Solar Project Biggest in the Country

Congresswoman Lois Capps sure has a way with getting her pork projects funded. I suppose one could justify just about any community project in this big country but if they were all federally funded as this is we would be looking at 100 trillion in debt instead of 14 Tril.

"Acres of Panels Installed to the Benefit of More Than 1,000 Families"

What about single people without families?

This article points out that some people are actually doing something about energy and pollution. Congresswoman Capps is a great representative for her district. Our local solar businesses, housing authority, individual property owners and CEC really are doing something in a big way toward clean energy independence.

On the other hand you have 'leaders' like council member Michael Self appearing with a local Tea Party activist and complaining as usual. This time it is about smart meters and also admonishing SCE for not providing an abundance of power as mandated for utilities.

Well I've heard a statistic that a solar power plant in the southwest 90 mile square could supply the U.S.A. of all the energy that it needs. But of course there are environmental concerns and technical problems transmitting the energy nationwide. So an answer to the problems could be exactly what is reported on in this article.

billclausen; I know what you mean. I often roll my eyes when I hear so much manipulation with the over used word fam-il-y, families, etc when used in politics. But that is a hook. I think in this article it is just used as a unit of measurement to indicate how much energy is supplied. So I am a little more forgiving.

I think that this is really cool and hope to see more solar panels popping up around SB! We DO have the sun, why not use it for energy? It seems the way it is meant to be. Too bad it's so expensive to install. I'd love to see more windmills being used to get energy from the wind, those are really amazing!

I guess I'm not thinking about the politics, just the increase in solar use for energy. I hope that it starts a trend that extends to everyone :)

With the rebates, credits and if you have a good credit rating it may not be as expensive you might think. Check it out it may work for you. And if you're replacing your roof; credits may be available for a least the portion of roof replaced under the new panels. I am in the process of bids right now to see if I can manage it even though my utility costs are really low, even with occasional air-conditioning. I am considering consuming more energy while ditching dirty fossil fuels and anticipating an electric vehicle purchase and possibly a spa. I don't want to contribute anymore pollution so solar may be a good option. It doesn't hurt to check it out. Call a local solar provider for a quote.

The wind energy is also a good option but again council member Michael Kathleen Self considers it one of those "devil in the details" in our proposed general plan. Self is so closed minded about so many issues I think she may try to kill any new ideas about new energy sources. All of council member Selfs' issues suggests she is of the 'drill baby drill' crowd.

I think this is exciting news! It's wonderful that we have a congressional representative who supports projects that improve the health of our families (whatever their composition--single, two moms, two dads, boarders, housemates, etc) and the health of our environment!

Thanks to all the commercial and political folks who are trying to improve life for all of us, including creating jobs!

Great story, I hope its the first in a series! It's my humble and sincere hope that the journalist will pursue this story in depth, and inform us on the following items:

(1) Under reasonable conditions, how much electricity, measured in kiloWatt-hours per year, will all of these solar panels produce.

(2) Evaluated at the current average residential electricity rate charged by Edison or PG&E, how much money is that annual electricity production worth?

(3) How many years will the panels have to operate in order to cover the $12.25 million cost from the value of the electricity produced?

(4) From other reports, I've heard that half of the $12.25 million came from the Federal government. I presume they borrowed it from China. The other half came from incentives from PG&E and Edison, which also borrow heavily to finance their operations. Ultimately of course, taxpayers and ratepayers pay off both sources of debt. Can the journalist confirm these sources of funding, and provide us with a sense of the interest costs associated with this project?

(5) Can we know whether the County is considered doing similar projects in future using only local government funds? Or does it only pencil out using allegedly "free" money from the Federal government and from the utilities?

(6) I suppose this project fits the category of "green jobs" that the President and Rep. Capps have discussed frequently. The article says "20 new positions" were created. Can we get some more specifics on this? How many people worked for how long on this project. I'm looking for person-hours of green labor that were supported from this one $12.25 million project only.

(7) One last request. Can the journalist conduct some follow-up interviews, with both the County Housing Authority and with Representative Capps? I would like to know their views on the subject of "transparency", and in particular, why this very basic accountability information that I've outlined is not automatically publicized by their offices?

Good questions.

And while we're asking the questions above could we also have some comparisons to other sources of energy including the costs of environmental damage, clean ups, health cost, etc. And what are the process costs and constructions costs of new and dirty power plants placed in unwanted districts. What are the financial and environmental costs of mining, shipping, piping, storage and sequestration or entombing or wastes. Do some wild and crazy analysis of diminishing finite dirty fuels compared to ongoing and abundant solar activity, at least while we're all here.

It would be very good to have these environmental cost figures as well.

In our addiction to energy, we face the huge problems of Peak Oil and the rape of the land and sea that are only beginning to test this civilization and its maturity. To make any dent will require large sacrifice, and the efficient use of every resource we can bring to bear.

Yet, our policy remains this wasteful approach of loading the grandchildren up with huge debts for "green" projects that produce the most modest results. It is un-serious. We pat ourselves on the back, tell ourselves "we did it for the grand-kids", and heaven forbid we inquire further into where the free money came from. Yes, we in Santa Barbara are at the forefront of Solar, using other people's money. Does it feel good?

With their now free solar power, I imagine the Housing Authority occupants will now do much as Don McD proposes to do once his solar system is done ... consume even more power than before. Two steps forward, one step back. Half measures purchased at great expense with free money. So much for our sense of urgency in saving the blue ball.

A modest proposal. We need a hefty carbon-tax, or an electricity tax now. Give the proceeds of the tax back to everyone as a flat rebate per person. Get the price of the power closer to the true full environmental cost of the stuff. Stop throwing the money away at "photo-op" greenery with free money brought to you courtesy of the Chinese and our massively indebted grandchildren.

If we individually bring our consumption down under such tax-rebate scheme, we're in the money. We will have a very powerful incentive to do so. The solar projects on our houses might get a little closer to a paying proposition after considering the tax, and we'll still have the flat electricity tax rebate to throw at it. And doing the solar projects on our own, we'll be less inclined to throw the progress we made away by consuming even more power. The carbon tax will persuade us to do otherwise, and besides we're gonna need all those savings to pay for the solar system we installed on our own dime.

More importantly, we'll all search very hard for more efficient ways of reducing our consumption. Insulation perchance? Not good for sexy photo ops ... but likely better for the planet. Given our modest means, we'll use our money very wisely to get the biggest bang of energy savings we can. Because unlike the purveyors of the free money in Washington, we can't just print the stuff without risking a prison term.

Whatever solutions we the un-subsidized people come up with, they will be less wasteful, and ones that make some serious progress on the truly massive task at hand. We will have met a generational challenge in a way that for once doesn't rest on passing the bill to the next generation.

Santa Barbara Diane: We've got a great alternative - retain our dependence on Middle East oil, pay billions in aid to oil-rich countries as a means of ensuring our supply, and billions in environmental mitigation resulting from generating electricity using carbon-based fuel.
If you do an internet search on California Solar Initiative, you'll find that Santa Barbara County is the first county listed as opposing residential solar installations. SB city gives a ridiculous amount of lip service to support of solar energy. My solar panels were installed in 2006, and city zoning laws prevented me from having them installed facing the sun, limiting me to 80-90% of the value of panels I paid full price for. When my neighbor's 18 foot tall hedges shaded 1/2 of my panels, SB city council and Mayor Schneider did zip after I filed 5 complaints. I called former city council member Brian Barnwell about reappraising my property, since the city's refusal to enforce zoning ordinances had made my investment worth a fraction of my cost. Amazing- after 7 years of filing zoning complaints with SB city, my neighbor's hedges were out of my backyard and 10' lower, and my solar panels can see the sun. It makes me very nostalgic for the good old days when we had SB natives and long-term residents representing the people of SB, rather than relative newcomers with no knowledge of SB presenting private interests.

"Acres of Panels Installed to the Benefit of More Than 1,000 Families"

What about single people without families?
-- billclausen

Bill, I hereby award you the nit-pick-of-the-week award. You apparently cannot see the forest for the trees. Hell, you cannot see the forest for the microbiota on the forest floor. Well done.

If that photo really shows the newly installed solar panels then I'm really disappointed. Look at them - they're just a small fraction of the area that could be used to collect solar energy. Why?

politicians spending hard-earned tax dollars on these green projects and then using it as a platform to make them seem so swell is bad enough but there's also the issue of their environmental impact---especially when it comes to birds.
Because the solar panels are mirrored, it confuses birds who fly into them, probably because they either think it's water or more sky.
And wind turbine farms have a horrific impact on their local bird populations due to everything from the disorienting sound to the spinning blades hitting them.
Then of course there's the energy saving light bulbs that contain mercury that will certainly find it's way to our oceans, but before that, the risks to humans is great.

