COMMENT 279063P
|
2012-05-11 09:45 PM |
|
So, the numbers don't make sense. The article says 4,500 panels generate 1.7 killowatts a year. First off, kilowatts is a power measurement (so power at any time), not an energy measurement. So, I think they meant kilowatt hours. But, we have 24 panels on our house that can generate up to 3.8 kilowatts at mid-day on a sunny day. My guess is they mean 1.7 megawatt hours. When the News-Press ran a story about the start of construction, they had the same issues with their units, so I'm wondering if the county's press releases are the problem here.
|
| |
COMMENT 279063P
|
2012-05-11 09:51 PM |
|
OK, I went to the county website to get the units. It says "the project will generate over 1.7 million kWh of electricity per year." That kWh means kilowatt hours and the "million" that KCOY left out is kind of crucial. The link is http://www.countyofsb.org//uploadedFiles/ceo/press_releases/2012/Press%20Release%20-%20Calle%20Real%20Solar%205.9.12.pdf
|
| |
COMMENT 279108
|
2012-05-12 08:31 AM |
|
More of the green cost saving myth. Typical purchase, construction and maintenance costs take 10 years before any real energy cost savings occur, because any "free energy" savings have to be plowed back into the large installation costs. No one knows yet how these panel and systems will hold up in our marine, salt air environment. Just look at the Chromatic Gate to see what salt air does to even the simplest outdoor structures. Be sure someone remembers 10 years from now to add up the real costs of this "green energy" savings. Which also includes the total "carbon footprint" savings from manufacturing these panels to their ultimate "free energy" usage. Additionally, be sure to measure what additional electrical demands might also be tacked on to the original institutional energy needs of the county as of today since it now has "free energy".
|
| |
COMMENT 279139
|
2012-05-12 10:03 AM |
|
These stats only work if the array is outfitted with sun trackers and recieve 6 hours of direct sunlight 365 days a year. Highly unlikely :( 4,500panels x 200watts = 900,000watts or 900 kwh
900 kwh x 6hours = 5,400 kwh/day
5,400 kwh/day x 365days = 1,971,000 kwh
|
| |
COMMENT 279146
|
2012-05-12 10:15 AM |
|
108- Nobody knows? It isn't difficult to get a general idea of how certain structures will last in a slightly moist salty air. You forget that we do construct buildings, drive cars, ride bikes, etc in this environment every single day. I don't see why a solar panel has to be some special case. Yes, the solar panels do require a level of energy to manufacture, but do you really think it even comes close to the amount of energy used for transit or manufacturing every other day of the week? In contrast to pure loss, it actually recovers something. The technology may not be 100% reliable or efficient yet, but completely discounting it does nothing but stop the process of advancement. If everyone had that attitude, people would just give up on generating useful ideas all together.
|
| |
COMMENT 279167
|
2012-05-12 11:04 AM |
|
I don't know if anyone else has seen these from the freeway, but I personally think they are a massive eyesore. The installation of the array looks haphazard (crooked) from below. Perhaps it is due to the topography but I feel pretty confident that if a private citizen wanted to put this on their acreage with the same visible footprint, the county would deny it.
|
| |
COMMENT 279177
|
2012-05-12 11:19 AM |
|
167 - I totally agree. It looks terrible from the freeway. I am all for green energy, but keep the solar panels hidden from view.
|
| |
COMMENT 279195
|
2012-05-12 11:41 AM |
|
more subsidies !
|
| |
COMMENT 279204
|
2012-05-12 11:55 AM |
|
Mind blowing when people are against such a great thing. So starting to save $$$ in 10 years is a bad thing? Having energy come from the sun instead of coal is a bad thing? My parents have solar panels installed 5 years ago. There loan is offset by the 150 or so dollars they don't pay to SCE. When power goes out and there is a big Laker game on it' s party time at Dads! Your right let's just keep paying SCE who gets subsidies and tax breaks to the tune of BILLIONS a year.
|
| |
COMMENT 279208P
|
2012-05-12 12:03 PM |
|
The National Park Service's ranger and researcher housing on five of the Channel Islands as well as the Anacapa Island Lighthouse have been solar powered since the early 1980's - in some cases more than twenty years of blowing salt air fog. Countless gallons of expensive diesel fuel have been saved, with very little systems maintenance required. If they can work there, they can work in Santa Barbara just fine.
|
| |
COMMENT 279222
|
2012-05-12 12:56 PM |
|
@ 279204 Right wingers think of these things in terms of teams ... anything "liberals" are for, they are against ... which makes them against almost all good and sound policy and moral action.
|
| |
COMMENT 279108
|
2012-05-12 01:31 PM |
|
Every year we pay someone $150 dollars to climb up on the roof to clean the panels and make sure systems are working - sometime the box chokes up and stops working. There goes our "savings". Plus what about now making us pay income tax on the extra electricity we end up "selling back" to SCE when the sun finally cranks out more than we need. Fact or fiction? At least they are hidden, but have substantial doubts they were worth it. Everything I read about the production of solar panels makes nuclear look more and more like the saner, overall energy generation model. And of course, plain old energy conservation which is best of all.
|
| |
COMMENT 279234
|
2012-05-12 01:39 PM |
|
Hmmmm, it seems like a good idea in theory, but the numbers just dont seem to add up. Also, if they had built homes and gathered property taxes, or rents....would money have been made? It is a lot of hillside that was green space, that now looks terrible....I hope that it turns out the money figures were accurrate....
|
| |
RHS
|
2012-05-12 02:21 PM |
|
108 . You have to decide whether or not you need the "maintenance" of your solar panels. In my opinion, and I have hot water solar on my home, this is a scam by the installers to get bucks out of the customer by making them fearful that the system will not produce if these inspections are not done. Much the same as the "protection" racket that gangs instigated. I have had solar hot water panels on two homes for over 30 years. They work just fine without this service. In fact the best use of solar is to warm water. The "free enterprise system" will always encourage this sort of exploitation. Fight back and "just say no" (or just say wait til next year).
|
| |
COMMENT 279108
|
2012-05-12 03:38 PM |
|
RHS: Uhhhh, there is a big difference between maintenance on solar water heater panels and photo-voltaic panels. Efficiency does decrease as they get clouded with the debris floating around and the years of fire ash. Jumping around on roofs is a young man's game. Solar water heater panels do spring leaks as well. No free ride even from the sun, in fact picking the hottest areas for maximum sun exposure is part of the ongoing problem of maintenance issues.
|
| |
COMMENT 279261P
|
2012-05-12 04:33 PM |
|
The County could have tried to put the panels on roofs first. The covering of open space with these panels sure isn't very green. I built a small house and boy was I put through the wringer by Planning and Development. I know that I as a private individual would never have been allowed to put up a solar farm on private land. What hyprocy!
|
| |
COMMENT 279108
|
2012-05-12 05:01 PM |
|
Is the county going to use goats to keep the weeds down under the panels?
|
| |
COMMENT 279284
|
2012-05-12 08:28 PM |
|
Does anyone know what the start up cost, to install these panels, was? Just curious.
|
| |
