Talk:Solar power

For older archives see Talk:Solar energy.

Why do developers limit their solar power plant capacity?

Even though the higher the installed capacity, the less cost per megawatt, some developers limit their plant capacities to odd values. I am talking about grid-connected feed-in solar photovoltaic power plants.

Other than:

• Limited land area
• Stepped-fixed-costs (legal fee, etc) (ie. First 10MW: $123, above 10MW: $345, etc)

I don't see any other reason to drop down the plant capacity.

Assuming the 10MW stepped-costs are in place, and the land area is more-than-enough for a 10MW plant, are there any other reasons why one would limit their plant capacity to something lower than 10MW? Assuming the power purchaser has no limits in capacity. Does it have anything to do with the project financing? If so, what exactly? Rehman 09:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Project size is selected for the maximum return on investment - the cost per kw doesn't decline forever with increasing size; the interfaces to the transmission grid come in fairly discrete chunks of standard preferred transformer ratings. There's probably also system interconnection issues - the utility may not want a larger plant connected if it causes stability or dispatch problems. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, not quite. Like I said, "assuming the power purchaser has no limits in capacity", and assuming there are no "stepped-fixed-costs" (legal, transformers, etc), are there any other reasons why one would limit the overall plant capacity? Rehman 02:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you were asking a reality-based question. Well, then the ultimate size restriction on a solar power plant's capacity is approximately 368 trillion terawatts, assuming 100% efficient solar cells, solar constant of 1300 watts per square metre at Earth's orbital radius, and free materials and labor. If you want to get more than that, you'll have to include other stars. Caution, the environmental impact statement may take centuries to complete. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm serious ;) The Buruthakanda Solar Park in Sri Lanka is said to be the first commercial-scale solar plant in the country. And from what I see, their "legal limit" is 10MW, before the legal fee skyrocket. And they do have nearly unlimited land area, and have sufficient grid capacity. So I'm just curious, what other factor would lead them to limit their total capacity to less than 2MW? Or simply said, why did that plant, in their conditions, not go for 10MW, when that seems to be the best capacity for them? Rehman 04:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Japanese and Korean governments weren't willing to finance a bigger project? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is not good place to discuss, as this discussion is not realted to the improving the article. Anyway it is related to the project financing, as most of big projects (maybe all) are based on financial incentives and laws regulating them mostly include some size limits. --Jklamo (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This question was lingering in my head since I created the "Buruthakanda Solar Park" article. I've ended up on this article talkpage by searching from "Solar power station" for this answer. So in a way, I am helping improve this article (by pointing out that these facts -- limitations in photovoltaic plant capacities -- are missing). Nevertheless, thank you both for participating. :) Regards. Rehman 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Cost has been decreasing due to the learning curve

I have just reverted the edit in which SCStrikwerda (talk · contribs) removed this text saying, "The reference provided (report on the decrease of PV cost) did not connect to or back-up the statement." I looked at the cited source and found, "A new study on the installed costs of solar photovoltaic (PV) power systems in the U.S. shows that the average cost of these systems declined significantly from 1998 to 2007". It went on to explain, "the overall decline in the installed cost of solar PV systems is mostly the result of decreases in nonmodule costs, such as the cost of labor, marketing, overhead, inverters, and the balance of systems. “This suggests that state and local PV deployment programs — which likely have a greater impact on nonmodule costs than on module prices — have been at least somewhat successful in spurring cost reductions,” states the report". So, various deployment programs have caused cost reductions, by reducing non-module costs such as labor and overheads, to reduce average installed costs significantly. Where is the problem? Is it the link between overheads and labor costs and the 'learning curve'? --Nigelj (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource 1.Oct.2011

Drilling for Crude Goes Solar in October 1st, 2011 WSJ; excerpt ...

This marriage of clean energy technology with one of the dirtiest forms of oil extraction says a lot about the state of the global energy industry. U.S. solar companies are diversifying their core business of electricity generation to build the economies of scale that they hope will help them compete at a time when the industry is under pressure. The U.S. solar industry, largely financed by government incentives and venture capital, has witnessed a spate of recent high-profile bankruptcies, including Solyndra LLC, Evergreen Solar, and, on Thursday, Stirling Energy Systems Inc. Chevron and its partner, BrightSource Energy Inc., in late August began making steam from the sunlight that drenches the San Joaquin Valley in what is by far the largest such facility in the world. Chevron touts the unconventional pairing as a model for oil companies to save money, and solar firms to profit, without the need for government subsidies, while minimizing carbon emissions. ... The Coalinga, California solar project is the largest but not the first to create steam for oil recovery. In February, GlassPoint Solar said it had begun producing steam, using differently configured technology, for Berry Petroleum Co. in Bakersfield, California. In August, GlassPoint announced it would build a new, larger project in the Middle East country of Oman's national oil company.

See Solar Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Moody Sunburst.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Moody Sunburst.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

BusinessWeek resource

Solar Innovations and Solar-Powered What? (bikinis, also mentioned in October 17-23 print on page 70) by Joel Stonington and Randall Hackley ... trash bins that track real-time trash levels to help optimize pickups. The new solar movement is also helping to power entrepreneurs and designers who want to create fun little add-ons to things like sunglasses or swim goggles. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let's fill the encyclopedia with column-filler designed for bored travelers to read while waiting for their flight to be called. We should be able to do better than *this*. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Patent Watch - Airborne power station by Adam Piore Scientific American January 5, 2012 (1.2012 issue, page 23). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See Spectrolab and the U.S. Army. 99.181.147.68 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)