Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spanish City Sets Up Solar Cemetery

Posted by samzenpus on from the everyone-likes-a-tan dept.

A Spanish city has found an unusual place to generate renewable energy — solar panels in the cemetery. Santa Coloma de Gramanet has installed 462 solar panels over its multi-story mausoleums. The plan was met with some derision at first, but thanks to a successful marketing campaign, the solar cemetery has public support. It has been such a success that there are already plans to install more panels in an effort to triple the amount of power generated. The installation cost 720,000 euros (£608,000) but will keep about 62 tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere every year, said Esteve Serret, a director of Conste-Live Energy, the company that runs the cemetery and also works in renewable energy. I'm sure a solar powered zombie movie is already in the works.

43 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Aw, c'mon by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sure a solar powered zombie movie is already in the works.

    Yeah, but I'm sure they'll figure out a way to incorporate the solar panels into weapons. Zombie BBQ!

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:Aw, c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      the first (and so far only) post redundant?

      they will give mod points out to anyone here

    2. Re:Aw, c'mon by troll8901 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's called "Zom-Be-Que". In place of sunlight, you can also use pyrotechnic flares, through the sparks don't last long.

      I also heard that another cemetery (burial site) is incorporating dynamos for generating clean energy. Not sure how they power the generators, though.

    3. Re:Aw, c'mon by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if brains are considered a renewable energy source?

    4. Re:Aw, c'mon by PDX · · Score: 1

      Undead hamsters from the pet cemetery of course. The trick is to wrap them like mummys in stretchable fabric so they can keep on the hamster wheels indefinitely. "If you have any office zombie cubical fatalities, to motivate them use fresh free range vegan brains."

      Quote from Martha Stewart's guide to office productivity.

  2. Doubly green by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 4, Funny

    will keep about 62 tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere every year

    And the residents also cut their CO2 footprint by about 2 tons per year, simply by not breathing.

    1. Re:Doubly green by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      I must had been not keeping up with the times. Last time I checked, power is not yet measured in tonnes of CO2 per year.

    2. Re:Doubly green by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, CO2 footprints have nothing to do with power.

    3. Re:Doubly green by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It is probably done this way to justify the fact that it costs more then any energy it can produce if on the open market and put up against traditional sources.

      This sort of really gets to me, it seems like people can't even do math any more. I have a neighbor who was convinced into buying solar panels because he wouldn't have to pay the utility company again. It turns out that not paying the utility company for electricity again is going to cost him roughly 30% more then if he paid them. And that estimate is considering spike in electric rate to al least keep up with inflation and not counting the interest on the loan because he couldn't pay for it all at once. He now drives his dodge diesel to the store with pride knowing that he is saving the environment, well at least when he doesn't have the power programmer set to the highest levels so he can rip around like he's in a hurry.

    4. Re:Doubly green by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This sort of really gets to me, it seems like people can't even do math any more. I have a neighbor who was convinced into buying solar panels because he wouldn't have to pay the utility company again. It turns out that not paying the utility company for electricity again is going to cost him roughly 30% more then if he paid them.

      You assume that "not paying the utility company" has zero value to your neighbor. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe he gains personal gratification by being "off the grid" that more than makes up for the 30% premium. After all people buy expensive cars that get them where they are going just as well as a cheap car would - they do it because they get other less tangible benefits from their cars, benefits that they feel are worth paying a premium for. There are probably an infinite number of such examples, it is part of the reason we have markets with a variety of choices rather than single suppliers.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Doubly green by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      ...especially in Spain, where up to a third of the electricity is currently produced by wind.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Doubly green by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      It turns out that not paying the utility company for electricity again is going to cost him roughly 30% more then if he paid them at current rates.

      Fixed.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    7. Re:Doubly green by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, I didn't assume anything, I talk to the neighbor and he didn't realize how much it would cost until after he started paying for it. He did it because he thought it would be cheaper and found that it wouldn't be when he had to pay for it.

      Other people might think the way your described, I have even been known to go further across town and buy something that costs a couple dollars more just to avoid giving money to a store I didn't like for whatever reason. I have even driven 10 miles to get gas at a station selling it for 5 cents cheaper to make the point. However, people doing things for ulterior reasons isn't really the point, the point was that the shit costs so much more then regular energy that they stopped comparing the two and end up measuring it in the costs of emotional issues instead. And as long as it works, expect more and more of it. As long as someone like my neighbor will concentrate on the BS spewed instead of the actual costs, it will always be more then regular energy.

    8. Re:Doubly green by rudeboy1 · · Score: 1

      Anymore, the power company in your area may possibly have a green energy plan. Here in Indianapolis, the local power company will hook you up to wind power in 25% increments of your total power consumption for a small per KWh charge. I use about 750 KWh a month, and I think it costs me an extra 4 or 5 bucks for 100% wind power, which I'm happy to pay.

      This means that the only real reason to go solar is to get off the grid, and stop paying for electricity altogether. The "save the Earth" drive is taken out of the equation, and all you have left is a general desire to get "free" power, with an entirely too expensive means of achieving that desire.

      Since I live in the midwest, where the solar rate isn't fantastic, I'm looking at pretty much covering my entire roof with solar panels to get the power I need. To the tune of about $40,000. That's a third of the price of my house. If solar companies want to stay in business in a world where green power is becoming more common at the service provider level, the costs are going to need to come WAY down.

      I've heard the prez (elect) talk about subsidies, which is cool, but if the purpose is to "reduce our dependance on foreign oil", any subsidy given to a person getting a solar rig in an area that provides cheap wind power is taking tax money for no reason. I'd love to have a little (or a lot of) government help in going solar, but the fact is, I can't justify it.

      As more "green" opportunities come to market, mostly translating to electricity usage (electric cars, electrically powered instant water heaters, etc.) I can see a very real and very near reality where I'm powering all aspects of my life on green power. It would be awesome if I could do it for free, (net the cost difference after paying the premium for the technology), and I suppose it would benefit the economy as a whole if no one was paying for home electricity, to power their automobile, heat their home/water, etc., but while the technology exists/is very close at hand to do this, the singularity where it becomes attainable by the average american is significantly further away.

      --
      Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
    9. Re:Doubly green by rudeboy1 · · Score: 1

      Before anyone asks, true to my sig, I just got done writing the prez elect and my senator about this, having expanded upon the idea.

      What are 4 of the biggest concerns in America right now? Arguably: The economy, the environment, dependance on foreign oil, and the war(s).

      If we were to take the money currently being used for corporate bailouts, and the money used to secure oil-producing nations, without having exact numbers to look at, I would estimate we would have enough money to at least significantly subsidize the building of a nationwide free energy infrastructure. If every American had free electricity, and was able to afford an electric car, we would solve all of the above concerns in one move (if you are of the position that the war in Iraq boils down to oil, which is always a topic for debate I suppose).

      The last economic stimulus check I got was for roughly $500. I spend that much in electricity, natural gas, and gas for my car every two months or so. What would it do for the economy if every home in America was essentially given a $250 stimulus check EVERY MONTH? I'm thinking that would be the end of the economic crisis. Also, our personal oil demand would be trivial (used only as a backup in cars like the Volt), thus eliminating our need for foreign oil completely. All of a sudden our priority in the middle East changes dramatically (to be fair, I think we'd still need to pull out gracefully... We don't need another Iran Contra). And, we're talking a MASSIVE reduction in carbon footprint. No more of this 10% reduction in fossil fuels. I'm thinking more like 70 or 80. (Again, without any hard numbers to really look at).

      I'd much rather support an initiative to give the country free power than I would bail out Citi financial, which is about to spend a few hundred million in taxpayer money to put their logo on the new Mets stadium. But that's just me.

      --
      Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
    10. Re:Doubly green by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Current rates, whatever, it is still more expensive then traditional energy. Our current rates just increased by 50% before he got into the mess. I know there are pipe dreams about forcing utility providers to pay more for their energy meaning it will cost the consumer more so they will use less but that isn't a practical reality. I don't know why people think that artificially raising energy rates means that the alternative energy is cheaper, it just means that energy all around is more expensive.

      BTW, it doesn't really matter, we have done some small calculations and even the current rates being adjusted by 3% per years, it is still going to cost more bar some obama stroke of genius in which they decide to somehow charge everyone more of electricity and gas. It was energy prices that showed the flaws in the logic of the housing mess that led to this so called financial crisis we are in. Any politician attempting to increase costs of utilities better have a damn good reasons or prepare to resign. It's the one thing that effect everyone- they won't be reelected.

    11. Re:Doubly green by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The problem with a plan like that is that it will take 5-10 or more years to start to implement properly and at least 25 on top of that. Roughly 6% of the registered non-commercial vehicles are replaced each year and that's when the economy is up. Then when you figure population growth, vehicles replaced because of accidents and so on, you start seeing the real replacement numbers shrink quite a bit.

      The other big problem is paying for it. You think there would be a $250/month stimulus check by giving free electricity, but the amount of taxes needed to implement something like that would take more away then you could see back. Taking from the rich isn't a good idea either, it is the rich that drive the availability of jobs which means that when they are broke, so will everyone looking for new jobs. That's not something you want to do when your trying to rebuild the economy.

      Now I know you said you didn't have any hard numbers and were shooting from the hips here, but too many people are doing that and seem to have some dream state that isn't in line with reality. Something like that simply isn't possible.

  3. Some might prefer it. by Filbertish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know for a fact that my grandfather who passed away recently would have paid extra to be buried in a cemetery that generates clean energy.

  4. next up by ZeroNullVoid · · Score: 1

    Now we recycle the graves.
    We convert the bodies of the corps to pure energy using antibodies.

    1. Re:next up by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If physics worked that way, you would be jailed for being a weapon of mass destruction the next time you would catch flu. BTW, this would make a nice plot for a dystopian SF movie. "Soylent Power es gente!"

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:next up by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      We could also just liquefy the dead and then feed them intravenously to the living. It would give our society a boost of machine-level efficiency.

    3. Re:next up by ZeroNullVoid · · Score: 1

      antibodies ~ antimatter

      Get it...

  5. Does it scale? by Bazman · · Score: 1

    Can you ramp this up to produce a solar-powered crematorium?

    1. Re:Does it scale? by TheEmptySet · · Score: 1

      Hey. With enough rockets to get there the Sun is already the ultimate crematorium. It might be a little tricky to recover the ashes though.

    2. Re:Does it scale? by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1 - Throw coffin with 6 tiny rockets (N,S,W,E,U,D).
      2 - Activate algorithm "every hour activate rocket away from sun for five seconds".
      3 - Wait.

    3. Re:Does it scale? by TRex1993 · · Score: 1

      Actually, who needs a direct hit? If the sun has enough gravity to keep the planets in orbit around it, I'm pretty sure even a "near miss" will suck in the stray coffin, sooner rather than later. You only need absolute precision if you are delivering a stellar bomb to reignite a dying star.

    4. Re:Does it scale? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Not only that, the energetic (think delta-v) requirements are outrageous as well.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Does it scale? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Have you ever noticed Earth "sucking" a near-Earth asteroid in any of the recent "near misses"? Perhaps it has something to do with that thing called "conservation of energy"?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Does it scale? by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      A prototype Scheffler reflector is being constructed in India for use in a solar crematorium. This 50 square meter reflector will generate temperatures of 700 deg C (1,292 deg F) and displace 200-300 kg of firewood used per cremation.

      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace#Modern_uses)

      As compared to "normal" cremation where the corpse is held at 760 deg to 1150 deg C (1400 deg to 2100 deg F) for about 2 hours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crematorium#Burning_and_ashes_collection)

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    7. Re:Does it scale? by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      Kind of like Archimedes' death ray. What a way to go.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  6. Just pretending to save the planet by uid7306m · · Score: 1

    Of course it's crazy. If they were really wanting to be useful, instead of pretending, they'd spend the money on any one of 100 better schemes.

    Sheesh!

    Dig a hole and fill it with wood. Invest in CO2 collection technology. Wind farms. Fusion research. All *kinds* of things are better than throwing money at little parasols on graves that pretend to be a solution.

    1. Re:Just pretending to save the planet by vertinox · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point. The key benefit of solar energy is that it can be micro-generation.

      You don't need a centralized massive power plant if everyone had a solar panel on their roof.

      This also helps with the issue of central point of failures and power line distribution. If energy can be gathered locally, then you aren't wasting efficiency on power lines.

      So yes, overall its just a drop in the bucket, but if over time if you have a couple million drops then it adds up.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  7. How much CO2 was produced making these? by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 2

    I wonder how much pollution/CO2 was 'pumped in to the atmosphere' when making these panels. Presumably from what I've read on solar panels, it was probably around 620 Tonnes, as the general figure is it takes 10 years to recoup the enegery expended in making these things. How long are these panels expected to last?

    1. Re:How much CO2 was produced making these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      most panels last about 30 years at least. then they start to work less and less effectively. but the raw materials can be recycled to save energy.

      also new solar panels based on LCD technology can recoup the energy used to make them in 8 months, even in the not always so sunny Germany.
      they aren't as efficient as silicon solar panels but they are MUCH MUCH cheaper.

  8. Sounds like by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 3, Funny

    a good use of otherwise dead space.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  9. Please explain to me... by SpeedyGonz · · Score: 1

    Why on earth does a first post gets a "redundant" score?

  10. Re:Cost benefit is crazy by paugq · · Score: 1

    Probably 75% of the cost of the installation is due to the panels being installed on top of a museum, which would require special care.

  11. Re:Spain's a shithole by armada · · Score: 1

    Don't look now, but the US is well on it's way to becoming a "3rd world shithole". Just research a little about what actually killed Ecuador's economy and you will find it was the government "printing" so much money that it became, borderline, worthless. We are doing it at $700 blillion increments. Judging from your post, you won't know what the word research is nor would you ever grasp anything relating to monetary devaluation. /trollbait

    --
    "This message was sent from an Apple //GS"
  12. Re:What next... by Larryish · · Score: 1

    ...nude nun calendars...

    I find your ideas intriguing and wish to receive your newsletter.

  13. Solar Zombies by EvilVassago · · Score: 1

    I'm sure a solar powered zombie movie is already in the works. Yeah, but I'm sure they'll figure out a way to incorporate the solar panels into weapons. Zombie BBQ!

    I for one welcome our new Solar Powered Zombie overlords...

  14. Re:Gravespace by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Wait for the next features.

    Solar powered LCD headstones.

    "Yes... it's wonderful, isn't it?"

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  15. Steve Freeling by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    "You son of a bitch. You moved the cemetery, but you left the bodies, didn't you? You son of a bitch, you left the bodies and you only moved the solar panels. You only moved the solar panels! Why?! Why?!"

    Yeah, doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  16. Not very cost effective by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    Assuming their 62 tonnes per year figure is actually correct (almost certainly optimistic) and their published pricetag gets spread over a twenty year service life of the equipment and the 3.15 to one conversion between a barrel of oil and tonnes of CO2 emissions and it doesn't make much sense unless you assume oil will average close to 200 euros per barrel over those years. Vary it a up bit to account for maintaince costs or down a bit if you assume a longer service life without major repairs.

    And that is the problem with every 'green' project I have ever seen real numbers on. They aren't green, they are dumb. And don't even start in on bringing the cost down because that never happens. As soon as an 'alternative' source of energy begins to get practical the greens decide it isn't green anymore. They love alternatives that allow them to appear superiour and scarf up grant money but never support a new source of energy when it starts looking like it might actually, ya know, supply energy. Hydro is now evil. As commercial wind farms are being developed the chorus of complaint is already tuning up. There are even protests over geothermal! Protests are already underway over large scale solar installations. None of which makes sense until you understand that to a green, people are the problem and any solution that doesn't involve dismantling the industrial base that allows such an 'unnatural' population to be killed off by famine isn't going to satisfy the environmental movement. So forget appeasing them by finding some magic green energy source that will allow us to continue on our present course, they ain't buying the whole premise of Civilization itself.

    The solution has been staring us in the face for almost half a century but for political reasons it is out of bounds. We must ignore the bleatings of the self hating greens and secure ourselves enough energy to carry us over until we finally perfect fusion. We must stop handing over huge sacks of cash to people who want nothing more than to kill every last one of us. We need to build nukes like our lives depended on it. Because they do. It wont just be our lifestyle that gets crimped when we start running out of energy, we can't sustain anywhere the number of people on this planet without abundant energy.

    --
    Democrat delenda est