Bermuda College Installs Solar Energy
Bermuda College Foundation completed the first phase installation of solar energy at Bermuda College, noting that it “is projected to save the College approximately $53,000 in annual savings.”
A spokesperson said, “Bermuda College Foundation [“the Foundation”] is pleased to share the completion and impact to date of the first phase installation of solar energy at Bermuda College [“the College”].
Photo courtesy of BE Solar
“The newly installed 123.2kW solar energy system was deployed in partnership with BE Solar and is projected to save the College approximately $53,000 in annual savings. Since its interconnection with BELCO on 14 April 2023, approximately $40,000 in actual cost savings has been achieved.
“The solar system is supported by a 30-year product and performance warranty and includes 312 state-of-the-art Peimar solar PV panels. The solar panels were deployed on two buildings – West Hall and Hallett Hall, which includes the College’s newest facility, the Athene Career Development Centre. Each solar panel is paired with reliable microinverter technology manufactured by Enphase.
Photo courtesy of BE Solar
“With the expected return on investment, it is anticipated that the newly installed solar system will pay for itself within 6.2 years, ultimately saving the College an estimated $1.5 million over its 30-year lifespan. This Phase I installation will prevent the consumption of over 5,929 barrels of oil and stop over 3,005 metric tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere, significantly reducing the College’s carbon footprint.”
“As we undertake the work of funding a state-of-the-art Bermuda College, sustainability is always at the forefront,” states, Bermuda College Foundation Chairman, Garry Madeiros. “We started this initiative by working with BE Solar to have a comprehensive energy audit undertaken of the College’s campus in 2020. The Audit findings served as the catalyst for the Foundation’s fundraising efforts for this and future solar installations, and other cost saving and sustainability projects for the College.”
Photo courtesy of BE Solar
Stratton Hatfield, BE Solar’s Chief Sales & Marketing Officer added, “BE Solar has been actively involved with the College since 2016, facilitating field trips and educational initiatives to teach students about renewable energy and sustainability. In addition to the potential financial and environmental benefits, we also incorporated an educational component into our proposal. Working closely with Bermuda College students, BE Solar team members provided hands-on training in solar energy engineering and installation methods over the course of this first phase installation”.
Branwen Smith King, Interim President at Bermuda College states, “Bermuda College is deeply appreciative to BE Solar and the Bermuda College Foundation for this generous gift, as it will not only benefit our students’ technical expertise in this quickly advancing field, but also help the College overall in reducing its carbon footprint through reduced fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.”
Photo courtesy of BE Solar
The spokesperson said, “The next proposed installation will consist of a 17.39kw system at a cost of $95,000. An annual financial savings of approximately $9,600 annually is anticipated, with a payback of 9.9 years.”
Mr. Madeiros concluded, “I would like to thank the family who fully funded this project and wishes to remain anonymous, as well as BE Solar who also contributed $24,767 toward the project’s full realisation. Their contributions allowed for the full scope of the first part of the project to be funded, marking a significant milestone in the College’s journey towards sustainability. The partnership between the Foundation, BE Solar and the College exemplifies the power of collaboration in advancing sustainability goals. It not only demonstrates Bermuda College’s dedication to energy efficiency and renewable energy but also its responsibility to educate the next generation of environmental stewards and energy leaders. We look forward to progressing the next phase of solar energy, which we expect to deploy in 2024.”
The spokesperson said, “Bermuda College Foundation is actively seeking donor support to fund the next 17.38kw solar installation. Interested parties are asked to contact the Foundation’s Development Director, Pahn-ya Ratteray at pratteray@bermudacollegefoundation.org or visit www.bermudacollegefoundation.org.”
Read More About
Category: All, News, technology
“reducing its carbon footprint through reduced fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.” Set the heat to 68F in the winter and AC to 78F in the summer. Big cost savings.
Think of all the plants in Bermuda that will not meet their full growth potential because of the reduction in CO2.
Are you suggesting that your cars CO2 emissions are helping plants grow? Why not park it in your garden and run it all day!
There’s plenty of resource out there to understand how CO2 emissions are affecting our planet. If you’re a bit older you probably can see first hand how the weather in Bermuda has become more variable. Please go read a few articles. Learning is the way forward.
