Environment & Energy

Bob Wallace

(549 posts)

12. Sorry...

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:15 PM

Dec 2011

I didn't bookmark that study and haven't found it with a quick search.

It was listed in a discussion on Green Tech Media and at least one person who works in large scale solar confirmed that they don't clean their panels.

I did find this study from Google. They found that flat mounted panels do need cleaning, but not ones mounted at an angle...

"The rooftop solar panels are a different story. Our data indicates that rain does a sufficient job of cleaning the tilted solar panels. Some dirt does accumulate in the corners, but the resulting reduction in energy output is fairly small — and cleaning tilted panels does not significantly increase their energy production. So for now, we'll let Mother Nature take care of cleaning our rooftop panels."

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/should-you-spring-clean-your-solar.html

I'll dig some more and see if I can find the AZ study....

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Arctic Methane - This Does Not Sound Good... [View all] Bob Wallace Dec 2011 OP

. XemaSab Dec 2011 #1

Known about this for Years.... fascisthunter Dec 2011 #2

Please show me the data... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #3

As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #24

Understanding methane’s seabed escape OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #26

Methane release 'looks stronger' OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #52

Feedbacks. joshcryer Dec 2011 #4

Arctic lakes, too Viking12 Dec 2011 #5

That video rules XemaSab Dec 2011 #6

All the more reason - nuclear now. nt wtmusic Dec 2011 #7

Impossible... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #8

Other way around. wtmusic Dec 2011 #9

Where did you get these numbers? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #10

You have a link? XemaSab Dec 2011 #11

Sorry... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #12

Thanks XemaSab Dec 2011 #13

Found it... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #14

Interesting article XemaSab Dec 2011 #15

Hah, what the heck were you thinking? joshcryer Dec 2011 #16

I'll just say that it wasn't the best planned trip I've ever taken XemaSab Dec 2011 #17

I gave you a link. wtmusic Dec 2011 #18

Sorry... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #19

Your modest solar proposal would cost about $740 million - every day. wtmusic Dec 2011 #25

“Solar power is totally uneconomic“ OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #29

Dr. Pearce believes solar panels last 300 years, does he? wtmusic Dec 2011 #30

Oh good! OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #31

It means your posts have reached the point of charming imbecility wtmusic Dec 2011 #32

How much does the productivity of a nuclear plant decrease in a year? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #33

Obviously we don't have 300 year data... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #35

But the situation is even better than that (according to Pearce) OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #38

At 0.2% loss per year... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #41

Solar roof tiles OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #42

The glass windows in thirteenth-century Westminster Abbey Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #34

What I find even more amazing is the building of the things to start with OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #40

I was rendered immediately breathless, and was made to sit and meditate deeply Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #43

Conservation, Efficiency, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Thermal... tinrobot Dec 2011 #20

Agree. wtmusic Dec 2011 #28

We don't need to experiment... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #36

Excellent post. Nihil Dec 2011 #60

Also, tech-fix mitigation responses are required. Capture this methane Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #21

How does methane XemaSab Dec 2011 #44

I didn't do well in chemistry class (bad teacher, I claim) but does this make sense Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #47

Gotcha XemaSab Dec 2011 #49

It's even more carbon brought to the surface... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #50

Yes. But it's coming out of the ground, at present Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #51

Let's do it... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #46

Well, I did say, while we're dealing with Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #48

I'm not sure that's technically feasible, we're talking thousands of square kilometers. joshcryer Dec 2011 #55

Oops! hatrack Dec 2011 #22

Imagine a person with two different sized feet... Javaman Dec 2011 #23

lol. Nice analogy... Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #37

That was well put. Control-Z Dec 2011 #67

oh right, "Shock" stuntcat Dec 2011 #27

That's just the way "the Media" works Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #45

It's not good Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #39

Luckily, I have no kids! My ancestral carbon footprint shrinks to zero by 2040. aletier_v Dec 2011 #53

hatrack saw this coming: joshcryer Dec 2011 #54

yes. stuntcat Dec 2011 #63

Two points Nederland Dec 2011 #56

Two poor points... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #57

Right, a little over a long time is nothing, a lot over a little time is an issue. joshcryer Dec 2011 #59

20 year GWP of methane is 72x. joshcryer Dec 2011 #58

That is just one theory Nederland Dec 2011 #68

We'll see. joshcryer Dec 2011 #69

One drop doesn't say anything about the long term trend? Nederland Dec 2011 #71

I might do it again for 2012. joshcryer Dec 2011 #73

The point is simple Nederland Dec 2011 #79

Yes, and all of the long term trends indicate warming. joshcryer Dec 2011 #83

Spencer posted Nov temps today Nederland Dec 2011 #80

Thanks. Yes I respect Roy for that. joshcryer Dec 2011 #82

Yeah, Spencer is ok Nederland Dec 2011 #85

You suggested we use 18 years... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #76

You are missing the point Nederland Dec 2011 #77

Current trends? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #84

It would be helpful... Nederland Dec 2011 #86

Latest statistical review I read... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #70

Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate says 18 years Nederland Dec 2011 #72

Nope... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #74

There are FIVE major temperature records Nederland Dec 2011 #78

I don't think so... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #81

Do you understand the phrase "More importantly"? Nederland Dec 2011 #87

Here's the study I recall... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #75

Torch them. CJvR Dec 2011 #61

That's not clear... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #62

Depends. CJvR Dec 2011 #64

This was a GRL article I posted on the topic of submarine methane releases back in 2007 hatrack Dec 2011 #65

Might also be tied to isostatic rebound XemaSab Dec 2011 #66

See below OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #89

Methane Time Bomb in Arctic Seas – Apocalypse Not OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #88

Apocalypse Not... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #90

Let’s put it this way OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #91