Who will lead the way on water?

Posted on by
Reply

We hear that the real estate market is coming back, home prices are rising, construction is picking up, building permits are escalating and developers are requesting unit density increases. At the same time, we read of a water shortage developing in the Prescott and Verdi Valley areas. There is an article in the Courier practically every week on the subject.

As an example the Granite Dells project is requesting a doubling of homes in the same space approved a few years ago; increasing from 710 units to 1310 units. The town insists on plans for roads and services, but none for water availability. On average a person consumes 40 gallons of water a day and if we assume an average of three persons per home the Granite Dells development will consume 157,200 gallons of water a day not including irrigation needs. All the Dells article comments received by the Courier asked the question: Who is addressing the water issue – is anybody? If we add up all the additional residential and commercial permits listed in the Courier each week the increased consumption is significant.

If the issue is not addressed, current residents will be faced with water bans and restrictions and generally an uncomfortable life as it revolves around water availability. One recommendation is that before a major development is approved the developer and the water management authority provide a water availability plan to the building department. Depending on how many general permits are being issued the water authority provides a similar ongoing water plan to the council. It is criminal to allow uncontrolled expansion of population if you cannot see a way of providing sustainable life supporting resources.

Water is a life-giving and sustaining resource to residents in the Prescott area, and one that needs to be visibly addressed by the powers that be. Voice your opinions to he Courier and may be the Courier will continue to take a leadership role in obtaining answers from town and county officials!

This letter by me published in the Prescott Courier 6/17/13 http://prescottaz.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=1119&ArticleID=120291

Solar Industry concerned Over Defective Solar Panels

Posted on by
Reply

Solar energy seems to be enjoying a new day in the sun, but that could be threatened by a reported rash of defective panels, caused by a high pressure to cut costs.

There are no industry wide figures about defective solar panels. And when defects are discovered, confidentiality agreements often keep the manufacturer’s identity secret, making accountability in the industry all the more difficult.

Most of the concerns over quality center on China, home to the majority of the world’s solar panel manufacturing capacity.  After incurring billions of dollars in debt to accelerate production that has sent solar panel prices plunging since 2009, Chinese solar companies are under extreme pressure to cut costs.

Executives at companies that inspect Chinese factories on behalf of developers and financiers said that over the last 18 months they have found that even the most reputable companies are substituting cheaper, untested materials. Other brand-name manufacturers, they said, have shut down production lines and subcontracted the assembly of modules to smaller makers where they have little to no control over quality.  Photovoltaic modules at a Shanghai laboratory in 2012 found the defect rate had jumped from 7.8 percent to 13 percent.

The heart of a solar panel is a photovoltaic cell that generates electricity when struck by sunlight. Among the most critical components is a thin film that protects the cell from moisture, and encapsulate that seals the cell between layers of glass.  Inspections have found some manufacturers had been constantly switching to cheaper materials, including some whose use-by date had expired.  If the materials aren’t good or haven’t been thoroughly tested, they won’t stick together and the solar module will eventually fall apart in the field.

All solar panels degrade and gradually generate less electricity over time. But a review of 30,000 installations in Europe by the German solar monitoring firm found 80 percent were underperforming.

Non-Chinese manufacturers have had quality problems as well.  One company now offers a comprehensive insurance policy to customers and has established its own testing laboratory in the San Francisco area.

One industry executive, said manufacturers needed to be held accountable and advocated creating testing labs not beholden to the industry that would assess quality. “We need to start naming names,” he said.

The lesson learned is that in order for solar power to continue brightening our world, manufacturers must be held accountable for their production standards.  So be vigilant when selecting solar contractors and make sure you know whose solar modules are being used and check for reliability and guarantees.  Leasing programs may help as the lessor maintains performance and warranties the installation during the leasing term.

Spending on energy efficiency programs funded by electric and natural gas utility customers will double by 2025.

Posted on by
Reply

Spending on energy efficiency programs funded by electric and natural gas utility customers will double by 2025 to about $9.5 billion per year, according to projections published January 17 by researchers at Berkeley Lab.

These funds, which come from a charge on utility bills, historically constitute the nation’s largest source of spending on programs to foster the adoption of more efficient products and buildings. According to the Berkeley Lab report, energy efficiency programs funded by utility customers are projected to continue expanding beyond the traditional bastions of energy efficiency in the Northeast and West.

