Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Colorado capitol goes solar

Rocky Mountain News

Published November 16, 2008 at 11:48 a.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

Crews are installing solar panels on the roof of the state capitol under an unseasonably warm sun and clear skies in downtown Denver today.

Lt. Gov. Barbara O'Brien described the project as "the continued greening of the Colorado's State Capitol" in a formal announcement.

"Today's installation shows that Colorado state government is leading by example in the creation of Colorado's New Energy Economy," O'Brien said. "This is good news when you consider the current economic climate. We're not only saving the state money, but we're taking another step to protect our planet."

Bella Energy started installing the photo voltaic system on the west facing portion of the roof. More panels will be installed on the south facing roof.

The power captured by the 10-kilowatt system is enough to power two homes, and will be consumed within the Capitol building, according to the lieutenant governor's press release. In addition, it will study the efficiency of west-facing panels as compared to more traditional south-facing panels.

Plans call for visitors to the Capitol to be able to monitor the activity of the system in real time via a computer monitor that will be in "Mr. Brown's Attic," the museum display in the Capitol dome.

The monitoring system will track the panels' performance as well as the activity of two other renewable energy systems at the Governor's residence.

The Capitol roof system, like the solar systems at the Governor's Residence, is funded from an energy savings project conducted by Chevron Energy Solutions.

According to the installation contractor, Bella Energy, the system will cost $31,000 after rebates from Xcel Energy, and will pay for itself entirely through avoided energy costs.

The state has already installed two photovoltaic systems, along with a geo-exchange system at the governor's residence. The state is planning a larger system, close to 100 kilowatts, for a building at 1881 Pierce Street, in Lakewood.

Comments

  • November 16, 2008

    12:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kali73 writes:

    They should go on wind power - since there is so much hot air generated there! :)

  • November 16, 2008

    1:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ANOLECOWBOY writes:

    what was the monthly electric bill? what gonna happen when its to cloudy outside to generate the daily elec needs? what is the life span of the pannels? or did they just jump in with both feet, before measureing the cost effectiveness for years to come?

  • November 16, 2008

    2:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    NeilT writes:

    Wow, Anolecowboy!

    You're right! Not a single person involved in this project did any calculations, projections or risk analysis.

    Why don't you apply for a job with Chevron, Bella or the state? They could sure use a good consultant like yourself. If they're not interested, which I highly doubt, I'd like to chat with you about a position with my company.

    Good catch, my friend!

  • November 16, 2008

    2:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    WolfyWolf writes:

    Anolecowboy!

    Photovoltaic systems last 20 to 30 years depending on who you talk to. No moving parts to break down. All systems are engineered before install, else Xcell wouldn’t have it attached to the grid. Unless a solar array is installed off grid, they have a meter that will draw from the panels and/or from the grid depending on demand. They can even run the meter backwards when more solar power is generated than being used locally. The cost of the power is the cost of installation price divided by the years in service. Since power cost are likely to go up it’s a wise choice. Just because the reporter didn’t get the sats doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Wolf

  • November 16, 2008

    4:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    spyder writes:

    Random question - How much did Bella Energy donate to the guvs. campaign? Funny how those things seem to randomly, co-incidentally, just by chance....happen.

  • November 16, 2008

    4:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    boulder1259 writes:

    RickyLee,

    Germany messed up! It's one of the worst environments for solar panels. Fortunately, we in Colorado have much more sunshine. Maybe we'll get lucky in this application although it sounds like the engineering studies were a bit weak (you don't mount solar panels facing west... it's a waste of money...).

  • November 16, 2008

    5:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    smith writes:

    I feel better already!

  • November 17, 2008

    6:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    30 years ago, Carter had solar panels installed on the WH roof. they were operating fine. the panels were set up to determine how effecient over time they would be. the study would be finished by now and the data could have been be analized to show just how cost effective they were.

    in 1980 Regan had them removed at a greater cost than installation. (at the behest of the oil lobby) scrapping the study and thus eliminating any data that could have been derived.

    in turn giving republicans false negativity.

    Good Job Gov. Ritter!!! now make it a law they cannot be removed from the capitol building. as the next bought republican will undoubtedly will have them removed.

  • November 17, 2008

    6:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    On a related note, Xcel energy has asked the PUC to approve a 5-8% increase on electric bills. Considering the "Public" Utility Commission is required to pass on costs of green power to the consumers, expect it to pass without a problem, and to be the first stone in an avalanche of future increase requests that will likewise pass without problems (not necessarily without complaint). But since the "Public" Utility Commission is no longer required to put the public first before green, don't expect your complaints about skyrocketing electric costs during a recession to mean much to those who don't care, and don't have to.

  • November 17, 2008

    7:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gregu710 writes:

    "boulder1259 writes:

    RickyLee,

    Germany messed up! It's one of the worst environments for solar panels. Fortunately, we in Colorado have much more sunshine. Maybe we'll get lucky in this application although it sounds like the engineering studies were a bit weak (you don't mount solar panels facing west... it's a waste of money...)."

    Not sure I follow you here dude. Germany would be one of the last places on Earth that I would expect solar panels (wind power yes, solar, not so much), but funny that it is, Germany is in the forefront of Solar technology, and several of the leading solar manufacturers setting up shop out here are of German origins, and already leading their markets. I'm not an expert on solar panels but have been studying up on them, and it's somewhat of a misconception that you need bright sunny days for solar panels. They work off of energy released when light passes through a photovoltaic panel, releasing a charge, NOT off of heat generated by the sun (that would be the kind of solar energy used to heat water). By changing the chemical structure of the panels, you can somewhat tune the panels to different wavelengths, so even on cloudy days it's possible to generate electricity (by tuning for UV waves which aren't blocked as much by clouds). One thing I know from working closely for over 13 years with the Germans, is that they are very cost-conscious, and wouldn't waste time installing something that didn't provide a good cost/return ratio. And from what I have been reading, many of the new technologies being employed by companies like AVA Solar, Schott, etc... will be cost competitive with coal. One other thing to consider, most of the electrical grid load is during the day (AC, cooking, businesses, etc...), which is also when the sun is likely to be shining, so you are generating your peak load during your peak demand, so who cares if they don't work at night. Besides, that's why you pair wind with solar, the wind doesn't stop after sunset.

  • November 17, 2008

    8:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    MBR693 writes:

    RickyLee writes:

    "Yeah. When I was in Germany a month ago, there were solar panels on every roof, and lots of big wind turbines around that were turning with very little noticeable wind. Yeah, not cost effective at all, I guess."

    gregu710 writes:

    "Germany is in the forefront of Solar technology, and several of the leading solar manufacturers setting up shop out here are of German origins, and already leading their markets."

    Somewhat irrelevant to the point. Germany is leading the technology exploration, but that doesn't somehow translate to why Germany is USING the technology. Most likely, Germany is offering enormous subsidies to people or industries using PV technology. And no, it is NOT cost effective. The price points of petroleum and/or coal is such that PV does not make any financial sense. Most of the places where PV is going up in Colorado are in public places like CSU, where students' tuition is subsidizing the usage. Private home owners have no ability to subsidize the usage without huge government rebates, which artificially change the price point of one energy relative to another. Furthermore, for the home owner, even in sunny locations like Colorado, it will take about 20 years to recoup the cost of the installation. Also, PV panels themselves require huge energy to manufacture. So the "green" impact of the whole endeavor is not as environmentally friendly as one would like to think.

  • November 17, 2008

    9:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SockRayBlue writes:

    The silicon used in todays solar arrays is/will become something in the past. The next generation of solar (4th generation) will be using a film instead of silicon. It is also sensitive to starlight and moonshine. The films can be in any color even camouflage which should appeal to the tree huggers and very extreme "greenies".
    Thus the cost will be well within reach of the average family. Thinking ahead...it may well keep people in the same house and neighborhood for awhile and not house hopping as much.

