[HN Gopher] A 100MW solar farm in Texas will mount panels direct... ___________________________________________________________________ A 100MW solar farm in Texas will mount panels directly on the ground Author : orangebanana1 Score : 62 points Date : 2022-12-09 21:33 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.canarymedia.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.canarymedia.com) | rootusrootus wrote: | Interesting idea. I've been toying with the idea of doing a | ground mount install at home, but maybe I should try this instead | to get more density. I love toys... | melony wrote: | I do not believe their claimed savings. Steel is a very cheap | building material and at the scale of solar farms, the cost | should be very low. (As an alternative to stainless steel on the | other hand, it may make more sense) | mycall wrote: | > "Install in half the cost, half the time on 33% of the land" | | If the panels don't point directly at the sun, then you lose much | of the efficiency. | | I wonder how the robot cleaner handles bird poop. | Hermitude wrote: | Horizontal panels also collect dust, so they still need to be | propping them on the north side. | avip wrote: | All panels collect dust, but this setup is much more | challenging to clean (and to generally service, i.e to | replace a faulty panel) | nimos wrote: | This seems much easier to clean? A gigantic flat slab is | pretty easy to automate something vs disconnected racks. | avip wrote: | (Modern utility scale PV installations are already using | automated cleaning solutions). | | It is much better from POV of the cleaning robot | maneuvering requirements. It's also much better in terms | of single robot can access the entire installation. | | But it's worse in terms of how much distance the dust | should be pushed before it's off panel (as I don't see | any gaps there) | s1artibartfast wrote: | Service trade-off seems pretty marginal. They say the | panels aren't tied down to the ground in any way, so you | might be able to just pick one up and disconnect it | elihu wrote: | They have a robot that cleans the panels. It's a big, flat | surface so they don't really need anything much more | advanced than a Roomba. | | Apparently they also have special shoes that maintenance | people can wear that distribute the weight properly so they | can walk on them if they have to. | gleenn wrote: | They don't look propped at all in the photos. Also I think | propping would be hard for the cleaning robot as it looks | like is a super simple little robot with small wheels and | just rolls straightened over them. | constantlm wrote: | Sounds like they're pretty confident this isn't an issue: | | >Our fees are based on the plant producing at its optimal | performance. If the plant underperforms for any reason, we | curtail our fees - creating strong incentive and perfect | alignment with the long-term asset owner. | s1artibartfast wrote: | It all comes down to the economic tradeoffs. Panels are cheap | and everything else is expensive. | | If you can get 75% efficiency for half the cost, your return on | investment is 50% higher | nine_k wrote: | Panels may be cheap, maintenance / replacement is less so, | because humans at work. | theptip wrote: | They use a robot for regular cleaning; looks like the | design will make that cheaper too as it's basically a fancy | Roomba. | bilsbie wrote: | We'll the cost isn't just the racks | | You've got to deal with permits for the structures. Installation. | And then you have to do lawn trimming around all the racks. This | can save on all of that. | felgueres wrote: | The reason they are tilted is to maximize irradiance hitting the | panel. At a 0 degree angle (flat on the ground) you get a a lot | around noon and then very little. | | This approach surely reduces land usage but what is the output | per acre? | | I'd be really surprised if it's higher than with tilted modules. | celtain wrote: | I expect that they are getting lower output per acre, but in | places where land is cheap and as solar panels continue to get | cheaper, the money saved on building the support structures | could be worth those losses. | nimos wrote: | Texas is pretty far south. If you use | https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php there is about a 9% | increase in total output over the year for optimal tilt(27 vs | 0) but then you also need to space modules. | | There is hourly data if you are interested but even Jan 1 the | panels produce for ~7-8 hours. The 3 hour around noon it's | about 1/2 the output for the day (for Jan 1). | mkl wrote: | The article claims it's much higher output per acre: | | > conventional solar technologies, which typically require five | to 10 acres of land per megawatt of capacity. Erthos claims | that its mounting scheme requires less than 2.5 acres per | megawatt. | s1artibartfast wrote: | They claim the power per acre is 4x higher than tilted panels. | Seems like a