Solar energy installation planned for Ann Arbor's Veterans Memorial Park Pool
The latest demonstration of Ann Arbor's commitment to renewable energy will take shape in the near future at Veterans Memorial Park Pool, where the city plans to construct a new shade structure supporting a future photovoltaic installation.
Louis Hoffman, 9, and Yusuke Soya, 10, both of Ann Arbor, have some fun under a fountain at Veterans Memorial Park Pool last year.
Melanie Maxwell I AnnArbor.com
The project is part of the city's matching fund requirement for a Solar America Cities grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.
City officials say the project, once completed, will be a "highly visible demonstration of photovoltaic technology." Electricity from the installation is expected to help to power Veterans Memorial Park Pool and Ice Rink, complementing an existing solar pool heating system.
The shade structure also will provide a valuable amenity to pool visitors, similar to the existing shade structure at Fuller Pool, according to Andrew Brix, the city's energy programs manager. He said care will be taken to minimize impacts to pool users.
Brix said the city is purchasing the photovoltaic collectors for the project separately because the manufacturer, Uni-Solar, has agreed to sell solar collectors at a reduced cost to the city based on the Solar America Cities Partnership. Installation of the photovoltaic collectors will be bid and contracted for separately as soon as the shade structure is completed.
Funding for the project is expected to come from the energy fund operations and maintenance budget ($33,010) and community service's capital park maintenance and capital improvement millage budget ($10,000). Construction is expected to start shortly.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
Goober
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 9:41 a.m.
Hmmmmm...........a 9 to 0 vote for a project without a communicated cost savings proposal. When is our city council members going to learn that we do not have the money for waste and worthless projects?
Mike
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 9:48 p.m.
I swim at this pool. The water is freaking cold! What is most disappointing about this "photovoltaic collector" investment is that the most efficient use of solar energy is conversion to heated water. Converting sunlight to electricity is not an immediate need for this installation and is not efficient. The officials who approved this purchase should be removed from office as they appear to value the political correctness over the comfort of their customers.
1bit
Sun, Jul 10, 2011 : 1:09 a.m.
Well, we do live in sunny Michigan so it is obvious why solar panels would be the best alternative energy source here.
Mick52
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 10:32 p.m.
What I was thinking Mike. My sister told me in her area, lots of people have pools and help heat them by putting solar panels on roofs through which water flows through pipes, heats and cycles into the pool. Works well. My sis lives in Florida. But I wonder if now something like that on the roof of the ice rink could ease the water temp at Vets Park. As a source of electricity it is a waste of money
Jessica Webster
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
We just came back from a swim meet at Vet's. I'm thrilled that there will finally be more shade there!!
KarenH
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.
Progress is never cheap. I appreciate living in a city that values a commitment to finding and utilizing alternatives to fossil fuel. Those dinosaur remnants won't be around forever, and the farther we have to go down to plunder the depths of our poor earth, the more expensive and less-cost-effective it becomes. There's no more time to waste on pretending that there's an endless supply down there. $40K is a small price to pay to be at the forefront of green technology.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 10:34 p.m.
To make one last point, I don't have a problem with tax payers at the federal level spending millions,even billions on researching the development of efficient effective alternative energy sources. But our local city installing an inefficient joke of an energy producer just to feel good doesn't make sense.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 10:25 p.m.
all I'm asking for is to crunch some numbers to see what the cost is. And to see if the net result is even green. You people don't seem to care what it costs or if its even a net help to the environment.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 10:21 p.m.
JohnB, You evidently have entirely misunderstood my stance on green energy. Maybe its because I ask questions and you don't. I don't want to "forever suck at the fossil fuel teat" but neither will I drink any green kool aid tossed in my direction without asking questions. If you and KarenH want to think a couple solar panels on the Vets park pool is going to help lead the world away from fossil fuels be my guest. But its not going to. What it is going to do is squeeze an already cash strapped city in to a little deeper hole.
John B.
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.
Craig, if you want to forever suck at the fossil fuel teat, to the exclusion of ever trying anything else, please be our guest, but that doesn't mean others can't do things that will lead toward less of a dependence on petro-dictators. Got it?
KarenH
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.
@Craig, I disagree... The only way to get the federal government to invest in renewable green energy solutions is to prove that they can work. I am perfectly happy to see that Ann Arbor is willing to take action now without waiting on the federal government. Nobody ever got anywhere waiting for someone else to decide where they should go.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 4:27 p.m.
The only possible way solar energy will make a real impact is with massive funding by the Federal Government to develop efficient technology. Anything else is just an exercise in green delusional self grandeur
KarenH
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 4:08 p.m.
In reply to Craig... a small Midwest town certainly can lead its own citizens by example. It takes trillions of drops of water to form a large body of water... it will take thousands of "small" towns (though Ann Arbor is really more a large town or a small city) to eventually affect the country. And to your second point, even if the carbon footprint is a wash with what it saves versus what it consumes, it has to start somewhere. Only with implementing such things will we see progress in the efficiency of them.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
Here is another thought. Rather than just assume these things are inherently earth friendly we need to know how much of a "carbon footprint" they save over the course of their life versus the "carbon footprint" it took to make them. Hypothetically if one photovoltaic collector saves 10 pounds of greenhouse gases in its life but takes 10.8 pounds to make its not really very earth friendly. I'm not suggesting that is the case, but I'm asking the question and I'm not sure our "green" city officials are.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 3:12 p.m.
a small Midwest city cannot possibly be at the forefront of developing sufficient alternative energy to remove us as a nation or world from fossil fuels. So while i appreciate that fossil fuels have a limit I don't want to be the one who goes broke in the process.
Phillip Farber
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.
Thank you, Voice of Reason.
Brad
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.
I believe the expected economic payback is somewhere between "never" and "never-ever". This isn't about economics, it's about "demonstrating our commitment". If there is anything Ann Arbor loves, it is demonstrating to the world just how cool/green/hip/etc we are.
John B.
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
Which is just fine with me, as I'm hoping to be able to sell my home for more than half of what I paid, someday, and retire....
Diagenes
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.
Does this project make sense economically? Or is it just another tax payer financed feel good boondoogle?
Mick52
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 10:27 p.m.
It's a tax payer financed feel good boondoogle. Johnny, there is a line where you separate expenditures for public services where the taxpayers feel it is worth the cost. The pool is an example of that. A municipality does not need to make a profit. I think it is totally appropriate for people to question the cost vs benefit value of any project, particularly with costs in the tens of thousands of dollars. Is this the best project for a cost of over $40k?
johnnya2
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
Projects do not have to make economic profit for them to make sense. Does the pool itself make profit? The ice rink? Does paving Jackson Rd make sense economically? Does the fire department make sense? How about street lights? Does cutting the grass on city property make sense financially?
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 11:36 a.m.
So $39,100 will get the "photovoltaic collector" holder upper. Once this holder upper is actually holding up some "photovoltaic collectors" how much electricity will they produce at what total cost and how long before the "photovoltaic collectors" need to be replaced? These are questions I want to know answers to.
Wilford John Presler IV
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.
err....Delete...
1bit
Sat, Jul 9, 2011 : 12:26 p.m.
Craig, I think the "holder upper" is going to cost $3,910. The other $39,100 sounds like it is going to be for the collectors, installation, etc. So the total cost is $43,010. I agree with you and Diagenes that it would be helpful in articles discussing these types of technologies to also mention return on investment. Assuming that the collectors don't need replacing anytime soon, how many years will it take before the power savings justify the cost? 10? 15? 20? More?