Readers Respond

Letters may be edited for length and clarity.

Submit a letter: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

I eagerly read your article on biomass power ("The Biomass Solution," Chuck Kutscher, page 20, Nov./Dec. issue), and I could relate to it personally. In addition to continuing to advance our low-temperature Stirling engine at Cool Energy (coolenergyinc.com) for various applications (solar thermal, waste heat recovery from diesel gensets), my father has put together a biomass gasification approach (running at 10 kilowatts (kW) currently) in biomass-rich Tennessee. With a little biomass pre-processing, the gasifier produces a hydrogen-rich syngas (65 percent H2, 30 percent CO2, 5 percent ash, tars, etc...) [that] we are burning directly in a 10-kW genset to produce electricity. We are in discussions to build a 100-kW pilot in Tennessee. I have learned a lot about this technology approach over the last 18 months and agree with you that the potential for baseload power in both distributed and central station (1 megawatt to 50 megawatt) applications are great and will complement wind and solar by firming them.

We are also exploring gas separation post-processing for green hydrogen production. We have a rudimentary website at protonpowerinc.com.

Sam P. Weaver
President/CEO, Cool Energy Inc.
Boulder, Colo.
spweaver[at]coolenergyinc[dot]com

Chuck Kutscher¹s editorial on "The Biomass Solution" unfurled red flags for me. While it's clear that the world needs new energy sources to replace fossil fuels, we need to be mindful of the broader consequences of developing those resources and make sure we aren¹t exchanging one environmental disaster for another.

With our voracious energy and food appetite, humans are using more and more of the biological resources of the planet. When we take the "biomass" out of forests, it means that material is no longer available to the soils, plants and animals of the forests' own energy and life cycles. When we convert rainforests into biomass plantations, as is happening over vast areas in Africa and South America, we displace thousands of species and drive many to extinction while ruining the CO2-converting rain forests. When we remove all of the biomass of a crop, we mine the fertility of the soil, which most often is replaced with fossil fuel-based fertilizers, a huge source of global warming byproducts.

By focusing myopically on our need for energy in our justified panic about global warming, we may trade one devil for ten others. We need to look at whole systems rather than look at energy as an isolated product needed for a self-centered human race.

Tom Ribe
Santa Fe, N.M.
tribe[at]swadventures[dot]com

Don't Disregard Basic Economics
An economist by training, [I've] worked as an economist, solar installer and international development adviser, [and] I take issue with the thrust of some articles in SOLAR TODAY. In the Nov./Dec. 2009 edition, I thought two articles required some additional economic context.

Laurie Guevara-Stone wrote in "Food vs. Fuel (vs. Livestock)" (page 16) about the additional environmental cost of beef consumption. True enough. However, she claims, "If most of us dialed back on our meat-heavy diets, there would be enough land to grow food for all the people on the planet and to grow a portion of our fuel. We would not have to make a choice between feeding the hungry and feeding our cars." In fact, there is no choice to be made here. There are plenty of resources to feed everyone on earth with ease. Hunger and starvation are most often the result of war, political mismanagement and corruption. Market pricing of resources will determine if it is more efficient to power our future cars with ethanol or electricity generated at wind farms, even while we enjoy our steaks. Market-based incentives can help skew the market on the margin to account for environmental impacts of our choices.

In "Why Simple Payback is Too Simple" (page 32), Will Kessler and Sönke Dornblut make a passing reference to rational economic forces, then make a heroic leap and ignore them. They correctly point out that a simple payback calculation for photovoltaics (PV) results in a 27-year economic payback (for their selected sites), while an energy payback results in a five-year payback. Instead of then focusing on what will get us to a more attractive financial performance for PV, the authors brush aside economic factors and write, "In our estimation of sustainable economics, the energy bottom line is more important than the fiscal. As we are now seeing, the long-trusted business models that apply value to real systems do not always hold up. The first law of thermodynamics, however, is rigid..."

While it is true that business models change with the wind, the basic laws of supply and demand are as rigid as the first law of thermodynamics. If the cost (read, payback period) of PV falls, there will be increased demand for PV. If the cost remains high, demand will remain low, even though the energy payback looks good - in theory. The reason the energy payback calculation looks so much better than the true (simple) payback is that it ignores the non-energy installation costs. The economic activities associated with these costs also have environmental consequences, thus the simple payback is actually a much more accurate measure of environmental cost than the energy payback.

As an industry, we must take a breath and recognize that our solutions will not become successful and change the world unless they allow us the occasional steak while enjoying our solar power, and unless we recognize that economic forces are as real as physical forces. For now, I am off to have a hamburger while I see if a simple payback calculation will permit another customer to enjoy the benefits of solar power.

Andrew Roscoe
Owner, Roscoe Energy
Lusby, M.D.
aroscoe[at]roscoeenergy[dot]com

Kudos to letter writer Martin Ogle (Sept./Oct. issue), for his insightful comments on the "elephant in the room" and the need for a steady-state economy. That elephant includes population, and that does not necessarily mean developing nations.

With 309 million residents - up from 300 million as recently as 2006 - the United States is the third most populated nation behind only China and India. We are also the fourth fastest growing in total population, as troubling as nations with higher percentage growth rates but far smaller total numbers, not to mention less environmentally harmful lifestyles.

To 2050, just eight nations will contribute half of all growth: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, China, the United States, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, [according to the United Nations]. That India, China and the United States - the planet's global-warming supergiants - are also the planet's population supergiants should appall any who hope for environmental solutions. To 2050, China will add 200 million to reach 1.5 billion, and if we allow the current growth tsunami to continue, the United States will approach 450 million. We could be a China-like billion by late century.

Sixty percent of this is from the highest immigration in our history, but troubling birth trends loom. Despite the mainstream media's much-ballyhooed "falling birth rate of the recession," more women than ever are having babies. 2007 births exceeded the 1957 peak of the baby boom. Births exceed deaths by nearly 2 million a year and at least another 1.2 million are added by immigration at many times the norms of under 250,000 a year [that existed from] 1920 to 1965.

Most troubling is that this population tsunami occurs absent acknowledgement that it happens or a national discussion of its economic, social and environmental implications to us and the world.

Wind, Solar and Hydro: Solutions to Energy Problem

Renewable energy issues: The problem with wind and solar energy is that they are intermittent. Hydropower plants change the local ecology, and there isn't enough geothermal to meet the United States' needs.

The key is to understand that hydrogen is not an energy source, but a way to store energy. You can't mine hydrogen, but if you have electricity, you can turn water into hydrogen and oxygen. Later, the hydrogen can be turned back into electricity. This is sort of the way a battery works, in principal. From this battery, we can run generators (conventional steam and fuel cells) and provide power for transportation. We just need a clean way to get it.

Solution: Build enough wind mills to provide all of the electricity used by the United States in 2008. Build enough concentrating solar power stations in the seven southwest states (best for [concentrating solar]), to provide all of the electricity used by the United States in 2008.

Next, build plants on the coasts, the Great Lakes and rivers that are not already over depleted. The plants would do the following, using the excess renewable energy we would now have:

1. Take non-potable (salt and polluted) water and purify it so that it's safe to drink.
2. Some of this water can be used in the local water supply or tanked and shipped to where it is needed.
3. Some of this water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen could be sold for healthcare, welding and other industrial uses.
4. Enough hydrogen would be stored locally for run a co-located generator for three to five days. The rest would be sold for transportation uses.

We'd build enough of these plants that their combined generating capacity would be equal to that of all of the coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants currently in operation. We would run these generators as needed to add electricity to the grid when there isn't enough renewable energy. Once we have all of these wind/solar/hydrogen plants, we'd shut down all of the coal/natural gas/nuclear plants.

Note that wind plants, solar plants, hydrogen plants and the new electrical distribution lines that all of this will need can all be built at the same time.

With continuing support for local photovoltaics, concentrating solar power in the form of Stirling dishes, geothermal and, where appropriate, hydro generators, we shouldn't have any future energy problems. If water is still an issue, we can build ocean-to-drinking water plants that could possibly also provide added generating ability or hydrogen and oxygen for local consumption.

David Darnell
sirdarnell[at]yahoo[dot]com

As a [plug-in hybrid vehicle] owner (a [converted] A123 Toyota Prius), I would like to offer some additional numbers and insight into [Alden Hathaway's "Solar Charging Stations Key to Reviving American Auto Industry," Viewpoint, Sept./Oct. issue] and its premise (and promise).

