Perry Central students showcase PCAP energy projects proposing solar, wind and electric-bus options

At a Perry Central Com Schools Corp board meeting, students from the district’s PCAP (Pathways to Careers and Postsecondary Success) program presented four applied projects on school energy and transportation options, offering cost estimates, projected savings and site recommendations.

The solar-presenting team described two system options: a full‑scale installation they estimated at about $715,000 with annual savings of roughly $58,000 and a payback in the neighborhood of 12 years, and a smaller system they estimated at about $84,000 with a payback of roughly 5–11 years. "And, over the 20 year span of the solar panels, we would get above 1000000 dollars," said Colton Foster, identified in the meeting as a student presenter. The students said grant caps at the Indiana Office of Energy Development (they cited a $50,000 per‑application maximum) and federal tax credits would affect net cost and recommended the district consider either a pilot small system or pursue larger financing and partner grants.

A separate group tested wind-power feasibility and concluded that Perry County’s hilly terrain makes large-scale wind farms impractical. Student presenters recommended, at most, two turbines to serve the school and electric buses if the district chose to pursue wind, while also citing noise and wildlife disturbance as tradeoffs and offering rough per‑turbine cost estimates of about $86,000–$173,000 with seven‑year payback scenarios under their grant assumptions.

Students also presented a fuel comparison for school heating and operations, showing current propane costs of about $39,600 per year and projected natural‑gas annual costs of about $29,000–$32,000 but noting substantial retrofit and pipeline installation expenses. The team recommended staying with propane in the near term because of the district’s existing tanks and the capital cost of converting boilers and installing lines.

On transportation, a student team compared diesel and electric school buses. The presenters noted lower operating emissions for electric buses and cited federal programs that can reimburse up to 50% for two vehicles. Their scenario would sell one current diesel bus, add two electric buses and install chargers; they identified significant upfront infrastructure and battery‑replacement costs and urged the district to evaluate grant timing and total lifecycle costs.

Board members and staff asked follow-up questions and encouraged teachers and students to continue refining cost assumptions with district staff. District staff invited teachers to consult further with staff experts about feasibility and next steps.

The presentations were framed as classroom work tied to standards and authentic, real‑world audiences; staff praised the students for public speaking and practical analysis. The board did not take formal action tied to specific projects during the meeting.