Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br /> <br /> 2 <br />Sinclair and Turner said there is a landfill site called Hickory Ridge near Atlanta that has <br />a flexible TPO plastic cap with flexible solar panels laid down on top. It cost $7 million <br />($5 million with a $2 million grant). This would be a possible solution as it would not <br />cause settling and it would flex with the settling the might occur. The efficiency of the <br />panels is less than for the rigid panels. More exploration is needed to ensure that the <br />plastic cap would be durable enough to walk/drive on, and to make sure it would not be <br />susceptible to damage by animals. <br /> <br />There are several ways to pay for and develop solar power systems. Third party sales <br />are prohibited in NC. The owner of the panels cannot sell the electricity generated. “Use- <br />all” or “Sell-all” (sell all energy generated to Duke Power) or net metering (use as much <br />power as you can and then sell the remainder to Duke Power) arrangements are all <br />possible. The use can be changed in the future based on need if more facilities are <br />developed out there. The EAB is uncertain whether there are facilities nearby that could <br />take advantage of this power (Orange County Animal Shelter might be one). <br /> <br />A developer could also lease the land from the County and then operate his or her own <br />system. This is the most straightforward way to go as all the risk goes to the developer. <br /> <br />Community solar is also possible, where individual investors buy into and own the <br />system, and lease the land or roof space to install it. This was done on the Carrboro <br />Farmers Market (~$40-$50,000). This can be done less formally by allowing the panels <br />to be sponsored by community members, but owned by the property owner. These <br />options are sometimes desirable for those who want to invest in solar, but whose land or <br />roof space is shady or otherwise inappropriate for solar development. <br /> <br />Sinclair and Turner said the EAB is interested in taking the appropriate next steps in <br />exploring the possibilities for landfill solar development with Orange County. Their <br />presentation is available upon request. <br /> <br />Brennan Bouma offered some of the history of Orange County staff’s exploration into <br />solar development on the landfill and other sites including the previous interests of <br />Cypress Creek Renewables, Strata Solar, and UNC. Bouma offered to continue <br />conversations with the EAB on this issue. <br /> <br />V. CFE Facebook Page – Gronback and O’Connor provided an overview and <br />demonstration of how Facebook and other social media sites could work in practice to <br />communicate with the public and other stakeholders about CFE activities, and how these <br />sites can be used to share information about environmental issues of interest to <br />residents of Orange County. <br /> <br />CFE members feel social media (not just Facebook) is an important communication tool <br />to make the work of the Commission more visible, especially to the young residents of <br />the county. There is also an interest in hearing from county residents since many people <br />do not have time to attend meetings. <br /> <br />The CFE discussed the need for some internal protocol (or code of conduct) for <br />structuring and using these media, reflecting the Orange County Social Media Policy. It <br />was explained that creating and maintaining an official social media presence as an <br />appointed Orange County commission, implies that statements made on the site are <br />officially sanctioned. This can be difficult to manage if the site is structured so that <br />anyone can post comments. The Orange County Social Media Policy guides the creation <br />of these sites so that they avoid any foreseeable issues.