Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Email This Story
Share This Story
Reader Comments (23)
Image Gallery (1)
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
The cul-de-sac of 40 small houses is everything you might expect in American suburbia. Minivans sit parked in perfectly proportioned driveways. Clumps of kids ride bikes around the neighborhood. Dogs bark behind backyard fences. A nearby four-lane drones in the background. What is not so obvious is that this tiny community offers a peephole to the future -- a future in which homes will generate and conserve as much energy as they require.
"If we continue to construct the same kind of inefficient buildings that put high demands on the power grid, we will have to build additional supply-side infrastructure to serve them. What we need is to fundamentally change the way we approach the construction and operation of our buildings. If done right, we, as a nation, can have our cake and eat it too."
-- Patrick Hughes, ORNL, buildings technology research program
Most of the time, even resident Kim Charles does not notice the solar panels on her roof, the whisper of her SEER 17 heat pump water heater, the airtight, moisture-managed construction of structural insulated panels, the integrated design that allows most of the home's plumbing to reside within one wall, saving precious energy.
What Charles does notice is a power bill that amounts to less than a daily cup of coffee. Thanks to a 15 cent-per-kilowatt-hour credit paid by the Tennessee Valley Authority for electricity piped back to the power grid, her meter literally runs backwards on sunny days. In 2006, she paid an average of 41 cents per day for electricity.
Charles's home is among five in this Habitat for Humanity community located in Lenoir City, Tenn., and outfitted with the latest in energy-saving technologies as part of a research project designed and implemented by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and co-funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The project serves as a linchpin in a broad array of research programs at ORNL that strive to address America's most energy-inefficient sector: buildings.
Appetite Control
Americans work, live and play in boxes of brick, wood, glass, steel and concrete-artificial environments typically kept at constant temperature and lighting levels regardless of season or time of day and notwithstanding the presence or departure of the occupants. The results are obvious. In the United States, buildings command 40% of the nation's overall energy use, ranking above both industry, at 32%, and transportation, at 28%. Buildings demand 71% of domestic electric power in the U.S. and 55% of the nation's natural gas-and produce 43% of U.S. carbon emissions.
"Creating more energy-efficient buildings is not only part of the overall solution but is the number one most cost-effective opportunity to reduce the nation's energy consumption and affect climate change," says Jeff Christian, a buildings technology researcher at ORNL and coordinator of the Habitat for Humanity project. "Yes, we must replace oil with biofuels. Yes, we must pursue other supply-side solutions in an environmentally acceptable manner. But there is enormous potential to reduce energy demand in the buildings sector, and that is by far the cheapest solution if we really want to address this problem."
Because the nearly 5 million commercial buildings and 112 million households use a collective 38.8 quadrillion BTUs of energy each year, curtailing consumption is a tall order but has enormous potential. Space heating and cooling and ventilation demand most of that power, followed closely by lighting, then water heating. Refrigeration, electronics, computers and other items add up to their own significant and growing slice of the energy pie.
Buildings' appetite for energy has been on the rise as a result of natural population growth and related development of homes, apartment complexes, shopping malls, schools, office buildings and healthcare facilities. The amount of energy required for each person occupying those buildings is climbing as well.
Residential floor space per capita in the U.S. is growing, driven by construction of larger homes as well as a decline in the average number of occupants, and the number of power-hungry accoutrements to be found in today's households—from computers to video games to plasma televisions—is on the rise. As a result, residential energy consumption, unless aggressively addressed, is expected to grow 1% per year until 2025.
On the commercial side, energy use is projected to increase an average annual rate of 2% between now and 2025, driven primarily by use of computers and other office equipment. Such growth has placed stress on aging infrastructure, which, coupled with weather incidents that include the feisty tornado and hurricane seasons and record-breaking heat waves of recent years, result in periods of peak demand and power outages that hamper business and boost energy costs. Soaring prices for natural gas and petroleum also contribute to the problem, and experts believe this combination of factors has created a critical mass, driving the nation toward long overdue adoption of energy-efficient technologies and construction practices.
"If we continue to construct the same kind of inefficient buildings that put high demands on the power grid, we will have to build additional supply-side infrastructure to serve them," says Patrick Hughes, leader of ORNL's buildings technology research program. "What we need is to fundamentally change the way we approach the construction and operation of our buildings. If done right, we, as a nation, can have our cake and eat it too. We can spend less going forward on buildings and supply-side infrastructure and vastly reduce the energy consumption and climate changing emissions of the built environment."
ORNL researchers are supporting a DOE initiative to develop affordable, net-zero-energy housing by 2020 and zero-energy commercial buildings by 2025. To achieve this goal, scientists and engineers must break broad new ground in every aspect of building construction and operating practice, Hughes says.
Whenever affordable, these high-performance buildings must be outfitted with renewable sources of energy, minimizing the demand for fossil fuels such as natural gas reserves or coal-fired power plants that supply electricity to the grid. Whether heat pump systems that tap geothermal energy in the ground around the building, solar panels for residential developments such as the Lenoir City Habitat community, combined heat and power systems for commercial buildings or a range of other up-and-coming technologies, the ultimate goal is to construct buildings that can support their own energy needs in a way that is affordable, sustainable and energy efficient.
At ORNL, researchers have been plugging away at the problem since the energy crisis of the 1970s, when U.S. DOE predecessors began funding research into energy efficiency initiatives. Through the work of pioneering researchers, whose message regarding the U.S. environmental impact of energy consumption was not always popular, ORNL demonstrated the potential for energy efficiency long before the term became a buzzword.
Today ORNL participates in a number of programs that intersect with builders and suppliers in an effort to bring new energy-efficient technologies and construction supplies to market. Laboratory researchers have worked with industry to develop and demonstrate energy savings benefits of infrared-blocking pigments used to make dark-colored metal, concrete tile and asphalt shingle roofing that is highly solar reflective, reducing the need for air conditioning. ORNL has worked with industry partners to develop low-cost, more energy-efficient second- and third-generation foam insulation materials.
The Laboratory has developed software tools to assess the potential for moisture-related damage in construction materials; provide energy efficiency ratings for entire buildings; audit homes for weatherization as part of DOE's low-income Weatherization Assistance Program and perform analysis to support the design of more efficient heat pumps and other equipment. In addition, ORNL has helped guide development of standards related to insulation, materials that make up a building's envelope—that is, walls, floor, ceiling, roof, windows and doors-and moisture design.
While government researchers have been focused on energy efficiency for a number of years, the construction industry and homeowners have been slower to embrace change. Pat Love remembers when the Laboratory began promoting the expertise of DOE laboratories to homeowners in 1980. ORNL serves as the lead national laboratory in communications for the Building America program, a public-private partnership that conducts research and sets standards for energy-efficient homes. In this capacity, Love attends a number of trade shows and seminars each year, armed with educational pamphlets on how energy efficiency can be incorporated into building design and construction.
"People did not stop by our booth," she says. "They were suspicious of the government. They did not care about energy efficiency. They cared about cost." In the early 1990s, the program began targeting homebuilders rather than homeowners, offering guidance and training on energy-efficient building practices. That effort produced greater results, but, still, many in the industry have been slow to change their ways.
The past three to four years, however, have marked a detectable shift, driven by the very consumers who largely ignored the Laboratory's early efforts. A new demographic, the baby boomers—armed with disposable incomes, looming retirement and a sense of social responsibility remnant from their former hippie days—is creating demand for "green" construction incorporating energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies and building practices. Love says she receives a steady stream of queries from people looking to renovate or build a home and asking questions about energy efficiency.
Larissa Brass, senior science communicator at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, writes and edits articles for the ORNL Review and other internal and external publications.
