Zoo goes solar in big green test

[CoastersRZ]

http://news.cincinna...|text|FRONTPAGE

Be sure to check the link for some pretty cool pictures!

The project consists of 6,400 photovoltaic solar collection panels assembled on more than 100 metal arrays, 15 to 18 feet high. They cover 800 of the 1,000 parking spaces at the zoo's main entrance. The solar canopy is designed to produce 1.56 megawatts of electricity, about 20 percent of the zoo's annual need, or enough to power 200 homes a year.

That is quite impressive!

[Beast1979]

Again, I find myself wishing this forum had a "like" button....way to go, Cincy Zoo!

[KIfan1980]

So I find myself conflicted on this project - while I believe that we need to be doing things to move towards cleaner energy and environmental responsibility, I am amazed at how poor the finances of this project are:

• $11 Million Dollars to provide 20% of the Zoo's electricity
• 20% of their $700,000 bill is $140,000
• At this rate, the capital bill for the system (no maintenance or operating costs included) would be paid off in about the year 2090

If you had the opportunity to pay for an $11,000 system at your home that promised to reduce your $700 annual electricity bill to only $560 would you?

[CoastersRZ]

That is one of the problems of photvoltaics. They are still an expensive form of energy in terms of cost per kWh. But the more large scale installations like this, the more economical photovoltaics will become. Yes, the payback period is quite extended. And because Cincinnati has so many cloudy days (it averages about 50% clouds in a given year), the efficiency of the solar panels is even less.

Another side benefit of these solar panels, not mentioned in the article, is that they will effectively shade a large portion of the parking lot. What is the benefit of that you ask? It reduces the urban heat island effect of having all that exposed asphalt. It also shades visitors cars, so they won`t be so roasty on a hot August afternoon from sitting in direct sunlight!

[Diamondback FOF]

So I find myself conflicted on this project - while I believe that we need to be doing things to move towards cleaner energy and environmental responsibility, I am amazed at how poor the finances of this project are:

• $11 Million Dollars to provide 20% of the Zoo's electricity
• 20% of their $700,000 bill is $140,000
• At this rate, the capital bill for the system (no maintenance or operating costs included) would be paid off in about the year 2090

If you had the opportunity to pay for an $11,000 system at your home that promised to reduce your $700 annual electricity bill to only $560 would you?

From the article:

Financing was the biggest hurdle to making the project work. And in the end, it isn't costing the zoo a penny.

Financial details aren't disclosed. But PNC Bank, which has built a national reputation financing green energy projects, agreed to finance the project for Melink with the help of federal renewable energy and low-income economic development tax credits.

Initially, efforts to put the complex financial transaction together using just federal energy credits fell short. That's when Melink and the zoo approached the non-profit Uptown Consortium about contributing some of it federal economic development credits to help finance the project.

[The Interpreter]

...so, it is in essence, a federally funded project...

[Snowman]

I went to the zoo today and was floored by the scale of this, the main parking lot is completely covered, it's a MUST see. There was a sign that said something about it was the largest public project in the country. Sorry I didn't have a camera to get a shot of the sign.

Instead of a coaster, if they installed solar panels over the parking lot and installed energy retrievals devices on the coaster brakes ( feel free to correct me on the exact term for collecting the energy from the coaster brakes concept), Ki might be able to seriously reduce it's carbon footprint. Maybe lower food prices?

[CoastersRZ]

Except for the fact that the zoo did not pay for these solar panels to be installed over their parking lot. Other companies (primarily PNC and the company installing them, lined up the necessary financing, in part through grant money, to pay for these panels. It would be certainly cost prohibitive for Kings Island to install solar panels on a parking lot the size of theirs. At least at this point in time anyway. Yes, eventually the price may come down. But add into the fact, that the operating costs once installed still will not produce significant savings when compared to normal electric rates. (Coal produced electricity in this part of the country is relatively cheap energy.

[KIfan1980]

So I find myself conflicted on this project - while I believe that we need to be doing things to move towards cleaner energy and environmental responsibility, I am amazed at how poor the finances of this project are:

• $11 Million Dollars to provide 20% of the Zoo's electricity
• 20% of their $700,000 bill is $140,000
• At this rate, the capital bill for the system (no maintenance or operating costs included) would be paid off in about the year 2090

If you had the opportunity to pay for an $11,000 system at your home that promised to reduce your $700 annual electricity bill to only $560 would you?

From the article:

Financing was the biggest hurdle to making the project work. And in the end, it isn't costing the zoo a penny.

Financial details aren't disclosed. But PNC Bank, which has built a national reputation financing green energy projects, agreed to finance the project for Melink with the help of federal renewable energy and low-income economic development tax credits.

Initially, efforts to put the complex financial transaction together using just federal energy credits fell short. That's when Melink and the zoo approached the non-profit Uptown Consortium about contributing some of it federal economic development credits to help finance the project.

Note that I never said I blamed the zoo for taking advantage of the opportunity - since as you point out it is a good deal for them. That said the finances of the project still stink, and somebody still pays for it (and also many other similar projects like it).

That somebody is you, me, and every other taxpayer in this country.

[The Interpreter]

...but not General Electric. Oh, the irony.

Terp, who is not making a political comment, but noting irony...

[Coney Islander]

Such projects are meant to convince the corporations there is a market for cleaner energy.

Partially because of such, I predict the continuously increasing effect of private investment into developing more efficient solar technologies will leave this canopy rather useless in maybe five or ten years.

Here's an example of that kind of innovation: Solar Shingles

[Snowman]

Such projects are meant to convince the corporations there is a market for cleaner energy.

