- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: With more solar farms in the works, West Baton Rouge leaders move to require permits
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:01 pm to billjamin
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:01 pm to billjamin
quote:
millions of GWh
Please correct if I'm wrong, but I thought that number seems incredibly high so I looked it up. From what I can tell, there are currently approximately 580GW of solar globally. That's not even 1 million MW of solar. My research may be wrong, but how have you installed millions of GW of solar?
2
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:07 pm to csorre1
quote:
Please correct if I'm wrong, but I thought that number seems incredibly high so I looked it up. From what I can tell, there are currently approximately 580GW of solar globally. That's not even 1 million MW of solar. My research may be wrong, but how have you installed millions of GW of solar?
It’s an easy mistake. GWh has the time component GW is nameplate. Last time I checked I thought solar topped a TW nameplate a year or so ago.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:07 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
On another note I would love to see the contract in regards to site demo and cleanup. The technology they are putting in these fields will be obsolete in a very short time and are currently not even economical and require tax breaks to be justified. I would be willing to bet there are going to be some landowners with a rude awakening when they are no longer getting money for the solar farm and want to turn it back into Ag.
You would probably lose that bet. Back in 2016 a group approached the my brother, myself, and the owners of land neighboring ours about putting a solar farm, but the deal fell through when they did not get approved for tax credits. They were planning on leasing the land for 30 years. At the end of the lease the company would have to pay the costs of putting the land back in the condition that it was in prior to the panels going up. Dealing with the solar company and the language used in their contract was very similar to dealing with oil ang gas companies and pipeline companies and the the language used in their contracts for putting the land back in the same condition as it was prior to the start of construction. There might be some cost(s) to the land owner due to the formula they use for projections not being perfect, but as long as the land owner has an attorney with half a brain look over the contract then it is not going to be a rude awakening. Now if a land owner is stupid enough to sign their land up without having a lawyer look over it and make sure the land owner's arse is covered; well then they deserve any surprise that might arise.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:08 pm to csorre1
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:12 pm to goblrhntr
quote:
"millions of GWh of solar"
Currently there is only about 90GW installed in the US
LINK .
The h in GWh isn’t silent.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:12 pm to billjamin
I thought watt hours were more used for energy storage than production. I couldn't find anything referencing solar in any form of watt hours which would make sense to me because no energy is being stored. When I had solar panels on my house the displays were in watts not watt hours. When I have built things with batteries they were in amp hours because they have stored energy.
Google and I seem to be unfamiliar with referencing solar in watt hours. And I checked again.
Google and I seem to be unfamiliar with referencing solar in watt hours. And I checked again.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:14 pm to goofball
quote:
"We're basically here tonight to protect both the landowner, the developer and the resident," said council member Alan Crowe, whose district includes the area where a newly proposed solar plant would go.
That is 101000% bullshite. I don't think the landowner and the developer need any protect from the gov't's outstretched hands. Don't live in the shithole lousiana, but this screams of politicians looking to get a bigger slice of the cake and nothing more.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:15 pm to csorre1
quote:
I thought watt hours were more used for energy storage than production. I couldn't find anything referencing solar in any form of watt hours which would make sense to me because no energy is being stored. When I had solar panels on my house the displays were in watts not watt hours. When I have built things with batteries they were in amp hours because they have stored energy. Google and I seem to be unfamiliar with referencing solar in watt hours. And I checked again.
I always reference in Wh because i don’t like nameplate references because they ignore the multitude of factors that contribute to production. Same goes for wind. But that’s probably too nerdy for most.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:20 pm to billjamin
That's fair but once you add a time component the number becomes large for the sake of being large. You could have installed 10 MW field of solar 12 years ago and it would have produced a million GWh by now.
I'm not trying to be overtly combative. I'm just not familiar with that terminology.
I'm not trying to be overtly combative. I'm just not familiar with that terminology.
This post was edited on 1/15/21 at 7:28 pm
Posted on 1/15/21 at 7:46 pm to csorre1
quote:
I'm not trying to be overtly combative. I'm just not familiar with that terminology.
True but I haven’t been doing this all that long. Another reason is because people know me on here IRL and the companies I work with are publicly traded and many are in a blackout right now pending year end releases. So this adds another layer of complexity for someone figuring things out, which is probably paranoid.
For comparison the last time I was really doing a lot of this we were interconnecting or turning on (depending on grid connection or not) about 800-900kW nameplate every day. And that’s before any storage (Tesla or LG mostly)
This post was edited on 1/15/21 at 8:03 pm
Posted on 1/16/21 at 7:44 am to billjamin
quote:
Only one portfolio I worked on had any LA assets. Mostly the 30% ITC but some new ones and plenty of safe harbor. I haven't had to fight it much, we just work it into the economics. But storage defeats all. Resi, C&I and Utility. Most states along with almost every US territory. Like I said I don't do much in LA. It is a tougher market. PR is way easier at 24 cents lol. Yes, i've secured full term 25 year deals, tax equity with a flip back to securitize, etc. I've used pretty much every tier 1 module manufacturer at some point. Both, i personally prefer Enphase, but SE is solid as long as you don't have a gen 1 screenless unit.
Ayyeee
This guy fricks. Good stuff man. Sales side, operations, management, owner?
I oversee/audit all of our back end processes. Sort of a QC/Project Management role but I jump in to help finance and the sales guys when they need. If you’re independent, shoot me your email.
This post was edited on 1/16/21 at 7:49 am
Posted on 1/16/21 at 8:58 am to WeeWee
quote:
They were planning on leasing the land for 30 years. At the end of the lease the company would have to pay the costs of putting the land back in the condition that it was in prior to the panels going up.
You would be in for a rude awakening. I’d suggest reading the fine print of that proposed solar lease. The terms of what qualifies as “returned the land as in prior condition” are spelled out in the lease.
They will leave most if not all of the wiring and concrete under ground. Every lease I’ve seen only requires surface material removed, does not require fertility sampling/remediation, and no alteration to the current drainage.
Additionally, even after their “remediation” takes place, the land will not be economically feasible for agricultural production. The drainage, fertility, and trash remaining in the ground will prevent it from being viable for agriculture for hundreds of years.
Posted on 1/16/21 at 10:02 am to TDcline
quote:
Ayyeee This guy fricks. Good stuff man. Sales side, operations, management, owner? I oversee/audit all of our back end processes. Sort of a QC/Project Management role but I jump in to help finance and the sales guys when they need. If you’re independent, shoot me your email.
thanks I kinda evolved into this weird world where I’m an intermediary between the sponsor, bank and IE. Its a bizarre mix of engineering and finance with some salesmanship component.
Shoot me an email at my screen name at gmail and I’ll give you my real one lol. Plenty of people on here know me IRL but I ain’t trying to put it all out there.
Posted on 1/16/21 at 10:13 am to stewie
quote:
You would be in for a rude awakening. I’d suggest reading the fine print of that proposed solar lease. The terms of what qualifies as “returned the land as in prior condition” are spelled out in the lease. They will leave most if not all of the wiring and concrete under ground. Every lease I’ve seen only requires surface material removed, does not require fertility sampling/remediation, and no alteration to the current drainage. Additionally, even after their “remediation” takes place, the land will not be economically feasible for agricultural production. The drainage, fertility, and trash remaining in the ground will prevent it from being viable for agriculture for hundreds of years.
You know all of this is negotiable right? I have yet to see a gun held to someone’s head to sign an energy lease. And if you don’t like the terms tell them to get fricked. Even a 3rd tier lawyer can see through the contractual frickery.
Posted on 1/16/21 at 10:19 am to billjamin
It is law for the coal and O&G industry.
Just saying but I understand what you are saying that it is negotiable. I think a lot of what people worried about is that a lot of these properties, like the one in Franklinton, is owned by out of town individuals or corporations who don't really care about the future of the property, just the near term.
There is lot of experience with this from O&G industry before the laws were put in place.
Just saying but I understand what you are saying that it is negotiable. I think a lot of what people worried about is that a lot of these properties, like the one in Franklinton, is owned by out of town individuals or corporations who don't really care about the future of the property, just the near term.
There is lot of experience with this from O&G industry before the laws were put in place.
This post was edited on 1/16/21 at 10:20 am
Posted on 1/16/21 at 10:32 am to billjamin
quote:
You know all of this is negotiable right? I have yet to see a gun held to someone’s head to sign an energy lease. And if you don’t like the terms tell them to get fricked. Even a 3rd tier lawyer can see through the contractual frickery.
You don’t say? Why do think a few of us in this thread are blaring the warning signals about the pitfalls of solar farms.
You guys come in and wave around a bunch of big figures and landowners just start seeing green.
Additionally, you can promise remediation at the end of the lease but performing it to standard with a company that has a steep financial interest in doing it as cheap as possible is a BAD combination.
EDIT:. There is no law in place to deal with this type of remediation. You can make assumptions/analogies to the O/G industry but there are many different issues at play here.
This post was edited on 1/16/21 at 10:35 am
Posted on 1/16/21 at 10:37 am to stewie
Exactly, what makes this worse is the size of these projects.
Posted on 1/16/21 at 10:45 am to stewie
quote:
You don’t say? Why do think a few of us in this thread are blaring the warning signals about the pitfalls of solar farms. You guys come in and wave around a bunch of big figures and landowners just start seeing green. Additionally, you can promise remediation at the end of the lease but performing it to standard with a company that has a steep financial interest in doing it as cheap as possible is a BAD combination. EDIT:. There is no law in place to deal with this type of remediation. You can make assumptions/analogies to the O/G industry but there are many different issues at play here.
I would say that no one should take advice or warnings on an energy development project from this place and, as noted by the earlier poster, hire a professional. That way you can get the desired results. There are mechanics that have been successfully used for every type of energy project. I’ve seen them first hand and they address all of the mentioned concerns.
This post was edited on 1/16/21 at 11:17 am
Posted on 1/16/21 at 11:28 am to billjamin
Sounds good.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News