Will New York's Citigroup Center add solar panels?

Mike K. · #1 Posted **May 8, 2007, 8:18 PM**

Completed in 1977, New York City's Citigroup Center has an unusual roof element that was originally planned to house solar panels along the sloped portion. That never happened, for various reasons, although I'd be interested to know whether any plans to add the plates have been floating around as of late. This must be one of the earliest "green" skyscraper designs, at least in NYC, no?

HomeInMyShoes · #2 Posted **May 8, 2007, 10:26 PM**

Apparently...Ripe for Solar...the building owner "isn't sunny on solar." I wonder what the story behind that is. Too much sunburn as a child and now he looks like death warmed over? Just plain hates the environment? Worried about capital investment actually paying off over the long run?

What's up Mort? We want to know. Seriously.

1ajs · #3 Posted **May 10, 2007, 9:17 PM**

oye acountants are the problem.....

Mike K. · #4 Posted **May 14, 2007, 6:02 AM**

Dylan originally brought the solar plans to my attention and I was curious why the owners chose not to invest in the technology but I wasn't aware that the debate was as recent as it is. IMO regardless of cost for the panels (it can't be that much, can it?), having "Citi's" name plastered across the world's media streams would encourage the company to help pay for some of the installation (even if they don't own the building).

Snashcan · #5 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 8:01 PM**

I heard it was because the building was originally planned to have the slopped face in another direction, but at the last minute had to rotate the design and made solar panels inefficent

Austin55 · #6 Posted **Oct 11, 2007, 2:47 AM**

actaully,the sloped roof was origanly going to look like the sloped roof on Smurfit stone in chicago,cutting into the builing and rising into a piont.

Matty · #7 Posted **Oct 11, 2007, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snashcan

I heard it was because the building was originally planned to have the slopped face in another direction, but at the last minute had to rotate the design and made solar panels inefficent

You could still generate a fair amount of power. While it's not a ton of direct sunlight, you'd get a good 3-4 hours of high effeciency, plus a few hours of more "ambient" light hitting the panels. Probably enough to turn a nice profit.

Swede · #8 Posted **Oct 11, 2007, 5:01 PM**

The slope does face south (ok, Manhattan South not true South), so it is facing the right way for good efficiency. With Solar panels getting more and more efficient, there's probably never been a better time to install ones than now. Like Mike said, it could be worth it in PR-value alone.

rapid_business · #9 Posted **Oct 14, 2007, 3:06 AM**

/\ as the majority of LEED buildings are these days it seems.

beanhead4529 · #10 Posted **Oct 14, 2007, 5:00 AM**

also, with the strongest sunshine in the middle of the day, the panels would be most efficient right around the time where demand is highest, and therefore electricity is most expensive.

i'm suprised owners wouldn't take advantage of a potential free (no fuel, low maintainance despite the cost of buying/installing the panels themselves) power generator in the middle of the most power hungry city in the us

Dac150 · #11 Posted **Oct 14, 2007, 7:16 PM**

/\/\/\
It wouldn't be to the point where it would make that big of a difference, so they must figure its not worth the time nor the money.

rapid_business · #12 Posted **Oct 14, 2007, 7:47 PM**

Yeah, but with the whole green push as of late, you'd think the PR for them would be worth the cost of doing it alone.

johannes867 · #13 Posted **May 20, 2008, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanhead4529

also, with the strongest sunshine in the middle of the day, the panels would be most efficient right around the time where demand is highest, and therefore electricity is most expensive.

mmmh assuming that one side of the building is 50 meters long there is a total area of 70 x 50 m = 3500 m² available.
With 8 m² per 1 kW_peak there would be a peak-power of 440 kW.
I think thats no much compared to the total electricity-demand of the whole building. But better than nothin!

JDRCRASH · #14 Posted **May 20, 2008, 6:25 PM**

Citigroup Center is the Triangle roofed building, no? I think Solar Panels would be great!

antinimby · #15 Posted **May 21, 2008, 7:27 AM**

PR for who? Citigroup no longer owns the building.

rapid_business · #16 Posted **May 21, 2008, 7:41 PM**

Then for whoever owns the building perhaps? I wonder what the cost-benefit analysis would look like?

Lecom · #17 Posted **May 21, 2008, 8:06 PM**

PR would only make sense if the building changes tenants and goes on market. Then, solar panels would be a great excuse for the owner to jack up the prices. "Look, we're cutting edge and environmentally conscious! Pay us more!"

rapid_business · #18 Posted **May 21, 2008, 8:29 PM**

/\ Sounds about right.