# Solar-Powered City



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Florida to get first solar-powered city *

WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - A Florida utility and a real estate developer are aiming to bring the country's first solar-powered city to the Sunshine State.

FPL Group Inc's utility Florida Power & Light is working with the realty group Kitson & Partners to construct what the utility says will be the world's largest photovoltaic solar plant in a planned, environmentally friendly city near Fort Myers in southwestern Florida.

Called Babcock Ranch, the city will aim to build 19,500 houses and about 6 million square feet of retail, light industrial, and office space when it is completed, the developers said.

The entire project is expected to cost $2 billion.

Syd Kitson, chief executive of Kitson & Partners, said Babcock, which will help create 20,000 jobs, can serve as a model for other communities throughout the nation.

"Babcock Ranch will be a living laboratory for companies, workers and families ready to reap the rewards of innovation," Kitson said at a press conference introducing the project.

A spokesman for the project said it will be the first solar-powered city because it will use only solar power during the day and produce more solar power than it needs and so will be a net exporter of solar power.

In addition to having its electricity generated from solar energy, the entire city is expected to have wireless Internet access and electric-car chargers.

Construction of the city center is scheduled to begin in June 2010, with the first residential and commercial buildings targeted for late 2010.

With the United States reeling from recession and falling housing prices, U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged to create millions of jobs by moving the country toward a green-energy economy.

Florida, in particular, has suffered from the housing bust. The state is now staggering under high mortgage foreclosure rates, dropping home prices and slowing population growth.

Obama wants 10 percent of U.S. electricity generated by renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025. The stimulus package Obama signed into law earlier this year included billions of dollars for clean energy investments.

The utility and realty developers said they were not planning on using stimulus money for the projects at this point.

Groundbreaking for the $350 million to $400 million plant will begin late this year subject to state regulatory approvals, Eric Silagy, chief development officer for Florida Power & Light, said at the conference.

Silagy said the state government of Florida has been extremely supportive of renewable energy and he was optimistic about winning approval for this new plant.

"We have three projects that are under construction and I think that's evidence that they are very committed to this," Silagy said. "With that continued commitment we'll be able to move forward with project very quickly."

Florida Power and Light said the construction of its plant will not be dictated by the status of the planned city.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Sounds cool. Any renderings?


----------



## seattle92 (Dec 25, 2008)

Great!!! I hope they don't give up in some months...


----------



## SkyscraperSuperman (Nov 1, 2008)

Wow, sounds awesome! Go Florida! Can't wait to see renderings!


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

http://www.jetsongreen.com/2009/04/florida-babcock-ranch-solar-powered-city.html


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

Ohta city


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

^ That last photo is awesome. Imagine if every town and city in the world was like that!  Think how energy efficient we'd become...


----------



## MarkusErikssen (Oct 4, 2005)

Amazing project!


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

wjfox said:


> ^ That last photo is awesome. Imagine if every town and city in the world was like that!  Think how energy efficient we'd become...


But at what cost? the sunlight might be "free" but producing and maintaining those panels is not.

What I'm saying is that I see the same patern as with hybrid cars. More hype then substance (at least in short-mid terms)


----------



## bosman (Mar 8, 2007)

hkskyline said:


> Called Babcock Ranch, the city will aim to build 19,500 houses and about 6 million square feet of retail, light industrial, and office space when it is completed, the developers said.
> 
> The entire project is expected to cost $2 billion.


An entire city of 19,500 houses only costing $2 billion? How is that possible?? :nuts:


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

AltinD said:


> But at what cost? the sunlight might be "free" but producing and maintaining those panels is not.
> 
> What I'm saying is that I see the same patern as with hybrid cars. More hype then substance (at least in short-mid terms)


You can't possibly compare hybrid cars with solar panels. Hybrid cars still use oil....and we can't keep using oil forever.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

^^ The fact that a hybrid car still uses oil is irrelevant, as it's the fact that let say a nuclear powered or a hydro plant don't use oil to produce ... power.

Anyway, I was talking about the hype of solar energy.


----------



## seattle92 (Dec 25, 2008)

AltinD said:


> What I'm saying is that I see the same patern as with hybrid cars. More hype then substance (at least in short-mid terms)



Without hype NOTHING will be done, and the world will never change. How can people react like this to this type of projects. hno:

All this projects need to be supported, even if in the beginning they only work with massive help from the governments. 


I can give you an example of my own country.

The first wind generators started to appear in Portugal in 1999 or 2000. There were some before, but the reall bet in wind power started aroud 9/10 years ago.

In the beggining everybody said those towers look terrible on the hills, and that it was just a joke and would never be really important in terms of energy production. 
The government and some companies didn't quit, and kept investing in the wind power, and more wind torwers were built.

Well, in 2008, 10% of the energy consumed in Portugal came from those wind towers. What was a joke 9 years ago, is now extremly important to the country, and that percentage keeps going up every year.

At this point, in the world, only Denmark tops Portugal in this number (they have 19%), but they did their "bet" 20 or 30 years ago.

What seems to be a fantasy in the beginning, may well be the future.


----------



## seattle92 (Dec 25, 2008)

Your reaction to this project and some portuguese to wind power 10 years ago, is the same that last year people had when the first wave power generator was built in the sea near the portuguese coast.

Let's wait 10 years and see if this "fantasy" wave energy is just a dream or will also become important in energy production.


----------



## Joy Machine (Aug 13, 2007)

altin is right. And judging by the size of some of those homes, really its just another "green" gimmick. Also, I bet you didn't know that power plants don't pay you back for contributing to the grid, so yes, you pay all that money, give to the grid, and they say thanks because you are giving them power to sell. A truly energy efficient city would have small homes. 

And with the hybrid cars...research has shown that by the time all the shipping of parts and manufacturing, you'll never get the energy savings out of them...so you might as well save energy and money buy spending 5000 less on a normal car than a hybrid lol


----------



## seattle92 (Dec 25, 2008)

^^^^

An american, welcome... you polution free citizen :bash:




Joy Machine said:


> Also, I bet you didn't know that power plants don't pay you back for contributing to the grid


I bet you didn't even watch de video of that japanese city. Of course the power plant buys the energy those people produce. Of course they earn money from it. 


In Portugal happens the same. If in a house you have solar panels or micro wind generators and you put energy in the grid. Of course you receive money for it.

Where did you got that idea? It's the way things work in California and you imagine that in the rest of the world things had to be like in America? :lol:


----------



## Joy Machine (Aug 13, 2007)

seattle92 said:


> ^^^^
> 
> An american, welcome... you polution free citizen :bash: * WTF are you talking about and where in the world did this come from?*
> 
> ...


Well *for your info*, the article is about a 2billion dollar *FLORIDA project*, and unless my geography serves me wrong, that is *in America* :dunno: But I bet you didnt even read the article title, let alone the article.

Oh, well why don't ask all the people who contribute to the grid in CA why they haven't been paid by PG&E. We're not talking about a Japanese place, were talking about a place where there are loop holes so the power company do not have to pay the power you generated for them. There is no law that states power plants HAVE to pay you for giving to the grid and guess what...THEY DONT! SURPRISE! 

Also, what good is having solar panels on every face of the roof? Sorry, thats border line useless and just blatant advertising that "we're green" and also, living green means down in size, up the green, not up the size and slap a few panels on it and dont forget the few in the lawn so we can heat our pool.

hmmm...the metering laws straight from the .gov that says power plants DO NOT have to pay you for energy. 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/notices/2002-11-18_forum/PUC_CODE_SECTION_2827.PDF


----------



## seattle92 (Dec 25, 2008)

Joy Machine said:


> altin is right. And judging by the size of some of those homes, really its just another "green" gimmick. Also, I bet you didn't know that power plants don't pay you back for contributing to the grid, so yes, you pay all that money, give to the grid, and they say thanks because you are giving them power to sell. A truly energy efficient city would have small homes.


Altin was responding to another guy talking about the japanese photo and video.

You said he was right and continued your speach. I thought you were still talking about the japanese city.


About the californian way, i don't know it. It's strange that they don't pay, i don't know more examples like that. So i have no idea how Florida deals with that issue.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

^^ I wasn't talking about the Japanese city, I was talking about the concept that it is being (ab)used as a marketing gimmick rather then being a genuine effort to help mother nature.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (Oct 9, 2004)

Would you rather have no solar panels? They will help at lest a little. Every journey begins with a single step.


----------



## Joy Machine (Aug 13, 2007)

But their fault is in the gimmick. A little rule on solar panels. You only want them above the equator facing the south and below the equator facing the north. That is the only way to get max potential out of a panel. These places have panels slapped on everything. Also, what kind of lighting are they using...are they using incandescents through out the entire house, if so, thats a waste of energy. 

Believe it or not, the reason its all gimmick is you can have a house without a single solar panel of the same size that uses FAR less energy with just lighting efficiency. But you don't hear that advertised because that doesnt sound "green". For example, swapping incandescents to flourescents saves A LOT of energy...fractions of the use as incandescents (although the lighting is unnatural so you should only use incandescents in places such as around a dining table) and maybe one in the bedrooms. Use design strategies that allow for the natural flow of the winds to cool the place and conscience of the orientation buildings so that it does not overheat in the summer and get to cool in the winter. Basically passive heating and cooling. CHECK IT! That strategy alone uses ZERO energy but you don't hear passive design thrown around like hot cakes. 

Now, once a house does this, then its awesome to throw on solar panels...but until then, its all gimmick  See what I'm saying.

EDIT: and its far less expensive to passive design and use high efficient lighting as opposed to slapping on solar panels. My teacher advised the solar panel design for COSCO and recommended changing to a certain interior light and how it would reduce their panel cost of 1.5 million to 500,000 and they said no because they wanted that specific light that uses far more energy.


