Environmental groups are desperate to shift media attention away from Solyndra’s collapse and toward allegations of Obama administration favoritism to the Keystone XL pipeline, and they’re willing to throw the White House under the bus to do it.
The liberal blog Climate Progress [Joe Romm] earlier this month dubbed Solyndra “the royal wedding of energy stories.”
[Romm] counted 190 mentions of Solyndra from Aug. 31 to Sept. 23 spanning 10 hours of coverage on the major television networks — ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC — while in the same time period, the Keystone XL pipeline didn’t get a single mention on the networks.
Samuelson’s 18 October article focuses on the politically charged issue of how erstwhile Obama allies are, seemingly, pitting one Administration issue (supporting clean energy) versus another (potential approval of a pipeline that will move very dirty oil around).
What Samuelson does not, however, engage in is the more direct and basic question of whether these “environmental groups … desperate to shift media attention” have any legitimate basis for questioning and, even, complaining about media coverage.
An interesting way to look at the question: Samuelson’s own reporting. Between 12 September and 18 October, Politico reports 34 stories authored by Darren Samuelson (see list below). Of those 34, 24 stories had “Solyndra” in the title while zero had “Keystone XL” (nor “pipeline” nor “tar sands” nor “Trans Canada”). This does not do Samuelson’s record full justice, because it judges Solyndra focus solely by title. Looking at the remaining 10 stories, 9 of 10 either focused specifically on Solyndra or had a significant Solyndra angle (with mention in the first three paragraphs). The sole exception? The 15 September several paragraph story reporting that Tom Reynolds, deputy director in DOE’s Office of Public Affairs, was leaving DOE to join the Presidential reelection campaign.
Hmmm, might there be substantive and legitimate reasons to see imbalanced media coverage?
And … another issue …
As per the 18 October article, perhaps it is a big deal to see environmentalists trying to ‘spin’ media toward more accurate and more balanced coverage of energy ‘scandals’. And, perhaps in a dog-bites-man vs man-bites-dog, would it be legitimate to ask whether Politico and Samuelson will spend column inches discussing how Trans Canada, the American Petroleum Institute, and other dirty energy promoters spend time and resources spinning media coverage.
As per Samuelson’s 18 October article, perhaps there is little reason to hold one’s breath awaiting such coverage:
David Roberts, a columnist for Grist, said he expects Solyndra to go the way of Travelgate and the death of Vince Foster — two Clinton-era headline-grabbing sagas that have effectively become historical footnotes. Articles about the bankrupt solar company, he predicted, will fade as Republicans fail to find proof of illegalities or political cronyism.
But Roberts said he didn’t have high expectations that the Keystone XL pipeline will make its way into the 24/7 media cycle, given reporters’ propensity to cover “what’s new, novel and interesting.”
“The corruption that goes on in Washington, D.C., around fossil fuels and the fossil-fuel industry every day makes anything done around Solyndra pale in comparison,” Roberts said. “But the corruption is so routine it becomes invisible. … That’s the imbalance that I think frustrates people.”
Apparently, enough people have been kvetching about the media’s coverage of Solyndra that Politico felt obligated to do a story on the complaints. I appreciate that the paper gave its critics, including me, space to make our case, but reporter Darren Samuelsohn has characterized my views and aims in ways I do not entirely agree with, so I want to clarify a few things.
I, for one, am not “desperately trying to change the narrative away from Solyndra.” The whole point of the critique has been to expose the fact that another group of people, a group unremittingly hostile to Obama and clean energy, are desperately trying to focus the narrative on Solyndra — and they’re succeeding!
This is a Politico perennial. When Republicans tried to manipulate media narratives about the Solyndra bankruptcy, they were dutifully quoted in stories with headlines like, “Republicans Call Solyndra Biggest Deal Ever.” When liberals and environmentalists objected, they got stories like, “Liberals Try to Make Media Stop Calling Solyndra Biggest Deal Ever.” Republican talking points are delivered as first-order news. Liberal talking points are wrapped in meta-news about liberals and their talking points. It makes liberals sound defensive and manipulative, and it’s condescending as sh*t.
Anyway, the point of the criticism has been that the insider press has given Solyndra a level of coverage that wildly exceeds any reasonable assessment of its significance. And it has created an atmosphere of scandal that wildly exceeds any actual, proven wrongdoing or lawbreaking (of which, as I keep pointing out, there is still none). The press has done this in response to a Republican PR push that would seem grossly manipulative if its targets didn’t seem so eager to go along with it.
October 15th, 2011 · Comments Off on Work that needs doing …
Look around yourself, do you see plenty of work that needs doing? We’re not talking about the dishes in the sink (though, well, this could count if you want to hire a maid service) nor that yet-to-be-completed homework (no, not advocating hiring someone to write that Master’s Thesis for you …), but we’re talking of America’s infrastructure: the schools that require maintenance (and would gain from greening), the bridges that are falling apart, the aging water and sewage systems, decrepit power lines, the potholes in the streets, the decaying backbone(s) of the American economy … The abysmal — and worsening — state of America’s infrastructure isn’t just an embarassment nor only a risk to life and limb but it is a serious drag on the economy and a worsening drag with each passing moment. As the Washington Post titled it is a story today, Gargantuan large’ investment in infrastructure needed.
The U.S. population is forecast to grow by 100 million — a 30 percent increase — before the middle of the 21st century. And right now a nationwide transportation system built in the middle of the 20th century is falling apart.
There isn’t enough money to arrest its decline, and the public is largely oblivious to the need.
Making the investment to build (an airport, a museum, a home, a road, a …) is ‘sexy’ and gets the appeal. Building that infrastructure, however, comes with a responsibility: to maintain (and improve) it over time. Sadly, filling the pothole, fixing the leaking pipes, updating the hospital’s heating system, or sealing the school’s windows doesn’t have the same warm and fuzzy feel as cutting a ribbon at the ground-breaking for the next highway exit.
A current Audi advertisement builds on this failure to invest in maintaining and improving infrastructure:
A benefit of addressing the massive infrastructure investment deficit: it is a major job creator across the country and the money invested, to a great extent, stays in America (in local communities) as it rather hard to outsource jobs improving school insulation, filling potholes, and putting in high-efficiency pumps at local swimming pools. Amid a job crisis, we have an even better situation — there is an excess of workers ready to take these jobs at livable wages (without exorbitant profit-seeking from companies able to pit the U.S. government against other bidders) and the U.S. government has never been in a position to borrow money at such a low rate. We need the investment in infrastructure to improve our economic status. We need the infrastructure investment to put people to work. And, we have the ability to borrow money cheaper today than we might ever be able to do so. And, by investing in improving the infrastructure today, we increase the chance that the infrastructure will be able to support a stronger economy tomorrow.
Work That Needs Doing seeks to highlight the infrastructure needs through crowd-sourcing photographs and to bring these requirements to the attention of Congress.
Comments Off on Work that needs doing …Tags:Energy
For some (many?) Democratic voters and activists, one of their reasons to support Barack Obama (or John Edwards or Bill Richardson or …) in the Democratic Party primaries in 2007/2008 was a visceral fear of the RWSM (Right-Wing Sound Machine) and how it how it had built up (irrational) hatred of Hillary Clinton in a substantial (minority) segment of Americans (overlapping heavily, one might suspect, with Tea Party ranks) while fostering doubts and uncertainties and questioning among many others. Considering that Senator Hillary Clinton showed herself, writ large, to be anything but some radical politician and demonstrated, on many issues, an ability to sit down and work with some who had been her (and her husband’s) harshest critics, the absurdity of most of these attacks and ill-informed anger against Hillary Clinton are clear for anyone able to step back to look dispassionately at these attacks.
With such a dispassionate step back, one would also come to the conclusion that — with the eased shift to hatred-filled attacks on President Obama — any hint of ethical scandal associated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that suggested the potential of supporting foreign interests over American interests in assistance to a former political aide would serve as rich fodder for the RWSM. One would expect Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and the Republican National Committee and Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell and others would be screaming for Speaker of the House John Boehner to start impeachment hearings at the first inkling of the potential that Secretary Hillary Clinton’s State Department had possibly favored a former Clinton political adviser who was lobbying the State Department (and entire U.S. government) in support of foreign business interests without, it seems, ever registering as a lobbyist — let alone a lobbyist for foreign interests. And, imagine the screams for her head when the Clinton State Department allowed a foreign business interest to run public hearings in a way that favored the foreign interests and shunted aside American citizens’ perspectives.
