Solar panel farms

[RochesterRob]

WHAM 13 had a report about a proposed solar panel farm over 1000 acres in the towns of Rush and Caledonia south of Rochester.  Just wondering about opinions here on this board.  Not against solar panels but wonder if they should be so concentrated?  I don't live in either town so not a case of NIMBY-ism.  Seems to me that the Southern Tier might be a good location for the majority as the population density is far less than the Rochester metro.  Care would have to given to the surroundings there as well.  Not a tree hugger but worry about certain animals being vulnerable.  Thoughts?

[Steve O]

Well, I can think of a couple issues right off the bat. As you well know I'm sure, Rochester isn't exactly the sunniest place in the country. On average 165 sunny days a year compared to the national average of 205. Why not choose somewhere that has more than average sunshine?

Also, solar panel farms can be mistaken for a body of water, not unlike Boise State's football field. Unlike Boise State and actual bodies of water however, some birds require a running start to get airborne, which they can't get on solar panels, leaving them to starve. 

Finally, it just seems to me like this type of area might be harder to protect from acts of terrorism than traditional power sources.

But hey, I'm sure there are positives.

[RochesterRob]

17 minutes ago, Steve O said:

Well, I can think of a couple issues right off the bat. As you well know I'm sure, Rochester isn't exactly the sunniest place in the country. On average 165 sunny days a year compared to the national average of 205. Why not choose somewhere that has more than average sunshine?

Also, solar panel farms can be mistaken for a body of water, not unlike Boise State's football field. Unlike Boise State and actual bodies of water however, some birds require a running start to get airborne, which they can't get on solar panels, leaving them to starve. 

Finally, it just seems to me like this type of area might be harder to protect from acts of terrorism than traditional power sources.

But hey, I'm sure there are positives.

  Yeah, I'm sure there are sunnier places but proximity to market no doubt comes into play.

[Boca BIlls]

Well its either that or low income housing.

[The Senator]

 

You can grow solar panels on a farm?

 

Someone should have told us that before we wasted a $billion$ on the Tesla plant at Riverbend!

.

[T&C]

Disney just put one together that'll have the power to run 2 of their parks. Florida tho... why not harness energy that's already there, I'm all for it... less coal burning works for me.

[Tiberius]

I was just in Wyoming county and they have miles and miles of wind farms already. Really crazy to drive through. Nothing but cows, farms and giant windmills.

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, Steve O said:

Well, I can think of a couple issues right off the bat. As you well know I'm sure, Rochester isn't exactly the sunniest place in the country. On average 165 sunny days a year compared to the national average of 205. Why not choose somewhere that has more than average sunshine?

Also, solar panel farms can be mistaken for a body of water, not unlike Boise State's football field. Unlike Boise State and actual bodies of water however, some birds require a running start to get airborne, which they can't get on solar panels, leaving them to starve. 

Finally, it just seems to me like this type of area might be harder to protect from acts of terrorism than traditional power sources.

But hey, I'm sure there are positives.

 

Terrorists smashing solar panels?  Boy, you're really working hard to come up with objections!  

 

Our country's lack of commitment over the last 50 years to using solar power has been criminally stupid.

[Q-baby!]

Cancer?

[GoBills808]

Consolidation facilitates storage. Are you talking about a bunch of passive PV panels or a concentrated system ie mirror array? Those have to be centralized by nature.

[T&C]

36 minutes ago, BigMcD said:

Cancer?

Troll?

[apuszczalowski]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

 

Terrorists smashing solar panels?  Boy, you're really working hard to come up with objections!  

 

Our country's lack of commitment over the last 50 years to using solar power has been criminally stupid.

Yeah, doubt a solar Farm is going to be something Terrorists are going to go after, the power generated would be most likely to supplement what is already being generated from another source and not likely be the main source of an areas electricity, that would require way too much land to do.

 

They used to offer HUGE government incentives up here to install solar, recent changes to the provincial government have basically eliminated all of it. I used to see alot of people getting them installed on their houses, banks were basically throwing money at you in loans or added to your mortgage if you were lucky enough to get approved for the grants/incentives because they paid very well for the energy you sold back into the grid. Now I am seeing very little new solar projects going up on homes. I don't think the cost is low enough for the systems (panels and installation) for people to want to install them.

[The Senator]

26 minutes ago, T&C said:

Troll?

 

The ‘Ignore’ list is my friend.

.

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

Yeah, doubt a solar Farm is going to be something Terrorists are going to go after, the power generated would be most likely to supplement what is already being generated from another source and not likely be the main source of an areas electricity, that would require way too much land to do.

 

They used to offer HUGE government incentives up here to install solar, recent changes to the provincial government have basically eliminated all of it. I used to see alot of people getting them installed on their houses, banks were basically throwing money at you in loans or added to your mortgage if you were lucky enough to get approved for the grants/incentives because they paid very well for the energy you sold back into the grid. Now I am seeing very little new solar projects going up on homes. I don't think the cost is low enough for the systems (panels and installation) for people to want to install them.

 

The cost of panels keeps going down ever since China started subsidizing manufacturing, and improvements in material tech has exponentially increased value/kWh.

[SoTier]

10 hours ago, Steve O said:

Well, I can think of a couple issues right off the bat. As you well know I'm sure, Rochester isn't exactly the sunniest place in the country. On average 165 sunny days a year compared to the national average of 205. Why not choose somewhere that has more than average sunshine?

Also, solar panel farms can be mistaken for a body of water, not unlike Boise State's football field. Unlike Boise State and actual bodies of water however, some birds require a running start to get airborne, which they can't get on solar panels, leaving them to starve. 

Finally, it just seems to me like this type of area might be harder to protect from acts of terrorism than traditional power sources.

But hey, I'm sure there are positives.

 

Yeah, there are positives -- like slowing global warming which will negatively impact almost all species of living things.   Modern PV panels can produce electricity even on cloudy days, which is what makes building pv panel farms in WNY feasible.   Small pv panel arrays are popping up all over rural Chautauqua and Cattaraugus counties to provide power for dairy farms and local government facilities as well as individual homes.  Individual pv panels provide power for all kinds of permanent and temporary warning/traffic control lights along interstates and rural highways.   Smaller energy producing facilities spread over a wide area significantly decrease the threat of terrorism simply because terrorists seek to have significant and symbolic impacts, so the Kinzua Dam would be a much more likely target than the Ellington Town Hall, and the New York Power Authority facilities in/around Niagara Falls would be even more so.

 

The Audubon Society supports solar power, most notably the pv panel arrays, and addresses the issue of "lake effect" and other dangers to birds.   Why Solar Power is Good for Birds

 

 

[mead107]

More farm land gone.  

Feed the world with greenhouse food.  

50 years from now the new young generation will want them taken down to give the land back to animals.  

[Steve O]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

The Audubon Society supports solar power, most notably the pv panel arrays, and addresses the issue of "lake effect" and other dangers to birds.   Why Solar Power is Good for Birds

 

 

From the link:

"Thermal solar, also known as concentrating solar, generates electricity by focusing solar rays to transform a fluid into steam. That steam then turns a turbine to power a generator.

These installations can kill birds. Some concentrated solar installations arrange a huge number of mirrors that point to a central tower, and the concentrated solar towers create an incredibly high-heat area that’s dangerous for anything to touch. What's worse, the light beam and surrounding mirrors actually attract birds and the insects they like to eat.

The potential harm of this solar power method can be seen at the Ivanpah concentrated solar tower in California. In 2015, Ivanpah killed about seven birds per gigawatt hour of electricity produced...By comparison, the climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels are estimated to kill only one bird per gigawatt hour. Because of this, Audubon opposes any further construction of concentrated solar towers."

Re the lake it affect it simply states:

"Some developers are adding special patterns to their panels or using other strategies to reduce the risk of crash landings."

 

The benefits outlined in the article are more in the realm of what is done in conjunction with the placement of the panels (planting native plant species around the solar farms for instance) and solar being less disruptive than fossil fuels than any real benefit the panels themselves provide. 

 

Back to the OP's question, not saying it is a horrible idea, just that you can't put up a thousand acres of solar panels, say look at this great thing we've done, and call it a day. Rochester does not need another fast ferry.

 

[SoTier]

21 hours ago, Steve O said:

From the link:

"Thermal solar, also known as concentrating solar, generates electricity by focusing solar rays to transform a fluid into steam. That steam then turns a turbine to power a generator.

These installations can kill birds. Some concentrated solar installations arrange a huge number of mirrors that point to a central tower, and the concentrated solar towers create an incredibly high-heat area that’s dangerous for anything to touch. What's worse, the light beam and surrounding mirrors actually attract birds and the insects they like to eat.

The potential harm of this solar power method can be seen at the Ivanpah concentrated solar tower in California. In 2015, Ivanpah killed about seven birds per gigawatt hour of electricity produced...By comparison, the climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels are estimated to kill only one bird per gigawatt hour. Because of this, Audubon opposes any further construction of concentrated solar towers."

Re the lake it affect it simply states:

"Some developers are adding special patterns to their panels or using other strategies to reduce the risk of crash landings."

