52 "kilowatt" solar PV system records a 0.6kw peak power output 12/24/08 (Mass)

[NNadir]

The 52 kilo"watt" solar PV system installed at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art actually displays how much energy it produces online.

Here is the "stats" on the system: http://www.sunviewer.net/portals/MoCA/view_details.html

Data on the output of this system can be accessed here, online: http://www.sunviewer.net/portals/MoCA/

Today, the system peaked at 0.6 kw (about 1% of the "nameplate" capacity) at about 3 p.m., holding that level for what appears to be a few minutes.

The data on this system is available for the entire year.

It is widely reported and generally undisputed - although you never know here at E&E - that a day has 24 hours in it. Thus a 1 kw system operating at 100% capacity utilization will produce 24 kwh.

It follows that a 52 kw system would produce, in theory, 24 X 52 = 1248 kwh of electricity.

In a 31 day month, which reportedly is what May represents, it follows that a 52 kw system of any type would produce 38688 kwh.

Thus one can calculate the capacity utilization (which is the actual energy output stripped of yuppie denial bullshit) by simply dividing the actual energy output by the 100% theoretical peak output.

The data on this system can be produced by monthly output, and we see that the highest month of energy production for this "52 kw" system in 2008 was May when it produced 6493 kwh, or 17% of its nameplate value.

The worst month, not counting December which is still not over (but isn't looking good) was February 2008, when the system produced 1030 kwh or (for the 28 day month) 2.9% of name plate capacity.

For the entire year to date, the system produced 47,322 kwh out of a theoretical capacity of 448,032 kwh (359 days). Thus the capacity utilization of the system is 10.6%.

It is interesting and illustrative to note that one can graph the actual peak power obtained independent of the misleading and frankly fraudulent claims that the system is 52 "kilowatts." At no point in the month of May 2008 did the system peak at 52 kw.

On May 28, 2008 it peaked at 42.253 kw power.

The curve for that day is quite nearly Gaussian. The table of data shows that it produced more than 40 kw of power for a period of 2.5 hours and for the rest of the day was producing less than 40 kw.

On that day the system produced 349.2 kwh out of a theoretical 1248 kwh, or 28.0% of nameplate capacity.

Merry Christmas.

[druidity33]

1. what are you saying?

I think most people that have investigate dsolar panels know that they never really reach "peak" power. Are you trying to dismiss Solar?

Remember this is MA and we have had SERIOUS snow these past few days.... 2 feet here in Western Mass.



I have had more than a couple of people tell me that Solar energy is not "worthwhile" in MA. But i live in a Near Zero Net Energy house, so it must be possible here. Granted i am also employing Solar H2O and other Green technologies to keep eficiency high, but it's still possible with careful planning.

:shrug:

[NNadir]

2. Yes. I am trying to dismiss solar.

It is not a serious strategy for addressing climate change, and the more I look into the external cost of the solar PV systems I see, the more questionable I find the environmental suppositions underlying it.

Basically, I see it as a huge pile of yuppie electronic waste.

In fact, solar PV energy is entirely hype. It doesn't produce the energy required to run servers devoted to saying how great solar electricity is.

The output of solar energy after 50 years of denialist hype is here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

I am not a fan of distributed energy, noting as I do that the world's most widely employed distributed energy device is the automobile.

So now, let's get to the point. You live in Massachusetts. There's snow on the ground everywhere. Solar power PV systems are not working.

How come your on a computer? Aren't you supposed to be living in the dark?

[Warren Stupidity]

3. solar pv works when there is snow on the ground

it is clouds in the sky or snow on your roof that cause issues there. But I agree solar pv still is not a good system, at least not in new england.

Home wind generators can be effective depending on your local wind conditions.

[spag68]

7. solar

First of all Mass has a higher average sun time then most of Germany, about 4. That means that on a yearly basis a system of 3-5kw will produce 12-20kw per day over the course of a year. Solar panels can and do reach 100% efficient work or even more in optimal situations. So explain how all those people over there are making it work? The newest panels are up to 300 watts and when thin film gets out there it will be much better and soon to cost 1$ per watt instead of 4. Stop shoving your collective heads in the ground. This is something that has to be done. Solar thermal and geothermal are needed too. Right now the wind mills are the most efficient, but won't be for long. If we don't start down the non-polluting renewable power source road now it is like giving up again to the corporations. Power on every roof could eliminate many power plants and maybe stop the need to blow up mountains for coal, that is surely a winner, no? To my way of thinking every homeowner that wants solar should be subsidized just like the oil , electric and gas companies are. The new thin film solar is soon to be 1$ a watt. If we devoted exxons 8 billion to solar that would be 8 billion watts. The important thing is to start now.You can keep paying those outrageous utility bills or you could cut them in half or better. and you own the means. Coal is choking us and oil is right behind. These industries screw up our politics along with poisoning us,
I'm trying to understand your motive in trashing this technology which you seem to know so little about. " It is better to be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt", go back to school.

[druidity33]

12. ah yes

let me guess. You are a proponent of NUCLEAR power, no?


As for me living in the dark, maybe you don't know as much about Solar power as you think you do? There is such a thing as a "grid-tied" system. You know, when i generate excess power during the summer it goes to my neighbors...