You would expect those impeachment calls, wouldn’t you …
However, now that there is that ‘hint’ of scandal (with emails from the State Department serving as the basis for New York Times articles, legal complaints to the government, and otherwise), are you hearing those RWSM screeching calls for impeachment hearings and independent investigation?
Hmmm …
Crickets …
No?
Why that silence?
There really only seems one relevant issue: the controversy relates to the State Department’s overly cozy relationship with a highly-polluting fossil fuel energy project. The TransCanada Keystone XL project is designed to deliver carbon liquids derived from Canadian Tar Sands to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries to be refined for, mainly, export to Chinese and other markets. Note that this would be some of the dirtiest oil, in life-cycle terms, available for purchase on the planet if this deal goes through. Project supporters are pushing a false ‘economy vs environment’ angle, with highly exaggerated claims re job creation while some analysis suggests that (along with the environment risks (not least of all related to climate change, but also the potential of oil spills and the damage created by building a very long pipeline) this project might actually lead to reduced employment. Friends of the Earth has secured, via Freedom of Information Act requests, a series of emails that show quite favorable relations between State Department officials and a former Clinton campaign staff member now working as a lobbyist for TransCanada (without, it seems, properly registering as a lobbyist for foreign business interests).
The RWSM reaction (or not) has answered, it seems, the question this post’s title presents:
The RWSM loves polluting energy interests far more than it loathes Hillary Clinton.
NOTE: A video animation created by artist Mark Fiore, depicting the not-so-far-fetched “State Department Oil Services” led by Hillary Clinton:
September 30th, 2011 · Comments Off on A Sunny Penthouse for NYC
One of the nation’s most important (and sadly too little discussed) intercollegiate competitions is nearing its conclusion in Washington, DC: the biennialSolar Decathlon. 19 University teams from around the globe are competing in 10 (hint, ‘decathlon) arenas to determine the overall winner. Lost amid, perhaps, the fanfare is that every single one of the teams put together a home that people could live in (now) and every single team brought to the table concepts and capabilities and pathways forward worth exploring. Thus, having visiting all 19 homes (with overview of the Decathlon and the 19 entries here), it seems worthwhile to bring some focus to each of the teams.
Imagine a path to convert some of the most unused space in the world into productive and sustainable space with the flick of a pen. New York City’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has just such an opportunity. The City College of New York’s entry into the Solar Decathlon, the Solar Roofpod, is based on a simple truth: urban rooftops are potentially highly valuable real estate that, for the most part, is going to waste.
“Our most abundant energy resource is the sun and our most underutilized urban space is our rooftops.” -Team New York member
And, combined with that, a real understanding that the most sustainable lifestyles in the modern world are actually found in dense urban environments rather than at the end of a long drive from the nearest grocery store.
We’ve called our Solar Decathlon entry “The Solar Roofpod.” It is designed for the most underutilized real estate in the city: the flat rooftops of existing mid-rise (4 to 10-story) residential or commercial buildings. These roofscapes offer tremendous potential as living space because of their direct access to solar energy, ventilating breezes, and nourishing rain. Team New York’s Solar Roofpod is designed to enable eco-conscious urban dwellers to live lightly, as stewards of a more resilient urban environment, cost-effectively producing solar power and heat, cultivating roof gardens, and retaining and recycling stormwater.
Team New York’s concept “responds to the fact that urban rooftops are largely under-used.” The idea: increase density by putting additional dwellings on existing mid-rise buildings. Dwellings that produce excess (clean) power (to help power other units and help stabilize the grid) and which reduce rainwater runoff (reducing pollution, loads on sewage systems and, therefore, societal costs and risks). And, they also increase real estate values (read: increased local tax revenue) while fostering increased sustainability (relatively small dwellings (translating into reduced purchases as there is nowhere to hide the unwanted items) with high walkability scores (translating to reduced transportation energy demands)).
To be fair to all, it is time to take a moment for honesty. Solar Roofpad truly intrigues me. Not because I want to live in the Solar Roofpad (hard to see my family of five in it) nor because I don’t see tremendous things in other houses (again, every single Decathlon house has some significant appeal) nor due to any questioning about other team’s achievements (and, well, I am sincerely enthusiastic about the diversity of approaches and impressed by the quality of all 19 homes) but because I see this as having one of the most straightforward paths to market while helping assist sustainable living for its inhabitants while addressing larger sustainable issues.
