3 ms·

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 the

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".

tchaffee 4y ago
So far zero people have given a source showing that the claim of powering 91,000 homes is an outrageous lie. Zero sources is "not close at all" to showing that the actual output is going to be so wildly different from what every source says will be the actual, not theoretical, output.
- ac29 4y ago
  350MW / 91000 homes = 3.8kW / home (24/7), which seems very very high.
- delroth 4y ago
  Again, the claim on the website is "has the potential to power over 91,000 homes". "up to", "has the potential", etc. But let's do some quick back of the envelope maths. 91,000 homes would be about 91,000 * 3,000 kWh / year = 273 TWh / year. You need an average of 31 MW over a year to produce this, which roughly tracks 350 MW with ~10% capacity factor. So over a year this seems to be correct. On a day to day basis however the project only includes 700 MWh of storage. That's about 24h of the electricity consumption of 91,000 homes. A single cloudy winter day and those batteries are empty. So if you look at shorter time periods than a full year there's a huge variation in how many households can actually be reliably powered by such an installation. It's likely somewhere between 1,000 (several days of cloudy winter) and 350,000 homes (sunny summer).
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    Thanks - that's the best explanation I've seen so far. > It's likely somewhere between 1,000 (several days of cloudy winter) How do you figure? Solar technology is moving so rapidly you can't even look at the efficiency of the panels from a few years ago to do the math. Is the 1,000 number a guess or did you do the math for the 900,000 some panels they will have at that site?

tchaffee 4y ago

So far zero people have given a source showing that the claim of powering 91,000 homes is an outrageous lie. Zero sources is "not close at all" to showing that the actual output is going to be so wildly different from what every source says will be the actual, not theoretical, output.

ac29 4y ago
350MW / 91000 homes = 3.8kW / home (24/7), which seems very very high.
delroth 4y ago
Again, the claim on the website is "has the potential to power over 91,000 homes". "up to", "has the potential", etc. But let's do some quick back of the envelope maths. 91,000 homes would be about 91,000 * 3,000 kWh / year = 273 TWh / year. You need an average of 31 MW over a year to produce this, which roughly tracks 350 MW with ~10% capacity factor. So over a year this seems to be correct. On a day to day basis however the project only includes 700 MWh of storage. That's about 24h of the electricity consumption of 91,000 homes. A single cloudy winter day and those batteries are empty. So if you look at shorter time periods than a full year there's a huge variation in how many households can actually be reliably powered by such an installation. It's likely somewhere between 1,000 (several days of cloudy winter) and 350,000 homes (sunny summer).
- tchaffee 4y ago
  Thanks - that's the best explanation I've seen so far. > It's likely somewhere between 1,000 (several days of cloudy winter) How do you figure? Solar technology is moving so rapidly you can't even look at the efficiency of the panels from a few years ago to do the math. Is the 1,000 number a guess or did you do the math for the 900,000 some panels they will have at that site?