Picking the power output for ONE DAY after we just had 2 feet of snow is disingenuous... and you know it.

[madokie]

13. AH but his purpose here is to misinform

Have a great Christmas day :hi:

[druidity33]

22. it's ridiculous really

More than once i've read threads by this person that do nothing but extol the benefits of Nuclear energy. Post after post. To the point that (s)he will Denigrate the potential of every other source of energy. It's coming to the point that i question my assumption that they are an apologist. I think this OPoster actually may WORK FOR the Nuclear Industry in some capacity.


How 'bout it NNadir, do you work for Nuclear in some way?


I guess it's the sneering contempt that i feel from NN that is most irritating... i don't know why i bother to even respond.

I'm outta here, Happy Yule to you!

:)

[Systematic Chaos]

17. Your post only proves that your reading comprehension is less than dubious.

<a href="http://failblog.org/2008/12/24/alphabet-puzzle-fail/"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-10417" title="fail-owned-alphabet-puzzle-fail" src="" alt="fail owned pwned pictures"></a><br />see more <a href="http://failblog.org">pwn and owned pictures</a>

[druidity33]

18. yeah, right

Do you even know what you just said?

"Your post only proves that your reading comprehension is less than dubious"

You might want to work on your own syntax there buddy...




As for my reading comprehension, i don't need to work on that. Just because i do not accept what the OP is inferring, does not mean i do not "comprehend" it.


:eyes:

[Systematic Chaos]

20. I know exactly what I just said.

And by the way, the word you wanted is "implying". But of course you already knew that. I'm sure you were just testing me.

Now back to your inability to read through an entire post and grasp its meaning:

Picking the power output for ONE DAY after we just had 2 feet of snow is disingenuous... and you know it.

The OP also talked about the entire year-to-date further down, saying

For the entire year to date, the system produced 47,322 kwh out of a theoretical capacity of 448,032 kwh (359 days). Thus the capacity utilization of the system is 10.6%.

And this, no matter how you slice it, renders the entire system one big, expensive, dipshit emoticon parenthetical fucking joke.

Thanks for playing!

kthxbai :hi:

[druidity33]

23. please explain then

how i managed to generate 78% of my power usage last year with a measly 3.4 KW system if it's such a big fucking joke...


:shrug:


Oh, btw, i live in Massachusetts, right near a disintegrating Nuclear Power plant.


As for inferring vs. implying:

Infer (from Merriam-Webster)

1: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply
2: guess , surmise <your letter…allows me to infer that you are as well as ever — O. W. Holmes †1935>
3 a: to involve as a normal outcome of thought b: to point out : indicate <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him — Shakespeare> <another survey…infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves — H. R. Chellman>
4: suggest , hint <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>intransitive verb: to draw inferences <men…have observed, inferred, and reasoned…to all kinds of results — John Dewey>

So you see, the distinction you are implying exists between the two words is arbitrary. Though you can continue to feel as if you're right if that makes you happy.


:)


Regarding total system output, you know as well as i that it is rare for any power generation system to always (or even regularly) run at full power. I repeat, LOUDLY AND CLEARLY that the assertions being made in this thread that Solar Energy is a "fucking joke" or a waste of time are distortions of the Truth. Solar is not perfect. But it is NOT a waste of time.

[conscious evolution]

46. Actually

the capacity is a lot less than that.
You guys do understand that solar panels only work in the daytime,don't you? And that if you are going to calculate a theoretical output you need to take into account the actual available amount of sunlight to get a correct answer?

[conscious evolution]

45. What do you expect.

Poster also thinks a solar panel produces power for 24 hours a day.That or he is trying to lie with statistics.

[kristopher]

4. Oh my God!!!

I'm sure all of you have heard about the Chernobyl meltdown!!! AND the way the entire eastern seaboard of the US was just barely spared being blanketed in deadly radioactive fallout from Three Mile Island only by the luckiest of freak accidents!!! (These are breathless exclamation marks)

Those claims are the logical equivalent of this pathetic attempt to smear solar. Solar is ONE of several technologies that will act in concert to provide for our energy needs going forward. Just as the present generating mix relies on a healthy mix of energy sources so will the grid of the future. There is no question of the capacity of renewables to meet our requirements, none! Claims to the contrary have the same weight in the scientific community as do the claims that global warming is a hoax.

Poor pitiful little feller, I hope Santy Clause leaves him some good sense in his stocking for Xmas, cause he certainly needs it.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/22/an-introduction-to-the-core-climate-solutions/

[doc03]

6. Oh really, from that experiment I learned that if

I covered my roof with solar panels at as cost of probably $20-30000 I could maybe store up enough power in batteries to run my household a hour or two in an emergency.

[kristopher]

8. If you are making $20k-$30K decisions based on internet chat

You would deserve to lose it. Of course we know that you aren't and that remark contained as much bullshit as the OP.


