How not to do a solar power project – great moments in solar engineering

Regarding this article, I think I’ve found a simple reason for this failure, and the reason will shock and surprise you.

tampa_solar_taylorIn the article, a news report by TV station WFTS is cited:

WFTS News in Tampa obtained copies of the courthouse’s electricity bills and confirmed the savings are no more than about $2,000 per month. WFTS also confirmed the panels are reducing electricity bills by only 15 to 18 percent, instead of the promised 40 percent.

You can watch the news report here.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, I’ve got one of those. First, look closely at the picture in the news story above…now look at this picture and note the arrow.

tampa_courthouse

I think the government dufuses and the solar company missed the shading from the nearby tall building (the Hillsborough County Center Building), seen in the photo above which you can inspect yourself at Bing Maps here:  http://binged.it/1tqPjnf

It looks like a little over half of the panels would be in the shade during the afternoon based on my comparison to the article photo, a larger version which exists here:

Hillsborough-Solar

Source: http://www.naco.org/newsroom/countynews/Current%20Issue/10-18-10/Pages/OldMainCourthousesolarphotovoltaicproject.aspx

That afternoon shade will kill solar panel efficiency big time. The problem will be greater in the winter, at low sun angles, further reducing the efficiency of solar panels which appear to be placed flat on the roof, rather than tilted for maximum efficiency. In fact if you watch the WFTS i-team video, you’ll see that the panels are in fact laid directly on the roof surface. Here is a screen cap showing workers placing flexible panels flat on the roof:

tampa_solar_flat

The effect of array tilt angle on solar PV energy output may be up to 20% compared to that of flat installations, depending on latitude. Typical rooftop arrays with tilt look like this:

Piscataway-Conackamack[1]

You can read more about tilt angles and panel efficiency here.

But the tilt issue is small compared to the shading issue by the tall building to the Southwest. using Google Earth’s timeline feature, I found an image from Dec 26, 2012 that shows the peak shading near the winter solstice, it also shows the solar panels in place. Clearly, the shadow will cover a significant portion of the solar panels on the roof for a period of time.

tampa_courthouse_GE-shadow-decemberThe next thing that needs to be done is a public records request to get the hourly solar power system output data over the past couple of years, it should be an easy matter then to note when the output drops significantly, and to line that up with sun angles and times.

On a daily basis, you can watch the real-time output page here:

Tampa_solar_RTpageSource: http://www.hillscty419piercepv.com/

Below the big dial gauge, if you choose “select gauge” and the “Interval 2-hour Avgs.” you’ll get a bar graph plot of solar output by hour, though there is no facility for getting anything but today’s data. From my observations, it seems that at this time of year, we get a bigger drop-off in production in the late afternoon than we should, which should be almost symmetrical with the buildup in the morning towards peak insolation. The afternoon production seems to have a larger gap.

It will be interesting to see what the public records request for the hourly solar power output data brings.

Full disclosure: I have a solar power system on my own home.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

198 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yirgach
August 30, 2014 11:46 am

A nice graphic comparing per year per MW costs/benefits of wind, solar, gas, hydro and nuclear against coal baseload generation. Guess which has the greatest benefit? The analysis was “levelised” to include the cost of providing baseload energy for the “alternative” energies.
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20140726_FNC393.png
See also
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/19%20low%20carbon%20future%20wind%20solar%20power%20frank/net%20benefits%20final.pdf
http://economics.mit.edu/files/6317

Reply to  Yirgach
August 30, 2014 12:00 pm

Something that should be removed from all consideration involving cost analysis or ROI of “alternative” energy is any thing to do with emissions/CO2.
Because it doesn’t matter

Reply to  Yirgach
August 30, 2014 12:15 pm

Brookings report is to justify a political policy of no CO2 without cost being added. It appears to have loaded the cost on all forms of power. One might find more useful information in Municipal utility companies like San Antonio, Texas which has huge solar and wind projects but depends on gas, coal and nuclear for 24/7/365 power. http://www.cpsenergy.com/
Also there are some numbers in http://www.energy.gov/ne/office-nuclear-energy

Yirgach
Reply to  profitup10
August 30, 2014 3:46 pm

“Brookings report is to justify a political policy of no CO2 without cost being added. It appears to have loaded the cost on all forms of power. ”
Wrong planet.
Absolutely not what the original paper says.
Just read it , OK?

Reply to  Yirgach
August 30, 2014 4:24 pm

I did read most of it and stopped when I found no individual data included to back up the generalities. If you have some parts that are supported then show them. Brookings is a left of center research Institute. Check their funding.

Yirgach
Reply to  profitup10
August 30, 2014 5:32 pm

Yes, you are correct in that they are trying to justify zero based emissions.
However, they did manage to point out the folly of their ways.
It’s very obvious in the graphic, which BTW, was published in the Economist…

Reply to  Yirgach
August 31, 2014 7:37 am

I read the Economist and have for 30 + years – it has drifted to the far left over the years. I find few articles there now that are factual without a political bend.
E=GREEN supporters [believers] avoid actual full disclosure. They even got Congress to let them hold parts of the government paid research as proprietary when presenting their hypothesis for peer review. Now pray tell how is the peer reviewer suppose to attempt to recreate the findings without all the information.
Thus they started their own Journals and appointed their own peer review scientists. Independent huh? This allowed thousand of papers to apply for government GRANT MONEY. They then claimed a new science – CONSENSUS OF SCIENTISTS – humm maybe they are referring to POLITICAL SCIENTISTS.
There are only two hard science disciplines in political Science – PROCTOLOGY AND SCATOLOGY.

Reply to  Yirgach
August 30, 2014 12:26 pm

there are no “bad” emissions, either way
’cause there is no man made global warming’
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
that leaves?

Greg
Reply to  Yirgach
August 30, 2014 12:57 pm

“The analysis was “levelised” ”
Most propaganda needs to “levelise”. What are the actual costs?

Reply to  Greg
August 30, 2014 1:23 pm

Like normalized in Mann’s hockey stick – take the humps or increases out. Fis the game or game the fix? Close the EPA.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-28th-amendment.html

Yirgach
Reply to  Greg
August 30, 2014 3:44 pm

Read the actual paper and you will find out what that means…

Reply to  Yirgach
August 31, 2014 11:32 am

This graphic above does not consider using reprocessing for nuclear fuel. Reprocessing pusses nuclear far more to the right than gas or anything else.

Billy
Reply to  Yirgach
August 31, 2014 11:16 pm

How can wind and solar have “avoided capacity cost” benefit?
They both need to be backed up 100% with other generation.

Billy
Reply to  Billy
August 31, 2014 11:44 pm

Their analysis is based on comparing capacity factors which is just wrong.
Solar is at zero much of every day and wind can be down at any time.
Neither can replace any dispatchable capacity.
30% non-dispatchable does not replace any part of 90% dispatchable CF.
Thermal plants are down only for planned maitenance.

August 30, 2014 11:51 am

Hey, that’s cute. “Today”, “This Week”, and “This Month” odometers all have the same decimal value on my machine right now. Like at midnight both “Week” and “Month” had summed to exactly x.00.
That’s 1:100 x 1:100 odds, one in ten thousand.
I don’t think this “monitoring” is very honest.

Jimbo
August 30, 2014 11:53 am

I think the government dufuses and the solar company missed the shading from the nearby tall building….

Did they? 😉

techgm
August 30, 2014 12:07 pm

This project was a loser/boondoggle from the get-go. Using their initial savings figures, it would have taken 20 years to get a simple payback, which does not include the cost of the money. If you add in the cost of maintenance, the figures are worse. Further, the output of those panels would diminish over time, even under ideal conditions. Even assuming the original figures were accurate, no sane person would invest his own money in a 20+ year true payoff. Only government – using other peoples’ money – could waste so much, from so many, for so little benefit.

Greg
Reply to  techgm
August 30, 2014 1:01 pm

The cost of the system seems excessive to start with. But most public contracts are much more ‘generous’. Leaves lots of room for kick backs.

Jimbo
August 30, 2014 12:19 pm

Maybe in the UK reality is sinking in at last.

