More details on the Pilkington solar field grant…
This project was listed as one of the one’s the Governor announced earlier this week here:
* Hull & Associates Inc, PNA Solar Project (Wood County) – $680,782 to install a 250 kW solar array project on Pilkington North America, Inc’s (PNA) Plant 21 site.
FOX Toledo has a news brief Pilkington receives solar field grant that provides some additional details:
When completed the solar field will supply about 65-percent of the plant’s normal power needs. The panels are expected to be purchased from First Solar in Perrysburg Township.
I thought with the recent discussions we’ve had as to the feasibility of solar power, this was an interesting one to point out since if Pilkington is able to reduce the cost of it’s power needs by using solar, it would be a solar success story. For those who might not be aware of it, Pilkington provided 25,000 square feet of glass for the arena.
We’ll see if the 700k install will save more than 700k in electricity offset by any continuing solar field maintenance. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. I would imagine that if it really did then Pilkingting would need grant money, they would buy it themselves because it would pay for itself. I used the same justification when I bought my windows this year. Either customers know that solar doesn’t pay out, or First Solar needs to think about hiring some good sales people.
It is a good deal for Pilkington because now they get the reduced energy bill without having to invest in it. We have just footed the electric bill for Pilkington. Yay.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:14 pmCorrection: “Pilkington wouldn’t need grant money”.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 pmIt’s a $1.4 million solar panel field, which means they are paying for part of it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 pmYou are right Doug, you just helped to pay not only corporate welfare but to fund a currently non-viable industry. Pretty slick of them, huh?
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:14 amSo we’ll have to see if they save at least $1.4 million otherwise it’s probably not economically viable. Even more if you consider time value of money which would make it closer to $2 million assuming a 10-15 year life span.
Of course they probably worked out the break even point at least 700k otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered either.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 amExactly, then there is O&M costs to be added.
In actual dollars they may not see it as a break even venture; they may even be losing a little on this, but this is more than made up for in PR value, i.e., public perception, of a “green” organization.
This was probably a target (solar project) of their environmental management system. They need such projects to maintain their ISO 14001 registration, in my opinion. All and all it is a very good thing, but it wouldn’t have been achieved without reaching into our pockets for half the funding.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:02 amI have searched for two days now and I just can’t seem to find someplace that has purchased solar panels without some kind of government help. Does anyone have an example where some company or individual has done this without the consideration of tax incentives or anything else from the government? I am not being rhetorical, I would just like to see an example and see if it is paying out anywhere.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 amDoug, I’ll see what I can find, I work today so it won’t be till later tonight or tomorrow.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 amLisa said:
“I thought with the recent discussions we’ve had as to the feasibility of solar power, this was an interesting one to point out since if Pilkington is able to reduce the cost of it’s power needs by using solar, it would be a solar success story. For those who might not be aware of it, Pilkington provided 25,000 square feet of glass for the arena.”
To clarify, the solar project is for the R&D Center, not a manufacuting plant that produced the glass for the arena. The note above seems to be implying that the facility benefiting from the grant also produced the arena glass.
The R&D center uses a fraction of the electricity of a manufactuing facility.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 amDoug – replace solar panel with dam and you have the exact same thing.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 amLike Doug seems to say, I’m not against green energy, I just want it to be viable before taking any type of plunge like that. By viable I mean able to pay for itself in the long haul.
Unfortunately I’m not sure this area will ever be good for making green energy. Our mostly cloudy skies hurt solar, last time I looked at a wind map (when they had that story about wind turbines in lucas county) our wind rating was really low, our land is mostly flat so gravity generation is probably out. Haven’t looked into thermal heating from the earth maybe.
Of course that doesn’t mean there aren’t other areas of the country that will eventually be able to supply energy, when it gets more efficient and cost effective, to this area like California with solar or, if I remember the map correctly even other parts of Ohio with wind.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 amThanks for the clarification, Not Again, the way I read the FOX story, it appeared it was the plant:
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 amJohn, Ohio does have enough sun for solar, places like Germany have less and they have been considered a leader by many. Does Ohio have as much sun as other parts of the country and would wind power be a better option? Some believe that to be true, especially on the lake shore which is being discussed/planned. Geothermal is another option, but deep drilling is considered expensive in comparison.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 amLisa, I would hope Germans are working on creating Solar power, though I don’t think it has much to do with efficiency and cost effectiveness as much as forced government subsidy from other utilities:
The reason is not a breakthrough in the economics or technology of solar power but a law adopted in 2000. It requires the country’s huge old-line utility companies to subsidize the solar upstarts by buying their electricity at marked-up rates that make it easy for the newcomers to turn a profit. Their cleanly created power enters the utilities’ grids for sale to consumers.
Upon further investigation here are the rates the old-line utility companies are forced to pay:
Bio Gas – Capacity of 500 kW or below: 7.67 cents per kWh
Capacity above 500 kW: 6.65 cents per kWh
Bio Mass – Capacity of 150 kW or below: 11.5 cents per kWh
Capacity 150 kW to 500 kW: 9.9 cents per kWh
Capacity 500 kW to 5 MW: 8.9 cents per kWh
Capacity above 5 MW: 8.4 cents per kWh
GeoThermal – Capacity of 5 MW or below: 15 cents per kWh supplied
Capacity 5 MW to 10 MW: 14 cents per kWh
Capacity 10 MW to 20 MW: 8.95 cents per kWh
Capacity above 20 MW: 7.16 cents per kWh
Solar – Capacity of 30 kW or below: 57.4 cents per kWh
Capacity 30 kW to 100 kW: 54.6 cents per kWh
Capacity above 100 kW: 54.0 cents per kWh
Hydro – Capacity of 500 kW and below: 9.67 cents per kWh (also applicable for hydroelectric plants built after 2007, but with some restrictions)
Capacity 500 kW to 5 MW: 6.65 cents per kWh
All included for comparison but also consider “prices in the European Energy Exchange (EEX) 200-day average have increased from 4 to 6 cents per kWh.”
So if I read correctly the energy companies are selling energy for 4 to 6 cents per kWh but have to buy it from solar for 54 to 57 cents per kWh.
The question is can the solar plants created survive once they aren’t getting 54 to 57 cents per kWh or will energy prices suddenly raise to cover that cost?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 amJohn Meyer Says:
“The question is can the solar plants created survive once they aren’t getting 54 to 57 cents per kWh or will energy prices suddenly raise to cover that cost?”
If the fraudulent cap and trade passes, electricity costs with “necessarily skyrocket” if you believe obama.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 amSensorG,
No, no they are not. Solar power takes a long time to pay for itself and according to this article they can take up to 100 years with a 30 year life expetance. Dams on the other hand have a longer life expetency and can pay for themselves before they no longer work due do silt build up. The Hoover dam payed for itself in 50 years according to this article.
Do you have an example of solar power that has paid for itself? You said in a previous thread that solar power has been around for 50 years, that is well past the life expectancy of solar panels so there must be SOME example. Again, I was not trying to be rhetorical when I first asked, I would like to believe in solar as a solution NOW, not a dream for the future.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 amDams also provide recreation and irrigation for farming.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 amThe payback estimates very wildly. Most residential articles say a payback to 10-20 years. Try this for your home use –
http://solartradingpost.com/calculate.php
Keep in mind that solar panels also produce no waste, so there is a benefit for everyone in that. They also free up more electricity to the open market which should help out with supply and cost for you and me.
Let’s talk big picture for a second –
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 amWhat is the solution for cheap (and preferable clean) energy in Northwest Ohio? We talk about making the area “more business friendly”, but our high utility rates will keep a lot of jobs away.
SensorG Says:
“Keep in mind that solar panels also produce no waste, so there is a benefit for everyone in that.”
