Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Solar Energy "Brightfield" Project Clears Hurdle

By Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com
February 25, 2005   |   18 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this project is the impact it can have toward shaping the way the next generation thinks about electricity and the direct link energy generation has with our environment."

- Renewable Energy Trust Director Rob Pratt
18 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 18
February 25, 2005
Philip, if Walter's numbers are correct, it costs out to be $.19 cents per KW for life of the panels. If the $3.6 payback is faster, than every KW after the payback is FREE. Can you imagine energy for free? Mind blowing.
Comment
2 of 18
February 25, 2005
Ds would you rather have a coal fired plant installed there?
Comment
3 of 18
February 25, 2005
Go Westborough, Massachusetts. This is awesome.!

Redding, Ca.
Comment
4 of 18
February 25, 2005
It would be interesting to know the cost per kwh and the projected payback time. And the economic advantages will surely be even better than those projected, if we take into consideraton the effect of increasing energy costs (and the costs saved by lack of damage to the health of human beings and Nature by using clean energy). Brockton is purchasing energy and economic security for its citizens, and is making a major contribution by laying this foundation stone for all of America, which must follow suit sooner or later.

3 cheers for Massachusetts and dogged, practical New England innovation /Yankee know-how! --people in touch with reality and open-minded.
Comment
5 of 18
February 25, 2005
To DS...This is not a waste, you are not seeing the benefits. A 500kw with about 1460 solar hours means 730,000 kwh per year or 18,250,000kwh over the life of the solar panels (25 yrs) of clean, unpolluted energy. You also do not think of the benefits that it will bring to the city of Brockton and the hundreds of thousands of students who will come to see it. I'm glad there are city and state officials that have a much clear vision than yours.
Comment
6 of 18
February 25, 2005
I glad they found a use for a polluted field,
but $3.6 million of 500kw is a waste
Comment
7 of 18
February 26, 2005
indiana is right, bp is so big into this right now, they would love to get their name on this somehow. Maybe someone with some clout could work up an idea where advertising dollars are donated by bp (ie reduced price/panel) for some signs and a billboard and the rights to the pics??? people need to get creative, sharp is big too!
Comment
8 of 18
February 26, 2005
19 cents per kw over the life of the panel (20 to 25 years presumed) is double to triple the price of current coal or nuke kw. the project needs to be more price competitive, considering the number of manufactures of pv equipment. It is a worthwhile investment that deserves a price break due to the size of it!!!
Comment
9 of 18
February 26, 2005
Great! Now perhaps we can apply this idea to convert former military bases or parts of them to renewable sites in the same manner as has been proposed here. Anyone who needs trained an experienced person who believe in these technologies for developing renewables can send me their e-mail address, and I will send a resume.
Jerry Cheesman
solaraccess@msn.com
Comment
10 of 18
February 27, 2005
Why not use this same space as a stirling solar energy plant? Stirling solar units are twice as efficient as photovoltaic cells and have been proven over the last 20 years. If the idea is to maximize efficiency and lower costs, photov's just dont cut it right now compared to stirling solar energy production. See stirlingenergy.com
Comment
11 of 18
February 28, 2005
7200usd is not a bad price for a complete system installed. The only way to get cheaper prices is to start at the root of the problem. The problem is that there is not enough polysilicon feedstock to make into solar grade silicon. The factories that make feedstock are huge billion dollar investments. However, this should not discourage anybody. There are people and organizations that have this kind of money. People speak about the decline in American manufacturing. Since America is so far behind Germany and Japan in terms of PV production the only possible way to catch up is to start producing vast amounts of feedstock. This feedstock can be made into ingots in China, sliced locally and the cell and modules made close to the point of use. With the American manufacturing machine in full effect, the US could make a comeback. Modules and cells made in the US for the US is the only solution in finding cheaper modules.
Comment
12 of 18
February 28, 2005
The cost of this project, as stated in the article, is $7,200 per kw. Is this the going rate? Anyone know how to do it cheaper?
Comment
13 of 18
February 28, 2005
The 17 cent or 19 cent/kWh number may be misleading.
The installation will produce power in bulk only during peak demand periods, when 20 cent/kWh is a low price.
Coal and nuke power prices are illusory, as many tax dollars flow to those industries.
Consider the costs of storing nuke waste for 20,000 years plus. Who is going to do that?
What are the costs of the several hundred acidified lakes in the northeast that have been killed by emissions from midwest coal plants? Or the extra 65,000 deaths per year from respiratory illnesses in the U.S. caused by airborne pollutants from fossil fuel consumption?
The price of nuclear will begin to soar next decade when the Soviet bomb grade material the US uses to make nuclear fuel and sells on the world market is depleted. (Clinton deal)
Comment
14 of 18
March 1, 2005
Those who commented wanting this to be "competitive" with nuclear and coal - A) If the federal government did not take on the liability for the nuclear industry through the Price-Anderson Act, and pay to clean up its mess, the nuclear industry would cease to exist Your tax dollars prop up this impossibly dangerous energy sector to the tune of tens of $$billions. B) No mountaintops are blown off with solar, virtually no greenhouse gases are generated, no childhood asthma is caused, no acid rain occurs, no mercury poisoning is emitted. You cannot simply compare the cost side by side, when coal generates these incalculable costs to society that are not reflected in the cost of coal fired electricity. Brockton is to be applauded for their bold vision.
Comment
15 of 18
March 1, 2005
Indiana, understand, after the 3.6 mil payback there is no further cost, which cannot be said for coal and nuke. It means 730,000 kwh per year every year that we don't use off the grid that was generated from coal, nuke or oil.
Comment
16 of 18
March 2, 2005
And to think that for well over 7,000 years mankind did not need any of these energies to live on the planet Earth. We today are testimony to that fact.
But now, within the last 100 or so years mankind can not "live" without those energies.

They say that we humans here on Earth use only about 10% of our brains actual abilities. I would have to disagree. Mankind has taken everything that is needed to survive on the planet Earth and has "locked" it up where it take money to obtain it. The only to get the money one needs to obtain the goods needed to survive is to pledge there life to the servitude of another human being, the same human beings that have "locked" those needs away.
No I would have to ask the question,
"What brain?"
To be given such a gift as the Earth and to destroy it as a swarm of locust would a field of grain.
Pity about Earth.
Comment
17 of 18
March 4, 2005
1) The project needs financed. This leaves residual costs.
2) There are maintenance costs, despite what some of you believe, to solar power plants. This will always be a cost.
3) Cell degradation will likely decrease your kWh calculation by around 5% over the course of 20-yrs. Further reductions beyond this point.
4) This same installation would net at least a 25% increase in kWh production in a better region of the US.

This is not to say that this isn't a good project, nor that it shouldn't be subsidized.
Comment
18 of 18
March 8, 2005
I calculate 21 cents a KWH over a thirty year life. After the thirty years you will not have free energy because the panels and attending equipment will have died or be so degraded that you will have to replace nearly everything, that is, start anew. At present a PV watt output costs about $3.00 for homeowners. This project is costing $7.20 a watt hour output. It's a little on the high, given the size of the project. But we shouldn't forget where it's being built and who's building it. Massachusetts and the government, need I say more.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Session Solar Valentin Software, Inc - providing Solar Design Software Unirac, Inc. Schneider Electric Fairtrade-Messe BBI International Westinghouse Solar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters