CHANGE MY LOCATION
Solar panels help power Howard library
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: BALTIMORE
)
Howard County Executive Ken Ulman points toward the new solar panels on the roof of Howard County’s East Columbia library on Thursday. – Josh Kowalkowski/Examiner
BALTIMORE (Map, News) - Howard County Library’s East Columbia branch officially turned green Thursday. County Executive Ken Ulman helped unveil the 24 solar photovoltaic panels installed last month as part of the county’s solar electric generation demonstration project.
“We really have a stark choice in the county, state and planet with the energy sources we’re using,” said Richard Deutschmann, chief executive officer of Chesapeake Solar, installers of the panels.
The panels measure 5 feet by 3 feet and cover about 500 square feet on the roof, officials said. The net cost to install them was $45,000, and the power generated from them will feed into the library’s electrical distribution system.
“We’re taking free sunlight falling onto the roof and turning it into free electricity,” said Brian Auger, the library’s deputy executive director.
Summer will be a beneficial time for the library. The system will on average generate about 500 kilowatt hours of electricity a month, with slightly higher outputs in summer than winter.
“When the air conditioning is going full blast, that’s when solar puts out its greatest power,” Deutschmann said.
In just one month of operation, the panels generated 700 kilowatt hours, which is comparable to powering 28 typical Howard County homes for a day, officials said. An average U.S. home uses about 920 kilowatts each month.
Ulman said the library, the first site in the county chosen for this solar demonstration initiative, was ideal because residents go here to assess information.
“An interactive element for this is available for children and families so they can see what’s happening on the roof,” he said.
A computer inside the library allows anybody to assess how much power is being generated.
There are potential plans for installing solar panels on other county facilities, but details are not yet available, Deutschmann said.
Around the county, solar panels are also being exhibited on the roof of the bank barn on the Howard County Conservancy in Woodstock.
jkowalkowski@baltimoreexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
2:43 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008 re: "Solar panels help power Howard library"
Report as inappropriate
10:54 AM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008
re: "Solar panels help power Howard library"
Report as inappropriate
7:03 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 8, 2008
re: "Solar panels help power Howard library"
Report as inappropriate
5:26 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 7, 2008
re: "Solar panels help power Howard library"
Report as inappropriate
6:46 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 7, 2008
re: "Solar panels help power Howard library"
Report as inappropriate
6:43 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 7, 2008
re: "Solar panels help power Howard library"
Report as inappropriate
2:30 PM MST on Sun., Jul. 6, 2008
re: "Solar panels help power Howard library"
Report as inappropriate
9:16 PM MST on Sat., Jul. 5, 2008
re: "Solar panels help power Howard library"
Report as inappropriate
3:43 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 4, 2008
re: "Solar panels help power Howard library"
Report as inappropriate
4:37 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 17, 2008
re: "Mosaic to jazz up Route 1 library wall in Elkridge"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
This is just another example of Ken Ulman creating ways to publicize his own political career. Initiatives like this will have little value when he chooses to spend additional dollars elsewhere. He said the county couldn't afford GTV anymore, yet new positions were created for most of those who hadn't yet found a job outside the county. Ulman's attempt to not seem like the "layoff executive". How does this save anything when GTV's budget was mostly salaries? There was greater value when GTV was still in operation. Wait and see, he wants to restart GTV in 2 years with his people, which will cost much more in new equipment costs.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader - a finance guy said:
The rate of return is FAR worse than 2%, and it is probably a negative return. This is because you do not get the $45,000 inital cash outlay back at any point. If you invest money with a bank at a 2% rate, at the end of the period you get interest AND your inital deposit back. With these solar panels, the initial cash outlay never returned.
2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader - an Engineer said:
Analysis #2: The $45000 "investment" throws off $75/month of electricity, or $900/year. Annual return-on-investment (ROI) = $900/$45000 = 2% per year. Hmm... how many people with $45000 in their bank would want an investment that yields 2% per year? Mandatory on all houses? Good deal for who? Until and unless these options become economically sound, there are better, more responsible ways to implement energy plans.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
An Engineer: Thank you. I knew Kenny would make a stupid investment and that the MSM would not ask the cost analysis question. Kenny now needs to explain (in detail) to the HC voters how a fifty year break even (not including maintenance) is a sensible use of tax money. Speak up Kenny, we can't hear you.
5 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
There is also Solar Paint which could be used to generate electricity. Think about that one! Cars could also be painted with solar paint and run an electric engine instead of a gas engine. Wow with gas prices on the rise I think the American People need to take charge of this "energy crisis" and stop waiting for someone else to do it for them.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It should be MANDATORY on all houses. And Maryland could be the leaders of Green Energy instead of other countries.
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader - an Engineer said:
Analysis: The system generates about what a typical home uses; really a little less (500kWhr per month). 500 kWhr per month at $0.15/kWhr saves $75/month. Payback: $45000 / $75-per-month = 600 months payback. 600 / 12 = 50 years. Yeah, sure, that $45000 was sure worth it. A 50-year payback - yep Ulman sure knows how to spend OPM (Other People's Money).... it's disgusting. How many homeowners would spend (invest) their own money to this?
4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Another Examiner Reader said:
The only one to benefit from this will be Ken Ulman, who gets his picture in the paper.
3 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Where is the cost benefit analysis? The $45K investment saves how much per year? How long will it take to recoup the cost of the panels including their maintenance? I'll bet any analysis will show this is a total waste of taxpayer money.
2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Monty Riggs said:
She is a great artist is Mary Deacon Opasik. The budding young artists at Elkridge should feel fortunate that she has elected to teach. Her next step in a great career. If you ever get the chance, check her artwork at Ms. Opasik's next exhibition. It won't dissapoint.
29 agree | 21 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree