The proposed installation of a $220,000 generator at the high school, included in the five capital improvement referendum questions on the November ballot, has raised many eyebrows.
Indeed, it was just 10 years ago when a $2.1 million fuel cell - the cost of which was picked up by grant from grant money - was installed at the high school with great fanfare and promises of clean energy, cost savings and educational opportunities.
But a decade later, with the town facing the prospect of investing a half a million dollars to restack the fuel cell, the overall results of the alternative form of energy have been mixed, according to town officials.
Town Manager Matt Galligan said in an interview Friday that replacing the fuel cell with a generator is a “business decision,” meaning that it will cost the town some $280,000 less to replace the fuel cell with a generator than it would to restack it. What’s more, the fuel cell would need to be restacked every five to seven years, where a generator can, depending on how long it is run, last for up to 15 years.
The fuel cell also only provided power to half the high school, which served as an emergency shelter during the aftermath of the late October snowstorm last year, where the generator would provide the school with full power, Galligan said.
Furthermore, the town never realized the full cost savings that the fuel cell onced promised. Originally, the fuel cell was supposed to save the town about $130,000 per year in energy costs, Galligan said.
But due to maintenance and, for lack of a better term, surcharges from CL&P that were based on powering the fuel cell back up once it was taken offline once or twice a year, the town saved more along the lines of $40,000 to $65,000 a year, according to the schools’ Director of Facility Operations Patrick Hankard.
In addition, the town never followed through with selling power back to the grid, as originally planned, because of the rules and regulations that had to be followed, Galligan said.
“It was a very expensive legal thing to go through,” Galligan said.
The end result is the fuel cell became more burdensome on South Windsor taxpayers than it was worth.
“We did find during the snowstorm that it can only power the foyer, gymnasium and cafeteria,” Town Councilor Cary Prague said. “People who went to the high school were not allowed to use their hair dryers. We would have to spend $500,000 every 6 years [to restack it] and it doesn’t save $500,000 during those 6 years. … It’s a hopeless technology.”
Prague, who was an outspoken critic of the fuel cell when it first was proposed 10 years ago, said that nearly all forms of alternative energy are costing taxpayers billions of dollars each year.
Still, officials stopped short of calling the fuel cell a failure.
“It was highly reliable,” Galligan said. The only time the fuel cell had operating issues was several years ago when the gas company mixed propane into its product - the fuel cell ran on natural gas - and the fuel lines had to be cleaned.
Galligan also praised the clean energy that the fuel cell generated.
“It’s a great alternative use for energy,” Galligan said.
But, like the Betamax versus VHS debate that took place in the early 1980s, fuel cells don’t appear to be winning out to solar, wind and hydro-power on the alternative energy front.
“Nobody has embraced [the fuel cell] technology,” Galligan said. “I don’t know why. They’re used in Japan and Europe. I know it costs more, but we have to think about having a clean environment.”
What’s more, Galligan, Hankard and Prague all universally praised the educational component that went along with the fuel cell. A course offered at the high school taught the science of the fuel cell as well as alternative forms of energy to students.
“From an educational standpoint, thanks to our curriculum specialist, it was worth it,” Prague said. “If you make a mistake and fail, it’s worthwhile. We turned the opportunity into a learning experience and taught students about fuel cells and alternative energy and the science behind fuel cells. ... From that standpoint it was positive.”
Yet from an economic standpoint, Prague said that the fuel cell is just one more example of alternative forms of energy that aren’t profitable.
Galligan said that if costs were kept down, he wouldn’t hesitate to revisit fuel cell technology.
“I like that it’s clean energy,” said Galligan, noting that moving to a generator wasn’t “what we really want to do, but it’s economics. … It just comes down to costs.”
What is the hidden agenda here?
Also, they are misstating the maintenence. We have had the cell for 10 years, that is how long it has gone without "restack." This is fuzzy math to make the cost look higher to make their case for the generator. My question still stands: who is benefiting from the replacement of the fuel cell with this generator? Certainly not the public.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/photos-worlds-largest-fuel-cell-park-is-open-for-business/10391 If they are good enough to be manufactured in the USA and then shipped to South Korea then I think we should be using them here in the USA where they are built. I would re-run the numbers if I was a government employee in South Windsor? If South Korea can afford to ship them there then I believe they are economical? Or is it just Big Oil and Big Utility and their ridiculous Lobbyists keeping them out of the USA??? Gee Senator another tree branch blew on a power line which cascaded into a substation which is why 35% of the electric grid went down last night ect. ect. ect... Attorney's do not make money solving problems!
Why are these systems NOT being used in the USA where they were developed (with tax payer money???) Where is the leadership in Congress/ Senate??? Every time a storm blows through we have power outages??? If its cost effective to ship them to South Korea I think we should be using them here in the USA??? Let our congressman and senators send their kids to the middle east to secure some oil field if they think its such a good idea. Pathetic! How about this link? http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315 "It is here today and it is deployable today," said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project. If its here today why are we not using it today??? NO MORE ATTORNEY / POLITICIAN / SCUMBAG LOBBYISTS... big oil go away big utility get your act together and give us the necessity we pay for ... power with no outages!
Hybrid Nat Gas Fuel Cell System (Video) http://enbridge.rawintegrated.com/hybrid/hybrid_complete.html "New fuel cell sewage waste gas station in Orange County, CA may be world's first" (Video) http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315 Question? Why are we still sending our kids to middle eastern oil fields when we have technology like this just waiting???
New US DOE Report Shows Strong Growth in the Fuel Cell Market in 2011 http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2012/september/new-us-doe-report-shows-strong-growth-in-the-fuel-cell-market-in-2011 New US DOE Report Shows Strong Growth in the Fuel Cell Market in 2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/state_of_the_states_2012.pdf
http://www.ctcleanenergy.com/YourBusinessorInstitution/CommercialInstallations/SchoolsandEducationalFacilities/PlainvilleHighSchool/tabid/460/Default.aspx
And - remember, our state and towns are broke. Teachers have lost jobs in recent years because of the budget problems. Do you want to teach your kids with a fuel cell, solar-powered roof... or qualified teachers? It's just arithmetic.
You can also contact the Institute of Sustainable Energy at ECSU to learn about the various financial incentives that are available.
I saw the original article published in one of the print newspapers, but now that I see these comments published in a forum-like manner, I now have enough doubts that I will probably vote 'no', sheerly because I would like to see more thorough presentations by the 'opposition', for want of a better word. If one reads the updated white paper as cited by jeff williams, above (New US DOE Report Shows Strong Growth in the Fuel Cell Market in 2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/state_of_the_states_2012.pdf) you will see that there are certainly enough serious doubts established that this deserves more careful consideration. As an added incentive, CT is now the 2nd leading producer of fuel cells in the US, including one company RIGHT HERE in SW. Great article