Solar Farms

Help Support CattleToday:

Roof Top Solar power is too expensive for the average Joe to install, by the time it pays in savings the usable life of the panels is gone. Also any power you produce and don't use gets sold in the "todays" market price. The power companies don't want this so fight to keep roof top solar unaffordable. If solar was the real deal California would be soley powered by solar....there's a huge uninhabitable desert very close by. I can sort of understand wind power but have a really hard time with solar power.

I'm sure the company building the solar plant CG8 talks about will be tapping into Luminants old lines from the coal plant that shut down, it's the only way it's even feasible to build the thing.

6,000 acres could run roughly 1,500 head of cattle in this country. Those cattle would produce jobs and money for people in the area. I know folks argue that cattle don't make money but people with cattle spend allot to make a little. The solar plant might employ 20 people and if it doesn't pan out will be left a waste land.

Tell me this CG8 how many days out of the last 100 has the sunshine been bright enough to power a pinwheel for more the 20 minutes? There's been allot of nights my wifes little solar light on the patio isn't on and that thing wouldn't light up a piss ants house in the summer.

I'm really glad for the folks that own the land and benifit from the wind and solar, I just hope they choose the monthly rent option and not the MW's produced payment option.

I believe Envenergy is building the plant CG8 is talking about.

CG8 mentioned batteries for power storage. Batteries are in the fledgling stage at best. I do think once they start using them the technology will advance fairly quickly. The problem now is that these things are the size of a conex box and nobody wants to talk about what to do with them once they are used up. Maybe use them to store cow farts? When I say fairly quickly I'm talking 10 years. maybe I'm just old and don't understand all this crazy go green stuff, or maybe there's a bigger picture by the folks that want control of the land.
 
Here's one in lamar county.. They are pouncing on our area in all directions..
https://myparistexas.com/superville-announces-new-12-1-million-solar-farm-works-lamar-county/
 
10 MW's and employee 1 person. The duct burners at a gas site produce 6 times that much and only run when prices are high. Not to mention the entire 1,200 MW site takes up roughly the same area. Oh well if what it takes to go green is to take away allot of green I guess that's what we need to do.
 
Here is a video on the wind trees producing electricity in France

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=france+wind+powered+trees&&view=detail&mid=A4996571066222CF75F9A4996571066222CF75F9&rvsmid=5A7558CC8690FDE316A95A7558CC8690FDE316A9&FORM=VDQVAP
 
Lucky said:
Roof Top Solar power is too expensive for the average Joe to install, by the time it pays in savings the usable life of the panels is gone. Also any power you produce and don't use gets sold in the "todays" market price. The power companies don't want this so fight to keep roof top solar unaffordable. If solar was the real deal California would be soley powered by solar....there's a huge uninhabitable desert very close by. I can sort of understand wind power but have a really hard time with solar power.

I'm sure the company building the solar plant CG8 talks about will be tapping into Luminants old lines from the coal plant that shut down, it's the only way it's even feasible to build the thing.


Solar here in Alberta is not so easy to pay for if you are grid-tied, not on the grid by not far and it makes total sense. The subsidy makes it pay off pretty quick here too.

For Pumps etc it is way cheaper to run solar than a gas pump. That is with panels here being way more expensive than they need to be. My parents live where there is not a whole lot of sun, but panels are more realistic in price will pay for them in 7 years. They are no their roof, and they are grid tied. They are happy with them.

You seem to think that coal is so great, yet coal is so non-reactive to demand. A turbine loves to run at a set power and will do very well, but the grid is not like that. Natural gas is the easiest way to power the grid, but smart meters and storage will make the alternative sources work.

The best bit about solar, or wind is you can stop paying a big company for your power. I would have thought that most free market people would see this.
 
I'm not for coal unless it's cost effective. I think Natural Gas is the way to.

I'm sure in Canada power is not readily available in some areas which makes wind or solar the way to go to power your house. When I built my house it cost me $15,000 to get power. After doing the math on wind and solar it was just cheaper and easier to get power lines ran.

