3 ms·

If it's stupid, but it works... Now, how expensive - and how big - would an equivalent solar array be? Don't forget maintenance costs, including technicians.

If it's stupid, but it works... Now, how expensive - and how big - would an equivalent solar array be? Don't forget maintenance costs, including technicians. Once all that is cheaper and just as reliable as their generators, only then will there be a discussion on replacement. But in general, I agree that it should be done.

marcosdumay 4y ago
Solar is the lowest maintenance source we have, so yeah, make sure to add maintenance. (It's more expensive with batteries, but compared with diesel, it's ridiculously cheap.)
- noogle 4y ago
  What about maintenance of the physical structure? PV panels have no moving parts but: 1. The inverter and other electrical systems do fail (surprisingly frequently). 2. Solar is very spread-out: maintaining a geographically large facility is not trivial (vegetation, water drainage, cables etc.) 3. Batteries also require maintenance, and are an inherent part of any independent PV installation (if the site relies on the grid, it is no longer independent).
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Out of curiosity, what kinds of things you assume I was talking about when I talked about solar power maintenance costs?
vitus 4y ago
> Now, how expensive - and how big - would an equivalent solar array be? Don't forget maintenance costs, including technicians. For an easy point of comparison, there actually is an 18MW solar array under development in western Australia as part of phase 0 of the Yuri project [0] (the goal of that project is to produce hydrogen for ammonia production via electrolysis instead of steam methane reforming). This is apparently around 23 hectares (57 acres), at a cost of A$24-33m in capital expenditures, and A$0.5-1.5m in annual operating expenses [1]. For comparison, let's suppose diesel is A$2 / liter. 26,000 liters a day, for 365 days a year, is A$19 million, every year, just for fuel costs. Wait, you might argue, fuel prices are inflated this year. Okay, historically it might have been closer to A$1/L, for about A$10 million per year. Breakeven is therefore somewhere in the ballpark of 2-4 years, which is absurdly low for a project of this scale. [0] https://gateway.icn.org.au/project/4938/yuri-phase-0 https://gateway.icn.org.au/project/4938/yuri-phase-0 [1] Page 28-29 of https://arena.gov.au/assets/2020/11/engie-yara-renewable-hydrogen-and-ammonia-deployment-in-pilbara.pdf https://arena.gov.au/assets/2020/11/engie-yara-renewable-hyd... -- capex estimate is A$70m. If you remove the capex of building the H2 plant, you're left with A$33 million. If you just consider the PV component (34% of the overall capex estimate), then you get A$24m.
lostlogin 4y ago
> Now, how expensive - and how big - would an equivalent solar array be? Surely a 6km cable is the solution?
- grecy 4y ago
  I think the military want more of a guarantee they'll have power 24x7. They want better uptime than the public grid.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    They're allowed to keep the backup gennies while connecting to the grid, especially when the grid is so much cheaper it will pay for itself in the 99.9% of the time it's working. It's not like hospitals and data centres refuse grid connections and run entirely on the backups.
    - grecy 4y ago
      Oh, I agree. But of course none of this is supposed to make sense. Someone, somewhere is making a lot of money the way things are now. Why change it?

marcosdumay 4y ago

Solar is the lowest maintenance source we have, so yeah, make sure to add maintenance. (It's more expensive with batteries, but compared with diesel, it's ridiculously cheap.)

noogle 4y ago
What about maintenance of the physical structure? PV panels have no moving parts but: 1. The inverter and other electrical systems do fail (surprisingly frequently). 2. Solar is very spread-out: maintaining a geographically large facility is not trivial (vegetation, water drainage, cables etc.) 3. Batteries also require maintenance, and are an inherent part of any independent PV installation (if the site relies on the grid, it is no longer independent).
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, what kinds of things you assume I was talking about when I talked about solar power maintenance costs?

vitus 4y ago

> Now, how expensive - and how big - would an equivalent solar array be? Don't forget maintenance costs, including technicians. For an easy point of comparison, there actually is an 18MW solar array under development in western Australia as part of phase 0 of the Yuri project [0] (the goal of that project is to produce hydrogen for ammonia production via electrolysis instead of steam methane reforming). This is apparently around 23 hectares (57 acres), at a cost of A$24-33m in capital expenditures, and A$0.5-1.5m in annual operating expenses [1]. For comparison, let's suppose diesel is A$2 / liter. 26,000 liters a day, for 365 days a year, is A$19 million, every year, just for fuel costs. Wait, you might argue, fuel prices are inflated this year. Okay, historically it might have been closer to A$1/L, for about A$10 million per year. Breakeven is therefore somewhere in the ballpark of 2-4 years, which is absurdly low for a project of this scale. [0] https://gateway.icn.org.au/project/4938/yuri-phase-0 https://gateway.icn.org.au/project/4938/yuri-phase-0 [1] Page 28-29 of https://arena.gov.au/assets/2020/11/engie-yara-renewable-hydrogen-and-ammonia-deployment-in-pilbara.pdf https://arena.gov.au/assets/2020/11/engie-yara-renewable-hyd... -- capex estimate is A$70m. If you remove the capex of building the H2 plant, you're left with A$33 million. If you just consider the PV component (34% of the overall capex estimate), then you get A$24m.

lostlogin 4y ago

> Now, how expensive - and how big - would an equivalent solar array be? Surely a 6km cable is the solution?

grecy 4y ago
I think the military want more of a guarantee they'll have power 24x7. They want better uptime than the public grid.
- ben_w 4y ago
  They're allowed to keep the backup gennies while connecting to the grid, especially when the grid is so much cheaper it will pay for itself in the 99.9% of the time it's working. It's not like hospitals and data centres refuse grid connections and run entirely on the backups.
  - grecy 4y ago
    Oh, I agree. But of course none of this is supposed to make sense. Someone, somewhere is making a lot of money the way things are now. Why change it?