Clean energy advocates in New Hampshire have two big reasons to be thankful this season – the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission has announced an expansion of the solar hot water rebate available to homeowners and has released the application for their commercial solar hot water and solar electric rebate (PDF).

Here are some details on both programs:

Residential Solar Thermal is Hot

The solar hot water rebate in New Hampshire is tiered based on the performance of the system, which is expressed in MMBTU / year. This consists of a state rebate that ranges from $600-900 and a federal rebate which has been raised from $750 to $2,000.

Here’s what the rebate program looks like for different kinds of systems:

For a typical residential project (2 flat plate collectors which produce ~18.25MMBTU/yr) installed at a cost of around $10,500, the incentives amount to $5,750, well over half the cost of the system!

The rebates are retroactive, as well, so if you recently installed a solar hot water system and qualified for the New Hampshire state rebate, you can expect a holiday gift from the PUC soon.

Rebates Arrive for Business

The solar hot water system for Moat Mountain Brewpub will save the brewery an estimate 520 gallons of oil a year

Equally exciting is the arrival of the much anticipated commercial solar hot water and solar electric rebate.

This program makes $1,000,000 available to solar thermal and solar electric projects for businesses, schools, municipalities, apartment buildings – basically any structure not eligible under the residential program.

The rebates are pretty straightforward:

• Photovoltaic (Solar Electric): $1/Watt up to $50,000 (or 25% of the project cost, whatever is less)
• Solar Thermal rebate: $0.07 per kBTU/year up to $50,000 (or 25% of the project cost, whatever is less)

Like the residential solar hot water program, a RETScreen modeling analysis is used to calculate the kBTU/year performance of the solar hot water systems.  Solar electric is fixed based on the nominal wattage.

Solar Economics are Amazing

The generous rebate makes it extremely attractive to invest in solar if you’re a business.  Let’s take, for example, a medium scale solar thermal project for a business that uses a lot of hot water – a hotel or retirement home, perhaps – and is currently heating that water with oil.

We’ll propose a system of 20 flat plate hot water collectors and several super-insulated tanks that will produce over 182,500,000 BTUs/year of clean thermal energy.  We’ll imagine that the system will save 2,300 gallons of #2 oil per year, a result of both reduced oil use and greatly reducing standby losses of the oil boiler in the summertime.

Assuming this hot water system costs around $100,000 gross to install, the fuel savings alone will pay for the cost of the system within its first decade of operation.

However, now there is an exciting suite of rebates to apply:

$100,000 gross installed cost
($30,000) federal tax credit
($28,900) accelerated depreciation – avoided taxes over 5 years thanks to lowered net income, assumes 34% marginal tax bracket
($12,775) state rebate – $0.07/modeled kBtu/year
$28,325 net investment – less than a third of the total cost of the project!

Within this new context, that same solar hot water system will pay for itself within two years thanks to the fuel savings.

While the wasteful boiler imagined in this formula is a “best case” scenario for solar, the economics work out for businesses of all sizes who are ready to both take an enormous cut out of their carbon emissions and save money while doing it.

Contact us for more information about both the commercial and residential solar rebates or to schedule a free site evaluation.

Passive homes such as the GO Logic model house in Belfast, Maine, are still rare in America, but forward-thinking homeowners, builders, and architects are increasingly incorporating the strict German standard in new homes.

This weekend the New York Times highlighted the growing effort of architects, builders, and homeowners to create houses that meet the strict German Passive House standard.

The article, Can We Build in a Brighter Shade of Green?, follows the story of one super efficient home built in Vermont.

It notes both the challenges both with designing such an efficient house, and getting the required skills and materials to construct it in America:

While some 25,000 certified passive structures — from schools and commercial buildings to homes and apartment houses — have already been built in Europe, there are just 13 in the United States, with a few dozen more in the pipeline.

“Even though the passive house standard is tried and true, and is used all throughout Europe — we know it works, we know there’s some simplicity to it,” says Mrs. Landau, “here in the United States, we were reinventing the wheel.”

… In Europe, this design-and-construction balancing act has an established manufacturing base to feed it; in the United States, not so much.

“If we were in Europe, most of the materials and equipment would be off-the-shelf and readily available from local suppliers,” says Tedd Benson, owner of Bensonwood Homes, a high-efficiency timber frame builder based in Walpole, N.H., that is constructing the Landau house. “And they would have already been vetted and certified by the Passivhaus Institut, with their performance specifications already linked into the passive-house software.

“Here, we have to invent the systems and try to find the materials, products and equipment that will help us meet the passive-house standards.”

Despite an initial price premium (for additional design time, thicker walls and insulation), over the course of its life a Passive House will return the initial investment many times over. The Landaus (featured in the Times article) expect to have the energy efficiency investments pay for themselves within 10 years.

Here’s a video the Times produced on the project:

Journalist Tom Zeller Jr. went on to write about the general state of green building in a follow-up blog, When Green Building Is Not Green Enough.

In it, he cites design-focused (rather than energy-focused) architecture as one of the problems with building design, stating that “American architects are well schooled in matters of design, they often receive little training in the physics of how a structure breathes, how it consumes energy and how best to elevate its overall efficiency.”

While it is an accomplishment to see that “more than 1 million Energy Star qualified homes, which consume at least 15 percent less energy than conventional construction, have now been built in the United States,” Zeller goes on to say the “lack of [more] ambitious targets may actually be hindering the effort to address pressing problems like global warming.”

Why Code-Built is Not Efficient Enough

To understand why exceeding Energy Star ratings is desirable, Zeller includes a graphic of the HERS Index, a chart that shows the energy consumption of typical homes on a scale from zero to greater than 100, showing how different types of construction stack against each other.

Here’s the graphic, courtesy of Zero Energy Design:

We express the discussion in slightly different terms. Here’s a graphic from our renewable home heating page, where we frame the discussion of mechanical systems for heating a home in terms of btu/hrs required per square foot:

The underlying principle remains this: the more energy efficient a home is, the less heating load it requires. When minimal heating load is required, smaller, modest, and renewable heating options make sense, and monstrous fossil fuel heating systems are unneeded and uneconomical.

Going Passive in Maine

ReVision has worked on a number of high performance homes, here are links to a few:

• The GO Logic home in Belfast, Maine is the state’s first true passive house home. The prototype home has produced more energy than it has used to date and is a model for a new Belfast cohousing community.
• The home of architects Ian and Zofia Weiss uses many passive house principles. It uses radiant heat powered by solar hot water collectors with electric backup, and should eventually have grid-tied solar electric to make it near net-zero.
• The Bright Built Barn is a net-zero home in Rockland that incorporates leading-edge building practices and an innovative LED system to inform you as to whether the home is generating more energy than it is using.

On May 26, a day that hit 92 degrees (a +4 degree record), there was no mincing words.

A decorated and experienced panel, hosted by the Pew Charitable Trust, presented a talk called Energy & Climate Change: National Security Challenges and Opportunities.

The speakers included Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn (U.S. Navy ret), Captain Michael Green (U.S. Army veteran from the war in Afghanistan), and Jim Kesseli, President of the innovative engineering company Brayton Energy.

The Undeniable Inevitability

In 2007, a report was issued by the CIA’s think tank CNA, with advisory input from thirteen members of the military’s upper ranks. The report is called “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” (PDF Download).

This report reaches a number of conclusions, which it does not shy from stating plainly:

Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world … Unlike most conventional security threats that involve a single entity acting in specific ways and points in time, climate change has the potential to result in multiple chronic conditions, occurring globally within the same time frame.

Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world … Extreme weather events and natural disasters, as the U.S. experienced with Hurricane Katrina, may lead to increased missions for a number of U.S. agencies, including state and local governments, the Department of Homeland Security, and our already stretched military, including our Guard and Reserve forces.

Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

The military takes the relationship between climate change and energy very seriously. Here is a replica of a slide from Adm. McGinn’s presentation:

The Call to Act

In response to these dire findings, the US Military is taking aggressive action to change their fossil fuel usage.

The Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate released a report, “Reenergizing America’s Defense: How the Armed Forces Are Stepping Forward to Combat Climate Change and Improve the U.S. Energy Posture.”

The Pew commission documents a number of initiatives by all branches of the military, including:

• The US Army’s plan to build a 500-megawatt solar power generation plant at Fort Irwin, California and transition to the use of 4,000 electric vehicles during the next three years
• The Navy’s goal to reduce petroleum use in the commercial fleet by 50 percent by 2015 and launch the “Great Green Fleet,” a strike group fueled completely by alternative fuels, by 2016.
• The Air Force’s Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada – home to one of the largest solar arrays in North America, providing more than 25 percent of base energy, saving $1 million and reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 24,000 tons annually.
• The Marines’ goal to reduce energy intensity 30 percent by 2015, while simultaneously increasing renewable electric energy to 25 percent by 2025.

Green: The New Color of Patriotism

The speakers focused, in different ways on a simple conclusion – that our current path of reliance on oil harms not only the environment, but ourselves, domestically and internationally.

Army Capt. Michael Green, a New Hampshire native who has recently returned from the Middle East  struck the audience with this analogy: “When you think of a wind farm or a solar field, think of a World War Two victory garden.”

We couldn’t agree more!

Getting off oil is a most patriotic thing – not just as a way to preserve the old American way of life, but to spur the growth of the new one.

Nicknamed “Green Bean,” this new energy efficient Habitat for Humanity home boasts an R66 roof and R25 wall system.

A few weeks ago ReVision staffers Josh Baston and Geoff Sparrow helped with our second Habitat for Humanity project.

They installed and vented a 95% efficient condensing gas boiler for a new home that will house a single mother and child. These boilers achieve this high rate of efficiency by condensing exhaust gases as water vapor and recovering additional heat from them.

The home is nicknamed “Green Bean” by Habitat for Humanity, as it represents the 5th home in their green building efforts and was originally owned by LL Bean.

LL Bean found they needed to expand their parking lot to where the house was located, and rather than demolishing it they donated the house along with some funds to Habitat for Humanity.

Habitat took the house to its new location, and started greening the 1930s-era house in earnest.

Using a product called Nailbase, Habitat achieved an amazing R66 rating in the roof, and built up the walls to R25. The house is now so tight that they needed to install an HRV! The gas boiler that ReVision installed will be used for heating and domestic hot water.

ReVision’s first Habitat for Humanity project was a solar hot water system for a LEED home, installed in Portland. See the blog archives for a write-up or see more project photos.

From our Schools and Nonprofits Solar Photo Gallery:

See more installations in our Solar Projects Map

The GO Home in Belfast, Maine is slated to be the first “Passive House” in Maine. ReVision designed and installed the solar electric and solar hot water systems.

Come see the new super-efficient GO Home — at a Talk-and-Tour at the Belfast Free Library on Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 7 p.m.

On track to become the first Passive House certified home in Maine, The GO Home is the affordable and super-energy efficient model for the 36-home Belfast Cohousing and Ecovillage slated to begin construction in the Spring of 2010.

Why Build A Passive House?

The GO Home is designed to solve the problems of energy consumption and greenhouse gases resulting from poorly built, drafty homes, which are increasingly more costly to heat and hazardous to the environment.

Among the energy efficient building elements of this remarkable home are triple glazed windows, doors with three air seals, foundation insulation and comprehensive air sealing – including sealing underneath the foundation and on the building envelope.

To offset what energy the GO Home does consume, GO Logic called in ReVision Energy to install solar electric and solar hot water systems. The solar electric system consists of 2.7KW of Canadian Solar panels, which will offset roughly 4,900 lbs. of CO2 emissions annually. The 60-tube Apricus solar hot water array is sized to meet the needs of a family of four, and will produce an estimated 14,200,000 BTUs of clean, renewable heat energy annually.

So far, we have received a report that in March the prototype has produced more energy than it has used. According to CMP we used 137KWH, and made 184KWH, with a surplus of 47KWH!

This Thursday’s event will feature an unveiling and discussion of The GO Home at the Belfast Free Library followed by a preview Tour at 83 Crocker Road, Belfast, on Saturday, April 10 at 11 a.m.

For more information, please contact Matt O’Malia or Alan Gibson at (207) 338-1566 or visit their website: www.gologichomes.com. To track construction and development on The GO Home, visit the prototype blog at: http://www.gologichomes.com/blog/category/prototype/.

What is a Passive House?

Similar to the LEED program, a Passive House (also known as the German “Passivhaus”) meets very strict requirements for building efficiency and performance, specifically regarding insulation values and energy consumption requirements.

More details of these requirements on the Passive House website.

A grid-tied solar electric system recently installed on a barn in Woolwich, Maine

There is a common misconception than being “off the grid” is the ultimate goal is sustainability and that off-grid homes are, by their nature, greener and more energy efficient than conventional “on the grid” homes.

Many people say they want to get “off the grid,” when really what they mean is that they want to reduce their energy usage and switch to renewable forms of energy.

The good news – you don’t have to be “off the grid” to enjoy the benefits of renewable energy!

In fact, your conventional home is only a few smart steps away from dramatically shrinking its carbon footprint. We’ll talk about this in a moment – first, let’s demystify “off the grid” versus “grid tied.”

What Does Off-Grid Really Mean?

