The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) has started electricity generation at its hydro-floating solar hybrid project on the Sirindhorn Dam in the north-eastern province of Ubon Ratchathani.

 

The project is reputed to be the world’s largest of its kind and employs double glass solar panels, which are resistant to humidity, fitted on high density polyethylene buoys floating on 72 hectares of the surface of the dam. It has the capacity to generate 45 megawatts of clean electricity.

 

According to EGAT, the project is divided into five zones which, combined, occupying only 1% of the surface of the dam. All the materials used are safe and environmentally friendly.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/thailands-first-floating-solar-panel-power-plant-begins-operation/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2021-11-12

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow ASEAN NOW on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Thai Electricity + water = RUN AWAY! 

I wonder how the "Thailand can't do anything right" crowd will try spin this one.  This site has been pretty tough on them lately with all of their predictions of doom and gloom being proven wrong as usual.  They are probably ready to move on to some other shiny object to complain about by now.

42 minutes ago, shdmn said:

I wonder how the "Thailand can't do anything right" crowd will try spin this one.  This site has been pretty tough on them lately with all of their predictions of doom and gloom being proven wrong as usual.  They are probably ready to move on to some other shiny object to complain about by now.

It onlys produces 45 megawatts.

It takes 1.21 gigawatts to fuel a DeLorean

 

to get some perspective;

 

Most residential solar panels on today’s market are rated to produce between 250 and 400 watts each per hour

 

https://www.yesenergysolutions.co.uk/advice/how-much-energy-solar-panels-produce-home

I'll be using 455w for our system, and 540w are readily available now.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

According to EGAT, the project is divided into five zones which, combined, occupying only 1% of the surface of the dam. All the materials used are safe and environmentally friendly.

I was of the impression solar panels were not quite so environmentally friendly in their production, had a limited lifespan, and their disposal again caused issues.  

This really isn't solving the world's problems. 

2 hours ago, Joe Farang said:

It onlys produces 45 megawatts.

It takes 1.21 gigawatts to fuel a DeLorean

Since you cited a DeLorean, I'm guessing you think that Back To The Future was a documentary. So you probably think Teslas are fictional. Their maximum storage is 83 KW

28 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

I was of the impression solar panels were not quite so environmentally friendly in their production, had a limited lifespan, and their disposal again caused issues.  

This really isn't solving the world's problems. 

If one looks into it, I believe you'll find that in the production of most everything that is considered "green' the manner in which it is produced completely contradicts the practice of sound environmentalism. 

It may be the largest but it is not the first as the title states.  

3 hours ago, Joe Farang said:

It onlys produces 45 megawatts.

It takes 1.21 gigawatts to fuel a DeLorean

It's interesting that the dam itself only produces 36 megawatts.

1 hour ago, jacko45k said:

I was of the impression solar panels were not quite so environmentally friendly in their production, had a limited lifespan, and their disposal again caused issues.  

This really isn't solving the world's problems. 

You really don't think so?  Notice that the other, more expensive sources of generation in this graph have their own environmental problems.

 

 

Great idea. But maybe won't be working at capacity for a couple  of months until the hot season kicks in.

15 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

You really don't think so?  Notice that the other, more expensive sources of generation in this graph have their own environmental problems.

We were not particularly discussing cost, so you went off on a tangent. 

Let us see if this installation is still productive in a few years, albeit at a meagre 45MW (half the time)  this large footprint does not seem efficient.  

Edited November 12, 20214 yr by jacko45k

1 minute ago, phetphet said:

Great idea. But maybe won't be working at capacity for a couple  of months until the hot season kicks in.

The international space station has been working on solar power for 23 years.  It's -454.8°F in space.  Solar energy works on rays, not warmth.

4 minutes ago, phetphet said:

Great idea. But maybe won't be working at capacity for a couple  of months until the hot season kicks in.

From the domestic consumption viewpoint that may be true, however, commercial consumption (shops, offices and factories etc.) will take as much as is available and more. 

Just now, jacko45k said:

We were not discussing cost, so you went off on a tangent. 

We are always discussing cost when considering power generation.  Lower cost of generation implies more resources available for mitigation of environmental effects.  

 

Also, the costs including environmental costs of various alternatives for generating power can only be considered relatively, which you haven't done.  Are the environmental costs of PV power higher than that of coal, natural gas, or nuclear?  That is the context that matters.

3 minutes ago, Galong said:

The international space station has been working on solar power for 23 years.  It's -454.8°F in space.  Solar energy works on rays, not warmth.

