Page 5 of 6

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 15 Jun 2017, 01:22:05
by asg70
pstarr wrote:I just see it in our crass mass culture.


Whining about "crass mass culture" is a first-world-problem.

Read back in the archives for a description of real dystopia. Empty store shelves, cannibalism, die-off, pandemics, mutant zombie bikers.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 15 Jun 2017, 06:09:01
by vtsnowedin
StarvingLion wrote:....
Intermittent electricity generators generate economic contraction. They accelerate the APOCALYPSE. They are not fossil fuel extenders.

.

Wrong. As fossil fuels are store-able they can be used as needed. Any intermittent power produced by the renewables reduces the use of the fossil fuels at that moment saving that fuel for when the sun goes down and the wind calms. Having say a twenty five percent renewable capacity on a total years production basis will extend fuel supplies by some twenty percent pushing off the point where a fuel crisis might trigger the Apocalypse.
That does not mean they will help or hinder Apocalypses from other causes such as socialist government policies from happening.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 06 Mar 2018, 23:35:29
by Tanada

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 07 Mar 2018, 11:50:46
by GHung
Tanada wrote:https://youtu.be/TxKQKe9xcKk


Sort of like how far your car can go on fumes. And this person doesn't know how to use a multimeter. You can't measure amps that way.

Useless video. Maybe the kid should lay out in moonlight and see how long it takes to get sunburned.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 07 Mar 2018, 13:25:42
by baha
I just talked with a confused customer. We installed a usage meter and the CTs were installed backwards. He emailed me and said somethings wrong...I am exporting power at night?!

I called him and said there has been a terrible mistake. We installed lunar panels instead of solar panels. :lol: But don't worry I can fix it.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Wed 07 Mar 2018, 19:59:11
by vtsnowedin
At town meeting yesterday they floated a proposal to cover the closed town landfill with a solar farm. Up to 4.5 acres ( 2200 panels) putting out 500KW max production. The site does face due south and have a three to one slope on much of it so I think the engineering is positive. They are not offering the town much beyond taking on all liability of the old landfill but excepting reality at the start is preferable to great promises that are reneged on later. I need to read the fine print but as of now I am positive about the project.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 08 Mar 2018, 12:42:19
by jawagord
vtsnowedin wrote:At town meeting yesterday they floated a proposal to cover the closed town landfill with a solar farm. Up to 4.5 acres ( 2200 panels) putting out 500KW max production. The site does face due south and have a three to one slope on much of it so I think the engineering is positive. They are not offering the town much beyond taking on all liability of the old landfill but excepting reality at the start is preferable to great promises that are reneged on later. I need to read the fine print but as of now I am positive about the project.


"We're twice as smart as the people of Shelbyville!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 08 Mar 2018, 14:20:33
by vtsnowedin
jawagord wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:At town meeting yesterday they floated a proposal to cover the closed town landfill with a solar farm. Up to 4.5 acres ( 2200 panels) putting out 500KW max production. The site does face due south and have a three to one slope on much of it so I think the engineering is positive. They are not offering the town much beyond taking on all liability of the old landfill but excepting reality at the start is preferable to great promises that are reneged on later. I need to read the fine print but as of now I am positive about the project.


"We're twice as smart as the people of Shelbyville!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

Yes quit right. At least twice as smart. LOL
A back of the envelope computation tells me they might produce some $35,000 worth of electricity a year at a wholesale price of $0.10/ KWh which doesn't seem worth the bother. All a matter of feed in tariff levels and solar subsidies projected over the next twenty five years. It would be exempt from the state school property tax but the town would tax it like any other utility property. Presently that would be about $5000 a year but I'm sure they will be lobbying to make all renewable power tax exempt so that might not last as long as the panels do. But as long as it doesn't cost the town anything I see nothing wrong with it and it is about the only use you could make of that capped landfill.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 08 Mar 2018, 16:02:04
by Outcast_Searcher
vtsnowedin wrote:At town meeting yesterday they floated a proposal to cover the closed town landfill with a solar farm. Up to 4.5 acres ( 2200 panels) putting out 500KW max production. The site does face due south and have a three to one slope on much of it so I think the engineering is positive. They are not offering the town much beyond taking on all liability of the old landfill but excepting reality at the start is preferable to great promises that are reneged on later. I need to read the fine print but as of now I am positive about the project.

Sounds good to me.

I'm no lawyer, but a key thing, IMO, would be ensuring that they CAN truly take on ALL liability of the old landfill.

So that means they can't weasel out of it with some LLC claim, protected by a phalanx of lawyers. That means that they have some sort of serious liability insurance, or some serious funding in an escrow account the city (or its agent) has control of and can monitor -- so if something bad happens and they up and vanish, the city's taxpayers aren't left with a gigantic liability/bill, while the purported responsible entity has vanished.

Government entities have lost too much too often, by trusting some corporate entity in some deal (i.e. banks and CDS's and the 2008-2009 mess), and getting into something they didn't understand. Sure, the income looks great in the short term, but the long term expected return can be disastrous, if the deal isn't honest and realistic.

Given the lack of LEARNING we so often see, especially in government, I thought I'd at least mention that as something the city's legal apparatus should at least be very sure of.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Thu 08 Mar 2018, 16:53:16
by vtsnowedin
I agree that those are good points and that is what I think needs to be gleaned by reading the fine print. The landfill was closed about twenty years ago when I was one of the selectmen so is now pretty much a dormant non issue. There only real possible problem would be causing enough erosion around the foundations of the panels to wash a gully deep enough to get through the clay cap. The simple solution to that would just be to refill the gully.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 Mar 2018, 06:52:52
by Newfie
Interesting, a couple of questions would come to my mind.

First I presume the film is capped, dirt over a plastic cover to keep water out. How would they assure the panel foundations would not disrupt the cover? I’ll be the cover is not real uniform.

Second with that slope the site must have been seeded with something to control run off and gullying. Panels will shade the site and may well kill the ground cover. How will they control run off and gullying?

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 Mar 2018, 08:49:36
by vtsnowedin
Newfie wrote:Interesting, a couple of questions would come to my mind.

First I presume the film is capped, dirt over a plastic cover to keep water out. How would they assure the panel foundations would not disrupt the cover? I’ll be the cover is not real uniform.

Second with that slope the site must have been seeded with something to control run off and gullying. Panels will shade the site and may well kill the ground cover. How will they control run off and gullying?

No plastic. The cover is two feet of compacted clay covered with six inches of topsoil which has been planted to a mix of grasses and legumes and has been mowed at least once a year for twenty years. There is also a vent system to let methane collect and be released to the air. They are talking foundation posts set into concrete filled baskets resting on top of the cap. I would have to look at other solar farms in the area to see what actually happens to the vegetation shaded by the panels.
As to the uniformity of the cap I can say that the operators of the bulldozers and excavators were a skilled group and the cap is very well done with a variation plus or minus of four inches or less. There have been only a couple of small settlements or washouts over the years each requiring a load or two to refill.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 26 Mar 2018, 19:06:05
by Zarquon
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
I'm no lawyer, but a key thing, IMO, would be ensuring that they CAN truly take on ALL liability of the old landfill.

So that means they can't weasel out of it with some LLC claim, protected by a phalanx of lawyers. That means that they have some sort of serious liability insurance, or some serious funding in an escrow account the city (or its agent) has control of and can monitor -- so if something bad happens and they up and vanish, the city's taxpayers aren't left with a gigantic liability/bill, while the purported responsible entity has vanished.


Hmmm... if the town didn't sell the landfill, and no other buyer showed up, and then a major liability developed - who would be stuck with the bill then? IOW, what do they have to lose?

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 26 Mar 2018, 20:42:07
by vtsnowedin
Zarquon wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
I'm no lawyer, but a key thing, IMO, would be ensuring that they CAN truly take on ALL liability of the old landfill.

So that means they can't weasel out of it with some LLC claim, protected by a phalanx of lawyers. That means that they have some sort of serious liability insurance, or some serious funding in an escrow account the city (or its agent) has control of and can monitor -- so if something bad happens and they up and vanish, the city's taxpayers aren't left with a gigantic liability/bill, while the purported responsible entity has vanished.


