sOLAR PANEL REALITY

Commodity Marketing

Tools

sOLAR PANEL REALITY

Dec 2, 2017 | 15:05 1 Example 4021 of gubmints wasting tax dollars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ible-1.4427770

I'm all for solar panels and batteries when you spend your own money on them. Go for it!

But for gubmints to incinerate hard working people's tax dollars on them is insane at this point in time. Reply With Quote
blackpowder's Avatar Dec 2, 2017 | 16:23 2 Read an interesting article on the new technologies using solar to produce fresh water. Technologies that dont require electricity at all or very little.
Now we all know the gubmint using this new income for general revenue. So its good to see a different idea thats electric free. Solving real problems. Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2017 | 17:20 3 First, I have to admit I am surprised the CBC printed such an article. Second, I am disappointed in mysel, I thought I could go off grid for somewhere between $160-200 K. Apparently I was far too optimistic. Looking forward to our resident green energy supporters responses!! Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2017 | 17:35 4 I first heard of solar energy back in high school science class and that was way back in the 70's. I thought it sounded great and we would all be using it for all our power in just a few years. Teacher must have been friends with chuck because he had me convinced. I have been waiting all these years and it still hasn't gotten to the point where it makes economic sense.

One thing I notice when we went to Costa Rica last winter the sun was directly overhead and was shinning bright everyday I looked all over and never saw any solar panels anywhere. You would think that if it would make sense that's a place you would see it. Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2017 | 17:52 5 No money To be made on green energy in south and Latin American countries. Travelled many of those countries and enquired with locals on this issue. Many had no clue if they did laughed and said Canada and Paris accord won't rape us on this one. Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2017 | 20:41 6
Quote Originally Posted by binthere View Post
No money To be made on green energy in south and Latin American countries. Travelled many of those countries and enquired with locals on this issue. Many had no clue if they did laughed and said Canada and Paris accord won't rape us on this one.
Oh surely it will be only a matter of weeks - if not days - until a very smart green energy company will step in there and offer them super cheap solar or wind generated electricity for the ridiculously low price of 1 1/2 cents per kilowatt....well that's what we were told the best bids are coming in at. LOL Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2017 | 20:46 7
Quote Originally Posted by binthere View Post
No money To be made on green energy in south and Latin American countries. Travelled many of those countries and enquired with locals on this issue. Many had no clue if they did laughed and said Canada and Paris accord won't rape us on this one.

Pretty well every building in Maui has solar panels on the roof. Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2017 | 22:05 8 Can you say tax credit. Does not translate to Spanish. Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 05:32 9 Luckily there is an unlimited supply of lithium and all precious metals. That's why they are called precious metals....isn't it. Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 10:41 10 Take a look at this report as it covers some of the questions of how much solar impacts the environment.
http://cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MiningCleanEnergy2017.pdf Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 12:58 11 Take a look at this report (Its the link to CBC story that was provided near beginning of this thread)


"The task, if one was purely going to meet it with PV solar panels and batteries, is fairly monumental."

$1M just for the batteries

According to the team's calculations, the average Victoria home would need 120 square metres of PV panels and storage capacity equal to 131 Tesla Powerwall batteries.

A single Powerwall costs about $9,000. For most people, Robertson said, that's just too much of an investment up front.

"You're looking at spending a million dollars purely in batteries, not to even speak to the PV costs," he said.


Is it not unconscionable to ignore the facts that happen to go along with the selected theory of how some brainstorm of radical change is a "no brainer" solution? Is it not a case of deliberate oversimplification; and ignoring all that is problematic?

It just so happens that solar panels are but a fraction of any permanent solar solution. And the cost analysis can't even necessarily be compared between different countries eg. tariffs, policies, regulations, type approvals, labor rates and on and on


The facts are that solar might that could work approx. 15% of time; barring catastrophic failures; whilst in reality piggybacking on a separate system that must remain in place to provide near total reliability for the grid which will continue to provide societies power needs
Last edited by oneoff; Dec 3, 2017 at 13:04.
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 13:43 12 I took the bait and followed the link

http://cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MiningCleanEnergy2017.pdf

What it says in the "India's world largest solar project"

IT PURPORTS the following about a truly world class project in INDIA (2016).....


648 MW generating capacity (enough to supply 150,000 homes); Site required for 2.5 million panels is 10 km by 10 km ( or 100 square kilometers by my calculations...which is about more than a township in size) and could be buiLt in 8 months and should cost about 900 million Canadian.

Now pick that apart. This is Canada we're interested in transferring this model of progress to (not ANOTHER ONE FOR India)

648 MW is not the continuous output that can be realistically expected to be produced. In fact its impossible for the simple fact that no where on earth does the sun shine 24 hours a day continuously throughout the year. In fact no one could argue that much more than 15% of 648MW is available "continuously" even in most ideal location on earth. THAT'S NOT A GIVEN FROM PAST EXPERIENCE

The claim about 150,000 homes to be supplied is not clear if they are Indian construction (and that countries environmental conditions) or to Canada market where this template suggest it could be duplicated in 8 months and at a cost of 900 million Canadian funds.

Fibre optics in Sask cost 25,000 per km; a single transformer is over a million bucks and power lines are $500,000 a kilometer or so according to Sask Power. You'd think that the Sask Power Estevan solar demonstration project would be completed by now; but it still appears years down the road (if ever) by the looks of it). What else was left out of the propaganda? Even the electrical inspection branch charges an arm and a leg for inspections and project value; any trench must be made to CSA standards; the fee is on Canadian costs and not third world labor rates and standards or materials.


Lets be reasonable. Do some homework. All above from recollection and what I think is common sense details that have be deliberately omitted.

Now open to grassy chewing me a new asshole.
Last edited by oneoff; Dec 3, 2017 at 13:46.
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 14:07 13 I saw pictures of solar panels covered with snow but with the sun as low as it is here during the winter months the panels would have to be standing almost vertical so snow would never stay on them. Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 17:42 14 Our present Sask consumer electrical costs are substantial. Those costs will rise astronomically no matter what portion of the supply mix comes from solar. And its debatable whether cheap solar panels are a fair assessment of the total costs of going "solar" for electricity.

If that is not true; then show me the instances of solar innovators who will admit that their investment (after accounting for any distorting subsidies that have come out of other people's pockets; and taking into account their preferential access and being paid even when their production isn't really required by an electrical system that can't even count on their name plate output ) actually is any cheaper than a comparable alternate energy supply.

I know for a fact that even if natural gas were available for free; that your generator running 8760 hours per year (or an adequate battery reserve for all uses we utilize a grid power supply) would never be actually free and probably not a competitive economic alternative. If its economics that drives business (and that's a measure of surviving in business and against other countries competitors) then survival is pretty important.) . That most likely applies to "free" energy from the sun; if such producers were totally honest

You may argue with even with a statement like "You'd be the first applicant to successfully operate an independent power producer flare gas cogeneration project. in Sask of less than 100KW generating capacity gas."


But you'd find that to be true (at least less than 2 years ago) if you asked Sask Power . And that fact would certain remain true into the future as the application process has been put on hold until further notice. You pursue projects such as mentioned; and you will be left with no answers to some important concerns...and at end of the month or year or decade could still be waiting for the first economically successful project.


But things also happen for other than pure economic motives. A fact that will no doubt be lost in anticipated replies.
I assure you there's a whole lot more to green energy than what some reporter (or manufacturer) publishes as a well laid out advertisement or news release. Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 18:01 15 Interesting to note the largest solar farm in California is the Topaz solar farm. Completed in 2014. 550 MW. Construction cost was $2.4 billion. Operated at 24.4% efficiency in 2014-2015. If you look at the solar power efficiency map for North America you will see we only have roughly 62% of the potential production efficiency in central Alberta when compared to California, so an equivelent installation in central Alberta would only produce at 15.12% efficiency and would probably cost more than one in the USA for the simple reason that it always does cost more in Canada due to tariffs and taxes. Also interesting to note how much cheaper it is to build in India. So all the cut and pastes about how cheap solar is in say Mexico or India really don't apply in Canada. Higher constructions cost, lower efficiency of production, just the way it is. Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 18:05 16
Quote Originally Posted by RWT101 View Post
Example 4021 of gubmints wasting tax dollars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ible-1.4427770

I'm all for solar panels and batteries when you spend your own money on them. Go for it!

But for gubmints to incinerate hard working people's tax dollars on them is insane at this point in time.
So you good with spending billions of tax dollars on non renewable oil, gas, and coal?

Article brought to you by the same people who think glyphosate causes cancer. Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 23:27 17 And the same tunnel vision and refusal to entertain thoughts about any of the flaws in facts and reasoning that are conveniently ignored or downplayed. Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 23:51 18 Here's just a "minor" correction about 1.7 cent/KWH green power from solar sources....\\\ Maybe promoters would like to confirm or deny this foot note I just ran across. Whoops!!!!


Corrections

A previous version of this story quoted sources describing the new low price as being from solar energy. We've since determined that new low price was actually from wind.
Nov 27, 2017 2:33 PM ET Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017 | 23:59 19
Quote Originally Posted by tweety View Post
So you good with spending billions of tax dollars on non renewable oil, gas, and coal?

Article brought to you by the same people who think glyphosate causes cancer.


Can you understand the graph in this article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11...n_4283794.html

And you want to destroy Canada's energy sector for exactly what reason? Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 05:08 20 The chart above was from data previous to Nov 2013.

Maybe the chart has been fixed by the oil price crash since that time. Also maybe selling raw product at firesale prices doesn't fix real economic problems.

Usually that has something to do with losing money on every unit sold...so you try to double units sold to become profitable and find out that balance sheet still gives at least double previous losses. Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 07:26 21
Quote Originally Posted by RWT101 View Post
Can you understand the graph in this article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11...n_4283794.html

And you want to destroy Canada's energy sector for exactly what reason?
Will canada's energy sector be destroyed if it doesn't receive billions in tax dollars, but it rather instead go to upstart renewable energy industries?

