Disclaimer: My company, GreenMark, was involved with the solar energy project that is the topic of today's blog.

It has been a week since the groundbreaking for the utility scale solar and energy efficiency project at the MSP airport.

The program includes over 3mw of pv solar panels installed atop the main terminal parking ramps, nearly 8,000 new LED lighting units in all 4 parking ramps, new plug-ins for electric vehicles and a 3-year public education and marketing program to inform consumers of the benefits of energy management and renewables.

The public response to this advancement in economic and environmental stewardship has been joyful. As leader of the small agency that initiated this project, that makes us happy. In particular, the MAC was a delight to work with—determined, tough, fair and committed to doing the right thing.

A few cynics doth protest too much. They charge the effort is meaningless and is a waste of money.

But facts are facts.

The project is the largest integrated energy efficiency/renewable energy airport project in the world. It will deliver up to 20% of the peak load demand for electricity at the nation's 14th largest airport. It will increase solar installations in our state by a full 20%.

And it will make money.

A letter-to-the-editor in the StarTribune suggests the effort is a money loser, claiming the project costs $25 million but only generates $10 million in revenue.

This is incorrect.

The solar project was carefully structured to achieve positive return for the MAC and Minnesota taxpayers in each year of the project. The MAC would not have allowed the project to proceed without a "net" economic benefit.

With a cost of $25 million, the debt service on the project is paid with project revenues every year with a little left over, so that at the end of the payment schedule, the airport and its customers will have made back the full cost and added well over $10 million that it would not have had if the project was never built.

In other words, this is an energy project that makes money.

That is becoming less rare nowadays. Recently, The state Public Utilities Commission approved a 100mw solar project over a competitor natural gas project on a straight up cost comparison. Solar beat natural gas on cost. That is the first time anyone can recall that happening anywhere.

Solar does not require the immense capital investment required of fossil fuel fired power plants. And frequently, solar is used where it is generated on site, so stress on the distribution system is reduced.

I've mentioned before that over 70% of the growth of energy generation between now and 2030 will be renewables. Coal and nuclear are economic laggards. They are on their way out.

Meanwhile solar innovation such as the type demonstrated by the MAC, will continue its inexorable march to broad acceptance thanks to the determined efforts of long-time advocates who read the tea leaves decades ago and are just now beginning to enjoy a cup of the fresh brew.