30 Replies to “Great Success!”

  1. From the comments:

    ” In short, it was a success. ”

    Wrong. If it was a success it wouldn’t be shutting down.

      1. Drake, and the company that sold the panels, the crew that installed them, the maintenance guys, oh yeah, and the guys coming to dismantle them and patch the holes and retrofit will get paid. The company and dignitaries got a photo-op when it was installed.
        The taxpayer and the homeowner who’s still there will be holding the bag for the rest. And yet it’s a success?

    2. mmmmmmm success. well, one of the successes they clearly proved depending on solar in Canaduh is farcical and inordinately expensive.
      as far as the decommissioning, is that gonna be like decommissioning a a battleship that is scrapped? can l make a bid on the scrap metal?
      p.s. the part l like about construction and esp renovation work is the tinkling sound of breaking glass. something about that sharp (pun intended) crack gets me.

  3. Over 80 grand per household to renew the virtue signaling versus 40 grand to decommission and revert to dependable NG. Add the on-gong maintenance cost of the solar boondoggle and its a no-brainer. Lets call it a taxation on gullibility and innumeracy.

    1. “Renewable Energy” … means you have to replace the equipment … regularly. Far more often than my Nat. Gas Furnace

  4. ” … Drake Landing Company acknowledged potential downsides of the decision, including higher emissions, the perception that the project was a failure and a devaluation of the community’s homes.”

    “Perception”? As in “it is my perception that Hitler’s last offensive was a failure”?

  5. The grift should have died before it started but for the ideologues pushing the narrative. Talk about misinformation…

  6. Looks like the project was approaching the 20 year mark next year. I wonder if most of the panels had deteriorated and weren’t providing any power?

  8. “‘Despite extensive efforts to arrange for new grant funding, the [Drake Landing Company] has been unable to secure additional dollars, making the path forward a clear choice – the Drake Landing Solar Community must be decommissioned,’ stated the board.”

    So it was an unsustainable, subsidy-sucking, taxpayer fleecing, private-public partnership parasite (4P)-attracting boondoggle from the word ‘go’

    How many more Drake Landing Solar Community-type boondoggles are out there one wonders

      1. My understanding is that this was a solar thermal project where the roof panels heated water to be circulated and stored underground to be used with heat pumps. I wonder how much heat was left to pump by Christmas?

    2. ”grant funding?” isn’t that like pissing away more tax money to correct an issue caused by the first expenditure which should never been spent in the first place.
      How stupid are we taxpayers?

  10. “citing factors such as a lack of funding, extensive financial losses and maintenance issues, including the failure of critical components.”

    Other than a lack of government graft, an inability to generate revenue, untold maintenance issues, it was a success

  12. “The majority of the homes have since had their heating systems converted to natural gas furnaces.”

    Gas for the win.

  13. “reduction of approximately five tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per home per year.”
    5 tonnes x $80 carbon tax per tonne = $400 ÷ 12 = $33.30 per month made available for mortgage payments over a 15 year / 180 month time period for solar community projects
    going forward.
    Alternately, a bottle of ‘affordable’ whiskey…per month.

    ‘

  14. Of the 5 comments on the story, this one by Rob Pugh (who actually lived there) was quite interesting:
    “I lived in one of these homes from 2006 to about 2015 and I loved living there… I only moved as we needed a larger home. I fully learned how the system worked and closely monitored its operation through the publicly available web page and I can say that it worked extremely well and achieved the target that it was designed to achieve. In short, it was a success. Although I’m sad to see this experiment come to an end, I understand why as technology has moved on and it now no longer makes sense to collect thermal energy from rooftops, but instead to generate electricity using PV solar panels. Another challenge faced by this system was that natural gas prices remained lower than predicted when the economics of this system were first calculated. Finally, being experimental, the air handlers in each home were bespoke to the project, so spare parts don’t exist.”

      1. These are not your typical solar panels that generate electricity. The panels are pretty simple technology that should be easy to disassemble and recycle – glass, metal and likely some plastic (usually not recyclable). Some form of anti-freeze circulates through the piping absorbing heat from the sun.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation