Atlantic New Jersey's motto is ""Always turned on."
The 13,321 photovoltaic panels will produce an average of 26 percent of the convention center's energy.
"We estimate that we are going to save $4.4 million over the 20 years of the contract [with the solar provider]," said Jeff Vasser, president of the Atlantic City Convention & Visitors Authority.
The $4.4 million savings over 20 years (the estimated lifespan of such a system) sounds terrific, but without a frame of reference, we really can't judge the benefit of this project. I've looked far and wide and can't find any mention of the cost of the project. For example, the Convention Center's website mentions the savings but not the cost. Even the vaunted CNN didn't see fit to investigate the cost.
However, commercial photovoltaic installations typically produce electricity at a cost that is about 10 times the prevailing rate for electricity. So this system probably cost about $44 million. In reality, the economics were probably worse since NJ isn't especially sunny and it's more costly to put all this equipment on a roof that wasn't designed for it. At a time when everyone in the press is decrying corporate and governmental excesses, why isn't this exposed?
Renewable energy is a great thing, but photovoltaics are one of the worst choices at this time. That money could have produced 10 times as much electricity with wind turbines. Why doesn't the press see through this nonsense?
Well, at least it isn't fossil fuel burning. It would be interesting to see what the sources of power are for this building and see what the solar power is "replacing"
It's naive to suggest that anything is better than an option that includes fossil fuels. For example, if they had spent $4.4M on a coal operation that produced the same amount of electricity they'd still have $39.6M to invest in wind energy. That combination would eliminate 9 times as much fossil fuel electricity for the same price.
At a time when we are demanding more transparency from business and government alike, I find it unacceptable for such a project to go forward without divulging the cost. Who made the decision and what was their motivation? Perhaps there is a NJ politician with a financial interest in a solar panel manufacturer. This was no doubt funded primarily with federal and NJ tax dollars. Perhaps John Stewart should investigate this.
I don't imagine a coal plant on top of the casino would have the same "green" marketing effect.
Everything is turning "green" and really more could be done with just using less and using things more efficiently, but in our consumption based society ideas need to sell.