backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 50 comment(s) - last by Pythias.. on Jul 25 at 5:37 PM


The new prominent solar panels were built on unused land surrounding the Fresno-Yosemite International airport. They came online last month, with a capacity of 2 MW.  (Source: ABC)

With 7 football fields worth of solar power capacity, FYI is finding itself gaining national attention as the "greenest" airport. Many airports are considering in adopting similar measures.  (Source: ABC)
New airport uses solar to turn idle land productive

Consumer solar installation is booming.  With many homeowners eager to take advantage of lower prices thanks to smarter production and installation, as well as tax breaks offered to ease installation costs, the home installation business is seeing rapid growth.  This trend is especially apparent in California.  With San Francisco's new solar initiatives, the city is expected to experience a strong influx of solar growth.

However, California's solar gains aren't limited merely to the consumer sector.  Private businesses are also flocking to solar power.  Among these new adopters is Fresno-Yosemite International (FYI).  The airport, which served 1.38 million passengers last year, is situated on 2,150 acres and mostly deals in private air traffic. 

The airport had a problem.  A large amount of the land around it was sitting idle and undeveloped while the airport was struggling to deal with soaring energy costs.  Meanwhile, the airport was launching a trial program to deploy solar panels on the roof of an expansion building which was to house rental car services.

Suddenly the idea clicked -- solar power could fuel the airport's power needs.  Not stopping with the rooftops, FYI expanded its solar offerings, placing panels over the equivalent of seven football fields worth of undeveloped land.  Now, with its construction complete for the time being, finishing last month, FYI has found itself in a new position -- green leader.

Becoming the leading green airport was surprisingly common sense, according to local government officials.  Alan Autry, Fresno Mayor states, "So you take land that's basically idle and useless and turning it into 11-million dollars worth of taxpayer's savings, that's a good day for Fresno."

The transformation yielded a 2 MW solar facility which was finally put to use last month.  Now it powers the airport's lighting and the communications tower.  While modest compared to some dedicated solar plants, the FYI's installation is a perfect example of a business putting solar to use.  Says Russ Widmar, FYI Aviation Director, "This will for us produce about 40-percent of our annual electrical requirement.  Just on the air quality side, 170,000 barrels of fossil fuel a year that we will not use."

The city, which encouraged the effort, donated 20 unused acres to the cause, but did not pay any money to help set up the project, feeling that existing tax subsidies provided enough support.  Without handouts the airport was able to set up clever business deals to make the project financially viable.

Frank Smith, Worldwater and Solar CEO, the company handling the installation explains, "We were paid, Worldwater and Solar Technologies, 16-million dollars but we weren't paid by the airport. We were paid by a third party financial firm. They will then sell the power to the airport at a fixed rate for the next 20 years."

During the twenty years fossil fuel costs will likely continue to rise, but the cost of the solar power won't.  Further, the project efforts were buoyed by generous support from corporate partner Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), who donated $5.5M USD in rebates to the project to help promote an environmentally friendly image.

Greg Pruett, PG&E Corporate Relations VP, states, "It is really a pioneering, cutting-edge project. It puts really Fresno out in front of most other municipalities in being leading in embracing renewables."

The Mayor Autry also adds that the plant is not just a matter of promoting green efforts, but also a matter of national security.  Says Mr. Autry, "All of these so-called little bits that people are doing around the country are gonna add up to a whole lot in terms of our dependence on foreign oil."

Thanks to the success of the program, many airports around the country with spare land are looking to adopt similar installations.  Worldwater and Solar is currently working on a smaller similar project with Denver's airport, inspired by the success.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Economics don't make sense
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2008 10:03:10 AM , Rating: 3
While this story has appeared in thousands of drooling forms on various websites, tracking down actual details of the financial arrangements was more difficult.

Apparently the site will generate some $13M in electricity over its lifespan, assuming electricity costs rise as anticipated. Even though the land was free, the total project cost will be at least $30M ($20M construction costs + $10M M&O over 20 years). So its still a horribly losing proposition, which only appears to make good sense due to the massive subsidies the project is receiving from various sources...subsidies we the taxpayers are ultimately paying.




RE: Economics don't make sense
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2008 10:09:17 AM , Rating: 1
And of course, this statement is total bunk as well:

quote:
Just on the air quality side, 170,000 barrels of fossil fuel a year that we will not use."
Converting the 2MW output X AF x hours/year X BOE (barrel of oil equiv energy factor) works out to less than 2400 barrels. Given that only some 3/4 of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, that's actually a savings of about 1800 barrels/year.


RE: Economics don't make sense
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2008 10:14:25 AM , Rating: 1
More Bunk:
quote:
Says Mr. Autry, "All of these so-called little bits that people are doing around the country are gonna add up to a whole lot in terms of our dependence on foreign oil."
Given 1.2% of our electricity comes from oil, and only 2/3 of that is foreign, this vastly expensive project will save us a grand total of 50 barrels/year.

50 barrels! Are such "hallelulahs" in order for that figure?

(btw for accuracy, my earlier post should have included the mean efficiency of fossil fuel power plants as a factor. The 1800 figure should be closer to 4500).


RE: Economics don't make sense
By 67STANG on 7/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Economics don't make sense
By phxfreddy on 7/21/2008 12:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is a great idea! The total installed windpower base = 4 nuclear plants. Solar electricity ...fugitaboutit. Until you can spray paint on titanium nanotubes on to an metal foil base and the spray can of aforesaid nanotubes costs 50 bucks solar electricity will be an insignificant percentage.

I know its hard for you non-engineers to understand these difficult number thingys but what they say is this:

When you divert yourself with ineffective alternatives you are avoiding solving the problem. You are the terminally afflicted deficit disordered.

What your goal should be is to turn alternative energies into mainstream ones. To do that you make the economical.

Getting your airport decorated and otherwise feng-sui'd with solar cells are a distraction.


RE: Economics don't make sense
By 67STANG on 7/21/2008 1:34:18 PM , Rating: 1
It's not a distraction, it's an alternative-- and due to cost and current laws and roadblocks-- a better one than Nuclear.

Although I agree that PV arrays aren't very efficient compared to how much land they take up, there are some impressive developments that could make them viable in the very near future. There are panels that are claiming a 70% conv. eff. instead of the current 17%. What that means is you could make the same amount of power, with 4x less land.


RE: Economics don't make sense
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2008 11:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "and due to cost and current laws and roadblocks-- a better one than Nuclear."

To make solar power a practical alternative requires quantum advances in two or three different areas of science.

To make nuclear power practical requires the stroke of a pen, to authorize the building of new plants.

The difference between these two situations should be obvious to anyone.


RE: Economics don't make sense
By Solandri on 7/22/2008 4:45:25 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a list of electricity production costs for various energy sources. It's a Swedish company that's the third-largest energy producer in Europe. Care to guess which is cheapest in the absence of the artificial legislative and legal barriers we have in the U.S.?

http://www.vattenfall.com/annual-reports/vf_com/20...


RE: Economics don't make sense
By masher2 (blog) on 7/22/2008 9:59:35 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the source; the figures are very closely in line with what I've seen for US utilities. Nuclear power weighs in at just over 4c/kW-h. Wind power is just over twice as expensive.

Solar - which isn't generated by that utility -- comes in much more expensive still. And wind and solar both, when combined with energy storage to allow them to fill any sort of continual role, become *vastly* more expensive. Stored solar electric generation can run more than 60 cents/kW-h...truly a staggering cost.


RE: Economics don't make sense
By phxfreddy on 7/22/2008 11:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously non-engineers who look at number thingys and giggle. You should look to more obvious solutions like putting a windmill on your electric car. Obviously it should work as its awfully windy when you drive.


RE: Economics don't make sense
By Screwballl on 7/22/2008 2:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
yes thats a great idea... put a nuclear power reactor within any distance from a location that planes has the possibility to crash... so now not only are the 100-200 people dead from the plane crash... the nuclear reactor is spewing radioactive waste into the atmosphere killing many many more...

Great idea!!


RE: Economics don't make sense
By phxfreddy on 7/22/2008 11:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
Then put all liberals nearby before crash for retroactive abortions. Then we can kill several problems with one single little stone.


RE: Economics don't make sense
By 16nm on 7/21/2008 4:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
green energy = warm, fuzzy, giggly feelings (and tax incentives)

nuclear = washington bureaucracy

Now is it so hard to understand why everyone is hot on green and cold on nuclear? Nuclear is not an option we have today, at least not practically.


RE: Economics don't make sense
By 67STANG on 7/21/2008 6:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
Funny... I get rated down every time I point this out...


RE: Economics don't make sense
By Solandri on 7/21/2008 11:00:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
green energy = warm, fuzzy, giggly feelings (and tax incentives)

Our economy runs on energy. Expecting to generate economic output by pumping economic-generated tax revenues into alternative energy incentives is the fiscal equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

Incentives for the sake of offsetting the high initial purchase cost makes sense. But you cannot include those incentives in any long-term cost viability analysis - the incentives are money you paid via taxes, so ultimately they are not "free". They are a net zero sum at best.
quote:
Now is it so hard to understand why everyone is hot on green and cold on nuclear? Nuclear is not an option we have today, at least not practically.

Nuclear isn't a practical option because we've chosen to make it an impractical option. Using that impracticality as an argument against it is like an out-of-shape person saying it's impractical for him to exercise because he's out of shape. It's nonsensical, circular reasoning. The answer is obvious - get into shape / fix the laws making nuclear unnecessarily impractical.

None of the pro-nuclear people I've met are against green alternative energy. They're just for whatever energy makes the most fiscal sense. Nuclear works. The vast majority of green technologies do not at present (hydro and geothermal being the major exceptions). In the interests of a long-term cleaner world, I am all for economic subsidies and incentives for research into green energy to eventually make it work. But forcing us into it here and now will bankrupt the country and relegate us to the economic third world. If we're to break our fossil fuel addiction here and now, we need a viable cost-effective alternative which works here and now in the quantities necessary to replace coal/oil. And right now nuclear is the only solution that works in that equation.


RE: Economics don't make sense
By phxfreddy on 7/22/2008 11:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe for now. But as the pain is going up due to dollar collapse ( which is due to importing oil ) ....