  • November 17, 2008

    10:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    tjpatriot writes:

    If it was cost-effective, they wouldn't have to "Promote" it. It would promote itself.

  • November 17, 2008

    10:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gregu710 writes:

    "MBR693 writes:

    Somewhat irrelevant to the point. Germany is leading the technology exploration, but that doesn't somehow translate to why Germany is USING the technology. Most likely, Germany is offering enormous subsidies to people or industries using PV technology. And no, it is NOT cost effective. The price points of petroleum and/or coal is such that PV does not make any financial sense. Most of the places where PV is going up in Colorado are in public places like CSU, where students' tuition is subsidizing the usage. Private home owners have no ability to subsidize the usage without huge government rebates, which artificially change the price point of one energy relative to another. Furthermore, for the home owner, even in sunny locations like Colorado, it will take about 20 years to recoup the cost of the installation. Also, PV panels themselves require huge energy to manufacture. So the "green" impact of the whole endeavor is not as environmentally friendly as one would like to think."

    Can I ask you where you're information comes from regarding the costs? I would agree that for a individual homeowner, the costs are still relatively high without subsidies, but for utilities when compared with the cost of new powerplants, and the cost of generation, things are shifting toward alternatives. If they weren't favorable, I don't think you'd see so many windfarms and solar farms going up. Sorry, I don't give the "greenies" that much credit for having that much influence. I can say from our standpoint (I currently make bearings), our business with wind companies is off the charts right now, and that goes for our competitors. And as far as recouping costs, you mention 20 years, but that is for the homeowner, what about an apples to apples with a utility plant. Also, it does NOT take a huge amount of energy to make these things. They take a standard piece of architectural glass, chemically coat it, put it into a vacuum chamber (continuous feed is now the method of choice so greatly reducing the cost of batch production), and deposit the various materials on the glass using vapor deposition methods which are relatively low-energy. Then they use a laser and etch the glass making hundreds of cells on each piece of glass, and mount it in frames. Not much more cost or energy than making windows to be honest.

  • November 17, 2008

    11:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gregu710 writes:

    "tjpatriot writes:

    If it was cost-effective, they wouldn't have to "Promote" it. It would promote itself."

    Don't tell that to all the ad execs who promote everything from aspirin to condoms...

  • November 17, 2008

    11:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    tjpatriot writes:

    Well, you're going to need an aspirin when you see your energy bill after a few years of dumping the most cost-effective ways of generating electricity, and having to pay for Excel giving "rebates" to those who chose to squander vast amounts of money on techniques that don't produce it cost effectively. And, make sure all the "Greenies" are wearing condoms when they come for you. And lube-up, 'cause it's coming.

    BTW, why do they shut down the wind farms when the wind gets too strong? Are those thing just for show? jeez...

  • November 17, 2008

    1:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gregu710 writes:

    "BTW, why do they shut down the wind farms when the wind gets too strong? Are those thing just for show? jeez..."

    No, to prevent damage to the gearboxes and blades. Those things don't need a 60 knot gust to spin, a very light breeze generates plenty of power (having stood directly at the base of several in Germany with them spinning and no discrenable breeze, I can confirm that first hand). Get too much wind though, and you get vibration, and too much strain on the turbine bearings and gears. Remember, that is a 270 foot diameter blade at the top of a 300 foot tower!! Ships are made for going to sea, but you don't typically send them out into gales or hurricanes.

    And, I don't think I've heard any but the most zealous "greenies" saying we can get rid of all of our coal/oil/nuclear, most of the reasonable (moderate) ones realize that this is a supplement to other sources to greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels as much as possible. No perfect energy source exists yet, so finding a good mix of several while trying to minimize environmental damage doesn't seem like such a loony idea, does it?