How NOT to install solar panels

lilpup · April-30-11, 07:16 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/sc...h/28solar.html

Did they give *any* thought to aesthetics? These panels aren't even dedicated to powering the streetlights.

And if they are trying to meet an alternative energy percentage why aren't they putting up LED streetlights, too?

**wolverine** · April-30-11, 08:28 PM

I don't know what's worse, the poles and wires or the solar panels. They definitely look strange, but their view already sucks, and they chose to live on a street with that crap of a view, so I don't really care what they have to say.

However, new LED street lamps require significantly smaller arrays....about the size of a textbook.

I get nervous when cities implement solar panels though...no one really knows how to take care of them. They need to be washed down occasionally or even the slightest streaks of grime will decrease their efficiency by 30% Indeed they will save money on lighting, but they will be a maintenance nightmare many years down the road.

**old guy** · April-30-11, 09:16 PM

Yeah, it doesn't have to be that ugly.
If the big box stores all over the country would switch to solar/LED for their parking lots, it would actually take some of the strain off of the power grid. With their massive roofs, they could install solar arrays that would help too.
The number of streetlights in the U.S. is a huge source of power usage.

**Mikeg** · April-30-11, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by old guy

The number of streetlights in the U.S. is a huge source of power usage.

The fact don't support your contention. There are about 35 million streetlights in the US and they consume only about 1% of the annual US electricity output - plus they only come on at sunset when the peak loads of the day are over.

Originally Posted by old guy

If the big box stores all over the country would switch to solar/LED for their parking lots, it would actually take some of the strain off of the power grid.

How many big box stores do you think there are in the US? How many parking lot lights do you think they have?

There aren't any total big-box statistics that I can find on the Internet, but I doubt they total more than 50,000 [[Walmart + Sams Club + Costco + Meijer + Kmart + Best Buy = 6,600 stores). Assume 100 bulbs in each of the 50,000 parking lots and you have the equivalent of only 5 million more streetlights - and they could only strain the power grid if their managers were stupid enough to keep them on during the day.

lilpup · April-30-11, 10:49 PM

I don't know about big box stores but I do know that the typical average sized gas station/convenience store with full cover canopy over the fuel dispensers that my employer owned ran an electric bill of over $4,000/mo and most of it was for the canopy lighting.

**Mikeg** · May-01-11, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by lilpup

I don't know about big box stores but I do know that the typical average sized gas station/convenience store with full cover canopy over the fuel dispensers that my employer owned ran an electric bill of over $4,000/mo and most of it was for the canopy lighting.

As a condo board member, I know that each year it costs us about $9,000 for electricity to operate our 75 single-bulb streetlight fixtures, which is an average cost of about $120 per streetlight per year. Extrapolating that to the approximate 100 total bulbs in the avg. big-box store's parking lot lighting fixtures, their annual electricity bill for parking lot lighting would be about $12,000.

The city of San Jose estimates it will cost them $50 million worth of Federal stimulus and local funds to convert their 65,000 streetlights to LED "bulbs", or about $770 per streetlight to gain an energy reduction of 80%.

How much would the average big-box store be willing to spend to convert to LED "bulbs" if they can cut their annual electricity bill by 80%? Using the private sector's payback period "rule of thumb", an investment should be able to pay for itself in less than 2.5 years, meaning they would not logically want to spend any more than $24,000 for new parking lot LED lighting fixtures. If that $770 estimate is accurate and transferable, it would cost them about $77,000 to do a conversion to LED, which yields a miserable payback period of 8.0 years. This is why you don't see private "green" lighting projects happening without some level of government subsidies - at current prices they don't make economic sense when a company can invest that money in any number of other internal projects that have a higher rate of return.

**maxx** · May-01-11, 09:22 AM

Aesthetics is personal.I find telephone wires, smoke stacks belching black smoke and gas guzzling super rigs ugly for many reasons.

**old guy** · May-01-11, 02:08 PM

Okay Mikeg, let me rephrase what I said. Even if the number of streetlights in the U.S. only made up 1% of the annual U.S. electrical output, it would still be a huge source of power usage.

Currently, there are about 5700 power plants in the U.S. on line and producing electricity. Obviously, 1% of that number would be 57 power plants. Maybe that number seems insignificant to you, but it sounds pretty high to me.
The electric usage is obviously going to keep rising. Although more power plants will have to be built to supply enough power, it would be in our best interest to utilize what we've got right now.
Forget peak power. Our antiquated system is at a breaking point 24 hours a day. California suffers from rolling black outs and brown outs during the day.
Personally, I don't want to be remembered as being part of the generation that gobbled up all the earths resources leaving the coming generations with nothing. Taking streetlights off the grid isn't going to save the world, but it could be an integral part of the puzzle. Let's start with that 1% and then look for another 1%

**Mikeg** · May-01-11, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by old guy

Okay Mikeg, let me rephrase what I said. Even if the number of streetlights in the U.S. only made up 1% of the annual U.S. electrical output, it would still be a huge source of power usage.

Currently, there are about 5700 power plants in the U.S. on line and producing electricity. Obviously, 1% of that number would be 57 power plants. Maybe that number seems insignificant to you, but it sounds pretty high to me.
The electric usage is obviously going to keep rising. Although more power plants will have to be built to supply enough power, it would be in our best interest to utilize what we've got right now.
Forget peak power. Our antiquated system is at a breaking point 24 hours a day. California suffers from rolling black outs and brown outs during the day.
Personally, I don't want to be remembered as being part of the generation that gobbled up all the earths resources leaving the coming generations with nothing. Taking streetlights off the grid isn't going to save the world, but it could be an integral part of the puzzle. Let's start with that 1% and then look for another 1%

You could rip out every streetlight in the USA and you still wouldn't be able to permanently close a single power plant. The only savings would be 1% of operating costs for the utility companies. The total number of power plants needed by a utility company is based on the highest levels of expected demand, which are typically during the late afternoon hours. As demand rises and falls, the utility companies adjust the number of generators in service at their power plants to match the customer demand.

"Greening" the nation's streetlights is nothing but a "feel-good" exercise that is currently not economically justifiable and thus requires substantial taxpayer subsidies. It does nothing to reduce the nation's overall generating capacity needs nor does it reduce the burden on the electrical transmission grid.

**HistoryNotHisStory** · May-01-11, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by old guy

Okay Mikeg, let me rephrase what I said. Even if the number of streetlights in the U.S. only made up 1% of the annual U.S. electrical output, it would still be a huge source of power usage.

Currently, there are about 5700 power plants in the U.S. on line and producing electricity. Obviously, 1% of that number would be 57 power plants. Maybe that number seems insignificant to you, but it sounds pretty high to me.
The electric usage is obviously going to keep rising. Although more power plants will have to be built to supply enough power, it would be in our best interest to utilize what we've got right now.
Forget peak power. Our antiquated system is at a breaking point 24 hours a day. California suffers from rolling black outs and brown outs during the day.
Personally, I don't want to be remembered as being part of the generation that gobbled up all the earths resources leaving the coming generations with nothing. Taking streetlights off the grid isn't going to save the world, but it could be an integral part of the puzzle. Let's start with that 1% and then look for another 1%

The United States biggest users of electricity is the industrials users. Data from the Dept of Energy Annual Energy Review shows the facts.

However, it is imperative that all users of electricity on the grid install more energy efficient options.

But, what they did in New Jersey lacks foresight, insight, and wisdom. The trees alones reduces the output of the Solar PV Panels. Why PSEG? Why? There are so many things wrong with their installation.... I cannot begin.

lilpup · May-01-11, 05:30 PM

Some people are interested in reducing energy usage. Others are just interested in money.

**HistoryNotHisStory** · May-01-11, 05:44 PM

The utility PSEG of New Jersey is attempting to comply with the state's mandate to implement renewable energy. However, instead of installing a Solar PV plants, or medium systems 10 KW systems on rooftops and ground mounted systems. They install huge solar panels on streetlights.

I like their strategy, but it was not the most wise choice.

First, as the picture shows, the installed Solar PV panels in neighborhoods inudated with large trees. The shading from trees will drastically affect the output of the Solar Panels. 10% shading can result in 50% reduction in Solar PV output.

As anyone in the Solar Industry knows, it is not best to install Solar Panels near shade. But to install Solar Panels around a small forest [[as the picture depicts is insane).

Secondly, the mistake that many make in installing a Wind Turbine, Solar PV System or any other renewable, is they forget that they should first install energy efficient measures. New Jeresey should have installed LED lighting first. They should have monitored the light output and energy usage for 2 years to see their drastic reduction in energy usage by changing to LEDs. After that, then they could have installed Solar PV Panels and could have used much smaller panels.

Also, the New Jersey, PSEG did not install the electrical wiring underground. They didn't so the residents have to look at spaghetti in sky.

**old guy** · May-01-11, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

You could rip out every streetlight in the USA and you still wouldn't be able to permanently close a single power plant. The only savings would be 1% of operating costs for the utility companies. The total number of power plants needed by a utility company is based on the highest levels of expected demand, which are typically during the late afternoon hours. As demand rises and falls, the utility companies adjust the number of generators in service at their power plants to match the customer demand.

"Greening" the nation's streetlights is nothing but a "feel-good" exercise that is currently not economically justifiable and thus requires substantial taxpayer subsidies. It does nothing to reduce the nation's overall generating capacity needs nor does it reduce the burden on the electrical transmission grid.

Wow! I learned in grade school that 2-1=1. Maybe it was just a typo in my little text book. If I turn off a lightbulb in my kitchen it reduces the nation's overall generating capacity needs.

We're not going to close any power plants but the need to build new ones, which raise electric bills can be slowed down.

Why is it that alternative energy is always picked apart due to taxpayer subsidies and can only be considered "feel good exercises?" We subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear power and we subsidize coal. We also subsidize rail lines to haul coal. What has it cost the taxpayers for the super funds to clean up toxic waste sites? You'd be hard pressed to find anything we don't subsidize.