stretch, but I don't know how bad the density is | in tilted installations. I guess I have seen some where you can | drive between rows | whatshisface wrote: | The amount of power landing on an acre is fixed, what you can | achieve by tilting is having less solar panel surface area per | ground cover area. If solar panels are cheaper than the | mounting hardware (wow) then there is no reason not to let them | lie flat on the ground (it's not as if the racks were holding | them above tree shadows, or anything). | guerrilla wrote: | > If solar panels are cheaper than the mounting hardware | (wow) | | I'm surprised this surprises people... Every electronics | hobbyist knows that electronics are cheap as dirt while any | kind of box, mount, rail or whatever is BY REALLY FAR the | most expensive part of a project, even when buying massivly | mass produced cheap Chinese junk. | whatshisface wrote: | The electronics you're talking about are rice grain sized | little things, while the solar panels are big sheets of | silicon inside of glass, etc. | davelondon wrote: | It's amazing how so few people understand this. | whatshisface wrote: | I think people are imagining that solar panels have | directionality like most photodetectors do. | rootusrootus wrote: | > you get a a lot around noon and then very little. | | That's a little harsher than reality. You get a very pretty | bell curve. I have a flat panel on the roof of my RV and I | track the output over time. I'm not 100% how much of the loss | in output is because the incidence to the panel is changing, or | because the light from the sun is going through more | atmosphere. Probably a little of both, but in any case the | panel is still plenty useful even when not pointed directly at | the sun. | hindsightbias wrote: | Seems like they would have to do some grading to clear anyway, | why not grade with some tilt. | elihu wrote: | With tilted modules, you'd normally space them out quite a bit | so the shadows of one aren't falling on the module next to it. | If they're all flat, that's not a problem so you can space them | closer. So, it makes sense that they'd get more power per acre | than the conventional approach -- the panels are individually | less efficient, but there's a lot more total solar panel area | per acre. | | That might not always be a good tradeoff, but maybe at least | some of the time it is. | avip wrote: | They don't claim to outperform fixed-tile or SAT on that KPI. | They claim to reduce upfront cost of installation, construction | time, and general project risk. | anko wrote: | aussies are doing a similar thing although they install by | pulling via tractor and the panels concertina out see | https://suncable.energy/ | | they are doing an underwater cable to supply energy to singapore | Klasiaster wrote: | Dead ground is not so good for biodiversity, with the standard | way you have wild grass and flowers beneath. | elihu wrote: | Covering the ground with impermeable surfaces isn't great | either. (Maybe they have drain holes at regular intervals so | that's not as much of a problem?) | | I'm guessing they will probably need a tall fence around the | outside to keep deer away. | idiotsecant wrote: | Seems weird. How do you service it? How do conductors work? How | do you keep random junk from blowing on top of it? How do you | clean it? The photo in the story just looks like a giant square | of PV material. Is that really what this is? | pavon wrote: | First, they are banking on the fact that solar doesn't need a | lot of repair and maintenance in general, and their design | decreases some of the stresses that racked solar panels | encounter. I imagine they are also over-sizing the system, and | adding remote disconnects so they can disable a certain number | of panels and still meet the contract. | | And then when repair is needed, they just walk on it[1]. | Seriously. I'm very curious as to what these pads they mention | are like - big foam snow shoes, or walkways they rollout along | a seam? | | [1] https://www.erthos.com/reducing-degradation-rates-with- | earth... | avip wrote: | Likely something akin to deminers weight-spreading shoe pads. | They have to meet panel manufacturer's certified pressure | spec. | jsight wrote: | Oh, that's interesting. And I guess if they do manage to | break a few panels, they can be replaced cheaply. Its | probably still cheaper than dealing with racking. | jl6 wrote: | Maybe if it reduces installation cost enough they will be able | to tolerate some inefficiencies. | [deleted] | function_seven wrote: | There's another link with better details on all of that: | | https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/erthos-rakes-in-1... | luhn wrote: | Re cleaning, they have a cute little robot that you can see on | this page: https://www.erthos.com/energyservices It's also | visible in the photo in the article. | thinkmcfly wrote: | They should fix the wheel spacing so it rolls on the metal | frame and doesn't scuff up the edge of the panels | happyopossum wrote: | > They should fix the wheel spacing | | Sounds like they optimized it for their use case: | | "The load of the robot is distributed almost entirely to | the module frames rather than the glass module" | nine_k wrote: | The robot is cute! | | I wonder what happens after a major rain though. I suppose | the panels are weatherproof. But they lie _directly_ on the | ground, and I did not notice any mention of a drainage | system. The panels will eventually sag under load from | rainwater, preventing it from flowing off them. | | They mention that their installation can withstand a | hurricane. I understand how it works for the wind load, but | every hurricane I witnessed brought a lot of rain. | | EDIT: Apparently they embrace flooding, and say that their | panels and connectors can withstand being submerged in water. | That's the spirit. | xnx wrote: | Reminds me of M-O from Wall-e | https://pixar.fandom.com/wiki/M-O | jsight wrote: | Presumably the plan is for them to be high enough relative | to the surroundings that the water runs off rather than | pools. | robocat wrote: | I wonder how they manage drainage and surface flooding? | | Image of robot on panels: https://static.wixstatic.com/media/ | 3b0818_1667facfc56e475e8f... | | The image also seems to show water damage in the corner of | the closest panel. | | At a guess, they target areas without heavy rainfall, and | fast draining soils. I didn't see any drainage works in the | video https://vimeo.com/556421759, nor did my google-fu help | me find anything where they address the issue. | 88913527 wrote: | I would have expected it to be like agricultural products -- | rows of corn with spaces between rows, so you could access the | interior without stepping over the outer panels. | [deleted] | Kye wrote: | It looks like they work in a similar way to wood floor panels. | | https://vimeo.com/556421759 | idiotsecant wrote: | Huh, interesting video. Seems like a cool idea. | walrus01 wrote: | It is correct that mounting costs and labor can be a large | portion of the total BOM. | | Even for a large off grid whole home PV system that can operate | through December/January at high latitudes. | | Let's say for an example you wanted to DIY a PV system that would | be much too large to fit on the roof of a normal sized house. | | Go calculate the cost of buying 30000 kW of good quality 72-cell | PV panels rated at 380W STC each. It'll be something like 80 | pieces at about $130 per piece. | | Usually would ship as 20 panels per pallet, so call it four fully | loaded pallets of 72-cell panels. | | At 34 cents/W STC rating, PV panel cost from distributor | something like $10,400 to $12000 USD. | | The foundation work and poles/racking to do a basic ground mount | will be a huge cost on top of that. Labor is a big part of it. If | you're hiring people to build it the labor and ground mount gear | and things like basic foundation work/screw piles/steel tubes set | into concrete could easily cost you another 10 grand from a local | contractor. | | Something generally along these lines or an industry competitor | of it: | | https://www.ironridge.com/ground-based/ | | (Not discussing inverters/charge controllers/batteries/disconnect | boxes and wiring here). | liketochill wrote: | I hope the fields never flood and the solar farm is under water | function_seven wrote: | > _The glass / glass modules and the connectors we specify are | all rated for submersion, so flooding is not a catastrophic | event in case it does occur._ | | From: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/erthos-rakes- | in-1... | idiotsecant wrote: | It looks like they're probably targeting places where huge rain | isn't an issue and it looks like they do some site work to | raise it up a bit? Theres another photo here : | | https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/utility-scale-sol... | adwww wrote: | Would it not contribute to flooding as well, unless drainage is | somehow improved around each panel. | sieabahlpark wrote: | sschueller wrote: | This reminds me too much of solar roadways. | | What about heat dissipation? Don't you want airflow under the | panels? | dokem wrote: | laluser wrote: | > less than 2.5 acres per megawatt | | This is actually quite amazing. I wonder what the lifetime is for | the panels. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | That sounds like if I have a decently-sized suburban yard, I | should be able to throw enough of these out there to run my | life. | jsight wrote: | Usually the expected life is ~30 years. They may last longer. I | do wonder if pests and moisture will be early failure causes in | this configuration though. Then again, if it saves enough | money, maybe that doesn't matter. | | TBH, the part that lasts the least amount of time is often the | inverter. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-09 23:00 UTC)