Solar Panels, for CIVIL discussion

-
jos51700

jos51700

Green Bearing thread connoisseur
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
7,370
Reaction score
3,052
Location
Bel-Ray
So I saw an article on CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/02/us/solar-babcock-ranch-florida-hurricane-ian-climate/index.html), discussing a town in Florida that didn't lose power during Hurricane Ian. Why? They have a huge solar array. From the article:
1664726666073.png


Now, this town has 700,000 panels, and 2000 people (according to the article) and has "more power than the town needs" but how much more is not stated. That means that each person needs up to 350 panels (size not given). This says nothing of the supporting infrastructure, batteries, etc., and says that some of the towns' residents use electric cars and add their own solar panels to their homes.

From Google Maps, I took the following screenshot, which looks like their solar array is covering a couple square miles or more. So, that means we're looking at the neighborhood of a square mile of panels per 1000 people. Further, five miles to the east is ANOTHER huge array of solar panels. How much goes to Babcock Ranch specifically isn't discussed.

1664727713976.png


Edit, Here's a more accurate photo of the town proper and their own, dedicated, solar array. Take out the lakes and you'll see the point to follow:

1664728285748.png


For the comparison:
My town is 8,000 people in the town, proper, and covers 8 square miles, which actually makes math; 1000 people/sq mile. We're fairly compact, and there's not really any sprawl. Therefore, a square mile of panels per thousand people means we'd need EIGHT square miles of solar array to keep us in power. One square mile of solar array per square mile of town. Does that sound do-able?

This is factoring that Babcock Ranch Florida is NOT 100% EV, and I'll assume not 100% E-everything else.

And what isn't on those eight square miles of solar array? Trees, shrubs, and barely even grass. These folks don't seem to remember what happens when you strip all the vegetation off the earth...

This isn't Phoenix where nothing grows and the sun shines 24-7. This is in the tropics, home of clouds, rain, and vegetation, that same vegetation that eats carbon dioxide and ***** out nice, clean oxygen for zero power outlay. For reference, an acre of trees absorbs on average: 10 TONS of CO2 per year.




For the irony: Let's burn some fossil fuels for this hot air balloon, as taken from Babcock Ranch's website:

1664726921845.png
 
Last edited:
There are LOTS of problems with solar panels. There was an article recently that Amazon has "quietly" shut down panels on their warehouses because they've suffered fires. Panels run HOT in other words they generate their own heat while in operation on top of being heated by the sun---in hot areas especially. Panels used 24/ 7 are not especially long life, either. I've heard less than 20 years service, and less than that "some opinions."

And like turbine blades, how ya going to "recycle" these. They are a high waste, low yield recycling object, generating lots of toxins, etc both in manufacture and disposal and like any other complicated high- plastics device

Last there are many areas of the country where solar is simply not an option, not an efficient, dependable, high yield option. Cloudy days, rain, winter, etc
 
Last edited:
67Dart273 said:
Last there are many areas of the country where solar is simply not an option, not an efficient, dependable, high yield option. Cloudy days, rain, winter, etc
Click to expand...
Yeah, like the northwest corner......like your area. lol
 
1664730692162.png


Wind turbine blades, actively being buried in a landfill.
So green. So green.

One company proposes burning them to make heat for a concrete plant, lol
 
What all are solar panels made from? Are they pretty much all plastic or what? I know nothing about them.
 
RustyRatRod said:
What all are solar panels made from? Are they pretty much all plastic or what? I know nothing about them.
Click to expand...
I think they're glass, with crystals of something grown on them. I've broken them before and they break like glass.
 
They used to be hazardous waste that the consumer had to pay to recycle, but one day somebody decided they weren't hazardous any more......
I get promos in Arizona from people that say they will Give meFREE solar panels, and install for nothing (not nothing down).
There MUST be some nefarious reason they are promoting this so hard.
(And I don't for a minute believe anything is free!).
Reminds me of FREE covid shots that I didn't get either!
 
Last edited:
30 miles inland and 33 ft elevation with good canals rally helps. When we had Katrina hit us (the eye of the storm) if you were 33 miles inland you didn't really have any houses destroyed by the hurricane, damaged but not unlivable.
 
The only thing I know is that when I worked for The Gas Company in the late 70's our City was having a building boom. One new Sub Division decided they wanted no gas line's on the whole place and went 100 % Solar. 5 years later we were asked to put Gas Lines in and help convert the equipment to Nat Gas. About 95% converted to Nat Gas with the rest going all Electric. I'm sure Solar Technology 40 some years later may be better but still question their validity for the above mentioned reasons
 
33IMP said:
They used to be hazardous waste that the consumer had to pay to recycle, but one day somebody decided they weren't hazardous any more......
I get promos in Arizona from people that say they will Give meFREE solar panels, and install for nothing (not nothing down).
There MUST be some nefarious reason they are promoting this so hard.
(And I don't for a minute believe anything is free!).
Reminds me of FREE covid shots that I didn't get either!
Click to expand...
I think they are free because you will never own them, they are leased and when attached to your house they become a "keep up you lease (pay us $149/mo for life) or well foreclose on your house" Thats how someone explained it to me. I asked if I could install them in my back yard on a raised frame like the panels over the school parking lots and they said no, Has to be on the roof...wonder why...
Long Beach convention center used to have thousands on the roof. All taken off now. The Alcatraz ferry has a few token solar panels and a small turbine on its roof. I was reading the little "going green" blurb in the seating area and it is used to power...THE 8 EXIT LIGHTS! That's all the juice they can muster. F it, subsidize the panels themselves and allow us to install them on our own roofs and own the whole system, not off this credit to these lease companies and give us a paltry tax credit at the end of the year. The local power company still want a piece of your panel energy, legislating that the controller must be tied into the grid so they can still monitor your energy consumption. They have powerful lobbyists that will not allow an entire town to thumb their nose at the local power company and make them lose money. Heck they got pensions they have to pay!
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
jos51700 said:
So I saw an article on CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/02/us/solar-babcock-ranch-florida-hurricane-ian-climate/index.html), discussing a town in Florida that didn't lose power during Hurricane Ian. Why? They have a huge solar array. From the article:
View attachment 1715993003

Now, this town has 700,000 panels, and 2000 people (according to the article) and has "more power than the town needs" but how much more is not stated. That means that each person needs up to 350 panels (size not given). This says nothing of the supporting infrastructure, batteries, etc., and says that some of the towns' residents use electric cars and add their own solar panels to their homes.

From Google Maps, I took the following screenshot, which looks like their solar array is covering a couple square miles or more. So, that means we're looking at the neighborhood of a square mile of panels per 1000 people. Further, five miles to the east is ANOTHER huge array of solar panels. How much goes to Babcock Ranch specifically isn't discussed.

View attachment 1715993006

Edit, Here's a more accurate photo of the town proper and their own, dedicated, solar array. Take out the lakes and you'll see the point to follow:

View attachment 1715993007

For the comparison:
My town is 8,000 people in the town, proper, and covers 8 square miles, which actually makes math; 1000 people/sq mile. We're fairly compact, and there's not really any sprawl. Therefore, a square mile of panels per thousand people means we'd need EIGHT square miles of solar array to keep us in power. One square mile of solar array per square mile of town. Does that sound do-able?

This is factoring that Babcock Ranch Florida is NOT 100% EV, and I'll assume not 100% E-everything else.

And what isn't on those eight square miles of solar array? Trees, shrubs, and barely even grass. These folks don't seem to remember what happens when you strip all the vegetation off the earth...

This isn't Phoenix where nothing grows and the sun shines 24-7. This is in the tropics, home of clouds, rain, and vegetation, that same vegetation that eats carbon dioxide and ***** out nice, clean oxygen for zero power outlay. For reference, an acre of trees absorbs on average: 10 TONS of CO2 per year.




For the irony: Let's burn some fossil fuels for this hot air balloon, as taken from Babcock Ranch's website:

View attachment 1715993004
Click to expand...

Diablo canyon nuclear plant sits on 1.6sq miles, for reference, and supplies enough power for over 3 million people.

Solar panels suck in wind, they're giant sails. That town just got lucky (this time).
 
The bigger problem is the poles carrying the power to your house. Usually storms knock down trees that knock down power lines and you still can't charge your Tesla.
 
tonysrt said:
The bigger problem is the poles carrying the power to your house. Usually storms knock down trees that knock down power lines and you still can't charge your Tesla.
Click to expand...
Well that is pretty much common to ALL power systems, unless you are "off grid"
 
Phreakish said:
Diablo canyon nuclear plant sits on 1.6sq miles, for reference, and supplies enough power for over 3 million people.

Solar panels suck in wind, they're giant sails. That town just got lucky (this time).
Click to expand...
Nuclear is the most expensive KW from start to finish. Let alone the political and environmental risks associated with that technology.

The problem with solar today is cost of initial installation. Solar requires high labor cost which is of course not ideal for big business investments. Future generations of solar that utilize a far wider spectrum of light than today's will drive the KW/hr far higher. Thus making solar just too attractive.

It's going to win the future of energy production and delivery. Just FAR too much solar energy hitting the planet every second to ignore. But to get the R/D needed to develop. We need to help with incentives to deploy what is available today.
 
cojohnso said:
Nuclear is the most expensive KW from start to finish. Let alone the political and environmental risks associated with that technology.

The problem with solar today is cost of initial installation. Solar requires high labor cost which is of course not ideal for big business investments. Future generations of solar that utilize a far wider spectrum of light than today's will drive the KW/hr far higher. Thus making solar just too attractive.

It's going to win the future of energy production and delivery. Just FAR too much solar energy hitting the planet every second to ignore. But to get the R/D needed to develop. We need to help with incentives to deploy what is available today.
Click to expand...

Depends how you look at it. Nukes have killed fewer people than wind turbines, to date.

The high costs are also driven by lots of outside factors and the never ending litigation from nimbys.
 
I thought I'd log in and share some insight, since someone asked about how they're made.

Back in 2011 I spent a few months in a plant that was started to make solar panels. I was absolutely shocked (no pun intended) to see what it takes to make these things. They were depalletized as individual sheets of glass by a robot, cleaned, inspected, laser etched with a serial number, then they went through a pair of massive sputtering machines. One applied (as I recall) molybdenum sulfide and another one which put on something else (sorry, I don't remember what the second machine did) but I do recall the one machine having ducting that went up to multiple scrubbers on the roof of the building because the exhaust from it was so toxic they couldn’t just vent it to the outside.

Next the panels were loaded into crystal racks (I was told these things were like $20,000 a piece) where they were taken by an AGV and put into gas chambers. I don’t know what the gas was, but a component of it was Hydrogen Sulfide, and there was alarms which would go off numerous times a week to tell you to get out immediately. They’d send people in with air tanks and hand-held detectors to see if it was safe to go back in, so you’d just sit out in the parking lot for about half an hour.

After that they’d get removed from the crystal racks and put into stainless steel racks and sent through a chemical bath. The waste water from this process was so toxic that these special hazmat trailers started popping up in the parking lot because they couldn’t find anyone to take them. First there was one, then two, then three, then four… but they must have eventually found some place to take the stuff because one morning we came in and the trailers were gone.

One of the final steps was a having them go into an oven where they were heated to something like 600 degrees C for hours. The final step was adding the wiring/connector and putting a frame around the panel. I’m sure there’s a few things I missed, but that’s an overview of it. One of the engineers from the plant joked that it would be a miracle if those panels actually produced, over their lifespans, the energy it took to manufacture them. But you know, it’s “green”. Or something.

And by the way, I'm not opposed to solar as a concept, but I think context matters. If you're trying to do some off the grid thing, with a cabin in the mountains, then sure, solar makes a lot of sense. But to start replacing our existing infrastructure with it doesn't make much sense to me. But then I guess not much of anything makes much sense anymore.
 
So, california just deciding that dead solar panels aren't hazardous waste anymore, just because people got tired of having to PAY hazardous waste fees too get rid of them? Not a good idea?
 
Keystone said:
I thought I'd log in and share some insight, since someone asked about how they're made.

Back in 2011 I spent a few months in a plant that was started to make solar panels. I was absolutely shocked (no pun intended) to see what it takes to make these things. They were depalletized as individual sheets of glass by a robot, cleaned, inspected, laser etched with a serial number, then they went through a pair of massive sputtering machines. One applied (as I recall) molybdenum sulfide and another one which put on something else (sorry, I don't remember what the second machine did) but I do recall the one machine having ducting that went up to multiple scrubbers on the roof of the building because the exhaust from it was so toxic they couldn’t just vent it to the outside.

Next the panels were loaded into crystal racks (I was told these things were like $20,000 a piece) where they were taken by an AGV and put into gas chambers. I don’t know what the gas was, but a component of it was Hydrogen Sulfide, and there was alarms which would go off numerous times a week to tell you to get out immediately. They’d send people in with air tanks and hand-held detectors to see if it was safe to go back in, so you’d just sit out in the parking lot for about half an hour.

After that they’d get removed from the crystal racks and put into stainless steel racks and sent through a chemical bath. The waste water from this process was so toxic that these special hazmat trailers started popping up in the parking lot because they couldn’t find anyone to take them. First there was one, then two, then three, then four… but they must have eventually found some place to take the stuff because one morning we came in and the trailers were gone.

One of the final steps was a having them go into an oven where they were heated to something like 600 degrees C for hours. The final step was adding the wiring/connector and putting a frame around the panel. I’m sure there’s a few things I missed, but that’s an overview of it. One of the engineers from the plant joked that it would be a miracle if those panels actually produced, over their lifespans, the energy it took to manufacture them. But you know, it’s “green”. Or something.

And by the way, I'm not opposed to solar as a concept, but I think context matters. If you're trying to do some off the grid thing, with a cabin in the mountains, then sure, solar makes a lot of sense. But to start replacing our existing infrastructure with it doesn't make much sense to me. But then I guess not much of anything makes much sense anymore.
Click to expand...

And this IS one of the issues. Making the panels is toxic as all hell.

And no one seems to care that you have to STORE that power somewhere. And that means batteries. Another highly toxic, environmentally destructive part of the equation.
 
A friend installed a solar system in his house for $20k. Roughly, if he saves $1000/yr it will be a 20 year pay back assuming the system lasts that long. I don't know if the Tesla battery was included in that cost but its life is supposedly around 10-12 years. He is not generating enough power for his own needs every month either. The only way it will make sense is if a) electricity goes up significantly (could happen) or b) there is some catastrophic event and he can live off the grid although heat is from natural gas around here so good luck.
 
Yeh. And states like Idaho are not particularly "grid tie" friendly----(power "buy back" etc)
 
If solar panels are so great, why not mount them on the roof of electric cars to maintain battery charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top