CA School District Spends $23M on Solar Panels, Won't Break Even for 16 Years (ever?)

Daily Tech ^ | September 18, 2011 | Brandon Hill

[decimon]

San Ramon Valley Unified School District installs 10k photovoltaic panels at five schools

In a move that is proving to be controversial with some, some California school districts are looking to a high-tech way to save money, even if the payback won't be achieved until well over a decade later. CNN is reporting that some California school districts are looking to low-interest federal loans to install solar panels on schools.

CNN singled out the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, which has installed roughly 10,000 photovoltaic panels at five of its 35 total schools at a cost of $23 million. Under the most optimistic projections, the photovoltaic panels would offset energy usage at the schools by 67 to 75 percent.

According to spokesman Terry Koehne, the San Ramon Valley Unified School District will pay back the loans courtesy of the energy savings from using the solar installations. However, this won't be a quick payback for the school system -- it will take roughly 16 years to break even on the photovoltaic panels.

Koehne, however, points to the upside of embarking on this expensive venture; "It's pure profit after that. And following that, we're going to start realizing savings of $2 (million), $3 (million), $4 million a year."

[E. Pluribus Unum]

In five years they’ll be rusty hulks with half the efficiency they have now, which ain’t much to begin with.

[Chode]

and the MBTF of the panels is...???

[Chode]

and the MTBF of the panels is...???

[Drango]

I live near one of these schools...the solar panels, economical or not, sit in the parking lot on steel girders and are ugly on a stick.

[RingerSIX]

The spawn of the spawn of the spawn of the children taught morality by these school districts will vandalize these solar panels to the point that I guarantee you that a break even will never be achieved.

[Sacajaweau]

Reading lifespan of 20 years. Maybe they cn get better than that but I’m sure there will be many troubles in between.

[Elendur]

“It’s pure profit after that. And following that, we’re going to start realizing savings of $2 (million), $3 (million), $4 million a year.”
///
if they took the exact same 23 million, and invested it wisely, how much would they have after 16 years, when the solar panels will finally just break even?

(...assuming they optimistic projections on energy savings,
and assuming no maintenance costs.)

and the technology IS improving. simply waiting a few years, might give them, a much better investment, for less money.
Government makes decisions, that no responsible homeowner or businessman on a budget would make...

[RC one]

Liberals don’t look that far ahead. They don’t look past their check from the government.

[decimon]

I’m in favor of solar power if it finds its niche without subsidy. I doubt that any subsidies were factored in to the payback period for this project.

[chicken head]

they should have done there research on that junk- the oil field has tried solar panels for years and they suck big time- they constantly break, a magnet for bird chit, and expensive azz deep cycle batteries, plus the $50.00 per hrs. hands to work on it. - most platforms i know through that junk in da garbage- this system wouldnt even keep (4) nav-aids lights running efficient

[antidemoncrat]

California = result of too much inbreeding!

[jpsb]

interesting tidbit I found at the builders (chevron energy) site.

Bank of America owns the solar equipment and sells power to the district through its Banc of America Public Capital Corp Energy Services team. The district will purchase electricity under a service contract at set rates below market utility rates. This arrangement provides the district with general fund savings and budget predictability.

I did the math, 10k panels generating 5.5MW each panel generates 550w. Cost $23,000,000 or $2,300 per panel. So 550 watts for $2,300 for 20 years. So if I did the math right it costs you $9.50 a month (2300/20/12) to run 10 60watt light bulbs 24x7. Now at 12 cents per KWhr these same light bulbs would cost you (.12 x 24 x30) or 86 but we are only using 550 so 86 x .55=$47.52 Wow $9.50 beats the heck out of $47.50, I must be doing something wrong here, cause I did not think the payback on solar beat 12 cents a kilowatt hour yet. HELP!

[AlaskaErik]

How come the same Democrats who call for an end to tax breaks for oil companies never call for an end to tax breaks for solar panel and windmill manufacturers?

[Bean Counter]

Those panels won’t last anywhere near 16 years, and there is no mention of what it will cost in Maintenance and just the fresh water needed to keep them all clean.

And bet me a burger they bought Chinese solar panels. For sure they didn’t get them from Solyndra.

[decimon]

You’ll get no help from me with that.

Bottom line must be subsidy. Someone gets taxpayer money to make this look workable.

[rfp1234]

There’s another Ponzi scheme for the green suckers.

[Lionheartusa1]

If solar energy were a profitable industry it would not have to be subsidized ,,, it's been in the market place since the Carter years and beyond . If it were a true value to replace current energy systems it would be selling like hotcakes and the incentive to invest in and buy the systems would be market driven ,, but it isn't and that's the reality . The long term maintenance on these systems tend to minimize the advantage over traditional energy costs .

[az_gila]

I live near one of these schools...the solar panels, economical or not, sit in the parking lot on steel girders and are ugly on a stick.

---

At least in our town hall they are using them as sunshades over the parking areas - useful in AZ...:^)

[decimon]

If solar energy were a profitable industry it would not have to be subsidized...

We'll know the time has come when we see people hauling panels out of Home Depot.