Last seven years have been the hottest since mankind began

[Cdnfireman]

The solar farm was just completed in November, so yeah predications is what they have.

The first phase of this project was completed in 2019, a 600kw solar farm paid for and built by ATCO. If it was such a flop I doubt ATCO would have wanted another 2.2MW connected to their grid.

If you would have paid attention to my solar thread my panels met predicted output. It's not hard to predict +/- 5% what the annual output will be.

But of course you're not actually after facts, but here to spew your uneducated narrative.

I may be uneducated compared to a genius like you, but all solar projects have several things in common, including the one you bolted to your roof. none of them would have been built without government subsidies or outright purchase, all underperform spectacularly and will eventually fail and be disconnected from the grid. If the one in Fort chip was such a good idea why didn’t ATCO pay the shot for phase 2 instead of the taxpayer? Probably because the first phase completed in 2019 was proving to be a financial disaster. And quoting a “ predicted output” is disingenuous as if the system can’t reliably produce power when it is required, what good is it? If you had a car that only worked 20% of the time you’d trash it, but for some reason a solar power system with the same numbers is a good investment??

 

[X-it]

I just had to look up the gong show in BC again after reading this post, and a big kudos to nelson for actually posting accurate numbers of the power out put of the solar array. But they do like to sweep a few things under the rug, what a large white elephant to the taxpayers.


https://www.nelsonstar.com/news/nelson-to-hire-climate-change-co-ordinator/

 

[LennyR]

Just continues to get stupider !

 

[snochuk]

Just continues to get stupider !

Biodegradable deicer???????
Green schmuks!

 

[X-it]

I wonder how many birds these things killed?


http://energyskeptic.com/2019/wind/

 

[ABMax24]

I may be uneducated compared to a genius like you, but all solar projects have several things in common, including the one you bolted to your roof. none of them would have been built without government subsidies or outright purchase, all underperform spectacularly and will eventually fail and be disconnected from the grid. If the one in Fort chip was such a good idea why didn’t ATCO pay the shot for phase 2 instead of the taxpayer? Probably because the first phase completed in 2019 was proving to be a financial disaster. And quoting a “ predicted output” is disingenuous as if the system can’t reliably produce power when it is required, what good is it? If you had a car that only worked 20% of the time you’d trash it, but for some reason a solar power system with the same numbers is a good investment??

I can prove my stance with basic math, see below.


Here's the output for 100% capacity factor.

2.6MW x 365day/year x 24h/day = 22,776 MWh/year


Multiple that by the actual capacity factor, I'll use 14.2%, much lower than your 20%.

22,776 MWh/year x 14.2% = 3,234 MWh/year. This is how much electricity that solar farm will generate every year.


Now we'll convert that to equivalent units of diesel to generate the same amount of electricity.

3,234 MWhr x 3,412,000 BTU/MWh / 36,645 BTU/Liter = 301,116 Liter (Assuming 100% conversion efficiency from diesel to electricity)


Now a diesel generator isn't 100% efficient, 30% is pretty average, 40% would be a top of the line generator operating at peak efficiency, I'll use that number.

301,116 Liter / 40% efficency = 752,790 liters Saved every year by the 2 solar arrays.


Or assuming a cost of $1 per liter delivered to Fort Chip, $752,790 savings per year in fuel costs.

The capital cost of the project is $7,760,000 / $752,790/year savings = 10.3 year ROI.

So in 10.3 years the project has returned it's capital investment. This excludes the cost of operation and maintenance, but both personnel will be onsite for the diesel generators anyway, and solar PV maintainance is almost non-existent compared to a diesel engine.


I'm still convinced a private company could have built this project for profit, I do not agree with the government paying for it, and I especially do not agree with tax-payers footing the bill for a project that is then given to first nations.

IMO the window for subsidies on renewable energy projects in Alberta has now closed, those that are executed properly by corporations will succeed, it should not be up to the tax-payer to foot the bill.


Now I'm really curious what rhetoric you will invent this time in an attempt to contradict this. Lol.

 

[snochuk]

I can prove my stance with basic math, see below.


Here's the output for 100% capacity factor.

2.6MW x 365day/year x 24h/day = 22,776 MWh/year


Multiple that by the actual capacity factor, I'll use 14.2%, much lower than your 20%.

22,776 MWh/year x 14.2% = 3,234 MWh/year. This is how much electricity that solar farm will generate every year.


Now we'll convert that to equivalent units of diesel to generate the same amount of electricity.

3,234 MWhr x 3,412,000 BTU/MWh / 36,645 BTU/Liter = 301,116 Liter (Assuming 100% conversion efficiency from diesel to electricity)


Now a diesel generator isn't 100% efficient, 30% is pretty average, 40% would be a top of the line generator operating at peak efficiency, I'll use that number.

301,116 Liter / 40% efficency = 752,790 liters Saved every year by the 2 solar arrays.


Or assuming a cost of $1 per liter delivered to Fort Chip, $752,790 savings per year in fuel costs.

The capital cost of the project is $7,760,000 / $752,790/year savings = 10.3 year ROI.

So in 10.3 years the project has returned it's capital investment. This excludes the cost of operation and maintenance, but both personnel will be onsite for the diesel generators anyway, and solar PV maintainance is almost non-existent compared to a diesel engine.


I'm still convinced a private company could have built this project for profit, I do not agree with the government paying for it, and I especially do not agree with tax-payers footing the bill for a project that is then given to first nations.

IMO the window for subsidies on renewable energy projects in Alberta has now closed, those that are executed properly by corporations will succeed, it should not be up to the tax-payer to foot the bill.


Now I'm really curious what rhetoric you will invent this time in an attempt to contradict this. Lol.

I highlighted a section above, are you saying that solar charging takes place 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
Good solar panel if it charges by moon light and overcast days.
Was that a green leaf licker formula?
Maybe take 1/3 of that number to start with.
I have a true hate for greenies so maybe I misinterpreted that part......Maybe I don't knw enough abut solar panels

 

[ABMax24]

I highlighted a section above, are you saying that solar charging takes place 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
Good solar panel if it charges by moon light and overcast days.
Was that a green leaf licker formula?
I have a true hate for greenies so maybe I misinterpreted that part......

Please read the entire post.

I used a capacity factor of 14.2% that covers weather, nighttime, winter, etc.

 

[Cdnfireman]

I can prove my stance with basic math, see below.


Here's the output for 100% capacity factor.

2.6MW x 365day/year x 24h/day = 22,776 MWh/year


Multiple that by the actual capacity factor, I'll use 14.2%, much lower than your 20%.

22,776 MWh/year x 14.2% = 3,234 MWh/year. This is how much electricity that solar farm will generate every year.


Now we'll convert that to equivalent units of diesel to generate the same amount of electricity.

3,234 MWhr x 3,412,000 BTU/MWh / 36,645 BTU/Liter = 301,116 Liter (Assuming 100% conversion efficiency from diesel to electricity)


Now a diesel generator isn't 100% efficient, 30% is pretty average, 40% would be a top of the line generator operating at peak efficiency, I'll use that number.

301,116 Liter / 40% efficency = 752,790 liters Saved every year by the 2 solar arrays.


Or assuming a cost of $1 per liter delivered to Fort Chip, $752,790 savings per year in fuel costs.

The capital cost of the project is $7,760,000 / $752,790/year savings = 10.3 year ROI.

So in 10.3 years the project has returned it's capital investment. This excludes the cost of operation and maintenance, but both personnel will be onsite for the diesel generators anyway, and solar PV maintainance is almost non-existent compared to a diesel engine.


I'm still convinced a private company could have built this project for profit, I do not agree with the government paying for it, and I especially do not agree with tax-payers footing the bill for a project that is then given to first nations.

IMO the window for subsidies on renewable energy projects in Alberta has now closed, those that are executed properly by corporations will succeed, it should not be up to the tax-payer to foot the bill.


Now I'm really curious what rhetoric you will invent this time in an attempt to contradict this. Lol.

You may be convinced that a private operator could make this work, but the fact is they didn’t. ATCO didn’t pursue the second stage for a reason, and since they’re huge into power generation, they know the numbers on these types of projects. Obviously they couldn’t make the numbers work. And like I said before, quoting total output numbers might be good for statistical manipulation, but is disingenuous for the real world. Power usage isn’t equal every hour of the day. Mid day In the summer, ( the only time the solar system will produce anything close to its rated output) power demands aren’t at the maximum, so anything that the solar panels produce over demand is not used. The diesels can be taken off line when not needed, reducing fuel use. Night time usage from may to October is typically low, so diesel usage is reduced. Obviously solar output at night is zero. Winter power demand is highest, when solar output is greatly reduced or zero because of snow or longer nighttime hours.Diesel usage is highest, but not necessarily at maximum. That’s why your diesel usage numbers are skewed to the high end. Just because the diesel capacity exists doesn’t mean it’s always used at maximum capacity. The diesel capacity has to exist, be operated and maintained for the 86% of the time the solar isn’t capable of meeting demands. It’s the real world numbers that operators like ATCO use to justify investments in solar and why they seldom, if ever, build solar capacity without huge government construction subsidies and rate price guarantees. And it’s not just ATCO in Fort Chip. It’s the case the world over.

 

[ABMax24]

You may be convinced that a private operator could make this work, but the fact is they didn’t. ATCO didn’t pursue the second stage for a reason, and since they’re huge into power generation, they know the numbers on these types of projects. Obviously they couldn’t make the numbers work.

So you work for ATCO?

The information you posted above is not publicly available, trust me I've looked. ATCO does not publish the data you claim to know, so either you work for ATCO, or this is more made up BS.

 

[ABMax24]

And like I said before, quoting total output numbers might be good for statistical manipulation, but is disingenuous for the real world. Power usage isn’t equal every hour of the day. Mid day In the summer, ( the only time the solar system will produce anything close to its rated output) power demands aren’t at the maximum, so anything that the solar panels produce over demand is not used. The diesels can be taken off line when not needed, reducing fuel use. Night time usage from may to October is typically low, so diesel usage is reduced. Obviously solar output at night is zero. Winter power demand is highest, when solar output is greatly reduced or zero because of snow or longer nighttime hours.Diesel usage is highest, but not necessarily at maximum. That’s why your diesel usage numbers are skewed to the high end. Just because the diesel capacity exists doesn’t mean it’s always used at maximum capacity. The diesel capacity has to exist, be operated and maintained for the 86% of the time the solar isn’t capable of meeting demands. It’s the real world numbers that operators like ATCO use to justify investments in solar and why they seldom, if ever, build solar capacity without huge government construction subsidies and rate price guarantees. And it’s not just ATCO in Fort Chip. It’s the case the world over.

ATCO was also the prime contractor for construction of the second phase, EPC, to us in the construction world.

I've deliberately left something out of my posts until now. There was a 1,600 kwh battery installed to store the excess energy produced by the solar array, this also allows to the diesel generators operate at 0% load (shutoff) for periods of the day, while allowing near 100% usage of the solar energy produced.

Of course if you knew as much about this project as you claim you'd already know this. So I know you don't work for ATCO, and based on my above post that leaves only one option.

Here's some more info for you, since you clearly don't know what you claim, obviously.

• 2,200 kW solar farm, for which ATCO is the prime engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contactor; owned by 3NE (Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Mikisew Cree First Nation, and Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125)
• 1,600 kWh Battery Energy Storage System to store excess energy and provide grid reliability; owned and operated by ATCO
• Microgrid control system; owned and operated by ATCO
• ​

​https://www.atco.com/en-ca/about-us/stories/fort-chipewyan--the-road-to-energy-independence-.html

 

[skegpro]

Atco could give two ****s if that solar farm ever makes a kwh, its all cost+ for them and financed on the backs of the rate payers or government subsidys.

 

[snochuk]

Reading the article this is a supply for 250 people.
That takes up a fair bit of space that can be used for nothing else, not even wildlife.
Can your formula tell how big of an area needed to power up just Edmonton, forget the rest of the province as there will be no room left for any body else's panels..
And the carbon foot print tonnage to set up this waste land area.
Where do you put the panel recycle bins, sorry never mind they can not be recycled.
But none of that maters....right?

 

[ABMax24]

Reading the article this is a supply for 250 people.
That takes up a fair bit of space that can be used for nothing else, not even wildlife.
Can your formula tell how big of an area needed to power up just Edmonton, forget the rest of the province as there will be no room left for any body else's panels..
And the carbon foot print tonnage to set up this waste land area.
Where do you put the panel recycle bins, sorry never mind they can not be recycled.
But none of that maters....right?

The entire US would need 21,250 sq miles of solar panels. Which is about half the land currently leased by oil and gas in the US. I'll let you extrapolate from there.
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-m...S. consumes about,Map courtesy of Google Maps.

Solar panels are made from; glass, copper, silica, aluminum, and a few other trace elements, why can't they be recycled?


Solar will never be the one stop shop energy solution, at least on a global scale. Hydro, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, etc will all be a part of it, along with grid scale storage. Currently the technology is not available in a scale required to make Alberta energy independent without fossil fuels. IMO 25% is a solid and achievable target for renewables in Alberta with todays technology, to push beyond that requires either time and new technology, or subsidies.

I, like many in this province work in the oil and gas industry, and I expect to be for many years yet to come. But lets make decisions about the future and energy based on fact, not the vested interest of some narrative of either side of the story. If the lowest cost of electricity comes from solar, wind, hydro whatever why not. If the lowest cost of electricity comes from natural gas, that's fine too. If a remote community can save cost and create some level of energy independence from a solar farm even better. Assuming all of the above example are funded outside of government.

 

[Cdnfireman]

The entire US would need 21,250 sq miles of solar panels. Which is about half the land currently leased by oil and gas in the US. I'll let you extrapolate from there.
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-m...S. consumes about,Map courtesy of Google Maps.

Solar panels are made from; glass, copper, silica, aluminum, and a few other trace elements, why can't they be recycled?


Solar will never be the one stop shop energy solution, at least on a global scale. Hydro, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, etc will all be a part of it, along with grid scale storage. Currently the technology is not available in a scale required to make Alberta energy independent without fossil fuels. IMO 25% is a solid and achievable target for renewables in Alberta with todays technology, to push beyond that requires either time and new technology, or subsidies.

I, like many in this province work in the oil and gas industry, and I expect to be for many years yet to come. But lets make decisions about the future and energy based on fact, not the vested interest of some narrative of either side of the story. If the lowest cost of electricity comes from solar, wind, hydro whatever why not. If the lowest cost of electricity comes from natural gas, that's fine too. If a remote community can save cost and create some level of energy independence from a solar farm even better. Assuming all of the above example are funded outside of government.

Ask Texas how their 25% wind power is working lately. Back in ‘08-09 they invested big into wind when natural gas was high, but didn’t back up the solar with anything after they shut down their coal plants....
And assuming green energy will be funded outside of government is a huge assumption.....hasn’t happened yet, after 20+ years of solar and wind, they’re still not viable without huge government support....
Anyway, you and I are never gonna agree, so AMF..... I’m done.

 

[ABMax24]

Ask Texas how their 25% wind power is working lately. Back in ‘08-09 they invested big into wind when natural gas was high, but didn’t back up the solar with anything after they shut down their coal plants....
And assuming green energy will be funded outside of government is a huge assumption.....hasn’t happened yet, after 20+ years of solar and wind, they’re still not viable without huge government support....
Anyway, you and I are never gonna agree, so AMF..... I’m done.

Ask the engineers in Texas why they feel it's logical to opt out of de-icing equipment that is standard equipment on wind turbines. You can also ask them why they didn't opt to design their natural gas plants for cold weather either. There are substantial units of both types that are not generating because of the cold. I didn't even know powerplants were built without buildings to encase them, apparently it's done in Texas, probably becomes a serious issue when cooling water freezes to ice...

Add to this the prevalence of natural gas fueled back-up generators brought on by the many hurricanes in that area and this causes a lack of natural gas to fuel and startup powerplants when the power goes out.

Yes, wind turbines are part of the blackouts Texas is seeing, but it's only a small part.

 

[Mike270412]

And it will more than likely be neglected and/or trashed long before it's life span is realized.

Atco could give two ****s if that solar farm ever makes a kwh, its all cost+ for them and financed on the backs of the rate payers or government subsidys.

 

[drew562]

If the government would back off and let energy companies loose can you imagine the gains in technology private industries could make. The last time i checked the government doesn't invent **** to make our lives better. We do.

 

[ATV Rancher]

I think there's a lot of people in the lower 48 freezing their asses off tonight that are going to demand better sources of backup generation.....at the very least, and expect the federal government to fight it every step of the way. The targeted blackouts and power companies asking for conservation are widespread. Alternative energy likely didn't gain any popularity in this cold snap, and it shows we're nowhere near being able to transition to a large number of electric vehicles. California couldn't keep up with electric demand last summer, and they have a zero emission auto mandate in 14 years.....even though the planet isn't supposed to last that long, or were we given an extension? Things are going to get worse before they get better, IMO, but the usual suspects are going to end up a lot richer.

 

[ATV Rancher]

A nation of freezing soy boys. Some ideas just seem to go hand in hand.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/1...d-should-get-ready-to-be-force-fed-fake-beef/