 

The benefits outlined in the article are more in the realm of what is done in conjunction with the placement of the panels (planting native plant species around the solar farms for instance) and solar being less disruptive than fossil fuels than any real benefit the panels themselves provide. 

 

Back to the OP's question, not saying it is a horrible idea, just that you can't put up a thousand acres of solar panels, say look at this great thing we've done, and call it a day. Rochester does not need another fast ferry.

 

 

Thermal solar is not pv solar -- photovoltaic solar -- which is the type of solar power that the Audubon Society endorses.  They endorse pv solar with the caveat that steps be taken to minimize danger to birds and other wildlife as well as their habitat but they would do that with every type of power project.  The reality is that everything people do impacts other species and always has, and the best we can do is mitigate the damage we do. 

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

Several years ago, I actually thought about installing solar panels on our house. I asked a friend of mine (who is a builder) and he laughed at me, and then showed me numbers that said that the panels would never pay for themselves.

 

His reasoning was something like this.

• If you install panels on your house, you also have to install a new roof at the same time.
• Solar panels only work during the warmer months, when the sun is high enough in the sky.
• Optimistically, solar panels would save me about 33% on my electric bill during the 5 months of warm weather here in Texas (mid-May to mid-October).
• If my electric bill were $300/month for those five months, then I would save about $500 per year in electric bills.
• It would cost about $15,000 to install panels on my roof.
• Working backwards on the numbers, it would then take me 30 years just to break even.

 

[Marv's Neighbor]

Considering the in place hydro power from Niagara, and the WNY sunny days per year, would such a project even be cost effective?

[DC Tom]

On 4/24/2019 at 7:47 PM, RochesterRob said:

WHAM 13 had a report about a proposed solar panel farm over 1000 acres in the towns of Rush and Caledonia south of Rochester.  Just wondering about opinions here on this board.  Not against solar panels but wonder if they should be so concentrated?  I don't live in either town so not a case of NIMBY-ism.  Seems to me that the Southern Tier might be a good location for the majority as the population density is far less than the Rochester metro.  Care would have to given to the surroundings there as well.  Not a tree hugger but worry about certain animals being vulnerable.  Thoughts?

 

Concentration achieves some economy of scale.  Panels generate DC current, which for use would have to be converted to AC by an inverter.  Distribute the panels, and you need a large number of smaller inverters.  Co-locate them, and you can use larger and fewer, which reduces both setup costs and maintenance costs.

[WhoTom]

1 hour ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

Several years ago, I actually thought about installing solar panels on our house. I asked a friend of mine (who is a builder) and he laughed at me, and then showed me numbers that said that the panels would never pay for themselves.

 

His reasoning was something like this.

• If you install panels on your house, you also have to install a new roof at the same time.
• Solar panels only work during the warmer months, when the sun is high enough in the sky.
• Optimistically, solar panels would save me about 33% on my electric bill during the 5 months of warm weather here in Texas (mid-May to mid-October).
• If my electric bill were $300/month for those five months, then I would save about $500 per year in electric bills.
• It would cost about $15,000 to install panels on my roof.
• Working backwards on the numbers, it would then take me 30 years just to break even.

 

 

Prices have fallen dramatically since then. These days, the payback period is between 7 and 15 years, depending on location and electric rates. There's also the option of a PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) which costs you nothing up front.

 

https://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-power-purchase-agreements

 

 

 

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

22 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

These days, the payback period is between 7 and 15 years

 

I'm not an accountant, but taking 15 years to break even doesn't exactly seem like a financial windfall.

[apuszczalowski]

They money in it up here was with a government program and the amount of money they paid to you to buy back the unused power generated. People would install them, and not even use the power generated so it would be sold back into the grid because they paid you more for what you generated then the Hydro company sold it to you for. There were companys going around that were getting into the program and would go door to door in neighborhoods to 'lease' your roof space and allow them to install panels on them for a monthy fee. Farmers were building big accessory buildings on their property so they could get additional roof space to install more panels.

 

Cost for the Chinese panels are getting better, but still not enough for the majority of people to want to install them without getting some kind of incentive from the government to do so.

[WhoTom]

4 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

Several years ago, I actually thought about installing solar panels on our house. I asked a friend of mine (who is a builder) and he laughed at me, and then showed me numbers that said that the panels would never pay for themselves.

1

 

2 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

 

I'm not an accountant, but taking 15 years to break even doesn't exactly seem like a financial windfall.

 

I'm not an accountant either, but I know that 15 years is less than never.

 

[Your Brown Eye]

Caledonia is a dumpy small town, they can have the solar panel farms. 

