More

Largest Solar Power Plant In New England, Western Massachusetts Electric's Pittsfield Solar Project, Ready To Launch (PHOTOS)

AP/The Huffington Post   First Posted: 11/15/10 09:42 AM ET   Updated: 05/25/11 07:10 PM ET

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — On land poisoned by toxins from a long-gone manufacturing era, more than 6,500 solar panels face the south sky, capturing the sunlight of a late autumn day in the Berkshire Mountains.

They're ready to deliver power to New England.

The Western Massachusetts Electric Co. site in Pittsfield, New England's largest solar project, promises to produce enough electricity for about 300 homes starting later this month. That's a tiny fraction of what the region needs to run computers, lights, TVs and everything else utility customers take for granted.

But the $9.4 million solar plant and an even larger project planned for Springfield next year are expected to spur job growth in the solar industry and eventually make the cost of solar power competitive with the oil-burning furnaces that are common in New England.

Solar Energy Plant
1 of 8
In this Nov. 10, 2010 photo, Carl Frattini, Director of Business Development for Northeast Utilities, left, and Bill Blanchard, Solar Project Manager of Western Massachusetts Electric Company, walk the 1.8 megawatt facility in Pittsfield, Mass., that is run by the Western Massachusetts Electric Company. It is the largest solar energy plant in New England. (AP Photo/Stewart Cairns)
Total comments: 112 | Post a Comment
1 of 8
This Photo
Boring
Great Shot

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10
Top 5 Solar Plant Photos
Users who voted on this slide
loading...

"What we'd like to do is open a new sector," said Carl Frattini, director of business development at Western Massachusetts Electric.

The cost to install smaller scale rooftop solar panels is about $8,800 per kilowatt, he said. However, increasing the efficiency of production with large projects reduces the cost to about $5,200 per kilowatt, he said.

Ian Bowles, the state's secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, said that although solar power represents less than 1 percent of electrical use in Massachusetts, it is not subject to price volatility common with rising and falling oil and natural gas prices. So the rates consumers pay are more stable.

Solar power still is far more expensive than fossil fuels, but its rates are down by almost a half in just a few years, he said. It's on a trajectory toward parity with traditional sources of energy in the region.

"Then it will really take off," he said.

But don't get rid of that oil-burning furnace yet.

Philip Jordan, head of Green LMI Consulting, a Mendon, Mass., work force and economic consulting firm, said technology still has far to go to push down prices. Renewable energy depends to a certain extent on government spending, which could fall as public officials close budget deficits, he said.

"It's hard to know how fast things will ramp up in terms of efficiency of scale," he said.

Nationally, the solar industry employed 93,502 workers as of August, about double from the previous year, according to a report by the Solar Foundation, a research and education group. In the next year, employment is expected to jump 26 percent, adding nearly 24,000 jobs, despite the weak recovery from the worst recession in decades, the group said.

Paul Gromer, executive director of the Solar Energy Business Association of New England, said the trend in solar construction nationally is toward larger plants. He said improvements in manufacturing have pushed down costs, and installers are becoming more efficient with each new project.

"It is small but growing very, very rapidly," he said.

Fouad Dagher, manager of energy products and services at National Grid, which is installing five megawatts of utility-owned solar power at five of its locations in Massachusetts, said equipment manufactured overseas also is pushing down prices.

"The more we do the more the prices are coming down," he said.

Though Gromer called Massachusetts a "hotbed for the solar energy business," New Jersey and Florida are home to larger solar projects. In Pilesgrove, N.J., Panda Power Funds of Dallas and Con Edison Development of Valhalla, N.Y., are developing a 71,000-solar panel project on a 100-acre farm. It is set to generate 20 megawatts by April or May, among the handful of largest solar farms in the nation.

A 25-megawatt facility opened last year in Arcadia, Fla.

Massachusetts legislation signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2008 helped push development of solar plants locally, Frattini said. The Green Communities Act permits utilities to generate power from solar plants, an exception to the prohibition against generating power that was part of deregulation more than a decade ago.

