<%BANNER%>

Life Cycle Costing of Active and Passive Solar Retrofits

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024497/00001

Material Information

Title: Life Cycle Costing of Active and Passive Solar Retrofits
Physical Description: 1 online resource (117 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Priest, Kevin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: costing, energy, lcc, photovoltaics, residential, solar, upgrades
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Generally relatively low energy costs have allowed home owners to consume energy without great concern. Given current electricity generation, consuming more electricity means that more CO2not is emitted in the atmosphere. Educating homeowners, combined with behavioral change and inexpensive upgrades, could reduce annual electrical consumption, and as a result, less CO2 would be emitted. Reducing electricity consumption would also allow for solar electric generation to become economically feasible, which would further reduce CO2 from electricity generation. The reduction of energy would come from a template, beginning with a behavioral change and ending with efficiency upgrades. The template, a didactic tool, breaks down the existing consumption, suggests reduction strategies and then compares existing to a new estimated consumption. Solar electric without reducing consumption is not economically feasible at this time. The feasibility of a solar system depends on the initial cost, the utility rate per kilowatt hour (kWh), and electrical use. An analysis using life cycle costing (LCC) examined the consumption to determine the optimum size and cost of the solar electric system. Having a production equal to consumption means the home is a net zero energy home (NZEH).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kevin Priest.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Ries, Robert J.
Local: Co-adviser: Kibert, Charles J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024497:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024497/00001

Material Information

Title: Life Cycle Costing of Active and Passive Solar Retrofits
Physical Description: 1 online resource (117 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Priest, Kevin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: costing, energy, lcc, photovoltaics, residential, solar, upgrades
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Generally relatively low energy costs have allowed home owners to consume energy without great concern. Given current electricity generation, consuming more electricity means that more CO2not is emitted in the atmosphere. Educating homeowners, combined with behavioral change and inexpensive upgrades, could reduce annual electrical consumption, and as a result, less CO2 would be emitted. Reducing electricity consumption would also allow for solar electric generation to become economically feasible, which would further reduce CO2 from electricity generation. The reduction of energy would come from a template, beginning with a behavioral change and ending with efficiency upgrades. The template, a didactic tool, breaks down the existing consumption, suggests reduction strategies and then compares existing to a new estimated consumption. Solar electric without reducing consumption is not economically feasible at this time. The feasibility of a solar system depends on the initial cost, the utility rate per kilowatt hour (kWh), and electrical use. An analysis using life cycle costing (LCC) examined the consumption to determine the optimum size and cost of the solar electric system. Having a production equal to consumption means the home is a net zero energy home (NZEH).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kevin Priest.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Ries, Robert J.
Local: Co-adviser: Kibert, Charles J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024497:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

LIFE CYC LE COSTING OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SOLAR RETROFITS By KEVIN KENNETT PRIEST A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Kevin Kennett P riest 2

PAGE 3

To everybody who said go one m ore round 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWL EDGMENTS I would like to thank my dear family and frie nds for their support in this endeavor. A special thanks to my mother, step-father, late fa ther and brother for molding me into the person I am today. A special thanks to Colleen for allo wing me to change my be havior and thinking to make the research a reality. La st but not least, Dr. Robert Ries for encouraging the thought process and believing. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .12 Statement of Purpose........................................................................................................... ...12 Objective of the Study......................................................................................................... ...12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................13 New Age of Photo..................................................................................................................13 Solar Today.................................................................................................................... .........17 Passive Water Heating Systems..............................................................................................18 Integral Collector Storage................................................................................................18 Thermosiphon System.....................................................................................................18 Evacuated Tubes..............................................................................................................19 Active Solar Water-Heating Systems.....................................................................................20 Efficiency Upgrades...............................................................................................................20 Lighting...........................................................................................................................21 Appliances..................................................................................................................... ..21 HVAC (Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning).......................................................22 Blower Door Test...................................................................................................................22 Working with a Solar Installer................................................................................................23 Solar Energy Tour...................................................................................................................24 Rebates, Costs, and Paybacks.................................................................................................25 Direct Incentives.............................................................................................................. .......26 Feed In Tariff................................................................................................................. .........27 October 14, 2008.............................................................................................................27 November 20, 2008.........................................................................................................27 November 21, 2008.........................................................................................................28 December 19, 2008..........................................................................................................28 Increase in Equity............................................................................................................. ......29 Paying for the Electric System...............................................................................................30 Life Cycle Costing............................................................................................................. .....31 5

PAGE 6

3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................3 4 Historical Data................................................................................................................ ........35 Roof Area................................................................................................................................36 Behavioral Change.............................................................................................................. ....36 Consumption of Appliances and Electronics..........................................................................36 Lighting Upgrade....................................................................................................................36 Clothes Washer Upgrade........................................................................................................3 7 HVAC Upgrade......................................................................................................................38 Solar Hot Water................................................................................................................ ......38 New Estimated Consumption.................................................................................................39 Life Cycle Costing of PV.......................................................................................................39 Size of the Photovoltaic (PV) System....................................................................................41 4 RESULTS FROM THE CASE STUDY................................................................................57 Case Study 1410.....................................................................................................................57 Historical Data................................................................................................................ .57 Roof Area........................................................................................................................58 Behavioral Change..........................................................................................................58 Record Consumption of Appliances and Electronics......................................................58 Lighting Upgrade.............................................................................................................61 Clothes Washer Upgrade.................................................................................................61 HVAC Upgrade...............................................................................................................63 Solar Hot Water...............................................................................................................6 3 Review of Consumption Reduction.................................................................................64 LCC of PV with Solar Thermal Systems........................................................................66 Sensitivity Analyses........................................................................................................... .....67 Increase and Decrease Production at the Reduced Consumption Rate..................................68 5 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 113 6 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................114 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................117 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page Table 1-1. Cost of a 5 kW System Before and After Rebates.......................................................31 Table 3-1. Historical Consumption and Cost Data........................................................................43 Table 3-2. Hourly Consumptions................................................................................................. ..44 Table 3-3. Existing Bulbs Template............................................................................................. .45 Table 3-4. Lighting LCC Template............................................................................................... 46 Table 3-5. Clothes Washer Comparison........................................................................................47 Table 3-6. Clothes Washer LCC.................................................................................................. ..48 Table 3-7. HVAC Consumption Calculation.................................................................................49 Table 3-8. HVAC LCC Template..................................................................................................5 0 Table 3-9. Hot Water Comparison Template.................................................................................51 Table 3-10. Hot Water LCC Template..........................................................................................52 Table 3-11. User Cells......................................................................................................... ..........53 Table 3-12. PV and Solar Thermal Data........................................................................................54 Table 3-13. Initial Cost and Size Calculations...............................................................................55 Table 4-1. Historical kWh Data................................................................................................. ....69 Table 4-2. Appliance and Electronic Consumption Estimate........................................................70 Table 4-3. Appliance Breakdown Estimate...................................................................................71 Table 4-4. Hourly Consumption of A ppliances and Electronic Equipment..................................72 Table 4-5. Appliance Energy Use and Costs.................................................................................72 Table 4-6. Lighting Energy Use.....................................................................................................74 Table 4-7. New Lighting Energy Us e with Behavioral Change....................................................75 Table 4-8. LCC Existing Incandescent Bulbs and Consumption vs. CFLs and Consumption....76 Table 4-9. Dryer Consumpti on and Cost Comparison...................................................................77 7

PAGE 8

Table 4-10. Washer Consum p tion and Cost Comparison..............................................................77 Table 4-11. LCC Existing Washer and Dryer................................................................................78 Table 4-12. LCC Existing Dryer w/ New Washer.........................................................................79 Table 4-13. Energy Consumption................................................................................................. .81 Table 4-14. HVAC LCC Comparison...........................................................................................82 Table 4-15. Energy Reducti on and Cost Savings..........................................................................83 Table 4-16. Electric and Solar Hot Water LCC Comparison........................................................84 Table 4-17. Historical vs Present Consumption...........................................................................86 Table 4-18. Size of PV befo re and after reduction.....................................................................86 Table 4-19. Reduced Consumption kW System............................................................................86 Table 4-21. Old Energy Use vs. New Energy Use........................................................................87 Table 4-22. PV and Solar Thermal LCC Comparison...................................................................89 Table 4-23. LCC Comparison usi ng Historical Consumption.......................................................89 Table 4-24. Historical Consump tion w/ Larger PV System..........................................................92 Table 4-25. LCC 7,000 kWh/annually........................................................................................94 Table 4-26. LCC 8,000 kWh/annually........................................................................................96 Table 4-27. LCC 9,000 kWh/annually.......................................................................................98 Table 4-28. LCC 10,000 kWh/annually....................................................................................100 Table 4-29. LCC 11,000 kWh/annually....................................................................................102 Table 4-30. LCC 12,000 kWh/annually....................................................................................104 Table 4-31. LCC 13,000 kWh/annually....................................................................................106 Table 4-32. Sensitivity Analysis Summary.................................................................................108 Table 4-33. Percent Produc tion Analysis Summary....................................................................111 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF FI GURES Figure page Figure 2-2. Dickenson PV and Solar Thermal System..................................................................25 Figure 2-1. ICS System......................................................................................................... .........33 Figure 3-1. Output Differ ential (A Sanyo Bifacials) (B Sunpower)........................................56 Figure 4-1. Time Elapse Photo of Case Study...............................................................................70 Figure 4-2. Annual HVAC and Applianc e Energy Consumption Estimate..................................71 Figure 4-3. Annual Applianc e Consumption Estimate..................................................................71 Figure 4-4. Annual Costs....................................................................................................... ........73 Figure 4-5. Washer/Dryer Comparisons........................................................................................80 Figure 4-6. Costs vs. Years betw een the Hot Water Systems........................................................85 Figure 4-7. Home Ener gy Costs Comparison................................................................................88 Figure 4-8. Gross and Net Payback Time for Solar Systems with Efficiency Upgrades..............90 Figure 4-9. Discounted Payback Time for So lar Systems with Efficiency Upgrades...................90 Figure 4-10. Payback for Solar Syst ems without Efficiency Upgrades.........................................91 Figure 4-11. Discounted Payback for Solar Systems without Efficiency Upgrades.....................91 Figure 4-12. PV Payback Time of the Larger Solar System without Efficiency Upgrades..........93 Figure 4-13. Discounted Payback Hist orical Consumption w/ 7.35kW system.........................93 Figure 4-14. Discounted Payback 7,000 kWh/annually.............................................................95 Figure 4-15. Discounted Payback 8,000 kWh/annually.............................................................97 Figure 4-16. Discounted Payback 9,000 kWh/annually.............................................................99 Figure 4-17. Discounted Payback 10,000 kWh/annually.........................................................101 Figure 4-18. Discounted Payback 11,000kWh/annually..........................................................103 Figure 4-19. Discounted Payback 12,000 kWh/annually.........................................................105 Figure 4-20. Discounted Payback 13,000 kWh/annually.........................................................107 9

PAGE 10

Figure 4-21. Size of system to produce 100% of consumption...................................................109 Figure 4-22. LCC of System for 100% of Consumption.............................................................110 Figure 4-23. LCC for Sensitivity Analyses..................................................................................112 10

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction LIFE CYCLE COSTING OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SOLAR RETROFITS By Kevin Kennett Priest August 2009 Chair: Robert Ries Co-chair: Charles Kibert Major: Building Construction Generally relatively low en ergy costs have allowed home owners to consume energy without great concern. Given curr ent electricity generation, cons uming more electricity means that more CO2 is emitted in the atmosphere. Educating homeowners, combined with behavioral change and inexpensive upgrades, could reduce a nnual electrical consumption, and as a result, less CO2 would be emitted. Reducing electricity cons umption would also allow for solar electric generation to become economically f easible, which would further reduce CO2 from electricity generation. The reduction of energy would come from a te mplate, beginning with a behavioral change and ending with efficiency upgrades. The temp late, a didactic tool, breaks down the existing consumption, suggests reduction strategies and then compares existing to a new estimated consumption. Solar electric without reducing c onsumption is not economically f easible at this time. The feasibility of a solar system depends on the initial cost, the utility rate per kilowatt hour (kWh), and electrical use. An analys is using life cycle costing (LCC) examined the consumption to determine the optimum size and cost of the solar electric system Having a production equal to consumption means the home is a net zero energy home (NZEH).

PAGE 12

CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of Purpose Active and passive solar systems are beco ming more common in new construction. However, the majority of existing buildings al so are consuming electricity; making it necessary to retrofit these buildings to consume less and produce more. Generally, new buildings, commercial and residential, consume less electricity per square foot (SF), so without retrofitting existing buildings, overall consumption will stay the same. Retrofitting existing construction with solar technologies is a way to reduce c onsumption as well as potentially preventing demolition for new construction. Objective of the Study The objective of this study is to develop a methodology and an LCC model that can be used to examine the feasibility of solar technologies in ex isting homes. The methodology examines home features and electricity use and uses LCC to estimate feasibility. 12

PAGE 13

CHAP TER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW New Age of Photo Solar-generated electricity represents a sm all fraction of the power consumed in U.S. households. Most homes that use solar-generated electricity are tied to the local utility, usually generating some but not all of the electricity the home consumes (Gibson 57). The current dominant photovoltaic (PV) t echnology is crystalline silicon in various forms that produce an electrical current when exposed to sunlight. PV arrays consist of panels made of silicon wafers, or thin film amorphous silicon. Th in film technology is available in flat panels, roofing slates, and flexible sheets that can be applied to metal roofing (Gibson 56). For the panels to receive the optimum sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere it is important to face them south or west of south (Gibson 58). It is also important to elevate the panels toward the sun because the panels are then exposed to the ma ximum amount of light from the sun on the days where it is lowest in the sky. A rule of thumb is that the degrees of elevation e qual the locations latitude. They may also be mounted on a tilt or tracking system that follows the sun, which maximizes solar exposure but also adds to the cost and complexity of the installation. A battery backup bank for a grid tied system will also add to the cost of installation. The battery bank typically adds 40% to the initial cost, and is onl y needed during a utility interruption, or when the home is off the grid (Lane personal communicati on). In a grid-tied system without a battery back-up, utility supplied electric ity stops during a power interrup tion. With a battery back up system, the home can run normally when the gr id is down. The duratio n of battery life is dependant upon the electrical demand, the size of th e back-up system, and the solar conditions. 13

PAGE 14

A silicon cell, or wafer, is a device with no moving parts that generates electricity directly from sunlight. When sun-light strikes silicon cells, electrons break free to create electrical current. Silicon is made into solar cells in severa l ways. The two most common are crystalline silicon sliced into thin wafers, and the other is an am orphous film. The wafers are set into a glass and polymer sandwich, and the amorphous film (thin film) is applied to a substrate such as wood or metal (Gibson 57). The highest efficiencies come from monocrystalline silicon, which is silicon sliced from a single grown crystal. The efficiency of monocrystalline silicon is 18% or higher depending on the way it is set into the module. The efficiency of most cells is in the mid-teens, and the efficiency of thin-films is lower, generally 10% or less. Researchers and developers say that 40% efficien t silicon cells can be produced; however, they are not feasible for mass production (Gibson 58). Th e greater the efficiency, the le ss square footage is required for cells to produce electricity. Solar cell output is measured in Watts (W ), and panels are rated by their output. Sunlights energy intensity is 1kW/m or 1,000W/m when it strikes a surface on Earth. A panel rated 18% efficient, means that its output is 180W/m or 18% of 1kW/m or 1000W/m. Most panels, or modules, are 1.15 m, so an 18% effici ent panel of that size wo uld have a rated output of 207W. It is important to know the consumption of th e home in kWh, as this will dictate the size of the solar electric system. For example, if a household uses 600 kWh of electricity for a 30 day month, then the average consumption per day is about 20 kWh. With an average of 5 sun hours per day, that equates to a 4 kW solar electric system: The 20kWh is divided by 5 sun hours = 4kW. So if a 2 kW system were installed it would offset the elec tric bill by approximately 50%. A solar electric systems size is always descri bed by the kW output (Merry and Masia 16). 14

PAGE 15

In the article, The New Age of Photo it was stated that during th e 1970s and s most of the residential solar electric system s were off-grid, stand alone systems (Gibson 58). From 2002 2007, grid-tied systems have been installed at an increasing rate. These sy stems are connected to the local utility and use net metering. Net mete ring is a system where the electricity is bought and sold between the homeowner and the utility company at the same rate (Gibson 58). According to Gibson, reducing the demand for el ectricity is important because of the high initial cost of a PV system. It is less expensive to spend money on reducing kWh of consumption than it is to spend money on a PV system to produce the amount of electricity needed for the current demand (Gibson 62). Ther e are different alternatives and methods to accomplish this. The first method deals with a cha nge in behavior. Jason Fults from Drops and Watts stated that energy consumption can be reduced 5% with a change in behavior. This means spending no money to save money. The change may include turning off all lights and televisions that might be on during the day or night, and unplugging applia nces and electronics that have a phantom load. A phantom load occurs when an appliance or piece of electronic is not in the on position, but it may have a lighted cl ock or button that need s a small amount of electricity to run. Washing your clothes with cold water and hang drying them will save electricity. One way to reduce consumption wi thout a change in behavior is to replace incandescent light bulbs in the house with compact fluorescent la mps (CFLs). According to Energy Star, a typical CFL uses about 78% less Watts to produce the same amount of lumens that an incandescent light bulb does, and they produce about 75 % less heat. This is possible because a CFL contains its own ballast. The heat factor can pose a problem in the summer time. Also these lamps last up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs (Lighting). For example, a 15

PAGE 16

13W CFL produces the same light as a 60W incandescent bulb. This means that more CFL bulbs can be used and still have less c onsumption than one incandescent bulb. Energy Star appliances are also importan t in reducing consumption without changing behavior. Household appliances that have been rated by the U.S. Department of Energy include: refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, hot water heaters, and tele visions (Home). There are more household items that have been rated; however, these are the a ppliances that consume the most electricity. Consumption with respect to some of the appliances depends on behavior, such as how often an appliance is used or if the appliance is used at all. An Energy Star refrigerator uses roughly 20% less electricity than the minimum standard refrigerator and 40% less than refrigerators from 2001. Thei r consumption ranges from 300kWh to 750 kWh annually (Refrigerato rs). Consumption can be reduced by 41% by replacing an older dishwasher with an Energy Star rated dish washer. Also, less water is used to wash the dishes, so water consumption is reduced (Dishwashers). A major appliance that uses less water is an Energy Star clothes washing machine. Consumption ranges from 113 kWh to 408 kWh annually. These numbers are based on 400 loads of laundry per year (Clothes Washers). Television (TV) consumption depends on the numb er of televisions in the home and the number of hours they are turned on. Energy Star approved televisions use 30% less electricity in the on position than standard TVs. Energy Star rate d TVs range from 20 Watts in the on position to 400 Watts. This range equates to 0.02 kW and 0.4 kW per hour respectively. The phantom consumption for standby mode ranges from 0.00 0012 kW to 0.001 kW. If the lowest consuming television was plugged in and le ft in standby mode all year, it would consume 0.105 kWh, and the highest standby would consume 8.76 kWh (Tel evisions). Also, TVs produce heat, causing a cooling load on the space. This may aff ect the thermostat de pending on how close the 16

PAGE 17

therm ostat is to the TV. Stove s are not Energy Star rated so behavior is the key to reduction. Ranges and cook tops can be fu eled with natural gas. Solar Today According to Solar Today Magazine, the first efficient solar water heating system was invented in 1891 by Clarence Kemp. The system was built as a network of pipes painted black and placed within an insulated box. The pipes were then covered with a piece of clear glass. A solar hot water system is roughly 20% less expensive to operate than a gas water heater, and it is 40% less expensive to operate than an elec tric water heater (Young, Merry, Masia 12). Depending on fuel prices, the cost of the solar hot water system becomes either more or less feasible. The price of the solar thermal syst em depends on two main factors: the size and climate. The size is dependant upon the number of people using water, and how often hot water is needed. A larger system will be needed for a family of 4 that uses hot water for dish and clothes washing, and bathing than a household of 4 that uses hot water for dish washing, but washes all clothes on the cold cycle. The less hot water used, the smalle r and more inexpensive the system. There are two types of solar hot water systems: passive and active (Merry and Masia). In warm climates a passive system will suffice, but in colder climates an active system is needed to keep the water drained back during times of the day when temperatures are low. Passive systems are preferred because of their lack of moving parts to maintain, and the lack of a heat transfer fluid. In active systems, the water is drained down in to the house, where the temperature is warmer, when the temperature drops below a predetermined minimum; or an environmentally friendly anti-freeze is used to ke ep the heat transfer fluid from freezing. Cold weather systems require the use of temperature sensors, electric pumps, and automatic control systems. This adds to the co st and complexity of the inst allation (Young, Merry, Masia 12). 17

PAGE 18

Passive Water Heating Systems Passive systems are installed in areas where freezing is a little or no issue. The most common types of passive systems are integral co llector storage (ICS) and thermosiphon systems. There are no pumps required for this system. Evacuated tubes are also a passive solar water heating system (Young, Merry, Masia 12). Integral Collector Storage In an ICS system, water flows up to the roof, us ing water pressure and into the collector. The collector holds between 30 and 50 gallons of water. If the water is being drawn from the water heater below, the water flows from the collector to the heater and waits for use (Young, Merry, Masia 12). If water is not being drawn from the water heat er, then the water stays in the collector on the roof until the water is needed. In a passive system the sun either pre-heats the water or heats the water to a desired temperature taking the load off the wa ter heater. Figure 2-1 shows the cold water supply line routed up to the solar hot water system, where the water temperature increases. Once there is a hot water demand, the water flows down into the hot water tank and from there to the water outlets. ICS systems are similar to thermosiphon solar units in that they can heat water passively wit hout pumps or controller systems. ICS systems offer a low cost system with no maintenance, no moving parts, and zero operational costs (Lane 102). Thermosiphon System A thermosiphon system uses the idea that water rises as it is heated. This system uses a flat plate collector. According to Solar Water Heating, Take the load off your water heater in this system, water rises as it is heated and flows to the top of the collector, and then to the top of an insulated tank. Colder water at the bottom of this tank is draw n into the lower supply of the solar collector. Water then flows in a continuou s loop, continually reheat ed during the daylight 18

PAGE 19

hours (Young, Merry, Masia 12). W hen a hot water ta p is opened in the house, water flows from the top of the storage tank and is replaced with cold water flowing into the bottom of the storage tank. The drawback to a thermosiphon system is th at the heavy storage ta nk is put high on the roof requiring extra structural support. Other solar water heati ng systems have the storage tank at ground level or in the basement, requiring no additional structural support (Young, Merry, Masia 12). The thermosiphon and ICS systems can be used in cooler climates if they're converted to a drain-down configuration. When temperatures drop to near freezing, valves open to drain the collector, often into a weather-protected indoor storage tank. When temperatures rise again, the collector system is refilled, either from water pressure or by using an electric pump to push water back up from the indoor storage tank. Because of the automatic control systems, drain-downs are considered active rather than passive (Young, Merry, Masia 14). Evacuated Tubes An evacuated tube system is more expensiv e than other passive systems, but it is also much more efficient, so it takes less space on th e roof (Young, Merry, Masia 14). Heat from the sun is collected in double-walled gl ass tubes that are arra nged with one end higher than the other. Each tube is built like a thermos bottle with a vacu um between the walls. In the center of the tube is a copper pipe contai ning propylene glycol, which is a nonpoisonous anti-freeze. The outside of the glass remains cool to the touch, but inside the coppe r pipe turns hot and the glycol boils. Steam then rises to the top of the pipe, where it heats water in a manifold. The water circulates back to a heat exchanger in a hot water storage tank in the home. Once the steam condenses it flows to the bottom of the tube completing the loop. These systems work in both warm and cold climates (Young, Merry, Masia 14). 19

PAGE 20

Active Solar Water-Heating Systems Active systems use electric pumps to circul ate water through the collectors. In warm climates, a direct or open-loop system is practical (Young, Merry, Masia 14). The two differences between a passive system and a direct system are how the water enters the storage tank and the pump. Water goes into an insulate d storage tank, and a pump draws water out of the storage tank to pass through the solar collector and then the water returns to the storage tank. Hot water for household use is drawn from the t op of the storage tank. An automatic control system starts the pump whatever the collector is warmer than the storage tank (Young, Merry, Masia 14). In colder climates, the most common system is the closed-loop anti-freeze heatexchanger system or active indirect system. When the collector is warm, a propylene glycol antifreeze solution is pumped through the collector at one end and throug h a heat exchanger in the hot water storage tank at the other. The heat exchanger heats potable wa ter for domestic use. The heat exchanger is usually located at the bott om of an insulated stor age tank. Sometimes the storage tank is also the home water heater, with an electric or natural gas heating mechanism for use when the collector is cold. The anti-freeze so lution is food safe because if there is ever a leak in the heat exchanger, antifreeze would contaminate the drinking water (Young, Merry, Masia 14). Efficiency Upgrades The cheapest and easiest way to see dram atic energy savings is through efficiency upgrades. Summer and winter, the typical home wastes energy in several ways, including: inefficient bulbs; inefficient water-heating sy stems; inefficient hea ting and air-conditioning systems; air infiltration through the envelope including: ceilings and roof, windows, outside walls, doors, floors and foundation, soffits, fl ashing, and other join ts (Masia 24). 20

PAGE 21

Lighting An effective way to reduce an electric bill is by replacing incandes cent light bulbs that are used for lighting. Incandes cent bulbs waste about 95% of th eir energy as heat. A 100 W bulb generates as much heat as an electrically heated dipstick designed to keep a V-8 engine warm in cold climates (Masia 24). Incandescent bulbs are so wasteful that federal law will ban their sale after 2013. Assume that a home burns (6) 75W bulbs for 6 hours each night. The yearly consumption of the bulbs would be 985.5kW h. With an electric rate of $0.125/kWh, the cost would be $123.19. If these bulbs were replac ed with (6) 23W CFLs with the same lumen output for the same six hours each night, the consumption would be reduced to 302.22 kWh. Assuming the same rate of $0.125/kWh, the new cost would be $37.77. Converting to CFLs would also eliminate 360 W of heat from the house per night (Masia 24). This helps in the summer time in the south when coo ling the house is a priority. Appliances One way to determine the consumption of the appliances is to use a meter that shows the consumption of whatever appliance it is plugge d into. KILL A WATT is a power meter that displays the consumption of appliances that can be plugged into 110V outlets. With the information displayed, the homeowner can dete rmine the appliances consumption, and then determine if methods of use and/or the applianc es themselves need to be changed (New 30). Large appliances can also consume a lot of en ergy, especially if th ey run frequently. A refrigerator is an example of an appliance that runs frequently. Older refrigerators should be replaced. Computers and televi sions can draw 5 to 10 Watts c ontinually even when shutdown, unless the plug is pulled or there is a switch to cut off the power supply (Masia 24). A possible solution is a switchable power strip or a switch co ntrolled outlet. A television along with a cable box can consume on average 310 W while in the on position. This equates to 0.31kW/hour. An 21

PAGE 22

electric water heater can draw 2,500 Watts. This m eans that a water heater recycling hot water can consume 2.5kW/hour. One method that can be practiced, besides reducing hot water use is turning down the thermostat on the hot water heater to 122F (50C). Also, insulated pipes help the hot water heater run more e fficiently, along with using low fl ow water fixtures including but not limited to: water faucets, toilets, showerhead s (Masia 24). Alterna tive measures to these methods are to shut off the hot water heater when not in use using a timer or a switch. HVAC (Heating Ventilatio n and Air Conditioning) As with making sure the hot water heater is running as efficient as possible, it is important the HVAC run as efficient as possible to ensure low consumption and costs. Methods such as changing the air filter quarterly, cleaning and sealing the air ducts, and making sure ducts are properly insulated will improve system efficien cy. The system should be designed to heat or cool re-circulated air from inside the house. If the air ducts are in the attic, it is important to make sure the attic is sealed and insulated, or ventilated to keep the space cool during the summer months and warm during th e winter months (Masia 24). Also replacing the heating and cooling compressor and fan coil with a more ener gy efficient unit is anot her action that can be taken, but it is more expensive. Replacing the un it may be considered early on in the process of making the home more energy efficient, if it is more than five years old. Blower Door Test According to Energy Efficiency and Renewa ble Energy (EERE) a blower door test uses a powerful fan that mounts into the frame of an exterior door. The fan pulls air out of the house, lowering the air pressure inside. The higher ou tside air pressure then flows in through all unsealed cracks and openings. The auditors may us e a smoke pencil to detect air leaks. These tests determine the air infiltration rate of a building. Blower doors consist of a frame and flexible panel that fit in a doorway, a variable-speed fan, a pressure gauge to measure the pressure 22

PAGE 23

differences inside and outside the hom e, and an airflow manometer and hoses for measuring airflow. There are two types of blower doors: calibrated and un-calibrated. It is important that auditors use a calibrated door. Th is type of blower door has se veral gauges that measure the amount of air pulled out of the house by the fa n. Un-calibrated blower doors can only locate leaks in homes. They provide no method for dete rmining the overall tightness of a building. The calibrated blower door's data allo w the auditor to quantify the amount of air leakage and, after air sealing, test its effectiveness. There are four steps to prepare fo r a blower door test. These steps include: close windows and open in terior doors; turn down the th ermostats on heaters and water heaters; cover ashes in wood stoves and fire places with damp newspapers; shut fireplace dampers, fireplace doors, and wood stove air intakes (Blower). By performing a home energy audit and/or a bl ower door test; it may be determined that replacing older windows and doors, and insulating th e attic and floors, for more than one story, are important. These upgrades can be costly bu t in the long run they are considered a good investment over the lifecycle of those upgrades. Working with a Solar Installer There are some important points to consider when deciding on a solar contractor. The first point to consider is th e experience and certification of the installer (Hall 26). An examination of the track record of successful installations and satis fied customers is an area to look at along with knowing if the installer is certifie d by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NAB-CEP) or by the state board. Some othe r things to consider are the ability to finance, file paperwork for permits and incentives and measure system performance, follow building codes with regards to installation and roof integrity, and safety procedures as specified by OSHA (Hall 26). One more thing to consider is the contractor's follow-up service record. This information can be found by checking references, this means calling past 23

PAGE 24

custom ers, and finding out whether the schedules were met and problems were solved (Hall 26). When a contractor comes for a consultation they will evaluate the home's power needs. Historical data will be looked at to determine the size of the sola r electric system needed as well as the size of the roof or land where the system can be mounted. In the instance of a roof mounted system, the direction of the roof becomes important as does the age and condition of the roof. For example, if the roof is 15 years ol d the homeowner might want to consider a ground mounted system, or find out how much it will be to temporarily remove the solar panels to replace the roof, when needed. Shading of the roof or ground can be determined by using satellite photos or devices such as a Solar Pathfi nder to see where and what time of year or day the proposed area will be shaded, if at all. It is important to read the contract. Within the contract, the total price should be specified, including how and when incentive payments will be credited, and the payment schedule and warranty terms of products and services need to be reviewed. The installation of a solar electric system should take from 2 to 3 days. The installation is not considered co mplete until it is tested and sh own to meet the power production specifications of the panels (Hall 27). Solar Energy Tour As part of the part of the research, a sola r energy home tour was attended. This was an opportunity to speak to local so lar installers as well as homeowners who had PV and solar thermal installed on their homes. Literature wa s obtained as well and sy stems were discussed with two installers and one homeowner. The tour was held on October 18th 2008. Among the homes on the tour was the Dickenson Residence. They had recently installed a PV system with a solar thermal collector. Mrs. Dickenson was as ked about the historical consumption compared to the present consumption. The historical electri cal bills were available for viewing. The solar electric system did not produ ce the electricity eq ual to their annual consumption, because 24

PAGE 25

accord ing to Mrs. Dickinson, the home has frequent guests. Not all PV systems are installed to make the house a net zero energy ho me. With the PV and solar thermal systems the Dickenson residence had an average bill of $57.00 (Dickinson) The $57.00 was lower than the electric bills prior to installing the system. The home was al so equipped with 12 batteries, which allowed for on-site storage. As stated in the literature review, this allows for the home to run when the grid utility is down. ECS-So lar installed the system in 2007. Th ere were 4 other homes on the tour that were not visited, but information on installed system sizes was obtained. Figure 2-1 is of the south facing roof of the Dickenson residence. Figure 2-2. Dickenson PV and Solar Thermal System The system has 28 200W SunPower PV Modules and a flat plat solar thermal collector. As is shown in the photographs, there is some shad ing from the tress to th e south and west of the home. These photos were taken at 6:00 pm. Rebates, Costs, and Paybacks Andy Black says in an article titled, Does it pay?, that one of the most important things to consider when retrofitting a home with an active and passive solar system is the payback period. There are many factors that affect this answer. The factors include: local climate, utility rates, and incentives. In states where there are many sun hours/year and high utility rates, the payback period will be shorter, than states with few sun hours/year and low utility rates. Besides high electric rates and ample sun hours, other important factors for maki ng solar an attractive 25

PAGE 26

investm ent include financial incen tives and net-metering policies (Bla ck 28). Ample sunlight is available in almost all of the lower 48 states. Where net metering laws exist, the solar energy produced offsets the cost of the electricity consum ed. In some regions, solar systems are allowed to operate on a time-of-use rate schedule. This enables the users to sell back electricity to the utility at peak rates, which can be even more valu able. Time-of-use rates vary in electricity price based on the time of day, the time when there is great demand for electric. Solar electric systems tend to produce electricity during th ese higher rate periods (Black 28). Direct Incentives There are 4 major incentives for the city of Gain esville, Florida. The first is a federal tax credit for solar electric systems that went into effect January 1, 2006. Th e credit is for 30% of the system cost up to $2000 for residential system s. For PV systems, that typically means a $2000 credit on the purchaser's tax return for the year the system is installed (Black 28). The second incentive is the state of Florida rebate This rebate is $4.00/W, up to $20,000 (Rolland Oct. 14, 5A). The total amount of state funding is limited, however, and the current waiting time for the rebate is one year. Depending on when the solar electric system is installed, there may be no state rebate funds available. The money for the rebate will be renewed by the state until the summer of 2011 (Jacobson personal communication). There are incentives that are from the city of Gainesville, Florida. Gain esville Regional Utility (GRU), a city-owned utility company is offering a $1.50/W rebate up to $7,500. With th e $1.50/W rebate, the home is on net metering (Rolland Oct. 14, 5A). The second is a Feed-i n-Tariff (FIT) that will pay the homeowner $0.32 per kilowatt hour (kWh). This FIT was implem ented March 2009 (Rolland 1B Dec. 19, 1B). The homeowner can either use the FIT or the re bate with the purchase of the solar electric system but not both. With the FIT there are 2 mete rs. One of the meters measures electricity use in the home and the other meter measures PV output to the utility. Under the FIT the electricity 26

PAGE 27

produced by the PV panels is sold directly b ack to the utility, and does not power the house (Fults). Feed In Tariff Below are a series of articles on the FIT that ran from October 2008 March 2009. The articles discuss the history of the FIT and th e discussions of how it will be implemented in Gainesville. The discussions range from the sizes per year to the rate at which GRU will pay for the production. October 14, 2008 In an article in the Gainesv ille Sun, the (FIT) is mentioned as part of a plan to encourage solar energy production. According to the article it is the first of its kind in North America. The FIT was first introduced in Germany, and Ed Re gan, assistant general ma nager of Gainesville Regional Utility (GRU), discovered the incentive on a fact finding trip to Germany. GRU would buy all the energy produced by a PV system over th e next 20 years at a guaranteed rate/kWh. With the implementation of the FIT, both net metering and the cash rebate will be eliminated. According to Regan the price has been calculated using the cost of the panel and the cost of maintenance and repair over 20 years. Accordin g to Regan, You are allowed to beat the game, and a more efficient system would produce more energy and make more money (Rolland Oct. 14, 5A). November 20, 2008 Is solar the right fit? is the title of the front page ar ticle in the Gainesville Sun. The article states that this afternoon the city commissioners will vote on the FIT. If the Gainesville FIT model works, there is a high chance that other cities will follow in adopting this policy which would then lead to a breakthrough in the U. S. This was a statement from Bianca Barth, a climate policy officer with the World Future C ouncil. Although California and Michigan have 27

PAGE 28

FIT, they are considered watered down versions of the German model. With the Gainesville proposal, there are no bounds on the size of the system. According to the article, Ken McGurn, who recently installed 97 kW of PV on the top of the Sun Center downtown, says a $0.26/kWh will not be profitable compared to the current re bate of $1.50/W. Barry Jacobson states in the article that, if the price of the FIT is not in creased from the proposed $0.26/kWh, it will not be worth installing PV (Rolland Nov. 20, 1A). November 21, 2008 GRU solar plan given city approval is the ti tle of an article that states that the city commissioners voted to adopt the FIT. All 5 members voted to allow the plan. The rate is still not agreed upon as stakeholders disagree on what a profitable rate is. Ac cording to the article, commissioners will have to vote at least two more times before the issue is decided. With this acceptance, the rate as of right now is $0.26/kWh which would yield an 11% return on investment. However, Barry Jacobson says that the price would need to be around $0.31/kWh to make a good return on investment. He further st ates that these numbers are speculative because they are based on future energy costs (Rolland Nov. 21). December 19, 2008 In an article titled City OKs higher buyback rate in solar pr ogram it is stated that the higher buyback is $0.32/kWh of el ectricity produced. GRU had or iginally planned to pay its providers $0.26/kWh, but raised that rate with a unanimous vote by Gainesville city commissioners. This rate will be paid by Gain esville Regional Utility (GRU) for a period of 20 years. The original rate woul d have provided a rate of return of 5.87% for larger systems and only a 0.67% return for smaller sy stems. According to Ed Regan of GRU, that is not a good investment at all. He went on to say furt her that $0.32/kWh would provide a 2.93% return on investment and up to 5% for more efficient or less expensive systems. The expense of the 28

PAGE 29

program will be passed on through the fuel tax exempt portion of the utility bills. The expected increase is $0.42 per bill (Rolland Dec. 19). Along with rebates and the FIT, there are ways to measure economic value of the solar electric system. Among these are compound annual rate of return, cash flow, and increase in property resale value. Compound annual rate of retu rn is another term for interest rate yield; which is a way of comparing one investment to another. For example, a savings account might pay 1% interest, and a long-term stock market has historically paid about 10.5%. The cash flow will be positive, either immedi ately or within a few years (Black 28). Many homeowners finance their solar systems using home-equity loans. The cash-flow calculation compares the savings on the electric bill to the initial cost of the loan. The interest for this loan is tax deductible, meaning the loan costs less. Home e quity loans are also exce llent sources of funds because interest rates on real estate-secured lo ans are relatively low and payment terms can be long. Inflation affects rates and thus effectively increases the sa vings from a generating system over time. However, according to Andy Black, inflation doesn't affect loan rates, particularly with fixed-rate loans (Black 28). This means as electric rates rise, the savings grow, but the cost of the loan stays relatively constant. As pr eviously mentioned with th e installation of a solar electric system comes an increase in property resale value (Black 28). This occurs because solar electric systems produce electricity making utility costs lower or non existent. Increase in Equity According to a 1998 article in Appraisal Journal Rick Nevin and Gr egory Watson say a home's value increases $20,000 for every $1000 reduction in annual operating costs from either energy efficiency or energy production (Black 28). They say, The rationale is that the money from the reduction in utility bills can be spent on a larger mortga ge with no net change in the monthly cost of ownership. Nevin and Watson calcu late that historic mo rtgage costs have an 29

PAGE 30

after-tax effective rate of about 5%. If $1,000 of reduced operating costs is put toward debt service at 5% it can support an additional $20,000 of debt (Black). According to this article, solar electric system s appreciate over time, rather than depreciate as they age. Nevin and Watson say that this is because of the increas ing annual savings as electric rates rise. Furthermore, if electric rate inflation averages 5%, property resale value will increase 5% per year compounded (Black). Paying for the Electric System The cost of a PV system depends mainly on the size of the system in terms of the number of Watts of power the panels can produce. One thing to consider for system size and install is economies of scale. A large system may cost le ss per Watt than a small system. According to Claudia Eyzaguirre of Solar Today, the averag e system is installed for $8.00 $10.00 per Watt (Eyzaguirre). Barry Jacobson, VicePresident of Solar Impact of Gainesville, FL, installs solar electric systems for $6.50/Watt (Jaco bson). In an interview, he stated that this is possible because roofing and electrical cont ractors can do the installation, not just solar contractors. He also stated that the components are purchased for $4.00/W; there is a $2.00/W charge for the company, and a $0.50/W charge for the actual installa tion of the system. Solar Impact assists in filling out the proper rebate forms, as well as, pulling the proper permits (Jacobson). At a cost of $6.50/W and deducting the state and lo cal rebates, a system can be installed for $1.00 per Watt. For the average installation price of $9.00 per Wa tt, the net initial cost would be $4.50/Watt after rebates. According to Shawn Lorenz, ECS-Solar installs solar electric for $9.80/W. This is above the average and will add $4,000 to the average install price. This will make the net initial cost $21,500 for a 5kW system. Table 1-1 shows the diffe rence in before and after rebate costs for the 3 install prices: Solar Impact, ECS-Solar, an d the national average. The price shown in the 30

PAGE 31

table is for a 5 kW system because that is th e maximum size that the current state and local rebates will pay for. Table 1-1. Cost of a 5 kW System Before and After Rebates Size in kWCost/WattCost/kWCost/SystemState RebateLocal RebateInitial Cost 56.50 $ 6,500.00 $ 32,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 59.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 59.80 $ 9,800.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 21,500.00 $ The differences in the costs before and after the rebates are significant even though the net difference is $2.50/W between Solar Impact and the national average, and $3.30/W between Solar Impact and ECS-Solar. The differe nce in the installed costs is $12,500. Life Cycle Costing According to Alphonse DellIsola, life cycle costing (LCC) is the process of making an economic assessment of an item, area, system, or facility by consideri ng significant costs of ownership over an economic life, expressed in term s of equivalent costs (D ellIsola 111). The purpose of LCC is to analyze equivalent costs of various alternative proposals. To make sure of this, the baseline used for the initia l costs need to be the same as th at used for all other costs; this includes maintenance, operating, repair and repl acement, and salvage value. LCC is used to compare the alternatives by identifying and assessing economic impacts over the installed or design life of the alternatives. In order to make an educated decision the present and future costs need to be taken into account. According to DellIsola, todays dollar is not equal to tomorrows dollar. For example: $100 today at 10% interest is worth $673 in 20 years. The end number changes depending on the le ngth of the term and the interest rate. Constant dollars must be used due to the fact that an LCC analysis uses various costs at different times (DellIsola 111). The history of life cycle cos ting dates back to the energy crisis in the United States (DellIsola 111). LCCs are used to lower en ergy consumptions by u tilizing the annual energy 31

PAGE 32

costs, and equating the impact again st the initial costs. To comp are these alternatives, equations and tables are used. Again the figures in the ta bles must have a common point in time. These costs are calculated by using the present worth method (PW). There are 2 PW equations that take future costs and convert them to present costs (DellIsola 115-116). A (1+i) -1 i(1+i) PWA= (2-1) i= interest rate period n= number of interest periods P= present sum of money A= end of period payment or receipt in a uniform seri es continuing for the coming n periods, entire series equi valent to P at interest rate i PWA = present worth of an annuity factor F (1+i) PW= (2-2) F= sum of money at the end of n PW = present worth factor n= number of interest periods i= interest rate period Equation 2-2 is referred to as the Single Pres ent Value (SPV). It is the SPV that is used to calculate future costs, back to present worth. The sum from Equation 2-3 is then used to determine the LCC of the alternative. The LCC of an alternative includes the initial costs, energy costs, operation and maintenance costs (O&M ), repair and replacement costs (R&R), and salvage and increase in resale costs. The equation below details the costs viewed as expenses and the costs that are viewed as assets. The cat egories that are added are the expenses and the ones subtracted are viewed as assets. The salvage value and resale value ar e the only variables in Equation 3 that are subtracted. LCC = Initial Costs + Energy Costs + O& M Costs + R&R Costs Salvage & Resale (2-3) 32

PAGE 33

1. Cold city o r well water is diverted to the solar collector 2. Solar Collector 3. As water is needed the hot water flows down from the collector into the storage tank. Figure 2-1. ICS System. Source: http://www.atlassolarinnovations.com /solar-waterheatingchoices/ 33

PAGE 34

CHAP TER 3 METHODOLOGY To allow for a more feasible active solar system in most existing residential buildings, electrical consumption must be reduced. The process by which consumption should be reduced starts with understanding how the home operates, meani ng understanding the percentage of consumption for lighting, appliances, and electronics The process of determining the percentage of consumption will result in an energy reduction template. The template will be used to reduce annual consumption with efficiency upgrades in the most economical manner. As part of the template, initial and life cycle costs of the upgrades will be considered when reducing consumption so the greatest return on investment w ith the shortest payback period is realized. In using the template, the kWh consumption per h our will be multiplied by the hours/year, to understand how much electricity is used. This is important because it might not make sense to upgrade an appliance that is seldom used. Once the template has been used, and the new annual consumption is estimated, an LCC of PV will be analyzed for economic feasibility. The analyses will determine the optimum size of th e solar system for the home. In the spreadsheet, each efficiency upgrad e is given its own worksheet. The worksheet will contain the current annual c onsumption of the appliance or electronic, and the estimated annual consumption of the efficiency upgrade. Once the consumptions are compared an LCC table will be created to see which alternative has th e lowest life cycle cost or consumes the least amount of electricity in a case where the LCC of the efficiency upgrade is higher than the alternative. The new estimated consumption from the efficiency upgrades will be entered into the New Consumption table, on the Old vs. New Consumption worksheet along with current appliances and electronics. The total consumption will then be entered into Annual Consumption cell in the Sizes and Costs worksheet. 34

PAGE 35

As a case study, the energy reduction template will be used on an existing town home in Gainesville, FL. The town home, unit 1410, shares its west masonry wall and has an exposed east wall of masonry on the first floor and 2x6 wood stud framing on the second. The 10 steps of the template are: 1. Review of historical consumption 2. Record the area of the roof and document the orientation and shading 3. Behavioral change 4. Record consumption of appliances and electronics with a KILL A WATT meter and utility meter 5. Lighting upgrade 6. Clothes washer upgrade 7. HVAC upgrade 8. Solar Hot Water 9. Review of projected estimated consumption 10. Calculate the size of the PV and solar hot wa ter system using a life cycle cost model. Historical Data The historical data was obtaine d using past electrical bills. These bills were entered into a spreadsheet so the consumption an d the costs could be totaled. The Historical kWh Data template contains a Month, Consumption, Rate Electricity Costs and Total Costs column. Once these figures are entered, they are averaged and totaled at the bottom of the table. A yearly average of consumption and cost is estimated from the monthly averages by multiplying the monthly average by 12. Table 3-1 sh ows the template set up and the Monthly and Yearly Average cells at the bottom. 35

PAGE 36

Roof Area The area of the south facing roof of the un it was measured. The north facing roof was also measured in case the PV had to be installed on that side as well. The whole roof could be used, because the north side gets ample sun hour s/day, especially in the summer months when the sun is positioned directly above the home. Fr om the preceding literature review, it is known that south facing solar systems have a greater out put due to the annual position of the sun in the sky. The pitch of the roof was also determined. Behavioral Change A change in behavior was the first step in the template that reduced electricity. Behavioral changes typically do not cost money, and they also do not cause a change in life style. The changes that took place in this case study were turning off lights and televisions when the room was unoccupied as well as running the clothes washer on cold water. Consumption of Appliances and Electronics To understand the consumption of the applia nces and the electronics of the home a KILL A WATT meter was used to get a kWh/h consumption of the appliances and electronics in Table 3-2. The meter was plugged into the wall and th e appliance or electron ic was plugged into the meter. The meter was plugged into the wall for an hour with the applianc e in the on position and for an hour with the appliance or electronic in the off position if applicable. A few appliances were based on minutes such as the microwav e oven, and then converted to hours. Lighting Upgrade The consumption of lighting was recorded by using a table on the Lighting worksheet. The table itemized the home by rooms and light s per room. The number of light bulbs and W/light bulb were recorded. The consumption was calculated based on the number of hours/year the lights were in the on position. The hours/years were an estim ate based on daily and weekly 36

PAGE 37

use. Table 3-3 below shows the Exis ting Bulbs template. A second lighting template was made for the CFLs that were chosen. The da ta for the lamps were entered in the W/bulb column and the # of bulbs column. Also the hours/day were altered as the lighting was affected by behavioral change. A new cost for lighting was calculated and an LCC with a study period of 10 years was calculated. Table 3-4 is an LCC template for the lighting. Clothes Washer Upgrade The clothes washer was chosen to be upgrad ed. The idea for the upgraded clothes washer was that it dries the clothes more than the exis ting washer. It uses more kWh/load than the existing washer but the dryer consumption would be reduced. Since the new washer consumes more electricity the savings in the dryer would have to compensate for to make the purchase feasible. The study period for the washer was 10 years. The energy for the existing washer was estimated on a per load basis. The annual numbe r of loads for the existing clothes washer was then estimated based on the number of loads pe r week. The annual consumption for the new washer was obtained from Energy Star. Table 3-5 shows the washer consumption template. The only cells that need to have information entered are the kWh/Load, Loads/Year Cost/kWh The kWh/Year and Cost/Year were then entered into an LCC template, Table 3-6, to determine the lowest life cycle cost. The new wash er also had the purchase price entered into the LCC template. Once the LCC was performed for th e clothes washer, the same was done for the clothes dryer. The dryer remained the same just the kWh/year were reduced. The new washer/dryer combination were added together and the old washer/dryer combination were added together to determine the lowest LCC. The overall reduction in kWh was considered because of the reduction in the drying time. This was important to because of the PV installation. 37

PAGE 38

HVAC Upg rade An HVAC system, depending on the age and effi ciency, may need to be upgraded. Also, an adjustment to the comfort ra nge of the home may be advisable. The range of the home prior to the study was 68 77F. During the case study, the range was broadened to 62 79F. The equation for calculating HVAC consumption is: # of tons x Btu/h x hours/year x 1/SEER x 1kW/1000W = kWh/year This equation was used to set up a template to compare existing and new consumption for the HVAC system. Once they two were compared an LCC was performed, and the best alternative was chosen. Table 3-7 is the HVAC consumption equation and Table 3-8 is the LCC template for the HVAC. Solar Hot Water Solar water heating was examined to redu ce the electrical consumption of the water heater. The existing hot water ta nk is 40 gallons. The consumption of the hot water heater was determined by the energy guide on the hot water heater. Hot water was reduced initially by the behavioral change and by 85% fr om the flat plate collector. A hot water consumption template was used and then an LCC template, to compare to existing to the solar hot water. Even though the solar hot water was broken out separately from the PV it is included in the PV LCC calculations and graphs. Table 3-9 shows the initial comparison with the consumption data, and Table 3-10 shows the LCC of the solar hot water compared to the existing. The study period for the hot water is 20 years. The only informa tion that is needed in Table 3-9 is the kWh/Year and Cost/kWh 38

PAGE 39

Ne w Estimated Consumption Once the Step 8 is completed, the new consumption is totaled and compared with the existing consumption. The new consumption is transferred to the Sizes and Costs worksheet. The new consumption should contain all of the upgrades as well as th e existing items. Life Cycle Costing of PV An LCC spreadsheet was created with two worksheets. The first worksheet, Sizes and Costs, is where the site specific informati on, i.e. consumption, percent of production, consumption rate, fuel and general inflation, and discount rate, is entered. The second worksheet, Solar LCC, was created with two tables, PV Data and Financial Data The PV data includes: the size of the system, its rated output, the inverter e fficiencies, the cost of operating and repairing the system over its life cycle, the consumption rate, and the FIT rate. The financial data includes: the initia l cost, rebates, efficiency upgrade costs, consumption, inflations and discount rate, and increase in equity. The Consumption cell, on the Sizes and Costs worksheet, is filled in with the new annual consumption from the Old vs. New Consumption worksheet. The Percent of Production cell allows the user to dictate the production to consumption ratio. The percentage entered may either be more or less than the consumption. The Consumption Rate cell is dependant upon the yearly average of the home. The discount rate is a percent that is ente red for the present worth equations, and it is user specific. Fuel inflation is another site specific number that is based on the prospective rise in electrica l costs. The higher the fuel inflation the less feasible PV becomes. General inflation is used for the calc ulating the costs of goods and services for the PV system. These goods and services will be implemen ted during the life of the PV. With these 6 cells filled in, Table 3-11, the life cycle cost comparison is calculated on the Solar LCC worksheet. The PV data information on the Solar LCC worksheet, Table 3-12, is used for the 39

PAGE 40

production infor mation of the LCC calculation. The kW System cell on the Solar LCC worksheet is linked to the Consumption and Percent of Production cell. The following equation uses the data from the 1st four cells in PV Data to get the kWh/year. kWh/Year = kW system x 5 hours/ day x 30 days/month x 12 months/year The output/subsequent year, Inverter Efficiency and Inverter output/subsequent year cells are multiplied by the kWh/year to get the output for subsequent y ears during the life of the PV. The O&M cell is the operation and maintenance cost of the system. The operation and maintenance includes money for cleaning the panels. The R&R cell is for the repair and replacement of the system parts. Money for the inve rter is generally the only repair and replacement that is needed. That typically occurs during the 10th year. The $/kWh cell is linked to the Sizes and Costs worksheet. The cell was put on this page as a quick reference. The FIT $/kWh cell is editable, so the user can enter in the proper FIT. The FIT $/kWh cell is used to calculate the gross and net sellback of production. The initial cost information in Financial Data table is the gross cost of the PV and solar hot water systems. The PV cost is linked to an un-editable table in the Sizes and Costs worksheet. Table 3-13 shows the sizing and cost ing tables for the PV system based upon the annual consumption and percent of production inputs. The cost of solar hot water is a hard number. The rebates include the state, federal and local. The PV state rebate is linked to the kW system cell, however it has an eq uation that will not allow the rebate to eclipse $20,000 if the PV size is greater than 5kW. The number of Watts is multiplied by $4.00 if the size of the PV system is 5kW or less. The other rebates are hard numbers. The discount rate and the inflation are linked to the Sizes and Costs worksheet. The Energy Consumption cell is also linked to Sizes and Costs. If the Sizes and Costs number is 40

PAGE 41

altered so is the energy consum ption. En ergy costs are calculated by multiplying the $/kWh cell by the Energy Consumption cell. The Appliance Costs cell is another cell w ith an equation that either equals or the cost of the appliance upgrades. For this research the cell has a value greater than The Increase in Equity cell is $1,000/kWh of PV in stalled. The increase in equity was based on the production of 1kW of so lar electric. A kW of solar electric produces 1,800kWh/year. With an energy rate of $0.12, the money earned equates to $216 annually and $4,320 over the 20 year period. The Loss of Increase cell is instituted for every year after the 1st year. The Reduction in Consumption cell under Solar Thermal Data is there as a reference. The Increase in Equity cell is added to the total increase in equity for the active and passive solar installation. Initial Cost = size of the system (in kW) x $/kW kWh/Year = kW system x kWh/day x kWh/month x kWh/year Total SF = (kW system x 1000 Watts) / Watts/Panel)) x SF/Panel Size of the Photovoltaic (PV) System The size of the PV system is dependent on th e square foot area of the roof, the square foot area of the modules, and the output of th e modules. For this study, 2 companies were examined. The first company, Sanyo, manufactur es a 200W bi-facial module. The second company, SunPower Corporation, manufactures a 210W all Black module. Table 3-14 shows the square footage of the maximum system size for each company. The 4.4 and 4.6 kW systems can have greater outputs depending on the site, which could decrease the physical size of the system or k eep the size the same, and have a greater output. The Sanyo bi-facial module can have an increased efficiency up to 30% based on the reflectivity of the surface below and the tilt of the panel. The 30% is based on Sanyo tech sheets. If the 41

PAGE 42

42 reflectance value of the surface is high the output increases. The same is true for the SunPower all black panels, as their efficiency can increas e from 16.9% to 22%, according to Shawn Lorenz. In an interview with Shawn he st ated that SunPower has said th at the panels have achieved 22% in tests but, they will not publish th is as a rated output, because the conditions have to be perfect. Figure 3-1 shows the difference between the ra ted and the reported maximum site specific outputs.

PAGE 43

Table 3-1. Historical Consumption and Cost Data Time FrameConsumptionRateElectricity CostsTotal Costs Aug-07 $ $ Sep-07 $ $ Oct-07 $ $ Nov-07 $ $ Dec-07 $ $ Jan-08 $ $ Feb-08 $ $ Mar-08 $ $ Apr-08 $ $ May-08 $ $ Jun-08 $ $ Jul-08 $ $ Aug-08 $ $ Sep-08 $ $ Monthly Average $ $ Sept -07/Sept-08 $ $ HISTORICAL kWh DATA 43

PAGE 44

Table 3-2. H ourly Consumptions Appliances & Electronics Lighting0.04kWh/h Refrigerator0.17kWh/h Plasma TV (on)0.29kWh/h Plasma TV (off)0.02kWh/h LCD TV (on)0.15kWh/h Clothes Dryer2.80kWh/h 9" TV0.05kWh/h Internet0.01kWh/h Air Conditioning2.40kWh/h Computer0.05kWh/h Microwave Oven On1.20kWh/h Microwave Oven Off0.00083kWh/h Consumption 44

PAGE 45

Table 3-3. Existing Bulbs Template LightingW/bulb# of bulbsTotal WattsHours/da y Wh/da y Days/yea r Wh/Yea r kWh/Yea r Costs for Lighting dining room $ kitchen $ downstairs hallwa y $ downstairs bathroom $ upstairs bathroom $ master bedroom fan $ master bedroom $ upstairs hallwa y $ front bedroom $ Total $ Exisiting Bulbs 45

PAGE 46

Table 3-4. Lighting LCC Template Year CostskWh cost/kWhCost PW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ -$ -$ -$ $ 1$ -$ $ 2$ -$ $ 3$ -$ $ 4$ -$ $ 5$ -$ $ 6$ -$ $ 7$ -$ $ 8$ -$ $ 9$ -$ $ 10 $ -$ $ Totals $ -$ -$ $ LCC $ $ = $ Year CostskWh Cost/kWhCosts PW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ -$ -$ -$ $ 1$ -$ -$ -$ $ 2$ -$ -$ -$ $ 3$ -$ -$ -$ $ 4$ -$ -$ -$ $ 5$ -$ -$ -$ $ 6$ -$ -$ -$ $ 7$ -$ -$ -$ $ 8$ -$ -$ -$ $ 9$ -$ -$ -$ $ 10$ -$ -$ -$ $ Totals $ -$ -$ $ LCC $ $ = $ Compact Fluorescent Lighting LCC Existing Lighting LCC 46

PAGE 47

Table 3-5. C lothes Washer Comparison kWh/LoadLoads/YearkWh/YearCost/kWhCost/Year $ $ kWh/LoadLoads/Yea r kWh/Yea r Cost/kWhCost/Yea r $ $ Existing Clothes Washer New Clothes Washe r 47

PAGE 48

Table 3-6. Clothes Washer LCC YearCostskWh usedCost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ $ $ $ $ 1$ $ $ $ $ 2$ $ $ $ $ 3$ $ $ $ $ 4$ $ $ $ $ 5$ $ $ $ $ 6$ $ $ $ $ 7$ $ $ $ $ 8$ $ $ $ $ 9$ $ $ $ $ 10$ $ $ $ $ Totals$ $ $ $ LCC $ $ = -$ YearCostskWh used Cost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ $ $ $ $ 1$ $ $ $ 2$ $ $ $ 3$ $ $ $ 4$ $ $ $ 5$ $ $ $ 6$ $ $ $ 7$ $ $ $ 8$ $ $ $ 9$ $ $ $ 10 $ $ $ $ Totals$ -$ $ $ LCC $ $ = -$ New Washer Existing Washer 48

PAGE 49

49Table 3-7. HVAC Consumption Calculation Air Conditioning# of tonsxBtu/hxhours/yearx1/SEERx1kW/1000W=kWh/year Air Conditioning# of tonsxBtu/hxhours/yearx1/SEERx1kW/1000W=kWh/year Existng 10 SEER 2-TON Unit 20 SEER 2-TON Unit

PAGE 50

Table 3-8. HVAC LCC Template YearCostskWh usedCost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ $ -$ -$ $ 1$ $ -$ -$ $ 2$ $ -$ -$ $ 3$ $ -$ -$ $ 4$ $ -$ -$ $ 5$ $ -$ -$ $ 6$ $ -$ -$ $ 7$ $ -$ -$ $ 8$ $ -$ -$ $ 9$ $ -$ -$ $ 10$ $ -$ -$ $ Totals$ -$ -$ $ LCC $ $ = $ YearCostskWh Cost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ -$ $ $ $ 1$ -$ -$ $ 2$ -$ -$ $ 3$ -$ -$ $ 4$ -$ -$ $ 5$ -$ -$ $ 6$ -$ -$ $ 7$ -$ -$ $ 8$ -$ -$ $ 9$ -$ -$ $ 10 $ -$ -$ $ Totals$ -$ -$ $ LCC $ $ = $ Existng 10 SEER 2-TON Unit LCC 20 SEER 2-TON Unit LCC 50

PAGE 51

Table 3-9. H ot Water Comparison Template kWh/YearCost/kWhCost/Year $ $ kWh/YearCost/kWhCost/Year $ $ Existin g Water Heate r Solar Thermal Water Heater 51

PAGE 52

Table 3-10. Hot W ater LCC Template YearCostskWh usedCost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ $ $ $ $ 1$ $ $ $ $ 2$ $ $ $ $ 3$ $ $ $ $ 4$ $ $ $ $ 5$ $ $ $ $ 6$ $ $ $ $ 7$ $ $ $ $ 8$ $ $ $ $ 9$ $ $ $ $ 10$ $ $ $ $ 11$ $ $ $ $ 12$ $ $ $ $ 13$ $ $ $ $ 14$ $ $ $ $ 15$ $ $ $ $ 16$ $ $ $ $ 17$ $ $ $ $ 18$ $ $ $ $ 19$ $ $ $ $ 20$ $ $ $ $ Totals$ $ $ $ LCC $ $ = $ YearCostskWh used Cost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ $ $ $ $ 1$ $ $ $ $ 2$ $ $ $ $ 3$ $ $ $ $ 4$ $ $ $ $ 5$ $ $ $ $ 6$ $ $ $ $ 7$ $ $ $ $ 8$ $ $ $ $ 9$ $ $ $ $ 10$ $ $ $ $ 11 $ $ $ $ $ 12$ $ $ $ $ 13$ $ $ $ $ 14$ $ $ $ $ 15$ $ $ $ $ 16$ $ $ $ $ 17$ $ $ $ $ 18$ $ $ $ $ 19$ $ $ $ $ 20$ $ $ $ $ Totals$ $ $ $ LCC $ $ = $ Solar Hot Water Electric Hot Water 52

PAGE 53

53 Table 3-11. User Cells 0 100% $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Discount Rate General Inflation Fuel InflationUser CellsAnnual Consumption % of PV Generation Consumption Rate

PAGE 54

Table 3-12. PV and Solar Thermal Data Financial DataPVSolar ThermalkW system 0.00 Cost $ 2,500.00 $ hours/day 5 State Rebate $0 500.00 $ days/month 30 Federal Rebate 2,000 $ 2,000.00 $ months/year 12 Local Rebate $ 500.00 $ kWh/year Discount Rate 0.0% output/subsequent year 0.99 General Inflation 0.0% Inverter Efficency 0.95 Fuel Inflation 0.0% Inverter output/subsequent year 0.99 Energy Consumption 0 O & M 30 $ every yearEnergy Costs $ /year R & R 1,200 $ every 10 yearsAppliance Costs $ $/kWh $ Increase in Equity 1,000 $ /kW installed FIT $/kWh 0.320 $ Loss of Increase 4.0%/year 85%Increase in Equity 2,000.00 $ PV Data Solar Thermal DataReduction in Consumption 54

PAGE 55

Table 3-13. Initial Cost and Size Calculations Size of SystemCost per Watt*Cost Per kW Initial Cost 0.00 6.50 $ 6,500.00 $ $ kW SystemkWh per DaykWh per Month kWh per year 0.00 0.00 0.00 kW SystemNo. of WattsNo.of Panels Total SF 0.00 0 0PV Cost PV SYSTEM SIZE PV SYSTEM PRODUCTION 55

PAGE 56

Table 3-14. Panel Size kW SystemNo. of WattsWatts per ModuleSF of ModulesTotal SF 4.4440020014308 kW SystemNo. of WattsWatts per ModuleSF of ModulesTotal SF 4.6460021014307 SunPower 210 Sanyo Bifacial A0 50 100 150 200 250 300Watts per Module Output Rated Situational B0 50 100 150 200 250 300Watts per Module Output Rated Situational Figure 3-1. Output Differ ential (A Sanyo Bifacials) (B Sunpower) 56

PAGE 57

CHAP TER 4 RESULTS FROM THE CASE STUDY The case study was analyzed using the methodology described in Chapter 3. The town home is oriented on a north/south axis, with the east/west walls havi ng the largest area. It is an end unit that has an exposed eas t wall and a shared west wall. The conditioned area is 1,145 square feet. The unit is two stories and measur es 40L x 16W. The floor is concrete slab on grade, and has a laminate wood flooring system. All first floor walls are 8 concrete masonry units. The interior is finished gypsum board placed on 1 furring strips. The exterior side of the wall has a stucco finish. The top floor east, south, and north walls for unit 1410, are 2x6 stud framing with 5/8 T-111 siding. The shared West wall is 8 CMU with 1 furring strips. There are (2) 8 x 6 single pane slid ing glass doors on the North wall, one up and one downstairs. The south wall has a 2 x 3 window on the first floor and a 3 x 6 window on the top floor. Both windows are single pane. There is no insulation on any of the walls with furring strips in either unit. The energy reduction template, through the 9 steps, resulted in a net zero energy home. Consumption had been reduced which allowed for and economically feasible PV installation. The results from the template were recorded to determine the LCC of the efficiency upgrades and solar hot water. The LCC of the PV was later calculated. Case Study 1410 Historical Data Data were collected from Gainesville Regional Utility from September 2007 2008. The consumption (kWh), electrical costs, and total costs were recorded to figure out the average cost per kWh for each month. Table 4-1 shows the data as well as the calculation results for the case study. The kWh consumption and el ectrical costs were summed to obtain a total for the previous 57

PAGE 58

year. The rate was calculated by dividing the el ectrical cost by the m onthly kWh usage. The total costs include the storm water fee, Flor ida gross receipts tax, and city utility tax. Roof Area The area of the south facing roof of the un it was determined to be 308 ft. The north facing roof is the same dimension, for a total of 616 ft. The whole roof could be used, because the north side gets ample sun hours/day, especially in the summer months when the sun is positioned directly above the home. From the pr eceding literature review, it is known that south facing solar systems have a greate r output due to the annual positi on of the sun in the sky. The roof has a pitch of 22 and li ght colored shingles. Figure 41 is a series of photos taken throughout the day of October 12, 2008 for the case study. October 12th was a clear day, with no visible clouds, providing the roof surface 8 hours of direct sunlight from 10:15 am 5:15 pm. The image shows that some shading does occur on the south facade from the palm tree and the adjacent roof. Behavioral Change During October 2008 cold water was used fo r clothes washing as well as lights were turned off in unoccupied rooms. This led to an energy reduction of 526 kWh from September 2008 and 400 kWh from October 2007. It also led to a financial savings of $88.14 and $49.79 respectively. Record Consumption of Appliances and Electronics The consumption data that we re obtained through the reading of the electric meter, and the KILL A WATT meter were recorded in a ma nner that allowed the homeowner to see where the greatest consumption occurred and on what da ys of the week it occu rred. Figure 4-2 shows the relative percent of energy consumption of the appliances and el ectronics as compared to each other. This is an estimate. These numbers could change with seasons and lifestyle. The 58

PAGE 59

num bers reflect the energy consumption for an hour or a specific duration, such as a load of dishes or laundry. If the number of hours or loads changes, so does the chart. The HVAC and water heater accounted for 64% of the total energy consumption. The consumption of the systems respectively was 4,4 31 and 3,906 kWh. According to records the air handler had been replaced in October of 2007, which may have altere d the HVAC consumption, but through the equation stated in the methodology the HVAC number that was recorded for this case study was 4,431 kWh. Table 4-2 details the consumption estimate breakdown of Figure 4-2. The appliances cell has an aste risk because included in the appliances are the clothes and dishwasher, computers, microwave oven and st ove. These were combined because the consumptions were minimal and appeared as 1 and 2% on Figure 4-2. The combined energy consumption of the aforementioned appliances was 585 kWh. Of that total, computers consumed the most with 197 kWh, and the micr owave oven the least with 26 kWh. Figure 4-3 and Table 4-3 show the energy use by th e appliances in the consolidated group. Of the smaller appliances, the microwave oven and the clothes washer are the only one that does not consume 100 kWh, as it is also the a ppliance that is used the least. The computers are two laptops that are plugged in while in use, and turned off when not. Table 4-4 shows the hourly consumption estimates of small appliances and electronics. These yearly numbers were extrapolated to estimate their respective electrical consumption. In Table 4-4 the appliance energy use is shown in kWh/h. These appliances and electronics were measured for 1 hour. The HVAC consumption was measured by hand to get the kWh/h consumption and then extrapolated over the year. With regards to the clothes washer and dryer, as well as the dishwasher the energy consumption was record ed per load. It was done this 59

PAGE 60

way because these three applian ces operate on a per load basis. The three appliances also have settings, as far as time and temperature, but for the study the maximum time and temperature were recorded because those were the settings used for the appliances during the period from September 2007 September 2008. With regards to the clothes and dish washers, the temperature did not effect the energy consumption of the machines, just the energy consumption of the hot water heater. However, for the cl othes dryer, temperatur e does effect the energy consumption along with time. According to the table, the dryer consumes 2.8kWh/load. Load time is variable, depending on where the dial is tu rned to on the setting. The dial can be turned to no heat, at which point the dryer would cons ume less. The only other appliance to not be recorded under a kWh/h energy use was the microwave oven. The KILL A WATT meter was used for the microwave oven. Since the applianc e operated on a minute to minute basis, it was recorded that way. The days of the year th at the microwave is not in use it consumes 0.02kWh/day. That equates to 7.3 kWh/year or $0.89 cents. For the microwave oven to operate under the behavior that it has been, it costs the homeowners $2.54 per year. Table 4-5 and Figure 4-4 show the costs of the unit 1410s app liances over the course of the 13 month case study. The HVAC and the water heater were a combined cost of $1,025.29, which equates to 63% of the total energy consumption of unit 1410. The next highest consuming appliance was the refrigerator with an annual energy cost of $169.06, which is 10.4% of the total energy cost. The 3 television s had a combined cost of $131.70, and the cost of lighting was $138.86. The major consuming applia nces had an annual operating cost of $1,554.36 which amounted to 95% of the energy use. The other five categories totaled $71.99, and 4% of the energy use. The HVAC, Hot Water Heater, Televisions, Dryer, Lights, and 60

PAGE 61

Refrigerator (The Big Six) needed to be exam in ed for ways to lower energy consumption. Some of these ways could be behavioral, and other ways could be to repl ace existing appliances. Lighting Upgrade The first action that was taken was replacing a ll the existing incandescent light bulbs with CFLs. Each lamp cost $4.00 and a total of 14 bul bs were purchased. Also, once the bulbs were installed, the numbers of hours the lights were in the on position decreased, because of a change in behavior. Tables 4-6 and 4-7 show the lig hting breakdown per room before and after the lighting and behavioral change. Included in th e breakdown are the numbers of bulbs, Watts per bulb, hours per day the bulbs are on days per year, and the costs to light the rooms of unit 1410. The total cost of the CFLs was $56.00. When the purchase is added to the operating cost the projected annual cost is $84.93. If the bulbs bur n out this year then the cost savings will be $53.93. If the bulbs last 10 years and the behavior of lighting the unit st ay the same, then the savings, with an assumed inflation in energy of 3% will be $1,232.61. The assumed 3% inflation in energy comes from an LCC spreadsheet from Harry Kegelmann. Table 4-8 shows the life cycle cost (LCC) of the compact fluorescent bulbs and the existing bulbs. The results of the LCC show that over a ten year period the diffe rence in cost is $951.41. The $56 cost is paid back in the first six m onths of the first year. Clothes Washer Upgrade The current clothes washer uses 97kWh/year, which is an Energy Star rating. The replacement of the clothes washer would allow for the dryer to consume less energy because the clothes are drier before they are placed inside the dryer. The dryer consumes 725kWh/year and costs $89.02. This number could be reduced by 75%, by using less time to dry clothes. This means that every 4 new loads equal 1 old load. The dryer would then consume 181.25kWh/year 61

PAGE 62

and have a cost of $22.25/year. Table 4-9 shows the old vs. the new energy use along with costs for the dryer. Even though the dryer consumes less; the ne w washer will consume more. A washer can be purchased that will use a comparable amount of energy, but the initia l cost is high. The clothes washer that was picked was Frig idaire AFT8000FE. The washer consumes 128.52kWh/year. This number is 55.04kWh/year mo re than the existing washer, or $6.81/year. Table 4-10 illustrates the increase in c onsumption and cost for the new washer. Even though the washer will consume more energy, over the life of the appliance it will save energy and cost. Table 4-11 and 4-12 shows the life cycle cost of the respective washers and dryers. This reduction will allow for either a smaller PV system to be placed on the roof, or the proposed PV system that will sell back more electricity. The greater sellback will result in a quicker payback, for the PV and the upgrades. This LCC comparison shows that over the lif e of the new washer it is more expensive than keeping the existing washer an d paying more in electricity for the dryer. The difference in the PW value is $119.66 in favor of the existing wa sher. This LCC does not deal with the water consumption savings, but according to Energy Star th is washer uses less water. The area of the table that is not shown is the consumption savings which are part of the PV LCC. The energy savings are in favor of the new washer, because the consumption of the dryer is reduced 75%. The dryer consumption is reduced from 725k Wh/year to 181 kWh/year, a savings of 544kWh/year. The new washer will provide en ergy and cost savings, with regard to CO2 emissions and PV production. Figure 4-4 shows the savings in consumption and CO2 between the alternative and the existing. 62

PAGE 63

The difference in kWh consumed annually, washer and dryer combined, is 488 and over the 10 year study is 4,880. According to Jason Fults of Drops and Watts, who stated at a lecture, 1 kWh equals 1.54 lbs of CO2, that is a savings in CO2 emissions of 751.52 and 7,515.2 lbs respectively. HVAC Upgrade The HVAC system, which was estimated to consume 4,430kWh/year, can be reduced by 50% by upgrading the outside unit. The upgr aded unit would be a 20 SEER, 2-ton unit compressor and heat pump. A change in beha vior is not required to achieve the energy reduction, but before the purchase of the unit is made the temperature range of the thermostat and comfort level could be broadened. Table 4-13 shows numbers for the current compressor and heat pump, as well as the 20 SEER replacement unit, and Table 4-14 is a LCC comparison of the 2 units. The 20 SEER, 2-Ton unit has a lower life cy cle cost by $2,664.88. The price of the new unit and the first year consumption, even though expensive, is $129.54 more than the cost of electricity and maintenance for th e existing unit for the first year. With the GRU rebate of $300, it allows for the discounted payback to occur in the second year. Solar Hot Water The hot water heater, which consumes 3,906 kWh annually, can have the consumption cut to 586 kWh by weighing solar thermal. Tabl e 4-15 shows the energy use and cost savings with the solar thermal install. The cost of the solar thermal system is $2,500 for a 40ft ICS system using a flat plate collector. The first year savings is $407.70, and with a proposed 3% fuel and 1.5% general inflations the payback is in 5 years. There is little maintenance costs because the system is passive. Table 4-16 shows the LCC and savings over a 20 year study pe riod. The table shows 63

PAGE 64

that the solar hot water alte rnative has a lower L CC by $4,204.13. The solar hot water system saves $11,691.44 during the 20 year span, assuming a 3% fuel inflation and consistent hot water use. Figure 4-6 shows the cost of hot wa ter cost comparison over the study period. The table and graph shows that at the 20 year mark the cost does not go above $200. This is still 27% of the cost that occurred in the study period from September 2007 2008. Review of Consumption Reduction The time for which the template was applied resulted in the following reductions. These numbers only represent a change in lighting and clothes washing on cold/c old with the existing washer. The month of October 2008, the month the case study started, the consumption was 826 kWh. The previous October had a consumpti on of 1,226 kWh. That was a decrease of 400 kWh, and had a cost savings of $49.79. November resulted in the same trend, with a consumption of 641 kWh down from 954 kWh the pr evious year, and a cost savings of $34.54. Decembers use was recorded at 651 kWh which was 165 kWh less than the December 2007. The cost savings were $12.29. January 2009 showed a decrease in consumption of 334 kWh, and again a cost savings of $40.21. Table 4-17 shows the 2007-2009 monthly comparisons since Case Study 1410 started. There has been a total energy savings of 1,212 kWh, and a total cost savings of $136.83. If a 4.07 kW PV system were to be installe d it could produce 1,212 kWh and the home could be net zero energy. Table 4-18 shows th e size of the system that would need to be installed prior to the reduction in electrical and the size of a system after the reduction. With the installation of the solar thermal syst em the size of the system will reduce, as will the load. Table 4-18 shows the production of the new PV system and the reduction in electricity for hot water that solar thermal system provides. The solar thermal system would have reduced 64

PAGE 65

the 2,800 kWh to 2,100 kW h. This would allow the syst em to be a reduced size because the load is reduced. The kW size of the new system and square foot area is shown in Table 4-19. The solar thermal collector replaces 700 kWh of electricity for the 4 months using 40 ft of roof surface area. A photovoltaic system woul d need more area to perform the same task. Table 4-20 shows how the square footage of each technology differs. The solar thermal works out to be half of the size of the PV system. There is one flatplate collector that is installed, wh ich is equivalent to 5 PV panels that need to be installed. With the upgrades examined and replaced, th e new PV system can now be calculated. With the results of the calculations, a compar ison of size, output, and costs can be made to compare LCC of a net zero energy home with PV and an LCC of the hom e with upgrades only. The first comparison, in Table 4-21 is of the upgraded 1410 vs. the old 1410. The consumption difference between new and old is 6,828 kWh. That is a cost savings of $839.84. Figure 4-7 shows the savings in electricity only over 20 years, assuming that the new behavior and weather remain constant. Of the Big 6: the replacing of the HVAC, wa ter heater, clothes wash er, interior lighting led to the reduction of 6,828 kWh. Those 4 categories eliminated the need for 3.79kW of PV. That equates to a savings of $24,657, at an installe d rate of $6.5/W, and th e need for 253ft of roof area. The new consumption of 6,394 requires a 3.55 kW system and requires a roof area of 265ft, and 40ft for the flat plate collector for so lar hot water heating for a total area of 305ft. To achieve the energy reduction, $1,367 was spent on upgrades. The solar hot water system is not included in upgrades as it is part of the installed system. The LCC comparison for the home energy use was conducted and it was dete rmined that the upgra des were the better option even though there was an initial cost Using the 6,394 kWh as the new energy 65

PAGE 66

consum ption an LCC was performed. It show ed that the new energy use had a cost of $13,639.36 and the old energy use had a cost of $20,232.20 during a 20 year study period, for a difference of $6,592. LCC of PV with Solar Thermal Systems The life cycle cost of the PV combined with a solar thermal system, was calculated and compared to the life cycle cost of the case study after efficiency upgr ades but without solar systems. The PV and solar thermal system had a lower life cycle cost than the baseline house with no system. Table 4-22 shows the LCC of th e comparison. There is an extended worksheet in the appendix that shows the annual energy use and costs. The PV LCC has a cost of $1,999.57 compared to the non-PV baseline LCC, which is $13,694.06. The difference is $11,694.49. Table 4-23 shows the LCC comparison as if the energy use remained constant with the historical data, and the size of the PV system remained the same. The LCC of the PV without efficiency upgr ades is still lower than the LCC of the baseline house without efficien cy upgrades. Unit 1410 would not be a net zero energy home. However, even though both PV comparisons ar e lower, the $1,356 spent on appliance upgrades lowered the LCC from $26,802.08 to $1,999.57. Th at difference equates to $24,802.51 over the 20 year study period. Figure 4-8 shows the payback period in years for the reduced consumption, and Figure 4-9 shows the discounted payback time. Figure 4-7 shows the different payback periods for the respective sellbacks. If there was zero energy use, the PV would have a payback peri od of 4 years. The triangle line, the net PV sellback, shows a payback period of 7 years. Figure 4.9 shows the present worth payback is in the 8th year. Below, Figure 4-10 shows the payback period for the PV using the historical 66

PAGE 67

consum ption data, with the same size PV system, 3.55kW used in the 1st LCC. Figure 4-11 shows the discounted payback for the same system. The payback for the PV does not happen if th e historical consumption were to remain constant. The size of the PV would have to be increased to see a payb ack. There is not enough south facing roof area to do this. The north side can have PV installed on it, but at an increased cost/kWh. The LCC study below, in Table 4-24 s hows the feasibility of a larger system. This kW and solar thermal system maximizes out the squa re footage of the entire roof. The size of the system is increased from a 3.55 kW system to a 7.35 kW system, where the solar thermal system remains the same. This system has an LCC of $13,009.59, with the historical consumption. With the increase in the size of the system a payback woul d occur. In year 13 the costs are recovered by the production of the system. Figure 4-12 show s the payback period, and Figure 4-13 shows the discounted payback of the system. The gross sell back takes longer, because the initial cost is increased. Sensitivity Analyses A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the optimum size of the PV system with an increased consumption ra nging from 7,000 kWh to 13,000 kWh increments of 1,000 kWh. A series was also performed to exam ine the percentage of production compared to the reduced consumption. This series went from 100 to 150% in increments of 10%. Also, the production was reduced from 100 to 50% in increments of 10%. It is important to realize that there may not be a need for 100% production th at it may in fact be more or less. The LCC comparison table shows the rela tionship between the size of the system, producing 100% of the consumption and the LCC. The 7,000 kWh consumption in the table is 67

PAGE 68

the only LC C that contains the efficiency upgrad es cost. The added cost makes it higher than 8,000 or 9,000 kW system. Table 4-32 shows that as the consumption increases so does the LCC even when the production to consumption ratio does not change. The main reason the cost s increase at a greater rate once the system is larger than 5kW is becau se the state rebate stops at 5kW. Figures 4-20 and 4-21 show the increase in the LCC of each system using linear graphs. In Figure 4-21, the graph starts increasing on a low slope, a nd after the 5kW mark, the slope increases. Increase and Decrease Production at the Reduced Consumption Rate The production increase and decrease range d from 200 to 50% to determine if the optimum size of the system should be greater or smaller to produce the lowest LCC. Table 4-33 below shows the LCC comparison or the sizes and Figure 4-22 graphs them. The table and graph show that the greater th e percent of production the lower the LCC. The more electricity produced, the more electric ity there is sold back. At 140% sellback the graph changes slope. This is because there is a change in the size of th e system, from under 5kW to over 5kW. 68

PAGE 69

Table 4-1. H istorical kWh Data Time FrameConsumptionRateElectricity CostsTotal Costs Aug-071,336 0.110147.61 $ 167.60 $ Sep-071,7810.115204.13 $ 229.41 $ Oct-071,2260.124151.77 $ 172.50 $ Nov-079540.117111.79 $ 128.76 $ Dec-078160.11291.51 $ 106.57 $ Jan-081,0160.119120.91 $ 138.73 $ Feb-087780.11085.91 $ 100.43 $ Mar-088250.113 92.83 $ 108.01 $ Apr-089720.117113.92 $ 131.65 $ May-081,1540.125144.65 $ 164.48 $ Jun-081,2700.130164.59 $ 186.11 $ Jul-081,0140.129130.75 $ 148.83 $ Aug-081,1660.136158.11 $ 178.43 $ Sep-081,3520.139187.88 $ 210.85 $ Monthly Average 1,1020.123135.29 $ 155.17 $ Sept -07/Sept-08 14,3240.1231,758.75 $ 2,004.76 $ HISTORICAL kWh DATA 69

PAGE 70

9:15 am 10:15 am 11:15 am 12:15 pm 1:15 pm 2:15 pm 3:15 pm 4:15 pm 5:15 pm 6:15 pm Figure 4-1. Time Elapse Photo of Case Study Table 4-2. Appliance and Electronic Consumption Estimate Appliances and ElectronicsAnnual kWh Estimate HVAC 4,431 Water Heater 3,906 Televisions 1,071 Appliances* 585 Dryer 726 Lights 1,129 Refrigerator 1,374 Total 13,222 *Washer, Computers, Dishwasher, Microwave Oven, Stove 70

PAGE 71

34% 30% 8% 4% 5% 9% 10% HVAC Water Heater Televisions Appliances* Dryer Lights Refrigerator Figure 4-2. Annual HVAC and Applia nce Energy Consumption Estimate 17% 33% 22% 4% 24% Washing machine Computers Dishwasher Microwave Oven Stove Figure 4-3. Annual Appliance Consumption Estimate Table 4-3. Appliance Breakdown Estimate Appliance Annual kWh Estimate Washing machine 97 Computers 197 Dishwasher 126 Microwave Oven 26 Stove 138 Total 585 71

PAGE 72

72 Table 4-4. Hourly Consumption of A ppliances and Electronic Equipment Appliances & Electronics Lighting0.04kWh/h Refrigerator0.17kWh/h Plasma TV (on)0.29kWh/h Plasma TV (off)0.02kWh/h LCD TV (on)0.15kWh/h Clothes Dryer2.80kWh/h 9" TV0.05kWh/h Internet0.01kWh/h Air Conditioning2.40kWh/h Computer0.05kWh/h Microwave Oven On1.20kWh/h Microwave Oven Off0.00083kWh/h Consumption Table 4-5. Appliance Energy Use and Costs Appliances and Electronics Annual kWhAnnual Costs HVAC 4,431 544.98 $ Water Heater 3,906 480.49 $ Televisions 1,071 131.70 $ Dryer 726 89.27 $ Lights 1,129 138.86 $ Refrigerator 1,374 169.06 $ Washing machine 97 11.99 $ Computers 197 24.18 $ Dishwasher 126 15.55 $ Microwave Oven 26 3.23 $ Stove 138 17.03 $ Total 13,222 1,626.35 $

PAGE 73

$$200.00 $400.00 $600.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,400.00 $1,600.00 $1,800.00HVAC Water Heater Televisions Dryer Lights Refrigerator Washing machine Computers Dishwasher Microwave Oven Stove TotalApplianceCost Energy Use 73Figure 4-4. Annual Costs

PAGE 74

Table 4-6. Lighting Energy Use LightingW/bulb# of bulbsTotal WattsHours/dayWh/da y Days/yea r Wh/Yea r kWh/Yea r Costs for Lighting dining room60318071260355447,300 447.30 55.02 $ kitchen 40280322835580,940 80.94 9.96 $ downstairs hallway1322625235518,460 18.46 2.27 $ downstairs bathroom30390199.0935535,177 35.18 4.33 $ upstairs bathroom6042402480355170,400 170.40 20.96 $ master bedroom fan6042403720355255,600 255.60 31.44 $ master bedroom1511534535515,975 15.98 1.96 $ upstairs hallwa y 40280324035585,200 85.20 10.48 $ front bedroom 1422825635519,880 19.88 2.45 $ Total3322397925.9513180.13551,128,932 1,128.93138.86 $ Exisiting Bulbs 74

PAGE 75

Table 4-7. New Lighting Energy Us e with Behavioral Change LightingW/bulb# of bulbsTotal WattsHours/da y Wh/da y Days/yearWh/Yea r kWh/YearCosts for Lighting dining room13339623435583,070 83.0710.22 $ kitchen402801.512035542,600 42.605.24 $ downstairs hallwa y 132260.5133554,615 4.620.57 $ downstairs bathroom73211213557,455 7.460.92 $ upstairs bathroom134521.57835527,690 27.693.41 $ master bedroom134521.57835527,690 27.693.41 $ upstairs hallwa y 132260.256.53552,308 2.310.28 $ front bedroom14228411235539,760 39.764.89 $ Total1262232416.25662.5355235,188 235.1928.93 $ Compact Fluorescent Lamps 75

PAGE 76

Table 4-8. LCC Existing Incandescent Bulbs and Consumption vs. CFLs and Consumption Yea r CostskWh Cost/kWhCos t PW CostsPW Energy Costs 056.00 $ 235 0.12 $ 28.88 $ 56.00 $ 28.88 $ 1235 0.13 $ 29.74 $ 28.33 $ 2235 0.13 $ 30.64 $ 27.79 $ 3235 0.13 $ 31.55 $ 27.26 $ 4235 0.14 $ 32.50 $ 26.74 $ 5235 0.14 $ 33.48 $ 26.23 $ 6235 0.15 $ 34.48 $ 25.73 $ 7235 0.15 $ 35.52 $ 25.24 $ 8235 0.16 $ 36.58 $ 24.76 $ 9235 0.16 $ 37.68 $ 24.29 $ 10235 0.17 $ 38.81 $ 23.82 $ Totals56.00 $ 2,352 369.85$ 56.00 $ 260.18 $ LCC 56.00 $ 260.18 $ =316.18$ Yea r CostskWh Cost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 02.00 $ 1,129 0.12$ 138.61$ 2.00 $ 138.61 $ 12.03 $ 1,129 0.13 $ 142.77 $ 1.93 $ 135.97 $ 22.06 $ 1,129 0.13 $ 147.06 $ 1.87 $ 133.38 $ 32.09 $ 1,129 0.13 $ 151.47 $ 1.81 $ 130.84 $ 42.12 $ 1,129 0.14 $ 156.01 $ 1.75 $ 128.35 $ 52.15 $ 1,129 0.14 $ 160.69 $ 1.69 $ 125.91 $ 62.19 $ 1,129 0.15 $ 165.51 $ 1.63 $ 123.51 $ 72.22 $ 1,129 0.15 $ 170.48 $ 1.58 $ 121.16 $ 82.25 $ 1,129 0.16 $ 175.59 $ 1.52 $ 118.85 $ 92.29 $ 1,129 0.16 $ 180.86 $ 1.47 $ 116.58 $ 102.32 $ 1,129 0.17 $ 186.29 $ 1.42 $ 114.36 $ Totals21.73 $ 11,289 1,636.73 $ 18.68 $ 1,248.92 $ LCC 18.68 $ 1,248.92 $ =1,267.59 $ Existing Lighting LCC Compact Fluorescent Lighting LCC 76

PAGE 77

Table 4-9. D ryer Consump tion and Cost Comparison kWh/LoadLoads/YearkWh/YearCost/kWhCost/Year 2.88252 725.00 0.11 $ 78.96 $ kWh/LoadLoads/YearkWh/YearCost/kWhCost/Year 0.72252 181.25 0.11 $ 19.74 $ Existin g Clothes Dr y er w/ New Washer Exisitng Clothes Dryer Table 4-10. Washer Consump tion and Cost Comparison kWh/LoadLoads/YearkWh/YearCost/kWhCost/Year 0.2925273.080.12 $ 8.97 $ kWh/LoadLoads/YearkWh/YearCost/kWhCost/Year 0.51252128.520.12 $ 15.78$ Existing Clothes Washe r N ew Clothes Washe r 77

PAGE 78

Table 4-11. LCC Existing Washer and Dryer YearCostskWh usedCost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ 725 0.12 $ 89.02 $ $ 89.02 $ 1$ 725 0.13 $ 91.69 $ $ 87.32 $ 2$ 725 0.13 $ 94.44 $ $ 85.66 $ 3$ 725 0.13 $ 97.27 $ $ 84.03 $ 4$ 725 0.14 $ 100.19 $ $ 82.43 $ 5$ 725 0.14 $ 103.20 $ $ 80.86 $ 6$ 725 0.15 $ 106.29 $ $ 79.32 $ 7$ 725 0.15 $ 109.48 $ $ 77.81 $ 8$ 725 0.16 $ 112.77 $ $ 76.32 $ 9$ 725 0.16 $ 116.15 $ $ 74.87 $ 10$ 725 0.17 $ 119.63 $ $ 73.44 $ Totals$ 7,250 1,140.12 $ $ 802.05 $ LCC$ 802.05 $ =802.05 $ YearCostskWh usedCost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ 73 0.12 $ 8.97 $ $ 8.97 $ 1$ 73 0.13 $ 9.24 $ $ 8.80 $ 2$ 73 0.13 $ 9.52 $ $ 8.63 $ 3$ 73 0.13 $ 9.81 $ $ 8.47 $ 4$ 73 0.14 $ 10.10 $ $ 8.31 $ 5$ 73 0.14 $ 10.40 $ $ 8.15 $ 6$ 73 0.15 $ 10.71 $ $ 8.00 $ 7$ 73 0.15 $ 11.04 $ $ 7.84 $ 8$ 73 0.16 $ 11.37 $ $ 7.69 $ 9$ 73 0.16 $ 11.71 $ $ 7.55 $ 10$ 73 0.17 $ 12.06 $ $ 7.40 $ Totals$ 731 114.92 $ $ 80.85 $ LCC $ 80.85 $ =80.85 $ DryerWasherTotal LCC802.05 $ 80.85 $ =882.90 $ Existing Washer Existing Clothes Dryer 78

PAGE 79

Table 4-12. LCC Existing Dryer w/ New Washer YearCostskWh usedcost/kWhCosts PW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ 725 0.12 $ 89.02 $ $ 89.02 $ 1$ 725 0.13 $ 91.69 $ $ 87.32 $ 2$ 725 0.13 $ 94.44 $ $ 85.66 $ 3$ 725 0.13 $ 97.27 $ $ 84.03 $ 4$ 725 0.14 $ 100.19 $ $ 82.43 $ 5$ 725 0.14 $ 103.20 $ $ 80.86 $ 6$ 725 0.15 $ 106.29 $ $ 79.32 $ 7$ 725 0.15 $ 109.48 $ $ 77.81 $ 8$ 725 0.16 $ 112.77 $ $ 76.32 $ 9$ 725 0.16 $ 116.15 $ $ 74.87 $ 10$ 725 0.17 $ 119.63 $ $ 73.44 $ Totals $ 7,250 1,140.12 $ $ 802.05 $ LCC $ 802.05 $ =802.05 $ YearCostskWh used Cost/kWhCosts PW CostsPW Energy Costs 01 8 1 0.12 $ 22.25 $ $ 22.25 $ 11 8 1 0.13 $ 22.92 $ $ 21.83 $ 21 8 1 0.13 $ 23.61 $ $ 21.41 $ 31 8 1 0.13 $ 24.32 $ $ 21.01 $ 41 8 1 0.14 $ 25.05 $ $ 20.61 $ 51 8 1 0.14 $ 25.80 $ $ 20.21 $ 61 8 1 0.15 $ 26.57 $ $ 19.83 $ 71 8 1 0.15 $ 27.37 $ $ 19.45 $ 81 8 1 0.16 $ 28.19 $ $ 19.08 $ 91 8 1 0.16 $ 29.04 $ $ 18.72 $ 10 181 0.17 $ 29.91 $ $ 18.36 $ Totals $ 1,813 285.03$ $ 200.51 $ LCC $ 200.51 $ =200.51 $ Existing Clothes Dryer Existing Clothes Dryer w/ New Washer 79

PAGE 80

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 New Existing kWh/Year CO2(in pounds)/Year 80Figure 4-5. Washer/Dryer Com parisons

PAGE 81

Table 4-13. Energy Consumption Air Conditioning# of tonsxBtu/hxhours/yearx1/SEERx1kW/1000W=kWh/year 2 24,000 1,846 0.10 0.001 4,430 Air Conditioning# of tonsxBtu/hxhours/yearx1/SEERx1kW/1000W=kWh/year 2 24,000 1,500 0.05 0.001 1,800 20 SEER 2-TON Unit Existng 10 SEER 2-TON Unit 81