This article was adapted from the original that first appeared in the ORNL Review, and was republished with permission from Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
It only "costs" .$.41 per day for electrical.What worthless propoganda!
Who paid for the solar panels? How much did it add to the costs of the House, if its included in the mortgage? Did electricity cost only $.41 per day, while the mortgage is $300 per month higher? Or did the gov't/utility pay the money thereby saving that homeowner and sticking everyone else with the $300 per month extra costs?
It is mindless proganda like the above article which truly insults anyone with n ounce of common sense. Solar costs 3x to 5x the costs of conventional power ($.30 to $.60 per kwh installed solar) I would bet Tennese charges its customers the$.15 rate for electrical power to consumers noted in the article.
The writer is either ignorant or outright dishonest in claiming the power only costs the consumer $.41 per day. Basic economics indicate a different conclusion.
"Tenn. $.15 or about 1/2 to 1/4 the whole sale costs"
should read, "Tenn. $.15 or about 1/2 to 1/4 the costs of solar"
sorry, but I didn't want to confuse Mr. Maupin.
Mr. Maupin said about me that, " your ignorance is only surpassed by your lack of understanding of the subject."
Is it ignorant to point out that someone is paying for the difference between the costs of solar power generation and vastly cheaper sources of power generation?My only contention is that the article is fails to accurately report the costs of electrical power and thereby promotes solar as nearly free when in reality it costs more than anything else we can buy for power. That is completely wrong.
How was I demonstrating any form of ignorance?
I site figures for which the solar ones can be verified on Solar Buzz year end report 2006 that solar costs $.30 to $.60 per kwh for INSTALLED generation. I now further point out that the panels by themselves cost about $.21 per kwh plus delivery and installation.
In contrast, nuke /coal/wind/hydro/natural gas costs are 1/3 to 1/5 the costs - I did not site a source but the you can see those figures batted around here and the whole sale rate of electrical power is often around $.09 kwh and I note that I speculate that the retail rate in Tenn. $.15 or about 1/2 to 1/4 the whole sale costs.
I demonstrated no ignorance. Maybe you need a dictionary.
I will point out that here in California, which is too far away to directly use TVA power, we encourage new homeowners to put up solar panels to liberate themselves for utility bills, while increasing their mortgage payments by $300 to $500 per month. So people claim its a good deal, I differ.
Mr. Berry obviously doesn't unstand the mission of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) or the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I am a resident of Tennessee. I can spell it correctly. The mission of TVA is and has always been to "provide and improve the lives, economies, environment, and commercial development for the citizens in the 5 states along the Tennessee River Valley".
Power produced in the TVA System is also exported to many other states into the National Power Grid. Chances are Mr. Berry receives some of that power. Residents in the TVA System not only received some of the lowest electric rates in the United States, but also enjoy economic development performed by TVA to provide jobs by attacting investment by major corporations to locate throughout the region.
Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi all benefit from the economic attractions made possible by the United States Department of Energy and TVA. Their commitment to stewardship of watershed, wildlife habitat, flood control, river transportation, agricultural land conservation, have prevented the five states from becoming a dust bowl and elevated the standards of living of all residents.
I'm only a small farmer that has lived on the same land for 8 generations. Having reached an old age and knowing the quality of life that existed in the region of 4 family generations before me, I can only say that " your ignorance is only surpassed by your lack of understanding of the subject".
Stephen C. Maupin
Dresden, Tennessee,38225
Mr. Barry thank you for adding a dose of reality to the discussion.
I think a better way of thinking about PV solar system is purchasing your next 15 year's worth of electricity in advance. So when you pay $15,000 for the system, what you are doing in effect, is paying your electric bill 15 years in advance. Which is a slightly strange thing to do. To Mr. Barry's point, the owner is not paying just $0.41 per day for electricity because most of the electricity is "prepaid" in the mortgage.
For some fairly complete cost accounting for one 5KW system, look at Gray Watson's http://256.com/solar/. The breakeven is not too bad, about 11.4 years. But bear in mind two things.
1) electricity in this area is $0.19 per KWH
2) there are significant subsidies in Massachusetts
(I think this comes from a $0.0025/KWH fee from rate payers)
It does make me wonder if this is mis-directed government policy. It seems like large scale winds turbines might be a better use of this money because the economics seem to be better.
One other point I would like to make. In new home construction, I think there is usually a fixed budget in mind for the house. So when someone adds solar panels, they may end up cutting costs somewhere else in the construction. So perhaps people were already going to spend up to their limits anyway. In that case, I think it might be better to have solar panels than granite counter tops. However, dollar for dollar, the person and environment might be better serviced by spending money on insulation rather than solar panels.
I guess my point is, even if you want to be green, you need to spend you green dollars in the most effective way, and solar panels might not be the first choice.
Thanks
John C. Briggs
You guys are missing the point on subsidies. Solar is 3 to 5 times its value, as stated by a pro industry magazine. Your rate of return is less than 3%, which most consider a bad yield for long term investments of 15 to 30 years. So society is OVER paying for this power.
Against hard numbers (except Nuke insurance which doesn't exist), you make reference to subsidies given to other industries, including costs of polution, without hard, or any, numbers and CONCLUDE that solar is certainly/probably better.
I also contend that only a fool pays 3 to 5 times the value of something.
If you bought a new house/car/television and told your friends that you 5 times what its worth to buy it, would your friends call you "smart"? Then are you "smart" with your electric purchases?
I apologize for mispellings, Im passonate about my thoughts, and ask forgiveness for writing fast and not proofreading .
Most wars I may add are over economic reasons, America could lead the world in being energy independent. again the price is king ideals we have , has shown it's ugly head in the recent Chinese recall problems with toys and lead paint. Yes the price was cheap on front, but what is cost to children putting toys in mouth and injesting poison.
America used to give their employees health insurance , like companys like Sears, then the low price Wal Marts came out giving us lowest prices. Of course there went taking care of employee insurance. Then we have problems with Wall Mart buying 80% of their products from the chinese. Well we have cheap price right, but what is cost of lost American jobs, and the very polluted industrial air that China is doing to ramp out our cheap product needs. Well we can just wait for the wind from china to blow the pollution this way. Not to mention China owning us when we have given them most of our money.
Summary, we need to be more independant in energy, and take care of our people, why, because if we dont , who will?
Jim Berry has a point, but he is incorrect that solar costs that much more than grid. Obviously somehow the costs are built into the house - someone is paying for the generated electricity. However, my PV system (seen at www.zapsys.com/solarpanels.jpg) probably costs .14/KWh, while grid power in Arizona is .085/KWh. But that is today. I expect grid power cost will double within 5 years. Also, that's not really apples to apples because grid power is HUGELY subsidized.
What do you think is the real cost per KWh of grid power? You need to find the coal, get rights to the property the coal is on, mine the coal, transport the coal, build a HUGE plant to burn the coal, maintain the plant and all the mining equipment, put up millions of miles of wires and transformers to distribute the power, and spend millions maintaining that grid, not to mention installing, checking, servicing meters and billing, plus thousands of employees. Seriously, do you think grid power is really cheaper than my 32 solar panels that need no maintenance (except I wash them once a month) and power that travels 120 feet to my box? No way.
If we move the grid subsidies to renewables, the difference in price would be incredible. But, I didn't install my PV system to save money. I installed it because I didn't think my gov't could be trusted to keep power cheap after doubling gasoline prices for no reason. Plus, it's nice that it helps keep down pollution.
Winter Energy Savings Tip: If you have windows that face in a generally southern direction and are not shaded by trees or other buildings, remove the screens, wash the windows and open the blinds to let in free solar heat for your home. Be sure and close the blinds at night to prevent radiant heat loss.
