates
at a profit while it buys fuel, cares for power lines, covers
operating labor costs, pays dividends, 401(k), etc.
Source: /Gusher of Lies/, by Robert Bryce, pg 217. (PS:
This is an excellent energy book, but not SI.)
PV promoters claim that the cost of the PV collectors will come down
with time. Probably, but insufficiently, considering that, as
examples, coal-fired plants are built for 2 $/W, nuclear plants for
1.4 $/W, gas turbine plants for 0.7 $/W vs. the GE PV plant at
31 $/W. That gap is too wide to close significantly. Notice that
the above, roof-installed plant cost $51/W.
On related subject, I am attaching a table that had been
presented to this forum more than once before. It contains W/m² in
the middle column. The data have been collected over many years from
articles describing plants that were in operation for several yearly
cycles. These data are very hard to come by. Probably because the
owners do not want to admit how badly their investment turned out.
Calls for actual data are not returned from the people who
know. Invariably, one is referred "our website" which is, of course,
if it at all refers to a period of measurement, compares it to
"1/3rd of our operating cost) (what is it?) or powering 100 houses
(dog houses?, wood burning cottages?) and are written in the
style for school kids education.
BTW, I heartily recommend Prof. Hayden's
newsletter http://EnergyAdvocate.com <http://energyadvocate.com/>
A jewel among energy newsletters (although somewhat reluctant to use
W/m²) the articles are mostly metric, and, better yet, SI, although
not consistently.
Stan Jakuba
----- Original Message -----
*From:* John M. Steele
<http://us.mc824.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association
<http://us.mc824.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]
<http://us.mc824.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]>
*Sent:* 09 Sep 06, Sunday 16:29
*Subject:* [USMA:45749] Re: Can journalists be cured of their
affliction?
Probably not. The journalist didn't measure anything himself,
and probably didn't compute anything himself. He simply
reported pap, spoon-fed to him by the installer of the system
who has a very vested interest in making it sound good.
The 13.4 kW rating is almost certainly "high noon" power. The
area of the roof is is about 171 m². At high angle and
perpendicular incidence, sunlight is about 1 kW/m², and
affordable solar cells are about 10% efficient. If the roof
could be totally covered, perhaps 17 kW could be attained.
Given standard size panels, 13.4 kW peak is reasonable.
I estimate for a flat, non-tracking array, at optimum angle, he
will get the equivalent of 4 h of peak power per day, or 54
kWh/day. (This will be "smeared" over more hours, but mostly
lower power in bell shaped curve).
My estimate is strongly at odds with the claim of saving $230000
over 25 years at current electric rate of $0.116/kWh. The
implication of this statement is 217.3 kWh/day, roughly 4X my
estimate. Time will tell. Note that this estimate requires 16
h of full power operation per day (average for the year. On
average, how long is a day. It's not all full power either). :)
As to the CO2 savings, the federal government uses a decade-old
figure of 1.34 lb/kWh. I note that 48240 lb is EXACTLY the CO2
emission of 36000 kWh. However, the 36000 kWh number doesn't
seem to relate to either power estimate above. As an annual
estimate, it would apply to generating capability of 98.6
kWh/day (call it 100) more or less the geometric mean of the two
estimate.
The article is a pile of environmental voo-doo (or doo-doo)
unlikely to translate to real results over the course of the
year. However, the real problem is not the reporter's math
ability but that all the "facts" came from the seller and there
was no fact-checking or critical view of (very dubious) data.
As to units, until we get AP to change the AP Style Guide, there
is not a snowball's chance in hell of the units being all SI.
--- On *Sun, 9/6/09, James R. Frysinger /<
[email protected] >/* wrote:
From: James R. Frysinger < [email protected] >
Subject: [USMA:45748] Can journalists be cured of their
affliction?
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 2:23 PM
Journalists, as a rule, are terrible at dealing with
measurements. Case in point,
" Indiana Farmer Turns to Sun to Run Operation"
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,547042,00.html
The story describes a solar photovoltaic installation on a
farm in Indiana .
Comments:
"The 66- by 28-foot roof supports 60 photovoltaic solar
panels, each producing 224 watts of electricity. The panels
are aligned in four rows, or two sub-arrays, with each
sub-array producing 6.7 kilowatts, making the entire system
produce 13.4 kilowatts of electricity..."
The journalist should have said whether that claimed
power output was the ideal, peak value (the most likely
case) or the average over the length of a typical day. There
is a huge difference, especially since power output must be
zero at night!
"The farm in southern Vigo County has at least 200 acres of
electric fencing to contain a herd of beefalo..."
Fencing is sold by length, not by area. Let's call 200
acres 80 ha (close enough), or 800 000 m2. If the field is 1
m by 800 000 m, then the fence around it would be 1600 km
long. If the field is square, then 3.6 km of fencing would
suffice.
"The fencing itself uses 600 volts of power...
Power is measured in watts, not in volts.
"The Lovealls' system will avoid the release of 48,240
pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere..."
Is that per day, per week, per year, over the life of
the system? There is a huge difference between 24 t of CO2
per day and 24 t of CO2 per score of years!
Also, climatologists measure CO2 outputs in metric tons
(symbol t), not in pounds. And it's not terribly leading
edge to still be using feet, square feet, and acres. Since
the electrical units which were misused in this article are
SI units they should have stuck to the SI -- and should have
used it properly.
Not as a matter of measurement ignorance, but a lack of
common sense:
"The solar panels are part of a "phase one" project, Roberts
said. A second phase for the Loveall farm will add more
solar panels, plus move an existing 66-foot wind turbine
next to the barn to produce wind power to allow the farm to
be 100 percent energy independent. The farm would remain
connected to Win Energy's power grid as a backup."
You betcha they need that backup! What happens at night
when the wind is not blowing hard enough to generate all
their needs? The fallacy ignored by the green crowd is that
systems such as this use the grid and its mainline nuclear
and fossil fuel plants to serve as their energy surge
reservoirs!
Can journalists be cured of this affliction they have that
prevents them from understanding how to measure things? And
the news media wonders why we don't trust their reports!
Jim
-- James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle , TN 38559-3030
(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108
