Napa Valley winery flips on Flotovoltaic solar array

Chalk another one up for Sharp. The company has landed yet another partner willing to utilize its solar panels in order to make news, wow onlookers and give Mother Earth a modicum of a break. Napa Valley winery Far Niente has flipped on its self-coined Floatovoltaic installation, which was developed by Thompson Technology Industries and installed by SPG Solar. Nearly 2,300 Sharp solar panels were secured for the job, and we're told that the array generates 400 kWs at peak output, which "significantly offsets the winery's annual power usage and provides a net-zero energy bill." Don't expect that coveted bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon to be any cheaper as a result, though.

[Via CNET]

[Labeeb @ May 31st 2008 8:44PM]

cool

[Aguiluz @ May 31st 2008 9:34PM]

Cool it is.

"Flotovoltaic..."

Very punny.

[bartoron @ May 31st 2008 8:56PM]

I'll have the '99 Bordeaux.

[Wonderkid @ May 31st 2008 9:04PM]

Grape stuff!

[kingofwale @ May 31st 2008 9:07PM]

at it's PEAK hour, it should be able to give power to 300 household, absolutely no way near cost-effective.

I wonder how much it cost thme, 5 million is my guess.

[drewmk2 @ May 31st 2008 10:05PM]

So the panels aren't so cost effective yet, but this is true of anything that's not widespread. Give it time.

There's nothing wrong with harnessing the 4*10^(large number) of watts that the sun outputs, and this is a start in the right direction.

[paul34 @ May 31st 2008 10:13PM]

Right, but also remember that there are tax incentives, especially in a place like that.

But regardless, at the end of the day, solar power isn't really about saving money - it is more about reducing your draw from the grid and ultimately, about being a little bit more "green."

[Abuzar @ Jun 1st 2008 12:35AM]

Eventually it WILL save them money. Sure it may take 10 years(or more), but that's ten years of using cleaner energy, and not taxing California's grid which is spread thin already.

[CraigJ @ Jun 1st 2008 2:01PM]

Cost effective is relative. These will get cheaper over time, but even if they don't, $250 a barrel oil may redefine "cost effective"

[eredux @ May 31st 2008 9:16PM]

Check out this US Carbon Footprint data, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level...

http://www.eredux.com/states/

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 1st 2008 11:08AM]

Not sure why you got low ranked... That's a pretty cool site if you ask me.

[tekdroid @ May 31st 2008 9:32PM]

About one acre of vineyard was removed to accommodate the land-mounted portion of the system, but the floating array’s positioning on the pond saved another three-quarters of an acre of valuable Cabernet vines.
-----
Hence the term flotovoltaic. Pretty cool.
Cooler still:

"The conversion to solar is part of Far Niente’s collective movement toward ‘conscientious luxury,’ an integrated program enabling the production of luxury wines through sustainable measures affecting vineyard, winery and day-to-day business practices. While solar is the centerpiece, complementary practices include sustainable and organic farming, powering farming vehicles with biodiesel fuels, recycling, the use of hybrid company vehicles and other environmentally responsible measures. "
--------------

While this PR piece mentions the usual "committed to the environment" and is par for the course for press releases, I wonder why nobody talks about the meat & potatoes of the deal; how much it will save them over the longer-term.

[Cole @ May 31st 2008 9:59PM]

Because if they talk about that, then it becomes all about their savings instead of looking like they were trying to do a good thing.

[Cole @ May 31st 2008 10:00PM]

bah, it removed my slash cynicism tag....

[tekdroid @ Jun 1st 2008 12:17AM]

well yeah, but it's not like they're fooling anyone

These things always tend to assume the reader is living somewhere in hopelessly naive territory. Mentioning savings might give others incentive to investigate things. And I'm sure savings are involved here.

[kamu @ Jun 1st 2008 2:13AM]

Does it matter though, through promotion of green energy, their indirect investment in solar research and saving them $$$?

It is like being paid to save a drowning child from a lake. Everybody wins! ;)

They should have also detailed the savings because then it looks good from a business point of view as well.

[skoochy @ May 31st 2008 10:08PM]

Net-zero energy bills usually mean that it will pay for itself in about 15 years, given the current energy rate savings and cost-per-watt of solar panels. That's usually beyond the useful life of the panels, resulting in absolutely no savings. When energy prices go up the time to recover costs will shorten, but in a few years when solar cells cost about 10-20% of their cost now, it will make a lot more sense to do.

[Tim Smith @ May 31st 2008 10:20PM]

Most panels have a warranty guaranteeing around 80% of rated output for upwards of 30 years. If they pay it off in 15 years then they're making some good cash on it.

[barry99705 @ May 31st 2008 11:01PM]

Plus the local electric company buys the extra electricity at the same rate they charge, so if the price goes up, so does your profit.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Jun 1st 2008 3:34AM]

No barry. You cannot go past a $0 electric bill.

