digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Largest Solar Roof In Europe - Over 16,600 Photovoltaic Solar Panels

pgigrup.net — "At over a kilometer in length, the rooftop will have an area of over 57,000 square meters, of which 21,000 will be occupied by solar panels. The power installed will be of approximately 3 MW peak, which will generate over 3.6 GWh per year."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ivanisavich, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3Someone put wheels on that thing and enter it into a race!
  • bovester, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10WOW it's nice to see that some people are dedicated to using alternative energy sources... but I just gotta ask- Where are those 80 MILLION Euros coming from?
    • gharding, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Well, Telefónica's net income for 2006 was over €6 billion. So I think they can afford it.
    • ivanisavich, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Well, from gas generators and dumping toxins into the oceans of course.
    • stinkipete, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Net income has nothing to do with net profit and whether or not they can "afford" it, afaik.
    • drcato, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Net income is synonymous with net profit. The "net" indicates that it is after expenses have been deducted from revenues. In fact, "net profit" is redundant as "profit" already implies revenue minus expenses.
  • akira117, on 10/11/2007, -3/+480 000 000 € = 107.70400 million US$
  • darthabominis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2well thats a informitive article.
    with pretty photos
  • R3PUBLIC0n, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The E80,000,000 might be for the entire complex, I'm not sure.

    Does anyone have information as to the actual cost savings in terms of electricity this project will yield? Will the panels eventually pay for themselves?
    • ersatzphi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Eventually but it's a matter of how many years. I also imagine it being a maintenance nightmare.
    • Mar1in, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Quote: Does anyone have information as to the actual cost savings in terms of electricity this project will yield? Will the panels eventually pay for themselves?

      With the price of energy going up, really it's anyone's guess how soon the panels will pay for themselves. If the panels supply all of their energy needs, the one thing they can say is _their_ energy costs will not be going up.

      M.
    • Technopundit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Depends on the future costs of energy - which will be more than you think.
      Generally speaking, at current rates, solar installations take close to 20 years to pay themselves off. The life of the installation is probably rated at about 30 years.
    • mrx23, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Solar panels at current prices should pay for themselves in 20-30 years. Depending on energy prices over there, and since its a very large order of solar panels, i think they will pay off much sooner, probably in 10-15 years. Most solar panels should last at least 40 years if not abused or physically damaged. The energy required to produce these panels will be payed off within 0.5-1 years, also depending on the manufacturer. I am very happy that at least some countries are serious about this way of capturing energy.
    • ahfoo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I couldn't find any real details on this particular project, but a similar story broke this week about a vineyard in Northern California installing a one megawatt installation. That one caught my attention because, like this story, the numbers seemed too big.

      Research revealed that the trick, or perhaps miracle would be a better word, was that this project wasn't using conventional solar panels but instead involves amorphous silicon also known as thin film panels that produce slightly less power per given square meter of installation, but are far cheaper to produce. We've all heard about this as a future technology such as with Google's investment in the company named Nanosolar, but this was a real product already in the market in a big way.

      The maker of the product going in at this vineyard was United Solar Ovonics. You can go to their home page, but a better way to get a good grasp on their technology is to check out the following Wiki page on the guy for which the company is named, Stanford Ovshinsky.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Ovshinsky

      Especially, check out the link at the bottom of that page to the Wall Street Journal article. That is where you can learn about the scale at which United Solar Ovonics is producing these panels. This is a very important part of understanding the significance of this technology. Ovshinsky refused to go small-time and is actively producing massive quantities of these panels.

      I've heard from other sources that some other companies using similar technologies are facing problems, but apparently there are no major problems at United Solar Ovonics because they're shipping by the megawatt.

      So, to get back to the question. How long till payback? In the case of the vineyard in Northern California, they had a six year payback at current rates. The panels are under warrantee for thirty years just like traditional crystaline silicon panels generally are.
  • Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -17/+7that's so awesome... Finally commercial entities are embracing solar power. A bunch of local stores where I live have started using solar power as well...

