EnergyGlass, a division of Saf-Glas, which has manufactured glass that will withstand everything from bullets to bombs and hurricanes since 1992, says it’s the world’s first company to make a transparent solar glass.

“Everything a photovoltaic panel can do, this can do,” said Art Marino, one of the Riviera Beach company’s founders. “It can do it better because it can do it from a vertical position.”

While rooftop panels are the most common way that electricity is generated from the sun, using windows expands the amount of surface available, Marino said. The glass can be used anywhere glass is needed, such as doors and skylights.

An EnergyGlass window looks like an ordinary window, but consists of a sheet of polycarbonate laminate infused with nanoparticles sandwiched between two pieces of glass. The glass collects power 24 hours a day from natural and artificial sources of light.

The nanoparticles magnify and redirect the light to the edges of the glass and into the window frame.

At the perimeter, solar cells convert the light into electricity, which goes into the building’s electrical system. That electricity can be diverted in many ways, such as to power batteries or the grid.

The inspiration for EnergyGlass occurred almost by chance.

Five years ago Saf-Glas was asked to come up with a way to protect solar panels in Midwest solar farms against hail. From that, the idea to create electricity within glass panels was born.

The product, in development in Taiwan since 2007 to keep it secret, made its debut in September at GlassBuild America. The first prototype was made in 2008, and improved since then. Development continued in Riviera Beach in 2011.

“We created interest even in the early stages when the glass was not as clear as it is now,” said David LaForest, the company’s international sales director.

EnergyGlass generates 1 to 4 watts per square foot and costs about $25 to $40 per square foot.

With federal tax and other incentives, it qualifies the entire project to be much less expensive, Marino said.

“In essence, the glass is free,” Marino said.

Parent company Saf-Glas has 22 employees and plans to hire more people at the end of the third quarter as it ramps up production of EnergyGlass.

Mark Mullock, CEO of CWM Wood Windows in Bryn Mawr, Pa., said his company is installing 40 of the solar windows in a health care center on the campus of Swarthmore College.

“We saw the glass as having wide applications. What it will do is give us a good demonstration project of the capabilities of the windows.”

Mullock said he’s been purchasing glass products from Saf-Glas for 15 years and trusts it.

“This is a technology that caught our attention. We are convinced of the viability. We want to learn the idiosyncrasies,” he said.

Even though Swarthmore, as a tax-exempt organization, can’t use tax credits, the energy saving benefits are enough for the retrofit to make sense.

“It is very attractive from the standpoint of the windows themselves. You don’t need solar panels on your roof. You do need windows,” Mullock said.

Marino said upcoming projects include the Pugliese Center in Delray Beach and PPG Industries, the world’s leading coatings and specialty products company, in Pittsburgh.

Sarah Kurtz, spokeswoman for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., said EnergyGlass uses a technology known as a luminescent concentrator. That’s because the nano particles absorb the light.

While Kurtz has only read about the product and not seen it in action, she said it appears to be viable as part of the architectural glass market.

“As long as you can do it in a cost-effective way, it’s a win-win,” she said.

By Susan Salisbury http://www.ecohomemagazine.com/arts-and-culture/solar-glass-makes-its-debut.aspx?cid=ECOHOME:042512

These roads and roofs can be problematic surfaces. Often dark in color, they soak up sunlight, increasing the temperature of the building and surrounding area in what’s known as the urban heat island effect. This in turn contributes to a vicious cycle: the hotter a city feels, the more we energy we tend to use to cool it down, which leads to more greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change, and so on.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Researchers from Concordia University have found [PDF] that even a slight improvement in the reflectivity of these surfaces could lead to a global reduction of billions of tons of CO2. A measly 1 percent increase in white roofs or roads rolled out across the urban world would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by upwards of 130 billion tons over the next 50 to 100 years.

Using data from the Global Rural and Urban Mapping Project, or GRUMP (by far one of our favorite acronyms), they also calculated this same 1 percent increase would help reduce global temperatures by about 0.07 degrees Celsius.

Admittedly, improving the reflectivity of every street and building in the urban world is a massive task. But as the researchers note, roads typically have to be resurfaced every decade or so and rooftops usually need to be replaced every 20 or 30 years. If we can incrementally use lighter-colored paving on those road resurfacing projects and white paint on roofs, the impact over time could be dramatic.

Nate Berg is staff writer at The Atlantic Cities. He lives in Los Angeles

http://www.builderonline.com/builder-pulse/the-role-of-roofs-in-sustainable-building.aspx?cid=BP:041712:JUMP

On the other side of the globe, researchers at theUniversity of Nottingham in Ningbo, China, have been toiling for eight years on a composite PCM whose “unique advantages” offer a higher energy storage capacity and faster heat transfer, according to Professor Jo Darkwa, the team’s leader and director of the university’s Center for Sustainable Energy Technologies.

In the lab, the PCM looks like an oversized Alka Seltzer, but could be made larger or small enough to be sprayed onto surfaces depending on use. Darkwa says the material may eventually be combined with gypsum drywall, paint, laminated transparent sheets for window blinds, and other residential products.

In essence, Darkwa explains, the material is engineered so that it stores or releases heat by solidifying or melting at constant temperatures.

“For heating applications, it can store any excessive solar or internal sundry heat gains when a preset room temperature is exceeded and then releases the heat back when the temperature falls below a preset room temperature,” he says.

For cooling applications, the material could be used to reduce the amount of solar heat gains through walls, roofs, and windows into rooms, thereby minimizing the total cooling loads of air conditioners by as much as 65 percent. “Depending on the internal environmental conditions in a room, additional cooling by air conditioning may not even be necessary,” says Darkwa, except to control humidity and air movement.

All told, the application of this material has the potential to cut a building’s energy consumption by 35 percent. And given that construction produces more carbon emissions than any other industry in the world, the commercialization of this type of PCM could have a significant impact on curtailing energy usage and the pollutants that are emitted due to that usage.

Darkwa and his team have been conducting life-cycle analyses to determine how the addition of the PCM would affect the overall cost of the product.

Their research already has financial backing from China’s public and private sectors, and Darkwa tells Builder that some kind of product—such as a solar photovoltaic efficiency enhancement application—could be on the market within the next two years.

By:

John Caulfield

When it comes to choosing a water heater, though, clarity evaporates. Simple, affordable water heaters aren’t very efficient, and efficient equipment is complicated and costly. So how do you go about choosing a water heater?

Emergency decisions

Most homeowners ignore their water heaters. About once every ten years, the average homeowner goes down to the basement or out to the garage and notices that the water heater is sitting in a pool of water.

Since the family needs to replace the leaking water heater right now, the $350 special at Home Depot (or whatever model the nearest plumber is willing to install) looks good. Although a rush replacement job is understandable under the circumstances, it’s not the wisest way to choose a water heater.

Choosing a water heater

The overwhelming majority of water heaters sold in the U.S. are tank-type water heaters heated by natural gas, propane, or electric resistance elements. Tank-type water heaters are widely available and inexpensive. Of the three most common fuels, natural gas is by far the cheapest, except in a few areas of the country with very low electric rates.

