<p>
[quote]
I wonder why they didn't build the 2 new dorms with solar panels
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Swatties are taught to evaluate complex issues from all sides before making decisions. It could well be that solar panels on dorms, right now, are just a bad decision.</p>
<p>That is arguably the case at UNC-Chapel Hill where they just spent $446,000 to install solar panels on a dorm for heating hot water for showers. The theoretical maximum annual savings in energy costs will be $11,275, which experts believe will not be achieved in actual use. Thus, the energy savings will not even pay for the installation for 40 years. </p>
<p>Carolina</a> Review | Green Energy Wastes Greenbacks</p>
<p>
[quote]
Taylor’s email also reveals that the North Carolina Energy Policy Council was concerned about the cost efficiency of the system when they screened UNC’s original grant application. “Some of the members felt this was entirely too long, and was not a good choice for these funds,” Taylor wrote. “Others felt the project was suitable as a clean energy demonstration.”</p>
<p>An outside energy expert also regards the “green energy” project as a poor investment. Speaking at UNC on April 20, 2005, Howard Hayden, a former physics professor at the University of Connecticut, pointed out that solar collectors are a financially inefficient source of power.</p>
<p>“Solar energy is very dilute,” he said. “All projects large enough to produce sensible quantities of energy involve huge amounts of real estate.”</p>
<p><snip></snip></p>
<p>While educating the public is a worthy goal, it seems that the University’s desire to raise “awareness” and contribute to “environmental stewardship” is more of an effort to make students and faculty feel good about a politically correct project than an effort to produce tangible results.</p>
<p>Does building an alternative source of energy that is not economically viable truly educate the public? Or does its existence spread disinformation by making people believe that “green energy” projects are necessarily efficient?</p>
<p>Despite the excitement over the Morrison project and UNC’s effort to increase renewable energy, the solar hot water system is actually inefficient use of student and state money. It will neither save the University money nor educate the public about viable sources of renewable energy. </p>
<p>The project’s sole benefit to the state will be building UNC’s reputation as a “progressive” university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Contrast to Swarthmore where 40% of all electricity used on the campus comes from renewable energy sources (windmill farms). This is an investment by the College because the renewable source electricity is more expensive. It is money spent on real results, however, unlike a "feel-good" but ultimately inefficient, ineffective solar panel installation.</p>
<p>I think the coolest initiative at Swarthmore is a College-funded program where Earthlust gives every student a high-efficiency compact flourescent light bulb at the beginning of the year to replace incandescents in desk and room light fixtures. This not only saves energy, but serves as a campus-wide action focusing attention on energy savings.</p>