Guardian – 4 August 2014
UK solar firms call for review over early end to subsidies
Scrapping renewable obligation scheme for solar farms is unlawful and will result in job losses, companies say
….Solarcentury, TGC Renewables, Lark Energy and Orta Solar Farms are challenging a decision by the government to end its renewable obligation (RO) scheme for solar farms with a capacity greater than 5 megawatts from April 2015, two years earlier than planned. …..

August 30, 2014 12:31 pm

Shading might be starting, could be clouds moving in. At the 3:27pm EDT “every minute” download, the gauge suddenly jumped from 72% range down to 62% range. Quite impressive drop!

Greg
Reply to  kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 30, 2014 1:11 pm

No, I thinks it’s afternoon roll-off ( cosine of incidence angle ).
High noon is 13:30 EDT around Florida , it’s now about 2.5h past it’s zenith.

August 30, 2014 1:12 pm

as I was saying
solar geysers are fine
solar panels for electric energy are a waste of time

Greg
August 30, 2014 1:18 pm

It’s becoming clear that most of what is displayed is artificial.
It’s only updating about every 15m so I think even twitching of the speedo is a “special effect”.
It probably loads new kWh figure from the server every 15min and animates some garbage to keep us all amused.
Whether that 15m data is synthetic or real remains to be seen.
It reports “mostly cloudy” which sounds like weather forecast for the day rather than a weather report. That’s probably pulled off an on-line weather forecast each morning.
I don’t believe that this system is producing 75% its boilerplate max. under cloud !

Jim Greig
August 30, 2014 1:30 pm

As stupid as that is, it beats the ass-clownery of trying to grow turf on the roof (as they have done on a number of Federal buildings in the DC area)

Sleepalot
Reply to  Jim Greig
August 30, 2014 1:42 pm

Grass is cheap.

Greg
Reply to  Sleepalot
August 30, 2014 1:49 pm

Not round here it isn’t, maybe I should trying growing some on the roof 😉

Matthew R Marler
August 30, 2014 1:32 pm

A few days ago I mentioned that the font was problematical on my computer. It has evidently been changed because it is much easier to read now.
Thank you, Anthony.

Lil Fella from OZ
August 30, 2014 1:50 pm

You never lay solar panels flat! I said never! A greater angle is required in winter months.

Greg
Reply to  Lil Fella from OZ
August 30, 2014 2:45 pm

Never say “never” again! It depends what your requirements are.

Greg
August 30, 2014 1:52 pm

output just got killed 24.5 kW !

August 30, 2014 1:55 pm

4:49pm EDT and down to only 24.5 KWh, about 12%!

Greg
August 30, 2014 2:06 pm

“Late Afternoon: Showers and thunderstorms likely. Partly sunny”
http://www.emergencyemail.org/wx/us/FL/Hillsborough-County.asp
Looks like the storms just hit.

August 30, 2014 2:21 pm

Seems even the Germans are having issues with passive sources?
German Energy Push Runs Into Problems – NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/…/energy…/german-energy-pus...
The New York Times
Mar 19, 2014 – BERLIN — It is Germany’s national goal: to have the bulk of its energy supplied by renewable power sources by 2050, without endangering the …
German Energy Reforms Could Spell Trouble for Small …
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/…/german-e...
Renewable Energy World
Jun 2, 2014 – The problem, says the Merkel government, is that Germany is producing too much renewable energy too fast. In the first quarter of 2014, for …
03 The Money Problem With Germany’s Renewable Energy …
http://www.greentechmedia.com/…/the-money-problem-with-...
Greentech Media
Jun 5, 2014 – As the German government gets ready for a major overhaul of its landmark renewable energy act, the fundamental problem is cost.
Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a …
http://www.spiegel.de › … › Germany › German Energy Revolution
Der Spiegel
Sep 4, 2013 – High Costs and Errors of German Transition to Renewable Energy … with their dire warnings of chaotic supply problems and job losses.
Germany and Energy Issues | The Energy Collective
theenergycollective.com/…/germany-shows-renewable-energy-has-failed…
Feb 4, 2014 – What has been obvious to me for a long time now appears to have become obvious to many others: Germany’s energy policy is a confused …
Policy Network – Energy policy in Germany: Big problems in …
http://www.policy-network.net › Opinion
Policy Network
Mar 27, 2014 – The coalition agreement between the German Social Democrats (SPD) and the Christian Democrats (CDU) has seen SPD leader Sigmar …
GERMANY: Renewable Energy Policy “Complete Failure …
srsroccoreport.com/germany…energy…/germany-death-of-renewable-en…
Apr 28, 2014 – One of the major problems with wind and solar is that the projects … According to the article, Germany’s CO2 And Energy Policy — About To …
Germany is a cautionary tale of how energy polices can harm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk › … › News by Sector › Energy
The Daily Telegraph
Jan 16, 2014 – “For me, the most urgent problem is the design of the energy revolution,” said the German Chancellor in her first television interview after being …
Germany’s Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For …
http://www.forbes.com/…/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary...
Forbes
Mar 14, 2013 – However serious problems are caused when government starts … In fact Merkel has doubled down on Germany’s renewable energy push in …
German Green Energy Bluster Running Out Of Wind – Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/…/german-green-energy-bluster-running-out-of-...
Forbes
Aug 13, 2013 – The German energy industry group BDEW has said that the next government must make energy … The Problems Aren’t Just Blowing Offshore.

