The largest solar photovoltaic (PV) facility in the world was completed last month. This facility is now online and is producing up to 80 megawatts of electricity. But the surprising factor is where this facility is located. It's not in the desert southwest of the United States, nor is it in China nor in Europe. Instead, the Sarnia Solar facility is in Ontario, Canada, across the border from the state of Michigan.
Partners Enbridge Energy and First Solar announced the completion of the facility earlier this month. The facility uses First Solar's thin-film panels to in order to have a very low carbon footprint for the facility. The Sarnia Solar facility eclipses the 60 MW Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park in Spain, which until now had held the record for the largest PV facility.
The very favorable feed-in tarrif established by the government of Ontario was certainly a factor in this project being located where it is. The Sarnia-Lambton area also has very high solar potential (PDF), which makes it favorable for a major PV installation. According to the companies' press release, "Enbridge will sell the power output of the facility to the Ontario Power Authority pursuant to 20-year Power Purchase Agreements under the terms of the Ontario government's Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program." Total power production is expected to be 120,000 MWh per year, which the company says will be enough to meet the needs of about 12,800 homes.
Hat tip to ThorsDigest!
Hits: 19922
Comments (14)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Joe, October 21, 2010
This is great news. Would like to see these kind of things happening here at home in the USA.
-
- +0
-
-
written by beyond economics, October 22, 2010
So, you say, "Let's see: 120,000 MWh per year at $.15 kWh: $18 million/year. So you'd have to have no maintenance, operating, or transmission costs for over twenty years to recoup the investment."
I agree with you so let's burn more coal cause it's cheap. Oops - Never mind the health-care costs to deal with asthma or cancer or particulate related sickness. Yep, ignore that and those costs.
Wait - nuclear. That's better! Yep, we have that waste issue all handled and there's absolutely no problems there which we should be concerned about.
Honestly, it does take a long time to pay for solar energy. But, frankly, only wind, solar, and falling water really provides us with power without trying to kill us at the same time. 22 years to pay it off is cheap if it avoids lifetimes of asthma, cancer, and all sorts of sicknesses from particulates and pollution - but hey, let's just pretend that coal and nuclear are cheap. It's easier to keep burying our head in the (tar) sand(s) and ignore reality.
I agree with you so let's burn more coal cause it's cheap. Oops - Never mind the health-care costs to deal with asthma or cancer or particulate related sickness. Yep, ignore that and those costs.
Wait - nuclear. That's better! Yep, we have that waste issue all handled and there's absolutely no problems there which we should be concerned about.
Honestly, it does take a long time to pay for solar energy. But, frankly, only wind, solar, and falling water really provides us with power without trying to kill us at the same time. 22 years to pay it off is cheap if it avoids lifetimes of asthma, cancer, and all sorts of sicknesses from particulates and pollution - but hey, let's just pretend that coal and nuclear are cheap. It's easier to keep burying our head in the (tar) sand(s) and ignore reality.
-
- +15
-
-
written by Peter, October 23, 2010
This demonstrates pretty clearly how excessive the costs of solar energy production really are, and the more fragmented and ad-hoc the approach then the higher the costs will inevitably be.
It would make a lot more sense to have a nationally coordinated nuclear power program.
It would make a lot more sense to have a nationally coordinated nuclear power program.
-
- -4
-
-
written by pedro perez, October 23, 2010
i dont know how the nuclear lobby achieved it, but sometimes people forget that nuclear source is not profiteable. Why everybody forget that nuclear power energy is subsidy by public goverment? why people forget that there is no nuclear plant in the world built 100% from private subsidy? is amazing people talking about cheap nuclear energy when they dont know that part of this price is thanks to public taxes :-)
-
- +4
-
-
written by Kevin, October 27, 2010
Pedro, you do know that the true cost of current energy production is not passed on to the consumers don't you? The cost of environmental and infrastructure damage is paid for by the tax payer currently. What is so bad about subsidizing energy production anyway?
-
- +1
-
-
written by Ash Daminato, November 01, 2010
Was this land made unusable by the petroleum industry in Sarnia? More likely, it was perfectly good arable land that should be used for farming activities. Southwestern Ontario has such a high population density because the land was great for farming. More and more of that land is being destroyed for low/medium density housing and projects like this. The "solar potential" that made this site a prime location for solar also made it a prime site for farming.
-
- +0
-
-
written by bmb, November 02, 2010
Wind and solar are cheap, environmentally sound sources of energy. But people miss or forget the fact that solar only generates (significantly) when the sun is shining, and wind only generates when the wind is blowing. Generation must balance load to maintain frequency. You can't control the weather, so you can't dispatch solar and wind to meet demand. When the sun hides or wind drops off, other generation has to come up to cover the difference. Hydro is great for this since it ramps up quickly and is cheap and mostly environmentally friendly, but unfortunately it is sparse and usually sited far away from the load, which creates congestion on the transmission lines. The only other viable option is natural gas combustion turbines, which ramp very quickly but are environmentally taxing and comparatively expensive, especially when demand is high. When cost, reliability, environmental impact, energy density/land use and sustainability are all considered, nuclear is where I'd put my money. It's really not the demon it's made out to be.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob, November 03, 2010
This is expensive. But the fuel is free, and as others have mentioned, there are no ongoing air pollution or waste issues. We need to look not only at the direct costs, but we also must start paying a lot more attention to the indirect costs. It's like counting only the costs to cut and mill lumber, without considering the fact that you no longer have a forest, or the cost to pump water while ignoring the fact that you are draining an aquifer. Coal is not cheap, not when you consider ALL of its costs.
No one should be looking at this in isolation, as though it needs to meet all needs at all times. We simply must use the clean resources that we can, even the ones that aren't ideal, so that we can reduce the amount of natural gas, nuclear, or coal that needs to be used to meet demand. We will still need other sources, but when we can get energy with no fuel costs and no ongoing pollution, we need to do it.
As for the farming issue, this amount a land is a flyspeck compared to the amount of arable land in Canada.
No one should be looking at this in isolation, as though it needs to meet all needs at all times. We simply must use the clean resources that we can, even the ones that aren't ideal, so that we can reduce the amount of natural gas, nuclear, or coal that needs to be used to meet demand. We will still need other sources, but when we can get energy with no fuel costs and no ongoing pollution, we need to do it.
As for the farming issue, this amount a land is a flyspeck compared to the amount of arable land in Canada.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Bill, November 03, 2010
There have been many valid points in this string. All energy consumption has a cost, usually higher than expected when we factor in health, land usage, migration.
As long as we believe we are getting cheap energy we, as a society will waste it.
Unfortunately wind and solar power generation systems are not stable enough, at this time, to be used as base load, nor are they predictable enough to be only peak load.
We need governments to allow the average schmuck to produce their own electricity, which would effectively take more people off of the main supply.
Small systems have more flexibility and most have battery loading capability, so they can be drawn upon longer.
As long as we believe we are getting cheap energy we, as a society will waste it.
Unfortunately wind and solar power generation systems are not stable enough, at this time, to be used as base load, nor are they predictable enough to be only peak load.
We need governments to allow the average schmuck to produce their own electricity, which would effectively take more people off of the main supply.
Small systems have more flexibility and most have battery loading capability, so they can be drawn upon longer.
-
- +1
-
-
written by frisbee, November 04, 2010
@all nuclear promoters.
Nuclear waste being produced in our generation will last for many thousands (!) of generations, that all of them will have to pay for keeping that highly dangerous waste in a safe place. I find it very undignified of our generation to charge all of these future people with the costs for our enormous energy thirst of today. Solar, wind and hydro may be more expensive in the short run, they surely will make us use our (expensive) energy in a more sensible way.
Nuclear may give us temporarily way out of ultimate climate crisis, but due to its 'never ending' waste it is by far the most expensive means of achieving such. But who cares about the costs future people will have to pay?
Nuclear waste being produced in our generation will last for many thousands (!) of generations, that all of them will have to pay for keeping that highly dangerous waste in a safe place. I find it very undignified of our generation to charge all of these future people with the costs for our enormous energy thirst of today. Solar, wind and hydro may be more expensive in the short run, they surely will make us use our (expensive) energy in a more sensible way.
Nuclear may give us temporarily way out of ultimate climate crisis, but due to its 'never ending' waste it is by far the most expensive means of achieving such. But who cares about the costs future people will have to pay?
-
- +1
-
-
written by John Wood, November 12, 2010
I am quite impressed by the size of this array - and very pleased to see Canada leading the way! I am in Australia - far more sunny days than many countries and we don't even have a small array. Solar water heaters are only just becoming mainstream here yet we have had some of the leading scientists in the research on these solar technologies - most have left for USA etc in order to get support for their ideas!
-
- +1
-
-
written by Mark, November 27, 2010
Well..Seems to perfect hoodwink and waste of land and other resources..Why build such a big farm when already there is a farm. When people whud be given tax credits for installing such a system on their roof tops with minimum requirement and re export unused electricity to the grid and benefit from raising electricity Tariffs...what a bull shit in the face on Canadians...Are Canadians so naive or simply lazy to take on such a scam...Is this not stimulus for the people and not the bloody stupid Banks.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mark, November 27, 2010
Its a BIG SCAM to cough up the land of the people by the this company.
First of all the Farm is already existing and Canadians will not benefit from this farm inturn will face high tariff rates from this Company. It a utter waste of Taxpayers dollars.
Why not this company supply solar kits and make monies on installation and commissioning and maitainence to all Ontario household who inturn will directly benefit from exporting the extra electricity to the grid. And also solve the unemployment issues and create a class of first class solar techinians and engineers
First of all the Farm is already existing and Canadians will not benefit from this farm inturn will face high tariff rates from this Company. It a utter waste of Taxpayers dollars.
Why not this company supply solar kits and make monies on installation and commissioning and maitainence to all Ontario household who inturn will directly benefit from exporting the extra electricity to the grid. And also solve the unemployment issues and create a class of first class solar techinians and engineers
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
OCT 21
"Its a BIG SCAM to cough up the land of the people by the this company...."
View all Comments