California EPA wants to spur solar-home development

[phantom power]

(shocker) This is being opposed by the California Building Industry Association (see link for more).

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California officials are proposing that half of all new homes in the state be running on solar energy in 10 years, an effort spurred by $100 million in annual incentives paid for by electricity consumers.

The program would be paid for with a new monthly utility bill surcharge of about 25 to 30 cents per household, projected to raise $1 billion before the surcharge ends in 10 years. But homeowners would be free to sell excess solar energy back to electricity companies, leaving them with no net cost.

The solar power installations would be the equivalent of 36 new, 75 megawatt natural gas plants and would avoid pumping 50 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the accompanying combustion, the EPA estimated.

The incentives should be enough to get solar panels on 40 percent of new homes by 2010 and 50 percent by 2013, the EPA projects. If the incentives aren't enough, the proposal would require panels on 5 percent of homes by 2010 and half of new homes by 2020. Proponents estimate 1.2 million homes would be producing solar energy by 2017, including 884,000 new and 313,000 older houses.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who ran on a pledge of getting California homes to use solar power, has not endorsed the plan.
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-08-06/s_26408.asp

[Massacure]

1. w00t!!!!!

[NNadir]

2. California is an ideal place for such a program.

First there is lots of sunshine, at least in Southern California. Secondly the state has an incredible amount (way too much in fact) of sprawl, meaning that there are lots of available roofs. California has a very dubious financial and regulatory structure in its energy industry, making solar energy very competitive, especially with Republican creeps with their dirty little fingers in their government. California also has an enormous problem with air pollution, and although I am an advocate of nuclear energy, California's system of very complex system of active faults makes for very complex plant siting decisions for the building of nuclear plants (although California's need for desalination capacity increases the argument FOR new nuclear plants there).

California also has a comparitively well established solar industry already. A poster here at DU instructed us about California's parabolic mirror plants turbine driven power plants for which I am grateful. I like these plants very, very much. I believe (though I'm not sure) that these plants run competitively and economically even without factoring the external cost subsidy that all fossil energy enjoys.

Finally California's energy shortfalls, to the extent that they are real and not a product of market manipulation, are largely a result of daytime peak load demand, which is the best technical fit for solar capacity. (Peak load demand is the poorest fit for nuclear energy, which does not power up and power down flexibly.)

Actually though, a program of encouraging tax breaks and the imposition of regulatory strategies for the expansion of solar energy is a good idea in many states, including my state of New Jersey.

Rather than killing people to maintain twentieth century fossil fuel technologies, we ought to be building twenty first century infrastructure such as solar plants and nuclear plants.

[phantom power]

3. it would be ideal here in Phoenix too

and for most of the same reasons. Although I think that electricity is still somewhat cheaper here than in CA. And I'd say that as a population, Arizonans aren't quite as progressive as Californians, so we aren't quite as politically ripe for such a transformation.

On the other hand, we did just lose two major transformers last month, which put large portions of the valley in imminent danger of rolling blackouts. Aging infrastructure, anyone...?

[kestrel91316]

4. Not even close to good enough......

It's a start, but the goal is NOT AMBITIOUS ENOUGH by half. And FYI, most of the US and I think most of the WORLD gets enough sunshine to justify the use of solar.The coast of Washington state, and maybe some rainforests in Hawaii have too much heavy cloud cover, but that's about it. What the heck are people waiting for??? Oh, and if you can't do solar, then DO WIND............but DO SOMETHING!!!!

[The Wielding Truth]

14. Yes It must be the easy buck that stops progress

Established business practices and sustaining jobs must push politicians away from what is best for our Earth. How can we transition with out pain? Any thoughts?

[NNadir]

15. Done right, what is good for the earth could be good for business.

An environmentally sustainable energy program will create the best kind of jobs: High productivity, high tech jobs.

I think John Kerry gets it. The boy king doesn't. That's why this election is triply important for environmentalists of all types.

[TexasSissy]

5. This is great news. But I live in a hot area. I wish someone would

invent a renewable source for a/c. Solar power won't cool to the degree needed in hot areas. Talk about an energy saver, if someone invented something to cool buildings in hot areas!

[midnight armadillo]

6. It exists. It's free.

It's called thermal mass. If you build your house to be passive solar, i.e. use sun in winter for heat and shade in summer for cooling, you can cut heating/cooling costs by 50% or so.

Thermal mass is basically the use of large massive things in the home that store a lot of heat, or, take a lot of heat to warm up. A properly constructed, well-insulated and shaded home with plenty of thermal mass doesn't need much cooling. If you're willing to have a really untraditional home (i.e. www.earthship.org or similar) AC isn't needed at all. Traditional adobe'll work much better in Texas!

A swamp cooler works well in warmer climes, as do geothermal heating/cooling.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Another technique

I've heard that several houses have been built where pipes were sunk underground, where the temperature is a constant 60F or so all year. By ducting air through the pipes, both heating and cooling are possible. Of course, 60F might be too cold for heat, and there might not be enough to cool down a house in the summer, but it makes a deep cut into temperature regulation bills.

--bkl

[phantom power]

18. it works for heat, but you have to use a heat-pump

A buddy of mine built a new house, and has geothermal heat-exchangers. In the winter, his heat-pump pumps the heat from the ground, into his house. In the summer, he can pump the heat from his house back into the ground.

It works extremely well, although it's very hard to retrofit an existing house, unless you have enough land to install the exchangers.

I've heard of versions where the exchangers are vertical, thirty of forty feet down into the ground. That would work pretty well for a situtation where there isn't a lot of land area. But you have to drill out a deep hole.

[bemildred]

9. In serious desert, you can't beat a swamp cooler.

Cheap to run, safe, easy to maintain, and a good one will
freeze your ass off. Much can be said for insulation, too.

[phantom power]

10. Or,it can leak into your roof and cost you a couple thousand in

ceiling repairs.

I love the idea of swamp coolers. They are a thermodynamic work of art.

But I've had some bad experiences with them. I once spent a couple days in the crawlspace, in Phoenix summer, repairing duct-work that had completely rusted out.

On the other hand, I've talked with plenty of people who have never had anhy problems with them at all.

[bemildred]

11. AC is not cheap or maintenance free either.

I do prefer the side mount coolers, set on posts on the ground.
They are easier to get to.

Swamp coolers do tend to rust over time, and things wear out,
but they are a piece of cake to fix compared to AC, and on the whole
require less attention, at least in my experience.

[phantom power]

12. side-mount would be a lot safer, and more sensible. In fact,

what *is* it with Phoenix, putting all the freaking air-handling on the roofs, instead of on the side of the house? It results in all kinds of needless holes in the roof, which are ripe for potential leaks. And it doesn't even save ductwork or A/C fluid-lines. It's just as close to the side of the house, as to the roof.

I don't get it.

[bemildred]

13. Probably marketing, they think it looks better or something.

I lived in Ridgecrest, CA in a house with two heat-pumps on the roof,
and they worked great, but you could not afford to run the damn things.

It's like central AC, it's far more efficient to cool the one room you are in,
but it's like you are cheap if you do that, you have to cool the whole damn
house to show you are a good American, and heaven forfend you have any
tacky little extrusions on the exterior of your house.

[Trillo]

16. Check out what was at one time called a "cooling tower".

http://ww2.green-trust.org:8383/chimney.htm
(this is a huge system, I've read that some desert residences use something similar, built to about 30ft in height)

http://www.qatar-info.com/what/museum.htm
(picture of a "wind tower" in 1935 residence) I believe more modern examples may combine a wind tower with evaporative cooling. When the wind passes through an evaporative medium at the tower openings, the cooler air sinks.

Of course, homeowners may run into zoning height issues.

I read an newspaper article a decade or so ago, that said cooling towers were even being used at some Phoenix-area bus stops. (I hope I remembered the correct city!)


I would think the A/C problem is simply a square-footage issue with solar panels. It's hottest when the sun is overhead.

If the manufacturing process would pass a production economy-of-scale down to retail in lower prices, everyone would be helped. Price lowering effects only seem to work when there's active competition and minimization of middlemen.

It appears to me that there's a big emphasis today in keeping people, and people's homes, dependent on high-cost monthly service providers, such as electric and water utilities, etc. I guess that's business the old-fashioned way.

[thecrow]

7. Good for them!!

I think ALL states should give tax incentivees to those who build solar or convert to solar from "traditional" methods.

[Kolesar]

17. Bright white roofs can save 40% on air conditioning costs

There are roofing materials and coatings that reflect 80% of the sun's radiation. That compares to 0% to 20% reflectivity for most roofs. I think the sun radiates about 1 kilowatt of energy per square meter--that's a lot!

A tip of the hat to midnight armadillo and BKL

[phantom power]

19. Do you know of any specific products, or links?

We're probably going to re-shingle the house in 3-6 months. We live in Tempe, so it might be a good option.

I rather don't like the asthetic of a bright white roof. But if it really reflects that high a percentage, I might be able to bring myself to do it.

[Kolesar]

20. these links ought to help

I don't have my links handy, though. Note that bright white shingles are "hard to come by", although they exist. Typical white roofs are sheet materials.

I am looking in to this for our rec room addition that has a frightfully hot black roof that overheats the room.

A google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22white+roof%22+energy

There is a white coating/paint by Henry Co, and some roof systems.
http://henry.com/

This ought to be a good start.

[Bdog]

21. Comparative Evaluation of the Impact of Roofing Systems

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bldg/pubs/coolroof/

In summary, this evaluation strongly confirms the energy-saving benefits of using more reflective roofing systems in Florida. Selection of colors with higher solar reflectance will result in tangible cooling energy savings for customers. This is particularly true for roofing materials such as tile and metal, which are currently available with solar reflectances of 65%-75% range. The selection of reflective roofing systems represents one of the most significant energy-saving options available to homeowners and builders. Such systems also strongly reduce the cooling demand during utility coincident peak periods and may be among the most effective methods for controlling demand.

[DemSigns]

22. Links to interior and exterior roof paints

http://www.ecosmartinc.com/Details.asp?EID=43

Radiant barrier paint for interior attic roofs. Emissivity of 0.24 (rejects 76 percent of infrared radiation). Peak attic temps typically reduced 20 degrees. Saves 8 to 12 percent of A/C costs in the Southeast.

http://www.ecosmartinc.com/Details.asp?EID=63

Radiant barrier paint for application on the exterior of roofs. Emissivity of 0.24 (rejects 76 percent of infrared radiation). Peak attic temps typically reduced 20 degrees. Saves 8 to 12 percent of A/C costs in the Southeast. Also extends shingle life considerably.