.
Feedback

South Windsor's Experiment with Fuel Cell Appears to Be Nearing an End

Included in the town building improvement referendum question is $220,000 generator that would replace the fuel cell in the high school.

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.”

Tony Fornuto September 17, 2012 at 12:35 pm
I wish someone would show the REAL economics and not this straight-line, written on the back of an envelope garbage that this article is demonstrating. No where in the discussion is the doubling of the operating cost of the HS that removing the fuel cell does. Nor is there any talk of the fuel storage that would be necessary to operate the generator and the costs that are related to that factored into the operation. No, just some over-simplified dribble from detractors of the technology from day one.
What is the hidden agenda here?
Ted Glanzer (Editor) September 17, 2012 at 12:54 pm
There's no hidden agenda. If there is additional information that you'd like to share, I would greatly appreciate it. As I said in the article, the savings to the town was somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $65,000 a year with the fuel cell, depending on with whom you speak. The town will clearly lose those savings without the fuel cell.
H Blake September 17, 2012 at 02:16 pm
However, as the article just touched on, fuel cell technology is still not cost efficient. With all of the factors weighed in, fuel cell and all other forms of alternative energy have so many visible and hidden costs that they become prohibitive to use. I understand the knowledge we gain from experimenting with them and approve of it, but it should not be in public venues such as this until such time as these systems become mainstream and affordable (since the taxpayer is shouldering the burden of cost).
Tony Fornuto September 17, 2012 at 02:47 pm
Sorry, Ted. I meant for the Town Councillor, and Manager...not you. You are just the messenger, not the target.
Tony Fornuto September 17, 2012 at 02:53 pm
This particular fuel cell was never given its due. The $40-65k they are saving now is just in electricity costs. There is at least that much to be saved if they properly tapped into the steam produced for space heat and cooling.
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.
jeffwilliams September 17, 2012 at 09:03 pm
Photo's: World's largest fuel cell park open for business (In South Korea?)
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!
jeffwilliams September 17, 2012 at 09:06 pm
Here is another fuel cell application that for whatever reason (oil lobby) is not being deployed? How fast do you think a barrel of oil will drop in price when we start to build these???
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!
jeffwilliams September 17, 2012 at 09:10 pm
Hey Ted... What do you think about these (2) applications?
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???
jeffwilliams September 17, 2012 at 09:24 pm
FYI
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
Cary Prague September 17, 2012 at 10:46 pm
We restacked the fuel cell 6 years ago and the State paid a $400,000 bill from UTC.?
Cynthia Kaplan September 18, 2012 at 01:36 pm
If we are replacing the roof at the high school, why are we not looking at Building Inegrated Photovoltaic roofing? This clean energy technology has been installed at several similar sized high schools in Connecticut, such as Plainville.
http://www.ctcleanenergy.com/YourBusinessorInstitution/CommercialInstallations/SchoolsandEducationalFacilities/PlainvilleHighSchool/tabid/460/Default.aspx
Tony Fornuto September 18, 2012 at 01:44 pm
However, that would not profit the fuel oil distributors in town. Somebody needs to make money off of these public projects!
Cary Prague September 18, 2012 at 01:59 pm
We are Cynthia. Town Manager is all over that. It would be a home run for South Windsor and our schools.
tony September 19, 2012 at 04:54 am
It's arithmetic. God. All of these alternative energy "solutions" cost too much and are not sufficiently durable. This is not news, folks. The highschool served as a cheerleader for the fuel cell technology, but I don't think you can realistically look at the numbers and say "This is a financially viable solution".
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.
Cynthia Kaplan September 19, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Before passing judgement on alternative energy I think it would be wise to talk with representatives from nearby communities that are already using this technology and reaping the benefits: 1. Lower operating costs, 2. Lower maintenance costs and 3. A healthier environment.
You can also contact the Institute of Sustainable Energy at ECSU to learn about the various financial incentives that are available.
jim kaff September 20, 2012 at 02:40 pm
Yes Tony I agree. First, they never completed an essential aspect of the plan. In whose opinion was it too much trouble to go through to sell excess electricity back? At statement like that is patently absurd. Second, yeah they didn't cogenerate. They were losing 20%+ of the efficiency of the device if they weren't pairing it with a hot water system. And now what? They are paying $220,000 for a diesel generator? Replacing the stack in the existing system would only cost $300,000 more. So if they are saving $50,000 a year in electricity charges, and you could easily run that out over 6 years with current fuel cell technology, you are at least breaking even. Nat gas is cheaper than diesel. And yes Tony---it looks like they have had it for 10 years, noit the five stated! $65,0000 saved for 10 years? It looks like the economics work now! It's absurd blowback from the utility.
Tom October 24, 2012 at 05:30 pm
Speaking of arithmetic, the analysis that is presented seems too simplistic. Matt G is one of the best TM's in the state, and there's probably a lot to it that cannot realistically be laid out in a short story such as this. However, there are some great questions raised here by the participants - enough to make me think that the discussion and decision-making should have been expanded. I don't think there is enough time to do that now with the referendum just around the corner.
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

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from South Windsor Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Gail Cloutier June 15, 2013 at 04:20 pm
One Mr. Yagaloff I was not rude to anyone else I was talking about you and was not in no mean rudeRead More to you. If you take it that way then so be it. Do I wish to talk to you no, cause it won't do any good. Everyone has given their own comment and the damage is done and now it's time for eveyone to learn from it and move on.
keith yagaloff June 15, 2013 at 05:11 pm
Gail, I agree that its time for everyone to learn from this incident. It is a teachable moment asRead More well. Both the Boy Scout and Cub Scout oaths can be the source of guidance in this instance. Scouting asks its youth to obey the rules of the pack and the law. Here is a direct quote "DUTY TO GOD AND COUNTRY: Your family and religious leaders teach you to know and serve God. By following these teachings, you do your duty to God. Men and women of the past worked to make America great, and many gave their lives for their country. By being a good family member and a good citizen, by working for your country's good and obeying its laws, you do your duty to your country. Obeying the Scout Law means living by its 12 points." The fundraising committee made a mistake. Choosing to adopt the mean spirited rhetoric of the Chair of the Republican Town Committee is not what these children expect or deserve. The BSA leadership stepped up and are leading by example. I met my responsibility as a community leader. Can you say the same?
Gail Cloutier June 15, 2013 at 07:11 pm
If you feel the same as me as everyone needs to stop and move on. I can clearly see you can't, causeRead More of the long letter above. I was always told by my wonderful parents to mind your own busy and not someone else. God Bless to us all and Good Bye.............
Rick Usifer June 11, 2013 at 06:38 pm
I agree that these statements seem inappropriate. I wasn't at the meeting and didn't see it, butRead More from this account an apology is certainly in order. I'm surprised that Dr. Anwar, a thoughtful and reasonable man, would say that to someone who absolutely did the right thing. One of South Windsor's biggest attributes is that is NOT a "large" town. That would have cost us revenue in other areas such as housing. I'm very disappointed in both men.
Dana June 12, 2013 at 09:22 am
It seems to me that Dr. Anwar and Mr. Delnicki do not like the truth and would rather the town liveRead More a lie than to let the public know reality. Hopefully the public sees this and votes for those who tell the truth.
Hank Cullinane June 12, 2013 at 03:45 pm
While I do think Deputy Mayor Bazzano said "funny" I think his opponents are trying toRead More take his statement out of context. I believe he said it was funny that the magazine has us in large towns. That is funny as is strange not it ha ha. Is he going to get an apology from Council Anwar I doubt it. As to losing business, I hope any business planning on coming to South Windsor is not doing it solely on a Hartford Magazine article. Now we can also publicize the integrity of our town officials who wanted the information to be correct.
Kevin McCann:  Don't we deserve better?
Darren DeMartino June 7, 2013 at 03:51 pm
Mike, While I too would like to address thew schools we cant change the fact that are town isRead More slipping in comparison to other towns around us. do you still feel the same way that the ratings didnt come at a convenient time? The truth is we need to invest in in our town to maintain the quality of life people are looking for today. If we dont do it we will not remain an attractive place to live. There are a number of towns in our area that have faced these choices. Some of those town have decided to look to the future and others have fallen behind, not very surprisingly some of our surrounding towns have fared much better over the past 15-20 years than others. The key questions is what does the town of South Windsor want to be? I want it to maintain the quality of life it had since I was a small child. That means growing and investing not letting others pass us by because people are short sighted. I think we need too challenge our town council to look at the towns around us and figure out how they do so much more yet our taxes aren't much different that ours. We pay a lot for very little in comparison to other towns in our area. We get trash and leaf pickup, not that big of a deal cost wise yet we dont get new schools, rec center, senior center, or neccessary fields. We should all want more for our tax dollar!
Michael Sullivan June 12, 2013 at 01:19 pm
Mr. DeMartino - I will stand by what I've said earlier, even after Mr. Bazzano corrected SouthRead More Windsor's rankings in Hartford Magazine. Yes I think this is (still!) good news and as such always welcome and convenient. My earlier comment was that these favorable rankings come at a rather inconvenient time for THOSE WHO PREFER to propagandize and insist that our salvation will come only in the form of more athletic fields and further that we must borrow more money to build them! These revised rankings don’t change anything in my opinion (with the exception of the crime statistic – that’s alarming if not an error!) and meanwhile the TC politics and propagandizing over our “status” is deplorable. I maintain these rankings STILL represent great news for South Windsor. We’re ranked no. 3 in our medium towns group (if not overall). We’re ranked no. 2 for families and schools in our medium group. And STILL we’re in top 10 overall for the county. And still that's just not good enough for some folks?!?
Michael Sullivan June 12, 2013 at 01:25 pm
WRT wanting more for our tax dollars - oh yes there we can agree! But how might we agree onRead More priorities? I don’t see the need for borrowing money NOW to build UNNECESSARY (there I said it!) athletic fields no matter which other towns are perceived to be better/worse than South Windsor by our athletics enthusiasts who might prefer to bypass public referendum to get their desires. I feel strongly that the Town has other priorities – particularly if we must borrow! You cite two prime examples in the elementary schools due to their obsolescence – and the need for taking care of our seniors for rec/community space and aged-care social services that will surely be needed with predictable demographic trends. Let’s do those before we talk about more athletic facilities.
Bert Marchael June 15, 2013 at 09:00 pm
It was Bush's fault. He let the IRS stay in business. In the words of Nancy Pelosi, this will be theRead More most transparent administration, what she failed to say out loud was, this administration looks at the constitution and the laws of our country as suggestions. They pertain to everyone else. Gangsta Chicago politics in Washington. Peace