    Soon, that'll cause a flip in electricity needs, the price of electricity will drop due to lower demand... so to will the prices of solar cells (nobody wants to sell solar panels to someone who can milk a profit per-panel in 5 years, so they'll always be more than a mortgage of the cost of the electiricity produced plus interest rate...

    BTW, ***** capitalism, I want my house not creating new bills for me.
    • Jibberwalk, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22... ***** Capitalism? You just defined it in your example...
    • Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Not quite... The point was that the price of solar power would already be dropping if it weren't for corporations afraid that they could -actually- sucker people to pay MORE than they already are.
    • Jibberwalk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Despite being around for a good many decades now, it wasn't until quite recently that solar power has become a viable option for renewable energy. When the panels finally began to hit useful efficiency, they became consumer level commodities.

      That being said, being such a new sector of the market, there are relativley few companies that produce solar panels. The demand is increasing, and supply isn't matching that demand. Therefore, of course prices are going to be high. It's basic supply and demand.

      But as time progresses, more and more companies will enter the production market in order to take a slice of the new sector's profits. As they enter, they increase supply, increasing competition, and lowering prices -- making solar panels more and more efficient, at a lesser price-per-capita point, and more available to the consumer.

      I fail to see how the very basic principles of Capitalism fail us here...
    • markp93, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2@jibberwalk (1st comment):

      that was awesome.
    • Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Simple...capitalism is slow.

      Getting dugg down for a reasonable post that mentions a dislike for capitalism, priceless.
  • greendigger, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I am confused because the installation may look like solar panels, but there is no information on the link regarding that, Can you please provide an alternative link with more information regarding this project. Thank.
  • josegutz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Solar panels? Okay cool. But how about that Snorg Tee model on the side panel here... The one with the bears shirt...oooooooo (Bites fist like squiggy)
    • rwmnau, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1If you're really into her, you can check out her model profile here:

      http://www.onetalentsource.com/portfolio/4722
    • Chetopuffs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0@rwmnau
      smart man! How do you know where to find her profile? Really! I mean, that I see tons of ads everyday with lots of beautiful women, but I never would of look for their profiles.
    • josegutz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have now officially gone ALOOF!
  • Anth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33MW of power generation cost about 21M USD (installed). The rule is generally about $7/W for solar.
  • DerekMurray, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4i wonder how long it will take for them to break even on the money they spent installing them to how much it saves them over a period of time.
  • nadadingsda, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15..just as a reference, 3.6 GWh is about the energy a nuclear reactor produces in couple of hours.
    • griz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5But that solar array won't produce radioactive waste that will be decaying for 10's of thousands of year.
    • DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4true but this is just a building's roof, it isn't really a power plant. Nuclear plants take up acres and acres of land and need huge water cooling facilities and steam turbines.
    • se7en11, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Last month we used 875KWh in our 1,600 sq ft house

      1GWh = 1,000,000KWh
      1 month =~ 1,000KWh or .001GWh

      So it could power our house for 300 years (3,600 months) or 300 houses for 1 year.
    • np374, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2@nadadingsda

      Yeah, but how much of that energy can be put to use. Most of it is lost when it's converted to electricity.
    • nadadingsda, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm not saying that nuclear power is necessarily a better solution, doing this comparison just shows you how many such roofs you would actually need to replace a single nuclear power plant.

      let's do some math.. say we have a single reactor that outputs 1GW electrical power, per year this reactor produces 8.76TWh of electrical energy (assuming the plant is running the whole year). The solar roof produces 3.6GWh per year, this means you have to have 2433 such roofs to replace the reactor. The building costs for these would be 80Million Euros * 2433 = 195 Billion Euros, which is about $260 Billion.. I think you see what I'm getting at.
    • calvmari, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The comparison you make is valid, but this is a step towards the right direction. Like a digger above me says, it occupies space that would otherwise not be used productively. Not only that, but its energy that isn't taxed (as far as I know), and its another source of power if the power lines are cut by a natural catastrophe.
    • happytron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"80Million Euros * 2433 = 195 Trillion Euros"

      I think you mean 195 billion Euros, but thanks for the effort.

      Update:
      ... hrmm, looks like its already been fixed.
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4So, basically a gigantic and expensive installation that produces an insignificant amount of electricity. Fascinating.
    • Technopundit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Wrong. I wish you oil company guys would stay off digg.
    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1your solution?
    • happytron, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"your solution?"

      Probably nuclear power. Its still the only solution that is proven capable of scaling to global energy needs once we decide burning coal is unacceptable.
  • Cyberbladewolf, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3So, why isn't this Al Gore? Oh wait, that would involve not being a hypocrite.
  • PRlME, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1i just digged every1 down -=P
  • spootmonkey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+83.6 GWh ....that almost enough to run a time machine....
  • tyfighter, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Obligatory "JUMPING GIGAWATT-HOURS!!!"
  • pr5owner, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2incorrect, you need JIGGA WATTS to run a time machine

    a unit far beyond the comprehension of man kind

    anywho solar panels suck, real solar power is when you use sunlight like a magnifying glass and aim it at a transparent drum of water to super heat it and turn generators.
    • utdrew182, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3That would just get you to saturated steam.
  • wes00mertes, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Hope they don't get a bad hail storm.
    • XaeroVincent, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Indeed. A bad hail storm will smash these cells, ruining thier millions spent on solar energy.

      Maybe the can place a structure over the cell to protect them?

    • silverchrysalis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@xaero- thus eliminating the sunlight?
    • CedEx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ silverchrysalis

      No one said it had to be an opaque structure! Simple polycarbonate could offer protection. You know.. the same material they use for safety goggles!
    • Chetopuffs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2 What would be wrong with clear Plexiglas. It can stop a bullet and as far as I know light can pass through it. I mean I can see the teller on the other side when at a convince store.
      In fact I would be surprised if they didn't already consider this and have already taken some kind of similar steps in fixing it
  • tomjenkinson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1My original post has more details:

    http://www.metaefficient.com/archives/renewable-power/3-megawatt-solar-roof-the-largest-in-europe.html
  • Technopundit, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4The only reason we don't accomplish projects like that in the US is because we are in denial about the oil patch boys who have taken control of the country and the government. We will soon be paying double for energy over what we are paying now.
    • griz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3We don't???

      http://www.energybulletin.net/28970.html
    • buhu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2If you were paying $7 a gallon for petrol you would be seriously considering getting a smaller car ... If petrol was that price you would also see a massive hike in your electricty bill, I dont know if that would be 100% but it would certainly make those solar cells an awful lot more attractive.

      $7 per US Gallon is almost exactly how much i am paying in London (92.9p / liter, 3.79 liters to the US Gallon and an exchange rate of £1 = $1.98) and I am getting it cheap, plently of people are paying 99.9p / liter.
  • cdgod, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Someone has to say it:
    One hail storm and it's lights out...

    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Clouds and nighttime and it's lights out.
  • matude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Even if it cost more than it will bring in (though I highly doubt that, because otherwise it wouldn't have been built); even if the electricity costs more than its competitive company's services, it's still a good thing.

    I'd be ready to pay twice as much for electricity if it only stopped polluting earth.
  • Fabiandesimone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I live two blocks from it. I think is great that they are using alternative energy sources, but do you have any idea the amount of traffic jams and pollution that building is going to cause? It will hold 14.000 employees. Just consider 10% goes to work in their cars.

    So instead of taking 15 minutes to get to work It´ll take 45....oh yes...pollution can be an issue.

  • PRlME, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Digg Down!
    • Tahiri, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3as per your request, I have dugg you down
  • ruffnsc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0dig down party!
  • dogshaft, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Wow, 3.6 GWh per year? And I thought that 1.21 GW @ 88 mph was a lot!
  • couragewins64, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Wrong. I wish you oil company guys would stay off digg.
  • couragewins75, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Wrong. I wish you oil company guys would stay off digg.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.