Solar panels not as green as you think

[Into the Night]

Wow. I sure hope you don't give anyone electrical advice.

He is correct.

The cells efficiency is how much of the solar energy it receives is turned into electricity.
The panel rating is how much it can produce in perfect conditions. A panel rated for maximum 140 watts can produce 140 watts but only when it is receiving the roughly maximum 1000 watts of sunlight.

But let's look at your 23.24 watts claim. That means that a 140 watt panel can only produce 24wh which would mean that in 10 hours of sunlight it would only produce 120whs of electricity.

He is describing 140W of sunlight, not 140W of panel capacity.

The average home in the US uses 28.9kwh per day. that would mean the average home would need 240 140watt solar panels to produce enough energy for their daily use. We know that isn't true.

Correct. You actually need more.

The average number of panels a home needs is roughly 20 larger panels . Let's do the math. 140whs per panel times 10 hours of sunlight times 20 panels gives us 28kwhs. So your claim that a 140w panel only produces 23.24 watts is utter nonsense. Of course the actual calculation is much more complex in calculating the amount of production needed to meet that 28kwhs.

The Sun isn't at peak angle for the solar panel for 10 hours. Attempted proof by contrivance.

But then when I pull out my copy of the NEC, I find that 690.8 gives the way to calculate the maximum current and source currents support the fact that the panels can produce 140 watts if rated at 140 watts since the current is calculated using the maximum current is calculated using the short circuit current. Nothing in the code says the output must be adjusted by the efficiency. The code says the cable size needs to be based on the calculated maximum current. There would be no reason for the NEC to require the cable size should be based on 22% of the amperage that could ever be produced.

Irrelevant. Straw man fallacy.

Further the NEC code goes on to say the the disconnect must be able to be switched on and off with a breaker or manually operated switch. This simple disconnect is precisely what I said exists and could easily be turned on or off as a connection to the grid.

No so simple. Synchronization MUST be maintained with the grid. Significant producers must coordinate with the grid dispatcher BEFORE connecting to the grid.

But I can also talk from personal experience. Most panels on residential homes are 320 watts or more such as this one of which I have 24 on my house. https://silfabsolar.com/sla-m-320/. The rated max is 320. The normal rating is 240. On September 29, the panel production varied from .963kwh to 1.24kwh per panel. The lower panels are blocked by trees in the late afternoon so their production is less. The sun was basically up for 12 hours that day. At a roughly 20% efficiency the max any panel could have produced using your method is .768kwh and that is assuming they were getting direct sunlight the entire 12 hours. In reality, the majority of the production is from 9-5 with the panels averaging over 200wh at noon. I have a single switch that can take my system off grid. There is also a built in safety that automatically takes my system off grid if the grid goes down.

This safety is required by the NEC and your electrical company and must completely isolate the solar panel from the power line. An improperly wired transfer switch puts utility workers at risk. They will tend to place shorting jumpers while working on the line anyway, and if you are connected there goes your system! THAT damage is permanent.

What do you think would shut down portions of the array? It would be the inverter which is likely to be a smart device. That means it can sense changes and respond quickly to those changes. Changes in voltage and current can be detected and compensated for. It means the entire system panel shut down because one portion has stopped producing. You can find a ton of videos online of people testing solar panels with parts of the panel blocked to see how it affects production. None of the videos show production for the panel to stop when a portion is completely blocked.

Solar panels must be protected from the weather and the elements, and have a limited lifespan. Sand, snow, ice, rain, debris, bugs and other pests all serve to ruin solar panel installations and the panels themselves.

Panels on rooftops are also dangerous. You can't walk on them, making it difficult to clean off leaves, moss, deal with pests, etc.

You get NO power when the Sun is down. That means NO power for cooking, heating, or even using your computer. You only get something like peak power even possible when the Sun is at an optimal angle to the panel.

 

[Sailor]

Solar panels don't cause oil slicks that kill fish, wildlife, plants, and create crisis like the one in California today.

Oil is nasty, and is making us all sick and ruining our planet and space.

You would have to be totally Trumptarded to not understand or be concerned about this.

Wrong again. No surprise there:

“Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (53 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).”

“Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months by rainwater.”

And this is nothing. Wait until you find out about batteries for things like electric cars. Educate yourself Geeko.

 

[Noking]

Wrong again. No surprise there:

“Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (53 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).”

“Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months by rainwater.”

And this is nothing. Wait until you find out about batteries for things like electric cars. Educate yourself Geeko.

Captain Poopeye the energy expert.

 

[Sailor]

Good it Trumpet. Here it! Now sit.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Wrong again. No surprise there:

“Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (53 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).”

“Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months by rainwater.”

And this is nothing. Wait until you find out about batteries for things like electric cars. Educate yourself Geeko.

When Solar Panels are in production, they cause no toxic waste- You are referring to broken ones or old ones that are defective, and the toxic waste that would come from wrecking them out.

SO the idea is to make them to last a lifetime and install them and forget them. Perhaps America should lead the design and production of them instead of purchasing the sub-standard design of the ones coming from China.

What you have a defeatist attitude- thinking China can make something better than us?

Tell the whole story!

 

[Sailor]

When Solar Panels are in production, they cause no toxic waste- You are referring to broken ones or old ones that are defective, and the toxic waste that would come from wrecking them out.

SO the idea is to make them to last a lifetime and install them and forget them. Perhaps America should lead the design and production of them instead of purchasing the sub-standard design of the ones coming from China.

Tell the whole story!

No. That is when they are "recycled". Once again. Educate yourself dumbfuck.

 

[Micawber]

True, mine are black glass. And they save me a bundle. Thanks for sharing and caring, stupid.

 

[Althea]

The problem with that argument is that solar panels only require energy when they are built. Then they produce power for the next 20-30 years with no emissions.

That is unlike fossil fuels that produce emissions when drilled/mined and then produce emissions when used and then have to be replaced every time they are used with new fossil fuels that produce emissions.

Solar panels - 1 month of emissions when produced.
Fossil fuels - 360 month of emissions.

No one is saying solar panels have no impact. It is just obvious to anyone with a brain that they have less of an impact than fossil fuels.

True. Everything is a trade off. Nat. Gas burns cleanly. But fracking for it is as damaging to the environment as drilling for oil.

 

[Micawber]

True. Everything is a trade off. Nat. Gas burns cleanly. But fracking for it is as damaging to the environment as drilling for oil.

And gas uses tremendous energy in the refinement process and then you have to ship it everywhere, using more.

Burning dinosaurs is not a renewable sustainable plan.

Install solar panels and it rains money.

 

[Sailor]

And gas uses tremendous energy in the refinement process and then you have to ship it everywhere, using more.

Burning dinosaurs is not a renewable sustainable plan.

Install solar panels and it rains money.

Why do you think no one can see right through your bullshit? Not just on this, but everything.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

He is correct.

He is describing 140W of sunlight, not 140W of panel capacity.

Correct. You actually need more.

The Sun isn't at peak angle for the solar panel for 10 hours. Attempted proof by contrivance.

Irrelevant. Straw man fallacy.

No so simple. Synchronization MUST be maintained with the grid. Significant producers must coordinate with the grid dispatcher BEFORE connecting to the grid.

This safety is required by the NEC and your electrical company and must completely isolate the solar panel from the power line. An improperly wired transfer switch puts utility workers at risk. They will tend to place shorting jumpers while working on the line anyway, and if you are connected there goes your system! THAT damage is permanent.


Solar panels must be protected from the weather and the elements, and have a limited lifespan. Sand, snow, ice, rain, debris, bugs and other pests all serve to ruin solar panel installations and the panels themselves.

Panels on rooftops are also dangerous. You can't walk on them, making it difficult to clean off leaves, moss, deal with pests, etc.

You get NO power when the Sun is down. That means NO power for cooking, heating, or even using your computer. You only get something like peak power even possible when the Sun is at an optimal angle to the panel.

Where Poor Richard's math is off is that home solar units only produce when the sun is shining, say about 12 to 14 hours a day. The rest of the time, the home is powered from the grid, not the solar panels. Thus if you use say 30 kwh per day then solar only supplies about 15 kwh--give or take-- of that at a rate of around 2 or 3 kw continuous output. Thus, the array you need is for that 2 to say 5 kw output, not an array for producing an entire day's worth of power which would require an array roughly five (5) times larger.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

When Solar Panels are in production, they cause no toxic waste- You are referring to broken ones or old ones that are defective, and the toxic waste that would come from wrecking them out.

They are difficult to recycle because of the difficulty in separating the various metals and other materials from one and other.

SO the idea is to make them to last a lifetime and install them and forget them. Perhaps America should lead the design and production of them instead of purchasing the sub-standard design of the ones coming from China.

It may be an "idea" but the reality is that PV cells have a lifetime, just like a battery, and will eventually fail. Right now, the best panels will last about 20 to 25 years and that's about the limit for them. Then it's time to buy more.

What you have a defeatist attitude- thinking China can make something better than us?

Solar is stupid. Nuclear backed by natural gas is the way to go.

 

[Lionfish]

When Solar Panels are in production, they cause no toxic waste- You are referring to broken ones or old ones that are defective, and the toxic waste that would come from wrecking them out.

SO the idea is to make them to last a lifetime and install them and forget them. Perhaps America should lead the design and production of them instead of purchasing the sub-standard design of the ones coming from China.

What you have a defeatist attitude- thinking China can make something better than us?

Tell the whole story!

joe biden certainly does

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

He is correct.

He is describing 140W of sunlight, not 140W of panel capacity.

You didn't bother to look at his link, did you? It clearly states the panels are rated for 140w max power which is NOT the sunlight they receive. I suggest you go look at the technical specs on the link he provided before you make such a clearly wrong claim.

Correct. You actually need more.

You need more than 240 solar panels rated for maximum 140w to power a typical home in the US? Now you are just making yourself look really stupid.

The Sun isn't at peak angle for the solar panel for 10 hours. Attempted proof by contrivance.

Since the sun isn't at peak angle for 10 hours it makes the numbers even worse for T.A's argument. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt on his argument to try to max out what could be produced.

Irrelevant. Straw man fallacy.

Leave it to you to argue that the electrical code is irrelevant in a discussion of electricity.

No so simple. Synchronization MUST be maintained with the grid. Significant producers must coordinate with the grid dispatcher BEFORE connecting to the grid.

Irrelevant. The discussion was about disconnecting from the grid in that T.A was arguing that an attempt to instantly disconnect a solar panel would destroy the panel since it isn't designed for an instant off.

This safety is required by the NEC and your electrical company and must completely isolate the solar panel from the power line. An improperly wired transfer switch puts utility workers at risk. They will tend to place shorting jumpers while working on the line anyway, and if you are connected there goes your system! THAT damage is permanent.

So, you are agreeing with me that solar panels can be disconnected quickly from the grid without damaging the panels. Thanks for your support.

Solar panels must be protected from the weather and the elements, and have a limited lifespan. Sand, snow, ice, rain, debris, bugs and other pests all serve to ruin solar panel installations and the panels themselves.

Panels on rooftops are also dangerous. You can't walk on them, making it difficult to clean off leaves, moss, deal with pests, etc.

You might want to check the code for installation before you make your claims. Yes, dust on the panel can reduce the production but for the most part they are glass and have the same qualities as glass. They can be cleaned with water. Leaves blow off quickly in a breeze. Current code requires the ability to access each panel so it mandates distances between groups of panels that allow for that. It's those bugs that eat glass that really can ruin a solar panel, you know, the silicon based life forms that are so common here on Earth.

You get NO power when the Sun is down. That means NO power for cooking, heating, or even using your computer. You only get something like peak power even possible when the Sun is at an optimal angle to the panel.

Yeah? And? Does that mean panels will be destroyed if they are suddenly disconnected from the grid? I never claimed they worked at night. I never claimed the sun was always at optimal angle. All I did was claim that a 140w panel can produce 140w and is not restricted to only producing 28 watts at optimal angle.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Where Poor Richard's math is off is that home solar units only produce when the sun is shining, say about 12 to 14 hours a day. The rest of the time, the home is powered from the grid, not the solar panels.