Hmmm... if the town didn't sell the landfill, and no other buyer showed up, and then a major liability developed - who would be stuck with the bill then? IOW, what do they have to lose?

Yes the potential liability is pretty small. The landfill has been capped for twenty years and the transfer station is at the bottom of the slope so selling it is out of the question. There were never any industrial waste dumped at the site so it is pretty much old newspapers remaining. About all you might get is erosion caused by the panels concentrating runoff and the answer to that would just be to put the dirt back and reseed it.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Mon 26 Mar 2018, 20:48:13
by Outcast_Searcher
vtsnowedin wrote:
Zarquon wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
I'm no lawyer, but a key thing, IMO, would be ensuring that they CAN truly take on ALL liability of the old landfill.

So that means they can't weasel out of it with some LLC claim, protected by a phalanx of lawyers. That means that they have some sort of serious liability insurance, or some serious funding in an escrow account the city (or its agent) has control of and can monitor -- so if something bad happens and they up and vanish, the city's taxpayers aren't left with a gigantic liability/bill, while the purported responsible entity has vanished.


Hmmm... if the town didn't sell the landfill, and no other buyer showed up, and then a major liability developed - who would be stuck with the bill then? IOW, what do they have to lose?

Yes the potential liability is pretty small.

Maybe, maybe not. The EPA can get pretty insistent and somewhat arbitrary, depending on the issue. My point is, the town shouldn't just ignore the risk (like so many towns ignored the risk of making certain deals with banks, and then when things blew up in 2008, screaming it was everyone ELSE's fault, even though they signed up for the contract).

But of course, why worry? They can always bill the taxpayer.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 27 Mar 2018, 00:13:24
by Zarquon
My point was, if they do sell, the town may or may not be liable, depending on whether the buyer has insurance and the legal fine print. And if they don't sell, the town is liable in any case.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 27 Mar 2018, 13:22:52
by Outcast_Searcher
Zarquon wrote:My point was, if they do sell, the town may or may not be liable, depending on whether the buyer has insurance and the legal fine print. And if they don't sell, the town is liable in any case.

Sure. My primary disagreement with the (total assurance) of the liability being small by vts. Problems with accurately forecasting the future, etc.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 27 Mar 2018, 18:34:04
by vtsnowedin
One we would not be selling the site just leasing it for twenty five years with renewal options. And two this is just a pile of domestic garbage that has had decades to rot so anything that was going to flow out of this pile has already done so. Why not put it to good use instead of just sitting there waiting for it's yearly mowing. As long as the company takes over the mowing and the responsibility to maintain the surface I think it is a viable project for the town. Of course both the company and the town will have to carry insurance just in case but the town has always had to do that and we should get a lower rate with the company being the primary risk.
There is paralyzing fear that keeps anything positive from being done and there is rational reasoned assessments of risks vs. rewards.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 19 Jun 2018, 08:27:32
by onlooker
More energy is used to make solar photvoltaic systems than is ever recovered
https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2018 ... l?spref=fb

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 19 Jun 2018, 10:28:04
by Outcast_Searcher
onlooker wrote:More energy is used to make solar photvoltaic systems than is ever recovered
https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2018 ... l?spref=fb

Spewing random nonsense from blogs might be fun for Cassandras, but it doesn't mean much. Misusing and falsifying the numbers lets people say anything.

Here's an example of a refutation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1516307066

Highlights

A recent paper by Ferroni and Hopkirk estimated an EROI=0.8 for PV in Switzerland.


We identify several critical methodological and calculation flaws in that paper.


We discuss such flaws in detail and rebut Ferroni and Hopkirk's conclusions.


We provide revised EROI calculations with both conventional and extended boundaries.


Abstract
A recent paper by Ferroni and Hopkirk (2016) asserts that the ERoEI (also referred to as EROI) of photovoltaic (PV) systems is so low that they actually act as net energy sinks, rather than delivering energy to society. Such claim, if accurate, would call into question many energy investment decisions. In the same paper, a comparison is also drawn between PV and nuclear electricity. We have carefully analysed this paper, and found methodological inconsistencies and calculation errors that, in combination, render its conclusions not scientifically sound.

...

The best you can say here for the Cassandras is that opinions vary. And of course, their FUD continues.