“Off grid” just means a home that is not connected to the utility grid. While these homes are often designed to be more energy-efficient and sustainable than conventional homes, there is no requirement in the term “off grid” that makes them so.

In fact, a home that is “off grid” can be just as much of a power hog as a regular home, and use a gasoline-powered generator for all of their electric needs. Hardly green OR renewable!

The reality is that power generated off the grid is significantly more expensive, KW/hr to KW/hr, as power generated while tied to the grid. The grid has numerous efficiencies of scale – from generation to transmission – that isn’t achieved in an off-grid set-up.

Because electricity generated off the grid is so expensive, it only makes sense that these homes should use less power. It’s pure economics!

So Why Would Anyone Go Off-Grid in the First Place?

When people think of “off grid,” they probably think of images from the early days of solar power, when people were moving far out in the country to get back to the land and live a more sustainable existence.

Of course, moving far away from civilization brings its own share of challenges and environmental implications. Unless you’re planning to become a hermit, you still are going to need roads to get to your off-grid home, and won’t you want some sort of electricity?

Creating power lines is expensive and destructive. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars per mile to run power lines to a distant homestead.

In these situations, where connecting to the utility grid will easily outweigh the costs of a clean, renewable energy system, being off the grid can make economic and environmental sense.

Most People Don’t Live Far From Power Lines

Most people live near other people, which means that most people don’t need the hassles and expense of an off-grid renewable energy system.

Instead, we can install a solar power electrical system that interacts with the grid – offsetting our home’s energy use and providing surplus power to our neighbors. In effect, we are becoming our own miniature power plant!

This kind of system is called grid-tied solar power.

What Makes Grid-Tied Different than Off-grid?

Grid-tied solar electricity is a much simpler set-up than off grid. In both cases, you have photovoltaic (PV) panels which generate clean, renewable energy when exposed to sunshine.

However, in a grid-tied set-up this power goes straight to your utility meter while in an off-grid set-up there are a few more steps.

With a grid-tied system, any excess power generated from the solar panels goes back into the grid – helping your neighbors reduce their carbon footprint!

In essence, you are treating the grid as if it was one big battery, charging it when you have excess power, and taking energy when you need more.

If an off-grid setup, you also need somewhere to store your solar energy.  Without the grid nearby, you need to buy a large set of batteries.

Unfortunately, battery technology is not as clean and renewable as the electricity generated by the solar panels.

The batteries used in most off-grid installations are lead acid batteries – similar to what starts your car and powers forklifts. As you probably know from the explosion warning stickers on your car battery, the inside of these types of batteries are extremely toxic, and their production is an energy intensive and environmentally harmful process.

While those in an off-grid set-up are stuck using this non green technology, if we have access to the energy grid we can avoid this messy problem and appreciate more reliable service with a grid-tied set-up.

Not to mention – batteries are expensive!  The battery bank significantly adds to the cost of an off-grid solar system. In terms of cost per installed watt, off-grid usually ranges 3-4x the cost of grid-tied solar.

Fossil Fuels are Bad, Not the Grid Itself

While it may seem romantic to be “off grid” and not beholden to the utility companies, the reality is that most homes are connected to the grid already, and the efficiencies of the grid generally outweigh the independence of an off grid system.

The grid itself is not inherently bad – what is bad are the forms of electricity that powers most of the grid.

The way to make real, tangible improvement in the way we consume energy is not to distance ourselves from the grid, but to ensure that the power we consume is generated by clean, renewable solar electricity at home and at our place of work.

Contact us if you’re interested in solar for your Maine or New Hampshire home or business.

Clean solar electricity and solar hot water system installed on a home in Porter, Maine

Many people ask us how solar affects a home’s resale value.  The quick answer – solar can be a huge asset when it comes time to sell your home, though there are a variety of considerations you should take into account.

Lower Utility Costs Equal Increased Value

Let’s look at the purely rational economics of a solar energy system.

In the 1998 Evidence of Rational Market Valuations for Home Energy Efficiency report (link, PDF Download) by The Appraisal Journal there’s a section they call the “Rational Market Hypothesis” which describes the relationship of market value to energy savings.

Using fixed (and very conservative) utility costs savings, compared to the cost of the investment, they are able to project an economic value for energy improvements:

Fuel costs may be considered just one of many complex factors affecting the decision to buy a home, but the same can be said about other determinants of home value—from number of bedrooms to the quality of local schools. In a rational, competitive market, the value of energy efficiency, like the value of any other housing characteristic, should reflect its marginal value to home buyers. If home buyers expect stable fuel prices, then the marginal value of energy efficiency in recent years should be $10–$25 for every dollar reduction in annual fuel bills. (emphasis added)

Note that this 1998 report reflects a very different energy situation than what we face today.  We would now argue that the $10–$25 value increase per dollar of reduction in annual fuel bills is only a starting place, as home buyers should NOT expect stable fuel prices for the future.

Over the life of a 30 year mortgage, the fuel cost/utility savings will rise dramatically as fossil fuel heating and energy resources become increasingly scarce.

In addition, purchasing solar electric is particularly attractive right now because solar panel prices have reached record lows, so the payback time is greatly reduced.

Solar as an Attractive House Feature

There is huge emotional value to a solar hot water or solar power installation in addition to the purely logical economic argument.  A renewable energy system makes a strong statement about your commitment to sustainability and the environment, which is increasingly desirable in the marketplace.

In a down market, a solar system may be the differentiator that makes your house attractive to potential buyers.

An recent article on sunpluggers.com featured a subdivision in Northern California that is using solar panels in its homes as a way to differentiate itself.

How successful is it?

“We are the bestselling project in the market right now,” [Hal Woods, president of privately owned CenterStone Communities] says. “All of our Phase 1 and Phase 2 are sold out. We expect to have the project complete in the spring of 2010. A number of other builders are scouting us and looking at the success that we’ve had.”

While the attractiveness of a solar system will vary depending on your location and potential buying pool, it stands to reason that interest and excitement about renewable energy will only grow in the future as the need to move away from fossil fuels becomes more critical, and all things “green” become more mainstream.

Both solar hot water and solar electricity are proven, mature technologies that will provide a payback for you as long as you live in your home, and a more competitive position should you need to sell your home.

Like all investments, the earlier you put solar on your house, the sooner you will reap the rewards.  As we sometimes say, payback doesn’t actually start until the system is installed!

A solar power project completed this week in New Hampshire – clean energy is ready to go!

In his first official State of the Union address, President Obama offered a rousing challenge to Congress to get to work on a variety of issues – jobs, security, health care, and the transition to a clean energy economy.

With 2009 behind us, but its challenges far from over, Obama took an approach that was urgent, while at times light-hearted, as he analyzed the country’s problems and his suggestions for implementing change.

We were pleased to see “clean energy” make it into the speech some dozen times, though Obama mentioned “solar panels” only once.

Here’s our take on some of the key points raised during the State of the Union address:

• Obama Lauds Success of Recovery Act
  

  “Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy”

  Obama put a lot of effort into defending the actions necessary in 2009, both the unpopular bank bailout and the ongoing American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), aka the Stimulus.

  While Obama’s focus on clean energy jobs was on the manufacturing side – he mentioned both “the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels” and a need to create “new factories that manufacture clean energy products,” the Stimulus also has had a big positive effect on those who install those panels thanks to financial incentives that were part of ARRA.

• Obama Sees Clean Energy as the Route to Tomorrow
  

  “We can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow … There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products… I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”

  Obama seemed very cautious about making the environmental case for a switch to a clean energy economy, instead rooting his argument in the need to create very real clean energy jobs.

  While we couldn’t agree more, and laud Obama for finding common ground, it’s a bit disappointing that the very real crisis facing our planet is still a point of argument.

  The reality is that regardless of the state of the economy, we need to make a move to clean energy now as an act of survival.

  That Obama was cautious to acknowledge this threat points to an even greater challenge of worldview we still have to resolve.

• Getting There – Incentives and Innovations
  

  “We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. … Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history, an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched.”

  Again, Obama mentions investment in research as a major player in the move to a clean economy. While we agree, the reality is that there are plenty of technologies that are already here which are reliable, affordable, and available.

  Both grid-tied photovoltaics and solar hot water are energy investments that make economic and environmental sense.

  We’re eager to see what Obama plans to offer with “rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient,” and wish we’d heard something about a feed-in tariff.

• The Economy of Old – Nuclear, Oil, and Gas?
  

  “But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

  After so much invigorating news from Obama, it was disappointing to hear his last word on energy mention nonrenewable sources of energy.

  While it may be necessary to find some common ground with Republicans to move the overall initiatives forward, we still disagree that more power plants and “clean” coal are the best way to build the nation’s infrastructure.

Disappointments aside, it’s encouraging to see how large a role clean energy fits into Obama’s plans to move the country back into recovery.

As Obama acknowledged, we have some mighty challenges ahead of us, but the technology is here to move to a clean economy.

What is difficult is mustering the will to act.