Latest posts (RSS 2.0)Whether this year’s AMS executive candidate teams like it or not, the platform point that’s gotten the most attention so far in the campaign is Team CHR’s goal to cover 35,000 square metres of roof space with solar panels. It’s been a divisive point and drew the most attention in the final, back-and-forth section of last night’s presidential debate.
This is by no means a new idea. Joshua Pearce, a mechanical engineering professor, has been lobbying the administration on it for awhile. (Full disclosure: A good friend of mine worked with Pearce’s team this summer. As a fun break from the Journal, I acted in a commercial he made for the group). I wrote about the team in the Journal’s green supplement nearly three months ago.
Amir Nosrat, who’s on the SGPS executive and works in Pearce’s lab, sent us an e-mail this morning with a proposed opinion piece. We’re publishing other election-related stuff in tomorrow, so I thought I’d post his piece - unedited - on this blog (I couldn’t really think of any other place to do so, although Facebook notes seem to be in vogue these days).
Here’s what he wrote:
Solar is not as political as this
As a Master’s student working in Professor Joshua Pearce’s Applied Sustainability Lab, it really bugs me to see that what started out as a novel idea with real potential has become a contentious political game in an AMS presidential debate.
The campaign to get solar panels on Queen’s rooftops has been in the works for over a year now and has been spurred by many students and individuals, not all of whom are part of the Applied Sustainability Lab and it’ll be really disappointing to have it destroyed for some silly political sentiments.
Part of me is happy to see that this idea has found its way into the Queen’s mainstream ‘media’, thanks partly to Jerome Jame’s Facebook group and to Professor Pearce’s public relations tactics and partly to this new Green Corporate fervor. But please, let’s put aside the emotions and accusations and let’s try to get this picture straight.
Solar energy by itself is expensive. That’s why we have dedicated researchers not here at Queen’s but across the world to help with that. But so is every other source of power generation. Do you think a nuclear power plant could possibly survive its insurance premiums without government subsidization? What would be ‘nuclear energy too cheap to meter’ could easily turn into a ‘nuclear energy fallout’ if governments decide to withdraw all forms of subsidy to maintain these silos of uranium. Environmental damage caused by conventional sources of energy, if properly accounted for, can very well make solar energy look like peanuts.
But thanks to the efforts of departing energy minister George Smitherman, Ontario now has one of the world’s most competitive alternative energy subsidy programs known as the feed-in-tariff (FIT) because in order to give solar a chance, it needs to be put on an even playing field with the rest of those big energy buffs.
The program was modeled based on Germany’s famous renewable energy incentive that has made it one of the most successful countries in solar energy second to only Japan and far ahead than anywhere the US or Canada is.
Essentially, the FIT programs pays me anywhere between 40 to 80 cents for every kWh that I produce using solar panels depending on the size of my solar energy system. I would then buy back electricity anywhere between 6 to 12 cents for the same kWh I just produced. Guaranteed. For 20 years. Hmmmmm….
Is it viable for Queen’s to make a profit out of it? Absolutely. Is it risk-free? Of course not. Is it easy? Maybe not as much as we would like it to be. But why sweat it when there are companies out there who would pay us annually to have these panels set up on our rooftops?
I hate to get myself into AMS politics, but whichever team said that the time is not now for investing in solar energy was in my opinion dead wrong. The time IS now precisely because the FIT has a 2 year window. In fact, there is no time better than NOW. In 2 years, there are going to be enough smart people out there signing up for 20-year FIT commitments that Ontario is going to have to stop handing out contracts before the province goes bankrupt.
To be fair, I’m also not certain what CHR has in mind. It’s not as simple as ‘do this’ and it’ll be done. I’ve brushed across some university politics as VP Finance and Services of SGPS and I’m convinced the Queen’s University administration is slower than a half-asleep snail if it doesn’t want something.
Aside from the Board of Trustees that looks at nothing but numbers, physical plants services needs to give a green light for this project since they kinda control the rooftops. Seeing that they are millions of dollars behind on their regular maintenance and tend to be very jealous in letting outside organizations set up anything on campus, it won’t be the easiest battle.
