5 ms·

> During the day, in the summer, when it's not cloudy, perhaps. > You are aware that not every place in the world has the weather found in California, yes? Yo

> During the day, in the summer, when it's not cloudy, perhaps. > You are aware that not every place in the world has the weather found in California, yes? Your info is sorely out of date. Modern solar panels can operate in cloudy conditions. And they operate better when they are cool. The UK is installing solar all over the place. Solar panels operate on daylight, not direct sunlight. Cleve Hill solar farm in the UK was approved in 2020 and will generate 350MW. The idea that solar is only feasible is sunny climates is frankly absurd.

samatman 4y ago
350MV is the nameplate capacity. To get the actual generated power, you must, tragically, multiply by the capacity factor. What's the capacity factor for Cleve Hill? We don't have to guess, it's in this document: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010085/EN010085-001047-11.4.10%20GREAT%20Need%20Response.pdf https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-conten... It's 10.8%. This is a 35MW plant. Oh, but it has batteries I hear you saying! Doesn't matter. It will generate 35MW-years per year. Batteries, at best, mean wasting less of it. Meanwhile, a 350MW nuclear plant has a capacity factor of 90%, most of the loss being conversion to AC, with a bit of downtime. So that would deliver 315MW-years of energy, per year.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  The topic is this: You are aware that not every place in the world has the weather found in California, yes? Nothing you mentioned supports the false claim that you need sunny weather for solar to be a viable source of energy. Not to mention that several sources say it will generate 350 MW of power. And that it will power about 100,000 homes. I'm pretty sure that's not happening with a 35MW plant.
  - samatman 4y ago
    You're repeating something which I just debunked with a canonical source. That doesn't speak well of either your perspicacity nor judgement. Good luck.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      I read the source and you are wrong. Here is the official website and I quote: "This is a project that will generate up to 350MW of clean renewable electricity to power over 91,000 homes" https://www.clevehillsolar.com/ https://www.clevehillsolar.com/
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Which is misleading..
        tchaffee 4y ago
        It isn't misleading.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        It is to me. "Up to“ is weasel language. It might support 100k homes for a few moments on an ideal day
        tchaffee 4y ago
        Or according to the math in another comment, over 350k homes on long sunny summer days. Is it weasel language that the new nuclear towers in question here didn't include the 1 in ~200,000 documented chance of disaster due to earthquake in their press releases, their capacity estimates, and the price? Is it weasel language that the press releases don't include the fact that Westinghouse Electric declared bankruptcy over the Vogtle nuclear build in discussion? I don't see the fact that the U.S. government has given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees to help finance construction of the Vogtle reactors included in press releases either. Considering this solar installation is a for-profit venture in cloudy UK and will reduce carbon output without subsidies, I'm calling it a win whether it powers 1000 houses or 350,000.
      - delroth 4y ago
        You skipped the critical "up to" part when re-quoting this in your previous message. The capacity factor is what determines how close the average is to that theoretical maximum. With 10.8%, the answer is "not close at all".
Manuel_D 4y ago
Modern PV panels [1] are not any better at performing in cloudy. They just put out 5-10x less power than they do in sunny conditions. Furthermore, this is on top of the variance due to earth's inclination. Solar panels near the poles are less effective. Saying "solar panels can operate on daylight, not direct sunlight" is pedantically true, but in practice it'd mean building 5-10 times as many solar panels. Weather is a big contributor to solar's intermittency, not just day/night cycle as well as the geographic variability in output. 1. If you mean solar thermal panels, then yes, PVs are better in cloudy conditions. Solar thermal panels only collected the specular light from the sun, not the diffuse light from the rest of the sky.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  They are better at performing in cloudy conditions compared to older technology. In the past, it was not viable to install solar panels in cloudy areas. With the higher efficiency panels of today and the drops in price, it's now viable. This is why you're seeing commercial large scale installations in places like the UK - with no subsidies.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Newer chemistries are more linear in low light, and bifacial modules perform better in poor weather. Additionally a module without bypass diodes or one which is not strung for varying voltages will effectively produce no power under uneven shade. Vertical bifacial modules produce significantly less energy overall, but more during morning/evening and during snow or cloudy conditions. This latter fact combined with the much lower module costs mean that -- in practical terms -- they perform vastly better in cloudy conditions.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
> Modern solar panels can operate in cloudy conditions. "Can operate" is a different thing from "can operate at the claimed efficiency". You're saying that modern solar panels produce the same output on cloudy days that they do on sunny ones? I don't think so. > Cleve Hill solar farm in the UK was approved in 2020 and will generate 350MW. At what cost per MWh, including government subsidies?
- tchaffee 4y ago
  > You're saying that modern solar panels produce the same output on cloudy days that they do on sunny ones? Who said that? > At what cost per MWh, including government subsidies? No government subsidies. Westinghouse Electric declared bankruptcy over the Vogtle nuclear plant in discussion. The U.S. government has given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees to help finance construction of the Vogtle reactor. So yeah, at what cost per MWh is a great question. Someone should do the math. And the math should include the loan guarantees and the bankruptcy costs.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    > Who said that? The original poster. One of the followups has pointed out that in the REAL WORLD, a major solar plant is only expected to produce about 10% of its nameplate capacity. While nuclear plants routinely produce 90% of their nameplate capacities.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      No one claimed that solar panels produce the same output on cloudy days as sunny days. The claim was that solar panels have become efficient enough to not need sunny California type climate in order to be viable. Two very different claims. Companies investing in large scale commercial solar plants in the cloudy UK at the north of the planet, for profit, and without subsidies, proves that this is true. Meanwhile Westinghouse Electric declared bankruptcy trying to finish the Vogtle nuclear power plant in discussion. 90% of nameplate capacity doesn't mean much at all if you can't afford to finish building the thing.