This has an immediate market if a major city (read New York) would not include structures like this in density calculations. (Have an existing apartment building, here is a path to add additional units without having zoning hearings …) Almost literally with a swipe of a pen, Mayor Bloomberg could take a tangible action aligned with his sustainability goals while also creating business activity, additional housing units, and future tax revenue for New York City. If the Mayor would ‘waive’ zoning density hearings for sustainable additions (much like, with their inception, affordable housing allows increased density) to existing structures this would turn deploying Solar Roofpads into a very straightforward path that would almost certainly attract serious attention and activity. Zonign density is a messy business that would be put aside and thus allow questions focused on technical issues (can the roof handle the weight, is there safe and appropriate access to the roof, etc …) (Informal discussions with the appropriate staff suggests to the team that would mean about 25-50% of New York City’s multi-family residences (with a flat roof) could handle these.) And, if this occurs, perhaps Mayor Bloomberg could spark a Selling New York competition for realtors seeking to sell these prime new penthouse units.
Simple fact: urban living is more sustainable, globally, than suburban living. This puts small footprint housing in the middle of small-footprint living rather than fostering a ‘sustainable’ vision that relies on a couple gallons of gas car ride to get there from work.
This vision, however, is not necessarily shared by the judges since, at this time, Solar Roofpad is in 18th place out of 19 teams (about 140 points below the leading University of Maryland (634.637) after eight competitions. (Note that ‘Market Appeal’ isn’t yet scored (where it might do well) but neither is energy balance where, I estimate, they will not be one of the top entrants due to how they heated up their water storage). Note that the 18th place is in part because this Decathlon entry, targeted at a New York market where >$1 million apartments are not unusual, failed poorly in the affordability contest. (Consider, do housing and energy costs differ between rural Appalachia; Purdue, Indiana; … and downtown New York City (or Paris or Tokyo or …).)
Solar Roofpad provides something between an efficiency and one bedroom apartment (its Murphy bed is shielded from the living area by the heating, kitchen, bathing, etc area). While very attractively put together, there are several ‘technical’ and design elements that seem truly interesting:
The building envelope is comprised of 64 equal-sized units. This creates flexibility in placing windows and solid walling to meet each purchasers’ desires with a standardization of components that enables ‘assembly-line’ manufacturing of both parts and overall units.
The glass has “bird-safe” glazing. A UV- reflective patterned coating visible to humans (at least this human) only with focused attention but very visible at birds. This matters, considering the 100,000s of birds killed by striking glass windows in New York City each year.
The heating and cooling system is solar thermal based.
“The new system cools with no moving parts, aside from a few small pumps and little added energy. The liquid carrying heat from the building rises as a vapor. Instead of going to a compressor, the vapor moves into a saturated salt solution of lithium bromide. The solution is warmed with solar heat, evaporating the vapor, which moves into the condenser and cools, restarting the process.”
As with several other teams, Team New York deployed phase change material (PCM). In this case, to replace water for storing heat collected by the solar thermal tubes thereby increasing efficiency while reducing cubic space required for the same heat storage.
Now, while the public focus on the Solar Decathlon is, quite understandably, “solar”, efficiency is even more critical: efficiency first. The Solar Roofpad’s heating and cooling systems seem to set a real standard in this regard:
September 28th, 2011 · Comments Off on Killing or Creating The Future: Solar’s three act drama on the Mall
A drama is playing out at two ends of the National Mall … with a question mark between them.
One act is receiving massive news attention while the intermission and other act rests in obscurity for most Americans.
The center piece, almost like an intermission, is uncertain and perhaps cloudy about the finale.
One act focuses on destroying clean energy, delighting in the truthiness-laden idea that 19th century innovations of burning fossil fuels to power society somehow represents a legitimate basis for a prosperous 21st century. The intermission sends, it seems, mixed signals and hesitancy. The other act demonstrates, tangibly, that energy efficiency and renewable energy can cost-effectively provide very comfortable (and, well, even luxurious) living conditions.
One Act is the Congressional show trial of Solyndra, with a Republican pile-on seeking to score points against the Obama Administration and to destroy clean energy programs … a pile on and passion unseen in their words about oil pipeline spills or coal mining or chemical emissions or … Whatever the truth of Solyndra’s management competency and actions, one company’s failure does not disprove the ability to generate power cleanly nor does it disprove the scientific basis for understanding that humanity is driving change in the climate system.
On the other end of the Mall, in a form of exile at West Potomac Park (by the FDR Memorial) (rather than its traditional location on the Mall between Congress and the Washington Memorial), The Solar Decathlon brings together 19 university teams from around the world with (extremely attractive) energy efficient, solar-powered homes. These houses and, not least of all, the enthusiastic and knowledgeable confidence of the university teams provide a vision of attractive, cost-effective climate-friendly housing (and living) available today.
At one end, a science-denying vision looking back to the 19th century for inspiration to destroy the 21st century.
On the other end of the Mall, tangible examples of the opportunity for Moving the Planet to something better.
And, in between them, continuing uncertainty as to prospects for solar power on America’s house.
The contrast between the two acts is striking with the intervening uncertainty a poignant sign about our uncertain prospects for moving forward to something better.
One of the nation’s most important (and sadly too little discussed) intercollegiate competitions is on in Washington, DC: the biennial Solar Decathlon. Open to the public for a few more days (through 2 October), the Decathlon brings together 19 university teams from around the globe to compete across ten categories (thus, “decathlon”). (A review of all 19 Solar Decathlon homes with links to their websites.) This is a serious competition, with just 30 points currently separating the top ten teams and the top three in a six point spread.
Life is filled with what ifs … What if I won the lottery? What if I fell off the bicycle? What if … In contemplating what has been going on with Solyndra, today’s news (for those who hear it) seems to raise one of those ‘what if’ moments:
What if the Keystone XL pipeline project to move tar sands liquids to Gulf Coast refineries were about solar power and a better future rather than an effort to nail the coffin on our chances to head off climate chaos?
If so, we would have to imagine the Congress in an uproar, with hearing after hearing investigating its environmental impacts, questioning of the firm’s exaggerated (fantasy?) numbers of potential employees, and elected officials streaming in front of the cameras to express their outrage at the very undemocratic (let’s buy politics) nature of “public hearings” and the potential illegal actions surrounding Keystone XL lobbying of the Obama Administration.
When it comes to disrupting real democracy, there are those things that leave a foul taste in the mouth. For not just me, paying people to stuff public hearing rooms to drown out the voices of truly concerned citizens (who, by the way, might be on multiple sides of an issues) falls into that category. This pipeline is, potentially, $billions of profits of implications … per year. Thus, it isn’t a stretch for the concerned businesses to spend $10,000s seeking to skew a public hearing process caused because of growing concern across the nation about this pipeline’s implications. These State Department hearings are, however, not really giving “the” public a fair shake. The following is a report from one concerned citizen …
I attended and spoke at the Port Arthur State Dept. meeting last night. I left with the feeling of being scammed. We arrived 45 minutes early to sign up, & found hundreds of oil field workers already in line (having been bused in) wearing navy blue or orange matching t-shirts, bold lettering: BUILD KEYSTONE XL NOW! GOOD JOBS! U.S. SECURITY!
Once we were allowed to sign up to speak (at a table staffed by Cardno Entrix, according to their name tags) we entered the room to find the first 8-10 rows, (left side:suits, right side: oil field workers), filled by these individuals and their slogans. This after being told we could not bring any signs into the meeting? The 2 microphones were set up in the middle, just behind the last rows of bright shirts. When one stood up to speak, these were the only people in the field of vision.
The first 40 or so speakers were for the pipeline (having been bused in & stood in line to sign up first). They were told their time limit was 3 minutes, but it was not strictly enforced. Once people started speaking in opposition, we were told it was getting so late, the time was now 2 minutes (strictly enforced).
Unsurprisingly, the Koch brothers’ front group Americans for Prosperity was gaming the system at the Keystone XL public meeting in Topeka, Kansas, attempting to prevent community members opposed to the pipeline from expressing their views to the State Department.
That post then lays out, with documentation, how Koch’s AFP were able to get signage surrounding the event after the State Department had told people they couldn’t have signs in the parking area.
From an email forwarded to me …
I attended the Tar Sands hearing last night in Port Arthur, and spoke against the permitting, as one of about forty environmentalists (out of about 160 speakers signed up). The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-pipeline, however, and very vocal, in a simplistic, cheerleading sort-of-way. There were hundreds of union workers and pipeline employees, all clad in matching pro-pipeline garb, and in the parking lot waiting to get in, they were bombastic, intimidating and overtly racist in conversation. It was a display of the worst stereotypes of Texas, with some business leaders discussing how those who are against the pipeline should just move elsewhere, because they clearly ‘hate America.’
As for potentially illegal, Friends of the Earth just filed a complaint with the Justice Department alledging that key lobbyist lobbied before registering as a lobbyist and, if I understand it correctly, failed to register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. Can you imagine the Republican Party outrage if a German (worse, French) clean energy firm had hired a lobbyist associated with Hillary Clinton’s election campaign to lobby Secretary Clinton’s State Department in their favor … and, by the way, had failed to register as a lobbyist working for a foreign entity as the law requires. Not hard to imagine the 24/7 outrage on Faux News. As for the complaint against Keystone, we can expect crickets from Faux News.
A video animation created by artist Mark Fiore, depicting the not-so-far-fetched “State Department Oil Services” led by Hillary Clinton:
This house, the University of Tennessee’s Living Light, is part of one of the nation’s most important (and sadly too little discussed) intercollegiate competitions is about to open in Washington, DC: the biennial Solar Decathlon. Opening to the public 23 September, the Decathlon brings together 19 university teams from around the globe to compete across ten categories (thus, “decathlon”). After having reviewed all the Solar Decathlon entries, this post will look more closely at Living Light.
Living Light is a very high-quality efficiency house whose form is inspired by the cantilever barns of southern Appalachia. In terms of actual living space, this is one of the smallest (if not smallest homes) because of the team’s intent: they will take Living Light on a tour throughout Tennessee, showing the reality of the promise of solar technology. Thus, this is designed to be easily transported (with the direct living space transported on one truck and additional transport for elements like decks and spare solar tubes. Along with more solar electricity capacity than required to meet the house’s actual needs (and thus power production that will help boost competitive positioning re electricity production), this design element helped push up the unit’s price.
This design has many notable features. In terms of interior design space, my family loves the quality of finish and my children, on seeing the video’s discussion of how the kitchen and other elements can be masked (see below), separately exclaimed “Mom would love that.” Walking into Living Light, the quality of finish jumped out … the cabinetry was well designed, beautiful wood, and extremely well executed. The bed pulls out, kitchen gets covered, etc with an ease that comes with great workmanship. Combining the designed focus on easy transportability for showcasing solar power and seeing that quality, it didn’t surprise me that Living Light was the first Decathlete house to pass its inspections and be certified for public visits.
In terms of technology, Living Light stands out for its smart facade. Living Light’s North-South walls are a dynamic double façade system made of alternating translucent and transparent panes and horizontal blinds. These work automatically with an energy recovery system to cool in summer and heat in the summer with great efficiency.
a motorized horizontal blind system which blocks solar radiation/sunlight before it reaches the conditioned space. The blind system will be programmed to provide proper lighting and shading throughout the year. It also provides privacy when desired. Heat that is harvested within the double façade system will be directed to an energy recovery ventilator, supplying the home with preheated air. When the outside temperature and humidity are acceptable, the operable panels allow outside air into the house. The outer pane of glass also reduces the wind load on the house thus reducing unwanted infiltration and allowing the blinds to be deployed under any weather condition.
Not highlighted is a truly desirable feature. When I visited the house, the neighboring area was filled with noise as the teams rushed to finish their homes. Inside Living Light, almost total silence with no sounds intruding on conversation with UT team members.
As with Penn State’s 2009 Decathlon entry, Natural Fusion, the 2011 University of Tennessee team chose to use Solyndra solar electricity tubes as their solar power generation system. The Solyndra tubes remain a truly innovative approach to electricity production, enabling capturing sunlight across a 360° surface and convert it to electricity. Thus, even indirect and reflected light become meaningful for the home’s power production. While the University of Tennessee team almost certainly wishes to receive attention for other reasons, Living Light’s deployment of Solyndra tubes demonstrates, in a quite tangible level amid the Solyndra ‘scandal’,, that this technology works effectively to produce power even as business condition changes (mainly due to massive PRC investments in solar technology production) have driven the company out of the market.