I'm not suggesting more tax dollars, i'm saying stop giving it to filthy rich oil companies and instead to renewables.

So you're good with giving tax dollars to millionaire/billionaire oil company CEO's and upper management who don't even live in Canada and not renewable?
Last edited by tweety; Dec 4, 2017 at 09:03.
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 08:06 22 What I don't uderstand about either solar or oil is why it's all subsidized.....federated coop was subsidized. ....solar farms need help or run by the state....


Meanwhile real wealth creators like us farmers are shit on.....

If you did a proportional look at subsidies to any other industry and compared to primary agriculture...the other industries get 1000s of time more money compared to the size and scope of ag. ...


Bombardier itself has received more money than farmers collectively....and then they create a trade irritant by selling below the cost of production with no ROI to the taxpayer....

Meanwhile back at the farm let's look at who we support

1. Fertilizer
2. Chemical
3. Seed
4. Fuel
5. Manufacturers
6. Railways
7. Grain cos


All on our backs....some pretty impressive blue chips....most who already receive government support to prop up their profits....and some isn't monetary just policy that allows them to make money....

Off topic I know but nothing gets built without government it seems... Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 08:47 23 Top ten exports 2016 Canada (in usd)

1 Vehicles. $64.3 billion(16.5%)
2 Mineral fuels including oil $62.3 billion(16%)
3 Machinery including computers $30 billion(7.7%)
4 Gems, precious metals. $18.7 billion(4.8%)
5 Wood. $13.2 billion(3.4%)
6 Electrical machinery equipment $12.6 billion(3.2%)
7 Plastics, plastic articles. $12.1 billion(3.1%)
8 Aircraft, spacecraft. $10.3 billion(2.6%)
9 Pharmaceuticals. $8.4 billion(2.2%)
10 Aluminum. $8.1 billion(2.1%) Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 08:53 24
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
Top ten exports 2016 Canada (in usd)

1 Vehicles. $64.3 billion(16.5%)
2 Mineral fuels including oil $62.3 billion(16%)
3 Machinery including computers $30 billion(7.7%)
4 Gems, precious metals. $18.7 billion(4.8%)
5 Wood. $13.2 billion(3.4%)
6 Electrical machinery equipment $12.6 billion(3.2%)
7 Plastics, plastic articles. $12.1 billion(3.1%)
8 Aircraft, spacecraft. $10.3 billion(2.6%)
9 Pharmaceuticals. $8.4 billion(2.2%)
10 Aluminum. $8.1 billion(2.1%)

When I look at that list, I see US trade written all over most of the exports. NAFTA ( or trade with US anyway) is the fuel in the Canadian engine. Our federal government better be protecting that relationship with all their mite, not snubbing it. Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 09:03 25 What happened to that statement that Lyle Stewart made about the value of our agricultural products.... wasn't it like 15 billion?

AAFC says 55 billion in ag exports....hmmmmmm.
Last edited by bucket; Dec 4, 2017 at 09:05.
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 09:04 26 You mean like the unreliable wind shown on this these graphs?

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Bird choppers can almost always be counted on to take a vacation exactly when they are needed the most.

I have been watching this UK website for several years now and today’s graphs are not a exception.

Note how old king coal comes to the rescue again. Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 09:06 27
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
Top ten exports 2016 Canada (in usd)

1 Vehicles. $64.3 billion(16.5%)
2 Mineral fuels including oil $62.3 billion(16%)
3 Machinery including computers $30 billion(7.7%)
4 Gems, precious metals. $18.7 billion(4.8%)
5 Wood. $13.2 billion(3.4%)
6 Electrical machinery equipment $12.6 billion(3.2%)
7 Plastics, plastic articles. $12.1 billion(3.1%)
8 Aircraft, spacecraft. $10.3 billion(2.6%)
9 Pharmaceuticals. $8.4 billion(2.2%)
10 Aluminum. $8.1 billion(2.1%)
Have you got the list for the top ten imports also?

Thanx Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 09:07 28
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
Top ten exports 2016 Canada (in usd)

1 Vehicles. $64.3 billion(16.5%)
2 Mineral fuels including oil $62.3 billion(16%)
3 Machinery including computers $30 billion(7.7%)
4 Gems, precious metals. $18.7 billion(4.8%)
5 Wood. $13.2 billion(3.4%)
6 Electrical machinery equipment $12.6 billion(3.2%)
7 Plastics, plastic articles. $12.1 billion(3.1%)
8 Aircraft, spacecraft. $10.3 billion(2.6%)
9 Pharmaceuticals. $8.4 billion(2.2%)
10 Aluminum. $8.1 billion(2.1%)

Your list is ridiculous!!

Domestic Agri exports is 56 billion

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-ma...=1410072148230 Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 09:25 29 Don't shoot the messenger. I googled Canada's exports. www.worldstopexports.com came up. That is where I got the list. Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017 | 09:30 30 Thanks tweety for the link... Reply With Quote