Archive for Thursday, October 7, 2010

Douglas County receives grant to install solar panels to power offices

The panels will cost $20,000 and cover 15 percent of the building's yearly energy cost.

October 7, 2010


Douglas County K-State Research and Extension employees are used to relying on the sun for healthy gardens and bountiful harvests.

But, they will soon be depending on solar energy for something a little closer to home: powering their offices.

Douglas County received a renewable energy incentive grant from the Kansas State Energy Office to cover a quarter of the cost of installing a solar photovoltaic system. The system, which is estimated to cost $20,000, is expected to produce 15 percent of the building’s electricity.

The energy savings would payoff the cost of the system in 16 years and in the next 25 years, the system will avoid producing 261,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

“It’s was a no brainer,” said Eileen Horn, who is the sustainability coordinator for the county and city of Lawrence.

Contractors have submitted two formal bids on the project. The Douglas County Extension Council, which oversees the extension budget, is expected make a decision on who to award the project to this month. Installation should occur in November or December.

If approved, this would be the third county building to have solar panels installed in the past six months.

This summer the county installed solar thermal panels to heat water at the Douglas County Jail. And, last week contractors finished installing a similar system at the Douglas County Youth Services building in North Lawrence.

Along with generating electricity for the 13-employee office, the solar photovoltaic system will give the extension office employees a chance to educate the community on renewable energy. A computer kiosk will be placed at the office to show visitors how the system works and how much energy is being generated in real-time.

“The extension office’s mission is education,” Horn said. “They do try out technologies that are applicable to agriculture procedures and then share that information.”

The solar photovoltaic system will be accompanied by an energy awareness program, which would include solar energy workshops and tours.


lawrenceguy40 7 years, 7 months ago

A waste of taxpayers money supporting liberal propaganda.


livinginlawrence 7 years, 7 months ago

i can relate to calling this a waste of taxpayer money; with it taking so long to get the return on the investment, it seems like maybe we would reap more benefit by waiting until the technology is better/more affordable.

but what is this "liberal propaganda" you speak of?

Ken Lassman 7 years, 7 months ago


lawrenceguy40 is the one without the evidence, as are all climate change deniers as far as I can tell. They cry "bad data!" and then when they are proven to be wrong, they quietly say nothing about the conclusion that they were wrong and find another angle of "skewing," just barely staying ahead of the facts that once again prove them wrong.

If you would like some reliable sources for the overwhelming preponderance of empirical evidence that has convinced 98% of the world's professional climatologists and other scientists of the veracity and dangers of climate change, as well as a "snopes/urban legends" type of site to expose the lies of the deniers, let me know and I can give you some links.

Bud Stagg 7 years, 7 months ago

16 year return on investment. That is awful. The units probably won't last that long. our government at it's best, and we wonder why they are broke.

Stephen Roberts 7 years, 7 months ago

Actually, should you include the salary or a portion of it every year of the sustainability coordinator is being paid? I would so it would take longer for the return on investment.

FreshAirFanatic 7 years, 7 months ago

"This is a no-brainer"

Are you kidding me?! You received at a grant for $5K. The taxpayers have to fork over the other $15K and we won't see a return on "our" investment for 16 years. In the meantime it will provide 15% of the best.

That sounds more like "brain dead" to me.

Even if global warming was legit that's a horrible business decision.

Ken Lassman 7 years, 7 months ago

And yet Bloomberg tells us that fossil fuels get twice the amount of subsidies as renewables, and nukes get the most of all. And globally, fossil fuels get 12 times the amount of subsidies as renewables.

So what's a horrible business decision when we can't even see how skewed the playing field is in the first place? And how easy are bankers on venture capitalists who want to invest in renewables vs let's say, a Holcomb coal fired plant? And how much money can Sunflower Power finagle out of the Rural loans program run by the feds, even though they still haven't paid on their loans they got to build the first power plant out there?

There are taxpayer swindles and there are taxpayer swindles. Methinks you need to look at the larger picture.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.