Understanding the planned showcasing of Living Light across Tennessee, the price issue creates a fundamental challenge. This is an efficiency; an extremely attractive, very well finished, with innovative technology efficiency. Considering the estimated $400,000 price tag before considering land/such costs, I have a hard time seeing the market position for this house. Yet, that might represent my limitations and difficulties in embracing the team’s vision: to “challenge the way we think about a traditional home, adopting a loft like space in a stand-alone home.”
German Solar Rides Power Surge to a Win which discusses the winning home, structure of the Decathlon scoring that enabled them to win, and thoughts about how to move forward.
One of the nation’s most important (and sadly too little discussed) intercollegiate competitions is about to open in Washington, DC: the biennialSolar Decathlon. For two weeks, 19 university teams from around the globe will compete across ten categories (thus, “decathlon”) that show the house works (can they get household chores and tasks done, like washing dishes and cooking dinner), measured performance items (how much electricity does the house produce), and perception items that can’t be tangibly measured (like aesthetic design quality). The Solar Decathlon is awaited by many, including this author, with much anticipation and baited breath. Opening to the public on 23 September, after years of work, the homes are being assembled at Potomac Park in Washington, DC, as I type. In preparation for visiting the homes, now is a good time to review them to highlight what to look for and what to focus on in discussions with each team. This post, as per 2009 Solar Decathlon, will provide a basic guide to the competition and some information on all 19 houses. In addition, I will provide a taste of initial perspective on the each house (recognizing that I have visiting just half the houses so far) and the competition environment.
Before going into laying out the competition and the teams, some things of interest (to me … at least).
The Solar Decathlon is a serious competition. The Solar Decathlon has truly transformed. A decade ago, it took only a few moments to sort out which teams would be on top and which weren’t in the same caliber. Even just two years ago, while every single house had elements meriting praise, sorting “top” from “bottom” wasn’t that difficult. (My ‘top five’ prediction, in terms of team composition, was off by one in 2009 as I expected the Spanish team to compete with the German team for #1 rather than placing 14th …) This year, looking at the teams and having visited the site, I believe that the judges (happily) face much more difficult challenges in ‘juried’ elements and can’t predict how the teams will sort out in measured performance. This competition is wide open with what look to be 19 tremendous houses and teams putting their finishing touches on their homes prior to opening doors to the public in just a few days.
Marketable Solar Homes. Related to the first bullet, it is easy to see every single one of these homes commercialized. Every single one looks to be (very) livable, attractive homes that fit some form of market niche. This has not necessarily been true, despite team aspirations otherwise, in the past. The 2011 Solar Decathlon’s emphasize on affordability hopefully has driven the teams to truly cost-sensible solutions. If so, might this be the Solar Decathlon where a team emerges (or teams emerge) with a meaningful path toward producing large numbers of their house (or derivatives of it)?
The Solar Decathlon Appeals to All Ages. While I will provide some of my reactions to the houses, my seven and ten year old children’s comments will appear in a few. The Solar Decathlon, in part, provides an exciting vision for a path toward a sustainable and prosperous climate-friendly future. This excitement is shared, in my experience, by the vast majority who get there — of all ages. As a window on this, my seven-year old chose to watch the team videos (rather than asking to watch TV). And, she watched them … every single one … and when my better 95+% came in, my daughter had team videos that she wanted to show her mother, highlighting specific features that she thought her mom would love. And, well, “beautiful … can we buy that … that is really cool …” were the types of phrases coming out of her mouth, in wonder, in over an hour of watching (not all at once). And, well, my ten-year old son ended up doing much the same thing the next morning. And, they can’t wait to visit The Solar Decathlon to see the homes. As a parent, this joy, wonder, attention to detail, and intellectual interest (more my son) were a real pleasure to experience. As someone concerned about our energy reality and seeking to help foster a better path forward, this youthful passion and enthusiasm was an encouraging note.
After the fold, a (very) brief overview of the competition and a description (with video) of each home. This can serve as a planning guide for a highly recommended visit to The Solar Decathlon.
coverage of Solyndra (in minutia) with minimal (to even zero) of the mounting questions about ethics and legal issues related with Keystone XL pipeline. As Samuelson writes
