<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Western Australia Approves 40 MW Tidal Energy Plant</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/25/western-australia-approves-large-scale-tidal-energy-plant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/25/western-australia-approves-large-scale-tidal-energy-plant/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 04:36:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob_Wallace</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/25/western-australia-approves-large-scale-tidal-energy-plant/#comment-222961</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob_Wallace]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 03:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=54306#comment-222961</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just released -

&quot;The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) performed a meta-analysis of studies that examined the long term degradation rates of various PV panels. They found that the 1% per year rule was somewhat pessimistic for panels made prior to the year 2000, and today’s panels, with better technology and improved manufacturing techniques, have even more stamina than their predecessors. For monocrystalline silicon, the most commonly used panel for commercial and residential PV, the degradation rate is less than 0.5% for panels made before 2000, and less than 0.4% for panels made after 2000. That means that a panel manufactured today should produce 92% of its original power after 20 years, quite a bit higher than the 80% estimated by the 1% rule.


Crystalline silicon modules located in extreme climates showed high degradation rates. For very cold climates, panels subjected to heavy wind and snow loads suffered the most. On the other hand, panels in similar climates that were installed in a facade, eliminating the snow load, had very low rates of degradation. At the other extreme, panels in desert climates exhibited large decreases in production over time – close to 1% per year – mainly due to high levels of UV exposure. 


Panels in more moderate climates such as the northern United States had degradation rates as low as 0.2% per year. Those panels could retain 96% of their production capabilities after 20 years.

operate.http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf



So, 20 year old panels should be outputting 80% to 96% of original, depending on where and how they are installed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just released &#8211;</p>
<p>&#8220;The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) performed a meta-analysis of studies that examined the long term degradation rates of various PV panels. They found that the 1% per year rule was somewhat pessimistic for panels made prior to the year 2000, and today’s panels, with better technology and improved manufacturing techniques, have even more stamina than their predecessors. For monocrystalline silicon, the most commonly used panel for commercial and residential PV, the degradation rate is less than 0.5% for panels made before 2000, and less than 0.4% for panels made after 2000. That means that a panel manufactured today should produce 92% of its original power after 20 years, quite a bit higher than the 80% estimated by the 1% rule.</p>
<p>Crystalline silicon modules located in extreme climates showed high degradation rates. For very cold climates, panels subjected to heavy wind and snow loads suffered the most. On the other hand, panels in similar climates that were installed in a facade, eliminating the snow load, had very low rates of degradation. At the other extreme, panels in desert climates exhibited large decreases in production over time – close to 1% per year – mainly due to high levels of UV exposure. </p>
<p>Panels in more moderate climates such as the northern United States had degradation rates as low as 0.2% per year. Those panels could retain 96% of their production capabilities after 20 years.</p>
<p>operate.<a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf</a></p>
<p>So, 20 year old panels should be outputting 80% to 96% of original, depending on where and how they are installed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ronald Brakels</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/25/western-australia-approves-large-scale-tidal-energy-plant/#comment-222943</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ronald Brakels]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=54306#comment-222943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let me check some 40 year old windows to see how the sand storms have damaged them.  Nope, still good.  And a performance guarantee of 25 years is pretty common for solar panels.  And there are solar panels that are over 40 years old still producing power, so they can last a long time.  And I&#039;ll mention that basically all our solar power is on our roofs in Australia so we avoid our very high retail charges, so it is cheaper for consumers than any other source of electricity at the moment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let me check some 40 year old windows to see how the sand storms have damaged them.  Nope, still good.  And a performance guarantee of 25 years is pretty common for solar panels.  And there are solar panels that are over 40 years old still producing power, so they can last a long time.  And I&#8217;ll mention that basically all our solar power is on our roofs in Australia so we avoid our very high retail charges, so it is cheaper for consumers than any other source of electricity at the moment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/25/western-australia-approves-large-scale-tidal-energy-plant/#comment-222942</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pete]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=54306#comment-222942</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The price seems high for hydro electric costs.  But construction costs are high in western Australia. However, this will last 120 years if not longer with the turbines being replaced every 30-40 years.  Plant this size in the USA would charge about .05 per kw hr.  This is power 24 hours a day 7 days a week. rain or shine.  This should be a cash cow to them. 
How long will solar last 10 maybe 20 years before the sand storms and sun dulls them?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The price seems high for hydro electric costs.  But construction costs are high in western Australia. However, this will last 120 years if not longer with the turbines being replaced every 30-40 years.  Plant this size in the USA would charge about .05 per kw hr.  This is power 24 hours a day 7 days a week. rain or shine.  This should be a cash cow to them.<br />
How long will solar last 10 maybe 20 years before the sand storms and sun dulls them?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ronald Brakels</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/25/western-australia-approves-large-scale-tidal-energy-plant/#comment-173755</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ronald Brakels]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2013 23:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=54306#comment-173755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Or, depending on how you look at it, rooftop solar is infinitely cheaper than grid tidal power.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or, depending on how you look at it, rooftop solar is infinitely cheaper than grid tidal power.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ronald Brakels</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/25/western-australia-approves-large-scale-tidal-energy-plant/#comment-173585</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ronald Brakels]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=54306#comment-173585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tidal technology has improved since 10 years ago and it would have been much more expensive and less reliable back then.  Unfortunately it is still not cheap at a cost of about three or more times as much as solar.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tidal technology has improved since 10 years ago and it would have been much more expensive and less reliable back then.  Unfortunately it is still not cheap at a cost of about three or more times as much as solar.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JamesWimberley</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/25/western-australia-approves-large-scale-tidal-energy-plant/#comment-173573</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JamesWimberley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=54306#comment-173573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the 10-year delay?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why the 10-year delay?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
