Recent Comment
Share
A new billboard is going up in the middle of Times Square that will be powered with 16 wind turbines and 64 solar panels instead of the usual electricity. When it's windy and sunny, the billboard will be able to generate enough electricity to light up.
Ricoh Co. of Japan is setting up the 35,000-pound billboard 55 feet above street level on the corner of 7th Avenue and 42nd Street. The technology company, best known for its cameras and printers, estimates that the electricity normally drawn by such a billboard would power six homes annually. The fact that it will come from solar and wind power will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 18 tons every year.
It's not the first solar-powered billboard in the U.S. Last year, Pacific Gas and Electric set up a billboard in San Francisco powered by 20 PV panels. The Ricoh billboard in Times Square is much bigger, and it is employing a wind technology not seen in its west coast predecessor – vertical, cylindrical turbines. These turbines will serve as the billboard’s main power source; ninety per cent of the billboard's power will come from them and the rest from the attached solar panels.
The $3-million billboard is scheduled to light up on December 4. Ricoh is depending entirely on renewable energy to light up the sign and has no backup generator in place – if there is no wind or sun, the sign will go dark.
Via: New York Times
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Kris, November 16, 2008
The fact that it will come from solar and wind power will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 18 tons every year.
makes the whole project sound a little rediculous... Building a giant white illuminated sign that's on 24/7 (or for as long as it's powered) simply can't reduce CO2 emmissions: there will always be a carbon trail (and a big one in this case, I bet) for the manufacturing, installation, etc., processes. It just seems ironic to claim a useless giant light source is reducing emmissions; far fewer emmissions would have been created by not building it at all.
Of course, there is the `advertising eco-tech' factor, which is arguably more important in this particular case.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Skyler, November 16, 2008
Also, lighting floodlights on an otherwise passive sign doesn't sound as impressive as an active LED sign. If the power goes out, the sign isn't black, it's just not lit up.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Todd, November 16, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Gorgo, November 17, 2008
If Ricoh really wants to make a green statement with credibility, the CEO of Ricoh should sprinkle dog shit on his breakfast cereal.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mark Hallee, November 17, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Clinch, November 17, 2008
Using renewable energy for something completely unnecessary isn't green at all.
If the purpose of this was some sort of publicity stunt to promote renewable energy, then I wouldn't have as big a problem with this, but what they're doing just seems like greenwashing.
If they just used a paper billboard, that was directly solar powered (i.e. you can see it from the sunlight that reflects directly off it), and they used the solar panels and wind turbines to partially power the building the billboard is on, I'd be much more impressed.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Karkus, November 17, 2008
Although still not as good as getting rid of the sign altogether and using that renewable energy for something else, this is still a step in the right direction.
Now, if they had put up a new sign and power it with clean energy, then that would NOT be progress.
And even though I hate bright displays like that, think about your neighborhood and work place. Think about all those porch lights, street lights, office buildings lit up at night, etc. How are they any better than the TimesSquare sign?
(and no, these so called security light really don't deter crime....see for example
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/09/light_and_crime.html
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
From the article: