Let The Sun Shine
 By Mark ForsytheThe Kansas City Post Google announced this week that they have gone live with a massive solar power installation. The 1.6 MW project provides about 30% of Google's Mountain View, California headquarters' energy. Even more impressive is the projection that the system will pay for itself in 7.5 years. Google took advantage of its large roof area and even covered its car ports with solar panels. This got me to thinking about what structures in Kansas City would lend themselves to solar panels. First, and to me the most obvious is Science City. The angled rooftops almost look like they were designed to accommodate solar panels. They're even facing south which is the prime orientation in this part of the hemisphere for optimum solar exposure. Not to mention the exterior of the Planetarium. It also looks like it was designed to accommodate solar panels. If only we had a large public utility who could partner with Science City and make an alternative energy display... Next up. Kauffman Stadium. I read recently that the Royals actually had to go out and find projects to spend all the money we just gave them for stadium renovations. Why couldn't they have spent a little bit of that money on a solar powered scoreboard? The Colorado Rockies already have one. We lose to Denver yet again. Probably the biggest potential for a solar installation is Bartle Hall. Now there's a lot of rooftop going to waste! We might be able to attract some energy conferences to town just on the merits of our "green" convention center. Much progress is being made in "thin film" solar panel technology. This allows putting solar collectors on glass in much the same way you apply plastic tinting sheets on auto glass. In the case of thin film solar, it doubles as tinting and power collection. Seems we have a giant glass structure downtown that would lend itself nicely. And what about the roof of the Sprint Center? Months ago I suggested painting it red like the OneKC marketing logo. Since that idea went over like a lead balloon maybe we could throw some solar panels up there too. Finally, the Power and Light District. Wouldn't it be a logical marketing move to generate some "Power" from "Light?" I read recently that Ted's Montana Grill has installed a solar system at one of its restaurants. Aren't they coming to the Power and Light District? Seems like a logical choice for their second installation. Until communities like Kansas City step up to the plate and start taking a leadership role in alternative energy, we will continue to hear that clean energy is on the way or won't be ready for a few years. I say let's make it ready. Update: Regular reader 'doinkman' informs us that Missouri does not have true net metering. Everybody should check out Renew MO and tell your state representatives to vote for the Renewable Electricity Standard Act. |
posted by Mark at 7:54 AM
Comments on "Let The Sun Shine"
-
Brent said ... (8:39 AM) :
-
Bob Asher said ... (9:28 AM) :
-
doinkman said ... (9:42 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (10:02 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (10:33 AM) :
-
KC Sponge said ... (11:02 AM) :
-
idan said ... (12:53 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (1:31 PM) :
-
doinkman said ... (2:38 PM) :
-
DaveKCMO said ... (6:02 PM) :
-
Bob Asher said ... (10:08 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (10:37 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (9:29 PM) :
-
DaveKCMO said ... (9:45 AM) :
post a commentThe Union Station idea is perfect -- doubling that up with a new (much needed) exhibit about sustainable energy and power would be an excellent addition to the Science City...
I would be interested in knowing exactly how Google is getting a 7.5 year payoff period. All of the projections I've done for solaring up my house gets payoff in 15-20 years. If it can get down to 3-5 years, I'm there.
By the way, almost every single house in midtown built before WWII is perfect for rooftop solar. For instance: Most houses are on north-south (named) streets, so the long faces of their sloped roofs face north and south. The prevalent roof slope in this area is a pitch of 10:12, which eerily corresponds with our latitude here in Kansas City. In a nutshell, if you live in house with a 12:10 pitch roof on a named street, then your roof is almost ideally designed for rooftop solar panels, more so than all of the flat roof buildings you mention in the post.
Good day, sir.
Bob:
Payback heavily depends on electricity rate and CA is very high! Not to mention PG&E has some good incentives for renewable energy generation as does state govt. Also, I'm sure that 1.6 MW of PV cells gets a big discount per panel.
