It's Not Easy Being Green

…or how not to bungle a $5.7-billion, taxpayer-funded program:

L.A. community colleges’ green energy plan proves wildly impractical. The blunders cost taxpayers $10 million.

Larry Eisenberg was put in charge of a project to make the schools more energy efficient. What he did was set out to be a visionary by making the schools not only self sufficient, but actually sell energy back to the grid, with a plan that wasn’t even close to being practical.

*Plans for large-scale wind power collided with the reality that prevailing winds at nearly all the campuses are too weak to generate much electricity. To date, a single wind turbine has been installed, as a demonstration project. It spins too slowly in average winds to power a 60-watt light bulb.

For Valley College, Eisenberg’s team produced maps showing fields of solar panels covering nearly half the campus. Trees would be chopped down. Lawns would be covered with photovoltaic panels.

In May 2009, Musick proposed a giant elevated platform of energy devices. Reflective panels and other machinery would spread across 25 acres of open space and rise as high as 100 feet.

Tony Fairclough, an engineer who is the district’s technical director for renewable power, told Eisenberg there was “nothing substantive” to back up Musick’s claim that his solar panels could produce energy with “record efficiency” — 50 megawatts in all, many times what the campus would ever need.

About the same time, Chevron Energy Solutions, an arm of the oil company, was drawing up plans at Eisenberg’s behest to turn campus playing fields into a parking lot covered with photovoltaic panels.

Inspectors for the agency, which was created after school collapses in the Long Beach earthquake of 1933, were concerned that heavy steel solar panels to be built over a parking lot on Western Avenue could crash onto bystanders during a temblor.

Eisenberg suggested mounting the panels on wheels — not because that would be safer but to escape the state’s jurisdiction over fixed school structures built on foundations.
*

The part I love the most:
One thing was for sure: No matter how it was financed, the bill for all those solar panels and wind turbines would be huge. Eisenberg’s cost estimates for taking the nine campuses off the grid ranged as high as $975 million — this for a college system that in 2010 spent less than $8 million on power bills [experts estimate the cost closer to $1.9billion].

In order to get it financed, the plan required getting federal tax credits. But the school didn’t qualify for them, so he arranged for private investment banks to buy the equipment, then use the tax credits to offset the cost, so that they could rent them to the school at a lower price.

*Eisenberg wanted to spend $98 million on hydrogen fuel-cell equipment that had never been put into commercial operation.

Eisenberg’s enthusiasm for wind energy also outran the facts. Among the projects he touted was the Windjet, a windmill that could be built in various sizes, including one as big as a Ferris wheel.

Its creator, a Manhattan Beach inventor named Brad Sorenson, called the Windjet the “highest efficiency wind power system in history.” It existed only in miniature prototype, run in part with a bicycle chain. Sorensen hauled the contraption around in the trunk of his car.

Eisenberg wanted to put one on each of the nine campuses.

A district energy advisor, Andrew Hoffman, dismissed the Windjet as a fantasy, telling Eisenberg that Sorensen "claims he can extract more power from the wind than is theoretically possible.

“When dealing with issues on the human scale, the laws of Newtonian physics are non-negotiable,” Hoffman wrote.*

Meanwhile, each of those blunders and failures required paying contractors for work started but never finished. He overestimated the power he could produce, underestimated the cost of all the projects, and setting back the green energy initiative 20 years. He’s made it that much harder for future projects, not just by pissing away funding, but by highlighting how complicated the process can be.

Kudos to you Mr Eisenberg for helping out the oil companies struggling in these hard times and making sure future green projects never see the light of day.

It sounds to me like whoever made that decision is the one to blame.

Seriously. Aren’t there committees that are supposed to supervise these things? Budget committees, construction committees, zoning committees? These things serve a purpose, you know.

There were, and Eisenberg seemed to thwart them all!

He was told he couldn’t build massive solar arrays over a fault line, so he wanted to put them on wheels.

He seemed to have made up numbers about how much power all these devices could produce to make the budges look really good.

To be fair, it sounded like a lot of his craizer proposals were blocked by the higher-ups. Some of the college administrators actually come off looking pretty good.

There’s a bunch of other people in the article mentioned by name that had similar reactions.

Can you sue someone for being an incompetent boob?
How about tar and feathers?

It’s sad because folks like that in the OP tend to make the saner and more rational proponents look bad. There is nothing wrong with green energy…it’s increasingly becoming an invaluable niche energy provider that fills in a lot of gaps in our energy mix…but you have to keep it within the realms of reality. Some of these green energy fanatic types really believe the most outrageous propaganda about it, sadly.

I love the part where they wanted to spend around a billion dollars to save $8-10 million a year. I wonder if any of those folks ever heard of an ROI estimate. :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

Do we pretty much have no choice but to develop green energy, and do it yesterday? Yep. Is it going to be expensive, and are we likely to fuck it up? Hugh Betcha. Is there any real benefit to solving this problem? Oh, yeah. Big time and downtown.

Mind if we think outside the bucks for a minute or two? Let suppose, just for conjecture, that the Holy Green Grail actually exists, cheap abundant clean energy. Maybe we are just one Tesla away from it. We don’t know, we don’t really have a clue, because until now we never put serious money into it. Point of fact, such research makes serious money nervous. I’d prefer squeals of porcine terror, but nervous is good.

If that can be done, we will advance humankind fuckin’ huge. Cheap energy for the subsistence farmer in Bangladesh, and enough left over for led lighting so his kid can do his homework. Hell, yeah!

Now, maybe this is impossible. But is it impossible in the same way eradicating smallpox and rinderpest was impossible? Like moon landing impossible?

Is it a practical and pragmatic use of money? No way to know. But if you have to bet a dollar against a pot of 10 million and you have to draw to an inside straight flush…its still a good bet.

How the hell do you get all of that on a spreadsheet?

Yup, I imagine that’s what most of Larry Eisenberg’s presentations sounded like.

Just think how great those campuses could have been, if only the laws of physics didn’t get in the way.

So instead of the United Parking Lots of America we’ll be the United Solar Panels of America? Not as catchy.

Its worth it if only to learn from the mistakes. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. We WILL run out of it. The sooner we can get green energy going, the better. And its ok to “waste” money, because the government has more. The money goes to private industry and companies, which is essentially what you’d want anyway

Get rid of this Eisenberg guy and start over

And hey, if a few college students have to get crushed to death by the massive, wheel-mounted solar arrays you built to exploit a loop hole in the building codes, that’s just a minor set back, right?

Also totally worth it if only to learn from the mistakes.

Well, how about if we just use English majors?

Eventually we will run out of fossil fuels? OK, but what the fuck do we need to save them for?

We won’t run out. They will simply get more and more expensive.

That’s the sad thing is that besides all of the coal out there, we might not have enough fossil fuels to cause a really good bout of global warming because just when we start to really futz up the planet we’ll run out.

This is what happens when you don’t have really smart, college-educated guys in charge of things.

PV arrays are too expensive and too inefficient for medium or large scale energy production. Some contend that they don’t even produce any net energy. Far better to buy cheap energy from the grid, and then use funds to improve energy efficiency from the demand side of the equation (more efficient lighting, better thermal insulation, etc.).

Based on current energy usage, we have something like 600,000 years worth of methane hydrates. There’s probably a far greater chance that we learn to economically extract methane hydrates than solar or wind in any meaningful amounts any time soon. You should seriously back off on the “we WILL run out” of fossil fuels language.