Opinion
5 year study by NAIT shows angle of panel is more significant than snowfall in Northern Alberta
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/51451/514516b33f3f564fdd15df69d26ad2f83e6ef4af" alt=""
Study looks at impact of snow and angle of solar panels Old Man Winter takes a lot of flak in Alberta for everything from costly heating bills to frozen car batteries. But when it comes to the impact on solar panels, winter gets an unjustified bad rap.
A five-year study led by NAIT’s Alternative Energy Technology program found that snowfall on photovoltaic solar panels results in about a 3% energy loss. That’s significantly less than the 20% drain that industry had traditionally estimated despite a lack of data.
Tim Matthews, a technologist and one of the leads on the study, says the results will improve modelling used to estimate solar energy production that determines return on investment. Ultimately, that means a win for consumers.
NAIT launched the reference array snow study in 2012 with the City of Edmonton and Solar Energy Society of
Alberta. A system of 12 solar modules was installed atop the Shaw Theatre on Main Campus to not only measure the impact of snow on the system, but also how the tilt of each module affects energy production.
“The rule of thumb throughout industry was to design a system as if it had no snow and then wipe 20% of energy production off the slate – we’re going to lose 20% because we’re in Canada,” says Matthews. “Everybody was terrified of underestimating the impact of snow and latitude [on energy production].”
They found that the angle of the solar panels has a far greater impact on energy production than snowfall. Solar modules were fixed at six different angles – 14, 18, 27, 45, 53 and 90 degrees – which represent roof pitches commonly found on commercial buildings and homes. Six modules were cleared of snow every day, while the remaining six served as a control.
The least efficient was the module set at 90 degrees, like a wall-mount system, which saw a 24% loss in performance. The
module tilted to 53 degrees was most efficient, which confirmed an industry standard that solar systems are optimized when tilted to the equivalent of a city’s latitude.
The ideal angle for maximum production with snow accumulation was 45 degrees.
Matthews cautions that even five years worth of data is a small window when dealing with fluctuating variables such as
weather. But for a homeowner or business who already has historic data on their energy consumption, the tilt and snow impact clear up what had been a cloudy picture in predicting the cost-benefit of solar.
“Having this information raises the level of precision when it comes to engineering, design and production modelling,” says
Matthews. “A company that’s doing solar installation and design can go to a client and say, ‘This is precise. You can take this to the bank.’”
Crunching five years of data The work of crunching through all the data fell to students (and now grads of the class of ’18) Christian Brown and Jackson Belley as the basis of their final course project, or capstone.
That’s no mean feat considering energy performance data was collected from all 12 solar modules every five minutes every
day for five years – enough to fill 6,000 spreadsheet files.
“It was an insane amount of data,” says Brown. “That was not quite half, maybe the first third of the project. Months of work. It was a lot of learning.”
After five years of getting up at all hours to clear snow from the reference array – including Christmas – Matthews is glad
to be rid of that daily chore. For anyone who operates a solar system, he cautions that snow should only be cleared if it’s
safe to do so, such as on a flat commercial roof.
“Should you clean the ones on your [pitched] roof? Heck no,” he says. Nor does he recommend asking a contractor to
remove it. It’s just not worth it for the minimal gain in power efficiency from a snow-free solar system.
“Our recommendation is that it makes no sense. One hour of time from a professional or an apprentice is just not worth
it.”
Data was gradually exported by day, month, season and year, making it more digestible and user-friendly for industry,
government and institutions, but also the schools and not-for-profits, who are interested in the information.
The study’s interim findings are available online, while the students’ final report with datasets will be published on the
Alternative Energy Technology program page this fall. It’s expected to be a hot commodity. (Anyone can request the data now).
“The amount of requests that we get [for the data], it’s obvious people are interested and they want to know how does snow
affect solar modules,” says Belley.
Brown adds it’s a pretty cool feeling to work on a class assignment that has a major real-world impact. “The idea of solar won’t be as much of a gamble any more.”
Plans are also in the works to submit the findings for peer review and publication in a scientific journal.
After reading this report and remembering that both the Province of Alberta and the City of Red Deer are looking into a program that would pay for the program and be billed via your property taxes over 10 years.
The province and the city were very much forward thinking, I would offer and if snow loses only 3 % of power it does make more sense. Right?
Business
Bad Research Still Costs Good Money
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e4b8/9e4b8c1ad673573bcb46c4dd5303418f43e47f67" alt=""
I have my opinions about which academic research is worth funding with public money and which isn’t. I also understand if you couldn’t care less about what I think. But I expect we’ll all share similar feelings about research that’s actually been retracted by the academic journals where it was published.
Globally, millions of academic papers are published each year. Many – perhaps most – were funded by universities, charitable organizations, or governments. It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of those papers contain serious errors, irreproducible results, or straight-up plagiarized or false content.
Not only are those papers useless, but they clog up the system and slow down the real business of science. Keeping up with the serious literature coming out in your field is hard enough, but when genuine breakthroughs are buried under thick layers of trash, there’s no hope.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Society doesn’t need those papers and taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for their creation. The trick, however, is figuring out how to identify likely trash before we approve a grant proposal.