----------



## Joy Machine (Aug 13, 2007)

so i guess crazy, i'd rather see passive design strategies and effiecient lighting as the first step, also people (especially in america) downsizing their living spaces. Construction waste is what makes up I want to say 75% of landfills. Even if that number is wrong, it still comprises an astronomical amount of pollution generated.


----------



## iDRAFT (Aug 20, 2008)

AltinD said:


> But at what cost? the sunlight might be "free" but producing and maintaining those panels is not.
> 
> What I'm saying is that I see the same patern as with hybrid cars. More hype then substance (at least in short-mid terms)


Money is not an issue when we're talking about the planet. Without a planet there won't be such a thing as money or cost. The current path we're on is destroying the planet and if humans hope to live more than another hundred years on this planet we're going to have to spend a little money. I love how ignorant some people can be, putting money before the very planet on which we live.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

iDRAFT said:


> Money is not an issue when we're talking about the planet. Without a planet there won't be such a thing as money or cost. The current path we're on is destroying the planet and if humans hope to live more than another hundred years on this planet we're going to have to spend a little money. I love how ignorant some people can be, putting money before the very planet on which we live.


You can put your brain first and try to understand that the gain from this it will be less then the damage done. 

So much for "saving" the planet.


----------



## LIVdb (Feb 3, 2009)

I can't believe all this negativity and talks of hype... yes Im sure there are companies out there that use the green movement simply to make money through hype but its still great to see projects like the solar project in Florida and statements by Obama enforcing renewable energy changes now and in the future.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

^^ You want to save energy? Stop building endless suburbs.


----------



## iDRAFT (Aug 20, 2008)

AltinD said:


> You can put your brain first and try to understand that the gain from this it will be less then the damage done.
> 
> So much for "saving" the planet.


While I do agree that developing this city will be very fuel-fossil and environmentally intensive, it is a good thing that such places are being built in order to serve as an example for further renewable energy projects. The ultimate solution would be not to create an entire new city using solar energy but converting an existing area to use solar energy. I misread your opinion on the matter. It seemed as if you thought solar energy was a waste of money and time. I now realize that you were referring to the construction of this city being more damaging to the planet. In that case, I agree with you. My mistake.

This entire development is a huge paradox. That little promenade with all those concrete pavers along the water in the render is nearly enough to offset the benefits of this place. Making concrete is one of the most fossil fuel intensive processes. Constructing along the water disturbs local wildlife and destroys habitats and all of the fuel that is going to be consumed during the construction of this place render this place worthless. It seems as if it is targeted for people seeking a "trendy" atmosphere rather than environmentalists.


----------



## Joy Machine (Aug 13, 2007)

^^thus, a gimmick lol 

Thanks for actually thinking about this iDraft. I didnt even think about the concrete part just to add on to this. I was just pissed at that example city and I mean come one, look at all those panels that took all that energy to produce...just chillin in the shade. But it looks good and it looks green. Also, I found a great example in europe to still concrete on the exterior and for parking...pavers, it was a cool case study, but a pavers parking lot and walk ways still let grass grow, didn't even really see the concrete, and of course, slows the water run off. I think we'll be using concrete for a long time to say the least, but I thought that was a very clever way of taking something bad (i like concrete in design, but not to just pave over the land) and blending it with the environment.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

iDRAFT said:


> This entire development is a huge paradox. That little promenade with all those concrete pavers along the water in the render is nearly enough to offset the benefits of this place. *Making concrete is one of the most fossil fuel intensive processes. Constructing along the water disturbs local wildlife and destroys habitats and all of the fuel that is going to be consumed during the construction of this place render this place worthless. It seems as if it is targeted for people seeking a "trendy" atmosphere rather than environmentalists.*


That's the first thing I noticed when I looked at the photos, that's far too much waterfront development to be considered "green" in my opinion. I think most of these developers really don't have a history of being environmentally conscious, so they think that slapping a few solar panels on some buildings is going to counter the damage to nature done by waterfront development, the overall concrete nature of the place, and of course the fact that a development like this is still very much car dependent. I try to be optimistic, but the sad fact is that most developers are just out to make a quick buck and will shamelessly dupe people into thinking they're actually making a difference...hno:


----------



## iDRAFT (Aug 20, 2008)

Although the intended effect of this development is not going to be achieved it is still better than making a development that isn't solar powered.


----------



## seattle92 (Dec 25, 2008)

I understand all your doubts about this project. 

But i really think the hype about solar power or any other "green" power is actually good. I also think it's good that companies are starting to see bussiness and money in this deals. Because let's face it, few people do stuff just because it helps the planet, but if they smell bussiness, then things can really start to chenge change.


----------



## historybuffer (Jan 16, 2006)

Soldier's Grove Wisconsin became a solar powered town in 1987 as the town planners needed to relocate the town and rebuild after a devastating flood.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Dubai is up to something : https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/mbr-solar-park-dubai-desert-intl/index.html


----------