My 5-kilowatt-hour battery pack can nominally provide 20 miles [in range] (reliably and consistently), not the 35 miles assumed in the article. I have gotten up to 30-plus [miles] on a single charge, but this is the exception and not the typical case. The assumed extra miles (15 miles per charge) greatly overstates (in my opinion) the PHEV performance.

Alden [talks about using] a "5-kilowatt-hour (kWh)" battery pack, yet assumes charging of "7 kWh of electricity," based upon [charging] "the car overnight at home;" how do you get 7 kWh into a 5-kWh battery pack? This minor detail skews his numbers and analysis substantially (in a direction favorable [to his argument]). Additionally, the costs of gas ($4 per gallon) and electricity ($0.11 per kilowatt-hour) assumed also skews the comparison favorably toward the PHEV, as I am currently paying $2.50 per gallon and $0.13 per kilowatt-hour.

Based upon the more reasonable 5 kWh per day maximum (based upon a 20 mile drive and only charging at home), the electrical consumption for 20 days per month is closer to 100 kWh, compared to the 150 kWh per month assumed in the article (and thus gas savings would be less).

I am a PHEV advocate, but I tend to err on the conservative side (i.e., cautionary, so as to not overrate a new technology). By the way, at work I use a wind turbine to charge the PHEV and at home I use 100 percent "green energy" (provided by the local utility). My commute is roughly 17.5 miles (round trip); and yes, I can do this on my 20 miles per charge PHEV, and it usually takes about 4.5 kWh to charge (split between charging at work and at home).

John Patten, Ph.D., PE
john[dot]patten[at]wmich[dot]edu

Low-Cost Window Solutions Being Overlooked

But when I looked at the specifications for the qualifying windows, I was distraught. The windows must have a U-value below 0.3 and a SHGC (solar heat gain coefficient) of less than 0.3. The SHGC is the fraction of solar energy admitted though a window. Solar gain is what is needed to passively heat a home. It was disappointing that, after years of building and testing passive solar structures, passive solar strategies are being generally ignored. Perhaps we should start referring to windows as solar collectors to emphasize their ability to collect light and heat. Windows are, by far, the most common and lowest cost solar collectors. In addition to collecting heat, they also can collect light, an attribute particularly valuable in commercial buildings.

Literature promoting efficient windows by the window industry and EnergyStar touts the low U-value and the ability of a window to reduce summer heat loads but not their ability to collect heat. [NPR recently interviewed] scientists from the Buildings Technology Department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory about how modern windows save energy by using coatings to "keep the heat out during the summer and in during the winter." However, they omitted passive heat collection.

[Determining] which window coatings are appropriate on a particular face of a building depends on geographic location, orientation of the window, overhangs, shading from plants and neighboring buildings, how and when the building is being used and interior window treatments.

Perhaps, the heat collection potential of windows is not emphasized because promoting this aspect of a window will not increase sales, or it could be because the effective use of a window collector requires some whole-system thinking.

The limited implementation of windows for effective daylighting strategies in commercial buildings may be the result of not having a defined product. Perhaps a window manufacturer could get the orientation and size of a window from the building designer. Then the manufacturer would provide the appropriate external shading, glass coatings, light shelves and internal window treatments, etc..., in a single package.

If we are going to make an impact on global warming and conserve energy, low-cost strategies, like the effective use of windows, must be high priorities.

Space Exploration: The Solution To Our Planet's Problems?

As a counterpoint to that statement, I urge you to look at a good YouTube video created by Adam Manning.This is a well-done video that describes how space could help solve planetary problems that we are facing.

As an environmentalist (supporter of the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the [Natural Resources Defencse Council] and Earthjustice) and a supporter of space exploration/colonization, I personally find it hard to believe that you are saying that space either can't or [can] never play a role in protecting our planet.

While I get some inspiration and new ideas from your magazine, I regret to say that I am now reluctant to subscribe to SOLAR TODAY magazine, if that is the general consensus of your membership. I hope the video will broaden your perspective and, perhaps, [will cause you to] reconsider your position on the use of interplanetary resources.

Regards,
Larry Trutter
Springfield,Ill.

ltrutter[at]gmail[dot]com

I watched the video that Mr. Trutter recommended. Citing our "confinement" to earth, considering us "shackled" to Earth's resources, it presents what it considers the positive aspects of living in space. There is a projection of the world population increase and photos of a smoggy city and of stripped wilderness to make the case for space exploration. There is also a rendering of a mining/manufacturing facility on some other planet.