A smart person would go someplace like this:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/

or this:
http://www.nrel.gov/renewable_resources/

or this:
http://www.azsolarcenter.com/arizona/resourcemaps.html

or this:
http://www.rvsolarshop.com/rv_solar_usa_solar_resource_map.php

or this:
http://www.statesadvancingsolar.org/solar-101/solar-resource-map

or this:
http://howto.altenergystore.com/Solar-Insolation-Map-USA/a44/

or this:
http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/197/map-of-solar-energy-potential-in-united-states/

But definitely NOT here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x180307

As I said before, it is going to take a combination of energy sources going forward, existing nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, wave/tidal/current with a smart grid and lots of storage to tie it all together. That's the fact of the situation and all the snark and idiocy in the world isn't going to change it.

Massachusetts has a huge wind resouce offshore and it is in close proximity to the high demand area of the Bo-Wash corridor. They also have lots of ocean current/wave to tap into. AND we are already seeing the effects of anticipated demand attracting capital into the manufacturing sector for solar with resulting lowering of prices - a trend that will not only continue but accelerate. That means that even a marginal resource base in northern latitudes like Mass. will soon justify the installation of solar.

[Citizen Number 9]

62. One of the benefits of implementing PV

is that you begin to think about how energy can be conserved in the household.

Household use can be tremendously wasteful if there's no thought put into conservation.

Trying to match up a reasonable PV system with household inefficiencies is a good exercise for most people.

[NNadir]

16. Um, Kiddie, do you know how many Chernobyls were represented by the "renewable energy" disaster in

China in 1975?

Don't know?

Couldn't care less?

Don't even know what the disaster was?

Why am I not surprised?

I doubt that the failed solar energy industry will ever get to one exajoule, because 50 years of hype, denial and open fraud have not brought it there, not even in the last 8 years of "world's largest solar PV system" threads, of which we have had hundreds, if not thousands.

However, if it does get there, the toxicity profile is likely to represent several Chernobyls per year.

You won't give a shit, because you're arbitrary and, frankly, rather selective in how you interpret disaster. This is because you, being an anti-nuke, are unable to do simple comparisons of numbers and because you ignore serious effects of energy generation in all places except nuclear. Only nuclear need be perfect in your twisted little imagination, and everything else can kill or destroy at will.

You couldn't give a fuck, for instance about the coal disaster yesterday in Tennesee, just as you don't give a fuck about the destruction of the Big Sandy River, or the two million people who die each year from air pollution, much of it from your biofuels bullshit, just as you don't give a fuck about the strip mining of American soils to satisfy your denial about the impact of your idiot consumerist pick-up trucks.

Nuclear power doesn't need to be perfect to be better than everything else either in terms of economics, reliability, environmental impact or any other criteria. It merely needs to be better than everything else on all of these fronts, which, happily, it is.

[doc03]

5. Boy that blows a lot of BS I see on here that the

technology exists that we could just eliminate all fossil fuels. From those figures the system produced 47322 KWH in one year and last year I used 17069 KWH in my house. Well that looked promising to me it produces enough power to run my house for 2.8 years. Then I click on the link and see the roof on that building and it is like 20 times bigger than my roof. I couldn't fit that many panels in my yard or about ten of my neighbors yards and roofs and what did they cost?. From what I see if we covered the entire USA with solar paels we my be able to go all solar, not practical in my book.

[kristopher]

10. Where did those 17Mwh come from???

You got it from a MIX of sources designed to deliver power around the concept of centralized thermal generation. An equally valid system can be built around the concept of distributed renewable generation.

I'm guessing from your reasoning skills that you might prefer to digest your information from visual representations, so perhaps you would find enlightenment in reviewing this presentation:
Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security
Mark Z. Jacobson
Atmosphere/Energy Program
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
The Energy Seminar, Stanford University
October 1, 2008

Which can be downloaded here at the link beside "October 1, 2008 presentation slides": http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Merry Xmas

[doc03]

14. Barack Obama himself sees renewable energy

providing only 25% of our electricity by 2025. Now with the cost of energy being down research on alternatives will go on the back burner unless the government does it. Take for instance Ford is coming out with a hybrid Fusion to compete with the Camry hybrid but with gas at less than $1.50 a gallon who is going to pay $3500 more for the hybrid? The Chevy Volt sounds good but where are you going to plug it in I don't see any outlets at my employers packing lot and doubt I ever will? I suspect both companies are going to lose money on their experiment when the American people go back to their gas guzzlers. They will if the gas stays low for a while I have faith in the American public always doing the wrong thing.

[doc03]

19. If solar is so great why can't I find even one supplier or

contractor that deals in solar near me? I also see claims wind mills are even better, there is one item missing in my yard, enough wind to turn one. I don't want a 50' tower with a windmill on it in my back yard and I wonder what that would cost? If this technology was available and affordable I think I would know of someone nearby that uses it or someone that sells it. The only building I have seen with solar panels is one on the OSU campus in Columbus.

[Citizen Number 9]

63. You have to care enough to want to do it.

:-)

At $40/bbl for oil, no one seems to care too much.

At $200/bbl, more will care. I guarantee it.

[Citizen Number 9]

64. That's pretty substantial usage. US average is about half that.

Do you have;

Central air?
Electric hot water?
Electric clothes dryer?
Electric range/oven?

[tinrobot]

9. Rain showers today.

One of the shortest days of the year, the sun is low in the sky, and Boston is overcast.