If natural gas is unavailable, an electric resistance water heater makes more sense than a propane water heater, since electric water heaters avoid potential problems with backdrafting and flue-gas spillage.

What if you want to heat your water more efficiently — or in a more environmentally friendly way? Well, there are many options, all of which require a much bigger investment in equipment.

Options include:

• A condensing gas water heater
• A gas-fired instantaneous (on-demand) heater
• A heat-pump water heater
• A solar hot water system
• An indirect water heater connected to a space-heating boiler
• A desuperheater connected to a ground-source heat pump.

Most of these high-tech water heaters are more efficient than typical tank-style heaters. Unfortunately, all of these options have disadvantages:

• Condensing gas water heaters require a condensate drain, have a long payback period, and are expensive — generally $4,000 to $8,000 for a unit with a stainless-steel tank, or $2,100 for a unit with an enameled steel tank (the Vertex). Paying that much would only makes sense if you plan to use your water heater to supply space heat as well as domestic hot water.
• On-demand water heaters require an oversized gas supply line, are mechanically complicated, may have trouble keeping up with simultaneous demand from several fixtures, have a long payback period, and are expensive.
• Heat-pump water heaters are noisy, mechanically complicated, rob space heat from the house during the winter, require a condensate drain, have a long payback period, and are expensive. According to energy expert Marc Rosenbaum, monitoring shows that the efficiency specifications provided by manufacturers of heat-pump water heaters are probably exaggerated.
• Solar hot water systems require regular maintenance, complicate roofing replacement, have a long payback period, and are expensive — generally $5,000 to $9,000. Although these systems make a lot of hot water in June — in some cases, more than a family can use — they don’t produce much hot water in December.
• Indirect water heaters require a boiler — an appliance that most homes lack. During the summer, the efficiency of these systems plummets, especially for households that don’t use a lot of hot water; according to Marc Rosenbaum, the summer efficiency of an indirect water heater may be as low as 10% to 20%.
• A desuperheater requires a very expensive ground-source heat pump — an appliance that most homes lack.

What about Energy Star water heaters?

Some of the water heaters mentioned above — condensing gas water heaters, solar water heaters, on-demand gas water heaters, and heat-pump water heaters — can be purchased with an Energy Star label. However, it’s worth noting that Energy Star-labeled non-condensing gas water heaters aren’t particularly efficient (minimum EF, 0.67).

Moreover, while indirect water heaters and desuperheaters aren’t eligible to receive an Energy Star label, that doesn’t mean that these methods of water heating don’t make sense for some homes.

In short, while the Energy Star labeling program for water heaters has some logic behind it, it shouldn’t be the main criterion for choosing a water heater.

If you can put it in your garage, an inexpensive gas water heater makes sense

Atmospherically vented gas water heaters have a major disadvantage: when installed inside the conditioned envelope of your house, they are subject to backdrafting whenever a strong exhaust fan is turned on. So atmospherically vented gas water heaters are a no-no in a tight house.

If you live in a warm climate where pipes don’t freeze in your garage, and if you are lucky enough to have access to natural gas, it makes perfect sense to install an inexpensive atmospherically vented gas water heater in your garage. The water heater is outside of your home’s thermal envelope, so there is no backdrafting risk, and natural gas is ridiculously cheap.

Power venting reduces backdrafting — but imposes an energy penalty

One of the advantages of old-fashioned atmospherically vented gas water heaters is that they don’t need any electricity to operate. While power-vented water heaters reduce the chance that an exhaust appliance causes backdrafting, the energy required to operate these venting systems is a new electrical load.

A research report from the Saskatchewan Research Council (Robert Dumont, Case Studies of Major Home Energy Retrofits) noted, “It appears that the power-vented water heaters deliver very little energy savings when you factor in the use of the power-vent motor.” Since the electrical consumption of power-vented gas water heaters is not subject to regulation, manufacturers have little incentive to address the issue. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy does not compile data on power-vent consumption. “We’re doing some testing of power-vented water heaters,” said Skip Hayden, senior research scientist at Advanced Combustion Technologies in Ottawa, told me in 2004. “In terms of electrical consumption, they are all over the place. We’ve seen some that draw 100 watts, and some that draw 200 watts.”

Scott Pigg, a senior project manager for the Energy Center of Wisconsin, has reported (in a residential ventilation study) that the median operating time for residential power-vented water heaters was 80 minutes a day, although the water heater in one monitored home ran for over 240 minutes per day. If a water heater has a 200-watt power-vent, an average family might see an annual electrical consumption of about 100 kWh, and a high-use family might see an annual electrical consumption of almost 300 kWh. “I will say this about power-vented water heaters: they’re noisy little buggers,” Pigg told me. “And any time you hear a lot of noise you know there is some energy going to waste.”

A direct-vent gas water heater that doesn’t require electricity

If you are wary of the backdrafting risks of conventional gas water heaters, but are still attracted to the simplicity of a tank-style gas water heater without power venting, a good solution might be a direct-vent gas water heater from GSW Water Heating of Fergus, Ontario.

GSW makes a direct-vent sealed-combustion gas water heater that operates without electricity. Its efficiency is no better that similar conventional gas water heaters, but it is protected from backdrafting risks. According to the manufacturer, this gas water heater complies with Canada’s R2000 home requirements.

A lot of hot water gets wasted

When it comes to calculating how much energy Americans use to heat water, water heater efficiency tells only a small part of the story. A large percentage of the hot water produced by most water heaters never reaches the faucet.

Because many faucets and fixtures are a long way from the water heater, it can take anywhere from 30 seconds to 3 minutes for hot water to reach a distant sink. For example, when you turn on the hot tap to wash your hands, you probably begin by using the cold water that first flows from the pipe. Just as the hot water is about to reach the tap, you shut it off because you’re done. Now all of the hot water in the pipe begins to cool off, assuring that the next time you wash your hands, you will again be using cold water — but paying for hot water.

James Lutz, a research associate supervisor at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, researched hot water waste; he reported his findings in a paper, “Estimating Energy and Water Losses in Residential Hot Water Distribution Systems.” His summary: “From these calculations, about 20% of total hot water use in single-family residences seems to be wasted. Although these calculations are based on many assumptions and simplifications, the results do seem reasonable to this author and point to a significant opportunity for increasing residential energy efficiency.”

Why it takes so long for hot water to reach the faucet

If Lutz’s calculations are correct, and the average house wastes 20% of its hot water, then some houses waste much more.

The factors that affect the amount of wasted hot water include:

• Whether the house has a compact design: stretched-out single-story homes are likely to have more waste than compact two-story homes.
• Whether the water heater is in a basement (making it easier to locate the water heater in the center of the house) or in a garage (in other words, at one end of the house rather than the center).
• The number of bathrooms and fixtures in the house. (Homes with many fixtures waste more water than homes with few fixtures.)
• The diameter of the tubing supplying hot water to remote fixtures. (Small diameter tubing is preferable to large diameter tubing).

As Gary Klein, managing partner of Affiliated International Management, has pointed out in a useful series of articles (“Hot-Water Distribution Systems”), all of these factors have been trending in the wrong direction in recent years, and as a result our wait times for hot water are getting longer. In Part I of his series, Klein wrote, “Since houses are generally stretched out from the driveway to the back yard on long, skinny lots, the distance to the furthest fixture has increased to over 60 feet. … There are twice as many fixtures in the current median home as there were in 1970. The distance to the farthest fixture has more than doubled. And there are a lot more fixtures served by the trunk line. In consequence and in accordance with the plumbing code, the diameter of the trunk line has increased from 1/2 to 3/4 inch for much of its length and to 1 inch for a significant portion. This means that the cross-sectional area of the pipe has increased by a factor of 2.25 to 4.0. … In addition, water utilities have taken additional steps to reduce water consumption by promoting more-water saving fixtures. They also have reduced supply pressures, both to reduce leaks in their aging systems and pump costs and to effectively increase supply for the ever-growing population in their service areas. … In short, it now takes 18 times as long for the hot water to arrive. For example, if it used to take 5 seconds to get hot water, it now takes 90 seconds.”

In Part II of his series of articles, Klein explained why small diameter hot water tubing is preferable to large diameter tubing: “Compared to the time it takes hot water to arrive in 3/8-inch-diameter pipe at a given flow rate, it takes roughly 1.5 times as long in 1/2-inch-diameter pipe, three times as long in 3/4-inch-diameter pipe, and six times as long in 1-inch diameter pipe.”

Other ways to reduce the cost of hot water

If you want to reduce the amount of energy you use to run your old refrigerator, it makes sense to shop for a new refrigerator with a higher efficiency. But you can’t really apply the same logic to your hot water system.

If you’re not happy with your run-of-the-mill water heater, you could spend thousands of dollars on a fancy new water heater that might reduce your energy use by 15%. But if your house is wasting 25% of the hot water produced by your new equipment, it’s clear that fancy equipment alone won’t solve your energy waste problem.

Here’s a list of seven things you can do to reduce the amount of energy used for domestic hot water:

• Design your house for an efficient pipe layout. Designers should create compact designs with as few bathrooms as possible. Bathrooms should be located close to the kitchen — directly above or below the kitchen, if possible, or close to it in a horizontal direction if the rooms are on the same floor. The water heater should be centrally located. Hot water lines to remote fixtures should be small diameter lines; in most cases, home-run manifold systems make more sense than trunk-and-branch plumbing systems.
• Insulate your hot water pipes. Pipe insulation has only limited value, since it helps keep water hot for only 30 minutes or so. Nevertheless, insulated pipes are preferable to uninsulated pipes.
• Install a drainwater heat recovery device. These devices consists of a coil of copper water-supply tubing wrapped around a large-diameter vertical copper drain pipe. The devices extract heat from hot water flowing down the drain and transfer the heat to cold water flowing to a showerhead. Brands include GFX, Power-Pipe, and WaterCycles. Studies show that these simple devices can save 16% to 34% of the energy used to heat domestic hot water.
• Install low-flow fixtures and efficient appliances. If you can find a 1.75 gallon per minute showerhead that you like, you’ll use a lot less hot water than your neighbor who uses a 2.5 gallon per minute showerhead. It’s also important to consider hot-water usage specifications when choosing a dishwasher or clothes washer.
• Consider installing a demand-controlled hot-water circulation pump. If you are stuck living in a house with a bad plumbing layout — for example, a stretched-out single-story house with a water heater in the garage, and a master bath on the opposite end of the house — consider installing a demand-controlled hot water circulation pump. This type of pump won’t turn on unless you flip a switch located in the remote bathroom. Whatever you do, however, don’t install a hot-water circulation pump that is controlled by a timer or one that runs 24 hours a day; these pumps will just increase your energy bill.
• Wash your clothes with cold water.
• Change your behavior. If it takes you 2 minutes to wash your hands, and it takes 2 1/2 minutes for hot water to reach your bathroom sink, it probably makes sense to use the cold-water tap instead of the hot-water tap for most hand-washing activities. Retrain yourself!

The lower your hot water usage, the fewer reasons there are to buy expensive equipment

Many American households use a lot of hot water, and our inefficient plumbing systems result in a lot of waste. However, it doesn’t make much sense for families that use average or below-average amounts of hot water to invest in an expensive high-tech water heater. The savings are too small to justify the investment.

For example, energy consultant Marc Rosenbaum lives in a two-person household in Massachusetts. Marc and Jill heat their water with an electric resistance water heater that requires only about 1,100 kWh per year. (They recently hooked up a heat-pump water heater, but that’s another story.) It’s possible to generate that much electricity with a 1-kWphotovoltaic system that costs only $4,500 to install — even less with a tax rebate — so their household is a poor candidate for a $5,000 condensing gas-fired water heater.

That said, the more hot water your household uses, the more sense it makes to install efficient but expensive equipment.

A few radical ideas

Can we imagine better ways of reducing the amount of energy we use to make hot water?

A few years ago I visited a small town on the Caribbean island of Dominica, and stayed in a simple guest house. The house had no water heater. However, the showerhead was fat, and it had a cord dangling from the end that was plugged into the nearest outlet. An electric resistance element in the showerhead (controlled by a flow sensor) raised the temperature of the water flowing through the showerhead. Since the electrical draw of the resistance element was fixed, the user controlled the temperature by adjusting the water flow. If the flow was adjusted to a trickle, the water was very hot; if the water flow was fast, the shower was lukewarm at best.

Of course, this device looked a little frightening, but it worked. It had several virtues:

• It only worked with low flows, so you had to save both water and electricity if you wanted a hot shower.
• Obviously, there was no hot water wasted, because no hot water ever sat in a pipe.

It turns out that these point-of-use electric water heaters are widely used in the Caribbean and Latin America. Common brands include Marey, Coral, and Lorenzetti. (If you want, you can buy such a unit in the U.S. The Marey Heater Corporation will sell you a 110-volt model for $75, and a 220-volt Lorenzetti model is available from Casa Excel in Miami for $79. Disclaimer: I’m not sure that these water heaters meet U.S. building code requirements, so experiment with these devices at your own risk.)

The main disadvantage of these units: most of them are made for tropical countries that have incoming cold water temperatures of 70°F or 80°F. These units advertise a temperature rise of 10 F° to 30 F°; that means that they won’t heat water in Vermont to shower temperature. (The better-quality 220-volt models can provide a 122°F shower with 40°F incoming cold water, but only at a relatively low flow rate of 1 gallon per minute.)

But here’s my point: many builders of zero-energy homes are moving toward all-electric homes equipped with photovoltaic systems. If you don’t like the complexity of heat-pump water heaters, that means you’ll be heating your water with electric-resistance elements. And if you’re doing that, I think that the water-heating elements should be located at the tap to minimize hot water waste.

Calling all manufacturers: we need innovative point-of-use water heaters

Clearly, most of us can’t use an electric showerhead that only raises the temperature of the incoming water by 10 F° to 30 F°. Even better engineered products, like the Stiebel Eltron Mini Tankless heater, probably cost too much to install at each faucet and only handle a slow flow rate of water. (You can buy a Stiebel Eltron Mini Tankless on the Web for about $130.)

However, I’m raising the idea of using point-of-use electric resistance water heaters for two reasons: in hopes that manufacturers will develop a wider variety of point-of-use water heaters, and to get builders and designers thinking of new ways to reduce hot water waste.

In the meantime, I believe that there’s nothing wrong with installing an inexpensive electric resistance water heater — or, if you live in a hot climate, a heat-pump water heater. Just be sure to wrap the tank in an insulation blanket and use as little hot water as possible.

BY MARTIN HOLLADAY, GBA ADVISOR

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/all-about-water-heaters?utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_term=water-heating&utm_content=20120215-water-heaters&utm_campaign=green-building-advisor-eletter

The outcome was exactly the opposite: The topic struck such a chord that nearly 100,000 people read the article, and almost 200 chimed in with their own entertaining (and somewhat worrying) anecdotes about house hunting and home selling.

Some themes emerged, which I thought were “share-worthy” for those who are desperately seeking to uplevel their homebuying or selling game. Straight from the horses’ mouths, here are five things homebuyers hate; next week we’ll turn to things sellers can’t stand.

 
Warped house image via Shutterstock.

1. Images that lie

Stretching photos to make rooms appear much larger than they actually are would be banned by listing services, if buyers had anything to do with it. And if your home is pristine and staged during the photo shoot (which it should be), it should still be pristine and staged when buyers come to see it in person.

Taking a photo of just one corner of a room that is shaped strangely or stuffed full of personal items is another way to confuse and irritate buyers, who hate nothing more than to feel like they were misled and tricked into wasting their time to see a place that is nothing like the photos.

“No photo available!” image via Shutterstock.

2. Listings with no useful images at all

Listing photos of the piano or a piece of beautiful furniture that is not included in the sale is irritating to online house hunters, who might assume that the house had no other attractive features to furnish. Even worse: Home listings with no photos at all.

Nine times out of ten, when the listing has no photos buyers simply scroll or click right past those homes — even the ones that might perfectly meet their expectations.

Sellers, let’s be clear: Skilled listing agents who are getting homes sold in today’s market are putting 10, 20 even 30 photos of each listing online. That’s your competition. If a buyer only has time to see seven homes on a Sunday, and there are 20 listed in your area and price range, chances are good that those with the best, most numerous pictures will capture those valuable showing slots.

Often, listings with no photos are that way because of technical difficulties. Check on your home’s online listings on various real estate search sites and alert your agent if there’s a problem with the pictures.

 
Trees vs. house image via Shutterstock.

3. Misleading marketing

Problems in the condition of the home that will be obvious when buyers enter, like a shifting foundation or clearly leaky roof, should be disclosed as such in the listing to minimize the inconvenience to you and those buyers who wouldn’t have bothered to visit if they knew. Disclosing such problems upfront will maximize your chances of finding the right buyer, who is willing to take them on.

Phrases like “immaculate” and “better than new” set you (and your home) up for failure when the buyer walks in and sees even normal wear and tear, or the smells and clutter of daily living.

 
“Stalkerish” seller image via Shutterstock.

4. “Stalkerish” sellers

Sellers who are intrusive or follow buyers around during a showing were No. 1 on my own list, and on the lists of buyers who commented on my earlier article. You might love the murals you’ve painted on your kids’ walls or the custom living room crafting area you’ve set up, and want to share your love with prospective buyers.

But the fact is that most buyers just aren’t interested, and would rather be able to discuss their plans to get rid of crazy customizations freely with their spouse and their agent than feel obliged to feign appreciation. (I’ve even had some buyers say they liked a house, but kept looking because they would have hated to pull out the sellers’ beloved personal touches.)

 
Sleeping man image via Shutterstock.com.

5. Bizarro showings

Dogs, kids and sleeping residents all made recurrent appearances in the comments to my article. I’ve personally shown more than one home with dog “leavings” on the interior carpets, and even once joined my out-of-shape clients on a foot chase to catch a wily little dog whose owner had left explicit instructions not to let “Fido” out (but left him roaming around the house, poised to dart out the front door the second I opened it). One reader related a showing in which she opened a hall closet door and out popped a dog that had been cooped up there for the occasion.

A short-sale buyer related the depressing tale of an 8-year-old boy who showed her the whole house, while another distressed property viewer told of the kid who ran after her and her husband, screaming, “You can’t have my house!” Multiple buyers told of walking into rooms where people were changing clothes, eating, frying up food or sleeping during the showing.

And there was the house in which someone had recently passed away — where someone had reportedly placed a rose on the deceased person’s bed. Not a selling point.

Showing bizarreness is tough for buyers to get past, even if the place is a palace.

By TARA-NICHOLLE NELSON

http://lowes.inman.com/InmanINF/lowes/news/180738

Panel makers such as Suntech Power Holding, SunPower Corp and Yingli Green Energy suffered from a glut of supplies that pushed prices for solar panels down 50 percent last year, sending their share prices crashing.

But those cheaper panels meant lower costs for the installers who buy them, such as SolarCity, the market leader in residential and commercial installations, which is expected to seek an initial public offering this year that could value the company at about $1.5 billion.

An IPO would make SolarCity and Real Goods Solar Inc the only two publicly traded companies solely focused on that market. Their success, and that of privately held rivals such as SunRun and Sungevity, could lead to “exponential growth” of the market, according to Neil Auerbach, founder of private equity firm Hudson Clean Energy.

“SolarCity is not going to be the only company to enjoy the benefit of that,” he said. “We definitely believe that this is an attractive area. We have been looking at it. We haven’t found the right horse.”

Total solar installations in the United States are believed to have nearly doubled in 2011 from the previous year to between 1,500 and 2,000 megawatts of capacity. About 16 percent of that went to residential rooftops and 40 percent for installations at commercial sites, according GTM Research.

Much of solar’s recent growth has been from large-scale power plant projects designed to feed the wholesale electricity market in California. But with the state’s demand for large projects likely full through at least the middle of the decade, investors are looking at the spread of smaller installations, which may offer better returns.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch is backing about one-third of SolarCity’s $1 billion “SolarStrong” project to put panels on military housing, and developer Borrego Solar secured $47 million this week from U.S. Bank and East West Bank for projects on corporate, educational and municipal sites in California and Massachusetts.

Companies such as Google Inc have also invested in funds that provide new financial tools for companies that have helped make the residential market one of the fastest growing segments of the industry.

Those financing tools include leasing offers for homeowners or businesses, which can install the renewable energy systems on their rooftops without spending the tens of thousands of dollars a small-scale installation can cost.