I just discovered a fantastic tool that can help. The good people behind the Retraction Watch site also provide a large dataset currently containing full descriptions and metadata for more than 60,000 retracted papers. The records include publication authors, titles, and subjects; reasons for the retractions; and any institutions with which the papers were associated.
Using that information, I can tell you that 798 of those 60,000 papers have an obvious Canadian connection. Around half of those papers were retracted in the last five years – so the dataset is still timely.
There’s no single Canadian institution that’s responsible for a disproportionate number of clunkers. The data contains papers associated with 168 Canadian university faculties and 400 hospital departments. University of Toronto overall has 26 references, University of British Columbia has 18, and McMaster and University of Ottawa both have nine. Research associated with various departments of Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital combined account for 27 retractions.
To be sure, just because your paper shows up on the list doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong. For example, while 20 of the retractions were from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, those were all pulled because they were out of date. That’s perfectly reasonable.
I focused on Canadian retractions identified by designations like Falsification (38 papers), Plagiarism (41), Results Not Reproducible (21), and Unreliable (130). It’s worth noting that some of those papers could have been flagged for more than one issue.
Of the 798 Canadian retractions, 218 were flagged for issues of serious concern. Here are the subjects that have been the heaviest targets for concerns about quality:
You many have noticed that the total of those counts comes to far more than 218. That’s because many papers touch on multiple topics.
For those of you keeping track at home, there were 1,263 individual authors involved in those 218 questionable papers. None of them had more than five such papers and only a very small handful showed up in four or five cases. Although there would likely be value in looking a bit more closely at their publishing histories.
This is just about as deep as I’m going to dig into this data right now. But the papers I’ve identified are probably just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to lousy (and expensive) research. So we’ve got an interest in identifying potentially problematic disciplines or institutions. And, thanks to Retraction Watch, we now have the tools.
Kyle Briggs over at CanInnovate has been thinking and writing about these issues for years. He suggests that stemming the crippling flow of bad research will require a serious realigning of the incentives that currently power the academic world.
That, according to Briggs, is most likely to happen by forcing funding agencies to enforce open data requirements – and that includes providing access to the programming code used by the original researchers. It’ll also be critical to truly open up access to research to allow meaningful crowd-sourced review.
Those would be excellent first steps.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Business
DOGE asks all federal employees: “What did you do last week?”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/17967/17967578ddfa1c8abb354a1eae0e0f8a6eba6953" alt=""
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Elon Musk said Saturday that all federal employees must submit a productivity report if they wish to keep their jobs. Employees received an email requesting details on what they accomplished in the past week, with failure to respond being treated as a resignation.
Key Details:
-
Musk stated that federal employees must submit their reports by 11:59 p.m. on Monday or be considered as having resigned.
-
Musk emphasized that the process should take under five minutes, stating that “an email with some bullet points that make any sense at all is acceptable.”
-
FBI Director Kash Patel instructed agency employees not to comply with the request for now, stating that the bureau will handle reviews internally according to FBI procedures.
Diving Deeper:
Federal employees have been given a strict deadline to justify their jobs, as DOGE pushes for greater accountability within the government. The email came late Saturday, explaining that all federal workers would be required to submit a brief productivity report detailing their accomplishments from the previous week. Those who do not respond will be deemed to have resigned.
Musk framed the requirement as a minimal effort, writing on X that “the bar is very low.” He assured employees that simply providing bullet points that “make any sense at all” would suffice and that the report should take less than five minutes to complete.
The policy aligns with President Trump’s push for increased efficiency in government. The Office of Personnel Management confirmed the initiative, stating that agencies would determine any further steps following the reports. Meanwhile, FBI Director Kash Patel pushed back, advising bureau employees not to comply for the time being, stating that the FBI would handle its own review process.
The policy has drawn sharp criticism from the American Federation of Government Employees, which blasted Musk’s involvement, accusing him of disrespecting public servants. The union vowed to fight any terminations resulting from the initiative.
Musk also took aim at the White House’s Rapid Response account after it listed recent Trump administration actions, including expanding IVF access and cutting benefits for illegal immigrants. In response, Musk quipped that simply sending an email with coherent words was enough to meet the requirement, reiterating that expectations for the reports were low.
The directive comes as Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency seeks to eliminate waste across federal agencies, signaling a broader crackdown on bureaucratic inefficiencies under the Trump administration.
-
Alberta14 hours ago
Snapshots of Alberta and Canadian trade with the US
-
Censorship Industrial Complex13 hours ago
Is Our Five-Year Nightmare Finally Over?
-
Opinion12 hours ago
Two New Studies Find Fewer Clouds Cause Warmer Temps
-
Health11 hours ago
The FDA is trying to shut down his successful cancer treatments. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s patients are outraged
-
Indigenous2 days ago
Trudeau gov’t to halt funds for ‘unmarked graves’ search after millions spent, no bodies found
-
Business2 days ago
Apple removes security feature in UK after gov’t demands access to user data worldwide
-
Business2 days ago
PepsiCo joins growing list of companies tweaking DEI policies
-
Energy1 day ago
Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean