Posted on 09/15/2011 1:46:28 PM PDT by matt04
Westfield State University's venture into solar power is producing savings on electricity and enhancing its science curriculum.
Operational since March, solar panels installed atop Bates and Wilson halls have generated some 17,043 kilowatts of electricity for the two buildings.
The $520,000 project was unveiled by college and state officials Monday. Funding for the project came from WSU and the state through the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds and federal funding from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
State Energy Secretary Richard K. Sullivan Jr. called the project "significant" in reducing fossil fuel emissions while producing electrical power for the college campus.
The solar panel system is designed to save the college between $15,000 and $20,000 in electricity costs annually but Sullivan said the college will also realize an additional $39,000 in annual solar credits, thereby reducing its overall electricity costs.
(Excerpt) Read more at masslive.com ...
Here is a picture from the Universities website, from what looks like Wilson Hall.
Further research on Westfield's Fatalities and Ops website reveals the following:
Bates Hall is 49,474 square ft and built in 1961. It has a 81.25kw at 120/208 volts emergency generator.
Wilson Hall is 160,919 square ft and built in 1973-76. It has a 750 kw at 480/277 volts emergency generator.
Based on that maybe someone on these boards with more knowledge can but that into perspective.
If those are photovoltaic panels, and it looks like they are, someone should point out that they only last about 20 years - that’s as long as the manufacturer will warrant them. Also, they better hope they don’t get a hailstorm, plus someone will have to go up there and wash the panels at least once a month.
Somebody from the university’s business school needs to go over and ‘splain what “savings” really means.
Do they think we can’t do math?
Cost = $520,000
Savings of $20,000 a year
Breakeven point = 26 years
And that breakeven point only works if they (1) last 26 years, and (2) require $0.00 to maintain? Niether of which is likely.
are they bird droppings proof ? Wait , the wind turbines have killed off all the birds so no problem
Had they just put the money in a CD at 3% interest, it would return 15,000 annually.
HEY!
It’s only $30.51/kwh to date!!!!
I’ll bet they could simply tear up some EPA legislation for free, and save more than $20K per year.
It would also be worth adding in some other information - like the initial testing period was primarily summer - without data during the winter time frame, and the typical life expectancy of the hardware is 20 years. (Hard to get a payback on priciple if the life expectancy is less than the payback period.)
And the comparison should include an analysis of alternate investment strategies - such as considering if the $520K was invested in some bonds that paid 4%/year, the principle would stay intact, and the annual revenue would be $20,800 ....matching the savings, with no risk of hardware failure, no need to clean/maintain the array, etc. 20 years of compound interest plus retained principle would make NOT going solar a MUCH MORE LUCRATIVE DECISION!
Of course - the real money making portion of the project is the scam of tax subsidies and forcing electric companies to pay an inflated price for solar generated electricity (and then they pass the cost on to all customers.)
The have only been in use since March. This is in Massachusetts. May through September is our peak sunlight months. These numbers will go down once it survives one of our winters. What is their plan for snow removal?
If someone gives me a grant or seed money to put $200,000 worth of solar panels on my roof, I'll let them take a picture for free too.
I lived thru this same nonsense in the later 70's. It's almost an exact repeat. Monuments to leaky roofs everywhere. People with real wealth would build new homes with passive solar heating and get the government to fund most of the cost of a brand new 4,000 square foot home with an extra basement for hot rocks. The solar water collectors on the roof would heat water and transfer the heat in a closed loop to tanks of rocks in the second sub-basement. In the summer, the cool basement at 20 feet below grade would cool the water to cool the house. I worked for the builder. The price tag back then was $400,000. That was $100 per square foot in 1979. The government paid about 60% of the building cost.
Hmmm, I couldn’t find Westfield State University on recovery.org.
You guys are economic illiterates.
These installations provided $85,000 in kickbacks from the manufacturer to the Democrat party and saved two PhD positions to do the research on how these panels saved 4.35 tons of carbon dioxide by replacing the coal fed generators.
Never let "journalists" get hold of scientific numbers.
I suppose they mean kilowatt-hours, but who knows.
This project smells of subsidies. I have never heard about annual solar credits. I have heard about federal and state tax credits along with net metering provided by some utilities. The energy savings are a result of net metering. A good deal of the electricity generated will during periods of low usage. Net metering forces utilities to credit the excess power generated even though the utility cannot use the excess power effectively.
Solar PV power in MA makes no sense except for massive subsidies. It is misleading to show these panels when the sun is shining. It would be more realistic to show the panels on a typical cloudy day.
Evidently the author does not understand the difference between "kilowatts" and "kilowatt-hours".
That makes it pretty difficult to take anything else written in that article at face value.
Watts are a unit of measurement for power, i.e. the rate of flow of energy.
Watt-hours are a unit of measurement for energy which is what the solar panels are built to deliver.
The article doesn't make sense as written.
Consider this:
The solar manufacturer is subsidized or given loan guarantees using taxpayer money.
The university purchases solar panels using state and federal taxpayer money.
The university receives solar credits using taxpayer money.
There is nearly zero private funds involved anywhere along the supply chain.
Wait until some lump head starts hacking on them with a snow shovel.
Have they figured in removal-reinstall costs to do roof repair over the 20 year life?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.