Everybody that is interested in this issue should sign up for Renew MO, http://www.renewmo.org/easyconnectionact.html
which has been making some progress on getting net-metering in MO.
Doesn't the new Walmart that replaced Blue Ridge Mall have PV cells in it's future? I know big-box stores are taking a serious look at solar power, especially Walmart.
doinkman,
Thanks for the link. I didn't realize our net metering law was so ridiculous. This blog gets hits from Jefferson City so hopefully our elected officials will take notice.
asher,
Large commercial installations are usually not static. They have tracking mounts that turn the arrays towards the sun throughout the day. They can also be used to turn the panels completely vertical to protect them from hail. Bartle Hall's flat roof would work perfectly.
Unfortunately until our state gets off the ethanol boondoggle real solutions like wind and solar will continue to languish.
By the way, kudos to Jonathan Bender over at PrimeBuzz for coming up with a better title. "Kansas City's Favorite Sun." Why didn't I think of that?! I guess I'm still stuck in the 5th Dimension...
Union Station would be a great choice - not only because their favorite thing to tout is their $1 million utility bill every year - but also they already have a relationship with KCP&L in the form of a huge grant for a new electricity show AND the aforementioned convenience of the buildings' structure. Someone needs to put a bug in Andy Udris' ear - his infectious enthusiasm generates funding and gets things done, but so far has only produced a lackluster rail experience and revenue for Storm FOX . . .
But that's a whole other story - I'm in Florida right now so I am definitely feeling the power of the sun!
I don't know if anyone noticed or remembers that in March of this year KCP&L signed an agreement with the Sierra Club and a citizen's group agreeing to a number of clean power initiatives that included "filing for approval of a net metering program in 6 months". So, things are happening.
How does KC's weather/climate rate for using solar power as a reliable source of energy? A lot of short, dark, dreary days come to mind when I think of Nov, Dec, Jan and Feb. Just guessing but I would think Google's location would have many more "good solar" days than KC. There has to be plenty of studies on this?
iDan,
Kansas City has a solar rating of about 5 kWh/sq-m/day. That's pretty good. It's certainly not southern California or west Texas good, but it's much better than the northeast and Massachusetts is one of the leading states in solar incentives and solar industry. So if Boston can have solar, I think Kansas City can too!
sure, lots of places have better solar exposure...but lots of those places are pretty desolate and far-away from actual energy users. So when looking at the big picture you have to account for transmission losses, and also just the shear amount of infrastructure to get the electricity to the users.
By contrast, solar installed on top of large electricity users just run a power cable downstairs to inverters and then into the building's grid.
Net metering is essential to attract any big solar investments to the area. Like iDan said....things ARE happening.
bartle hall should have a solar or green roof. i wish we would have required all those low-rise P+L buildings to have green rooftops. in fact, i think it makes perfect sense for any new development requesting tax incentives to meet some level of LEED certification.
i think the tide has turned and people are really getting fed up with the lack of leadership at every level of government.
davekcmo:
You are right on the money. If a developer walks up with hat in hand asking for public money to use for private profit, the we certainly have a right to ask for LEED certification, and I'm talking Silver, Gold, or better, not just "certified", which anyone can hit if they fill out the paperwork.
Great idea.
Mark: What I was saying about residential solar is that many houses in midtown are very well suited to a fixed (ie less-expensive) rooftop installation with no hassle.
There are lots of stipulations I would like to put on TIF and tax abatement. LEED Silver is only one of them.
asher,
I just like to correct you because you're an architect. "You're people" are so much fun to argue with. :-)
Let's go solar, but let's do so with conservative practicality. Failed alternative energy projects tend to turn people off to other attempts.
Keep in mind that if it is a city funded project, payoff in less than ten years will severely impact other city programs. Our capital improvements are already dozens of years behind now, and must have priority.
"Slow and steady" not only wins the race, it creates the best path to follow as well.
bob: i can't claim ownership of the LEED/TIF idea. believe it or not, it came from the mouth of katheryn shields during the mayoral election.