samatman 4y ago

350MV is the nameplate capacity. To get the actual generated power, you must, tragically, multiply by the capacity factor. What's the capacity factor for Cleve Hill? We don't have to guess, it's in this document: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010085/EN010085-001047-11.4.10%20GREAT%20Need%20Response.pdf https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-conten... It's 10.8%. This is a 35MW plant. Oh, but it has batteries I hear you saying! Doesn't matter. It will generate 35MW-years per year. Batteries, at best, mean wasting less of it. Meanwhile, a 350MW nuclear plant has a capacity factor of 90%, most of the loss being conversion to AC, with a bit of downtime. So that would deliver 315MW-years of energy, per year.

tchaffee 4y ago
The topic is this: You are aware that not every place in the world has the weather found in California, yes? Nothing you mentioned supports the false claim that you need sunny weather for solar to be a viable source of energy. Not to mention that several sources say it will generate 350 MW of power. And that it will power about 100,000 homes. I'm pretty sure that's not happening with a 35MW plant.
- samatman 4y ago
  You're repeating something which I just debunked with a canonical source. That doesn't speak well of either your perspicacity nor judgement. Good luck.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    I read the source and you are wrong. Here is the official website and I quote: "This is a project that will generate up to 350MW of clean renewable electricity to power over 91,000 homes" https://www.clevehillsolar.com/ https://www.clevehillsolar.com/
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Which is misleading..
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        It isn't misleading.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        It is to me. "Up to“ is weasel language. It might support 100k homes for a few moments on an ideal day
        tchaffee 4y ago
        Or according to the math in another comment, over 350k homes on long sunny summer days. Is it weasel language that the new nuclear towers in question here didn't include the 1 in ~200,000 documented chance of disaster due to earthquake in their press releases, their capacity estimates, and the price? Is it weasel language that the press releases don't include the fact that Westinghouse Electric declared bankruptcy over the Vogtle nuclear build in discussion? I don't see the fact that the U.S. government has given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees to help finance construction of the Vogtle reactors included in press releases either. Considering this solar installation is a for-profit venture in cloudy UK and will reduce carbon output without subsidies, I'm calling it a win whether it powers 1000 houses or 350,000.
    - delroth 4y ago
      You skipped the critical "up to" part when re-quoting this in your previous message. The capacity factor is what determines how close the average is to that theoretical maximum. With 10.8%, the answer is "not close at all".

Manuel_D 4y ago

Modern PV panels [1] are not any better at performing in cloudy. They just put out 5-10x less power than they do in sunny conditions. Furthermore, this is on top of the variance due to earth's inclination. Solar panels near the poles are less effective. Saying "solar panels can operate on daylight, not direct sunlight" is pedantically true, but in practice it'd mean building 5-10 times as many solar panels. Weather is a big contributor to solar's intermittency, not just day/night cycle as well as the geographic variability in output. 1. If you mean solar thermal panels, then yes, PVs are better in cloudy conditions. Solar thermal panels only collected the specular light from the sun, not the diffuse light from the rest of the sky.

tchaffee 4y ago
They are better at performing in cloudy conditions compared to older technology. In the past, it was not viable to install solar panels in cloudy areas. With the higher efficiency panels of today and the drops in price, it's now viable. This is why you're seeing commercial large scale installations in places like the UK - with no subsidies.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Newer chemistries are more linear in low light, and bifacial modules perform better in poor weather. Additionally a module without bypass diodes or one which is not strung for varying voltages will effectively produce no power under uneven shade. Vertical bifacial modules produce significantly less energy overall, but more during morning/evening and during snow or cloudy conditions. This latter fact combined with the much lower module costs mean that -- in practical terms -- they perform vastly better in cloudy conditions.

Turing_Machine 4y ago

> Modern solar panels can operate in cloudy conditions. "Can operate" is a different thing from "can operate at the claimed efficiency". You're saying that modern solar panels produce the same output on cloudy days that they do on sunny ones? I don't think so. > Cleve Hill solar farm in the UK was approved in 2020 and will generate 350MW. At what cost per MWh, including government subsidies?

tchaffee 4y ago
> You're saying that modern solar panels produce the same output on cloudy days that they do on sunny ones? Who said that? > At what cost per MWh, including government subsidies? No government subsidies. Westinghouse Electric declared bankruptcy over the Vogtle nuclear plant in discussion. The U.S. government has given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees to help finance construction of the Vogtle reactor. So yeah, at what cost per MWh is a great question. Someone should do the math. And the math should include the loan guarantees and the bankruptcy costs.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  > Who said that? The original poster. One of the followups has pointed out that in the REAL WORLD, a major solar plant is only expected to produce about 10% of its nameplate capacity. While nuclear plants routinely produce 90% of their nameplate capacities.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    No one claimed that solar panels produce the same output on cloudy days as sunny days. The claim was that solar panels have become efficient enough to not need sunny California type climate in order to be viable. Two very different claims. Companies investing in large scale commercial solar plants in the cloudy UK at the north of the planet, for profit, and without subsidies, proves that this is true. Meanwhile Westinghouse Electric declared bankruptcy trying to finish the Vogtle nuclear power plant in discussion. 90% of nameplate capacity doesn't mean much at all if you can't afford to finish building the thing.