Rendering shows solar panels (black areas) on the Baker Sports Complex roof.
Davidson College is getting ready to install two arrays of solar panels on Baker Sports Complex, off Concord Road. The installation could save the college about $25,000 a year in energy expenses, Project Manager Kris Krider says, and it will help Davidson advance its commitment to sustainability.
The $600,000 cost of the two solar panel projects is being funded by the college, the Duke Endowment and a North Carolina state grant that is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
One project will feature solar thermal collector panels that will use glycol to heat the water for Cannon Pool and the showers in the Knobloch Tennis Center, both in the sports complex. This project will include 64 four-by-10-foot top panels weighing 153 pounds each. Glycol will be heated in pipes that run through the panels and transfer heat to the water.
“Glycol is a good conductor,” Physical Plant Director David Holthouser said. “We’ll expose the pool water to the hot pipes containing the glycol, and that will warm the pool.”
In the other project, a separate photovoltaic system will generate electricity to meet a portion of the energy needs for Baker Sports Complex. This project will involve installation of 378 panels weighing 42 pounds each.
The PV panels convert sunlight directly into electricity by absorbing photons and releasing electrons. During cloudy periods, the system will switch back to conventional electric power. By reducing the amount of fossil-fuel energy needed to operate the Baker Sports Complex, the college will reduce its carbon footprint. This is a goal of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, which Davidson signed in 2007.
The projects will be installed by Southern Energy Management of Morrisville, N.C. Work is scheduled to be complete by Dec. 31. Panels for both projects together will cover 75 percent of Baker’s flat roof surface and 60 percent of the pool roof surface facing the Baker parking lot.
“It’s a good experiment to have to have both PV and solar thermal,” said Mr. Krider, the former planning director for the Town of Davidson who is now consulting for the college. “This way, we can analyze which system works best.”
“Davidson College is taking solar energy seriuosly. It’s good for the environment—and in a climate that averages 300 sunny days a year, it ultimately will pay for itself,” he said.
Cathryn Westra is a fellow in the Davidson College Communications office and a former intern with DavidsonNews.net. She wrote this article for College Communications.
As a taxpayer that is helping to fund this project I have a few questions:
Based on the numbers given above, is the Return on Investment(ROI) really in 24 years?
Based on the question above:
How long is the warranty for the panels?
What is the typical lifespan of the panels?
How much of taxpayer money was used to fund the $600,000 project?
While I am not affiliated with this project and cannot answer all the questions on your post, I personally do support public investment in sustainable technologies. I sense from the tone of your post that you might be a skeptic of such investments. We all need to realize that public utilities and industries throughout our post-industrial history have been subsidized with public money. Transportation is and has been heavily supported by public money.
In fact there’s a new study that answers this question, commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute. The study estimates that the federal government has provided $725 billion in energy subsidies (including R&D funding and tax breaks) over the past 50 years. The biggest beneficiaries? The oil and gas industry. Oil and gas got 60 percent of that $725 billion. Next in line is coal at 13 percent, followed by hydropower at 11 percent. Nukes come in at 9 percent, while renewables got only 6 percent.
The other dramatic bit of data in the report is just how much federal funding for energy R&D has decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s. “Just to get back to the level in the Carter years, R&D funding would have to be increased five times for renewables, and ten times for nuclear power,” says Roger H. Bezdek, president of Management Information Services, which prepared the report.
Each of these industries/technologies requires maintenance throughout the life of the system. Generally speaking the PV industry is manufacturing systems that last as long as 30 years with warranties ranging from 20–25 years that warranties the product and the performance to limit degradation to less than 20 percent. I cannot speak to the return on investment question, but even if the math you offered is correct it is still a better choice than continuing to deplete other natural resources that contribute to our carbon footprint.
In addition to transportation we will continue need petroleum for a wide range of products such all plastics, Ink Paint, Shoe Polish, Nylons, Roof shingles, Novelty Candy, Cosmetics, Candles and Vaseline (to name a few). As a taxpayer I appreciate that Davidson College has made a commitment to being a leader in seeking more sustainable alternatives for the infrastructure that supports this great institution.
Here is some interesting data that denotes how disproportionately we invest in new and smarter technology, in particular mass transit and green energy. Thank the lobbyists!
U.S. Department of Transportation Funding, 2002:
Federal transportation funding 1971-2001
$1,890,000,000,000 Air & highway funding 63:1 ratio 30,100,000,000 Amtrak funding
Feds build airports but tax train stations to death ...
Washington's National Airport was built with $36 million in federal funds and between 1941 and 1957 had cost $4 million to operate; the airport paid no taxes.
At the same time, Washington Union Station was valued at $32 million and paid more than $6.9 million in taxes -Source: Trains Magazine
The Pennsylvania Railroad modernized its Pittsburgh station in the 1950s only to see the taxes increased and the money spent to improve the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport.
In 1955 alone, railroads paid $92 million in taxes on passenger related facilities. -Source: "Supertrains: Solutions to America's Transportation Gridlock."
I agree with Nick that this project has a seemingly long payback. However, emerging technologies are typically expensive at first, and I feel it is appropriate for the government to invest in renewable energy, with the goal of lessening our dependence on oil and also helping to bring the cost of these technologies down to the point they make more financial sense.
Computers offer an example of a technology that have come down significantly in cost as demand increases and technology improves. Compare the cost of the iPhone today to the original Mac computer than came out in the late 70s. The iPhone is 1/10th the price (adjusted for inflation even less), and has exponentially more computing power than the Mac. I’m sure this will be the case with solar and other renewable energies.
As a homebuilder I can tell you that not only is the power source important, but managing energy consumption is equally if not more important. I was troubled to read that the college is using energy to heat the water in the pool. This is totally unnecessary. Certainly these college kids can swim in room temperature water instead of using energy to heat it to 85 degrees. We visit my mother-in-law every Easter, and my kids love to swim in her outside pool with water temperatures in the 50s. Eventually they coax the old man in, and I regale them with stories of how when I was a kid we trundled through snow to get to the outside pool, then we used a pick ax to break the ice before we went for a swim. Kids these days have gotten soft.