The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

Had they calculated by the solar panels maximum output in the best hours, instead of the average production of each panel during the day?

If so it would a very big trick, a lie.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Thats more green washing.
That article is going off installed capacity not actual production.

Yeah it costs half as much per wat but solar only produces power 1/5 of the day.
Dollar for dollar production that solar costs at least double the price of coal.

[All Darc]

At least they found a solution for barbecue, even at night, instead of coal or gas :

Solar Stove Uses Salt to Stay Hot after Dark - BORGEN





But area for capturing the sun (looks the circle fresnel on the top), could be larger, to get more storage and more hour of use alfter sun goes out.

Would a similar idea works for home storage of electricity, being cheaper than bateries ?
Sure it would require a small turvine, to use the heat of sault to produce steam.

[oil pan 4]

Its not a lie at all. It's the truth.
Solar costs about half that of coal, for every watt of capacity you build. But you only get 4 or 5 hours of production per day.
You can stretch that to 6 or 7 hours with trackers but that will double the price of the project, and then some.

Then say you install 1,000 was worth of panels you probably only ever see 900 watts of production.
Because the industry standard test that "tests the panels" only translates to 80% to 90% of what you actually get once the panels out side in the environment and are hot from being in the sun for a few hours. Especially some where hot like texas, NM, AZ, SoCal.

Thermal solar storage is only cost effective for heating.
Even small Rankine cycle setups are really expensive, they make batteries look cheap.
Then even tiny Rankine systems that are only rated for a few Hp require additional permits, licensing in most states.

[All Darc]

The correct sould be dolar per watt produced and not dolar per watt capacity installed.

But I have a contradiction anoying me:

-People told me that farm solar power got cheaper than add a system in your own house, seeing by watt produced.
-And people told me that a system in your own house produce cheaper energy than buy from the energy companies.

So, what is true and what is lie ?

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Its not a lie at all. It's the truth.
Solar costs about half that of coal, for every watt of capacity you build. But you only get 4 or 5 hours of production per day.
You can stretch that to 6 or 7 hours with trackers but that will double the price of the project, and then some.

Then say you install 1,000 was worth of panels you probably only ever see 900 watts of production.
Because the industry standard test that "tests the panels" only translates to 80% to 90% of what you actually get once the panels out side in the environment and are hot from being in the sun for a few hours. Especially some where hot like texas, NM, AZ, SoCal.

Thermal solar storage is only cost effective for heating.
Even small Rankine cycle setups are really expensive, they make batteries look cheap.
Then even tiny Rankine systems that are only rated for a few Hp require additional permits, licensing in most states.

[oil pan 4]

Solar farms can do it so cheap because they buy the largest panels they can get their hands on with matching racks and they buy them both buy the truck load. Then they use large high voltage inverters running 277 or 480v that gets your inverter cost down to something like under 5 cents a watt.

If you put solar on your house you have to use panels that will fit on your roof, you are probably using a sub 10kw inverter and the installer likely ripped you off at every step of the process.
I saw a post on another forum where a door to door solar sales man offered to install a 4kw system for $20,000.

For compairson I'm looking to do my 4kw system, for under 4k dollars. And I'm going to be on trackers so I will be out producing most 5kw systems and have a secure power supply inverter that costs around 3x as much as a normal single function inverter.

Originally Posted by All Darc

So, what is true and what is lie ?

To quote bill Clinton "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is".

[RedDevil]

Solar requires the least maintenance, and will easily outlive its ROI period at least twice
Projecting annual fixed cost for solar as 10% is just bonkers. So the whole stat is bonkers.

[oil pan 4]

I'm expecting my solar panels to last 20 to 30 years, if a hail storm or major thunder storm doesn't demolish them, but expect to only get 7 to 12 years out of an inverter.
My expensive secure power supply inverter is going to be close to 1/3 the cost of the system.
But I just can't sink that much money into something like that and have it rendered totally useless when the power goes out.

None of those solar panels on the east side of Puerto Rico made it to their life expectancy. Attrition is a factor.

[All Darc]

Why many fixed solar tracks, the ones not on the roof (since many instalations are on plane roofs), have fixed angle at 45 degree or close, instead of zero (direct to sky) if the sun in midday shines stronger ?




By the way, they should create solar panels with some sealed apability, to fill and avoid water leaking, in a way to get part of the roof, saving money.



In this example (image above), I bet they sealed with silicone glue, silicone liquid rubber.

Solar panels abrasion??? Maybeby replace the glass solve it, or also some of the metals in the sides, and the glass (have some cost) could be recycled, or just polished to remove abrasion. I understand abrasions remove some of the transparency of the glass.

[RedDevil]

That's true for central Brasil.

Here up north the sun does not get straight above. It hovers some 60 degrees above the south at the highest in summer and barely 15 degrees above the horizon at the start of winter.
Tilting southward makes them face the sun better most of the times.

In Australia, New Zealand and the southern parts of Argentine and Chile they need to be tilted northward.

We sometimes need to lay them flat for aesthetic purposes or wind effects. But then they'd be sloped like 10 degrees to let the rain off.

[oil pan 4]

Fixed tracking is more of a sales pitch.
As long as you are kind of pointed st the sun you only give up 1% when pointed 10 degrees off true perpendicular.
As the sun is not pointed at the panels your losses drop to 50% by the time you are off by 40 degrees or so if I remember correctly.
There is a mathematical equation to figure it out, I used to know it.