MANCHESTER, N.H. — About 25 percent of a solar-panel array at the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport has been temporarily shut down after air-traffic controllers started complaining about glare, an airport official said.
Officials recently draped tarps over the troublesome panels, which are part of the 2,200-panel solar field installed on top of the airport parking garage this year. It went online early this month.
The airport, the Federal Aviation Administration, contractors and a consultant are studying the glare problem, said Brian O’Neill, deputy airport manager.
Before the airport moved forward on the $3.5 million projects, its consultant assured officials there would be no problems with glare for aircraft or the air-traffic control tower, O’Neill said.
“We’re looking to see — the pre-construction work — where it lacked accuracy,” he said.
For about 45 minutes each morning, glare from the panels hits the tower, which is west of the parking garage, O’Neill said. No aircraft or airlines have complained about glare, he added.
The project is almost entirely funded by the FAA and is designed to displace air-polluting power generation activities. It is the largest solar array in the state, O’Neill said.
An FAA Voluntary Airport Low Emissions grant paid for 95 percent of the 500 kilowatt project.
The project is expected to save the airport $100,000 in electricity costs each year, which amounts to 30 to 40 percent of the electricity needed to power the garage.
The panels take up about two-thirds of the top of the parking garage.
The airport worked with the Burlington, Mass., consulting firm of Harris, Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc. on the project. A telephone message left at the firm was not returned Wednesday.
Possible solutions include moving some of the panels, altering the 20-degree tilt of the problem panels, or modifying the tower, such as adding blinds, O’Neill said.
The changing height and path of the sun over a year’s time will be taken into account. O’Neill said he expects a solution will be agreed to within 90 days.
He said officials also have to determine who will pay for any modifications.
O’Neill said this isn’t the first time the FAA and airports have had to address issues with glare. A Las Vegas hotel once had to alter its glass exteriors because of its effect on the nearby airport.
O’Neill said the Manchester airport is not dismissing the concerns.
“We are 100 percent on board with the tower,” O’Neill said. “If they raised glare as a concern, we support them, and we’re working toward a solution.”
The FAA would not answer a reporter’s questions but issued a statement.
“The FAA and Manchester-Boston Regional Airport officials are developing a plan to eliminate glare from a solar array on the airport parking garage. Airport officials have covered the solar panels as an interim measure until a permanent solution is in place.”
___
(c)2012 The New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.)
Visit The New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.) at www.unionleader.com
Distributed by MCT Information Services
Solar panels blocked after Manchester airport controllers complain of glare
Leave a comment
3.5 million spent and payback is $100,000 a year on energy savings.
All panels and parts will have undergone some sort of repair or replacement over the next 20 years but payback on the intitial cost of the project doesn’t even start until 35 years out.
Does anyone still wonder why green companies keep failing?
Those are hard facts. Will those panels still work in 35 years at the break even point?
If they are, they’ll be hopelessly outdated.
How many electrical appliances do you have now from 20 years ago?
The warranty for most panels is 25 years but that doesn’t cover damages from hail and things falling from the sky. The real failure point for these systems though is the computer equipment and inverters and such. 10 years each if you are lucky and that is where most of the cost is as well.
I think a few additional calculations are needed–beyond my own mathematical skills.
Add in an inflation factor for the general savings on electricity, energy cost goes up each year, and almost never down–yes, occasional dips in gasoline prices, but then it goes back up even higher than before (this year closer to $4/gal.)
Then there is the even harder to calculate savings in not producing energy the traditional ways: less acid rain from coal burning? Water supplies stay usable, metal has less corrosion. Air is safer to breathe, fewer lung hospitalizations.
There is also the little to no maintenance needed on solar arrays, compared to say a nuclear plant, and certainly no poisonous waste outputs.
The other thing to calculate–how would you even do this?–is the fact that Manchester airport is owned by a group of surrounding municipalities, which see it as good for their general business “climate.” It is not a “green business” but a governmental body that is attempting to lead, much to its credit. Its “bottom line” is not only dollars and cents but the health and welfare of its residents.
Is the Manchester area a better place to live and work because of the airport? Does the solar array help it do do its job better? Answer those questions in something other than a back-of-the-envelope manner and we may have a better idea of the “true costs” of these solar panels.
Compare that to the decommissioned nuclear plant, Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset, with an array of 64 “dry cask canisters” that hold the spent nuclear fuel rods and other radioactive materials.
This article states ( http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/03/16/politics/lepage-administration-still-eyeing-nuclear-despite-japan-crisis/ ):
“…ratepayers pick up the estimated $6 million to $8 million annual tab to store and monitor the radioactive fuel…” from the Wiscasset plant. Since 1996, that is an average of $7 million x 15 years = $105 million. And it produced NO electricity for us in those 15 years, just cost us money.
Well, since there is no other option for storing this poison, and it needs to be kept secure for the next 25,000 years… let’s do the arithmetic…that is $175,000,000,000, not counting for inflation. $175 Billion just in storage costs.
That is just one plant, that produced electricity from 1972 to 1996, a real short 24 years…
Boy, that was a stretch. You calculated your argument like a true died in the wool greenie. A bunch of hogwash to support your personal green agenda.
Your example of the Nuke plant is not a good one. That planty could very well have been creating billions of dollars of power while storing their own waste on site protected by the normal Nuke plant security at no extra cost. There is no real reason for that plant not to be operating right now.
Believe it or not there is not a never ending supply of oil.
Cost effective or not – future generations are going to have to depend on something else.
Maybe but how about we find something that is actually cost effective?
You may not find something that is cost effective right off the bat – but in this case it really doesn’t matter. Some things are not all about money – people have to look at long term energy use.
When they are throwing my money away like they are it is about money. We have more oil, cola and Natural Gas than any other country in the world. We have enough to fill all of our needs for the next 100 years. Why aren’t we creating jobs and drilling for it now, when we need both oil and jobs? The President said all options are on the table but it is quite clear that he means to waste any amount of our money he sees fit to only chase the ones that are no where near ready for prime time.
“You’ve got it ea6bmarine, just another fairy tale ‘green ‘ project paid for with our tax dollars. How ridiculous is it that anyone would approve a project that has a 35 year payback, on equipment that has a 20 year expected lifespan. All done in the name of being green.
This really isn’t about being cost effective. This is about the fact that the oil will indeed run out. Do you have a back up plan for the world energy needs? Cry all you want about people going “green” when the oil runs dry your going to be thankful that someone at least tried to come up with a solution.
I totally disagree, this has absolutley nothing to do with oil. In Maine we generate approx. 1% of our electricty from oil. The only oil fired generating plant in Maine in the one at Cousin’s Island and that’s only used as a back up source. The remaing 99% comes from natural gas, bio-mass, hydro, etc. So just how will populated our mountian sides and ridgelines with 43 story industrial wind turbines or arrays of solar panels affect our use of oil!
Stop using the wind and solar industry’s PR soundbites as the baiss of your argument. Do some research and you’ll find the real truth about the cost effectiveness, and reliability of solar and wind. I was a big believer in wind power initially until I started researching the issue and found that it’s useless as a base load energy source, extremely expensive, won’t cut out use of oil (foreign or otherwise) and isn’t even carbon neutral.
How much oil did it take to make the computer your typing on? Almost everything depends on oil. Its half gone in 150 years or so. How long will the second half last?
You mean Solyndra wasn’t cost effective? It certainly was for all the people who took the $ and ran. Good comment.
A homeowner in a neighborhood of Boston wondered what melt patches of his vinyl siding and trim on his car. It was his neighbor’s UV/sun reflecting widows! Unintended consequences.
How many windmills could they get on top of that garage?