Perfect day to test the maximum power output of a solar system, don't you think?

[kristopher]

11. No, he doesn't.

Go here and click on buoy 44018 and check out the wealth of data provided on offshore wind and current, both at that page and via the links. Satellite wind link shows near shore conditions, they are presently ideal for wind power.
Also available from 44013

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/plot_wind_pres.php?station=44013&uom=E&time_diff=5&time_label=EST


http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/maps/Northeast.shtml

[doc03]

15. Seems to me the Kennedy's were against

any damn wind mills blocking their view, don't they live in that area?

[doc03]

21. I'm reading it right here in Fortune Magazine

Even President Elect Barack Obama's ambitious plan foresees renewables providing just 25% of our electricity by 2025. President Elect Barack Obama is very supportive of clean coal build-out. World energy demand is expected to grow 45% by 2030% and coal is going to see the largest growth of all the fossil fuels. The state of WV is one of only 7 states with a surplus this year, that is because of the worldwide demand for coal.

[druidity33]

24. all those numbers...

You say:


"It is widely reported and generally undisputed - although you never know here at E&E - that a day has 24 hours in it. Thus a 1 kw system operating at 100% capacity utilization will produce 24 kwh.

It follows that a 52 kw system would produce, in theory, 24 X 52 = 1248 kwh of electricity.

In a 31 day month, which reportedly is what May represents, it follows that a 52 kw system of any type would produce 38688 kwh"



So, you do know that Solar Generation is based on sunlight, right? And that most places don't have 24 hours of sunlight a day, right?


:eyes:

[Fledermaus]

25. Gosh, your solar radiation characteristics knowledge is bas as Kristophers.

Although, I think your mistakes maybe intentional.

The sun doesn't shine for 24 hours a day. I don't think anyone really expects solar power to produce at night. I think everybody already knows its intermittent. This image illustrates nicely how intermittent solar can contribute. It produces power when its need the most, during the day.


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/could-the-elect.html

If you want to find out what a PV system is capable of producing during a given month, why don't you use some hard data. http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/PDFs/MA.PDF Yes, the month with the shortest day will have the fewest kwh.

[no limit]

26. 52 killowatts? wow, that's enough for like 20 air conditioners.

assuming of course that you are operating at full power. With your figure at 10% then that's like 2 air conditioners. And exactly how much did this system cost to install?

I'm glad there are others on here against this solar bs, as you know I always enjpy reading your posts.

[doc03]

27. I have been hearing this thing about solar cells for

probably 30 years like it's going to save the world. If it is so good why don't I see any solar panels on houses? Is it cost effective? If it is why don't I see any solar panels on peoples houses? Nearest thing I see to solar power is those yard lights that don't give off enough light to be of any use.
Did you see the size of that roof it's like 300' long, my roof and lot aren't large enough to hold the solar panels it would take to supply my electric needs. What would they cost?

[bananas]

36. Here's a chart of 30 years of solar PV prices

Prices would've dropped much faster if Reagan hadn't cut back on R&D.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Solar/2007_data.htm

[kristopher]

39. Don't you mean "would have" not "wouldn't" nt

[bananas]

40. Yes, fixed it, thanks. nt

[doc03]

43. So by that chart it looks like it cost about $4.00

per watt if the sun was out 24 hours a day. To light a 100 watt light bulb considering it gets dark and the sun isn't out in daylight all the time. I would need to have a PV cell many times more powerfull than that and batteries to store electric to actually run a light bulb 24 hours a day. Looks extremely costly to me maybe $2000. It doesn't look like the cost has reduced that much since 1985 and in the last 10 years nearly flat. How many square feet would a 100 watt PV cover?

[conscious evolution]

47. 100 watt panels

vary in size.
Older panels rated at 100 watts are about 1.5 t0 2 square meters,give or take a few cm.
Todays panels average around 200 watts per panel per square meter.

Everyone keeps talking about laying out 20-30 k for a system.The thing is is you can start small for a couple of grand and expand as you go.
At the land trust behind my house we have a small solar system.It consist of two 85 watt panels,a charge controller and two batterys.It powers a well pump,stage lights,a restroom and grill/kitchen lighting.We are in the process of acquiring two more panels so we can run either stage or kitchen receptacles.
So far we have only spent a couple of grand on the system.And a lot of that expense was because we designed and built the infrastructure with expansion in mind.From this point on the only expense is for the panels themselves.And the prices are dropping.

Oh.We haven't had a power bill in a long time.

[doc03]

54. I will have to re-shingle my roof in the next few years

I may look into putting solar panels on the south side. I looked in the phone book this summer and couldn't find anyone locally that deals in solar. I have a small Cape Cod style home, I quess that's what you would call it, my south facing roof looks like it would be perfect for solar panels if they would be affordable. I could easily handle 20 square meters, so you are saying I could get 4000 watts out of that. That's under perfect conditions I suppose, is there a formula that would give me the true output I could expect in my area?

[conscious evolution]

55. I'm sure there is one

but I don't know it.
As you can imagine there are a lot of variables so there is no one size fits all calculation that I am familar with.

