Solar plan heats up, but who will pay? Solar plan heats up, but who will pay? (August 26, 2005)

By Jon Wiener

In the span of one month, a plan to replace Hangar One's contaminated siding with solar panels has transformed from wild to wildly popular.

More than 70 members of the public packed an "alternatives workshop" last Thursday to discuss the Navy's plans for cleaning up the Hangar. When Lenny Siegel of the Save Hangar One Committee asked how many of them supported the solar plan, nearly everyone raised a hand.

The solar option may be the best one for those who want to see the Moffett Field landmark preserved. But some observers say it has plenty of pitfalls, chief among them cost.

NASA, the property owner, is pitching so-called "building-integrated photovoltaics" as the way to save its contaminated building, but the agency has no plans to spend any money of its own to support the project. And since most solar companies only sell installations, a third party would likely need to purchase the panels and then try to sell the electricity generated.

While that is certainly a possibility, Hangar One is still far from an ideal building for a solar project, experts say. Its steep walls face east and west, while the best solar exposure is on slightly tilted south-facing roofs. The shape and orientation of the building alone reduce the amount of power that photovoltaic cells could produce by 23 percent on its western side and 40 percent on the eastern side, according to engineers.

"If you're going to front the money and try to make it a profitable venture, you've really got to have good orientation," said one engineer who asked to remain anonymous because his company is interested in the project.

Another company interested in the project is Chevron Energy Solutions, which recently installed a solar project at Foothill College. A spokesperson for the company confirmed that Chevron is considering whether to submit a bid for Hangar One -- and that Chevron signed a "performance contract" with the district.

Informal estimates by NASA officials put the cost of replacing the hangar's siding at $24 million, with some $20 million more needed to build it out of solar panels. NASA Ames environmental chief Sandy Olliges said that bringing the hangar into compliance with building codes would add between $20 million and $40 million to the total.

Olliges told the crowd at Thursday night's meeting that three companies have already expressed interest in the project. NASA has set an Oct. 14 deadline for any bids, which would give the agency a week to influence the Navy's final decision on the hangar.

Navy officials have repeatedly said that they do not care whether they knock down the hangar or dismantle its siding and leave the steel frame for NASA to deal with. Moffett clean-up chief Rick Weissenborn said he estimates the two options would cost roughly the same. NASA estimated the cost of demolition at $30 million before the contamination was discovered, and some community members have said the actual number could be three times as high.

The Navy will release more exact figures in a Sept. 3 report in which it will also formally announce its preferred plan.

The Navy is considering 11 other options, including coating the hangar in a ceramic or epoxy compound. A coating would eventually wear off, and most likely just put the issue off until some later date. The Navy, eager to finish its work at Moffett Field, is unlikely to select that option unless NASA or someone else will agree to take over future liability.

Audience members asked the Navy to consider that as a temporary solution in order to give them more time to find the money to replace the hangar's siding.

Dismantling the siding would begin the same way as demolition, but instead of taking down the frame, the Navy would clean it of the PCBs that have dripped onto it over the years. But NASA, which took over the base from the Navy in 1994, says it will not accept a naked steel frame.

As the agency that built the hangar out of toxic materials, the Navy is responsible for cleaning it up, but cannot use money earmarked for environmental remediation to restore the building. Some advocates for saving the hangar have vowed to push for congressional authorization to free up the money.

E-mail Jon Wiener at jwiener@mv-voice.com

E-mail a friend a link to this story.