Austin City Council to Pass Gemini Solar Energy Plant Proposal Today

Still a Dumb Idea (0.00 / 0)

Other cities are doing exactly what we should do - find large roofs where we can stick city-owned solar panels rather than putting them in the middle of a field, shading nothing but dirt.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 21:52:26 PM UTC

distributed vs utility scale? or can both co-exist? (0.00 / 0)

Ok.  I agree that distributed solar generation is, in the immortal words of Wayne Campbell, MOST EXCELLENT... but that doesn't mean that utility scale solar is not ALSO a good idea.

I do not see the city's commitment to the Webberville plant as a distraction from a distributed solar program.  This plant is just the first step toward reaching Austin Energy's long term renewable goals -- lots of solar on lots of rooftops will inevitably be an important part of the push to get 100 MW of solar by 2020.  No worries.

---

by: citizen.sarah @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:31:02 AM UTC

Amen to that (0.00 / 0)

The perfect is the enemy of the good, especially in Austin.

---

by: JeffBrooks @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 13:33:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For the tenth time (0.00 / 0)

I'm talking about utility-scale generation on a couple of very large rooftops. This isn't like putting panels on your house; the Convention Center covers about three city blocks; and there are other buildings with roofs just as large.

Putting solar in Webberville incurs transmission losses and shades nothing but dirt. Covering the Convention Center with a AE-owned generation plant brings the power directly to one of their biggest customers (US!), and provides shade that can lower cooling costs for that building (paid for by: US!)

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 13:37:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scale (0.00 / 0)

It would take a lot more than a couple of very large rooftops. 300 acres of downtown is Cesar Chavez to 11th, Nueces to Red River. Even if you could do something like that, that pesky Frost Bank building etc would shade parts of it. I agree that there is lost potential for shading, but cost of managing dozens of sites may outweigh the shading benefit. According to 10-10-10plan.org, the Gemini site will only have two long term employees post-construction, so multiple sites would probably require redundant staffing. A plus for jobs created, but maybe not cost justified.

---

by: George @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 15:44:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

transmission losses minimal (0.00 / 0)

The solar plant will be on our side of the grid (practically in our back yard in terms of transmission), and losses will be less than 1%

Which is pretty darn efficient, actually.

---

by: citizen.sarah @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 16:08:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't buy it (0.00 / 0)

There's no way losses are less than 1% compared to having solar panels directly on top of a building.

Yes, you'd need more than the Convention Center (I never said it was sufficient; just that it was an example of one of the 'few' buildings of significant size you'd want to use) - but it doesn't look like they're not covering all 300 acres with solar panels either, if you look at the pictures.

This isn't just hypothetical. Drive into the airport by the cargo entrance sometime (like you do if you take an off-site parking shuttle) and you'll see a solar array on the ground right next to the city's aviation office - and it sure looks like those panels would have fit on that roof. Solar panels that shade dirt are a stupid idea for a lot of reasons - you don't get the benefit of the shade for a building that might be able to reduce A/C costs; you create effective impervious cover on land with no real reason to do so; you lose some of your power via transmission; [...]

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 16:21:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Transmission loss does seem low (0.00 / 0)

But it's not like there isn't electricity being used relatively close to the site, and it will be built up in coming years. Actual production is less than 1% of Austin's energy demand when it is at peak output, so it doesn't take a lot of nearby demand to suck it all up.

The actual property is much larger than 300 acres - that's just what is being used. Sq mile = 640 acres.

I know the airport array and completely agree with you on that one.

---

by: George @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 16:34:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not obsessing, i promise (0.00 / 0)

another benefit of mixing rooftop solar (even on the grandest scale) with a large utility tracker is that you can significantly stretch the amount of time you're getting power from the sun .  From rooftop generation, because they must be flat panels, top generation time is from 11 - 4, when the sun is right over the panels.  But when you're talking about a tracking plant, where the panels can rotate and follow the sun, you have a strong source of power until the sun goes down -- which means that your solar plant can provide peak energy.  Kind of a big deal.

---

by: citizen.sarah @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 16:37:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Trackers on roof (0.00 / 0)

The Convention Center is a huge roof - you could very easily put tracking panels up there. Again, red herring. Not talking about consumer solar here; talking about putting utility solar on top of huge roofs.

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 15:35:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

agree w/ m1ek (0.00 / 0)

this is just silly, but the rush to out-green each other inside The Bubble has led all sides to ignore common sense.

And God forbid we should consider whether this is something that the residents of Webberville want out there. There is a community affected by this, y'know. I know they're not west of I-35 and there aren't many Whole Foods shoppers out there, but they might be afforded some input on this. Just a thought.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 15:04:54 PM UTC

Also agree w/ M1EK (0.00 / 0)

Maybe the news/pr benefits are worth it, but I would rather see distributed generation than a multi-acre solar array 30 miles outside the city. It is a good step, but we have to be careful about making smart power decisions and not just be in a rush to out-green each other.

---

by: el_longhorn @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 15:42:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

actually... (0.00 / 0)

Initially, the proposed tract was slated to be a landfill... so the citizens of Webberville have actually been quite supportive of the project.  At the Feb 12th meeting, both the president of the nearby neighborhood and a webberville resident testified in favor of the plant, thanked the council for including them in the process, and asked that they try to save as many trees as possible in the construction process -- which if you have looked at google maps of the site, won't even really be an issue.

---

by: citizen.sarah @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 16:03:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]