So to tell you the truth, I find the political challenge from the administration a bigger problem than the technical ones.
If you give me a million bucks, I’d invest it in this project in a heartbeat. But unfortunately, I’m doing my Master’s here while the quality of my education is being sunk by Queen’s Centre’s massive debt while my bursaries are being rolled back. Maybe it wouldn’t be as hard on me if that debt got helped by the FIT.
I promise I’ll send my kudos and thanks to anyone who sets up those panels on our rooftops.
UPDATE:
In this post, I originally noted that although CHR’s platform says 35,000 square metres, Queen’s only has about 85,000 square feet of roof space to allocate to solar panels. I was basing that figure on an interview I did with Joshua Pearce for this article. CHR, though, consulted with Pearce in their research and he told them 35,000 square metres is a conservative estimate.
Eight comments
What about the fact that the majority of Queen's buildings have roof tops which cannot support solar panels as they are historic buildings? Once again the journal is taking sides.
a student
Kingston
January 28, 2010 at 6:37 p.m.
Dear "a student",
In the original solar panel study that Dr. Pearce cites, queen's actually has a TOTAL of over 80000 Square METERS of roof space. They've reduced the amount of "available roof space" down to 35000 to account for stuff like "historical buildings, not having solar panels being visible on rooftops, etc". So yes they have taken historical buildings into account.
a student's response to a student
Kingston
January 28, 2010 at 9:10 p.m.
In response to the first comment:
"What about the fact that the majority of Queen's buildings have roof tops which cannot support solar panels as they are historic buildings? Once again the journal is taking sides."
Where are you getting that information from? Joshua Pearce is a MechEng prof, and his solar panel initiative has a great segment that you can find through the Queen's website. I feel his estimates hold more credibility until you can show evidence.
Also, Woods didn't state an opinion. He openly stated his past experience with the project and continued to post an unedited OPINION e-mail from a masters student.
Give the students credit. Not everyone will agree with this opinion piece, but that's the point. Critical thinking is sort of what university is about...
Student
Kingston
January 28, 2010 at 9:55 p.m.
The truth is that the student politicians have gotten themselves into a heated battle over "what I think is correct" rather than what is realistic.
Simply put, the idea is a great one. The only problem is that the AMS has no true power in deciding what the UNIVERSITY does to it's rooftops. This would take a considerable amount of effort to enact, and the AMS would simply only be able to "lobby" for its action.
In reality, they would just be sending emails and making phone calls, trying to convince the Board of Trustees and Principal of a matter that they have known about for more than a year.
Although a great idea, perhaps the AMS electoral candidates should debate something more realistic. Perhaps how they can improve the student government rather than just fraternize at the JDUC.
I love the AMS
Kingston
January 28, 2010 at 10:49 p.m.
I think Queen's has more important financial responsibilities right now than laying out the capital to put up a swath of solar panels. How about keeping the money for academic programs, which is the essence of Queen's existence.
Alum
K-Town
January 28, 2010 at 11:16 p.m.
Ok
To clarify
This proposal has already received interest from board of trustee members. The money is there ...all we need is a little push from students. Thats the job of the AMS.
student
ktown
January 29, 2010 at 1:55 a.m.
Alum: "I think Queen's has more important financial responsibilities right now than laying out the capital to put up a swath of solar panels. How about keeping the money for academic programs, which is the essence of Queen's existence."
I don't get it. Where will Queen's be "laying out capital" to put up solar panels? Where does anywhere in CHR's platform OR this email from the eng student say that?? Where is that idea coming from? The whole point is that Queen's would rent the space to other companies who will put up the solar panels.
CJ
Kingston
January 29, 2010 at 3:49 p.m.
Great idea from CHR - though unless they can put some sort of property right on their platform, at the end of the day, whether CHR or PNF forms the exec, either team would lobby the University to put up panels anyways.
But the point is that lobbying is all they can do . . . in any substantial sense, sure you can give CHR a point for creativity, but effectively, the teams are even. A good idea is a good idea, and both teams will obviously bring it forth to the University admin.
Only if the AMS owned the roof space would this really make a huge difference in who you're voting for.
KS
K-town
January 29, 2010 at 5:40 p.m.