I am sure that there are readers of SOLAR TODAY who agree with Mr. Trutter. My viewpoint is that we already receive vastly more solar energy than we put to use, either in agriculture or in energy production. We should concentrate our limited financial resources on capturing the solar radiation naturally arriving on our planet. Our civilization needs to live within our resources. And we should clean up our own nest before fouling others.

Exciting as space exploration and colonization might be to some, it is even more exciting to me that we should not have to do that.

Chair, American Solar Energy Society Board

chair[at]ases[dot]org

I am a bit dismayed by your article in the July/August SOLAR TODAY that shows Connecticut in eighth position for photovoltaics (PV) in the United States (Sherwood, "Can Incentives Sustain the Solar Boom?"). For her size, Connecticut, under the stewardship of the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF), is arguably the national leader in this area. Also, you stated that Connecticut has a capacity of 5.3 megawatts (MW) and that puts [the state] in eighth position. In actuality, Connecticut has a 2008 installed capacity of 2.425 MW of residential and 7.834 MW of installed commercial PV, for a total of 10.26 MW of PV installed by the end of 2008. This would put Connecticut is position five on your list of top 10 states. Not bad for a small state. We will never have the installed capacity of California because they have many times the population of Connecticut.

Currently, the total [number of megawatts] of PV in Connecticut, including jobs in progress, is 5 MW of residential PV. The grand total for all PV in [the state] is 18.226 MW, with a total capacity of 22 MW of total renewable capacity funded by the CCEF. This total does not include renewables that were not funded by the CCEF.

So in summary, Connecticut has a lot more solar and a lot more renewable capacity than has been credited in your article. Not bad for a program in only its fifth year of operation.

Richard Dziadul
Licensed Master Photovoltaic Installer
NABCEP Certified Professional
Pioneer Valley PhotoVoltaics Cooperative

Thank you for your interest, and I always appreciate comments that may make the data I report better. The numbers I reported came from the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF) and are consistent with the numbers in the chart you sent me.

First, let me explain my numbers. I report installations and do not report approvals or jobs in process. I also report in kilowatts-DC (kW-DC) rather than kW-AC, as Connecticut reports. The folks at CCEF were kind enough to give me actual installation data as well as data in kW-DC. I checked the charts you sent and I believe the numbers I published are correct.

The 5.3 MW is the capacity installed in Connecticut in 2008 only. The cumulative capacity installed in Connecticut is 8.8 MW, including 8.7 MW through the CCEF programs. On a per capita basis, I rank Connecticut number seven with 2.5 watts per person installed (cumulative).

The numbers you report are based on approvals (residential) or installations through May 31, 2009 (commercial).

Larry Sherwood
Interstate Renewable Energy Council
larry[at]irecusa[dot]org

Flat Plate Collectors Seem to Last Longer

[I have] a few comments regarding longevity from 33 years of experience in the field all over the U.S.A., including New York. Many flat plate collectors installed in the 1977 to 1985 period are still operating today. When re-roofing systems, I noticed the copper headers and piping to and from the collectors of drainback systems look brand new. All copper absorber plates in the collectors of drainback systems look like they could easily last 100 years. Pressurized glycol systems with flat plates that were regularly serviced look like they will go 50 years.

I do not know of a single evacuated tube system anywhere in the U.S.A that was installed between 1977 and 1986 to still be operational and functioning. How long can this new generation of evacuated tubes hold its vacuum? If the past is an indicator, 20 years is generous. Hopefully, they will last that long. We know from Florida in the 1930s that these all-copper flat plate collectors easily lasted 50 years. Modern aluminum-frame walls and forged welding of copper tubes to copper fins on flat plates easily suggest they'll last 100 years. If so, when you factor in the equity value to the home, it suggests a far faster rate of return on your investment.

Tom Lane
Energy Conservation Services
Gainesville, Fla.

I was very discouraged to read the "Solar Water Heating: A Good Investment for Homes in Cold Climates?" article in the June issue. The article effectively panned solar water heating. This is contrary to my experience as a solar thermal site assessor in Wisconsin, an owner of a solar water heating system for eight years and a solar enthusiast.

