New Jersey Installing Solar Photovoltaics Atop 175,000 Power Poles

In response to my rant on New Jersey’s decision to put tiny installations of solar photovoltaics atop 175,000 power poles, at a cost of $200 million, senior energy analyst Glenn Doty writes:

The LCOE (levelized cost of energy) gets really interesting when you consider the potential lifespan. A “pole-top solar panel” is not too different from a “kite” if the winds rise too high. It’s a truly bizarre decision right after the entire state was pounded by near-hurricane force winds for nearly 24 hours just a couple of months ago.

Glenn:  It’s funny you mention that.  When I talked about maintenance at the end of this post, I was tempted to ask, “In addition to the dirt and bird crap that couldn’t possibly be cleaned from the top of 175,000 of these installations, isn’t there some recent evidence that they could get blown off their poles and wind up in tiny pieces all over a dozen different zip codes?”

I love clean energy, but I hate stupidity.

 

 

Tagged with: , , , , ,
10 comments on “New Jersey Installing Solar Photovoltaics Atop 175,000 Power Poles
  1. Frank Eggers says:

    When there is a desire for clean energy, there are people who will propose anything to generate more of it without careful thought and planning. The consequences can be exceedingly expensive.

  2. Chris Daum says:

    Unfortunately, projects like this simply tend to give an unnecessary black eye to the solar industry.

  3. Call me a contrarian but I think what that utility in New Jersey is doing by putting solar panels on those power poles is a pretty cool thing and I obviously fail to understand how this could in any way shape or form be anything other than a positive for the solar industry.

    • Frank Eggers says:

      It certainly can be a negative if the costs exceed the value of the power generated by a factor of perhaps 10. Of course we don’t have the actual figures, but the nature of the project is such that the factor of 10 guess may be within reason.

      As for keeping the surfaces clean to maintain a reasonable efficiency, I know how that could be done. They could, on a water truck, mount a nozzle on an extension device to expedite blasting water onto the tops of the PV collectors. Of course that means that anyone in the area would be sprayed with dirt, including bird droppings, which might lead one to wonder whether it is actually clean power. But I suppose that we have to make some sacrifices in the interest of clean energy, depending on how “clean” is defined.

  4. Do you really think the utility guys would be doing this if the costs to generate that power exceeded the value of it?

    • Frank Eggers says:

      Yes, I do. Even big businesses at times make irrational decisions, sometimes even resulting in bankruptcy.

      Years ago, when I worked for a company which has a very well-known name, it made a bad decision that cost many millions of dollars. Very soon after the project began, many of us realized that it was a mistake. At least two managers quit rather than have their names associated with the project. Finally, after the project had limped on for years after it was widely recognized as a serious mistake, it was scrapped. It had been ill planned and ill executed from the very beginning. So far as I know, the shareholders never even found out about it.

      It was NCRs modular lodging project which was to develop guest accounting software for hotels and motels. Hundreds of thousands of lines of computer code were written before there was even any way to test it. Specification were given orally to programmers without even being written down. In response to changes in specifications, major changes were made to the computer code even before any testing was done. I started working on it in 1978 and it was finally scrapped in about 1994. I was removed from the project in 1980 because I was too honest to commit myself to completing my portion by the stated deadline.

      At one time, I worked for Onan Corp, which made industrial engines and generators. I resigned in 1970 to finish my degree which turned out to be very timely. During the growing recession, the company continued to hire more personnel because of the backlog in orders. The declining economy was widely recognized, but the company assumed that because of the order backlog, it would experience no problems. Of course customers cancelled orders as the recession deepened, in spite of the penalties they had to pay to cancel orders. Obviously that should have been predicted. Some new hires were laid off only two weeks after they had been hired, leaving them in a difficult position because they had resigned from previous employers to work for Onan; the ethics of that should be obvious. To try to reduce labor costs, the company moved its production to a southern state but finally ended up selling out or merging with Cummins.

      So yes, even big established companies sometimes make foolish mistakes. I see no reason to suppose that utility companies would be an exception. It’s my guess that Craig could also provide examples of foolish mistakes that companies have made.

  5. Frank Eggers says:

    Error correction:

    The project was scrapped in about 1984, not 1994.

    • Fair enough. I see your point. And you are right in that we are all fallible.

      I think what the critics might not appreciate as much I do is the symbolism and the seeds it plants in the collective consciousness of what is possible to everyone that happens to drive by those panels on their way to work or strolls past them as they are walking their dog.

      Every step helps no matter how small. Look at what Dubya is doing down in Texas by paying a little extra to purchase wind power credits to offset his presidential library’s electricity consumption. Say what you will but there is no denying that George W Bush is making a pretty powerful statement through his actions and may in the process help change the minds of people who think renewable energy is a waste of time or a pipe dream.

      Then again, not everyone in New Jersey thinks like I do and there was a story a while back in the New York Times about how some Garden State residents think what this utility is doing by putting up those panels is an eyesore.

      Having said that, I applaud this utility for coming up with a creative and pretty egalitarian way to comply with the will of the voters in New Jersey who clearly wanted their utilities to generate more power from renewable sources.

  6. I have been driving through NJ a pretty fair amount over the last few years and noticed these panels on poles all over the place. I have seen a substantial amount of trees blown over but I have not seen a single panel blown off a pole yet. I have also not seen any dirty panels. I can’t imagine they get any dirtier on poles than arrays on ground or a roof. Nobody is washing their arrays that I know of and I have seen a whole bunch of substantial arrays. You can theorize all you want but I am telling you what I am actually seeing.

  7. A lawsuit filed last week alleges that the PSE&G panels on poles program served as a vehicle for SREC manipulation:

    http://articles.philly.com/2013-01-24/business/36507955_1_solar-power-solar-panels-solar-program