|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Boston Red Sox baseball team formally unveiled solar hot water panels on the roof of its stadium yesterday. The panels, which will help heat water used throughout the facility, are part of a series of environmentally sustainable practices that have been implemented at the Park this year. The Red Sox worked on this initiative with National Grid, Bonneville Environmental Foundation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Red Sox are the first team in Major League Baseball to have a solar thermal system at their ballpark. “The Red Sox have a duty and responsibility to help protect and preserve the environment and to help keep the Fenway neighborhood clean and green,” said Red Sox president/CEO Larry Lucchino. “The installation of solar thermal panels is the next step in our commitment to endeavor to make America’s Most Beloved Ballpark one of America’s greenest ballparks.”
Well there’s some gas being emitted that hasn’t been filtered out…
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (88 - 6:12am, May 26)Last: LassusNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (28 - 5:47am, May 26)Last: SnowboyNewsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (9 - 5:29am, May 26)Last: bjhankeNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (59 - 5:24am, May 26)Last: bjhankeNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1834 - 3:06am, May 26)Last:  SpiveyNewsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (8 - 2:43am, May 26)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (119 - 1:28am, May 26)Last:  Swedish ChefNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (12 - 12:25am, May 26)Last: TriponHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (15 - 12:13am, May 26)Last: DanGNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (4 - 11:26pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (18 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: Fielder's the first baseman, Felder is the fielderHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: DanNewsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Dodgers want to host NHL's Winter Classic (22 - 9:38pm, May 25)Last: Cris E
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. winnipegwhip Posted: May 20, 2008 at 05:00 PM (#2787650)I wish I were making that up.
-E. Litella
(Search for "Polo")
I was a finalist for a job at one of their rivals, Building Operating Management. So there is not just a niche devoted to imparting information on building facilties management, but it's actually competitive.
We play to our strengths here.
And there's no good reason that the ballparks in the South/Southwest/West shouldn't be putting in solar for hot water and electricity.
OK, here are a few question that will surely (further) reveal my stupidity. Does the outside temperature have a dramatic effect on how much heat can be generated in solar operations? In other words, if you have clouds in LA and clear skies in Minneapolis, but a 30 degrees difference in temperature, how will that impact how much solar heat can be generated? And is there really a greater usefulness/benefit for southern cities to put in solar than northern ones?
This is a gross oversimplification, but with solar the potential energy you can generate depends entirely on how much sun you get and how filtered it is by the atmosphere (ie, its strength). Cloudy LA would probably have less potential generation than sunny Minnesota, but LA is sunnier far more often than Minnesota and so solar would be much more economically viable there. Simply put, the Southwest is the best part of the US for solar power generation simply because there is more sun there than anywhere else in the US. The temperature difference might matter a little, but shouldn't. The solar energy is probably used to heat water, and this is done inside what should be an enclosed and well-insulated structure. Realistically, the temp difference will matter, because our systems are never perfectly enclosed, but not nearly so much as the pure sunlight levels.
There are ideas bouncing around that eventually sunny countries will replace OPEC as the world's great energy producers. This assumes that the huge barriers to big time solar power can be overcome, barriers in things like the incredibly high price and inefficiency of both long-distance power transmission and power storage, and problems of the unpredictability of solar power (power grids thrive on regularity and tend to crash when subjected to surges and troughs that things like clouds and, you know, night can cause). Who knows, maybe these problems are insurmountable and solar will always be a bit player, condemned to heat the water for the Diamondbacks and power air conditioners in those parts of California in which it only gets hot when the sun is out. But Australia has already built a big next gen solar plant (one that uses solar power to melt salts which then boil water in a heat exchanger and drive a steam turbine to make electricity) and there are sci-fi sorts of plans to build a solar plant in space.
In general, is there more presence of the sun all across the south than the north (referring to post No. 10)?
The distribution of solar energy potential isn't quite that simple, but there is a general bias to the south. You can check it out here:
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.htmlI know an engineer that works exclusively on sports stadiums. He characterizes them as "energy pigs". Good to see some attention on it.
The distribution of solar energy potential isn't quite that simple, but there is a general bias to the south.
I know an engineer that works exclusively on sports stadiums. He characterizes them as "energy pigs". Good to see some attention on it.
Why is this? Is this only for indoor stadiums? I can't imagine why an uncovered ballpark would use much energy compared to other large buildings/complexes. There's HVAC for the offices space which is relatively small, food prep equipment/freezers for the concessions. I guess that huge light banks and jumbotrons must use a decent amount, but still, compared to typical skyscraper office buildings, or convention centers or manufacturing plants, I would guess it would be much lower.
I'd like to see something about energy use in stadiums. Google just gives me a lot of things about various efficient bits added to stadiums and green stadia built for rugby and whatnot. I'd like to see what an open ballpark uses. I'd also guess that it's nothing like what a closed stadium uses, where you have to heat and cool all of that empty space.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main