“Storm Darragh leaves UK solar farm in pieces in blow to green energy”
Storm Darragh leaves UK solar farm in pieces in blow to green energy | Daily Mail Online
“Storm Darragh leaves UK solar farm in pieces in blow to green energy”
Storm Darragh leaves UK solar farm in pieces in blow to green energy | Daily Mail Online
Seems more like
Bad Weather is combating Green Energy.
Sounds like an installer problem – with a good legal claim
Looks like a lot of pollution. Luckily it wasn’t a hail storm.
the solar panels also don’t work well when they’re covered in snow. they don’t do much at all when it’s dark out, like in the winter when it’s dark 2/3 of the day. probably a super cloudy day isn’t a big money maker either. Add that all up and you would think that those are good reasons not to have solar farms, but apparently the greenies think those are reasons to have more of them.
And they are a ridiculous notion for anywhere in Great Britain because according to MODIS data there is an average 21.3% chance of a cloud free day over the whole region.
And London has 35 clear days, 180 partly cloudy days, and 150 overcast days per year.
My small solar/battery back up system for our Florida Hurricane season has 400 watts nameplate solar panels (monocrystaline, the highest efficiency), and on the best cloud free time, they only put out about 320 watts. And even a teensy white cumulus cloud will drop the output to 130 watts. Overcast will drop it to 70 watts. So in overcast the panels are only 17.5% of nameplate, and partly cloudy are then 32.5% of nameplate and even full sun are only 80% of nameplate.
And solar is only good for 6 hours a day or 25% of a day.
Combining these empirical values yields:
Sunny in GB = 80% nameplate capacity x 25% = 20% of daily output
Partly cloudy in GB = 32.5% x 25% = 8.13% of daily output
Overcast in GB = 17.5% x 25% = 4.38% daily output
What the heck is wrong with people who design and install these systems? You cannot expect a reasonable return on investment with these low efficiency values, especially with a 15 year lifetime of solar panels, and worse if they are storm damaged.
So my 400 watt nameplate example, set in GB yields a nameplate annual value of 876 kW-hours. And with actual sunny, cloudy and overcast taken into account they would only generate 288.6 kW-hours of energy annually.
So the system cost about $2,100 for panels, structure, batteries, inverter, charge controller and wiring. If you got $0.10 per kW-hour wholesale that would be $28.86 per year income, so it would take 72.8 years to recover the initial cost. Of course economy of scale would apply to a big solar farm, so maybe it would take 25 years to recover the initial cost at scale, but they only last 15 maybe 18 years at best….
Solar is just not feasible for replacing a full time power grid. Special cases where you cannot access the grid, and cannot easily get fuel to an engine/genertor yes solar is a good idea, otherwise it simply does not measure up or add up.
(I built mine because our condo association does not allow generators, so this way when mains power is out after a storm, we can run the fridge, microwave, some fans and lights)
Damn you for pointing out the cloud cover “challenge”. Now, watermelons will INSIST on MOBILE solar plantations–so they can chase the sun;-}
The solar farm’s owners need to be charged with littering…
These days many modern solar panels operate on daylight and do not need sunlight. So many more panels will still work well in conditions of cloud cover..