And to resolve another problem – the need for large tracts of land to house row upon row of solar panels – Western Massachusetts Electric looks to abandoned industrial and commercial areas and former landfills, which are relatively inexpensive. The company plans to use a capped landfill in Springfield for its next solar plant. And its eight-acre Pittsfield property, once used by General Electric Co. to make transformers, was fouled by PCBs.

The site of the 1,800-kilowatt plant in Pittsfield, with its 33 rows of solar panels in an out-of-the way industrial park, is less obtrusive – and less contentious – than alternative energy such as wind turbines.

"I know aesthetics depend on where you stand," said Western Massachusetts Electric project manager Bill Blanchard. "But I love it."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — On land poisoned by toxins from a long-gone manufacturing era, more than 6,500 solar panels face the south sky, capturing the sunlight of a late autumn day in the Berkshire M...
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — On land poisoned by toxins from a long-gone manufacturing era, more than 6,500 solar panels face the south sky, capturing the sunlight of a late autumn day in the Berkshire M...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 112
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
10:46 PM on 11/17/2010
The entire southwest should be used for this.
08:25 AM on 11/17/2010
I live in the south. This should be going on everywhere around here. We have large brownsfield areas in our city but, more importantly, lots of exposed southfacing roof area. My house is all shaded. I can't cut down 100 year-old trees to do solar but, the schools right nearby could be generating power for the whole neighborhood. Our power company loves coal and nat. gas so, no solar yet. It is a public utility so, I am surprised that they are doing nothing. On the other hand, we are in a Teabagger state.
12:11 PM on 11/16/2010
What a wonderful use of poluted lands, kudo's to MA for making a difference. Solar Maid will be here to support you. Lets make solar power the standard not the exception.

www.solarmaid.org
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SirRealDeal
And you press on God's waiter your last dime
09:03 PM on 11/15/2010
I am all for solar power.  My argument is with concentrating in "big" solar arrays which means transmitting over wire which means loss of energy in the transmission process.

