Weather
14.4°C Showers
0 km/h
Full Forecast
Downloads Thunder Bay Source

Browse classifieds   Purchase an ad
Badanai-October
Bill Martin's

News
Subscribe
Photo Gallery
Community Calendar
More Events
Poll
Polls are not available.
View Results Past Polls
Bookmark and Share
Recommended 4 times. 4 Recommend
2009-11-28 at 16:02

Solar forest

By Jeff Labine, tbnewswatch.com
ROCK 94Listen to Mark and Dee Weekday mornings for the Classic Rock You Love, The New Rock You Needhttp://www.rock94.com
The idea of solar panels in the shape of trees is being planted into the minds of the community at an open house on Saturday.

Superior Renewable Energy Cooperative is working to develop the lot by the corner of Bay Street and Algoma Street into a source of renewable energy. The plan is to "plant" four solar arrays that look like spruce trees. The volunteer group held an open house at the Finlandia Club from 1 p.m. – 2 p.m. on Saturday.

Charles Campbell, president of SREC, said the project would roughly cost $175,000. SREC has already received funding of $42,000 but requires more to begin construction, he said.

"The biggest chunk of revenue will be in the sale of the power to the grid," said Campbell. "Over the life of the project, we estimate to earn in the area of $160,000 of cash flow."

Campbell said they still require written approval from Suncor, previously Petro-Canada and to formalize the lease agreement with the Finlandia Club, who owns the property. Thunder Bay Hydro will purchase the electricity the trees generate, he said.

The project life span is 20 years, he said. The trees would be low maintenance and would follow the sun. During winter months the panels would be flat to catch as much sun as possible. Campbell said once approved the landscaping and construction would take about three months.

Campbell said Thunder Bay is going in the right direction with renewable energy, as there are plans for a wind farm in the Nor’Wester mountains.

"As much as we have had a history of resource extraction, we’re now seeing the benefit to resource renewal as well," he said.

A slide show was presented as more than 20 people attended the 2 p.m. presentation. The trees output rate was shown to be 1.428 kilowatts. An average home in Thunder Bay uses 32.8 kilowatts/hour per day.

Jane Oldale, a member of SREC, said she was attending a fair couple years ago when she was inspired by triangular shaped solar arrays. The idea eventually came to create solar panels in the form of a spruce tree, she said.

Oldale said the four trees could power an average home. Since the power is going into the Thunder Bay Hydro grid it is uncertain where the power will go. She said that in Europe they use much less power than in Thunder Bay.

"Conservation is always the cornerstone for any renewable energy project," said Oldale. "We will be looking for sponsorship, direct donations and we will be a coop and investor are invited to buy shares."

She said the business model hasn’t been completely worked out but each share would cost between $500 to $1,000. The shareholders would then receive an annual dividend based on the amount of power produced, the amount of power used, and the amount of money earned from that energy. Every kilowatt-hour of energy generated would earn 80.2 cents, she said.

Oldale said she wants there to be eventually more solar trees throughout the city. The trees are estimated to cost $40,000, she said.
TbNewsWatch.com

Click here to report a typo or error

Tbnewswatch.com(33)

Comments for this story are semi-moderated.  Read our Comment Guideline
You must log in to add comments.
Create a new account
Forgot password?
Log In
 
 
Comments
tbayfinn says:
The real issue here is perhaps not the fact that this organization is using the 80 cents/kwh they will get to make this project viable, that business case is fairly sound (mind you a 20 year pay back is not something I would invest in). The main issue is the fact that any solar PV project is getting the grossly inflated power rates in the first place from the Ontario Power Authority green energy initiatives. The 19 MW solar farm in southern Ontario is getting a similar rate and you see that this adds up to a millions of dollars in an annual subsidy for solar power at this location alone. By the way observer and PanzerIV if you can't see the madness in that then you need to open your eyes.
2009-12-02 at 10:09

The Beaver... says:
only one Question ...would you buy a $175.000 furnace to Heath half your house.insane
2009-12-01 at 08:26

The Beaver... says:
Fact is if you are over 45 with a mortgage you will never see economical returns on your investment in your Lifetime.Better just keep changing the Light Bulbs.
2009-12-01 at 08:15

tsb says:
panzerIV: Thunder Bay does get more sunlight every year than any point east, but that sunlight is approaching on an angle much of the year. The rays hit us: =| directly in summer but: =/ obliquely in the winter, because of the tilt of the earth. That is why winter is cold. There is a lot of opportunity in the summer, but during the colder winter months they're little more than decoration. Solar and wind power on all homes would still be a pretty good investment, especially as the technology becomes less expensive.
2009-11-30 at 16:47

eminent says:
As with any news story, there are a lot of inaccuracies in this article. Those interested should contact SREC to get the real details on this project, which seems to be a good combination of street art and renewable energy. Combining private investment with a few tax dollars to create a neighbourhood attraction while promoting green power seems like a good idea to me.
2009-11-30 at 16:38

The Beaver... says:
The musicferret is right..this is about as stupid as it can get economically as well as practically,and there are still people posting here in support of this Harebrained scheme.It produces absolutely nothing.It makes no economic sense and yet those that have so little can not see the writing on the wall.All it will do is act as a billboard for Graffiti a sheet of Plywood would be enough to get that done.And you are right the Tax Payer will pay for it.
2009-11-30 at 16:14

mk122 says:
to contradict my last statement, I suppose that we have to remember as well that this is not an energy solution by any means... it is a creative, artistic and innovative attraction... ask 3M how much money they loose on innovation. Therefore it doesn't necessarily have to have a positive return on investment... if they want to fundraise for this project then all the power to them. 160K over 20 years amounts to 8 thousand dollars a year revenue, so I don't think it can realistically be purely profit driven..
2009-11-30 at 16:12

musicferret says:
You're sort of right PANZER.

We do get more hours than almost any city from here east.

BUT:

You are missing the main point. The earth is curved. At the equator, the sunlight hits directly, keeping it warm. As you travel north, the curvature gets more pronounced away from the sun, thereby dispersing its rays over a larger area. This is why it gets colder as you head towards the poles, and why we have our ice caps, or whats left of them, at either end of the planet.

SO....in terms of solar power, the sunlight hitting your panels has less energy in thunder bay than any city south of us. The fact that we have more sunlight barely puts a dent in the massive difference in sunlight energy hitting the panels.

The sun could shine here 24/7/365 and still not deliver nearly the power that it delivers along the equator, even if it were cloudy down there 24/7/365. (clouds do affect power potential, but not as much as you'd think. We could charge our solar car even when it was a cloudy day.)

So i stick by what I said. This is the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. but for those of you who think this is a great idea, i will be starting a hydroelectric project in the Gobi desert, and would love some investors.
2009-11-30 at 15:59

panzerIV says:
umm... musicferrit there was a study done that Thunder bay gets the most sunlight in a year of any city to the east of us. I agree with people on here that maybe we should start working on putting solar panels on our roofs. This is just a small project that is trying to help us become less dependent on coal fired plants
2009-11-30 at 15:18

musicferret says:
To sum up my last comment:

Putting this project in Thunder bay is as stupid as putting a hydroelectric project in a desert.
There is very little water in a desert, so you would not put a hydroelectric project there.
There is very little sun energy in Thunder Bay, so you would not put a solar project here.

The fact that the people looking at creating this project do not know this basic problem that could be understood by a child tells me that they are not to be trusted with a cent of money, regardless of whether it is from public or private source.



2009-11-30 at 15:15

musicferret says:
As a former member of the McMaster university solar car team, i feel obliged to tell you how insane this project is.

Thunder Bay, being quite far north, gets very little sun energy. As such, what with the cost of solar and all, it is probably the stupidest thing they could consider doing. They will be very lucky if at the end of the project they have not lost massive amounts of money.
These type of projects are viable (barely) in warmer areas like texas and california.

In THunder Bay this will be nothing but a waste of money.
And please do not kid yourself: This is not a private project. This is a group of people begging for money from government and government funded agencies to make this happen. And guess where that money comes from?

YOU!

Stick to wind. Thunder Bay is well situated for it, and it is not even 1/5th the cost per MWH of energy.
2009-11-30 at 13:53

mk122 says:
So 1.428 kw will be generated by these trees... in what period of time? All four trees or each tree? If the average house uses 32.8 kw/h that doesn't seem like these trees could power very much of a house.... even if it was 1.4*4, that's only 5.6 kw, which is still only about 1/5 of an "average" house. But then THAT is contradicted by Oldale's statement saying that it could power an average home.

ok fine it is an innovative idea and unique.. but somebody's going to have to learn how to do a cost benefit analysis... in the story it says that they do not yet have a business plan. I guess every good idea starts like this. tbayfinn, good point in comparing the costs on a kw/h basis. this needs to be done.

and then there is the inevitable vandalism...
2009-11-30 at 13:47

observer says:
I can't believe the negativity of this city! This is a private venture and koodos to them.
Grow up Thunder Bay, no wonder we are the joke of Ontario. And don't tell me to move, believe if I could I would. It is interesting though to listen to all the small minds around here
2009-11-30 at 9:00 AM

tbayfinn says:
Many of the posters just don't seem to get it, these private investors are being subsidized to the tune of 1000% of the standard cost of electricity for a project that will cost $175,000 to power 1/2 a home. Tell me, would spend $330,000 of your money on solar trees to power your home? I think not. Our society cannot afford the cost of PV solar power on a large scale. The money is much better spent on other forms of renewable energy.
2009-11-30 at 9:00 AM

Toodleoo Caribou says:
Do they come in a self-lighting Christmas Tree model????? I WANT ONE!
2009-11-29 at 20:13

gord says:
this is insane... people have to realize that the pulbic is subsidizing all of these meaningless (not to mention ugly)energy projects with big dollars. So, their "revenue" is our tax dollars.
2009-11-29 at 6:00 PM

broke & broker says:
Come on people, this is a small solar project in a very public place. The units would be a constant reminder of solar power potential and would get the idea into people's heads. They don't have to be a generator of massive profits. It's even possible a 'green' business/co-op building could be built with a roof full of solar trees. Why not?
P.S. Ontario's coal plants will gradually be switched over to biomass in the next few years, not necessarily closed down.
2009-11-29 at 6:00 PM

bigdog says:
We have a problem . Canada has a large carbon footprint, thanks in part to the oil sands projects. Alberta burns 1,000 cu/ft of natural gas to make 1 barrel of oil. Mr. Harper will be forced to accept new CO2 targets next month in Denmark.

This agreement will in turn put pressure on Ontario to close it's 4 remaining coal fired plants. Regardless of whether you believe in man made "climate change" or not, the agreements being proposed are binding for all the countries involved

So Ontario's problem will be how to replace 6,582 Megawatts of coal power. That will take about 12 very expensive CANDU reactors, or about a zillion solar trees outside the Hoito.

I applaud this small group of optimists and their hopeful efforts, but quite frankly we need a massive investment in alternative energy, not some ornamental voltaic trees.

There is an opportunity here for Thunder Bay. The build-out phase for alternative energy will be huge. Why not divert the Tens of millions of tax dollars being used to prop up the forestry sector, (a 20th century industry) into alternative energy. Believe me, the men and women in the mills probably won't mind if they are building wind generators, or solar panels instead.
2009-11-29 at 14:29

advocate says:
You know, I was joking when I said that no one would support this because we are a city of no. I did not actually think that people would actually say no. I remember a few weeks ago, the Neebing anti-windfarm guys were telling me on this board that we should be doing solar power instead. They told me, on this very board, that no one would oppose it.

I guess this just shows how much "no" is in us. Maybe this is not the best move, maybe the windfarm is not the best move. But it is amazing how our population seems to believe that there is "no" good move. We have to fight every bloody thing in this city.

Then the funniest thing is that we call all of the politicians idiots because of it.
2009-11-29 at 10:54

Maztec says:
"The trees output rate was shown to be 1.428 kilowatts."

I assume that figure is during peak sunlight, but even if the panels could produce 1.428 kilowatts for 12 hours a day that would only be
17.1 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy.
The artical also states

"An average home in Thunder Bay uses 32.8 kilowatts/hour per day"
(Which should actually be 32.8 kilowatt-hours TBT)

So the panels are only going to produce enough power for half of a typical T.Bay home on a good day. Good thing for the Big Thunder wind project.
2009-11-29 at 10:19

Bobguy says:
Time to buy a solar powered calculator. The project will cost $175,000 today, require maintanance for 20 years and return only $160,000 in cash flow. Now the reporting doesn't make it clear but I believe that is gross revenue not net income so right off the bat it will cost $15,000. Ad in the cost of interest on financing $175,000 and inflation.

I like the idea of developing green ideas but they should be break-even at least.
2009-11-29 at 9:00 AM

SomeGuy says:
I like the idea behind this project, although the feasibility might not be there considering it will cost $175,000 and only generate $160,000 (If I am reading this correctly).

I wonder if we should be looking at smaller solar projects then the massive farm ones. Look at all our roofs of our homes, businesses, factories etc... Could these not be covered in solar panels. Could turn suburbia into one massive power plant.

During the day when your at work all the solar power could be used to power industry and business.
2009-11-29 at 9:00 AM

spindleruben says:
I think this would add a little bit of interesting diversity to the 'Bay & Algoma" area.
As for any 'naysayers' or would be opponents to something like this, it appears to me by reading the article, that this idea is a private venture to be located on private property. So other than any zoning issues that might exist, I would guess the city really has nothing to do with it.
As for the imbalance in the cost vs revenue equation,: creating what looks to be a little park area with some with some unique ornaments and recovering most of the cost over time.... I say go for it. Seems a better plan than just spending money to create something with no possible recovery of investment.
2009-11-29 at 9:00 AM

tsb says:
I think they look ugly as sin, but that is just a really bad rendering. Hopefully it won't be so garish. Otherwise, I think the Finnish Heritage park idea from a couple years ago was better.
2009-11-29 at 07:30

barbara says:
This doesn't sound like an economically intelligent plan as, according to the SREC president, over a twenty year life span the panels will generate less revenue than the initial building cost. The wind farm that the article refers to needs to be reconsidered as well. Please go to savethenorwesters.com
2009-11-29 at 03:38

Dudebro says:
And watch this site become vandalized and graffiti covered in no time. These kids who seem to have something to prove will be just waiting with their cans of paint.
2009-11-29 at MIDNIGHT

NWOzarks says:
The city could use them to green up the new marina...There would be enough power generated to keep the lights on at the condos and hotel..
2009-11-28 at 22:26

eddylives says:
Whats wrong with this picture.
Never mind this small potatoes bs.
If we are going to get with the program , lets do it in proper proportion.
Lets develope a site with some real income possibilities for the city.
Not this little petty bs.
2009-11-28 at 21:50

The Beaver... says:
this group had better get them selfs a new calculator and fast.This is stupidity under the cover of idealism
2009-11-28 at 21:22

reality_bytes says:
20 yr. project, $160,000 revenue.... hm very lucrative use of city property! I'd rather put share money into a grocery co-op, its equally non producing in dividends, but at least I get groceries.
2009-11-28 at 19:17

tbayfinn says:
Give me a break advocate, solar power is hardly a "new idea". In fact, I agree with your sarcasm in that regard, we should be looking for new ideas and not trying to force old ideas that don't make sense for this area.
2009-11-28 at 19:09

advocate says:
NO!

Our city does not like new idea, nor does it like moving forward. So we would like to say NO to this and any other possible ideas anyone else may have. We just want to live our lives with no changes and no advances. Everything should just stay exactly the same.
2009-11-28 at 6:00 PM

tbayfinn says:
Guess who eventually pays the premium for solar energy sold to the grid for 80 cents/kilowatt-hour? I am not in favour of a 1000% subsidy for solar power on the premise that someday the costs MAY come into line with other renewable energy sources such as wind, biomass and hydroelectric power.
2009-11-28 at 16:14

Thunder Bay Television Rock 94 CKPR CFNO The Thunder
Copyright 2010 Dougallmedia. Privacy Policy  Terms Of Use  Contact Us  Advertise With Us