SezMe asks a good question. The way I would explain it it is because we don't have a really good national energy plan yet; because 'lobbyists' from other dirty energy sources are involved and they don't want you to cut into their business. So there are limitations as to how much expected excess energy/electricity a household could produce and put back into the grid. Someone doesn't want to pay these homeowners for excess cheap, reliable, locally produced energy. (Only in SantaBarbaraDianes' America could this happen.)

This is a tough issue for me.. On the one hand, solar energy is more sustainable and helps free people from "the system" as far as energy goes.

The government has been subsidizing cheap oil for decades through our overseas militarism, costing us trillions of dollars and artificially lowering the cost of fossil fuels making it so that alternative sources of energy are more expensive and cannot compete as easily.

I'm convinced we would have much more affordable sources for alternative energy had the government just stayed out of controlling South America and the Middle East for cheap oil. It would have saved many lives and we could have developed at a more sustainable pace.

Because the solar panels are mirrored, it confuses birds who fly into them, probably because they either think it's water or more sky."
-- SantaBarbaraDianne

This is nuts. Solar panels are just the opposite of "mirrored". They generate electrical energy by ABSORBING photons thus they look darker than the surronding environment because they reflect LESS light. Just look at the picture above the article.

"Then of course there's the energy saving light bulbs that contain mercury that will certainly find it's way to our oceans, but before that, the risks to humans is great."

The largest source of mercury to the oceans (and humans) is from coal-fired power plants. The amount released by those light bulbs is neglible in comparison.

SantaBarbaraDianne, your contributions to Indy dialogs would have more relevance it they were grounded in the real world.

Actually Don, big industry took over during the Industrial Revolution and got together with government to create regulations on their pollution. This gave them a license to pollute people's air and property without being liable for damages.

If we took a private property rights approach to pollution rather than a regulatory approach, then we could reverse 150 years of lobbying from big industry and begin holding companies accountable for the damages their pollution causes.

"SantaBarbaraDianne, your contributions to Indy dialogs would have more relevance it they were grounded in the real world."

No kidding! Based on the above comments alone, I'd assumed she was a troll.

"Bill, I hereby award you the nit-pick-of-the-week award. You apparently cannot see the forest for the trees. Hell, you cannot see the forest for the microbiota on the forest floor. Well done.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2011 at 12:36 a.m

I want my prize; I'm tired of standing on stage waiting for you to give it to me.

loonpt makes a very good point on the superiority of property rights approaches to the problem, over the regulatory approach. I very much agree.

But I have changed my mind about "cap & trade", which has been one of the leading property rights based proposals for pollution and carbon control. After witnessing the corruption involved in the formulation of Waxman-Markey, I no longer support this method. And guess where the trading occurs: Wall Street. I've had enough of Wall Street in the past 4 years to last a lifetime, thank you.

I prefer the carbon tax alternative to regulation, with a flat per-person rebate of the tax every year. Very simple. Very transparent. Easier to administer. Harder to corrupt. Very efficient in getting the job done, sending the message very clearly: reduce your carbon folks, by whatever means that work best for you. And revenue neutral, so's we don't bog down the project of saving the planet with the interminable life-sapping budget debate going on in DC and elsewhere.

Hello,

As the CEO of Planet Solar, I would like to clarify a few misconceptions on this string, and answer some of the many great questions here. This is an awesome project, and we are proud to be the design / build team on it. I can state that we have built this project completely on budget and within a few % of schedule, which is amazing considering the enormous complexity of this installation, as well as being the largest project of its kind in the nation. Thanks to the crews, production team, and HASBARCO team, this is a real success.

Let me address the comments concerns from the top of the string to the bottom.

SantaBarbaraDiane: There is no pork in this project at all. It was funded entirely through existing well-established programs that Planet Solar and especially Bob H at the Housing Authority brought together to create this pioneering project. This project was funded mostly through the Multifamily Affordable Solar Homes (MASH) program of the California Solar Initiative, which is administered through the utilities like Edison and PG&E. This paid for over 60% of the projects in those utility districts. The rest of the money came from the US Treasury Grant (30% of all renewable energy investment), American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, Low Income Tax Credits, and others. Rep. Capps may get pork funded, but not on this project. I say that as a fiscal conservative guy who usually leans the opposite side of the aisle from Lois.

billclausen: The 90sq miles is close - The US could provide all of its electrical needs in 2009 with a system that is 20 miles by 20 miles, or 400sq miles. That is amazing, and I think a great goal. There certainly is plenty of land all over the US to parcel that up so that the power would be generated a bit closer to where it is used.

Interesting fact - 80% of the electricity generated is lost in transmission! What is beautiful about solar on homes and businesses is that the electricity is generated where it is used - Zero losses.