[conscious evolution]

57. Almost forgot something

Many people are starting to run small 12 vdc systems where,instead of an invertor,they are adding power outlets that have cigarette lighter type receptacles instead of the normal 11 vac receptacles.
Anything that can be plugged in in an auto can be used in the home.

[patriotvoice]

31. $709,500 including infrastructure efficiency retrofits

http://www.masstech.org/project_detail.cfm?ProjSeq=135

[kristopher]

37. Is your implication that the solar project was $709K??? please learn basic research

The document you provided has a link under the word "Deliverable(s)" at the bottom. "Deliverables" in copntracting means the product that sill be delivered for the money is specified. What the money bought a 79 page document reporting:

Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art
(Mass MOCA)
North Adams, Massachusetts

Energy Audit
November 2005

Prepared for:
Mass MOCA

Prepared by:
DMI
450 Lexington Street
Newton, MA 02466
[phone]

Introduction and Summary

DMI has been hired by Mass MOCA and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) to
explore opportunities for improved energy efficiency and overall reduction in energy
consumption at the Mass MOCA North Adams Campus. DMI visited the campus on
September 16, 2005 to interview site personnel, tour the facilities, and identify energy efficiency
opportunities. The following table outlines the energy efficiency opportunities considered following completion
of the site visit and review of historical energy consumption data. Each item includes savings
estimates calculated in this analysis, as well as rough implementation cost and payback duration
for each measure. Cost for each measure is estimated based on past experience with similar
measures and data sources such as RS Means. Energy costs of $0.0971 per kWh for electricity
and $0.460 per therm for fuel have been extrapolated from billing data obtained for the facility
during the 2004 fiscal year. Due to recent increases in the cost of energy, actual monetary
savings for each measure may exceed the calculated estimates.

Shaded items are not recommended for implementation at this time due to extended payback
duration. Detailed discussion of each measure is included in the sections that follow. I


...Facility Description

The Mass MOCA is located near the downtown area of North Adams, MA, on the campus of a
former mill manufacturing facility. The physical makeup of the facility is typical of 19th-century
mill construction. Thick masonry walls provide the primary structural support, while interior
timber structures support the floors and walls. Ample fenestration provides light to the interior
of most spaces. Windows have been replaced with updated technology on many parts of the
campus, but for the most part, the exterior of each building has been left largely untouched
during renovations. While the structure is in good standing, it largely appears to have been
minimally insulated beyond the value of the masonry construction itself.

Interior spaces at Mass MOCA have been renovated for a variety of functions. Gallery spaces
populate Building 4 and Building 5. Mass MOCA reception, gift shops, a restaurant,
theater/dance spaces, and administration offices occupy most of Building 10 and Building 11.
Commercial space and other office-type spaces fill out the rest of Buildings 10, 11, 1, 2, 26, and
34, as well as the former R&D facility on Marshall Street. To varying degrees in each building,
some spaces have been left with exposed brick walls, while others have been finished with wall
board.

HVAC systems are relatively up-to-date, given the fairly recent renovation of the existing mill
center into museum and commercial space. Most air handlers, excepting those in Building 4, are
fitted with a single heating/cooling coil. The entire campus is operated in two-pipe mode,
supplying either hot water or chilled water at any given time. Chilled water is provided during
the warm season by a water-cooled centrifugal chiller with a capacity of approximately 300-tons.
An induced-draft cooling tower provides heat rejection. A back-up air cooled chiller provides
additional service as necessary for peak cooling days and periods of heavy swing-season load, as
well as in the theatre spaces when the water-cooled plant has been deactivated. Hot water is
provided during the cold season by eight staged 2000-MBH boilers. Hot water serves perimeter
heating and unit heaters in addition to the hot water coils in the air handlers.

Pumping systems serving the hot and chilled water systems are primarily operated at a single
speed. Valves throughout the campus are a combination of two-way and three-way in operation.
One set of secondary chilled/hot water pumps are powered by variable frequency drives,
programmed to maintain a differential pressure setpoint at a sensor location in the system.

Building 5 contains a hangar-style space that is heated independently of the hot water system by
overhead gas-fired radiant heating.

Many of the lighting systems on campus consist of suspended indirect industrial fixtures. These
exist in many of the common areas and office spaces that have not been otherwise fitted-out by
the tenants. The fixtures appear to be poorly suited for their application in most cases, reflected
off relatively dark ceiling surfaces. Lack of sufficient lighting in some areas has led the
maintenance staff to flip fixtures over, providing ample lighting directly below the fixture but
hindering dispersion.

Page 5
Methodology

DMI visited the Mass MOCA campus on September 16, 2005 to perform a thorough walk-
through of the facility. During that time, interviews of facility personnel were performed, and
data was collected regarding the configuration and operation of the existing systems. DMI also
reviewed historical billing data for the 2004 fiscal year to determine patterns of energy usage and
establish approximate per-unit energy costs for the entire campus.

Data collected during the site visit was use to approximate the energy profile of each system,
including probable load factors, operating ranges, and periods of activation.

Using plan-view drawings of the facility, data was collected for each building to approximate
floor area, roof area, wall area, window area. Block loads were developed for each building by
combining physical building data with solar data, temperature data, and a series of estimations
regarding occupancy and building use.

The many tenants and usage types of various spaces result in a complicated occupancy profile
for the campus as a whole. To simplify calculations regarding operating hours, average
occupancy and system operation was calculated based on known typical operating hours and
floor area for each building in this study. A conservative estimate resulted in an average of 10
occupied hours and 12 necessitated hours of system operation per day, 6 days per week. We
have assumed in this analysis that all systems on campus operate from 8am to 8pm, Mon-Sat.

All calculations for this analysis have been completed in a “bin model” format. Separated for
occupied and unoccupied periods, hours of the year have been separated into 5-degree
temperature bins, with the highest number of hours occurring in the moderate temperature bins
of 55°F to 65°F. Average outside temperature conditions for each bin serve as the basis for
temperature-dependent load and performance calculations within the model.

Unless otherwise noted, each energy efficiency opportunity has been evaluated independently
from implementation of other opportunities. Some measures may have interactive effects that
will enhance or attenuate the savings available from implementation of other measures. ..."



I think you get the drift. Feel free to down load the entire report and see what an exhaustive energy audit looks like.

[patriotvoice]

49. Whoops. Yes, the facilities audit was $709k.

I only read the synopsis, and I didn't notice the listed deliverables. So the actual implementation was probably 10x - 30x more expensive.

[kristopher]

51. Please stop trying to mislead people...

The topic is the solar system and you clearly have no idea what that cost.

[patriotvoice]

52. After further research, I recant my alteration. The cost is $700k.

http://masstech.org/renewableenergy/press/pr_7_5_06_massmoca.html

"The MTC Board of Directors unanimously approved a $700,000 grant from the Renewable Energy Trust for a new 50 kilowatt solar installation, energy efficiency equipment and an interactive display to educate visitors about the benefits of clean energy."

If you wish to suggest a different cost, provide contradictory evidence.

[kristopher]

53. Of course you do, you want to mislead...

At the link "Final feasibility study" is the only document available on work done. You'll note that the solar component isn't included.


Introduction and Summary..........................................................................................................3
Facility Description.....................................................................................................................4
Methodology...............................................................................................................................5
Energy Efficiency Opportunities.................................................................................................6
Improved System Scheduling..................................................................................................6
Variable Speed Cooling Tower Fan.........................................................................................7
Condenser Water Relief..........................................................................................................8
Variable Speed Pumps............................................................................................................9
Enthalpy Economizer............................................................................................................10
Reduced Outside Air Ventilation...........................................................................................11
Reduced Speed Constant-Volume Fan Operation..................................................................12
Unoccupied Temperature Setback (SB).................................................................................13
Improved Building Shell.......................................................................................................14
Improved Lighting................................................................................................................15
Daylight Dimming and Occupancy Sensors...........................................................................16



You have no idea what the price of the solar power system was.

[patriotvoice]

56. The press release very clearly states the $709k included the installation.

Is the press release lying? Additionally, an energy improvement feasibility study would not include the cost of the PV system, as that study relates to the efficiency of the facility, not the input.

I have an email into the project manager to get a specific price point for the PV system.

[kristopher]

58. ...

"an energy improvement feasibility study would not include the cost of the PV system, as that study relates to the efficiency of the facility"
Exactly my point.

"I have an email into the project manager to get a specific price point for the PV system."
So do I.



Then we will have an answer.

[patriotvoice]

60. We have an answer: $392k.

From the MASS MoCA project manager:
"The entire installed cost of the PV array, including nominal internal project management expenses, came in at $391,560. As the final array capacity ended up at 51.6kW, we completed the project for an installed cost of $7.53/watt."

"We installed 96 Schott ASE-300 panels (2.4 sq/m) and 132 Evergreen ES-180 (1.5 sq/m) panels which have a total surface area of approx 428 sq/m."

[conscious evolution]

69. With the panels themselves

costing around $220k,at retail prices.Bulk purchasing probably knocks that down to around $180k.
With labor and other materials $390K is not that bad a price.It may seem high but you have to remember that this is considered a 'industrial' installation.Industrial construction always cost more than residential construction due to higher material and labor costs.
If one was installing a home system the panels would cost around the same but the labor and other materials needed would be dramaticly lower.

[conscious evolution]

66. The cost is probably buried in there somewhere

However,that $709k figure also covers a lot of stuff that has nothing or very little to do with the pv equipment and installation.
The new cooling tower alone probably ate up half of the money.If not more.

[patriotvoice]

67. Yes, I should have stated "no more than $709k, pending verification" then actually verified.

Per other messages in this thread, the cost was around $392k for the PV system.

[conscious evolution]

68. I saw that reading further on.

Seems kinda high.Should be easy to crunch it though.Let me get back.

[donco]

28. Man, I’m sure glad I

got that lump of coal in the sock last night.:rofl:

[bahrbearian]

29. Someone better inform FEDEX,

They seem to think that its working for them, they plan to install panels on all their building world wide.

http://about.van.fedex.com/corporate_responsibility/the_environment/alternative_energy/solar_power

FedEx Unveils California's Largest Corporate Solar-Power Installation
MEMPHIS, Tenn.—Aug. 9, 2005—FedEx Corp. (NYSE:FDX) threw the switch today to activate California's largest corporate solar-power installation during a dedication ceremony at its hub at Oakland International Airport.

The solar-power installation will fuel 80 percent of the hub facility's energy needs, substituting the sun for fossil fuel and other sources of electricity. At peak output, the system will produce the equivalent of power used by more than 900 homes during the daytime. In addition to generating electricity, the solar panels help insulate the buildings, reducing heating and cooling costs.

"The solar-electric system at our Oakland hub powers one of our major FedEx Express hubs, which handles more than 260,000 packages daily and serves as a major gateway for shipments to and from Asia," said Mitch Jackson, managing director, corporate and international environmental programs, FedEx Express. "This is one more example of how FedEx implements innovative yet practical solutions that are good for business and the environment."

The system will reduce demand on the utility grid and will serve as an additional source of power capacity to benefit businesses and residents of California. During periods when the energy generated by the system is greater than is needed to power the facility, the surplus energy will be transferred into the utility grid for general use.

Berkeley-based PowerLight Corporation, a leading manufacturer and supplier of large-scale solar electric systems and energy efficiency services designed and built the system.

To power the facility, FedEx Express flew more than 300,000 Sharp solar cells from Japan to a Sharp facility in Memphis, where they were installed into 5,769 photovoltaic modules that convert sunlight directly into electricity. The 904-kilowatt system encompasses virtually the entire 81,000 square foot area of roof across the facility's two buildings.

The solar project is one of many environmental initiatives FedEx has rolled out in recent years. In 2000, FedEx Express became the first company to make a long-term commitment to introduce hybrid-electric delivery trucks into the market. The vehicles were developed in partnership with Environmental Defense and Eaton Corporation. Today, there are more than 18 FedEx Express hybrid-electric vehicles in operation in neighborhoods across America, the largest hybrid-powered courier vehicle fleet in the United States. FedEx recently announced plans to place an additional 75 hybrid vehicles into service in the next year. FedEx Kinko's initiatives include energy conservation, buying renewable power, using and promoting the sale of recycled products, and minimizing and recycling waste.

[patriotvoice]

30. Figures that require a little less hand waving.

MMCA is at about the same latitude as Albany, NY: 42d40m N (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001796.html)
May 2008 comprises Julian days 122-152, inclusive (http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/leap.html)
Given those, the average amount of sunlight per day is about 13h30m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length)

Your assumption of 24 hours of input for May is about 44% too high: (24h - 13.5h)/24h.

Similarly, February 2008 comprises Julian days 32-60, inclusive, the average amount of sunlight is about 11h30m, and your assumption of 24 hours is about 52% too high.

Additionally, according to the trust who funded the work, the generator is 50kW, not 52kW (http://www.masstech.org/project_detail.cfm?ProjSeq=135)

Therefore:

May capacity: 50kW * 13.5h * 31 ~= 20925 kWh
Feb capacity: 50kW * 11.5h * 29 ~= 16675 kWh

and

May utilization: 6493 kWh (generated) / 20925 kWh (capacity) ~= 31.0%
Feb utilization: 1030 kWh (generated) / 16675 kWh (capacity) ~= 6.18%

I will point out that these numbers are neither precise nor accurate. I am eyeballing latitude and length of day figures and not considering adverse weather effects.

However, given the MMoCA latitude, and the fact that they didn't install trackers to maintain full ray incidence, these numbers are typical of a very good solar PV system: (31.0% + 6.18%)/2 = 18.6% average utilization. The best systems today yield only a 20% efficiency.

From a purely technical standpoint, it's hard to argue value of solar over other more efficient generators. On the other hand, it is narrow-minded, and ultimately futile, to make a value argue on technical merits alone.


On edit:
Changed link to Julian Day vs. Latitude graph, as forum was botching wiki URL containing a colon.

[NNadir]

32. Bullshit. Solar cells are SOLD as if they are equivalent to other power plants.

We have, here on this site, people who claim that solar is as alternative to dangerous coal.

People don't rate coal plants based on weather, sunlight or any other term.

An honest statement of solar's capacity would state its potential not as "peak" power, but average power over a 24 hour period in the region it is sold.

They are NOT sold this way. They are sold as if they operated on Tropic of Cancer on June 21 affixed to little rails that race around the earth.

I knew, and stated in the OP that someone might argue whether a day is 24 hours. I am hardly disappointed.

I noted on another website, that solar cells operating at 10% of capacity utilization would need to operate for 50 years for payback of their toxicity limits:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/6/43625/01704

Solar cells don't become non-toxic when they're covered with ice.

[patriotvoice]

33. Caveat Emptor.

People aren't making these infrastructure improvements for the science (including efficiency and toxicity) behind them. They're making them for the perception, the image enhancement such an investment provides.

We've never had large-scale, manufactured, distributed power plants in the history of humankind. Right now, we're in the snake oil phase, before the great cataclysm when truth in marketing laws take effect. Most likely, the cataclysm for solar PV will be as that for asbestos. Future generations will be horrified we produced and willfully used the arrays on such a large scale.

If you're going to take the position (with which I agree) that these should be marketed based on average output for the given region, then your own argument must include that kind of analysis. Such an analysis shows this installation is functioning at the technical level I would expect. Was the $709k worth that investment? In my opinion, no. In my opinion, a Dyson ice pond (google: dyson infinite in all directions) for HVAC and, perhaps, incidental power would have been a better investment for their region.


On edit:
The automobile is a distributed power plant, but for my purposes in the above paragraph I mean power plants that connect to and augment the grid, offsetting or entirely providing the capacity needs for a particular facility.

[kristopher]

38. You need to verify what that $709K bought....

I don't even think the solar installation was part of it.

[patriotvoice]

50. You are right: the audit alone was $709k. See message #49 in this thread. EOM

[Fledermaus]

35. Dang, little rails that race around the earth!

I don't think anybody sells solar panels like that.

I don't think there is a single solar manufacture that claims their panel can make power at night. Everyone understands that solar is intermittent.

Labeling power plants, solar or otherwise, by their peak power output is common and necessary. Everybody does it.

[jpak]

48. Horseshit - they are sold as *solar* panels that operate under sunlight - any fool can see this

There are engineering standards for rating the output of PV panels. Their peak output is measured using solar simulators (full solar spectrum xenon lamps) and they are guaranteed to produce 80% of their rated capacity after 20-25 years of service.

but apparently some are under the DELUSION that PV systems produce electricity at night.

Linking to some delusional sick fuck whack job nonsense posted by some sick fuck obsessive compulsive sociopath on Kos????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bananas]

34. 8 "gigawatt" nuclear system records a 0.0gw peak power output for 2008

and it had a very variable power output before it was hit by an impossible earthquake.
The site had been carefully evaluated - an earthquake that large couldn't possibly happen there.
But it did happen - and it took out seven reactors.
If the quake was a little larger, those reactors would've cracked open like a carton of eggs.



0.0% of nameplate capacity.

Merry Christmas.

[kristopher]

41. That can't happen here

As this intercepted memo from Dick Cheney to the Sec. of Energy proves:
Under Grand Leader George W. Bush's perfected Republican ideomanagement and our great father-leader Ronald Reagan's perfected Republican ideoeconomics, the proper management of such minor threats has been shown to increase operations to 112% of maximum capacity. The statistical evidence establishes that the profit is enhanced by reevaluating risk and lowering the probability of occurrence of total failure as zero until such failure actually occurs, thus avoiding costly down time that is used by anarchist leftist socialists earth hating environmental racist illiterates in making frivolous claims regarding nuclear safety.

This strategy pays off both in the short term by enhancing immediate profits through higher productivity and lowered costs, but also in the long term through no-bid contract rebuilding funded fully by taxpayer and ratepayer advance contributions.

Ramp 'em up 'til they rattle!

Dick

[Gregorian]

42. I agree that PV systems are somewhat misleading. But so is your post.

And I don't mean that to be taken personally. That was a lousy, if not the very worst day's data. The 0.6kw peak power, that is. I think we're both on the same side of the fence here. We both realize we're in deep trouble. Furthermore, I'm cutting the trees as we speak, to make way for the local power company lines. If photovoltaic and battery technology were good enough I wouldn't be paying a ton of money to bring wires for power on to my property.

However, take today for example- the data on that "52 Kw" system peaked at around 16 KW. I agree that 0.6 KWatts did indeed happen. Clouds, no doubt.

This system is sufficient for powering a big house, without tying to the grid.

The problem is, and you know it, that's a lot of stuff for just one house. Or is it? This is where amortization comes in. Given the lifetime of a system like this, we are better off than being tied to a coal fired grid. And I would bet any power system grid.

We're addressing limits here. It's time to look things over, and decide if we really need, or can, continue living our present lifestyle. Maybe cloudy days are something we're going to have to live with.

[jpak]

44. What a stupid post - check out the data for june 25, 2008

http://www.sunviewer.net/cgi-bin/viewdata.cgi

and gee - December is the month with the lowest number of hours of sunlight and lowest zenith angle

http://www.sunviewer.net/cgi-bin/viewdata.cgi

Cherry pickin' solar haters can STFU

[kristopher]

59. Actual cost of system

Received this email in response to query directed to project administrator:

The entire installed cost of MASS MoCA's PV array, including nominal
internal project management expenses, came in at $391,560. As the final
array capacity ended up at 51.6kW, we completed the project for an
impressive installed cost of $7.53/watt.

Best,

Eric

Eric Kerns . Manager, Foundation & Corporate Grants
MASS MoCA . 1040 MASS MoCA Way . North Adams, MA 01247
413-664-4481 x8128

[patriotvoice]

61. In addition: 428 sq. m. of panel

Also from Mr. Kerns, in a separate query I sent:
"We installed 96 Schott ASE-300 panels (2.4 sq/m) and 132 Evergreen ES-180 (1.5 sq/m) panels which have a total surface area of approx 428 sq/m."

[Javaman]

65. And yet there is this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x178401

(to which nnadir never commented on)

Wind, Water And Sun Beat Biofuels, Nuclear And Coal For Clean Energy

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/0812101719...

ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2008) — The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

And "clean coal," which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.

Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options.

The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar (the use of mirrors to heat a fluid), geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels), wave and hydroelectric. He recommends against nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science but is available online now. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford.