PV panels

[harryagain]

Are your PV panels facing the right way? Heh Heh.

[John Williamson]

Well, West facing panels are currently not working for Ricoh.

They have a billboard near the M4 with East *and* West facing panels on it, aong with windmills on the top, and a big sign saying that the panel is powered by renewable energy. There's also a large battery meter on it, which has been reading flat now for some weeks. The floodlights aren't working, either, so you can only read it at night by the spill from the streetlights.

[Adrian]

node/66125

"Tests in Austin, Texas". 30deg N

I wonder if there might be a difference here. 52deg N.

[John Williamson]

If you read the article, it actually says that pointing the panels West reduces the totsal output, but increases it in the evening, when the householder turns on the air conditioning, so that more of the power generated is consumed inside the house, and less is exported.

[Adrian]

Not quite what it says... "...found that homeowners who aimed their panels toward the west, instead of the south, generated 2% more electricity over the course of a day"

[harryagain]

It depends which way the ground is sloping. If there is high ground to the East, sunrise is later. Also sea air is often hazy.

As they are way to the South of us, the panels will be nearly flat so 5% will be about right. In the UK 35 degrees is optimum. You would loose a lot more by going away from South.

[OG]

Depends on whether they are feed-in panels or not.

And any study based on a tiny number of homes in 1 US city is probably more or less meaningless.

[Brian Gaff]

Shot in the foot time then.

Mind you Winter is not exactly the best time for it unless the wind turbines can cope with gales. brain

[Martin Brown]

I expect they get paid for installed capacity rather than supply. I have seen "green" solar energy panels on the roof of a new "green" eco building in woodland where they only get sun on them at all in high summer and parts are always in shade (which ruins efficiency).

We have loads of those active "please go around this dangerous bend" signs up here in North Yorkshire. They don't make a bit of difference!

Unfortunately they are all dead in the water on frosty winter mornings and even when they are working it doesn't stop morons from doing this:

This happened in mid summer when the active signage *was* working.

To be fair it is a fairly tight 40mph bend after a long straight.

[OG]

We currently seem to be getting 10% of our grid supply from wind, so I'm not sure why people say that "turbines can't generate if it's too windy"

[The Natural Philosopher]

because we SHOULD be getting a lot more.

If they could. We are running at about 55% capacity factor with what you might think would be the 'best wind' conditions.

Not that we need it: Christmas consumption is massively lower than working days. And the air temp is around 10C.

[OG]

72% not 55%

But the bollocks-mongers insist that "turbines can't generate" when quite clearly they can.

[Tim Streater]

Sure they can. But so what - they can't generate consistently, or generate the amount you want when you want it. So there have to be secondary systems for when the wind doesn't blow (e.g. during most of July last year). And guess what - these secondary systems cost money. So you've paid twice to get one lot of generating capacity.

That strikes me as bollocks.

[Terry Fields]

Over say a one-year period, what %age of the rated output does a wind turbine produce?

I'll bet it's around 25%, meaning that the stuff that wind turbines are supposed to replace have to be kept in going condition in order to make up the shortfall. Only a lunatic can see this as a good idea.

Wind turbines - spreading pollution all round the planet.

[OG]

The point is that wind is CO2 free, whereas your "secondary sources" are generally not.

Wind generally produces betweeen 5% and 10% of grid load - and in the high winds we had last week it was producing 12.5% - and that during a normal working week.

[The Natural Philosopher]

24% onshore, maybe 28% offshore

[The Natural Philosopher]

The point is that the measures undertaken to meet steady demand with unsteady wind are not only not CO2 free but burn more carbon as a result of having to ameliorate the idiocy of wind than if they have jest been left generating electricity without any windmills at all...

So what? it comes at a very high price in terms of financial human and emissions cost.

Nuclear and coal in general produces far more. So we should have more nuclear, and coal?

You are just mouthing off marketing bollocks, you aren't making a rational case for anything.

[Terry Fields]

Thanks - I thought it was something dismal.

[dennis]

Wind is not CO2 free. it takes a lot of CO2 to make and maintain the turbines. It is debatable whether they actually are CO2 neutral at all.

That is before you lump in the CO2 produced by the extra plant needed to run alongside turbines.

[John Williamson]

Before the hype took hold, I remember reading somewhere that a wind turbine used to save about 10X the CO2 it took to produce over its lifetime. This was for small, off grid units, though, as used for generation in remote areas.

I've not seen any credible figiures for the modern large scale units, but since they installed their large base of wind turbines, Denmark's CO2 emissions per unit of electricity has increased, in part due to buying coal generated power from Germany to cover for the unreliability of their wind. I think I read this in "Pour la Science" a few years ago.