By 2025, states in the Midwest and South could account for 49% of total U.S. spending on customer-funded energy efficiency programs, up from 27% in 2010. By 2025, only a handful of states would not have significant customer-funded efficiency programs.

The projected growth in program spending is driven by policies in a number of states requiring that utilities obtain all cost-effective energy efficiency savings. Another driver is energy efficiency resource standards, which require electric utilities to meet minimum energy savings goals each year.

Total U.S. spending on electric and gas efficiency programs (excluding load management programs) is projected to grow in all scenarios examined, ranging from $6.5 billion to $15.6 billion in 2025, with a mid-range projection of $9.5 billion under a scenario in which states are fairly successful in ramping up their programs to meet state energy-savings policies now on the books. This compares to total spending of $4.8 billion in 2010.

If states remain on their current policy paths, annual incremental savings from electric energy efficiency programs could be expected to reach about 0.8% of retail electricity sales in 2025, compared to about 0.5% of retail electricity sales in 2010.  Significantly, electricity savings at that level in 2025 could offset the majority of load growth forecasted through that year in the Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s most recent reference case forecast for electricity usage.

In the current policy and market environment, spending on gas energy efficiency programs is projected to continue its rise in the near term but flatten from 2015 onward, reflecting the influence of low natural gas prices and new state and federal equipment efficiency standards.

The report, entitled The Future of Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs in the United   States: Projected Spending and Savings to 2025, was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.

Extract from an article in Science Daily January 17th

Is electrical standby power significant enough to worry about?

Posted on by
Reply

The amount of energy used by products when they are in standby mode is significant.  According to the U.S. Department of Energy between 5% and 10% of all the electricity consumed in the home is standby power used to keep electronics running when those devices are supposedly “off.” The average U.S. household spends $100 per year to power devices while they are in standby mode and on a national basis, standby power accounts for more than 100 billion kilowatt hours of annual U.S. electricity consumption and more than $10 billion in annual energy costs.

The culprits are AC adapters for our cell phones, cordless phones/answering machines, clock-radios, microwaves, TVs, DVD players, computers, stereos, etc.  One or two of these ghost loads is no big deal, but take a modern house with many devices and modern appliances and you have an errant waste of electricity.

There are ways to reduce this load.  All ENERGY STAR qualified products are among the lowest power consuming in their category in standby mode. Enable the power management settings on your computer and monitor, so they go into power save mode when not in use. Use a power strip as a central “turn off” point when you are done using equipment, which completely disconnects the power supply. You can use one for your computer and all peripheral equipment, and another for your home electronics (TV, VCR, DVD, stereo, gaming).

Keep in mind though that if you’ve set a timer to wake up a product, such as programming a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) to record a program, then the product must remain plugged in (and able to draw standby power) to function as intended.

Unplug chargers: cell phone chargers, camera chargers, battery chargers or power adapters, etc. These are drawing some amount of energy even when not in use (and even when not connected to an end-use product).

Water can destroy a home

Posted on by
Reply

Water moves in and through a building in a number of ways. It creates dampness and odors, material decomposition and a host for biological mold, mildew and fungi issues.

Wind induced rain is driven primarily by gravity and pressure differences. External leaks will allow large amounts of water into building cavities and cause no end of problems. A system of interconnected flashings and weather-resistive barriers, directs the water down and off the building.

Capillary water moves under tension through porous building materials or narrow channels between building materials that act like tubes. The porous nature of many building materials, and the incredible cohesion and adhesion of water means that water can move against the force of gravity.  The primary defenses against capillary water movement are capillary breaks in appropriate locations.

Air moisture is driven by a combination of holes through the building envelope and one of three driving forces: wind, stack effect, or mechanically induced pressure differences (fans) between the inside and outside of the building.  Air leakage is managed with a continuous air barrier surrounding the building envelope.

Vapor diffusion is the movement of water as a gas. While building assemblies can get wet by all four forms of water movement, once water gets in, the main way it get’s out is by diffusion, so it pays to make sure that assemblies can dry through diffusion in one or more directions.

For more information go to greenhomeenergyadvisors.com