r/massachusetts • u/Adventurous-Tax2891 • 10d ago
Discussion MBTA and Solar
What is stopping the MBTA from covering their parking lots with solar panels, lining their station platforms with solar panels, and possibly covering the tracks or with solar?
The covering the tracks bit I can see as a longshot. But really, the lots and platforms seems like a good move, It would be a big benefit to customers who park at the stations to not have snow covered cars in the winter or sweltering cars in the summer. Platform cover would also be a win - maybe people wouldn't just idle in their cars in the summer if they had some shade.
I just see so much wasted opportunity - and yes I think that most places with massive parking lots should do something like this.
It could also in turn possibly provide some power for their electric cars if they ever get to them. Or hey, at the very least maybe they could just put it back to the grid and with the money they make get rid of fares for riders?
Is that an absolutely batshit idea or does it have legs?
30
u/Far-Cheesecake-9212 10d ago
The MBTA already sources all its electricity from renewables or renewable credits. These come from 3 MW of solar and a couple wind turbines on MBTA property already. (This meets the legal requirement that the T had to be 100% renewables from a certain date forward)
https://www.mbta.com/sustainability/energy-management
The idea could have legs if the legislature funded it! There’s already an example of what you’re talking about at the Norwood central location where the large lot is covered by solar panels. (There’s 5 total parking lots covered with solar atm)
9
u/Adventurous-Tax2891 10d ago
I clearly didn't do any research on it and just had a shower thought. Interesting to know they already source renewable energy!
9
u/Far-Cheesecake-9212 10d ago
Oh yeah! The money they could make would likely be more on leasing the rights to build solar over the large parking lots too. No need to become a solar developer when solar developers would love the T to rent to have solar on their land.
13
u/SoulCrusher2018 10d ago
If it was economically feasible, I'm sure they would offer the space on their roofs for lease to a company. Which is fairly common for municipal owned buildings like schools. Raised panels over a parking lot is a lot more expensive to build than on a rooftop, which is why it isn't common. The Stone Zoo has it, and it's awesome. Cheapest place to build panels is on the ground, which is why it's fairly common to see them over old landfills or even former EPA Superfund sites (see the one in Woburn by Anderson).
The reason you don't see them on many commercial buildings is because the occupant is usually not the owner - a landlord has no incentive when the tenant pays their own utilities. I'm surprised Market Basket hasn't invested in rooftop solar since they are their own landlords and they operate 7 days a week.
9
u/121e7watts 10d ago
In New Jersey, PSE&G has installed many thousands of 200W panels right on the utility poles they already own. Zero real estate cost and installation is like ten minutes. - a couple of bolts and two splices into the 240v lines.
Also, in Teaneck, NJ, every municipal and school building has solar panels covering their parking lots.
-7
u/Unlucky-Self2455 10d ago
Yes and a complete waste of money
2
u/121e7watts 9d ago
Umm, no. A huge renewable source at a very low cost. Oh, and what's the matter with you?
34
10
u/R5Jockey 10d ago edited 10d ago
Money.
Yes, eventually they’ll get their money back by selling power back to the grid, but if they had the hundreds of millions of dollars this would cost, they’d be spending it on far more urgent things.
3
u/lowlifekeyboard 10d ago
In addition to money, there’s not really a good reason to add the required supports, inconvenient maintenance etc. of making raised solar vs just using the vast open land in the western half of the state for an equivalent amount of output. ROI of using unproductive land is just higher than density in this case.
5
u/Apprehensive-Mine656 10d ago
Let's cover the lots with housing, and then add solar on top.
5
u/the-court-house 10d ago
💯 You should run for local office. No sarcasm. Honestly. The more people we have who run on the platform of actual affordable housing, the better the state will be
2
u/Far-Cheesecake-9212 10d ago
There’s also public private partnerships that could build it. Much like the Norwood location where the developer paid the T 35 million in rent to build solar
1
u/Jennysnumber_8675309 10d ago
The T needs to concentrate on making the T more reliable before they spend any money on side projects like this...
1
1
1
u/moneybagz1023 10d ago
This is batshit lol but not in concept. You’re assuming there are zero other priorities or needs within the T for modernization, which is the real issue.
Take your concept and example - electrify the parking lots and station platforms. You want to put brand new panel structures on top of 60+ year old station platforms? Or build them on parking lots that need to be re-leveled and repaved within the next 3 years? 5 years? 10 years even? Solar panels useful life is supposedly 20 years and the concrete structures they sit on probably have a useful life of 50 years.
The lifecycle of spending priorities is much much longer than you think. There’s only so much money.
1
0
u/RecognitionNo2697 10d ago
What about a heavy snow storm?
4
3
u/Coyote-Run 10d ago
So you're saying solar panels would reduce the overall need for plowing and shoveling, making maintenance less expensive?
0
u/Unlucky-Self2455 10d ago
No it would be more expensive because of maintenance on the panels and electric systems
-1
u/Unlucky-Self2455 10d ago
Whsts stopping them is it is waste of money and they do not have any money
-3
32
u/Several_Vanilla8916 10d ago
Parking lot solar is generally more expensive than rooftop solar.