you're kidding right? No you're not kidding this is a 107 year simple payback!!!!

Furthermore, I don't care where the money comes from...it's all from the "Taxpayers"!

Dick,
That's 2 million for all 21 buildings. Payback will occur within 5 years or so.

listen anything that is using alternative energy is great. all houses, building, everything should be solar by now. its crazy. that is isnt. this is 2012. work toward off the grid. please.

The $22,000 is for all buildings-"overall annual savings"...."According to the city, the solar water heater project, like the one at the Coliseum, represent to the city an overall annual savings of roughly $22,117 or 505kW every time hot water is used at any of these facilities." Payback is 107 years!

Dave...do the math divide investment of $2 million by the overall annual savings of $22,000...watta ya get...107 years

Dharma
I invite you to spend your money anyway you choose. Taxpayer money should be spent much more intelligently.

Dick....that is an oxymoron. ALL levels of govt are incapable of spending our money intelligently. Try the "payback" formula on a light rail (county). Federal subsidies of ethanol and windmills are even worse.

Guys, let me help here. There was a lot more work done with the money than just solar water heaters - the solar water heaters component cost less than $170,000 and saves the City a low estimate of $22,000 annually. That's less than 8 years for systems that will produce energy for decades, saving tax money that was being spent on electricity. It's a HUGE win for the City of St. Pete and their residents.

Well... okay... what else did we get for the balance of $2,210,000? And is there some savings associated with that investment?

We citizens have to start somewhere, regarding the use of alternate energy and I'm glad to read that the Coliseum has been fitted with solar panels. Hopefully the 'savings' figures listed here are not correct and that the actual savings in dollars will be a much more grand figure overall.

Catherine, I hope you're correct. But what if you're not. What if our elected officials invested in a project with a 107 year payback? Remember Solyndra...$500 million down the tube? Who ownes "The Pier", "Sunken Gardens", "The Trop", "Al Lang Field", "The Coliseum", "Baywalk Parking Lot", etc.? All of these are major receivers of Taxpayer dollars.

No question that many alternative energy sources have poor payback (even when you factor in grants, subsidies, and tax credits). Having said that, if our city wants to spend federal grant money that provides us with some local savings- I say go for it.
The city can find out firsthand how these systems perform in the long term. Hopefully that experience will factor in any future purchase decisions made with local money.

s. Ripley

Sounds like "free money from the Feds." Remember there is no free lunch. There are less expensive ways to evaluate these systems. I suggest that everytime you see or hear Federal Grant, Federal Subsidy, Federal Tax Credit (for a city government?), substitute the word "Taxpayer" for Federal and see if your attitude changes.