That is not at all true SG, the production process generates lots of hazardous waste. Ask your friends at the solar plant about all the containers with hazardous waste labels. When the cells are past their use or scrapped out due to defects, they may also be classified as hazardous waste, if not recycled. You need to get your facts right, old boy.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 amSensorG your claim “that solar panels also produce no waste” is so incredibly out of touch reality, that it would lead a reasonable person to conclude that. 1) You are clueless and are just pulling garbage out of your butt. or,
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm2) You are intentionally trying to put false information out there because it is the progressive thing to do.
My friends over at FS say they run a pretty green operation inside and out. Yes a lot of nasty goes into make a solar panel, but the case of FS they track and reclaim/recycle their old panels.
You want to see containers with ‘hazardous material’ just walk the back room at your local Krogers.
So Not Again…where should Northwest Ohio get it’s energy from?
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pmYes their production produces waste, I was refering to their operation…
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 pmSure FS does a lot of recycling, it only makes good business sense. And I never said they didn’t run a good operation. But they are hardly “green”, in my opinion.
If you review the Toxic Release Inventory online SG, you will find that you are incorrect again. “Total other off-site disposal or other releases” is about 50,000 lbs per year. And we are not talking about general trash SG. And comparing a company like this to Kroger is just pure ignorance. I used to think you had a bit of common sense SG, at least enough to stay away from topics that lacked any credibility of know absolutely nothing about.
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/tri_formr_partone_efdr.get_thisone?rpt_year=2008&dcn_num=1308206863387&ban_flag=Y
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pmCorrection, I meant 5,000 lbs in 23
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pmIn 2007 the amout of waste this company generated was Total pounds of waste: 147,115
The amount of waste generation will be much higher with the recent expansion.
This comes from The Right to Know Network
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 pmhttp://www.rtknet.org/db/tri/tri.php?reptype=f&facility_id=43551FRSTS2811C&reporting_year=2007&dbtype=C&detail=-1&datype=T
The approximately 5,000 lbs relates specifically to Cadmium compounds that went off site. High levels of cadmium are a characteristic of a hazardous waste.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 pmSensorG,
Can you show me an article that says 10-20 years that doesn’t have a governmental rebate in it? I am talking total payback, not a personal payback that is offset by taxpayer payback. Even the link you used showed that if I wanted to use solar here in Toledo and replace 70 percent of my energy with solar, it would cost me 30k. 30K!!!!!!! and that is after a 3k rebate.
Also from your site of 10-20 years as a disclaimer:
“This takes into account federal rebates, property value increase and inflation of electricity prices at 5.4% anually.” Funny that if you use Germany as an example, you could deduce that the 5.4% increase of electricity will be partly because they will be the ones ultimately subsidizing solar. Pure madness!!!
Do you have solar on your house?
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 pmWow NA – got you fired up. I pointed out Krogers as a comparison that you think FS is bad because they have ‘hazardous’ containers. I’m just point just about every company does if all you are is reading labels and manufacturing environments have 10 times as many.
Cadmium is very much a hazardous material; it’s also fairly expensive and highly controlled as to how it can be disposed of. How much of the cadmium taking off site was recycled.
Again I ask you NA – where should Northwest Ohio get its energy from?
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 pmNone of the amount mentioned in 26
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pmNot Again – do the same excerise on Davis Besse.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 pmSo I guess there is no example of Solar paying for itself yet without the assistance of taxpayer money.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:20 amForgitaboutit!
“Solar panels are one of the least cost-effective ways of combating climate change and will take 100 years to pay back their installation costs, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) warned…”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-panels-take-100-years-to-pay-back-installation-costs-917202.html
December 4th, 2009 at 7:47 amDoug – What types of energy do we use in Northwest Ohio that aren’t at the expense of the tax payer?
Not Again – You and Doug keep liking to the same article.
Where SHOULD Northwest Ohio get it’s energy from?
December 4th, 2009 at 8:13 amSensorG Says:
“Not Again – You and Doug keep liking to the same article.”
It was first up on my google search as well as the best example to refute the solar sell.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:36 amDoug, I haven’t had time to research that, I do have a limited amount of time on Thursday’s and there were other things that became more of a priority. You or anyone could call First Solar and ask.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:56 am