...was never revealed more in contrast to common sense than in this project by the Tri-Met transit district here in Stumptown, Oregon. The photo, from Page B1 in today's Oregonian:
You will note that the extended caption provides some interesting data to work with, so we will!
Let's start with the output of the giant solar array costing over a third of a million bucks, 64,000 kw/year. BTW, it was this figure that led me, at the breakfast table, to reach for my calculator. Power figures are rarely quoted in yearly form. 64,000/365 = 175.34246 KW per day, but let's divide again to get an hourly rate: 175.34246/24 = 7.3059358, which we will round off to 7.31 KWH. That's not much electricity. A modern home uses about that much in moderate demand periods.
Would we build a $366,600 solar array on our home to provide 7.31 KWH in electricity? Probably not. I have an acquaintance in Phoenix who built a 5.0 KWH array on his home, complete with a large battery-storage system AND a whole-house-capable inverter, for under $30,000. Since it takes a bit more array to give those results in these northerly climes, let's say that a comparable household array to the featured one could be built for $50K. That's less than one-seventh the cost of this one.
But, let's say we are not going to do solar at all, we just want to provide 7.31 KWH. What does that cost? Hint: it doesn't cost $5000, as the paper quoted. It would if that were Residential rates, but Tri-Met doesn't pay Residential Rates, they probably pay Large Non-residential rates. Those rates are considerably less, and that 64K-KWH would then cost $3,712 before any rebates, and as a Government, there is a rebate. I would have had these exact figures, but Tri-Met has taken it's Budget figures off the 'Net.
So, to save $3712 per year, Tri-Met has just erected a solar array which, at today's rates, will not pay for itself for almost 99 years! Now I somehow doubt that the service life of that solar array is 99 years, probably 30 at the most.
So, this whole endeavor is a giant waste of taxpayer cash, in this case, BUSINESS taxpayer cash, since businesses are the only ones taxed for Tri-Met.
Just in case you want some figures on what YOU could generate this electricity for, if you go to Harbor Freight (yes, I know you call it something else), you can buy a 45-watt solar panel for $150 on sale. To make 7.31 KW, you will need 163 of them, so $24,450. Then you would have to buy the electric stuff to tie it all together and store the power for the dark hours, say another $10K, then probably $15K to put it all up, so our original figure of $50 is about right.
Let's go to Northern Tool instead, and buy an 18KW Briggs & Stratton generator which runs on Natural Gas. It will set you back under $5K, and the switch and installation another $2K. It uses 141 cu/ft/hr (3.53 therms) of natural gas at half-power of 9 KWH, and that gas will cost you about $4.17 to make that 9 KWH, or $3.38 for 7.31 KWH, not including the cost of amortizing the generator.
Since Tri-Met will have to replace that solar array twice, the power generated will also cost triple. Even assuming the subsequent installations will cost the same (unlikely), that makes the cost of the power equal 16 cents per KWH, vice the 5.8 cents the electric utility charges (before discounts). Still think solar is a bargain?
The point of all this math is that "green" doesn't add up. This "feel-good" project by Tri-Met should never have been built, and an entire political structure needs to stand up and be heard on stopping this expensive, runaway "Green Train".
Comments