Carver and Solar panels.....GOV Waste

foodcritic

New Member
That's right PORKULUS SPENDING. For real?

While SMCPS was one of twenty-one recipients of the $500,000 grant
= $10,500,000 tab to the taxpayers.

So the highly overpaid Superintendent of skools tells us how much this is going to save us. No mention in the article of the cost of the project...only that they got a grant for 500k. If anyone out there knows the actual project cost that would be great info.

I have read that the average life span of these panels varies. Let's give them 25 years.

Hardwick said once the project is completed, Carver will have more solar power than any other school in the state, with cumulative savings over the next 15 years of up to $1.4 million.
THIS IS OVER A 15 YEAR SPREAD.
What happens if these things need to be replaced in 20 years?

We could cut his (SKOOL SUPER) salary in half and cover that in about 12 years...:killingme:killingme

Carver Goes Solar with Project Sunburst - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Project Sunburst to Assist State and Local Governments with Solar Panel Installment « Conduit Street

A bit more about Sunburst itself...

Project Sunburst Groundbreaking Ceremony Scheduled - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News

Ah, heres some meat for you......explains how you get 2.5 million worth of solar equipment for only 500,000. You dont own it, you rent it, buy buying the solar power from the company who installed it. And that deal is for 15 years. What happens after that? Company folds and useless solar panels eventually need to be disposed of, and a not insignificant cost to us.

In April 2010, SMCPS was one of 21 recipients of the Maryland Energy Administration’s Project Sunburst grant which was issued to promote the installation of large-scale solar photovoltaic energy systems in public agencies. The $500,000 award issued to SMCPS will offset a portion of the capital costs for a 500 kilowatt system estimated at approximately $2.5 million.

The Board of Education approved the award of the Power Purchase Agreement with Perpetual Standard Solar, LLC, for the installation of solar panels at George Washington Carver Elementary School at their meeting of October 26, 2010. The Power Purchase Agreement allows for the construction and operation of the solar generating facility without any additional capital outlay by SMCPS. SMCPS will purchase the electricity produced by the facility at a rate below the current rate from its local utility company, realizing a significant savings over the 15-year term of the agreement. The facility will produce the equivalent of 80 percent of George Washington Carver’s annual electrical consumption and will provide educational opportunities for students at George Washington Carver, the Dr. James A. Forrest Career and Technology Center, and Great Mills High School.
 
Last edited:

foodcritic

New Member
Project Sunburst to Assist State and Local Governments with Solar Panel Installment « Conduit Street

A bit more about Sunburst itself...

Project Sunburst Groundbreaking Ceremony Scheduled - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News

Ah, heres some meat for you......explains how you get 2.5 million worth of solar equipment for only 500,000. You dont own it, you rent it, buy buying the solar power from the company who installed it. And that deal is for 15 years. What happens after that? Company folds and useless solar panels eventually need to be disposed of, and a not insignificant cost to us.


nice!
 

koan00

Member
Ah, heres some meat for you......explains how you get 2.5 million worth of solar equipment for only 500,000. You dont own it, you rent it, buy buying the solar power from the company who installed it. And that deal is for 15 years. What happens after that? Company folds and useless solar panels eventually need to be disposed of, and a not insignificant cost to us.

Supposing the system is completely useless if the panels fail - unless it costs 1 million to dispose of, we end up saving money.

Of course more reasonably, you can probably just replace the panels for less that the full installation cost, and continue to save money. Due to technology and investments like this which help fund R&D, the future panels will either be a) cheaper or b) more efficient which would generate even more savings at that time.

Don't really see how this is such a huge waste ?
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Supposing the system is completely useless if the panels fail - unless it costs 1 million to dispose of, we end up saving money.

Of course more reasonably, you can probably just replace the panels for less that the full installation cost, and continue to save money. Due to technology and investments like this which help fund R&D, the future panels will either be a) cheaper or b) more efficient which would generate even more savings at that time.

Don't really see how this is such a huge waste ?

Why do they have all the installation costs, rental costs.. etc etc..

But NOWHERE does it say what the projected SAVINGS are?

So we PAY the solar company for RENT, and in turn they install the sytem and still charge us for electric (at a lesser rate than the electric company, but is it 10% less? 30% less? or is it a set rate determined by what SMECO charges month to month?). Are we going to realize enough "savings" to recoup the money invested and paid over the long term?

Seeing they don't tell us how MUCH we are going to save over the 15 years, I think the savings are probalby "virtual".. make believe if you will.

Just using the power grid injects NO additional cost to the shools (other than the monthly electric bill that they are already paying). Solar Power brings in multitudes of additional cost and they'll still have a monthly electric bill.. Holding up one monthly bill to the other I'm assuming they can show fairly significant savings.

Total lifetime costs (say 15 year lifetime) I think we're in negative net savings.

Just a guess on my part, because they've conveniently left out what the differences in electric bills will be from month to month.