What about those silly trees Hurly posted? Oh look it's a wind turbine that sorta looks like a tree!! 3.5 KW won't power an American house. Try running your house in Texas on a 3,500 watt generator, probably not gonna keep up.

I think I'm just kinda put out with all this new stuff that just doesn't work as intended. Wind turbines, solar power, DEF fluid, Diesel Regen, Battery powered cars, Ethanol, I could go on and on.
 
Here is an article about the hospital in Puerto Rico batteries are supposed to store enough energy to power the hospital for 7 days without any sun. There is a lot of mined out land in the MT Pleasant area where the panels could be installed and power lines in place to deliver power to Dallas. Article below has nothing to do with the farms Cowgril was posting about.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/10/26/tesla-delivers-solar-power-puerto-rico-hospital/802216001/
 
The land in Mt Pleasant that was mined has been reclaimed or is currently under reclamation. It is being used as cattle or recreational land. If Dallas needs power build a gas plant on 100 acres and send them 2,000 MW not a solar plant on 6,000 acres to send them 400 MW.

I think we live in the same area so I'll ask you like I ask before, how many days out of the last 100 have we had enough sunny days to power anything?

Batteries will eventually work but the technology isn't there yet and what are we going to do with them when they are no good? Drop them in the ocean? I can sort of understand building a solar plant in the desert but who in thier right mind would think it's a good idea to clear 6,000 acres of fertile land to put in a solar plant.

Please give me some good points on solar that will change my mind. I'm also not so sure all those wind turbines aren't effecting the wind patterns and causing all this crazy weather we have now.
 
I've found solar gate opener to be more reliable than 110. In 20 year's of doing a few gate openers every month I can count the solar panels I've replaced under warranty on one hand.
Solar and wind is not as efficient because we're not as experienced with it. We have two solar farms in the area. And the goldthwaite wind farms South most turbine is one hill to my north....talk about bad luck...
I would love to have them on me. Much more than a oil well.
Anyone who keeps all there eggs in one basket is a fool. At least it keeps oil and gas on their toes. And with a little time, the companies will become more efficient with experience.
I don't consider exploring new energy sources to be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
 
callmefence said:
I've found solar gate opener to be more reliable than 110. In 20 year's of doing a few gate openers every month I can count the solar panels I've replaced under warranty on one hand.
Solar and wind is not as efficient because we're not as experienced with it. We have two solar farms in the area. And the goldthwaite wind farms South most turbine is one hill to my north....talk about bad luck...
After 6 years, the solar LED light at my pond finally gave up it's life sometime over the winter. 6v battery, and they don't make them that physical size any more.

Sounds like Goldwaite is stealing your wind Fence....you need to sue 'em. ;-)
 
I'm thinking about building a food truck to park near where they are constructing.. Not much to eat out here and a long drive in any direction... I think a person might do well....
 
slick4591 said:
Hunt County, my neighbor, is getting three. Company called Sterling Solar is putting those in.

I use to live in Hunt Co.... Do you know what they are getting pre acre? I think a lot of what is said is way more than what people are actually getting....
 
callmefence said:
I've found solar gate opener to be more reliable than 110. In 20 year's of doing a few gate openers every month I can count the solar panels I've replaced under warranty on one hand.
Solar and wind is not as efficient because we're not as experienced with it. We have two solar farms in the area. And the goldthwaite wind farms South most turbine is one hill to my north....talk about bad luck...
I would love to have them on me. Much more than a oil well.
Anyone who keeps all there eggs in one basket is a fool. At least it keeps oil and gas on their toes. And with a little time, the companies will become more efficient with experience.
I don't consider exploring new energy sources to be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Our solar gate opener has been working for 10 years now. Our only problem has been a shifting gate and a corroded battery, but the panel is just as it was when we put it up...
 
