Ruthie Braunstein/The Hoya The solar panels atop the Intercultural Center is the largest installation of photovoltaic cells in the world. The Edward Bunn, S.J., Intercultural Center looms above Red Square like a modern beast thrown into the wrong era. It collides with the old-style architecture of Copley Hall and White-Gravenor, and is the backdrop to bustling activity in Red Square between classes, hosting last-minute coffee drinkers, smokers and gossippers. The windowless stairwells fill with waves of people rushing to French or economics. It is ICC, a hotbed of campus architectural rumors.

ICC’s uniqueness lies in its 1984 birth, when it was constructed with 10 solar panels on the roof to partially power the building’s lighting and heating. And, contrary to campus legend, the panels are still in operation.

Kathleen Hosie (SFS ’01) is just one student misinformed about the ICC panels. “The solar panels are completely impractical because they can’t even be used with the airplanes flying overhead,” she said.

Students such as Hosie believe the panels were painted over because they blinded pilots by reflecting sunlight upwards like a mirror as planes descend into Ronald Reagan National Airport. According to University Architect Alan Brangman, “there is no truth to that [rumor] whatsoever. They’ve never been painted over and they’re still working just as much today.”

Brangman has no idea where the rumor originated, except that when students see the panels being routinely cleaned and scraped, they might mistake it for new coats of paint.

Not only are the panels still in commission, they operate at an impressive level. ICC’s 3,318 square meters of active area remains the largest single-installation solar panel in the world, offsetting about $45,000 in electrical bills annually.

“Typically, the electrical bill for that building will be substantially less than what it is for other buildings,” Brangman said.

Labelled the “Demonstration Project,” Congress and the Department of Energy fully funded the $10 million building as an experiment to test additional sources of power during the energy crisis of the 1980s, when imported crude oil prices were expected to escalate to $80 per barrel, according to the architect’s office.

The mystery behind the building is evident, as even some Georgetown tour guides have the story confused. Some onlookers may see the strategic 35 degree tilt of the roof as simply a modern architectural design.

Georgetown is not the only university to employ alternate, money-saving methods of power generation. According to the National Wildlife Federation, Dartmouth saves $75,000 annually by burning energy-efficient lights in dorm rooms, and $10,000 annually by creating fertilizer with kitchen food waste. New toilets and water fixtures at Columbia University save $235,000 annually and water-saving showerheads at Brown save $45,000 annually.

Solar panels come in three forms: solar water heating systems, solar air heating systems and solar electric photovoltaic systems, the latter of which Georgetown uses, according to the architect’s office.

Invented in the 1950s, photovoltaics is the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity through the “photovoltaic effect.” According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the photons, or particles of solar energy that compose sunlight, hit the panels and are either reflected, absorbed or pass through, depending on the photon’s wavelength. The energy of those photons that are absorbed is transferred to an electron of a cell within the panel system. There are 321,408 cells in the Georgetown panels. The new energy of the electron allows it to escape its normal position and join current in an electrical circuit, which is then used as electricity.

According to the architect’s office, the ICC array has generated over 3.5 million Kilowatt-hours since its 1984 beginning – an estimated 40 percent of the building’s power needs. However, the panels deteriorate continuously. Metal oxidizes and a film of grime bakes onto the surface, so the efficiency and amount of sunlight able to penetrate always decreases.

“It’s not unlike the aging process,” Brangman said. “The older you get, you just can’t run as fast as you used to.”

Most buildings have a life span of 30 to 50 years. Brangman suspects that in 10 years, when ICC is 25 years old, the photovoltaic system will be re-examined and possibly replaced. After all, technology by then may have created panels that work twice as well.

“If the efficiency level ever hits the point where the maintenance costs are higher, I think we would need to look at replacing the roof, but I think we’re still a ways away from that,” Brangman said.

That point remains in the distant future because the panels are relatively effort free. The photovoltaic panel system turns itself on routinely every day when the sunlight reaches a certain threshold, and then turns itself off at night when power is typically not needed anyway. It correlates with the patterns of daily life. According to the architect’s office, the system has no moving parts that could wear out or break down, generates no noise, is trouble-free, hands-off, uses no fuel and creates no pollution.

Despite their relative ease, however, solar panels are not widely used, since America was put back into state of complacency regarding energy.

“Subsequently, [America] didn’t run out of petroleum fuels,” Brangman said. Because the cost of the ICC construction was free to the university, it was an obvious benefit. However, when the price of oil and energy didn’t rise to the expected level, the cost of another photovoltaic building under university funds would only begin showing savings after 20 years.

Although unnecessary in light of more plentiful oil supplies today, ICC’s energy-conscious purpose is popular with some students.

“Considering what it does for the environment, it’s worth it. They blend in with the building well and it’s not something you notice,” Caroline Currie (COL ’04) said.

Not all agree that ICC’s modern facade suits Georgetown’s picturesque campus, however.

“Aesthetically, is ICC how we want the whole campus to look? Can you see Healy and Copley with solar panels on the roof?” Brangman said.

During construction, architects attempted to incorporate the panels into the building rather than simply place them on top in an attempt to offset some of the apprehensions about aesthetics.

“I think it looks great. You know how you kind of get used to something and then you like it. The building blends in well with Red Square – it’s very functional,” Jesse Levinson (SFS ’01) said.

Other students are not as pleased, ranking the ICC as one of the ugliest buildings on campus.

“Modern architecture should not be on this campus,” said Hosie.

Any building housing solar panels must be unique in itself, such as the four-tired ICC, and Brangman does not foresee any new campus constructions able to accommodate another solar powered endeavor.

“In producing electricity, bigger is better, so to speak. If you look at the size of our planned buildings, more will be long and narrow, not wide like the ICC,” Brangman said.

Although a one-time effort of the 1980s to help an energy crisis that never escalated to the point anticipated, Brangman still views the project as a success.

“The dollars that are saved in the process can then be put towards other programs,” he said.