3 ms·

> You are willfully failing to understand the concept of correlation. No, I am not. I am saying that this correlation is irrelevant because wind has overwhelm

> You are willfully failing to understand the concept of correlation. No, I am not. I am saying that this correlation is irrelevant because wind has overwhelming advantages over solar. > A single axis system has a lower coverage ratio around 100W/m^2 but a higher capacity factor. Tilting/tracking systems are a nightmare that is horribly expensive to maintain long term. It makes no sense to consider them at grid scale. > irrational response to the isolated results of a specific residential install These conclusions have nothing to do with a residential installation. Pretty much all the data comes from Tesla's plan, the references they provide and other reputable references. > what was that about how stupid people who assume averages for everything are? You can't control yourself, can you? I have tried, time and time again, to have a conversation with you over multiple threads. You simply cannot do this without resorting to insults. How sad. I am curious: What is your solution and how do you justify it? Do you agree with the findings and plan from Tesla's Master Plan Part 3? No? Why? Don't post a wall of links. Do the work and post a cogent argument people can attempt to follow and discuss. And stop insulting people in every thread you participate in. It makes it very difficult to develop any level of respect for what you are saying.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
That was your insult, not mine. You have repeatedly attacked anyone who uses any aggregated statistic by insulting them. If you want people to respect you, stop talking down to them from a position of ignorance and stop being a hypocryte. If you disagree with the findings from the tesla plan (such as by blindly asserting that changing all the solar to wind will work without reference) then it's on you to back it up.
- robomartin 4y ago
  > That was your insult, not mine. You have repeatedly attacked anyone who uses any aggregated statistic by insulting them. That’s a lie! Provide a link and a quote from a comment where I do that. And you did say “repeatedly”, this should be easy. You cannot, because I don’t do that.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Tilting/tracking systems are a nightmare that is horribly expensive to maintain long term. It makes no sense to consider them at grid scale. Single axis tilting bifacial is overwhelmingly the cheapest, lowest maintenance cost per energy, lowest LCOE energy in any location with good solar resource. https://list.solar/news/single-axis-bifacial/ https://list.solar/news/single-axis-bifacial/ https://emp.lbl.gov/utility-scale-solar/ https://emp.lbl.gov/utility-scale-solar/ It makes no sense to build out $30/MWh 35% CF wind resource which you will curtail 30% of or $60/MWh offshore wind when there is $20/MWh 30% CF solar available that produces during the lulls (thus decreasing your storage and curtailment needs).
- robomartin 4y ago
  Again. No. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has already shown this is a bad idea. The summary reads (emphasis mine): "Annual energy simulations were updated to evaluate the kWh/m2 boost achieved in single-axis tracking systems using bifacial modules. Measured bifacial energy gains of 7%-9% and rear irradiance gains of 11% were recorded, agreeing with modeled expectation within 1%-2% absolute, and matching global average expectation. Additional system energy gains of 0.5%-1.5% are predicted to be achieved by optimizing tracker behavior, adapting to cloudy conditions." - single-axis tracking - bifacial modules - gains of 7%-9% Figure 10a shows a best-case maximum annual energy production gain of 1% to 1.3% (aproximately). Why? Because, among other things, if you tilt panels you can't pack them in so tightly. That's basic geometry. In fact, if you do the math, it is better to reduce the geographically-dictated optimal tilt angle and fix it at a lower angle in favor of tighter packing. Put simply, rows of panels will cast a shadow on the panels behind the row. Also, ground-bounce inside the array is seriously curtailed by shading. Bifacial is interesting for some types of installations, not necessarily for grid-scale, where they gains could be in the order of 1% or less. Wait! How did we go from 9% gains to 1% annual energy gains? What? Because SOLAR PANELS DO NOT PRODUCE ANY ENERGY FOR 50% OF THE DAY. And, SOLAR PANELS ARE DEEPLY AFFECTED BY CLOUDS, WEATHER AND DIRT. Which means that a 9% power generation gain measured while operating ends-up translating into 1% or less in energy collection gains in a year. Don't agree? Well, go argue with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory then. You must know more than they do. Here: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72039.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72039.pdf You are still missing the most important point: The advantages for wind are very large and across a range of parameters. You are talking about 1% gains by adding complex and costly-to-maintain tracking systems. I am talking about achieving 95% reliability with 1/4 the storage requirements, with 1/12 the land, 33% lower maintenance cost, etc. Not even close.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

That was your insult, not mine. You have repeatedly attacked anyone who uses any aggregated statistic by insulting them. If you want people to respect you, stop talking down to them from a position of ignorance and stop being a hypocryte. If you disagree with the findings from the tesla plan (such as by blindly asserting that changing all the solar to wind will work without reference) then it's on you to back it up.

robomartin 4y ago
> That was your insult, not mine. You have repeatedly attacked anyone who uses any aggregated statistic by insulting them. That’s a lie! Provide a link and a quote from a comment where I do that. And you did say “repeatedly”, this should be easy. You cannot, because I don’t do that.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Tilting/tracking systems are a nightmare that is horribly expensive to maintain long term. It makes no sense to consider them at grid scale. Single axis tilting bifacial is overwhelmingly the cheapest, lowest maintenance cost per energy, lowest LCOE energy in any location with good solar resource. https://list.solar/news/single-axis-bifacial/ https://list.solar/news/single-axis-bifacial/ https://emp.lbl.gov/utility-scale-solar/ https://emp.lbl.gov/utility-scale-solar/ It makes no sense to build out $30/MWh 35% CF wind resource which you will curtail 30% of or $60/MWh offshore wind when there is $20/MWh 30% CF solar available that produces during the lulls (thus decreasing your storage and curtailment needs).

robomartin 4y ago
Again. No. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has already shown this is a bad idea. The summary reads (emphasis mine): "Annual energy simulations were updated to evaluate the kWh/m2 boost achieved in single-axis tracking systems using bifacial modules. Measured bifacial energy gains of 7%-9% and rear irradiance gains of 11% were recorded, agreeing with modeled expectation within 1%-2% absolute, and matching global average expectation. Additional system energy gains of 0.5%-1.5% are predicted to be achieved by optimizing tracker behavior, adapting to cloudy conditions." - single-axis tracking - bifacial modules - gains of 7%-9% Figure 10a shows a best-case maximum annual energy production gain of 1% to 1.3% (aproximately). Why? Because, among other things, if you tilt panels you can't pack them in so tightly. That's basic geometry. In fact, if you do the math, it is better to reduce the geographically-dictated optimal tilt angle and fix it at a lower angle in favor of tighter packing. Put simply, rows of panels will cast a shadow on the panels behind the row. Also, ground-bounce inside the array is seriously curtailed by shading. Bifacial is interesting for some types of installations, not necessarily for grid-scale, where they gains could be in the order of 1% or less. Wait! How did we go from 9% gains to 1% annual energy gains? What? Because SOLAR PANELS DO NOT PRODUCE ANY ENERGY FOR 50% OF THE DAY. And, SOLAR PANELS ARE DEEPLY AFFECTED BY CLOUDS, WEATHER AND DIRT. Which means that a 9% power generation gain measured while operating ends-up translating into 1% or less in energy collection gains in a year. Don't agree? Well, go argue with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory then. You must know more than they do. Here: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72039.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72039.pdf You are still missing the most important point: The advantages for wind are very large and across a range of parameters. You are talking about 1% gains by adding complex and costly-to-maintain tracking systems. I am talking about achieving 95% reliability with 1/4 the storage requirements, with 1/12 the land, 33% lower maintenance cost, etc. Not even close.