A 3 foot wide and 4 foot tall window can let in about 2.8 kilowatts of heat every sunny day. If your electricity costs 10 cents per kilowatt hour (Gas heat has a similar cost), you could save close to $42 over the winter from just one window of that size. The best part is that you don't have to pay any taxes on your savings and you are reducing greenhouse gas pollution.
If you are concerned about the sun fading a fabric, just cover it with an old sheet or similar type cover.
Please pass this tip along to your friends.
Christina Nelson, My Green Page
Jim Berry, There are indeed a truckload of subsidies for power from any source, I'll focus my remarks on nuclear power. As an old nuke protester I'll go for a deal allowing these newfangled "inherently save" nuke plant designs to be built anywhere, anytime and in any number provided that the industry disavow the insurance coverage subsidies mandated by the Price-Anderson Act. This law sets an artifically low cap on insurance liability in case of a catastrophic event then requires the government to assume 80% of that cost, leaving the other 20% to be assumed by private insurance. (Mr. Levy misspoke on this point, it's not that nuke plants are uninsured just that none are primarily privately insured). The insurance companies would refuse to take full liabilty just as they did in the '50s before the first version of the PA Act was passed and even if they didn't no power company would assume the costs.
Secondly you posted that homeowners in California are being bamboozeled into installing solar panels in thier homes resulting in up a $500 increase in thier mortage. I can understand how this might create a hardship on one's credit cards, but hopefully that doesn't entail a lifetime commitment. I can also understand how that could increase property taxes but isn't proposition whatever it was passed in '78 still in force? I can also understand how a subsequent buyer of such a home may be forced to pay a higher price for it but the statement as you posted it is baffling.
Mr. Berry - your argument is a good one if you look at coal and nukes in the vaccuum that they are often looked in. Do you honestly think that the true cost of using coal is 9 - 15 c/kWh? If you do, then you really are ignorant. The reality is, massive subsidies and tax breaks are provided to all energy producers. In fact, utility wind does not receive subsidies that can even compare to the ones provided to the coal and nuke folks. In fact, nuclear is so risky, not one nuclear plant in the world is even insured - who pays for the constant repair for those facilities? You guessed it bud - we do. You cannot compare the true cost of wind/pv and ignore the true cost of coal and nukes. Who pays for all the massive cleanup operations around the US (ever hear of superfund????). The reality is, tax payers are sheltered from the true cost of coal and nukes through subsidies, something the Renewable Energy folks can only dream of. The beauty of renewable systems is that when they are taken away, they are truly gone. Try decomissioning a nuclear plant or a coal mine - guess who pays for that too???
Ignorant you are not - one sided arguments is however what you are presenting.
Regards.
Tom
I think the current solar panel technology is perhaps more cost effective than some of the comments here suggest. Looking at the http://256.com/solar/ website and using figures of 25 year service life, 5000 kWh/per year production, $35,000 installation costs (full cost) and $12,300 system costs (after rebates and incentives) I see that
$0.19/kWh for commercial electricity (2007)
$0.28/kWh for solar power (no rebates or incentives)
$0.10/kWh for solar power (with rebates and incentives)
So looking at $0.19/kWh for commercial electricity versus $0.28/kWh for solar power (no rebates), clearly solar power is at a premium today at about 1.5× (no rebates). This is not the 3× to 5× that other people have claimed. Of course, it depends on regional electricity rates.
Also, over the 25 year service life, I expect electricity rates to rise and the solar power will be cheaper. This is despite the fact that it is "today's" technology. Given that, is there really any compelling reason to wait.
Thanks
John C. Briggs
The real point is that locally-generated solar power is not cost-effective today. Photovoltaic solar panels cost $6-$8 per installed watt. That equates to $.25 per kilowatt hour over the 25 year life of the system - and that's with rebates. However, research in both solar cells and solar thin films may soon reduce the cost to around $1 per watt, which is when solar power becomes directly competitive with power off the grid (at $.10 per kWh). At that point the energy revolution begins. Meanwhile, I do not appreciate paying 6% on my electric bill for energy rebates for people who install the present technology.
And thanks to REA for removing the ad for Sundance generators and Hummingbird engines.
One of the aims of my previous post was to dispel ,it seems, common misperception that nuclear insurance is nonexistant. If one is talking of his/her homeowner's policy this is true but the drift of this thread is about the nuke plants themselves. The mechanism of the Price-Anderson Act is a mix of private but mostly government provided insurance. Its core principle is limited liability which I'd gladly give my opinion of if forum rules didn't prohibit "the use of vulgarity". It is however an overstatement to say such insurance is nonexistant, more accurately it is grossly inadequate. But don't take my word for it, Google it. You will find there are some 14,000 entries which isn't a lot since this law has been on the books since the '50s. Perhaps the powers that be want to limit our awareness of this, though I can't imagine why;). The point is this is one part of a witches brew of subsidies of nuclear power.
Since wind power has the advantage of not being rocket science California may indeed be erring in its tilt toward solar. Unfortunately many consider windmills ugly, from the prominent so and sos on Martha's Vneyard to millions in modest suburbs. I think complimentary systems would be wise considering the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine and safely storing electricity on site remains problematic. However let's accept that not all subsidies are bad.
Jim Berry said: "You guys are missing the point on subsidies," and then discusses the investment value of installing solar for your home. I just think there is more than one point, and investment value is pretty low on my list. Although, to that point, investment value for an additional bathroom on your home might be 90% of the cost when you sell your house. That means you lose 10% of your investment - that sucks. So, why would you ever do it? Well, obviously, investment value is not the reason you do it.
What's the investment value of a new car? Depends on how long you keep it, but if you keep it forever (like my 1990 pickup), the investment value is -100%. You lose 100% of your money. Obviously, I didn't buy my pickup because of investment value.
If a solar PV system has a 3% investment value as suggested, that's just icing on the cake. There are other reasons to install one.
I would submit (as I have before) that anyone that spends $50K on a new car, but does not have a solar PV system, needs to re-evaluate their priorities.
"Think - Two for One". On Jan Steinman's perspective:
"A nearby four-lane drones in the background. Where will these people get their commuting fuel from in a few years? What will their ostensibly "green" houses be worth when the suburbs become "energy slums?"
Well the "green" houses will be worth even more, irrespective of the equity in kW comparisons from grid to panel. If a panel can be mass produced that creates ~10% efficiency or better, and subsidies from the government grow to match the costs of the PV setups over 10 years payback time - PV becomes feasable.
If we produce cars (Phev's) that plug into our 120/240 grid tied outlets- what happens then? Effectively we have cut down the "four-lane drones in the background" and have a win-win situation at hand. Our cars run on electricity being generated by our homes grid tied PV systems. Our destiny with PV is not murky here. Utlize all of the PV energy captured before sending it back into the inefficient grid and save more energy in the first place by having no or little "send-back" attenuation-distribution inefficiencies.
We all understand that everything in mans mind gets created eventually; and it starts out usually with good intention, but certainly not to the placation of all. Solar WILL grow and GeoThermal WILL grow because they simply MUST.
Let the people who have their current systems enjoy, brag, be happy about and otherwise talk endlessly about their systems. This is how ideas grow, stimulation occurs to have the "next best thing", and how we're gonna move to better and better installations and more efficient housing and driving infrastructures.
..we need to start building green by utilizing: SIP's (S'x insulated panels), by using ICF's (insulated concrete forms) and GeoThermal in all of our buildings too. This is more than clear.
In these cases, homes would need such a small footprint of energy that the cost of the PV units needed (perhaps 1500kW) for a 2500sf home would be cheap.
Our appliances are just now being designed to have less stand-by energy demands by mandate, our energy star homes are moving closer to net homes (certainly not as good as new building technologies however), so we are moving into the right arena. We can't do it all over night unless we bleed some more for our energy costs.
All the Best, FB
Previous Article
