Albuquerque city buildings getting $25M in solar panels
Posted on Sunday, April 16th, 2017 By The Associated Press
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico's most populous city has plans to install more than $25 million in solar panels on city buildings over the next two years.
The installations in Albuquerque will mark the first phase in fulfilling a recently set goal of generating more of the city's energy from solar power.
Albuquerque City Councilors Pat Davis and Isaac Benton made the announcement Saturday.
They say the project's first phase of the project is expected to save taxpayers about $20 million over 30 years.
City councilors last September passed a resolution calling Albuquerque to generate one quarter of its energy from solar power by 2025.
The first phase of the project will begin later this year.
The project will be financed through the energy savings and federal bond credits.
Do they mean 25% of their electric energy or 25% of total energy?
Spend 25 mill to save 20 mill? Isn't that a net loss of 5 mill?
They are talking about ELECTRICAL ENERGY DEMAND from buildings, light poles, pumping stations, etc.. The city gets their JUICE from a lot of fossil fuel sources now. THAT is what they will reduce. City vehicles aren't in the equation.
AS to your math skills, I see economics isn't your thing.
IF they DO NOT spend the $25 million bucks on PV, they HAVE TO SPEND X AMOUNT in electrical energy costs powered by fossil fuels.
THAT "X" amount is projected to be 20 million dollars MORE than they will spend in 30 years with the added PV. Assuming that the PV will (MTBF) crap out in 30 years, or sooner, is probably the reason you came up with the 5 million dollar "loss". There is a bit more too it than that.
The cost savings from NOT adding energy generation capacity from fossil fuels represents additional money (and health) savings not obvious to the casual observer that the city, since they are not a utility, isn't accounting for.
You may claim that building gas or coal fired power plants is cheaper than building solar panel infrastructure of equivalent capacity, but MAINTAINING fossil fuel power plants is FAR more costly than maintaining renewable energy infrastructure. SO, the more renewable energy infrastructure, the lower your operating costs.
In addition, there will be less pollution from the power supplied to the grid, which will lower city costs in health related expenses THAT YOU
ARE NOT INTERESTED IN POSITIVELY ACCOUNTNG FOR EITHER.
Finally, the cost of solar energy is a known quantity, whereas the cost of fossil fuels in the future is sure to go UP. As the city gets more and more renewable energy the savings will continue to grow for all those reasons. There will be NO price shocks, PERIOD. The more power the city can make on it's own, the less it is forced to pay higher rates to a power corporation. The only people this is a "bad deal" for are the stockholders of corporations owning fossil fuel powered power plants.
Since you think it's a "bad deal" to lower the city carbon pollution with $25 million bucks, I guess you voted for Trump. IOW, long term cost benefit analysis is not your thing. They will save a lot more than the conservative $20 million dollars they are estimating. And even if they didn't, the improved air quality would be worth it.
Edpell, you are a one trick, Renewable Energy attacking, pony.
You are also boring.
Go do something productive for a change.