I am for the idea of putting solar on every one's homes and businesses.  But I realize that wont fly because it cuts out the energy utility companies.
peowlemeow
Democrat,non-military,undereducated,overworked
04:38 PM on 11/15/2010
Awesome !
QuantProgrammer
Cap welfare benefits at two kids.
04:24 PM on 11/15/2010
Hmmm. They'd better hold off on that cleanup, given all of the TOXIC materials in PV cells.
05:03 PM on 11/15/2010
Toxic? In PV cells? They are almost primarily Silicon, Silicon dioxide (i.e. glass). Trace elements of boron and phosphorous. What toxic materials?
QuantProgrammer
Cap welfare benefits at two kids.
05:51 PM on 11/15/2010
You forgot CADMIUM and MERCURY. I wouldn't want those things dripping in my backyard. Safe, clean, natural gas is the only reasonable option here.
QuantProgrammer
Cap welfare benefits at two kids.
09:05 AM on 11/16/2010
Guess what's getting deposited in China right now as a result of their manufacture?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9889848-54.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:49 PM on 11/15/2010
Cool. now the politicians don't have to go all the way out to Nevada to state their "complete support for a green economy".
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
03:02 PM on 11/15/2010
How much of the cost is land? Solar panels belong first on rooftops. Free land. This seems like one of the project designed to fail. http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
about 1$ per Wp solar panels, new. install solar plants for about $1.30 per watt, compared with an industry average of about $1.75, according to Hardy." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a7K1FZoNgJ0w
09:57 PM on 11/15/2010
The land is a brownfield - no one would touch it for any use given the liability and contamination issues. This is an ideal use for land with zero value, in an area that has a tremendous amount of post-industrial problems to contend with.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:29 PM on 11/15/2010
Good point, still it's too expensive, why? Did they pay for the land? It's over twice the best costs others are getting for installed solar. Is it because they had to pour concrete slabs?
02:17 PM on 11/15/2010
This is great but building these large plants may not be the way to go. Putting panels on individual homes and buildings is a better way. Each home and building can generate its own power and send the excess back into the grid. This might be a better way to approach solar power rather than build these large plants that supp;y energy to a small amount of homes and businesses. Imagine if we put panels on just half the homes and industrial and office buildings here in Los Angeles where we get 300 plus days of sunshine per year.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rich Phitzwell
02:03 PM on 11/15/2010
Never cared for these large solar farms using virgin (or in this case restore able land) when we have large used land called roofs. The other part is its located in an area that just isnt that efficient when it comes to solar unlike the south. If we really cared, place wind turbines on every building in areas known for constant wind like Boston, and use solar as roofs in areas known for consistent sun. I would love for the utility companies leasing roof space for 15 yrs or so and then after that all the maintenance and profits go to the owners.
09:58 PM on 11/15/2010
This virgin land is a brownfield.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rich Phitzwell
02:40 PM on 11/16/2010
I understand that, but I would rather it either be restored or built on with a solar farm above it. I have just noticed a big trend with companies say in SoCal that are building or planning on building large solar or wind 100 miles out in the desert when we have 100's of square miles of roofs already available in the city with a fraction of the cost of running wires out to these sites. If we instead of building a large farm, just invested in putting solar panels on big box buildings, warehouse, and commercial alone we can match what these large projects produce while not destroying additional land. The only issue is most tenants of these large buildings do not own the buildings, and the landlords do not pay the electrical making the topic difficult.
01:52 PM on 11/15/2010
Making green energy cost competitive is key to it's long term success. When business and consumers see that they will save green (money!) by using those products, it will really become popular. Down the road, we may install wireless recharging technology into roadways so electric vehicles will re-energize as they go but that is a decade away. Trying to get people to purchase green technology in mass quantities will require a profit incentive. Green also should be sexy, as no one wants clunky cars or products.
01:03 PM on 11/15/2010
and close. Solar power just isn't there yet.
12:25 PM on 11/15/2010
Storing solar energy is also being addressed in MA at MIT

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
12:06 PM on 11/15/2010
Hope you enjoy this waste of time and resources. It was heavily funded by the working (wo)men of this country!

yeah . . . .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nirek
Proud progressive Vietnam vet. against WAR
12:20 PM on 11/15/2010
I am enjoying not paying for electricity for more than two years.
Thanks
photo
Dave TN
work, work work!
12:26 PM on 11/15/2010
Money does talk louder than words with these people. Kudos to your effort and faved.
12:56 PM on 11/15/2010
You live where? What panels/system do you use? on the grid? batteries?

What do you run in your home? hot water? clothes dryer? heating? cooling? etc? Double wall thicknesses? I need details.

I could boast the same for my 10,000 amish neighbors, but the circumstances are a little different. :)
12:43 PM on 11/15/2010
woodrowman would apparently prefer we send our money overseas to places like Saudi Arabia to buy fossil fuels, and is apparently happy to pollute with impunity without having to pay for the consequences. Solar doesn't send money to Saudi Arabia, and doesn't foul the environment the way oil does.
12:57 PM on 11/15/2010
I don't like sending it to Saudi, but I don't like flushing it down the solar crapper either!

Buy some modeling software and do some research! (HEED, EcoTech, VE, etc)
01:11 PM on 11/15/2010
Or maybe he prefers using the only true green energy, large scale energy source on the market right now: Nuclear.

Solar panels require a huge amount of raw material and energy to generate a minuscule amount of energy. Doesn't sound very green to me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rolf618
They call me Mr. Fahrenheit.
12:05 PM on 11/15/2010
Great news!
...but this doesn't happen without serious financial investment, and that requires favorable policy. Here in the Sunshine State, the Republican dominated state government wants to cut rebates for homeowners who want to put solar panels on their own roofs.