Partially because of such, I predict the continuously increasing effect of private investment into developing more efficient solar technologies will leave this canopy rather useless in maybe five or ten years.

Here's an example of that kind of innovation: Solar Shingles

I don't see this structure ever becomming useless. Promoting alternative energy in any way, and trying support ways to get off foreign oil (I know foreign oil isn't directly used in the zoo, except for the gas golf carts and trains) is always a good thing. Deflecting the sun from the black asphalt will make a world of difference to Zoo guests. If those shingles become significantly more effective, why couldn't they just add them to the exhisting structure? It seems like a very positive step forward to me.

[Mr. America]

That somebody is you, me, and every other taxpayer in this country.

While that may be somewhat true (there's also a lot of other donations involved from private investors and not just federal grants), this is a wise use a tax dollars. This is a pretty large scale project and hopefully will yield some good research for the future. And even if the zoo turned down the grants, it's not as if that money gets disperssed back to joe the average tax payer, someone else would take it.

[teenageninja]

I think it was a great idea. The Zoo of all places should focus on green energy as they have the Botanical Garden. I'd like to see more large scale solar installations in this area.

[KIfan1980]

this is a wise use a tax dollars. ... And even if the zoo turned down the grants, it's not as if that money gets disperssed back to joe the average tax payer, someone else would take it.

As I said, I'm conflicted - not ready to call it wise just yet.

But your argument about someone else using it drives me nuts. If we in this country continue to think and act like this there will be more bridges to nowhere and unnecessary projects completed. Its not about having money dispersed back to us, it about not paying a lot more in to cover the costs.

[Cory Butcher]

I just would like to point out as well:

That quoted $140,000 could very well go into an endowment (if donations to the zoo can be found allowing such usage) which will return interest and build to a much larger sum.

Over 40 years, in long term holdings at an average of 10% growth per year, the zoo would have around $6.3 million in a fund that further covers the operating costs of the zoo (from just the first year of savings alone!).

The implications of this investment go much beyond covered spaces, clean energy, and the monetary ROI of the project. The savings can be used for other projects that may yield more donations, more research monies, or greater animal care.

Don't just stare at this $11 million investment in blind awe. The savings I am sure will be used in other areas that have a multiplier effect for the zoo's economy and prestige.

[KIfan1980]

I'm not looking at $11 million of investment in blind awe and agin don't fault the zoo for taking a government subsidy.

But using your 10% rate of return, that same $11 million in an endowment could be returning $1.1 million each year for other improvements over the next 40 years. This is what makes it such a poor financial investment - compare $140,000 to $1,100,000, which would you take?

[coaster_junky]

i'm glad to see the cincinnati zoo paving the way for a greener tomorrow!

i usually go to the zoo two or three times a month and know many of the animals by name (kind of weird sounding when it's said aloud. ) and i love seeing the little changes that occur during that short time frame between my visits. whether it be installing a new windmill or placing a field of solar panels, i'm proud to see the cincinnati zoo put the focus on the conservation of the environment and "scare" other zoos, and then possibly big businesses, into following their lead.

kifan1980, did you know that the cincinnati zoo is currently in the process of a multimillion dollar, two-stage upgrade of the cat house and the surrounding area? once the cat house re-opens as "night hunters," a cross between the nocturnal house and cat house, the zoo is set to begin an upgrade/remodel of tiger cannon*, which when complete will flow from the newly remodeled cat house, then into the rest of the zoo.

*the tiger cannon upgrade/remodel, however, will not be completed until around 2015-ish. at least that's what i believe thane maynard told me.

[CoastersRZ]

I have found memories from going to the Cincinnati Zoo on field trips back in elementary school! The zoo has been a leader in green technology and buildings. Part of that also has to do with the fact that they are set as an educational facility, and more importantly, they are a not-for profit organization.

[Cory Butcher]

I'm not looking at $11 million of investment in blind awe and agin don't fault the zoo for taking a government subsidy.

But using your 10% rate of return, that same $11 million in an endowment could be returning $1.1 million each year for other improvements over the next 40 years. This is what makes it such a poor financial investment - compare $140,000 to $1,100,000, which would you take?

Well, if the zoo is not spending a penny according to the one article, then the $11 million is not theirs to spend anyways. The savings on electricity however, would be theirs to spend how they see fit within certain legal obligations.

But, obviously you are right on the math, that money just isn't directly theirs! And this project will help fulfill the mission of a non-profit zoological facility such as the zoo, which in many cases is more important than the financial sense of a particular investment.

[KIfan1980]

i'm proud to see the cincinnati zoo put the focus on the conservation of the environment and "scare" other zoos, and then possibly big businesses, into following their lead.

kifan1980, did you know that the cincinnati zoo is currently in the process of a multimillion dollar, two-stage upgrade...

I'm proud of the Cincinnati Zoo also - always have been. I think every one of my posts should have shown that. My frustration with this project is with the very poor financials of "green" technology in this case - if we truly want to have an impact (global scale), we need to develop environmentally friendly and cost effective technologies.

As for the upgrade, no I didn't know, but am not surprised as they are always improving something. I'm glad that my membership dollars continue to support growth.

[Snowman]

i'm glad to see the cincinnati zoo paving the way for a greener tomorrow!

i usually go to the zoo two or three times a month and know many of the animals by name (kind of weird sounding when it's said aloud. )

It only gets weird when you think the animals know your name!

We started going to the Cincinnati Zoo last year and I believe it's one of the best cared for zoos in the country. Their Holiday light show is AMAZING! Now they have a way to power it. Membership is worth every penny.