Salt Lake City breaks ground on new solar farm

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • KDave Moab, UT
    Nov. 28, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    4 acres to power one building? There's the rub.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 27, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    @ George: Germany has much lower sunlight levels than Utah, but manage to do very well with solar power.

    I apologize, I did slightly misread your comment the first time - missed the personal use aspect. How long ago did you look into it and did you take subsidies into consideration? Did you look at panels or tiles? Prices have gone down while quality has gone up - personal solar use becomes more and more realistic as time passes.

    For something like the Public Safety Building, it actually makes a lot of sense.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    Nov. 27, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    Ahhh, I feel so warm inside now. Everything is going to be OK.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    4 to 6 months covered in snow?

    It's November 27 today…

    where is the snow??

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Nov. 27, 2013 9:20 a.m.


    For my own use. I figure to have 4 to 6 months covered in snow and the life time of the equipment won't last. the cost of the batteries and solar panels not worth it.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 27, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    @ George: How much looking into it did you do? The solar panel installation will cost $3 million. Once it is fully built, it will provide enough power that, together with the solar array on top of the new Public Safety Building, the Public Safety Building will not need any additional power from other sources - there will be no power bills for the Public Safety Building. Over the course if the next 10 years, taxpayers will save $3 million not paying for power for that building. That will make the taxpayers even - the soar panels will have paid for themselves. After that, the only costs associated with power for the new Public Safety Building, will be maintenance costs for the solar arrays - costs that will be much lower than the cost of power from the power company.

    How is this a bad thing?

    (In some areas of Alaska, the summer temperature can get as high as 80 degrees - why wouldn't they have air conditioners?)

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Nov. 27, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    I kinda looked in to it a little for my own use. I thought that the cost was to much to ever get a pay back than to add the maintenance costs on, I thought it would be a never ending expense. Too much for me. There are people in Alaska that have air conditioners, People still buying the Golden Gate bridge. There are some good sales people.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 27, 2013 12:07 a.m.

    The project will cost $3 million to build and will pay for itself in 10 years.

    Is that a good deal for us? We have to pay to power the building anyway. This way, in 10 years, the costs will be reduced drastically to just maintenance. Sounds like a great deal to me.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:38 p.m.

    What I do know about this solar plant…

    is that it does not produce depleted uranium that will get more radioactive with time.

    And it will not be a drag on precious water from the desert state of Utah.

  • Dutch Bellingham, wa
    Nov. 26, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    Kind of a lame article without telling us the info on costs to us citizens. If this solar farm puts out 1 MW, assuming efficiency of under 30%, and assuming the value of power at $.10/kwhr, it'll generate on the order of $250,000/year (minus operating and maintenance).

    Is that a good deal for us or not? What did that thing cost??