Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

2011 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards -- Projects of the Year

By RenewableEnergyWorld.com Editors
March 9, 2011   |   6 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
6 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 6
March 10, 2011
Ok, well... you deleted my comment and changed some of the problem within the article, while leaving some of the rest of the problem behind.

Originally, you had stated the Pocono solar field would generate 72,000 MWhs/year, which I lambasted you for (and had fun doing so, btw...).

You've now corrected that to a more probable 72,000 MWhs over 20 years. Thank you.

However, in the previous article, you had stated that it would save Pocono $380,000 in energy costs and provide enough energy to power 1000 additional homes. That might have worked with the comical 72,000 MWhs/year figure, but in PA the price of electricity for commercial facilities is ~$100/MWh. That means that the racetrack itself will consume 3800 MWhs/year, leaving ~400-600 MWhs for the first year, then less every year after that, to be sold to provide energy for other houses... I don't know what you assume to be the average annual household consumption of electricity, but I can absolutely assure you that most homes use more than 400-600 kWhs/MONTH, much less/year.

The solar field will produce energy to offset the energy consumed by the raceway - as intended. There will be very little remaining energy in the first year, and there will likely be a net energy deficit by the 20th year (depending on degradation rates).

So you still need to work on the article a little in order to be realistic.

Thanks for paying attention.
Comment
2 of 6
March 11, 2011
The farm is rated at 3 MW and using the assumption that racing dows on go on all day or every day, then most of that power is available for surrounding homes, most of the time.

During hot summer days I would expect there to be an average of 2.5KW be used per home (some people are at work, etc)so 3 MW/ 2.5 KW equals 1200 homes. When the race track is using power the homes run off the grid.

During the winter, there should not be any racing but days are shorter so the farm might have reduced output. At the same time power usage should drop unless they use electric heating (hope not). If the panels were effective 8 hours a day and produced 2.5 MW that would be 20 MWHrs per day during the winter. If this was sold to the power company at 12 cents per KWH, that would be $2400 per day. This may be an over estimate because I don't know the weather there.
It's hard to imagine the raceway saving $380,000 per year. That would imply they are using 1.52 MW of power, 5 hrs per race and 50 races per year.
Comment
3 of 6
March 11, 2011
Ron-las,

You are over-estimating the insolation of PA by a great deal. National solar energy maps indicate that most of PA receives a yearly average of ~3.5-4 kWhs/m2/day. So a rated 3 MW system cannot average more than 10.5-12 MWhs/day over the course of the year for its first year (before degradation occurs) Obviously, that production will be heavily weighted towards the summertime.

If we assume 2-axis tracking, so that the super-majority of available solar energy is recovered (10.5 MWhs/day), then this system would generate energy worth ~$460,000/year. It's not terribly surprising that the racetrack would take the super-majority of that energy. You are talking about a several square mile area which is lit up by hundreds of thousands of high energy light bulbs quite often.
Comment
4 of 6
March 11, 2011
I don't work in the solar industry so I'm not disputing your statements but if a system is rated for 3 MW it should be an average output based on a year for the place it is installed. If instead, it means something else like 3 MW peak in the Bahamas then it is a false rating. Would anyone buy a 400 Hp car that only puts out 200 Hp? You are saying it puts out half of the rating on average which would be far less in the winter.

Size of the array should not be a factor since it should be sized to produce the rating, which would require a bigger array in northern latitudes. Maybe there needs to be a truth in ratings law for solar.
No image available
Comment
5 of 6
Anonymous
March 13, 2011
ron-las,
Glenn Dotty has significant anti-social tendencies. Don't waste your time with his rants. He is "always right".
Comment
6 of 6
March 14, 2011
Ron Las,

I agree with you that there should be some alternative rating system. The current rating is "peak watts", which means that in an ideal solar insolation (equator at noon) the system will produce that many watts - or that many Whs/hr. The ideal insolation against which the panels are rated is 1kW/m (1kWh/m2/hr).
From that, you use solar insolation maps to determine how much energy the panels will receive over the course of a year.

I think it would be hard to find a better rating for the panels themselves - as the manufacturer has no idea where they will be installed, nor does the manufacturer know if they will be installed fixed or with one or two axis tracking.

However, when a field is quoted, they should quote how much electrical energy the panels will produce during any given year... for the Ponoco system in question the company that quoted it should have purchased 3 MWs worth of panels from First Solar, then rated their assembled field as: ~4000 MWhs/year system.

But that's not likely to happen.

As for the illiterate troll, he's correct only insofar as that I am consistently informed and he is consistently mis-informed... ergo I'm often correct while he is wrong. Otherwise I hope for the best for solar, I just don't believe solar advocates do any favors by lying about the cost effectiveness of their technology.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

REW.com Editors

View REW.com Editors's Profile
About: Renewable Energy World's network editors help deliver the most comprehensive news coverage of the renewable energy industries. Based in the U.S. and the UK, th... more »

Advertise With Us

Schletter Inc. American Wind Energy Association Southwest Windpower RussTech Language Services, Inc. Met Office groSolar Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters