Clean Energy Dirtied by Politicians

In an Age of Compromise, Will Clean Energy Become Dirty?

By Ron Pernick, Clean Edge  

Based on the actions of a very active lame duck Congress last month, we could be moving into a new age of compromise. By crossing both sides of the aisle, President Barack Obama was able to pass comprehensive tax legislation, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the START nuclear arms reduction agreement in the final weeks of the outgoing Congress.

As witnessed, compromise can be a very positive and productive thing. But it also has its dark side, where compromise is so skewed it ends up achieving the opposite of what most everyone hoped for or intended. Many point to the Obama healthcare plan as a classic example of where neither side is happy with the end result. Could the same happen for clean energy?

Moving into the 112th Congress, we could see a new age where "clean energy" becomes increasingly "dirty." There are growing calls not for a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS), but a so-called clean energy standard that includes clean coal and nuclear power along with renewables. In our book The Clean Tech Revolution and in our work at Clean Edge, senior editor Clint Wilder and I have made a strong case for not including these technologies in the clean-tech taxonomy. 

But an "all of the above" approach to our energy future may very well be in the offing. The Chinese have been pursuing this approach, spending more on solar PV, wind power, and electric vehicles than just about any other country (and reaping leadership benefits along with their investments), while also supporting the advancement of clean coal and nuclear. It's not a bad approach, and has worked very well for the Chinese, but is it the right one for the U.S.?

Only One State RPS Includes Nuclear

In our recently released U.S. Clean Energy Leadership Index, Clean Edge tracks states on more than 80 technology, policy, and capital indicators, including RPS. And the states take a pretty clear view on how they feel about nuclear as part of a clean-energy future. Of the 29 states with an RPS, only one, Ohio, includes nuclear. Nuclear containment issues and waste storage problems all weigh heavily on the minds of local residents, not to mention greater overall public support for the expansion of renewables over conventional sources.

Arizona, for example, aided by the adamant voice of the state's solar industry and others, recently put a stop to legislation that would have allowed existing nuclear and hydro facilities to count towards the state's RPS – which would have effectively killed any incentive to install new renewables.

One of the other big issues facing nuclear power is that you're always just one accident away from broad social rejection of the technology. People forget about the latest pipeline explosion or the latest coal mine accident, but they don't do that with nuclear power accidents. This makes the wide-scale adoption of nuclear all the more difficult and potentially impractical.

But let's face it. Candidate Obama wasn't against nuclear or clean coal, so we shouldn't expect much different from President Obama. And his Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, has been vocal in his support of nuclear power, stating that he doesn't see a way out of our current energy mess sans nukes (see our rebuttal to that here). So the idea of a clean-energy standard that includes both nuclear and clean coal isn't at all far-fetched. It is an increasingly likely reality.

But we can do better.

China may need to pursue nuclear and clean coal along with its leadership role in renewables, electrified transportation, and efficiency. But the U.S., with its more advanced existing infrastructure and smaller projected demand growth, doesn't have to. We could be one of the first nations in the world to wean itself off of coal and nuclear while replacing these volatile sources of energy with a combination of cleaner options. Recently, the state of Oregon decided to shutter its only coal plant by 2020, by ratcheting up renewables and efficiency, along with some base-load natural gas. This could be achieved across our entire country.

If we do end up with a broad federal clean-energy policy that includes clean coal and nuclear, then let's be sure it's structured so that states can say no to these technologies. Let California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, and others pursue their own strategies to reach low-carbon goals.  There's a reason why so many states have chosen not to include nuclear and clean coal in their targets, and the feds should stay out of the way on this one.

Like many others, I believe that solar, wind, geothermal, smart grid, electric vehicles, and conservation and efficiency, along with intelligent use of conventional sources like natural gas, represent our energy future. Let's not get distracted by expensive, polluting, volatile, and resource-intensive alternatives. The U.S. can and must lead in the clean-energy revolution, and it can do so by supporting, leveraging, and growing the cleanest of clean technologies.

Ron Pernick is cofounder and managing director of clean-tech research and advisory firm Clean Edge, Inc. He'll be moderating a discussion on nuclear power between Ralph Cavanagh, NRDC and Peter Schwartz, GBN/Monitor Group, at the upcoming Clean-Tech Investor Summit in Palm Springs.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Optimized and Efficient Window Placement Suggestions for Home Builders

Though windows are only one target among several products and practices toward a top-notch thermal envelope, there are still rules of thumb to follow to optimize their impact.

Southern Exposure: An all-day exposure, per the sun's path. In heating (i.e., cold) climates, leverage it with a better U-factor (ideally 0.20 or less) but less-efficient SHGC (perhaps 0.50 or higher) to boost heat gain in the winter and offset heating energy; use overhangs or other shading devices to cut down gain in the summer, when the sun is higher in the sky. In cooling (i.e., hot) climates, spec windows with U-factors and SHGC ratings of 0.30 or better and use shading tactics. "If I have to choose between blocking the summer sun and some solar gain in the winter, I'll elect to block it," says Texas custom builder Don Ferrier.

Western Exposure: Solar gain mostly in the late afternoon. Bob Saxler, architectural marketing manager at Andersen Windows, advises builders to focus on this elevation first, as it is the most difficult to control. If possible, orient the house and floor plan away from this exposure, such as situating utility areas, bathrooms, and, ideally, the garage on that side, and specify small and fewer operable (ideally casement) windows with efficient U-factors and SHGC ratings to mitigate solar gain and provide some measure of passive ventilation. If you have a view to the west, he says, boost the SHGC even more and look for multiple shading opportunities inside and out.

Northern Exposure: In this hemisphere, the least opportunity for solar gain. A dual-pane window with a standard low-E coating on the inner face of the outside pane (cold climate) or the outer face of the inside pane (hot climate), is sufficient. "We always recommend a low-E window for north-facing windows for its insulating value alone," says Val Brushaber, director of product management, certification, and architectural development for Hurd Windows & Doors. The number and size of windows can be dictated by views, exterior aesthetics, and floor plan as much as thermal efficiency, though fewer windows is always better in that regard. North is also notorious for prevailing winds, so think about air infiltration and passive ventilation through casement windows (instead of hung units) or fixed windows to lessen leakage.

Eastern Exposure: Rich in daylight, but far cooler than its opposite exposure. You can dial up the SHGC rating to 0.40 or more, especially in heating or mixed climates, while a U-factor of 0.30 is plenty to retard thermal transfer through the window.

Article Continues: ecohomemagazine.com/green-products

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Green Product Evaluation Tips

Here are the first 12 questions you should ask about any green building product you're evaluating—before you make your selection:

1. How will it perform its basic function as a building material or product?

2. How does it compare with products I use now?

3. Is it code approved? 

4. Is it third-party certified? 

5. Will it contribute toward project certification? 

6. Is it available? 

7. How will it affect my pricing? 

8. Will it increase my level of risk or liability? 

9. How will it improve the level of performance of my homes? 

10. How will it contribute toward sustainability? 

11. Will it require new sequencing or installation skills/trades? 

12. Is it worth the investment for the benefits?

After answering these 12 questions, apply your own experience and expertise to filter out products that would put you outside your comfort zone in terms of unknowns and risks.

Read Complete Article Here: www.ecohomemagazine.com

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Spray Foam: Open Cell VS Closed Cell

Scotty writes: In response to a prior questions:

Q:Which Spray Foam Insulation is Best, Open Cell or Closed Cell?

Open-Cell Vs. Closed-Cell

The real distinction between types of foam insulation focuses on whether they are open- or closed-cell. In general, both are made from the same materials and work in the same way, trapping air or gas in a plastic matrix. The differences start with the "blowing agents" used to create bubbles and end with both varied performance and cost.

Open-cell foam costs slightly less for the same thickness, but offers lower per-inch R-values than closed-cell products. In some instances, this is a disadvantage, but where thickness is less relevant, or where higher R-values are not needed, then open-cell can provide the better choice. It also has some green advantages over closed-cell: The blowing agent used to install open-cell insulation is water, which reacts with air to become CO2—while closed-cell products use HFCs.

Because CO2 expands quickly, the bubbles tend to burst before the plastic sets, and hence the "open cells," which produce a spongy, lightweight foam. The industry describes the foam as "half-pound" material, which simply means the foam has a mass that weighs 0.5 pounds per cubic foot. This density yields an R-value of approximately 3.6 per inch, equivalent to most traditional insulations. Because of the open cell structure, open-cell foam allows some vapor to pass through, making it a good choice in hot, humid climates, and under roof sheathing, such as in conditioned attics, where water vapor caught between insulation and sheathing could promote wood rot.

In short, open-cell foam, tested in accordance with ASTM E 283, provides an air barrier with vapor breathability. Water-blown solutions have less environmental impact than the current HFCs used for most closed-cell spray-foam insulation. And open-cell has about twice the noise reduction coefficient in normal frequency ranges as closed-cell foam. Because the blowing agent in open-cell insulation dissipates as it sets, instead of slowly over time, there is no degeneration of the R-value—a minor point given aged closed-cell R-values still trump open-cell R-values by a magnitude of nearly 100%.

Unlike open-cell foam, closed-cell foam uses chemical blowing agents that come in liquid form and become gasses as they are applied. These gasses expand, but not as quickly as CO2, allowing the polyurethane plastic to set before the bubbles burst. This yields dense foam weighing nearly 2 pounds per cubic foot, and without the capillary characteristics of open-cell, it remains impermeable. The blowing agents used perform like the inert gasses between the panes of high-performance windows, adding to the insulating qualities of the foam. Unlike open-cell foam, closed-cell foam rarely requires any trimming, with little or no jobsite waste.

Closed-cell has more obvious advantages over open-cell, and a slightly higher price tag (20% to 30% for the same thickness). It provides both a vapor and air barrier and offers an aged R-value of a whopping 6.5 per inch. Because of its density and glue-like consistency, it remains very strong, providing both compressive and tensile strength to structure comparable to added sheathing, increasing the racking strength of walls by as much as 300%, according to the NAHB Research Center. Because water does not penetrate or degrade the product, FEMA recommends closed-cell foam as a suitable insulation material for flood regions.

The principle disadvantage of closed-cell foam comes with overkill. If you do not require the extra vapor barrier, structural strength, and R-value per inch, then you may be wasting money. As for the added wall strength, while real and substantial, it's not acknowledged by building codes currently, so you can't reduce the structural bracing as a tradeoff.
---------------
Information found at: http://www.ecohomemagazine.com

Spray Foam: Toxic Blowing Agents and Fire Proofing ecohomemagazine.com/green-products/expanding-options.aspx

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com