Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After a little more investigation, I discovered that these guys are using the same panels and are leasing grid-tied systems: SolarLease Calculator
"A solar power station is customized for your home, so lease terms vary based on system size, government rebates and local utility rates. $0 due upon lease signing. No security deposit required. A lease for a 4.0kW system starts at $125 per month for 15 years, on approved credit."
Figuring 6 hrs/day direct sun (avg for NM), a 4KW system would produce 4000*6*365/12 = 730 kw-hr/mo. They are charging at least $125/mo so the equivalent of 17.1 cents/kw-hr. That is apparently for the place in the country with the highest government rebates... don't know what those are in NM.
Just read an article on these new power plants in CO and NM. The one for SE CO was orginally going to be a coal fired plant. In addition to local protests, the final decision to go with wind turbine was dictated by water usage. Similar situation for the NE NM plant which is going to be solar.
Point of the article was that the western states with long term drought problems and lack of water will not have coal or nuclear plants which require large amounts of water usage. At least that is what I remember from the article. Could be wrong on some of the details.
> ... solar panels have to be cleaned very frequently with clean water. No?
Energy output decrease by as much as 25% after a few months of dirt
build‐up. As GregW pointed out, real-world operations will give us data
on cost-of-cleaning vs. keeping power output optimized. Dirt build-up
isn't linear. At first, particles don't have much to adhere to, but as dirt
builds-up, each additional particle has other particles that it can attach to.
In any case, a once-a-week cleaning (which is probably too frequent)
would use far less water than thermal conversion using coal/gas/nuclear/solar.
rruff further added:
> 5 hrs year round is about it. ... Cloud cover ...
You are still assuming zero for the other 12 hours of daylight.
All you need is photons hitting the panel, so even on cloudy days,
there is power output.
I also stll don't buy the assertion that there is only 5 hours of sunlight
hitting the roof of my house on an average day. I'm not saying you're
wrong, I'm just saying, I'd be willing to bet against that and I'm not a
betting boy.
> ... tracking systems cost more than adding panels.
No way. You don't have to track the sun to a high degree of accuracy.
As long as you are within 25% of perpendicular, you're still getting 90%
of what you get at true 90 deg.
In any case, a once-a-week cleaning (which is probably too frequent)
would use far less water than thermal conversion using coal/gas/nuclear/solar.
I agree... not a lot of water there. Some guy with a window washer kit, or maybe a more automated system.
Quote:
rruff further added:
> 5 hrs year round is about it. ... Cloud cover ...
You are still assuming zero for the other 12 hours of daylight.
All you need is photons hitting the panel, so even on cloudy days,
there is power output.
I also stll don't buy the assertion that there is only 5 hours of sunlight
hitting the roof of my house on an average day. I'm not saying you're
wrong, I'm just saying, I'd be willing to bet against that and I'm not a
betting boy.
Solar panels put out next to nothing when it is cloudy.
Note that I used 6 hrs above... but I was being generous.
State Energy Alternatives: Alternative Energy Resources in New Mexico (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/resources_nm.cfm - broken link)
For most of NM it is 6-6.5 W-hrs/m^2 per day. Very clear high altitude sun is ~1.0 W/m^2. So there is 6-6.5 hrs of equivalent perpendicular sun per day on avg.
Plus the panels are rated based on absolute best case scenarios regarding temperature and voltage, cleanliness, etc. The rated output is not something you would ever see in practice... so you need to account for these things somewhere.
Quote:
> ... tracking systems cost more than adding panels.
No way. You don't have to track the sun to a high degree of accuracy.
As long as you are within 25% of perpendicular, you're still getting 90%
of what you get at true 90 deg.
Tracking systems (motors, gears, pivots, structure, etc) cost more than adding panels... this was true even when the panels were expensive, and it is certainly true now that the panels are cheap.
From today's Sun News. What a great investment in the future:
"Las Cruces will be the first public school district in New Mexico to generate almost 50 percent of its energy from the sun by next school school year."
Signet failed to get the loan they needed from the DOE.
Thanks for the update, but you're almost 2 years late.
Besides, after the pitchforks and torches came out after the DOE's last loan scandal, I don't think you can blame the DOE for rejecting someone for public money.
It looks like Hatch had more luck getting a solar project off (or on) the ground. I happened to drive by this place last week. I must say, Hatch looked more bustling than I remembered it, in its own little way:
The article is from last March, so this project is already online.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LCPS is Going Solar