Lucky said:
The land in Mt Pleasant that was mined has been reclaimed or is currently under reclamation. It is being used as cattle or recreational land. If Dallas needs power build a gas plant on 100 acres and send them 2,000 MW not a solar plant on 6,000 acres to send them 400 MW.

I think we live in the same area so I'll ask you like I ask before, how many days out of the last 100 have we had enough sunny days to power anything?

Batteries will eventually work but the technology isn't there yet and what are we going to do with them when they are no good? Drop them in the ocean? I can sort of understand building a solar plant in the desert but who in thier right mind would think it's a good idea to clear 6,000 acres of fertile land to put in a solar plant.

Please give me some good points on solar that will change my mind. I'm also not so sure all those wind turbines aren't effecting the wind patterns and causing all this crazy weather we have now.
Not many during Dec, Jan, but during the summer, we get a lot. I have a few solar lights that did not shine much for a few weeks, but are nice a bright now..
 
cowgirl8 said:
slick4591 said:
Hunt County, my neighbor, is getting three. Company called Sterling Solar is putting those in.

I use to live in Hunt Co.... Do you know what they are getting pre acre? I think a lot of what is said is way more than what people are actually getting....

No clue. Just heard the rumor, then read an article on them in the Herald Banner last year.
 
I know next to nothing about solar power but was curious about some of the numbers posted here so I did some internet searching. I am assuming numbers vary a lot by location, but it seems technology is improving in regards to output per acre. It seems as of 2 years ago, the most common number was 4 acres per MW. I did see one report that said 2.5 acres, but I didn't find any other reports to back that up. IF the 4 acre number is accurate that would mean an output of 1500 MW on a 6000 acre parcel. Still not sure if it is a good use of land, but don't underestimate technological advancements.

My point is, people read numbers for efficiency from 15-20, even 30 years ago and assume that there isn't any improvement. I haven't ever looked into wind farms, but when I see very intelligent and wealthy people investing in something I'm guessing they have done some research on it before investing millions of dollars. I always see people quoting numbers in regards to ethanol from a study done in the 1980's that was debunked by other scientists as inaccurate. But those people will still use those numbers saying how it doesn't work. Shoot, just a year or so ago people were saying that fake meat will never work because nobody would pay $1200 for a quarter pound hamburger. I don't know if it will ever take off, but when these billion dollar business are investing in it, it is probably something to pay attention to.
 
It has a name now...
http://theparisnews.com/free/article_62611964-4dc7-11e9-818c-4b9b8778479a.html
 
ChrisB said:
I know next to nothing about solar power but was curious about some of the numbers posted here so I did some internet searching. I am assuming numbers vary a lot by location, but it seems technology is improving in regards to output per acre. It seems as of 2 years ago, the most common number was 4 acres per MW. I did see one report that said 2.5 acres, but I didn't find any other reports to back that up. IF the 4 acre number is accurate that would mean an output of 1500 MW on a 6000 acre parcel.

It varies, depending on the number of days of full sun, versus days of cloudiness. Today's solar panels can produce power even on cloudy days, but it won't be to full capacity.

Most solar farms are restricted not by how much the total farm can produce, but by how much spare capacity there is on the transmission lines nearby.

This one, (there will actually be 3 different farms in the immediate area) has spare capacity of about 1800 MW in the transmission lines. They are feeding DFW.

Invenergy approached Prairiland ISD last week with a plan to build a 300- to 500-megawatt solar farm on 6,500 leased acres near Cunningham in southeastern Lamar County. Cost of the Samson Solar Energy Center is between $350 million to $450 million.

In August, the district gave preliminary approval to German-based Alpin Sun to build a 250-megawatt farm on 1,867 acres, also near Cunningham. With a cost of $240 million, the Impact Solar project has a value limitation agreement with Prairiland ISD awaiting approval with the Texas Comptroller's Office.

Alpin Sun also plans a 100-megawatt solar farm on 968 acres in Fannin County, according to the firm's value limitation application, available online with the Texas Comptroller's Office. The Impact Solar farm comes with a cost of $96 million.
 

Latest posts

Top