4 ms·
Solar 27% capacity factor is BS, that isn't possible. Theoretical maximum for 100% perfect weather on equator is 29%. I doubt it crosses 22-23% anywhere in the
by anovikov 9y ago
Solar 27% capacity factor is BS, that isn't possible. Theoretical maximum for 100% perfect weather on equator is 29%. I doubt it crosses 22-23% anywhere in the world and definitely no more than 15-16% U.S. average.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lucideer 9y agoAre you talking about capacity or capacity factor? From the article: > Capacity factor measures a generation unit's actual output against its theoretical maximum output. So this would be a percentage of your theoretical maximum, never exceeding it, by definition.
- anovikov 9y agoI mean that, a solar panel can't produce 27 watts on average having a 100 watts peak power. In any practical location on Earth - while somewhere in the middle of Sahara desert, it will be close to that (unless you take in account solar panel's reduced power in higher temperatures).
- lucideer 9y agoHow is the 100 watts calculated in your example? I would've presumed the theoretical maximum for a producing unit would be what it could theoretically actually produce in the location its placed. If it's the theoretical maximum output of a cell, then calling BS seems warranted, but it doesn't seem like that would be a useful comparator in this context.
- scythe 9y agoTemperature doesn't affect capacity factor by this definition, because it reduces the numerator and the denominator by the same proportion.
- cjalmeida 9y agoThe denominator is based on standard test conditions. Check the link for details. http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-test-conditions-stc-definition-and-problems/ http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-tes... Those conditions reflect not the theoretical maximum but an expected output in very good actual conditions. This is relevant because it relates to the needed transmission capacity one need installed. For instance, at 30% capacity factor, you're "wasting 70%" of transmission on average. It's a good metric to compare between sites of a same energy source but it's not very useful between sources. For that, the better metric is Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) in $/MWh. Usually present with or without subsidies.
- maxerickson 9y agohttps://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/technotes.pdf https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/technotes.pdf discusses their methodology some. They aren't simply using nameplate capacity as the denominator.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- danmaz74 9y agoA couple of actual numbers: * For example, Agua Caliente Solar Project, located in Arizona near the 33rd parallel and awarded for its excellence in renewable energy has a nameplate capacity of 290 MW and an actual average annual production of 740 GWh/year. Its capacity factor is thus: 29% * A significantly lower capacity factor is achieved by Lauingen Energy Park located in Bavaria, near the 49th parallel. With a nameplate capacity of 25.7 MW and an actual average annual production of 26.98 GWh/year it has a capacity factor of 12.0%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Photovoltaic_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Photovoltaic_p...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Jedd 9y ago> Solar 27% capacity factor is BS, that isn't possible. I often gripe about people using the word nuclear to describe exclusively fission, which is regrettable for those of us keen on encouraging research in fusion. The use of the word 'solar' to describe exclusively PVCs is comparably regrettable. Solar thermal is pretty much guaranteed to trump PVCs at the moment, albeit at a higher capex.
- anovikov 9y agoTrue, solar thermal using steerable mirrors, can do it.
- eisa01 9y agoYou can oversize the system by installing more modules behind the inverter. Hence when you calculate the capacity factor in AC terms it is higher than in the nameplate DC terms