Yes, but its wet season and with some of the heavy clouds and rain we get at this  time  of year the panels won't be working anywhere near their  maximum efficiency.

1 hour ago, zzaa09 said:

If one looks into it, I believe you'll find that in the production of most everything that is considered "green' the manner in which it is produced completely contradicts the practice of sound environmentalism. 

What you don't seem to understand is that it's a question of comparative harm.  Which does more environmental damage: solar panels or facilities that burn fossil fuel. Keep in mind that the damage from fossil fuel facilities is 3 fold: the damage from building said facilities, the damage from extracting the fuel and then from burning that fuel.

Edited November 12, 20214 yr by placeholder

I'd love to fit solar panels to my house, but don't know where to start. Is there any "how to" advice available in both Thai and English?

A step in the right direction .

The average lifespan of a solar panel is about 25 yrs . After that it just does not deliver it's full capacity anymore .

Thailand does quite well lately concerning renewables .

If the electricity generated by solar is , at least , partly used to produce hydrogen for fuel cell powered cars , the dependency on oil can be reduced . That is good news , but needs to be done now .

Every little step in the right direction helps , as it can serve as an example for others to copy it , once they have realized that it is not difficult to do .

Edited November 12, 20214 yr by nobodysfriend

7 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Are the environmental costs of PV power higher than that of coal, natural gas, or nuclear?  That is the context that matters.

The answer to this question is obvious .

1 minute ago, nobodysfriend said:

The answer to this question is obvious .

Not to the poster to whom I was responding.

10 minutes ago, MrMuddle said:

I'd love to fit solar panels to my house, but don't know where to start. Is there any "how to" advice available in both Thai and English?

On grid or off grid ?

I have a small house that is off grid . The electricity generated by 12 x 160 watt panels is stored in 3 x 12V 200AH truck batteries . It is then converted by an inverter to 220 V .

It works perfectly for about 5 yrs now .

It is a small system only , but sufficient for a small house .

 

Before installing it , you have to calculate how many watts you need every day to run your appliances . once you figured that out , you buy panels for the double of that amount ...

Edited November 12, 20214 yr by nobodysfriend

19 minutes ago, MrMuddle said:

I'd love to fit solar panels to my house, but don't know where to start. Is there any "how to" advice available in both Thai and English?

https://aseannow.com/forum/319-alternativerenewable-energy-forum/

 

32 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Are the environmental costs of PV power higher than that of coal, natural gas, or nuclear?  That is the context that matters.

We do not yet fully know..... all the fuss wrt wind turbines some years ago was hype. Low generation, weather dependent and short lifespan, tied to being environmentally damaging. Many of these new sources are inactive at night or are weather dependent, and hence would obligate massive power storage installations or a need to be backed up by conventional generation like Natural Gas turbines anyhow. 

We made mistakes turning our backs on nuclear... France appears to have succeeded even selling power to UK. 

 

I see the subject of this topic as a useful experiment, and likely not a solution. 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 20214 yr by jacko45k

5 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

We made mistakes turning our backs on nuclear...

Don't worry , nuclear energy is rising like a phoenix from the ashes now . It's environmental costs are considered not as high as the costs related to the use of fossil fuels .

Next thing to come is cold fusion ...

I hope the banned jet skis

24 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Don't worry , nuclear energy is rising like a phoenix from the ashes now . It's environmental costs are considered not as high as the costs related to the use of fossil fuels .

Next thing to come is cold fusion ...

Maybe that's true for environmental costs, but what about its cost costs?

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

48 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Maybe that's true for environmental costs, but what about its cost costs?

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

Yes , it is expensive .

And conversion rate is still 2:1 only .

But the costs are improving ...

Hydrogen is highly volatile so storage is difficult .

But new storage technology is coming soon .

If you consider the environmental costs related to the burning of fossil fuels , it is still cheap .

 

And from the link you gave :

" Hydrogen applications which require minimal additional steps (e.g., conversion, storage, transportation, etc.) to reach the end user will most likely achieve cost competitiveness sooner than those that require greater site or application-specific investments. "

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/innovative-liquid-hydrogen-storage-to-support-space-launch-system

 

"

Kennedy Space Center in Florida is preparing to build the world's largest liquid hydrogen storage tank. It will involve new technologies developed by researchers at the spaceport's Cryogenics Test Laboratory.

The innovation is like going from an ice box to a modern refrigerator. "

Edited November 12, 20214 yr by nobodysfriend