Comments on: Substituting Solar Panels for Insulation in the Energy Code

By: John S Cromer

John S Cromer — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 05:22:30 +0000

In reply to Kevin Stenger. "While the cost of solar in
"While the cost of solar in financial terms has become much more affordable, the break even point in terms of energy produced as opposed to energy consumed in manufacturing is still many years." This only implies that there is an upper limit to how fast the industry can physically expand, as the lifecycle output is conservatively 10x the energy input. If we don't expand the industry fast enough, we might get in a pickle with carbon pollution. Just because a manufacturing plant uses more energy doesn't mean solar necessarily replaces common sense. In many areas throughout the country, the lack of common sense is discriminating against solar.

By: John Cromer

John Cromer — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 05:19:01 +0000

But to some extent, the solar
But to some extent, the solar power lowering the ERI is showing that efficiency matters less when there is an abundance of solar power available. With enough solar and thermal mass, the concept of R value may not matter so much for 1-2 story buildings. A solar panel produces 2-3x the annual kwh/sq.ft. than what a typical building uses and has an r-value of at least .9 but likely higher… Negative ERI means you are giving back green power to the community. Even if you increase your energy use in the process. The sun can provide 2000x more power than what we as humans use… and we have enough thermal mass on earth to store it!

If we forced companies to pay for carbon dumping, we wouldn’t need stupid energy ratings.

By: Kevin Stenger

Kevin Stenger — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:37:03 +0000

The construction industry and
The construction industry and the code panels are losing sight of why we even have an energy code. The idea is to have a net savings of energy consumption and depletion of natural resources. Continuing to build poor performing homes and trying to offset with solar is worse than just building a moderately efficient house. The manufacturing process for poly silicon material is extremely energy intensive. While the cost of solar in financial terms has become much more affordable, the break even point in terms of energy produced as opposed to energy consumed in manufacturing is still many years. A good example is the Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. plant in Michigan. The HSC plant is the single largest consumer of electricity in the state, larger than any of the automobile plants. Solar can be part of the energy portfolio in areas where they get enough sunlight but they are not a replacement for common sense.

By: Andrew Henry Henry

Andrew Henry Henry — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:19:00 +0000

Why is it so hard for the
Why is it so hard for the building industry to understand that the sun doesn’t shine (much) when it’s coldest out.

Passive House levels of insulation are what’s needed to shave peak gas and electricity demand. In New England and Mid Atlantic gas demand peaks on cold winter nights because of heating demand and also because a lot of electricity generation is from gas peaker plants.

Substituting PV for insulation on a cold winter night is remarkable folly. That’s when households, and the grid, need insulation the most.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=14671

Much of the discussion around energy transition is about energy storage (batteries, heat/cool storage) in order to shave the evening peaks by transferring daytime renewable energy to a storage medium. Passive House resolves that by storing heat, and not let it leak away… you know energy storage. And it also helps reduce peak electricity demand.

When will we be done with the net zero fetish?

By: Thomas Peterson

Thomas Peterson — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 20:11:17 +0000

Wow is right! Have we lost
Wow is right! Have we lost site of what seems to be becoming the future ultimate goal – – net zero? Even most existing homes can become net zero homes by undertaking a DER and adding on PV.

A new home built with an energy efficient building envelope can pretty easily become a net zero home by adding on PV. However, a new home that does not have an energy efficient building envelope may meet some arbitrary current code requirement, but will never become a net zero home – – unless it later has the additional expense of undergoing a DER.

Do we want to continue allowing production builders to build new “white elephants” for higher profitability, that will only cost others more later? Aren’t codes supposed to protect the homeowners safety and guarantee a sound building and, thus, a sound investment?

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:02:49 +0000

Kris, the ERI is one of four
Kris, the ERI is one of four compliance pathways. These changes may make it more appealing, but I expect a lot of builders will still follow the prescriptive path. Even if they choose the ERI path, they can hit their number just with efficiency if they want to.

By: Kris

Kris — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:48:54 +0000

Wow, just wow. So does this
Wow, just wow. So does this mean production builders are going to have to pay additional attention to design/orientation in order to meet the power generation requirements? Does the code even require that a PV array generate X-amount of power or could builders conceivably have an array pointing north and still meet the new requirements? Production builders in CZ 2-4 must be thrilled because they can continue to utilize the absolute cheapest labor and use the cheapest materials. On second thought I guess I shouldn't be too upset since codes are voluntarily set by the State and my state is still married to 2009 IECC.