Shirley selectman eyes solar power

Full story: Lowell Sun 23
Increasing energy costs are on everyone's minds as municipalities prepare to enter their budget season and struggle to keep costs down. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Skeptic

Clinton, MA

#1 Jan 17, 2011
If it sounds too good to be true... Whay haven't anyone else done this. Lets not jump too hastily. It could put us in a worse situation in the end.
duh

Maynard, MA

#2 Jan 17, 2011
about time..and the wind that goes across the open fields by the school to...grab some of that syrplus from evergreen andy..seize it..beg mass development..beg shaprio for aide..do it now..$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.. 1 time is realizing a 5 million $ savings over 25 years solar powering their school systems..which the school is the biggest user of utility`s
duh

Maynard, MA

#3 Jan 17, 2011
skeptic dont be a skeptic..the longer u HESITATE..the more it cost..if we sell directly to the grid...we also get $.. i been to school on this..ask mount watchusetts community college the savings their getting,,there 90 percent now in 2 years,,dont be a skeptic..look around,,one guy in newbury port saves 250 grand a year at his factory from a single wind tower..
LMAO

Guston, KY

#4 Jan 17, 2011
Contractor: Ameresco, Inc.
Project Cost:$849,817
Project Estimated Savings:$13,200 annual savings and 111,861 kWh
Completed: September 2009

$849,817 /$13,200 = 64.38 years

khw produced to date 89,983 to date, 15 months

89,983 *$.15 =$13,497

Great Investment

http://data.solardesign.com/fieldDAS/NorthSho...

http://www.mass.gov/...
fruit cake

Westford, MA

#5 Jan 17, 2011
wind sound great,maybe even solar but i would not install evergreens panels find a company that supports this country not china. That doesn,t steal tax payer money and bail out.
lazertag

United States

#6 Jan 17, 2011
LMAO wrote:
Contractor: Ameresco, Inc.
Project Cost:$849,817
Project Estimated Savings:$13,200 annual savings and 111,861 kWh
Completed: September 2009
$849,817 /$13,200 = 64.38 years
khw produced to date 89,983 to date, 15 months
89,983 *$.15 =$13,497
Great Investment
http://data.solardesign.com/fieldDAS/NorthSho...
http://www.mass.gov/...
If you figure in all the grant money available for these projects you figures are much in error. Many city and county governments are offsetting their power requirements with solar power and some even make a small profit.
timmy 2000

Lyndeborough, NH

#7 Jan 17, 2011
LMAO wrote:
Contractor: Ameresco, Inc.
Project Cost:$849,817
Project Estimated Savings:$13,200 annual savings and 111,861 kWh
Completed: September 2009
$849,817 /$13,200 = 64.38 years
khw produced to date 89,983 to date, 15 months
89,983 *$.15 =$13,497
Great Investment
http://data.solardesign.com/fieldDAS/NorthSho...
http://www.mass.gov/...
Before you comment on something like commercial electric rate calculations you should know about demand charges and how commercial customers pay for electricity. They pay based on the usage, as well as the demand that they put on the system (grid). So it also just so happens that the peak demand usually occurs when you have peak solar generation. You cannot compare a residential bill to a commercial bill you are looking at apples and oranges
LMAO

Guston, KY

#8 Jan 17, 2011
lazertag wrote:
<quoted text>If you figure in all the grant money available for these projects you figures are much in error. Many city and county governments are offsetting their power requirements with solar power and some even make a small profit.
yep, 100 % out of the taxpayers pocket on this one... As you can see it produced 71,000 kwh when it was estimated to be 111,861 kwh. That alone makes it fail the test. Enjoy it , you paid for it.
LMAO

Guston, KY

#9 Jan 17, 2011
timmy 2000 wrote:
<quoted text>
Before you comment on something like commercial electric rate calculations you should know about demand charges and how commercial customers pay for electricity. They pay based on the usage, as well as the demand that they put on the system (grid). So it also just so happens that the peak demand usually occurs when you have peak solar generation. You cannot compare a residential bill to a commercial bill you are looking at apples and oranges
How about you tell us what that is ??
LMAO

Guston, KY

#10 Jan 17, 2011
Richey Wood Working Wind Turbine

Cost $2,000,000

Taxpayer Grant $472,000

2 year production 1,385,501 kwh ( 692,750 )per year

$103,912 per year savings 19.2 years payback plus costs.

Wind Turbines require Maintenance and rebuilds through their life.

2: Two generator and one gearbox rebuild on each turbine spread over 20 years

Assumptions:

1.Crane in/out and use =$225,000
2.Generator rebuild =$25,000
3.Gearbox rebuild =$100,000
DeadEye

United States

#11 Jan 17, 2011
LMAO wrote:
<quoted text> How about you tell us what that is ??
How bout you look it up and find out what "demand" is ???
DeadEye

United States

#12 Jan 17, 2011
LMAO wrote:
<quoted text> yep, 100 % out of the taxpayers pocket on this one... As you can see it produced 71,000 kwh when it was estimated to be 111,861 kwh. That alone makes it fail the test. Enjoy it , you paid for it.
Why don't you go back to work in the coal mine.....
DeadEye

United States

#13 Jan 17, 2011
"Assumptions" are the "MOTHER" of all fuckups....
LMAO

Guston, KY

#14 Jan 17, 2011
You poster's are funny, these aren't my figures, they come from THEIR web sites. There are Grants ans Tax Deductions, that is real money, it has to come from somewhere. It comes from the taxpayers, from a Government that is $14.3 trillion in debt and is borrowed from China and others. These projects are boondoggles.

First Invented

First Electric Generating Wind Turbine = 1887

First Solar Cell = 1883
LMAO

Guston, KY

#15 Jan 17, 2011
DeadEye wrote:
<quoted text>How bout you look it up and find out what "demand" is ???
Go F$$K yourself azzwipe
LMAO

Guston, KY

#16 Jan 17, 2011
DeadEye wrote:
"Assumptions" are the "MOTHER" of all fuckups....
One assumption I don't have to make, you'r a azzwipe thats a fact.
DanaDay

United States

#17 Jan 17, 2011
LMAO wrote:
<quoted text> One assumption I don't have to make, you'r a azzwipe thats a fact.
Sounds like someone skipped their "meds" today. Your assumptions are fiction and many of your "facts" are just opinion because you must work for a fossil fuel company. It's evident in your many degrading posts about any kind of alternative energy. To bad,since it is inevitable that it will happen and if you choose not to use it,so be it. Many have it now and many more will soon.......so rant on.
LMAO

Guston, KY

#18 Jan 18, 2011
DanaDay wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds like someone skipped their "meds" today. Your assumptions are fiction and many of your "facts" are just opinion because you must work for a fossil fuel company. It's evident in your many degrading posts about any kind of alternative energy. To bad,since it is inevitable that it will happen and if you choose not to use it,so be it. Many have it now and many more will soon.......so rant on.
Tell me what assumumtion I made ??? You poeple spin and spin and I show facts. If you have better FACTS, post them. You must have a system that runs on BS.
OMG

New Haven, CT

#19 Jan 18, 2011
If solar and wind power were this good, everyone would have them. Look around. These are great technologies with LONG term paybacks. Grants for capital installation makes the project look better unless you factor in ongoing cost to operate and fluctuation in demand/costs. How about a focus on reducing usage in the town with grant monies instead of a huge project like these?
LMAO

Guston, KY

#20 Jan 18, 2011
OMG wrote:
If solar and wind power were this good, everyone would have them. Look around. These are great technologies with LONG term paybacks. Grants for capital installation makes the project look better unless you factor in ongoing cost to operate and fluctuation in demand/costs. How about a focus on reducing usage in the town with grant monies instead of a huge project like these?
You are exactly right. None of these projects will stand on their own. The poster put up two projects.

1) mount watchusetts community college the savings their getting,there 90 percent now in 2 years,

2) one guy in newbury port saves 250 grand a year at his factory from a single wind tower.

When you go to their Web Site and use the Posted Data from both projects, it's not even close to what the posters used to try to justify the project.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Shirley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lancaster gets Big Belly trash compactor - Sent... (Jul '10) 6 hr Joe Spags 7
Cities, towns savoring fuel savings 10 hr Celia 3
Police: Mother-daughter duo stole purse from Fi... Jan 16 cher lindahl 1
Fitchburg man charged with assault Jan 14 Mayor jtn 2
Police nab Gardner bank robbery suspect - Senti... (Feb '08) Jan 10 SILLYSALLY 42
Dan Kirouac live in Townsend, MA Jan 9 New England Music... 1
Urgent care center opens in Leominster Jan 7 Hugs not Guns 8

Shirley News Video

Shirley Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Shirley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:43 am PST