Like most analysis coming from a lofty view, the weakness is in the assumptions used to run the survey. I take issue with the system life or "time horizon" of 20 years. In my training, the life of solar flat plate panels is assumed to be 40 years. The authors accepted a 50-year life for building integrated models without question but dragged down the life expectancy of flat plate panels with the relatively new technology of evacuated tubes. That is one doubling factor of their assumptions and, hence, shortchanges the results.

Next, the authors use a 3 percent rate of escalation for energy costs compared to the 7 percent-plus rate used in site assessments and the reality of 10 percent-plus increases in Midwestern utility bills over the past five years. This adds another penalizing factor to a relatively faulty study.

Maintenance costs are also either misconstrued or lumped in with questions around the new thermal technologies. Assessment assumptions are placed at $35 per year but are expected to take place in repairs roughly every ten years. I was just in a house with a 30-year-old system that was ready for a second repair (controller and sensor) after a check valve failed many years earlier. When installed correctly, solar hot water heaters do not nickel and dime the owners every year.

In my analysis of actual utility fuel usage history for paying customers, I find that the stated cost of $1.27 per therm of natural gas is low compared to reality. To get real utility costs, analysis has to include surcharges and seasonal variations. Perhaps 2007 figures are not so useful to a present analysis.

All simulation software has its strengths and weaknesses. I don't know the TRNSYS software [used in the analysis], but I do use Retscreen in generating site assessments here in Wisconsin. That software continually generates much more hopeful figures for a family of four. This is true even though Retscreen uses a very conservative analysis.

Finally, the article makes no mention of the greatly increased federal personal tax credits for solar hot water systems that just started at the beginning of this year. This is real news.

The gloomy data charts and color graphical maps of New York directly result from the poor assumptions used by the authors and the study.

The article does end noting the definite fossil fuel and green house gas savings that are a factor for some solar customers. That "closer" is hampered by the authors' diversion into the sexier world of photovoltaic/solar electric panels. With reasonable assumptions and good practices, solar domestic hot water heating offers a definite payback, unlike your car, entertainment system or computer.

Perhaps SOLAR TODAY could feature an article from people closer to the ground who really know systems and maybe even sell and install them.

Neale Thompson
Janesville, Wisc.
janevtribe[at]charter[dot]net

I have started a nonprofit website that has facts about solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. I would like to know if you could let readers know about this effort to provide unbiased information on solar panels and solar PV in general. The web site can be found at: solarconsumerreporting.webs.com.

I'm a long time member of the American Solar Energy Society, and I also trust the information in your magazine. Maybe you could provide some free service similar to this? Your SOLAR TODAY fact on Evergreen Solar (page 55, May issue) is the type of data I'm posting!

Jim Stack
jstack6[at]juno[dot]com

Florida Feed-In Tariff Proves Successful

I would just like to add the immense success of the solar feed-in tariff (FIT) in Gainesville, Fla., to the examples in [Paul Gipe's] article "Electricity Feed Laws: Fast Track to Renewable Energy Growth?" (May issue, page 40). To my knowledge, Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) was the first in the nation to offer a solar FIT to its customers. The [FIT's] initial rates were 32 cents per kilowatt-hour for residentially produced solar and 26 cents per kilowatt-hour for non-residential installations. I use the past tense "were," because the [FIT has a] cap set at 4 megawatts (MW), (which) was exceeded within two weeks. These rates have been very attractive to GRU customers, who are currently purchasing utility power for 12.5 cents per kilowatt-hour and flooding the system. This flood has met the GRU FIT quota through 2010 and has increased competition in quality and cost-effective PV installations.

President, ASES student chapter, University of Florida

ases[dot]uf[at]gmail[dot]com

If you are following the Waxman-Markey Bill (covered in David Hill's article, "Carbon Regulation: What's the Most Effective Path," June issue) you will realize that once again, politics, not environmental science, is determining public policy. Is the Waxman bill better than no bill at all? Or does it undermine the concern for our condition and ignore our true environmental, social and economic predicament? Are Democrats too inextricably bound to the coal interests to save our nation and the world?

The Waxman-Markey Bill pulls [its carbon] "cap" out of thin air. It is not related to science. A growing number of scientists now believe that the global warming assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was too conservative, but the legislation doesn't even come close to the IPCC recommendations of reducing emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels. The squirrelly Dems pick what's politically expedient instead of what's necessary. The stringency of the carbon emissions reduction target and the timetable of the policy are among the most important determinants of policy cost and climate benefits. There is a cost to waiting. You can compromise with politics, but compromising doesn't stop the clock from ticking on global warming.

Doesn't Washington get that the American people are tired of crucial public policy going through the "trading" system? I have been working to garner support in New Mexico for state regulation to cap carbon, and I have learned firsthand that there is no public confidence in the market. The failed bank and insurance bailouts, the car and housing busts are too fresh in our minds.

PNM, Exxon, Duke and other companies are pushing hard for most or all carbon emission permits to be handed to them free of cost. They want to rig the system and get "free permits," which would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate giveaways. It would become the biggest bailout, because it would not be a one-time giveaway like the [bank bailouts] - Waxman-Markey [could become] structured corporate welfare for the next 18 or so years.
The United States must learn from the European carbon market in the design of our carbon cap legislation - giving too many carbon permits away for free to carbon-intensive corporations, rather than requiring those companies to purchase these permits, led to extreme price volatility for consumers and windfall profits for corporations.

To ensure that low- and moderate-income Americans are protected from increases in energy costs, a dividend from the auction of carbon permits must be returned to the public in the form of a check.

No complicated "banking," borrowing, or speculation; no trust in corporations needed. Just the enactment of a transparent, simple and fair system: cap, auction and dividend. This bold and necessary legislation will stimulate green jobs and address climate change.

Mariel Nanasi
Senior Policy Advisor
New Energy Economy
Santa Fe, N.M .
mariel[at]seedsbeneaththesnow[dot]com

The recent article by Chuck Kutscher ("Tackling Climate Change: Getting the Green Message Out," March issue) said he thinks the [Toyota] Prius out sold all other hybrids three to one because it looks so different. He could not be more wrong.

The Prius is a FULL hybrid, whereas the Honda [Civic Hybrid] is only a mild hybrid and others are weak hybrids. This means they can't move an inch on electricity alone; [their batteries] only assist [the engine]. Unlike the Honda Civic, the Prius also has fold-down rear seats, which gives you lots more room to carry things.

The Toyota Synergy drive system is so good it is used by Ford in the Escape, Nissan in the Altima and even the upscale Lexus line, which is part of Toyota. There is a world of difference between the Prius and all others, and smart people can tell a mile away. You can even make a Prius into a plug-in hybrid and get 100-plus miles per gallon, which is what I am going to do.

Jim Stack
jstack6[at]juno[dot]com

I can certainly understand your appreciation for the engineering that went into your Toyota Prius. I'm very fond of my Prius, too. In fact, I wrote, "The Prius stands out not only for its excellent engineering, but also for its smart marketing." But I dare say that you and I are not typical Prius buyers. Ask an average Prius owner in the supermarket parking lot to explain how Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive and the Atkinson-cycle engine work, and I bet you will be met with a blank stare more often than not.

The point I was trying to make in my article is that for a product to achieve large market penetration, good engineering is not enough. Witness the demise of Sony's Betamax and the General Motors EV1. (Engineering excellence doesn't even seem particularly necessary. Is a Harley-Davidson better engineered than a BMW or Honda motorcycle?) Image and marketing have an enormous impact on a product's success. And in the case of the Prius, its unique appearance is clearly a key factor in its widespread customer appeal, which extends well beyond the technically informed.

Now I am admittedly an engineer, not a marketing expert. So here is an excerpt from an article that appeared in the August 3, 2007, edition of Marketing Daily (mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=65081):

As someone who has worked in the engineering field for over 30 years, I cannot count the number of times I have seen engineers make the mistake of assuming that because they had designed a clever product they would achieve success in the marketplace. Makers of even the highest quality energy efficiency and renewable energy products ignore the critical importance of smart marketing at their own peril.

In regards to the article by Richard Crume ("Home Energy Upgrades that Pay," March issue), I thought the article was pretty good but the continuing theme that I keep seeing (and that I thought you were trying to change) throughout many issues is that you are promoting self diagnosis and leaving out building science.

If you don't measure how your building is performing (i.e., setting a benchmark) how do you measure the effectiveness of your upgrades? This article has great intentions, but it missed the mark by not showing the "where do we go from here?" [aspect].
RESNET (natresnet.org) has a list of qualified energy auditors who have been trained to perform building diagnostics and to offer [energy-efficiency] solutions. These energy auditors specialize in the science of how to fix buildings and make them perform as a system.

Let's admit it, without testing your building, you are just throwing darts at an undiagnosed problem, and you will not know how the house is performing. You are going against [this article's goal of helping] to lead homeowners in the right direction.
Crume writes, "Are homeowners making the right choices when it comes to reducing home energy consumption?" The answer is no, and it is because of articles like this that don't lead the reader to the right people.

Jim Olson
Viroqua, Wis.
jimmyoidaho[at]yahoo[dot]com

As an experienced wind turbine installer, I was very disappointed at the photo on page 50 of the March issue, which showed a Skystream wind turbine at the U.S. Botanic Garden and [referenced a photo] on Mariah Power's web site showing the Windspire vertical-axis wind turbine at the same location. It's obvious that both are sited improperly, on towers far too short to produce any significant power. It's like mounting a solar panel in the shade. When systems like these perform poorly, particularly in such a highly visible location, it gives all renewable energy a bad name. It also gives SOLAR TODAY readers the false impression that systems installed this way will perform well. They won't.

Randy Brook
Brooks Solar Inc.
Chelan, Wash.
randy[at]brookssolar[dot]com

In the March issue, [the feature "Back to the Future," by Seth Masia, described Next West House as] "The first LEED Platinum, net-zero-carbon house in Colorado - and maybe in the nation..." I'm not one to nitpick, but just for the record, Architectural & Environmental Associates Inc. commissioned the first U.S. Green Building Council LEED Platinum, net-zero-carbon house in Arizona in February 2008. The home has been featured on the Discovery Channel's "Invention Nation" and was featured in both Home Power and Home Energy magazines.

You are kidding, right? You are showcasing a house that is "carbon neutral" and only cost $1.66 million to build ("Back to the Future," March issue)? Sure the project makes for pretty pictures, but the embedded message is that it is completely unaffordable to set this as a goal.

Why don't you showcase more affordable projects that have achieved almost the same [low-energy] ratings, though not perfect, for a way lower cost? Even better, showcase a sequence of projects, focusing on dollars spent, that achieve varying or ascending degrees of carbon neutrality. Help people understand how their dollars can make a difference, rather than dazzling them with pictures of technology overload at a monstrous cost. After all, if $50,000 is 3 percent of the project cost, then the 3,800-square-foot house cost $440 per square foot to build.

For $120 per square foot, we are building SolarHybrid houses that are responsible for 0.84 metric tons carbon equivalent (Mtce). [Compare that] to a Toyota Prius, which emits 4.0 Mtce annually.

John Delafield
Landmark Renovation and Building
Lrbco[at]aol[dot]com
Apex, N.C.

I want to compliment your March issue article, "Back to the Future." After reading the article and studying the excellent photos, I was struck by a couple of things. First, the exemplary engineering detail on the mechanical elements of the home was striking. Also, the home really has excellent architectural appeal, although, as a building environmental scientist, perhaps I'm not qualified to say so. I have some cost-effectiveness concerns about using both a geo-exchange system and a large photovoltaic system on this home. [But] it was tough to figure, lacking technical information. Even the reference website, 429spruce.com, and its referral to the Zero Carbon Initiative presentation (zcinitiative.com) did not hold any significant technical specs to consider.

So this lack of technical design data was the one key element missing from the story. Previously, when publishing case studies, SOLAR TODAY provided very useful sidebar information on expected performance, sometimes including design-tool simulations. A high-performance home like this, especially one claiming to perform at LEED Platinum and net-zero-carbon levels, screams for summary data supporting those claims. So I recommend SOLAR TODAY go "back to the past" and resume documentation of technical features supporting exciting energy and environmental claims being made.

Bion D. Howard
Building Environmental Science and Technology
ASES Fellow and Life Member
Valley Center, Calif.
info[at]energybuilder[dot]com

I read [Chuck Kutscher's] piece in SOLAR TODAY's January/February issue ("The Debate Is Over (Or Is It?)") with a great deal of interest. Your conclusion that tackling climate change will require a bipartisan effort is the premise we've been operating on for 14 years. I'm glad to report that there are signs of change in the Republican Party. Popular governors like Jon Huntsman of Utah and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota are making environmental protection and battling climate change a key priority in their speeches and platforms. A number of conservative opinion makers, like David Brooks, David Frum and Joe Scarborough, are talking about the party's need to "get with the program." The Young Republican National Committee has issued an energy and environment platform paper that is clean and green.

And all along, Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) has been nudging and prodding all factions of the party to return the GOP to its great conservation tradition. The past 30 years haven't been pretty. We believe we are at a tipping point and will see the party join in a bipartisan effort to fight climate change and address other pressing environmental issues soon.

Robert C. Sisson
President, REP
Albuquerque, N.M.
Rsisson[at]rep[dot]org

It was good to read Mr. [Chuck] Kutscher's “The Debate is Over! (Or is it?)” (January/February issue) However, it only touched on the subject.

I have worked in advanced R&D for over 50 years. The real reason for the debate to be over — or the school is out and the subject is closed — is you need to make hay while the sun shines.  "Global warming" does exist and is needed desperately as a source of income for numerous people. The doors must be closed to protect income and eliminate scientific factual information that threatens faith-based emotional fears and exposes the real causes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Phoenix, Md.

garyhoff2468[at]aol[dot]com

New Initiatives Needed to Promote Solar

I am new to the solar energy world. However, I did get 39 panels on my roof in October. I had a $0 bill in November with $112 in credit for December.

I read Dennis Hayes’ article (“Charting a Bold Course,” January/February issue) and know that great strides have been made in the last eight years. In Delaware, a major contract was signed with Bluewater Wind to install windmills off the Delaware coast to generate future needs. Delaware has an energy policy where the state will pay half, up to a certain dollar amount, to businesses and homeowners who get solar panels or wind generators. I did this, and there are many others.

I feel that there is just too little action, or ideas, being given to this very important venture. The company that put the panels on my roof has a web site with 20–30 houses on which they have [installed] solar panels. The local paper, The Wilmington News Journal, had an article about a local bank that [installed] dozens of panels to get [its building] mostly off the grid. And there are several other companies doing the same.

I believe there should be a different approach to getting more companies/institutions/homeowners/apartments/condos into solar:

1) A state and federal initiative — funded through the U.S. Department of Energy, the states, private foundations and those receiving the panels — starting with $100,000,000, to start solar paneling hospitals and other institutions throughout the United States. This will drive their electric bills way down. In order to pay for the solar panel installation, these institutions would pay into the fund only half of what they save, to replenish it to get other institutions on board. The federal government can replenish this fund over several years until the fund is naturally funded by the customers. It should not be hard for the Department of Energy to get something like this started.

2)  Upscale the solar panel industry. [Initiative No. 1], above, will generate jobs to the solar industry, bringing over those from the auto industry who are getting displaced. It is also a much cleaner job. Panels, as a whole, need to be replaced every 20 years or so. This will keep the industry going. But with emerging technology, the cost will not be prohibitive since the efficiency will be improving.

3) A law that mandates that, by the year 2020, all new houses and buildings be built to be solar independent for about 60 percent of the time.

This is just a start the new administration can take up.

Newark, Del.

aldenhuffman[at]comcast[dot]net

In your article, “Solar Saves for Renters and Landlords” (Seth Masia, November/December issue), developer Amory Host states that under existing codes and incentive plans, solar-enabled affordable housing makes sense only with new construction. That idea is also implicit in that most SOLAR TODAY articles feature new construction. Can the magazine devote an issue to retrofitting for solar and other energy efficiencies?

We now have a president, Barack Obama, who is deeply committed to retrofitting buildings, green collar jobs and rebuilding our energy grid — all priorities that will transform our economy and way of life.

My prediction is that soon the words “new technology” will cease to summon up images of better computers and begin referring to efficient and better forms of energy production. People will discuss and brag about what is on their roofs, not the latest gadget in their pocket. Each month in SOLAR TODAY I learn more about the technologies and am now confident of their efficacy. As the Internet decentralized information, so renewable sustainable energy can decentralize energy generation, all best for national security and the economy.

The time is now to contain urban sprawl by retrofitting existing homes and businesses with solar and other sustainable, renewable energy sources!

Sincerely,

New York

mnhawk[at]verizon[dot]net

Energy gathered through solar means is the way to go. Right now, a government office here in Sacramento has been testing it out. They have solar panels on the roof, and all of the employees enjoy the temperature environment of this building. I hope more government buildings will follow this trend.

Elk Grove, Calif.

jazmapika[at]cs[dot]com

----------

Join the conversation! Submit a letter:  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Letters may be edited for length and clarity.