Any surplus you produce each month beyond what you use you don't get paid for, you just end up giving it away for free.

The electric company does "buy" electricity from you during the day and sell it back at the same rate at night, so you can get to a net $0 electric bill even without storage batteries.

[rcappo @ Jun 1st 2008 8:42AM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering

In some places the power company does pay you if you produce more power than you consume.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 1st 2008 11:13AM]

Yeah, I was going to say, I don't know where he lives, but it's state law in my area that any power you supply back to the grid the electric company has to pay you their rates.

[Jonathan @ May 31st 2008 11:17PM]

I don't know about mixing up to 600 volts DC with water.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 1st 2008 11:15AM]

Worse that could happen is you pump a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen in the air.

[Stem $ell @ May 31st 2008 11:33PM]

Now their oakey tannins have that ozoney bite... and customers have been heard to exclaim, "Ohm my God, it's good!"

[hemmy @ Jun 1st 2008 1:33AM]

"Watt are you talking about? It's not good, it's great!!!!"

[z0phi3l @ May 31st 2008 11:59PM]

Wonder what all those solar cells do to the lake or pond, but it can't be good for it no matter what, those things have to put off more heat than the lake/pond is used to

[Adam @ Jun 1st 2008 12:30AM]

In addition to the heat, it's also blocking sunlight; any plants growing in there aren't going to be doing much for photosynthesis.

[Todd in Sonoma @ Jun 1st 2008 1:45PM]

Winery ponds are artificial anyway. I think they are used to collect production waste water.

[doug @ Jun 2nd 2008 9:44AM]

Those panels will benefit the water level, by trapping the heat and then re-radiating it above the water, preventing a lot of evaporation due to the thermal input. Normally the water would absorb the heat and evaporate as a result.

z0phi3l - you need to re-read your physics textbook. The panels won't absorb any more heat than the water below them would have if they weren't there.

[beenyweenies @ Jun 1st 2008 12:01AM]

Why is it that almost every article on engadget regarding energy efficiency or alternative sources has a snark-laden, dismissive tone to it?

Maybe the authors should just stop reporting on these things if they so very much hate the idea of powering their beloved gadgets with something other than fossil fuels.

[nikola @ Jun 1st 2008 12:38AM]

Same thing I've noticed. Maybe its the lack of professionalism. arrogant stupidity, or something like payola tainting the stories, but its enough that you DO notice it, and DO remember it afterwards.

Also the way some of these commenters reach so hard to try and attack these types of stories is also interesting. People are actually complaining "this could be bad for the lake" to try and attach some negative to the story. Is this a PR ploy or what?

[Walt @ Jun 1st 2008 5:33PM]

I must disagree. The fact that it is covered at all is an endorsement. After all, this is a gadget blog, not an industrial technology blog. The same snarky, cynical tone is present in almost every article.

[Max @ Jun 1st 2008 8:35PM]

I don't know what you're talking about people trying to create negative pr here. Everything people do, even with eco stuff, has a positive side and a negative side. The positive side is the company is pulling less power out of the grid. The negative side is that by deflecting a lot of light from the plants that live under the surface, it's possible that a lot of the plants will die and cause an abundance of detritus that could trigger, I dunno, a small algae bloom and general nastiness. You just have to consider all the angles and repercussions and make sure it's still worth it.

[eddie1261 @ Jun 1st 2008 12:40AM]

I would like to mount a solar panel on the roof of my van that produces/stores enough energy to run my laptop overnight. Is there somewhere I could read up and see how big of a panel I would need and what the hardware to convert the captures solar power into usable energy would be all about? Gotta doubt you plug your laptop right into a solar panel.... :-)

[rcappo @ Jun 1st 2008 9:06AM]

You would need a solar panel capable of 20W.

Look on the back of the AC power inverter (the power cord goes into it) for the DC volts. It is DC volts that solar panels output, so instead of that power cord, you would need to get a DC power regulator for the DC voltage value your laptop requires (+/- 2 V).

http://www.solaronline.com.au/page/solar_system_basics.html

This gets into the basics, but remember that your laptop battery would act as the battery in the system, or, you could hook it up to your car battery (12 V DC regulators should be easy to find) and use the AC inverter that you have to be using currently. There may be some energy losses with that setup, so go with just a little bit bigger solar panel than what you require. The upside to that way is that you could use the lights or car stereo as well.

[Johan S @ Jun 1st 2008 2:08PM]

Uh I hope you make sure you install it so that it has absolutely no chance of it flying off.

[Steven @ Jun 1st 2008 12:53AM]

What company calls itself "Do nothing" ("Far niente")!? I know it's a winery, but still...

[kelliot @ Jun 1st 2008 1:22AM]

Wait till the cells are coated with algae and/or half of them starting sinking for who knows what reason. And then there is the little beasities that will want to burrow into the flotation. I give it five years before its on the bottom.

[interspectrum @ Jun 1st 2008 1:54AM]

Great example of how ineffective solar power is. Don't we all have enough space to install this many panels. To generate enough power to feed a typical city would require many square miles of land, and then our sun goes down. Since we do not have any effective ways of storing large amounts of energy, I guess we all go back 120 years on the technology curve at night.

How about expanding our current nuclear power plants. New reactor technologies are extremely safe. Most people forget that the US's current nuclear reactors where designed in the 1960 & 70's.

A reactor like at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in japan produces 1.3 gigawatts of power. That is enough power for 1.6 million homes. All this power and ZERO greenhouse emissions.

The rest of the world is using nuclear power to reduce its carbon foot print, why aren't we?

[bjsguess @ Jun 1st 2008 2:34AM]

Agreed that nuclear is the ultimate answer. I love solar, wind, hydro and other alternatives BUT the technology is still in it's infancy and has not reached a state where it is viable as the only solutions. Nuclear power will be needed for the next 20-40 years while the technology around renewable energy sources work on becoming more efficient and effective.

[kamu @ Jun 1st 2008 2:43AM]

Heh! It is funny you would bring up 'space' as an argument against panels and for nuclear power. Where do you put nuclear waste again? Oh.....

Also, please share your unlimited stock of uranium with us all.

[Richard Ahlquist @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:30PM]

Yeah good thinking when we have brilliant people here in the states that do things like use a candle to light their way in a reactor. ( http://www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html#ca )

No thanks I say whats a little carbon emissions among friends.

[interspectrum @ Jun 2nd 2008 1:41PM]

You should point out that this is a report about a fire from 1975, 33 years ago. Safety protocols have come a long way since then. Also, the new reactor designs make this sort of problem impossible.

[happy_penguin @ Jun 1st 2008 3:10AM]

This is cool but as already stated by other commenters, photovoltaic is not very cost effective. We do need advances in the technology as it has not really advanced much in several decades. I disagree that nuclear is "the ultimate answer" but nuclear is definitely an option which needs to be explored and utilized in the interim, especially if electrically powered automobiles are to become a viable option. Eventually we will have to ween ourselves from non renewable power sources. Currently, the issue is that fossil fuel is still relatively cheap because it is relatively abundant. The cost of fossil fuel is simply not painful enough yet.

[YouFaceTheTick @ Jun 1st 2008 3:20AM]

There is a crazy amount of negativity from some people whenever any renewable fuel or energy source is brought up. Were you guys this negative when the abacus showed up? Screw those damn car engines, horses and buggies have worked fine for thousands of years!

Some of us are excited about algae oil, solar power, wind/wave energy. Nuclear's interesting but it generates waste that has a half-life of a gazillion years.

[happy_penguin @ Jun 1st 2008 3:31AM]

Your excitement is part of what will power demand, but as I've already said, fossil fuel is still relatively cheap and abundant. Economics will power the advances, and I am confident that the advances will come some day, just not soon. You are right to be excited, but we do need to be realistic. It's not going to happen tomorrow or next week, but it will happen eventually. Forward thinkers such as yourself will give the needed push but patience is prudent. These changes come very, very slowly and they will continue to be slow for some time.

[beenyweenies @ Jun 1st 2008 6:19PM]

Happy_penguin, you couldn't be more wrong about fossil fuel. Cheap and relatively abundant? I don't know what you are basing this on, but fossil fuel is actually getting extremely expensive (price has practically doubled yearly) and, if the world's oil geologists are to be believed, we have already reached peak oil (or will within 5-10 years).

Yes, excitement may help development of these new technologies, but excitement doesn't pay the bills for those developers, customers do. As long as people continue to poo-poo solar/wind as too expensive and refuse to give it a fair place in the overall "energy basket" it will take much longer to reach maturity and, hence, become cost effective.

[happy_penguin @ Jun 1st 2008 7:42PM]

I said "relatively cheap and abundant" not just "cheap and relatively abundant" and I base that on information such as this:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

A gallon of gas is not quite as expensive as people think when you see the reality of it as adjusted for inflation. We got spoiled in the 90s because gasoline had never been cheaper in history. Now that chicken has come home to roost and people are in a panic because it SEEMS so expensive. Oil is still cheaper than any of the alternatives we have at hand and whether you like that or not, it's true because the price of a gallon of gas was not keeping up with inflation. I'll say it again, it's relatively cheap. That's why we continue to use it.

[Bill @ Jun 1st 2008 10:54AM]

Businesses usually get more tax deductions or credits than residential users (even not counting depreciation), so payback is faster than for people installing home solar PV systems.