Unless you have a battery system, yes, your home is powered from the grid when the sun isn't up or if it is cloudy and you aren't producing enough power. My math assumed the array was only producing for 10 hours a day. If you feel my math is off, please provide your math to correct mine.

Thus if you use say 30 kwh per day then solar only supplies about 15 kwh--give or take-- of that at a rate of around 2 or 3 kw continuous output.

Yes. And the other 15kwh is going to the commercial and industrial buildings that need excess power during the day but not at night. You are assuming an array is based on max usage instead of average usage. If the user uses 30kwh per day then the array is sized to be 30kwh per day.

Thus, the array you need is for that 2 to say 5 kw output, not an array for producing an entire day's worth of power which would require an array roughly five (5) times larger.

In your example the array is producing 30kwh for the day. The array owner is using 30kwh for the day. Using 15kwh from the array, sending 15kwh to the grid and receiving 15kwh from the grid. How do you get that the array needs to be 5 times larger? The 30kwh usage and production would be averaged out. Some days the array won't produce 30kwh and some days the user won't need 30kwh so it would be sized up from there to average out over time. The only question is where the excess power goes and where the needed power comes from. But that doesn't really change the way the array is sized.

 

[Nordberg]

A solar panel got busted spilling sunlight all over the place. Who will clean it up?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Thanks for changing the subject since you can't correct my math.

The fact remains that the ROI for solar is about 10 years. Even if the costs of solar panels doubled, the ROI would still be such that they would be cost effective over a 20 year life cycle.

Such an arrogant shit, polysilicon is mostly produced in China using coal and slave labour. I can see why you don't want to address that problem as it's hugely embarrassing.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

For a solar array that runs 10 hours a day and has to produce 30 kwh of power, that array minimally has to be 3 kw in size. 3 kw x 10 hours = 30 kwh. Of course, it really needs to be more like 4 or 5 kw in size due to variations in output. This brings up a second problem with solar. You size for say 5 kw to get the 3 kw like 80% or more of the time, but up to 20% of the time you are producing too much output. Now you need somewhere for that to go...
For residential, that dumping ground is the grid. This problem on a national scale is destroying the German, Polish, French, etc., grid because of Germany's push to use solar. The result is that the Poles and French, in particular, are now working to disconnect from the German grid to make their own grid more stable.

Solar advocates claim that a "smart" grid would fix this problem, but dispatching electricity over really long distances is difficult and often expensive to do. Solar destabilizes large grids. It adds enormous costs in production--like storage, and is horribly inefficient. It's a total loser.

 

[Into the Night]

When Solar Panels are in production, they cause no toxic waste-

Yes they do. Their production requires the use of energy, such as coal fired plants, which YOU consider toxic waste, they are doped with arsenic (poisonous!), phosphorus (poisonous!), gallium (poisonous!) and other toxic chemicals. They are coated with a plastic, made of oil products. Their wiring uses plastic insulation (oil products). Their circuit boards for their control systems use cupric chloride (a metal salt, which you consider toxic), mercury, epoxies, and of course various dyes.

You are referring to broken ones or old ones that are defective, and the toxic waste that would come from wrecking them out.

So you consider discarded panels as 'toxic waste' as well, do you?

SO the idea is to make them to last a lifetime and install them and forget them.

Not possible. Solar panels degrade the moment they are exposed to light. They are also exposed to sand, rain, snow, critters, debris, and just plain physical damage. No solar panel lasts forever. If you fail to maintain them, it only shortens the life span dramatically.

Perhaps America should lead the design and production of them instead of purchasing the sub-standard design of the ones coming from China.

America DID design them. It's not possible to produce them here on a practical scale because of eco-laws passed by DEMOCRATS. Those same laws affect all electronics manufacturing, which is why there is so little of it here in the States.

What you have a defeatist attitude- thinking China can make something better than us?

YOU have a defeatist attitude. Laws made by the people YOU support caused production to go off shore.

Tell the whole story!

I just did. You can squarely blame it on the DEMOCRATS.

 

[Into the Night]

No. That is when they are "recycled". Once again. Educate yourself dumbfuck.

They don't recycle.