[Bray Wyatt]

I thought I heard that the materials needed to make the panels causes harm to the environment 

[sherpa]

"Farms" aside, and I can't believe the solar yield in Western NY justifies the cost without some other influence, on a domestic basis it's simple cost vs benefit.

I've been following this industry for years. The house I currently had built and live in has a garage that points true south,  the roof is stressed for solar panels and the slope is very close to our latitude, which is what you want.  The stressing only required additional joists bonded together, and I think it only cost me a few hundred bucks.

The issue is that absent government incentives, which have diminished significantly, it still isn't worth it from a purely financial standpoint.

 I  built a 30x40 barn last year, and even with minimal electrical requirements, it is still more efficient to purchase a very small gas generator rather than solar power the thing.

[Foxx]

5 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

Several years ago, I actually thought about installing solar panels on our house. I asked a friend of mine (who is a builder) and he laughed at me, and then showed me numbers that said that the panels would never pay for themselves.

 

His reasoning was something like this.

• If you install panels on your house, you also have to install a new roof at the same time.
• Solar panels only work during the warmer months, when the sun is high enough in the sky.
• Optimistically, solar panels would save me about 33% on my electric bill during the 5 months of warm weather here in Texas (mid-May to mid-October).
• If my electric bill were $300/month for those five months, then I would save about $500 per year in electric bills.
• It would cost about $15,000 to install panels on my roof.
• Working backwards on the numbers, it would then take me 30 years just to break even.

 

 

i have had my panels installed for over three years now and i love them. 

 

with the incentive programs from the federal government and NYS, along with a NYSERDA grant, they are very affordable. you get 5 years to recoup the incentives from both NYS and the fed gov via your tax filings. the NYSERDA grant is just that, a grant so it just lowers your outlay. as I said, i have had them for three years now and this past year i have recouped the last of the incentives from .gov. what this means is that in another 3 years, i will have completely recouped my initial outlay and will have at least 19 years of free electric going forward. because of the system, it produces all the energy i use on a yearly basis. if by chance it over produces, i get a refund check once a year.

 

 

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Concentration achieves some economy of scale.  Panels generate DC current, which for use would have to be converted to AC by an inverter.  Distribute the panels, and you need a large number of smaller inverters.  Co-locate them, and you can use larger and fewer, which reduces both setup costs and maintenance costs.

this is what you want. a micro-inverter with each panel. with this method you are not subjecting a central inverter to high load and high heat.  this allows you to run the panels in a parallel circuit instead of a series circuit as well.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Foxx

[WhoTom]

1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said:

I thought I heard that the materials needed to make the panels causes harm to the environment 

 

FAR less damage than the harm caused by fossil fuels.

 

No technology is completely benign; the key is to minimize the damage.

 

 

[Warcodered]

On 4/24/2019 at 8:30 PM, Tiberius said:

I was just in Wyoming county and they have miles and miles of wind farms already. Really crazy to drive through. Nothing but cows, farms and giant windmills.

Wind has always been an abundant resource of ours.

[BUFFALOKIE]

6 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

 

I'm not an accountant, but taking 15 years to break even doesn't exactly seem like a financial windfall.

I am faced with a similar conundrum. I NEED to replace both HVAC systems in my home -the upstairs unit quit three years ago and the downstairs unit is hanging by a thread.

 

$17,000 for a pair of lower end systems. Double that at a minimum for the highest efficiency systems.

 

I have installed window units in the meantime and I need one more window unit to completely negate the NEED for central air conditioning. (It is Hot as Hades here in the summer, BTW).

 

$17,000 to save $100-$150 per month is a hard pill to swallow now, but I will have to replace it all before I sell the home, whenever that may be, and if I wait until I sell I will have received zero benefit from the purchase.

 

Solar panels are BS in my opinion, for now. The GREEN cost to manufacture in terms of GREEN energy  far outweigh their benefit to mother earth, not to mention the economic comparison to my situation above.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by BUFFALOKIE

[BUFFALOKIE]

Wind farms on the other hand, which are plentiful nowadays across the southern plains, seem very effective. No exotic, toxic materials required.

[SoTier]

14 hours ago, BUFFALOKIE said:

Wind farms on the other hand, which are plentiful nowadays across the southern plains, seem very effective. No exotic, toxic materials required.

 

Unless you dislike them and then they cause all kinds of health issues ...

[/dev/null]

On 4/26/2019 at 3:28 PM, WhoTom said:

 

FAR less damage than the harm caused by fossil fuels.

 

No technology is completely benign; the key is to minimize the damage.

 

 

 

And sometimes the new technology is worse than the problem it claims to solve

 

http://brusselstimes.com/business/technology/15050/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones,-german-study-shows