Straits Times Forum 21 Feb 09;
I REFER to the report, 'Solar energy for Budget Terminal' (Feb 12).
I am pleased that Changi Airport's Budget Terminal is taking the green route and plans to use solar energy to meet part of its electricity needs. Towards this end, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) is inviting tenders to convert electricity from direct sunlight on the terminal's roof. I am sure the response will be good.
However, several things puzzle and concern me after reading the report. Savings from the solar panel are estimated at about $60,000 a year, which is at least 10 per cent of the electricity consumption cost for lighting at the Budget Terminal.
The report states further that one photovoltaic (PV) panel costs about $10,000, which produces one kilowatt of energy or enough power to boil just a kettle of water. The report also states that there is little additional cost to maintain PV panels and large storage batteries.
A pertinent point that was not addressed in the report is the payback period, that is, return on investment (ROI). How long will it take CAAS to recover the money it is spending on the PV panels? From my calculations, the ROI will be 10 to 20 years.
I suggest that CAAS review the merits of spending public funds on such a project. While I support the initiative to save energy, it should not be done at an exorbitant cost. To me, the proposal makes neither commercial nor business sense. All it does is waste taxpayers' money.
I am sure there are alternative, more cost-effective energy-saving solutions available, which would offer CAAS a better ROI as it seeks to reduce energy costs and consumption.
The aviation industry faces great turbulence and, to deal with the challenges ahead, CAAS will be corporatised later this year. Amid the tough operating environment, it seems unwise to invest in projects that are less than cost-effective.
Balbeer Singh
Solar project aims to lower airport's carbon footprint too
Straits Times Forum 12 Mar 09;
I REFER to Mr Balbeer Singh's letter, 'Are airport solar panels cost-effective?' (Feb 21).
Mr Singh highlighted his concerns on the viability of the solar photovoltaic (PV) test-bedding project at the Budget Terminal.
The project is undertaken with the aim of not only saving energy but also helping to lower Changi Airport's carbon footprint through the use of clean energy. The Budget Terminal has been chosen for the project because it has a large, unobstructed roof that is most suited for tapping solar energy for the test-bedding project.
This project is also part of the national drive for Singapore to embark on viable green technologies.
As Mr Singh is probably aware, the Government is encouraging the local industry to implement green initiatives through various incentive schemes. As part of this effort, the project is supported by the Economic Development Board's (EDB) Clean Energy Research and Test-bedding (Cert) programme.
The data gathered from this project will also be used by the Singapore Polytechnic, EDB's appointed research organisation for the Cert programme, for further research on solar energy systems in Singapore.
We thank Mr Singh for his valuable feedback.
Fong Kok Wai
Director
(Engineering and Real Estate Development)
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