Maybe if they invest 20M in wind turbines they'd save even MORE money!!
 
Last edited:

koan00

Member
But NOWHERE does it say what the projected SAVINGS are?
...
Seeing they don't tell us how MUCH we are going to save over the 15 years, I think the savings are probalby "virtual".. make believe if you will.
From the OP Link
Hardwick said once the project is completed, Carver will have more solar power than any other school in the state, with cumulative savings over the next 15 years of up to $1.4 million.

Also one should note that the average lifetime of todays solar panels are in the 20-25 year range.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
That $1.4 million savings over 15 years comes to about $7K per month. Considering the school now spends $10k per month for electric, that's drops their usage down to $3K per month.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
That $1.4 million savings over 15 years comes to about $7K per month. Considering the school now spends $10k per month for electric, that's drops their usage down to $3K per month.

So, if they spend 10K a month now for Electric, and it's going to cost >1M(? 500k of which is coming from a grant) to implement and build, and then they are STILL going to pay for electricity, a percentage at the current grid power rate and some at a reduced solar rate..

They say they are still going to have to pay a monthly fee for grid electric AND the solar energy they use, plus the start up costs, wouldn't their grid and solar bills have to be in negative numbers for them to realize a saving of 1.4M??

I mean if they pay 10k a month now for electric.. that comes to 120k a year or 1.8M over 15 years. I don't see how they are going to squeeze 1.4M in savings over 15 years if they only spend 1.8M now on electricity. Just the start up costs blows their 400k (1.8M - 1.4M in projected savings) 15 year allowance.
 
Last edited:

awpitt

Main Streeter
So, if they spend 10K a month now for Electric, and it's going to cost >1M(? 500k of which is coming from a grant) to implement and build, and then they are STILL going to pay for electricity, a percentage at the current grid power rate and some at a reduced solar rate..

They say they are still going to have to pay a monthly fee for grid electric AND the solar energy they use, plus the start up costs, wouldn't their grid and solar bills have to be in negative numbers for them to realize a saving of 1.4M??

I mean if they pay 10k a month now for electric.. that comes to 120k a year or 1.8M over 15 years. I don't see how they are going to squeeze 1.4M in savings over 15 years if they only spend 1.8M now on electricity. Just the start up costs blows their 400k (1.8M - 1.4M in projected savings) 15 year allowance.

Okay, I just read the second article that was written before the ground breaking article so now I'm not sure how the savings will be realized.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
I mean if they pay 10k a month now for electric.. that comes to 120k a year or 1.8M over 15 years. I don't see how they are going to squeeze 1.4M in savings over 15 years if they only spend 1.8M now on electricity. Just the start up costs blows their 400k (1.8M - 1.4M in projected savings) 15 year allowance.

The solar is supposed to supply 80% of the power, so assume $2K a month over 15 years is $360K to SMECO. $1.8M - $360K = $1.44M

Now they're going to squeeze $1.4M out of $1.44M in savings? Really?

Electricity rates have gone up at about 2.26% per year in the last 15 years. If that continues, the price without solar would be $1.95M. With solar, SMECO still gets $390K. That leaves $1.56M to ring out $1.4M in savings.

That means that the owner of the solar panels would be paid $500K from the "stimulus" plus $160K over 15 years to install and maintain $2.5 Million of equipment and panels for 15 years. At the end of those 15 years, the panels are close to the end of their useful life, so they definitely wouldn't be woth anything close to $2.5 Million. I don't see how the $660K puts a dent in their up front costs. I'm no business major, but that doesn't sound like much of a return on investment.

Of course there's an easy explanation for how you wring $1.4 Million in savings out of this: energy prices rise at a much higher rate than they have in the past.

Barack Obama in January 2008: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
 

koan00

Member
So, if they spend 10K a month now for Electric, and it's going to cost >1M(? 500k of which is coming from a grant) to implement and build, and then they are STILL going to pay for electricity, a percentage at the current grid power rate and some at a reduced solar rate..

They say they are still going to have to pay a monthly fee for grid electric AND the solar energy they use, plus the start up costs, wouldn't their grid and solar bills have to be in negative numbers for them to realize a saving of 1.4M??

I mean if they pay 10k a month now for electric.. that comes to 120k a year or 1.8M over 15 years. I don't see how they are going to squeeze 1.4M in savings over 15 years if they only spend 1.8M now on electricity. Just the start up costs blows their 400k (1.8M - 1.4M in projected savings) 15 year allowance.
According one of the articles above:
The Board of Education approved the award of the Power Purchase Agreement with Perpetual Standard Solar, LLC, for the installation of solar panels at George Washington Carver Elementary School at their meeting of October 26, 2010. The Power Purchase Agreement allows for the construction and operation of the solar generating facility without any additional capital outlay by SMCPS. SMCPS will purchase the electricity produced by the facility at a rate below the current rate from its local utility company, realizing a significant savings over the 15-year term of the agreement. The facility will produce the equivalent of 80 percent of George Washington Carver’s annual electrical consumption and will provide educational opportunities for students at George Washington Carver, the Dr. James A. Forrest Career and Technology Center, and Great Mills High School.
So there are no more upfront costs. The costs to the school are 0. 100% of the funding required is supplied by the 500K grant.

As for the optimistic math, I have no idea how they came up with the numbers. Even if it's not 1.4 million in savings the article states, I still think it's fairly reasonable to assume the savings from a reduced bill on 80% of their power needs will exceed the initial goverment costs of 500k. (They only need to save about $2800/month to pass the break even point)

We would still see long term savings while funding a local business to do the work. I really don't see the down side here.
 
Last edited:

itsbob

I bowl overhand
The solar is supposed to supply 80% of the power, so assume $2K a month over 15 years is $360K to SMECO. $1.8M - $360K = $1.44M

Now they're going to squeeze $1.4M out of $1.44M in savings? Really?

Electricity rates have gone up at about 2.26% per year in the last 15 years. If that continues, the price without solar would be $1.95M. With solar, SMECO still gets $390K. That leaves $1.56M to ring out $1.4M in savings.

That means that the owner of the solar panels would be paid $500K from the "stimulus" plus $160K over 15 years to install and maintain $2.5 Million of equipment and panels for 15 years. At the end of those 15 years, the panels are close to the end of their useful life, so they definitely wouldn't be woth anything close to $2.5 Million. I don't see how the $660K puts a dent in their up front costs. I'm no business major, but that doesn't sound like much of a return on investment.

Of course there's an easy explanation for how you wring $1.4 Million in savings out of this: energy prices rise at a much higher rate than they have in the past.

Barack Obama in January 2008: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."


Exactly.. And the people providing the 2.5M solar system will recoup their money because, after all, they are a BUSINESS and not a governement.

They may not pay it upfront, but the schools (taxpayers) will be paying at least twice that in the 15 years they have the systems, or why would a business agree to do it at all?

MUST have an ROI if you install it at a school, a hospital, retirement home or the headquarters for Microsoft, or they'll go out of business and the school district is left holding the bag for maintenance disposal.
 
Last edited:

koan00

Member
They may not pay it upfront, but the schools (taxpayers) will be paying at least twice that in the 15 years they have the systems, or why would a business agree to do it at all?
2.5 million is the "estimated" cost ands seems like an awfully nice round number. Its probably overestimated at a full retail markup, and the installer doesnt pay retail.

There is most likely an alternate revenue stream as well. It's possible that there is excess energy to be sold on the market outside of what the school uses.

I am not an electrical engineer or anything, but from my own fuzzy math:
The system produces 500KW. A 500KW system can produce 2,600,000 kWh a year which is 216,667 kWh/month.

I'm not sure the rate was paying on the electricy, but going by the most recent data available, the cheapest rate they would be using is about 9.37 cents per KWH ( Electric Power Monthly - Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State ). So if the school was paying about $10k, then 10,000 x 100 / 9.37 = 106,723 kWh a month.

The system produces 216,667 kWh a month, the school uses 106,723 kWh a month, and the company sells the surpplus (109,943 kWh ) on the retail market.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
There is most likely an alternate revenue stream as well. It's possible that there is excess energy to be sold on the market outside of what the school uses.

The system produces 216,667 kWh a month, the school uses 106,723 kWh a month, and the company sells the surpplus (109,943 kWh ) on the retail market.

Fine and dandy, except that is against the law in MD.

And I think realistically you'd be looking at producing about 1.4 - 1.8 kWh of electricity.. Compensating for things like Night Time and overcast days.
 
Last edited:

glhs837

Power with Control
If there is excess to the schools needs, why the heck would it only sell %80 of what the school needs?
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
I am not an electrical engineer or anything, but from my own fuzzy math:
The system produces 500KW. A 500KW system can produce 2,600,000 kWh a year which is 216,667 kWh/month.

The system produces 216,667 kWh a month, the school uses 106,723 kWh a month, and the company sells the surpplus (109,943 kWh ) on the retail market.

500KW per hour = 500 KWh

In order to get 216,667 KWh per month, that would be 7,222 KWh per day.

7,222 KWh per day would take an average of 14 hours of sunlight per day, every day.

At our latitude, you only get an average of 5 hours of "standard sun" per day - that means that as the sun rises the intensity of light increases to the maximum then decreases to zero. So even if you get 14 hours of sunlight in the summer and nine hours in the winter, it averages out to the equivalent of 5 hours of constant peak sunlight per day.

So, 500 KW * 5 hours = 2500 KWh per day, or 75 MWh per month, or 912 MWh per year. (assuming no overcast days, snow, etc.)

Where's the extra power to sell?
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
Fine and dandy, except that is against the law in MD.

And I think realistically you'd be looking at producing about 1.4 - 1.8 kWh of electricity.. Compensating for things like Night Time and overcast days.


What? Selling power back?
 
Top