Greetings. Unfortunately, like most Bermudians, we cannot afford gasoline to run our car all day. Can you? I am fully knowledgeable about the vital role that CO2, a life-giving gas, plays in our environment. As to your comments: “Please go read a few articles. Learning is the way forward.”
Well, as to me, just a few relevant things to mention: Technology Expert Reviewer for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) & Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) Third National Climate Assessment, Fifth National Climate Assessment, 2022–2031 USGCRP Decadal Strategic Plan, Framing the National Nature Assessment. Bermuda LED bulb purchase program. Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences (BIOS): Climate Change and Bermuda Part 1. Bermuda’s National Electric Vehicle Policy and Strategy Consultation. Bermuda’s Offshore Wind Farm Consultation. Open peer review: Improving science advice to Governments. Never claimed to be a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
So, tell me about yourself.
“Unfortunately, like most Bermudians, we cannot afford gasoline to run our car all day.”
Not to worry, BELCO will take up the slack!
BELCO is a friend to plants on land and in the sea.
There was some short comings in that offshore consultation paper. Care to share where you think it went wrong? Lack of recognition of new technology is a start, take the wheel.
Can’t believe you have all those credentials and are suggesting that plants won’t grow if we reduce our CO2 output. Excess CO2 is more of a curse than a blessing and that’s obvious. Why do you think otherwise?
Confirming, you have no relevant credentials.
The Cliff Notes answer is pretty much every premise/justification for the offshore wind farm stated by Government and the consultants is wrong. The huge red flag is the recommendation to “derisk” the wind farm proposal to vendors by spending about $4 million more on consulting fees. And then we have Greenrock’s paid studies that conflict on several points with the Government’s taxpayer-funded studies. Both are clearly clueless.
Analogy for a wind turbine: Would you spend tens of thousands of dollars on a car that only ran about 1/3 of the time? Then pay for alternate means of transportation like a taxi, a bus, or a motor bike for the 2/3 of the time your car does not run? A wind farm in Bermuda must be backed up by BELCO fossil fuel-powered generators. Ask yourself why neither Greenrock nor Government will release any spreadsheets showing how numbers were calculated. No one will put forth the projected kWh cost to consumers and businesses. Why? Because it is HUGE! The cost of electricity most certainly will not go down.
As to plants, how big would a human baby grow if you cut back on food? CO2 is required for plant growth on land and in the sea. Rumor has it that the earth is greening at record levels. Just a rumor, of course. This thing called the Internet has all sorts of rumors floating about.
Clearly, you weren’t part of the offshore wind consultation. Your quick dismissal of both parties as clueless doesn’t add up. According to my analysis, a well-maintained turbine operates over 90% of the time, debunking your claims about inefficiency.
The consultation did lay out projected kWh costs, competitive with or better than BELCO’s rates. Even without every assumption spelled out, that transparency shows they’ve done their homework.
With today’s turbine tech, Bermuda’s project is well within reach for the pros. Your doubts about its feasibility and cost implications don’t hold water.
And this bit about ‘the earth greening’? It’s a gross oversimplification. Ignoring the nuanced impacts of increased CO2 just shows a disconnect between the expertise you claim and the points you’re trying to make.
Your “analysis?” HAHAHA! “90%” HAHAHA! OMG, good thing I was not drinking anything as the liquid would have gushed out of my nose. NOWHERE IN THE WORLD do offshore wind turbines “operate” (you mean generate electricity) 90% of the time. NOWHERE. A comment like that is why an amateur must wear a helmet when posting on the Internet. Germany’s and the UK’s offshore wind farms together averaged only 34.4% electricity generation as of the end of 2023. Best redo your “analysis” and check your math. You sir/madam, have been debunked. Strike one!
Reread the consultation papers. Neither paper specified a range for the end cost of electricity delivered to consumers and businesses – the Estimated Consumer kWh Rate (ECkR). Both stated the deliberately misleading and irrelevant to Bermudians Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE), a rate which is not the ECkR. Again, neither Greenrock nor Government released any spreadsheets showing how the LCOE or anything other number was calculated. I wrote to the Greenrock and Government contacts, and both refused to release any spreadsheet. Why? You sir/madam, have been debunked. Strike two!
“With today’s turbine tech, Bermuda’s project is well within reach for the pros. Your doubts about its feasibility and cost implications don’t hold water.” I have absolutely no doubts that an offshore wind farm for Bermuda is absurdly cost-prohibitive. Again, why does Greenrock and Government refuse to release any spreadsheets? Why do the Government consultants want $4 million dollars to “derisk” the project for vendors? Greenrock and Government consultants, the “pros,” cannot even agree upon the size of the turbines nor the ideal location for wind farm placement. Those whales just do not swim. You sir/madam, have been debunked. Strike three! You are out!
I documented only a portion of my expertise and you have stated none and shown none. You keep swinging and missing.
Three strikes are all you get so I will not even bother responding to your comments on greening.
90% HAHAHAHA! WOW!
You’re clearly mislead. 34% of the time they’d be operating at rated power (which is what you meant to say) this would be much higher in Bermuda maybe 40-50% due to our consistent WPD. Conditions would allow turbines to operate 90% of the time again not including scheduled down times. So they’d be producing electricity most of the year. Lemon. No debunking, if anything you’ve further solidified your lack of knowledge on this.
Obviously they won’t make those spread sheets public it’s proprietary. They are conflicting consultations because they propose completely different tech and have different teams on them. Also To think that a large commercial installer couldn’t come in and put up 4-12 turbines is nieve. That’s light work for them.
I agree that the derisking shows weakness in the proposal but the clear and most obvious risk is hurricane risk. Ricardo went with multiple lower hub height turbines to increase survival while green rock opted for hurricane rated large turbines.
You listing your credentials is still a bunch a fluff as far as I’m concerned and you’re clearly immature.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Benched! Seriously, benched.
Spreadsheets like the LCOE are NOT proprietary and we as taxpayers OWN those produced by taxpayer-paid Government consultants. WE PAID for the work, WE OWN everything produced. Even Greenrock admitted to me that spreadsheets are “industry standard.” Government remains silent but stated to me that it has “experts” reviewing my comments.
For starters, the main issue is taking the word of someone who has an agenda to push just because they say so. You have no idea what values were used even for the LCOE, what variables were excluded, or what was included by any consultants. Zero-knowledge.
Knowing what goes into the “industry standard” LCOE spreadsheet as I have several variations, I can state it does not compute the ECkR – not even close. The goal is to incrementally move the wind farm forward by spoonfeeding the public with nebulous information because the public is clueless.
Go back to my simple car analogy. Has Greenrock or Government ever said where the electricity will come from when the turbines are not generating electricity for whatever reason? That there is a cost to have BELCO’s generators on standby 24×7?
If you wish to personally fund the consulting work, go for it. Break out your checkbook and write a personal check for $4 million to Government. To be fair, also write a $4 million check to Greenrock so we can compare the papers produced.
If having detailed first-hand subject matter expertise that effortlessly debunks your comments and exposes the glaring flaws in the dueling wind farm proposals makes me immature, please feel free to call me an immature subject matter expert. Regardless, I know what I am talking about, you do not.
Otherwise, respectfully sir/madam, you are benched!
That’s fair I didn’t know they weren’t propriety.
Regardless it’s not hard to build a LCOE calc in excel. Could crank it out in a weekend. I’m sure they’ve used reasonable assumptions. You and I should do the $4m job for half price! Leverage all those fake credentials of yours to attract some business. Or deter business given you’re anti climate change beliefs lol
ECR is not a straight forward number and I’m unsurprised it’s not been mentioned. LCOE is still a healthy indicator at this stage.
Anyways I got more important work to do but it’s been fun engaging with you.
“Greenrock’s paid studies that conflict on several points with the Government’s taxpayer-funded studies”
I’ve just discovered that “”Greenrock is a registered charity (#704). So why is it delivering misleading information as if it were a commercial enterprise seeking to persuade the public of its good intentions in making a profit?
Why don’t you give their Director Eugene Dean a phone call and ask him? Eugene loves speaking to people about saving the planet. Perhaps you can tell him what he is doing wrong.
It is wonderful if it is connected and supplying power not like the National Stadium or like the Finger at he airport that were a few years behind schedule and way over budget.
Congrats to the College for doing it right, maybe they can teach other Government areas