DonMcDermott: I used to live exclusively on 2 solar panels and a wind generator. Wind is an awesome source of power, IF there is wind. To harness the wind, there must be AT LEAST 12mph of wind 12hrs per day, which only exists in about 6 places in CA. I love wind generators, but they won't work most places. Meanwhile, the sun shines nearly everywhere.

More Answers to the Questions/Comments from Planet Solar (I hope I don't come across as hijacking the forum, just want to answer questions)

Santabarbarasand: You are absolutely right, if you haven't had a solar quote in over a year, you don't know how affordable Going Solar really is. I am excited that now solar panels and other materials needed have now hit the lowest level possible, so that it truly has NEVER been a better time to go solar. And any truly competent solar installer has a lease program as well, so you can Go Solar for as little as $0 down. If your bill is over $100mo, solar will save you money from day one.

However, you can't write off putting a new roof under the solar panels (unless your accountant is WAY more aggressive than mine). The roof is not there for the sole purpose of providing a mounting base for the solar, which is the requirement. HOWEVER, we did install carports who's sole purpose is to provide a mounting structure for the solar, and those carports then can take advantage of the 30% ITC and 100% Bonus Depreciation.

CharityBee: some answers to your questions: (1) the system will produce about 2,725,000kWH per year or (2) the equivalent of about $68,000 per month! Because the Housing Authority has certain rules that mandate it paying for some tenants electricity, the Housing Authority will save many thousands each month, which they can then use to help more people (and make up for all their budget cuts). (3) There is no payback period on this project, because the housing authority used none of its own money to fund this.However, if this were a private commercial project, the payback would be about 6 yrs with a Return on Investment of about 23%. Where else can you find a guaranteed return of over 20% these days? (4) See above for partial list of programs. (5) HASBARCO, or Housing Authority Santa Barbara County, is not a part of the county government. (6) Green jobs - very rough numbers here, but close. We hired 20 positions, from installers to administration and management, due to the scope of this project. We already had 10 positions that also work on this project. In the past 8 months we have paid out a bit over $1M, plus we hired local sub-contractors like electrician, tree-trimmers, electrical engineers, etc. This is not to mention that only Solarworld solar modules were used, made 100% in Cammarillo. Planet Solar is committed to keeping as much labor and expenditures as we can local. This generally has a ripple effect of 6-7 times, so one dollar paid to our guys is spent at the restaurant who buys from the local produce supplier who pays the farmer for produce, etc.

Last One from Ben at Planet Solar:

SezMe (1): The reason the entire roof wasn't filled with solar panels was that what you saw in the photo was all that was needed to completely power that building. State law limits solar systems under 1mW to offset only 110% of the power needed at that site.

SezMe (2): Mirrored Panels? SezMe is absolutely right. Module manufacturers spend millions every year in R&D to eliminate any reflection potential to the glass. It is very specialized glass that reflects as little as is technologically possible.

Birds - they poop on our panels all the time, but never fly into them. And the urban myth of birds flying into windmills, the blades move so slowly on the big turbines its not an issue, and so fast on the home-size turbines that it is seen (and heard) as a solid object. I lived four years in a bird-rich environment with a turbine and never had a bird hit it. I have no stats on this, but I am pretty confident that the number of birds killed by cars each year is a million times what is killed by wind turbines.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION (Old Dawg and Don McDermott): Here is what we have found after being in the solar industry for 4 years, and energy conservation since 1983 - Its all about the money. So far, we have not had one customer who purchased solar unless it made financial sense. I have personally had someone say to me (and I quote), "Don't give me any of that tree-hugging BS, I don't give a s__t."

But that guy now has a $5 per month bill and runs his air conditioner guilt-free. And guess what - he loves to talk about how much carbon his solar system has saved from the environment. Though we have never installed a system to an environmentalist, we have created environmentalists out of the vast majority of our customers. And that is a GREAT thing for our planet.

What I LOVE about this business is that we offer win-win-win to anybody, regardless of personal ideologies or politics. If you are a Tea-Party militant conservative, there is no better investment than solar and it reduces need for foreign oil. Tree-Hugging environmentalist? Its the best thing you can do for the environment. And everyone likes to save money, but no one likes the utility monopolies. So GOING SOLAR is one of those rare opportunities where we all can find common ground.

I hope that I was able to clarify some points and answer some questions. Thanks for the opportunity.

@side241: I appreciate your enthusiasm and spirit. But your numbers defy logic and just don't add up, by a mile -- and frankly they do damage to the credibility of our common sustainability cause. Re your answers to my questions:

side241>>"(3) ... if this were a private commercial project, the payback would be about 6 yrs with a Return on Investment of about 23%. Where else can you find a guaranteed return of over 20% these days?"

With 6 yr payback and 23% ROI ... then why aren't you simply overwhelmed with business? Why are your promises of a guaranteed 23% return on investment going begging in this greedy society, and you are only able to expand your business when a project comes along that requires 100% life-support from free money courtesy of the Federal government and the Cal Solar Initiative?

side241>>"(1) the system will produce about 2,725,000kWH per year or (2) the equivalent of about $68,000 per month!"

Assuming you are correct in estimating the value of the electricity produced monthly at $68,000, then it will take about 15 years before this project produces enough electricity to cover the $12.25 million cost. How do you reconcile this fairly long payback period to the 6 year payback you asserted in (3).

More importantly ... assuming the $68,000 is an average monthly value, then you're saying these panels generate electricity worth 12X$68K = $816,000 per year. Since you say that the panels generate 2,725,000 kWh per year, then you must think that the electricity is worth about 30 cents per kWh throughout the year ($816,000 / 2,725,000 kWh). Please tell me, where in Santa Barbara County are residential customers paying an average annual rate of 30 cents per kWh?

More likely, they're paying something closer to what I pay in Edison country on the South Coast. It varies, but it hangs close to 18 cents per kWh. If I use that rate, the 2.725 megawatt-hours produced annually by the panels are only worth about $490,000 per year --- and the payback period (simple) on the $12.25 million cost is ... 25 years. The rate of return? About 1.2% figured over 30 years, if the panels/roofs last that long. A very far cry from the guaranteed 6 year, 23% rate of return you claimed above. How do you reconcile this?

Elsewhere in your comments you talk about how your solar clients have expanded their consumption running air-conditioning etc., "guilt free". It must be nice to live in a psychic-world where you have no guilt for expanding your consumption of electricity ... when your solar system was purchased, in whole or part, from Federal/State debt or from your neighbors paying their solar assessments to Edison and PG&E ... where the whole intention of giving you this free money was to reduce our fossil based electricity consumption. You've thrown our gift away, for your private enjoyment.

Carbon tax now. Stop the con job. Stop the wasteful subsidies funded on the backs of our grandchildren.

Congratulations on only paying an average of 18 cents kWH! This shows that you have a far below average consumption, which can only come from conscientious usage. But are you considering all the junk fees that are tied to your kWH usage? It adds up.

In most of CA, customers are charged in 5 increasing tiers, depending on location and utility starting at 14 cents and going up to a whopping 40cents once all the junk fees are calc'ed.

When I stated that a straight cash deal would be 6 years, what I meant is that if HASBARCO was a normal cash customer like any other commercial enterprise. There are tax credits, deductions, and CSI rebates that are available to everyone, just like when you get a tax break on your mortgage, medical expenses, educational expense - even deducting for dependents. If you take any of those deductions, you take advantage of the tax code, just like everyone else.

MY JOB, at Planet Solar, is to give our customers the best value and the most thorough information available. It is why my COO is a former CPA - to make sure our customers have been made aware of every possible tool that is legally available to them, and let them and their CPA determine what applies to them.

Our design tool is created by a CPA and 14yr solar veteran, I have my CPA check it often, and my COO evaluates the tool nearly every day. Our calculations factor in the cost of replacing inverters in year 15, the 30yr historically provable inflation of 6.7% for electricity, the loss of tax write-offs from the old bill, and even deeper analysis. Our financial analysis has been certified, and I stand by our numbers.

I am surprised you denigrate my customer for putting up a solar system so he can use his AC guilt free. This guy is net zero in his electrical consumption. He is totally self-sufficient, using carbon-free solar energy to power his home. He decided he wanted to have AC, but insured that it didn't have an impact on his bill, which has the added benefit of not impacting the planet. What more could you possibly want?

Last, you infer that the panels won't last 30 years. The very first solar panel made, at Bell Laboratories in 1927ish, is still producing over 80% of it's new production. The panels put up on satellites and unmanned space explorers are still working since the 50s. These things will outlive our grandchildren.

I am sorry to hear there are still people out there that are anti-solar energy. Its certainly not the only solution, but its a tool in our arsenal towards the goal of energy independence and clean energy.

I am around town a bit, and we are very active in the community. My name is Ben Siebert, and I hope to meet you some day when we can continue this dialogue.