August 30, 2014 2:21 pm

5:14PM EDT, jumped up to 94.0 KWh, tachometer showing 50 to 52%!
It says on the page it’s a 196KWh system, 50% would be 98KWh, 94.0KWh would be only 48%. Which somehow is the lower amount of the shaded range, top is 54%.

Greg
Reply to  kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 30, 2014 2:56 pm

Most of the info displayed is bullshit. It is all inconsistent. The two hours I plotted above the total energy was climbing at about 150kW averaged over two hours but the “actual” power reported was hovering around 130-133 kW.
Plotting the rate of change of the daily total box it jumps all over going negative and then producing 5 time the boilerplate max rating.
This “real time data” is BS. There is maybe one real value downloaded every 15min , the rest is made up to pretend to be real time.

stan stendera
August 30, 2014 2:35 pm

The reason for this nonsensical project is simply that greens don’t do science, math and engineering. Their reasoning stops at : It’s green it must be good.

Berényi Péter
August 30, 2014 2:48 pm

Why were those solar panels not installed in the basement? They would be protected from dust that way…

Andrew N
August 30, 2014 3:46 pm

Water for cleaning solar arrays is almost never mentioned. How much water does this require to keep clean? Is rain sufficient? As they are mounted flat against the roof I would say they need manual cleaning.
The Ivanpah Solar plant in the Nevada desert is proud that they only use a little water for the cooling cycle in their thermal system. However they make no mention of the amount of water required to keep their mirrors in prime bird cooking condition.

Greg
Reply to  Andrew N
August 30, 2014 4:50 pm

Flat mounted I’d say there would be some loss if they are not cleaned. Otherwise the fairly frequency Florida rains would be enough.

Jack Smith
August 30, 2014 4:55 pm

First let me point out that I am one of the few (probably less than 10% of the population) that have the right conditions to make this work.
System located at Lon:-97.27 Lat: 32.42
Installed Dec 27, 2011. 25 panels, added 3 identical panels in Jan. 2013 for a total of 28 panels.
Name plate power 6.7 Kw.
No tax credits, grants or subsidies used to buy and install system and only 100% American made products were used.
My actual installed per/watt cost was $3.58 or $24,000 all in.
Average utility charge for 12 month fixed rate billing = 0.102 cents per KWH at time of installation.
Total production through Aug 2014, 27.3 MegaWatts.
Net metering is legal in this location and the system currently has a $340 credit on account
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/pv/public_systems/3Fzt45951
Question: Will this system every payback the original investment* and beat the investment return of a 20 year US treasury bond bought in January 2012 2.67% (ie. the safest investment instrument)?
* Assuming retail electricity rates remain fixed at 0.102/KwH for 20 year life of the system.

RS
Reply to  Jack Smith
August 30, 2014 6:57 pm

Are you assuming your panel output will decline 1% per year from radiation damage?
Are you assuming replacement of your inverter between year 10 and year 15?

Jack Smith
Reply to  RS
August 30, 2014 8:00 pm

I assumed panel degradation so I oversized the system so that after 20 years my system would be producing close to 90-100% of my average 2011 usage. Right now the system is producing 102% of PVWATTS (http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/) rated output thanks to being a ground mounted system with a adjustable tilting system I designed for the main array. I haven’t paid a electric bill for over 2 years. As to the microinverters, I was hoping to get 15 years out of them because they are mounted for optimal air cooling unlike a typical roof mount. 2/3 of the total cost of the system were the modules and inverters and the costs for these items have dropped over 15% since I bought them while the performance and efficiency has increased. Who knows what this stuff will cost in 15-20 years but since it’s electronics I assume Moore’s law will keep the replacement costs less than inflation at least.
So what do you think? Am I going to beat the 20 Tbill rate of return?
If the retail electricity rates ever drop below to 6 cents a KWH there is no way this system will save money.

chris y
Reply to  Jack Smith
August 30, 2014 9:40 pm

$24,000 invested at 2.67% APR over 20 years gives about $24,000*(1+0.0267)^20 = $40,650.
Based on your 27.3 MWh generated over about 970 days, this gives 10.3 MWh per year, or $1050 per year of electricity savings. After 20 years, assuming flat utility rates, no maintenance costs and no panel degradation, your system generates about $21,000 of electricity, and will still not break even. You will have foregone about $19,700 of cash by investing in solar panels rather than T bonds.
Assuming your utility generates electricity with 100% coal at 1 ton CO2/MWhr, your $19,700 of foregone revenue is equivalent to paying to avoid about 206 tons of CO2 emissions, to the tune of about $95/ton CO2.
Just what the EPA wants.
If Obama is successful in necessarily skyrocketing utility rates, then you will have made a wise investment.

u.k.(us)
August 30, 2014 6:57 pm

Damn the consequences (especially when it takes a Google search to spell such a word).
You might expect more sun during drought and less during more humid times.
What does that say about heat capacity ?

August 30, 2014 7:50 pm

10:15pm EDT, “monitor” says panels are making 0.2 KW, Today it has made 0.01 KWh, This Week 0.01 KWh…
Whoops, about 10:18:30 it budged a notch, Today is 0.02 KWh, This Week is 0.02 KWh. Oh, and This Month’s decimal also ticked over, also ends in x.02.
10:21:30, now they’re up to 0.03.
10:24:30, 0.04.
What the…? 10:27:15, got the “downloading” symbol on the tachometer, and the odometers zeroed.
10:30:20, up to 0.01.
10:33:20, up to 0.02.
So deep inside the Flash fake monitor-like thing, it is set with a minimum amount that it displays, increments the odometers based on that minimum amount, but the downloading resets the local accumulated amounts to what the monitoring equipment says.
10:36:24, up to 0.03.
10:39:28, up to 0.04.
10:42:10, download, reset to zero.
Hey, the tachometer just said 2% for a second! Florida must have some very large very strong lightning bugs.

Greg
Reply to  kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 31, 2014 3:18 am

Yep that “monitor” is huge fake. Like Al Gores lab experiment it’s all done with mirrors.
I’m pretty sure it has programmed “noise” element to, to make needle wobble a bit a make it look more “real time”.
I followed it until about 7pm EDT and the only thing that looks mildly credible is the daily total which clearly gets downloaded with some new data every 15 minutes.
The rest is a sham. Pretty good for court house to producing fraudulent information with a faked “real time monitor”.
Good spot with 419. Was that a freudian slip or are they blatantly taking the piss?

Greg
Reply to  kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 31, 2014 7:49 am

From the heartland link: “It is very light-sensitive and can produce energy at low-light levels, including the moon,” said Tanner.
I guess there was strong moon last night 😉

ECK
August 30, 2014 7:55 pm

Hard to beat much of the above. Let me just point out, BOZOS RULE. There’s so much drivel (drool?) out there, it’s depressing.

Keith Minto
August 30, 2014 8:23 pm

Unless maintained, horizontal panels would accumulate dust and salt.