Under the lease system, the installer brings outside financing, similar to that used by car dealers for auto leases, and the homeowner spends little or no money up front while still getting lower power costs.

Utility company PG&E and U.S. Bancorp have sunk $400 million into SunRun to fund their solar lease program.

ROLL-UP STRATEGY

Still, the solar installation market is very fragmented, with hundreds of small companies in California alone. Many experts believe that may open the door for a “roll-up” strategy in which well-financed companies buy up competitors.

“The competition is somewhat regional. There are not a lot of other national developers,” said Borrego Chief Financial Officer Bill Bush. “I think that will probably change over time.”

SolarCity is the market leader in residential installations with a 14 percent share, followed by Real Goods Solar with a 6 percent share, according to GTM Research.

Real Goods expanded from its base in Colorado last year with the acquisition of Alteris, giving it access to the fast-growing East Coast markets, where state incentives and high-power prices are expected to boost business.

Several larger solar companies have recently began offering solar leases, including MEMC Electronic Material’s SunEdison and SunPower, although those companies have also focused on larger-scale projects.

Those large projects and “utility” projects have dominated the market over the last two years because they are more cost-effective to build. Small projects on a single home or business tend to cost more than double the larger utility projects, often as much as $6-$7 per watt.

Despite the drop in panel prices, costs for residential and small commercial solar installations have seen little change in the last year, experts said, and can be about 50 percent more expensive than comparable installations in Germany, the world’s largest solar market.

“What has happened in the industry in the last two years hasn’t really gotten to the end customer. The homeowner is still waiting,” said Deep Chakraborty, chief executive of CentroSolar America, a unit of Germany’s Centrosolar Group AG.

Nearly a $1 per watt of the cost for residential or small business solar installation is due to “customer acquisition,” he said, or the marketing and outreach needed to close a deal.

And since most installers are very small companies, they typically purchase panels and other equipment such as wiring, power inverters, mounting racks and hardware separately, driving up costs.

Centrosolar is targeting that area for cost cuts, an effort Chakraborty says is key to creating a more cost effective “channel” to drive down the price of solar systems.

Still, building a network of installers that can reach thousands of homeowners can be expensive, and some players, such as Borrego are focusing on the “commercial” segment that includes businesses and government building for projects that are typically larger than residential installations.

“Relying on the residential market — I just don’t see how it could be scaled dramatically unless you can make it less expensive and it requires cutting out some of the parties involved, such as outside financing,” said Mehdi Hosseini, solar analyst at Susqehanna.

“If you can combined commercial with residential rooftops then you have a business model that can be scaled,” he said.

(Reporting By Matt Daily, additional reporting by Nichola Groom in Los Angeles. Editing by Gunna Dickson)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-solar-installers-idUSTRE81G27520120217?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=76

A PV array is made up of rectangular modules (or panels) that measure between 2 and 5 feet on a side. The most common type of PV module has an aluminum frame and a glass cover protecting a collection polycrystalline PV cells. When exposed to light, each PV cell produces 0.5 volt DC — so if you add up the number of cells and divide by 2, you know the voltage of the module. The best performing commercially available PV cells are roughly 20% efficient at converting solar energy into electricity.

Unlike polycrystalline PV cells, thin-film (amorphous) PV products are manufactured on a flexible sheet. These thin-film PV products have many applications; for example, they are used to make PV roof shingles and peel-and-stick membranes designed for use on metal roofing. Thin-film PV products have relatively low efficiencies — usually in the range of 10% to 12% — so they require almost twice the area required for a polycrystalline PV array with the same electrical output.

Both polycrystalline and thin-film PV arrays produce DC power. This DC electricity can be used directly to charge a battery; in most homes, however, the solar electricity is sent to an inverter that converts the DC power to AC. The inverter’s AC output can then be used directly by the homeowners or fed into the power grid.

Most grid-connected PV systems won’t provide any electricity during power outages, for two reasons: first, the type of inverter used for a grid-connected PV system won’t operate when the grid is down, and second, you can’t provide your home with electricity at night unless you have a big, expensive battery.

Of course, you can buy a battery and a special inverter if you want to, but that will add at least $6,000 to $15,000 to the cost of your PV system. Most homeowners who want backup power conclude that a gas-powered generator is cheaper than a big battery system and a special off-grid inverter.

Designing a PV system

The basics of PV system design can be quickly summarized with a few rules of thumb:

• Although some homeowners size a PV array to meet a specific electrical load, it is far more common to size a PV array to meet a specific budget. Residential PV systems now cost about $4.50 a watt, although prices can be higher or lower, depending on many factors.
• Polycrystalline PV arrays have a peak rating of 10 to 12 watts per square foot, while amorphous PV arrays have a peak rating of 5 to 6 watts per square foot.
• Solar electric potential varies by climate, from an average of 0.029 kWh per square foot per day in Seattle to an average of 0.049 kWh per square foot per day in Phoenix.
• A 1-kW PV system will generate an average of 970 kWh per year in Seattle and 1,617 kWh per year in Phoenix. (A useful free online tool for estimating the output of a PV array in different U.S. locations is PVWatts.)
• It’s almost always cheaper to buy very efficient appliances and a small PV array rather than ordinary appliances and a larger PV array sized to handle the increased load.
• Most buildings have a roof that is too small to accommodate a PV array sized to supply all of the building’s electricity.

Where should I mount the array?

A PV array can be roof-mounted, ground-mounted, or building-integrated. Most roof-mounted modules are installed on aluminum racks. These racks are best installed on an unshaded, south-facing roof parallel to the roofing, with an intervening air space of 3 to 4 inches. The air space under the array helps lower PV module temperatures; cooler modules produce more electricity than hotter modules. Maximum PV production usually occurs on clear winter days; ideal conditions require snow on the ground (but not on the modules) and a few fluffy cumulus clouds to reflect additional sunlight on the solar array.

Roof-mounted arrays dominate the PV retrofit market, but they aren’t the only option. Installing a ground-mounted array avoids one of the major drawbacks of a roof-mounted array — the need to disassemble the array when the roofing needs to be replaced. It’s also usually easier to remove snow from a ground-mounted array than a roof-mounted array.

Ground-mounted arrays require a site without any nearby trees or buildings to the east, south, or west. Such an array can be installed at a fixed angle or on a pole-mounted tracker that automatically adjusts the array’s angle as the sun moves across the sky.

Although trackers can increase the output of a PV array by 15% to 30%, they add complexity, cost, and potential maintenance headaches. Many PV installers advise homeowners to use the money that they would have spent on a tracker to simply buy more PV modules; in many cases, the end result is a simpler system with about the same electrical output.

PV roofing

PV arrays can be integrated into a variety of building components, including roofing, vertical façade components, translucent glazing, and awnings. Of these, roof-integrated PV arrays are by far the most common.

Manufacturers sell PV roofing products designed for integration with concrete tile roofs, asphalt shingle roofs, metal roofing, and low-slope membrane roofs. Since these products don’t stand proud of the roof, they make residential PV arrays less conspicuous; however, all of these roof-integrated products are more expensive than a conventional polycrystalline PV array.

Net metering

Many states have net-metering regulations that compel utilities to offer two-way electricity meters to customers with renewable energy systems; these meters credit customers for any on-site electricity production. While there is currently no federal mandate requiring utilities to offer net metering, 42 U.S. states have established net-metering mandates or guidelines. The details of these diverse net-metering programs vary widely.

The Network for New Energy Choices, a New York nonprofit group, issues an annual report, “Freeing the Grid,” that rates states on the friendliness of their net-metering laws and interconnection standards. According to the most recent report, the states with the best net-metering and interconnection regulations are Delaware, Massachusetts, and Utah, while the worst states are Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

Here’s an example of how net metering usually works: If you have a PV array that generates 200 kWh during a month when your home uses 500 kWh, you’ll receive a bill for only 300 kWh. Some utilities roll over credits indefinitely, but most allow credits to roll over for only 12 months.

In most cases, homeowners can’t get a check from the utility for excess power production. That’s why grid-connected PV systems are rarely sized to generate more electricity on an annual basis that a home is expected to use.

PV payback

With Chinese factories now churning out PV modules at a furious pace, the cost of PV modules has been dropping fast. As Jesse Thompson, an architect in Portland, Maine, pointed out in his recent GBA blog, PV Systems Have Gotten Dirt Cheap, the installed cost of a grid-connected PV system now ranges from $4.10 and $4.50 a watt. At that price, PV-generated electricity is now cheaper than grid power in many areas of the country.

The financial case for PV systems is boosted by a variety of federal, state, and local incentives. Every U.S. taxpayer is eligible for a tax credit equal to 30% of the cost (including labor) of installing a residential PV system. New homes as well as existing homes are eligible for the credit, and there is no upper limit to the size of the credit.

Some state and local governments (and some local utilities) also offer further PV incentives. To learn more about the incentives available in your area, check out the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (commonly known as the DSIRE website).

Although Jesse Thompson calls PV systems “dirt cheap,” most Americans swallow hard when they learn how much they cost. The typical zero-energy home needs a PV system rated at 5 to 10 kW; such a system costs between $21,000 to $42,000. Of course, tax rebates and utility incentives can significantly reduce that cost.

Let’s say you can afford a 6-kW PV system; how much electricity will that system produce? The answer depends on your location. In Chicago, Illinois, such a system would generate an average of 7,056 kwh per year — or $1,086 worth of electricity at the local rate of 15.4¢ per kWh. So if the system costs $17,500 after your federal tax rebate, you’ll break even if the system lasts about 16 years — assuming, of course, that you don’t have any maintenance costs.

Rising electricity costs would shorten the payback period, and if the system lasts longer than 16 years, you end up with cheap electricity. (For more information on payback, see Payback Calculations for Energy-Efficiency Improvements.)

Homeowners don’t have to make their own power

Before you invest thousands of dollars in a PV system, you need to ask yourself whether you really want the responsibility of maintaining power-generating equipment. Many energy experts argue that electricity generation is best done on the scale of a neighborhood or town rather than a single building.

Most homeowners have no interest in troubleshooting inverter problems or figuring out how to dismantle their PV array when it’s time for a new roof, so they’re happy to leave the job of power generation to their local electric utility. That’s just as well, since utility-scale wind or solar projects are almost always more cost-effective than residential-scale PV systems.

For some building owners — especially those willing to make a significant investment to reduce their carbon footprint or those living in states with generous PV subsidies —investing in a PV system makes sense. Many hobbyists get a kick out of watching the meters on their PV system spike on a sunny day, and some homeowners appreciate the security that comes from paying up front for 30 years’ worth of electricity.

Of course, an on-site renewable energy system is not a prerequisite for green construction. “I always tell clients that solar is the last thing I want you to do,” said Steven Strong, the president of Solar Design Associates in Harvard, Massachusetts. “Build the envelope with the best materials you can. Buy the best windows — don’t even tell me what they cost. I don’t care.”

Remember: many energy-efficiency measures — including air sealing work and investments in energy-efficient appliances and lighting — have a much faster payback than a PV system. Such measures, often referred to as “the low-hanging fruit,” should always be implemented before you make an investment in PV.

What about an off-grid system?

If you’ve ever dreamed of building or owning a zero-energy house, perhaps you’ve also dreamed of living off the grid. Here’s the fantasy: you build a cabin in the woods with its own well and septic system, and you obtain all of your electricity from a PV array on the roof. What could be better? You’re self-sufficient!

Well, not quite. In most climates, it’s actually quite difficult (and expensive) to be electrically self-sufficient. First of all, you’ll need a bank of lead-acid batteries to run your appliances at night and on cloudy days. Most off-grid homeowners pay between $1,200 and $8,000 for a set of batteries. The batteries usually have enough capacity to run the house for only two or three days. And they don’t last very long; every 8 or 9 years, you’ll have to invest in a new set.

If you anticipate three weeks of cloudy weather in November — a typical occurrence where I live in northern Vermont — you could theoretically purchase a battery bank large enough to get your house through three cloudy weeks. However, the batteries would probably cost $40,000 or more — far more than a gas-powered generator and a lifetime supply of gasoline. That’s why most off-grid homeowners don’t size their battery bank to get them through the winter.

Another problem with an off-grid PV system is that much of the electricity produced during the summer is wasted. How is that? Since most off-grid homes don’t have an air-conditioner — air conditioning uses far more electricity than the typical off-grid array can supply — these homes don’t require much electricity during the summer. Days are long, and the need for lighting is greatly reduced. So on a sunny June day, the battery systems of many off-grid homes are completely full by 10:00 a.m. At that point, the system’s charge controller disconnects the PV array from the battery, and all of the electricity produced for the rest of the day is wasted.

Grid-connected systems solve the summer problem as well as the winter problem. During the winter, when sunlight is rare, grid-connected homeowners can buy electricity from the local power company. During the summer, when their PV array produces a surplus, they can sell the power to the grid. It’s a win-win situation.

The last $10,000

When energy nerds gather for conversation, they often discuss how to spend “the last $10,000” when designing a new home. As PV systems continue to drop in price, designers need to keep their pencils sharp and rethink their assumptions about the last $10,000.

The “last $10,000” question assumes that you’ve already designed a “pretty good house,” meaning that you’ve paid attention to air sealing, have installed insulation in a conscientious manner, and have installed windows that at least meet Energy Star requirements.

Ten years ago, the answer to the “last $10,000” question almost always involved more insulation or better windows. These days, however, it often makes sense to spend the last $10,000 on a PV array.

So, the next time a client asks you a question about “last $10,000,” you should be ready with an educated answer that applies to your climate and your local utility costs. Before you recommend installing R-60 attic insulation, triple-glazed windows, or a condensing gas water heater, do the math. The answer you get may surprise you.

BY MARTIN HOLLADAY, GBA ADVISOR

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/introduction-photovoltaic-systems?utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_term=electrical&utm_content=20120217-gerstel-interviews&utm_campaign=fine-homebuilding-building-business

Opinions differ among glass and glazing professionals regarding whether Congress should have extended tax incentives used by developers and remodelers that, in turn, influenced the glass industry.

The incentives in question: the New Energy Efficient Home Tax Credit (45L) and the Existing Home Retrofit Tax Credit (25C). The 45L was the only federal incentive available for efficiency in new home construction, and provided a $2,000 tax credit to builders and developers for the construction and sale of homes that achieved a 50 percent improvement in energy efficiency over the 2004 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The 25C provided consumers a tax credit of up to $500 for the purchase of qualifying energy-efficient products. Remodelers often leveraged 25C tax incentives when working with clients. Both tax credits expired on December 31, 2011.

“The December 31, 2011, expiration of the Energy-Efficient Home Credit (45L) will have very little, if any, impact on new home construction as the portfolio of existing unsold new homes continues to compete with the glut of severely devalued properties that blanket the U.S.,” says Rich Walker, president and CEO of American Architectural Manufacturers Association of Schaumburg, Ill. “Banks continue to unload foreclosed homes at severely distressed prices. These prices then form the basis for local real estate ‘comparable,’ which serve to further reduce the opportunity for builders to recover the cost of construction built to exceed the energy-efficiency standards set within the IECC. The $2,000 credit offered to builders does not compensate for the tens of thousands of dollars lost in new construction value due to the current saturation of homes being sold at prices far below fair market.

“Until Congress acts uniformly to enact a well thought out initiative to jumpstart job growth and offer substantive homeowner energy-efficiency incentives, the ongoing U.S, housing crisis will continue to languish along a painful recovery path measured in years, not months,” Walker adds.

Brian Pittman, director of marketing and communications at the Glass Association of North America in Topeka, Kan., has a different opinion. “These tax credits are a vital part of keeping the United States moving forward on energy-efficient products in homes and, ultimately, in commercial construction,” he says. “Consumers use the incentive provided in 45L as a reason to purchase these products for their home, and they learn a valuable lesson when the true benefits kick in. President Obama and the U.S. Congress clearly need to keep this train moving, as it benefits our economy, the glass and glazing manufacturers, fabricators and installers who make and sell these products, the consumers who buy them and the environment in general. To remove this specific incentive, among others, can slow the adoption of energy-efficient, high-performance glazing among consumers, which could negatively affect one of the bright points of the glass and glazing industry right now.”

Robert Dietz, an economist with the National Association of Home Builders of Washington, D.C., says that 45L is an important energy tax incentive. “The tax credit helps offset the cost of constructing an energy efficient home, which results in both lower utility bills for the residence over the life of the property, which can be 60 years or more, as well as the direct construction impact,” he says. NAHB estimates that the construction of an average, single-family home creates three full-time jobs. “An extension of the 45L program is an important policy goal of NAHB for 2012,” he says.

NAHB has also estimated the jobs and remodeling sector impacts associated with the 25C program. Click here to see its Eye on Housing Economics blog.

Ben Gann, director of legislative affairs & grassroots activities at the Window and Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA) in Washington, D.C., agrees with Pittman. “Expiration of the energy efficiency tax credits for both existing homes (25c) and new homes (45L) will decrease sales of all higher-energy-efficient products, including windows, doors and skylights,” he says. “The 25C tax credit creates jobs and benefits homeowner by reducing energy use, and WDMA is leading an industry coalition seeking an extension of the energy efficiency tax credit for existing homes. As for 45L, incentives for construction of new homes should remain in place given the current state of the housing market.”

Kim Flanary, sustaining, manufacturing and quality engineer at Milgard Windows & Doors in Tacoma, Wash., is of the same opinion. “The New Energy Efficient Home Tax Credit is good for the consumer, as well as the glass and glazing industry,” he says. “The tax credits of the past few years have helped our industry through very difficult economic conditions. Consumers have been given an incentive to invest in home improvements that will improve the energy efficiency. This has driven sales within the industry that helped many companies through very difficult times.”

To be sure, a heavier (and accepted) dose of government regulation, more stringent (and mandated) energy-use and carbon-emission standards, and a deeply embedded cultural ethos that champion the collective good over individual aspirations all seem as foreign (and frightening) to American builders as wearing a kilt and eating the traditional Scottish dish haggis—and something they are even less likely to try.

But political and social differences aside, there’s a lot to be learned and applied from the European model of low-energy and low-carbon, yet comfortable and durable, residential design and construction. All it takes is a better understanding and some American initiative to bring it across the pond.

Off-Site Construction

How Europeans define “off-site” or factory-built housing differs greatly from the “component framing” manufacturing that is employed in the United States.

Gerry McCaughey, who previously owned Kingspan Century, a SIPs-based, whole-house building system manufacturer in Ireland that produces 8,000 units a year, likens it to the difference between crafting a Mercedes and supplying steel to the factory. He bemoans the American model of local lumberyards providing open-frame roof trusses and wall panels that are assembled on site by stick-trained framing crews.

“It’s just a way for lumberyards to sell more sticks, not produce housing,” he says, and certainly not to a higher performance or environmental standard.

The European model, which accounts for about 30% of all new housing in England and perhaps 70% in Ireland, with similar market shares across the European Union, delivers precision that can’t be matched in the field. “In Europe, it’s an accepted fact that factory-controlled conditions result in higher quality,” he says. “And the higher the energy- and carbon-efficiency standards, the harder they are to achieve with on-site construction.”

In the United States, HUD-code and modular home shipments combined for 10% of the new-housing pie in 2010, a share that’s falling despite a greater emphasis on green building at a lower price point.

The key is accuracy through automation. Kingspan Century, for one, achieves framing tolerances equal to the width of a thumbnail, and its machines perfectly shoot six nails a second to secure a sheathing panel—a speed that enables the manufacturer to double the number of fasteners beyond the code-required pattern to deliver a stronger and airtight structure. “In the factory, the saw blade always comes down on the correct side of the line,” says McCaughey.

It doesn’t end there. European housing manufacturers are one-stop shops for entire home packages, at least to the drywall stage inside and the application of exterior finishes.

In addition to certified, four-man crews that can dry-in a two-story, 2,000-square-foot house in a day, companies deliver and stage drywall stacks across the slab and second-floor floor deck before the walls arrive, among other efficiencies that save time and reduce construction waste, the latter by perhaps 40%.

To match that performance, says McCaughey, American companies must accept and apply the whole package and philosophy of European automated home production. “The technology and machinery is available, but it’s just a tool,” he says. “You have to tell it what to do, and that means engineers instead of framers in the factory. It’s a fundamental difference.”

No one is suggesting that the United States blindly adopt the socialist models of its EU counterparts with regards to sustainable housing or otherwise, but there are some lessons and tactics that could build on what’s been done domestically to date.

In 2005, the U.K. government engaged the country’s largest home builders in a competition to build model homes that were 20% better than current energy codes and priced less than $100,000 (U.S.) to prove that high performance and low cost could coexist. “It was prestigious to win,” says McCaughey. “The whole housing industry engaged.”

When that same government offered prime real estate from shuttered military bases and state-run educational and health-care facilities to private developers, the bidding process required a plan to deliver homes with higher energy efficiency and lower carbon emissions, greater housing density, a certain percentage of homes priced below market rate, and the use of off-site or modern methods of construction in addition to the proposed purchase price for the parcel.

But what’s really driving energy-efficient, low-carbon housing development across Europe is the EU’s adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, a legally binding global agreement ratified in 2002 to reduce greenhouse gas levels among countries who signed on, which the United States did not.

The Kyoto Protocol forced EU governments to expand their focus beyond emissions from cars to include buildings of all types, which contribute about 40% of the greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere.

Its ratification led directly to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), an EU standard that each member country was charged to implement and enforce. Ireland, for one, boosted its energy codes in 2008 to achieve a 40% improvement and tightened the standard by another 20% two years later.

In turn, the EPBD begat the Energy Performance Certificate, a label on all homes, new and existing, that indicates its predicted energy use per square meter and annual CO2 emissions. “[The certificate] helps shape the awareness of each home buyer that energy efficiency is related to every single house and that everyone is responsible,” says Georg Driendl of driendl*architects in Vienna, Austria. “Laws and regulations are advanced to a point that the basic quality [of] sustainable living is guaranteed.”

For Americans that point to the ANSI-approved National Green Building Standard or the LEED for Homes or Energy Star Qualified Homes programs—not to mention federal, state, and local green building tax credits and subsidies—as evidence of similar initiatives, the difference is those programs and incentives are voluntary, while the EPBD is mandated across an entire continent with enviable results in terms of housing performance.

“In Western Europe, people expect the government to regulate,” says Jerry Yudelson, a green building consultant in Tucson, Ariz., and author of Green Building Trends: Europe. “People there don’t expect the market to deliver the magic.”

Market Drivers

That being said, independent European architects, builders, research entities, and building products suppliers have taken the initiative to showcase advanced energy and resource efficiencies and modern construction methods that meet or exceed current standards; in fact, often advancing them further.

In his book, Yudelson recalls a research facility in Germany that tested 12 different building façades for their environmental performance, a practice that is “historically the backbone of building regulations” across the EU.

Model homes, often placed in public venues to garner attention, also play a key role. “Demonstration projects drive the development of codes and standards in the Netherlands, especially when they come from the market,” says Lone Feifer, strategic project director for the Model Home 2020 program initiated by VELUX, a Dutch-based global supplier of roof windows and solar thermal systems. “They prove viable solutions using available technologies.”

That’s different from most green-home prototypes in the United States, which tend to exhibit products and systems not yet available or affordable to the mainstream. “Our directive is to use market-available products that you can get from the local DIY,” says Feifer. “The goal is to develop a new model that makes the old one obsolete,” while still affordable and marketable to the masses.

Feifer, an architect by trade, also respects the importance of design appeal and comfort when considering sustainable building performance. “It can’t just be a technocratic approach,” she says. “You have to design for occupant behavior and comfort. The main point of a house is to live in it, not to save energy.”

Little Differences

In addition to lessons from Europe’s advanced automation, tighter regulation, and large-scale initiatives toward better-built, market-rate housing, there are some smaller nuggets to mine that can help advance America’s efforts.

Europe’s respect for smaller units comes to mind. “How many square feet do you actually need?” asks Feifer, echoing a common refrain about U.S. housing. “That’s the necessary discussion for the United States,” if it hopes to significantly reduce the environmental footprint of its built world.

Hand-in-glove is Europe’s creativity with space, such as designing with no load-bearing interior walls to easily allow changes in use in the same building. Consider also the practice of putting common living spaces upstairs in a two-story plan to better leverage daylight and passive ventilation, which are less critical (or desired) for bedrooms and other private-use spaces.

Europeans also require products and systems to multitask, such as a chimney that serves as a passive ventilator, a natural light source, and a thermal mass. Technologies such as solar-powered whole-house heat exchangers and underfloor air distribution exemplify increasingly common practice in Europe, but new thinking in America.

“At some point, someone [in the United States] will start doing it this way and prove it works,” says McCaughey. “And they will inspire the rest of the industry to follow.”

Rich Binsacca is a contributing editor to EcoHome.

Reader and financial blogger Philip J. Anderson sent us an illuminating analysis of real estate bubbles through U.S. history.

“For the first 144 years of real estate enclosure in the U.S., land sales and/or real estate construction peaked almost consistently, every 18 years,” Anderson writes. “The world’s worst downturns are always preceded by land speculation (the chasing of the economic rent) fueled by misguided credit creation courtesy of the banks.”

First, the big picture: The U.S. federal government began selling off land in the year 1800. Since then, there have been peaks and valleys of land sales and speculation roughly every 18 years.

Philip J. Anderson

Rewind to the first major boom-and-bust, in 1837. The stock market peaked just prior to the bust, a trend we recognize in our own era.

Philip J. Anderson

As a result, banks hoarded gold, silver and cash for years afterwards:

Philip J. Anderson

Bank lending picked back up after the 1849 gold rush, putting credit back into expansion mode:

Philip J. Anderson

By the 1850s, another boom-and-bust cycle had begun. It took the American Civil War to pull the economy out of its dive:

Philip J. Anderson

Check out the spike in interests rates in 1857, and their uncharacteristically low level in the following years:

Philip J. Anderson

Once again, banks hoarded their assets and rebuilt their base with gold and silver:

Philip J. Anderson

In 1873, another crisis (predicted once again by falling stocks prices) resulted in four long years of turmoil before hitting rock bottom. Interest rates stayed below average during that time.

Philip J. Anderson

And again in 1893, with little recovery seen until five years later:

Philip J. Anderson

Accordingly, interest rates remained low for the rest of the 1890s:

Philip J. Anderson

The most memorable crash came in 1929, resulting in the Great Depression. Bank lending, and the land prices that served as collateral, fell throughout the 1930s.

Philip J. Anderson

It wasn’t until the 1950s, after World War II had ended, that the economy and the real estate cycle was able to reset. The stock market low of 1974 was the next biggest crash since that time.

Philip J. Anderson

The next real estate cycle was 1974 to 1992, with the second half of the cycle being buoyed by credit creation and real estate collateral:

Philip J. Anderson

The stock market lows of 1991 turned into all time highs in 1992, and interest rates remained low until 1994:

Philip J. Anderson

And the trend continues: Here is the same chart, as of September 16th, 2011. Historical repeats of note include the retracement by half of the entire up move after the bust, the strong recovery of the index once the Federal Reserve got involved and new all time highs in the Dow.

Philip J. Anderson

Anderson notes at the end of the report that “if markets go lower than the lows of 2009, this current cycle has further to run.”

Philip J. Anderson