PAGE 82

Table 4-14. HVAC LCC Comparison YearCostskWh usedCost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 050.00 $ 4,430 0.12 $ 543.98 $ 50.00 $ 543.98 $ 14,430 0.13 $ 560.30 $ $ 533.62 $ 251.51 $ 4,430 0.13 $ 577.11 $ 46.72 $ 523.45 $ 34,430 0.13 $ 594.42 $ $ 513.48 $ 453.07 $ 4,430 0.14 $ 612.25 $ 43.66 $ 503.70 $ 54,430 0.14 $ 630.62 $ $ 494.11 $ 654.67 $ 4,430 0.15 $ 649.54 $ 40.80 $ 484.70 $ 74,430 0.15 $ 669.03 $ $ 475.46 $ 856.32 $ 4,430 0.16 $ 689.10 $ 38.12 $ 466.41 $ 94,430 0.16 $ 709.77 $ $ 457.52 $ 1058.03 $ 4,430 0.17 $ 731.06 $ 35.62 $ 448.81 $ Totals323.60 $ 44,304 6,967.18 $ 254.93 $ 4,901.27 $ LCC254.93 $ 4,901.27 $ =5,156.19 $ YearCostskWh Cost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0500.00 $ 1,800 0.12 $ 223.52 $ 500.00 $ 223.52 $ 11,800 0.13 $ 227.64 $ 216.80 $ 21,800 0.13 $ 234.47 $ 212.67 $ 31 8 0 0 0.13 $ 241.50 $ 208.62 $ 41 8 0 0 0.14 $ 248.75 $ 204.65 $ 51 8 0 0 0.14 $ 256.21 $ 200.75 $ 61 8 0 0 0.15 $ 263.90 $ 196.92 $ 71 8 0 0 0.15 $ 271.81 $ 193.17 $ 81 8 0 0 0.16 $ 279.97 $ 189.49 $ 91 8 0 0 0.16 $ 288.37 $ 185.88 $ 10 1,800 0.17 $ 297.02 $ 182.34 $ Totals500.00 $ 18,000 2,833.16 $ 500.00 $ 1,991.31 $ LCC 500.00 $ 1,991.31 $ =2,491.31 $ 20 SEER 2-TON Unit LCC Existng 10 SEER 2-TON Unit LCC 82

PAGE 83

Table 4-15. Energy Reduction and C ost Savings kWh/YearCost/kWhCost/Year 3,906 0.12 $ 479.65 $ kWh/YearCost/kWhCost/Year 586 0.12 $ 71.95 $ Solar Thermal Water Heate r Existing Water Heater 83

PAGE 84

Table 4-16. Electric and Sola r Hot Water LCC Comparison YearCostskWh usedCost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 0$ 3,906 0.12 $ 479.65 $ $ 479.65 $ 1$ 3,906 0.13 $ 494.04 $ $ 470.51 $ 2$ 3,906 0.13 $ 508.86 $ $ 461.55 $ 3$ 3,906 0.13 $ 524.12 $ $ 452.76 $ 4$ 3,906 0.14 $ 539.85 $ $ 444.13 $ 5$ 3,906 0.14 $ 556.04 $ $ 435.67 $ 6$ 3,906 0.15 $ 572.73 $ $ 427.38 $ 7$ 3,906 0.15 $ 589.91 $ $ 419.24 $ 8$ 3,906 0.16 $ 607.60 $ $ 411.25 $ 9$ 3,906 0.16 $ 625.83 $ $ 403.42 $ 10$ 3,906 0.17 $ 644.61 $ $ 395.73 $ 11$ 3,906 0.17 $ 663.95 $ $ 388.20 $ 12$ 3,906 0.18 $ 683.86 $ $ 380.80 $ 13$ 3,906 0.18 $ 704.38 $ $ 373.55 $ 14$ 3,906 0.19 $ 725.51 $ $ 366.43 $ 15$ 3,906 0.19 $ 747.28 $ $ 359.45 $ 16$ 3,906 0.20 $ 769.69 $ $ 352.61 $ 17$ 3,906 0.20 $ 792.79 $ $ 345.89 $ 18$ 3,906 0.21 $ 816.57 $ $ 339.30 $ 19$ 3,906 0.22 $ 841.07 $ $ 332.84 $ 20$ 3,906 0.22 $ 866.30 $ $ 326.50 $ Totals$ 82,036 13,754.63 $ $ 7,887.21 $ LCC $ 7,887.21 $ =7,887.21 $ YearCostskWh used Cost/kWhCostsPW CostsPW Energy Costs 02,500.00 $ 586 0.12$ 71.95 $ 2,500.00 $ 71.95 $ 1$ 586 0.13$ 74.11 $ -$ 70.58 $ 2$ 586 0.13$ 76.33 $ -$ 69.23 $ 3$ 586 0.13$ 78.62 $ -$ 67.91 $ 4$ 586 0.14$ 80.98 $ -$ 66.62 $ 5$ 586 0.14$ 83.41 $ -$ 65.35 $ 6$ 586 0.15$ 85.91 $ -$ 64.11 $ 7$ 586 0.15$ 88.49 $ -$ 62.89 $ 8$ 586 0.16$ 91.14 $ -$ 61.69 $ 9$ 586 0.16$ 93.87 $ -$ 60.51 $ 10$ 586 0.17$ 96.69 $ -$ 59.36 $ 11$ 586 0.17$ 99.59 $ -$ 58.23 $ 12$ 586 0.18 $ 102.58 $ $ 57.12 $ 13$ 586 0.18 $ 105.66 $ $ 56.03 $ 14$ 586 0.19 $ 108.83 $ $ 54.96 $ 15$ 586 0.19 $ 112.09 $ $ 53.92 $ 16$ 586 0.20 $ 115.45 $ $ 52.89 $ 17$ 586 0.20 $ 118.92 $ $ 51.88 $ 18$ 586 0.21 $ 122.49 $ $ 50.90 $ 19$ 586 0.22 $ 126.16 $ $ 49.93 $ 20$ 586 0.22 $ 129.94 $ $ 48.97 $ Totals2,500.00 $ 11,719 2,063.19 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,183.08 $ LCC 2,500.00 $ 1,183.08 $ =3,683.08 $ Solar Hot Water Electric Hot Water 84

PAGE 85

$$200.00 $400.00 $600.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 01234567891011121314151617181920 YearsCost Electric Hot Water Solar Hot Water 85Figure 4-6. Costs vs. Years between the Hot W ater Systems

PAGE 86

Table 4-17. Historical vs Present Consum ption Time FrameConsumptionTotal CostsTime FrameConsumptionTotal Costs Oct-071226172.50 $ Oct-08826122.71 $ Nov-07954128.76 $ Nov-0864194.22 $ Dec-07816106.57 $ Dec-0865194.28 $ Jan-081016138.73 $ Jan-0968298.52 $ Total4012546.56 $ Total2800409.73 $ Table 4-18. Size of PV be fore and after reduction kW SystemkWh per DaykWh per MonthkWh per 4 Months 6.7 34 1,005 4,020 4.7 24 705 2,820 Table 4-19. Reduced Consumption kW System kW SystemkWh per DaykWh per MonthkWh per 4 Months 3.517.55252100 86

PAGE 87

87 Table 4-20. PV vs. Solar Thermal kW SystemkWh per DaykWh per MonthkWh per 4 MonthsTotal SF 1.2 6 180 720 80 System kWh per DaykWh per MonthkWh per 4 MonthsTotal SF Flat-Plate Collector617570040PV SYSTEM SOLAR THERMAL SYSTEM Table 4-21. Old Energy Use vs. New Energy Use Appliances and ElectronicesAnnual kWh Appliances and ElectronicesAnnual kWh HVAC 1,800 HVAC 4,431 Water Heater 586 Water Heater 3,906 Televisions 1,071 Televisions 1,071 Dryer 181 Dryer 726 Lights 765 Lights 1,129 Refrigerator 1,374 Refrigerator 1,374 Washing machine 129 Washing machine 97 Computers 197 Computers 197 Dishwasher 126 Dishwasher 126 Microwave Oven 26 Microwave Oven 26 Stove 138 Stove 138 Total 6,394 Total 13,222 Old Energy Use New Energy Use

PAGE 88

$$500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 123456789101112131415161718192021YearsCosts New Energy Costs Old Energy Costs Figure 4-7. Home Energy Costs Comparison 88

PAGE 89

Table 4-22. PV and Solar Thermal LCC Comparison LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in Equit y Salvage Value 1,999.57 $ 26,944.44 $ 18,734.66 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 13,694.06 $ 15,597.97 $ 955.00 $ 4,634.64 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in Equit y Salvage Value 13,694.06 $ $ $ $ 13,694.06 $ $ $ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC Table 4-23. LCC Comparison usi ng Historical Consumption LCCCostRebatesO & M R & R Gross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 26,813.39 $ 25,561.37 $ 18,718.56 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 28,318.86 $ 4,280.60 $ 954.28 $ 4,396.75 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & R Gross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 28,318.86 $ $ $ $ 28,318.86 $ $ $ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC 89

PAGE 90

$$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $35,000.00 $40,000.00 $45,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years Initial Cost w/ Rebate Gross PV Sellback Net PV Sellback Figure 4-8. Gross and Net Payback Time for Solar Systems with Efficiency Upgrades $$2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $14,000.00 $16,000.00 $18,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-9. Discounted Payback Time for So lar Systems with Efficiency Upgrades 90

PAGE 91

$(20,000.00) $(10,000.00) $$10,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $50,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years Initial Cost w/ Rebate Gross PV Sellback Net PV Sellback Figure 4-10. Payback for Solar Syst ems without Efficiency Upgrades $$1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-11. Discounted Payback for Solar Systems without Efficiency Upgrades 91

PAGE 92

Table 4-24. Historical Consumpti on w/ Larger PV System LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 13,008.69 $ 50,246.11 $ 24,333.33 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 28,318.86 $ 32,256.09 $ 1,607.51 $ 8,642.70 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 28,318.86 $ $ $ $ 28,318.86 $ $ $ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC 92

PAGE 93

$$10,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000.00 $70,000.00 $80,000.00 $90,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years Initial Cost w/ Rebate Gross PV Sellback Net PV Sellback Figure 4-12. PV Payback Time of the Larger Solar System without Efficiency Upgrades $$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $35,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-13. Discounted Payback Hist orical Consumption w/ 7.35kW system 93

PAGE 94

Table 4-25. LCC 7,000 kWh/annually LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 1,148.72 $ 27,777.78 $ 20,037.04 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 14,992.59 $ 17,077.04 $ 1,012.93 $ 4,777.98 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 14,992.59 $ $ $ $ 14,992.59 $ $ $ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC 94

PAGE 95

$$2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $14,000.00 $16,000.00 $18,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-14. Discounted Payback 7,000 kWh/annually 95

PAGE 96

Table 4-26. LCC 8,000 kW h/annually LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in Equit y Salvage Value 1,597.20 $ 31,388.89 $ 22,185.19 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 17,134.39 $ 19,516.62 $ 1,108.49 $ 5,399.12 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in Equit y Salvage Value 17,134.39 $ $ $ $ 17,134.39 $ $ $ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC 96

PAGE 97

$$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-15. Discounted Payback 8,000 kWh/annually 97

PAGE 98

Table 4-27. LCC 9,000 kWh/annually LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 2,045.69 $ 35,000.00 $ 24,333.33 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 19,276.19 $ 21,956.19 $ 1,204.05 $ 6,020.26 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 19,276.19 $ $ $ $ 19,276.19 $ $ $ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC 98

PAGE 99

$$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-16. Discounted Payback 9,000 kWh/annually 99

PAGE 100

Table 4-28. LCC 10,000 kWh/annually LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in EquitySalvage Value 4,642.33 $ 38,611.11 $ 24,333.33 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 21,417.99 $ 24,395.77 $ 1,299.61 $ 6,641.40 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in EquitySalvage Value 21,417.99 $ $ $ $ 21,417.99 $ $ -$ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC 100

PAGE 101

$$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-17. Discounted Payback 10,000 kWh/annually 101

PAGE 102

Table 4-29. LCC 11,000 kWh/annually LCCCostRebatesO & M R & R Gross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 7,238.96 $ 42,222.22 $ 24,333.33 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 23,559.79 $ 26,835.35 $ 1,395.17 $ 7,262.54 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & R Gross Energy CostsNet Sellbac k Increase in Equit y Salvage Value 23,559.79 $ $ $ $ 23,559.79 $ $ $ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC 102

PAGE 103

$$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-18. Discounted Payback 11,000kWh/annually 103

PAGE 104

Table 4-30. LCC 12,000 kWh/annually LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in Equit y Salvage Value 9,835.60 $ 45,833.33 $ 24,333.33 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 25,701.59 $ 29,274.92 $ 1,490.73 $ 7,883.67 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in Equit y Salvage Value 25,701.59 $ $ $ $ 25,701.59 $ $ $ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC 104

PAGE 105

$$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $35,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-19. Discounted Payback 12,000 kWh/annually 105

PAGE 106

Table 4-31. LCC 13,000 kWh/annually LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in Equit y Salvage Value 12,432.23 $ 49,444.44 $ 24,333.33 $ 428.37 $ 854.97 $ 27,843.39 $ 31,714.50 $ 1,586.29 $ 8,504.81 $ LCCCostRebatesO & M R & RGross Energy CostsNet SellbackIncrease in Equit y Salvage Value 27,843.39 $ $ $ $ 27,843.39 $ $ $ PV and Solar Thermal LCC Energy Use LCC 106

PAGE 107

$$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $35,000.00 123456789101112131415161718192021 Years PW Net Sellback Net Initial Cost Figure 4-20. Discounted Payback 13,000 kWh/annually 107

PAGE 108

108 Table 4-32. Sensitivity Analysis Summary Consum p tion in kWhSize of PVLCC7,000 3.891,148.72 $ 8,000 4.441,597.20 $ 9,000 5.002,045.69 $ 10,000 5.564,642.33 $ 11,000 6.117,238.96 $ 12,000 6.679,835.60 $ 13,000 7.2212,432.23 $

PAGE 109

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 7,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,000 Annual ConsumptionPV size in kW Size of PV 109Figure 4-21. Size of system to produce 100% of consumption

PAGE 110

$$2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $14,000.00 7,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,000 Annual ConsumptionLCC LCC 110 Figure 4-22. LCC of Sys tem for 100% of Consumption

PAGE 111

Table 4-33. Percent Production Analysis Summary Percent ProductionSize of PVLCC200 7.1(11,259.41) $ 190 6.75(10,493.38) $ 180 6.39(9,727.35) $ 170 6.04(8,961.32) $ 160 5.68(8,195.29) $ 150 5.33(7,429.26) $ 140 4.97(6,558.42) $ 130 4.62(4,418.92) $ 120 4.26(2,279.43) $ 110 3.91(139.93) $ 100 3.551,999.57 $ 90 3.204,139.06 $ 80 2.846,278.56 $ 70 2.498,418.06 $ 60 2.1310,557.55 $ 50 1.7812,697.05 $ 111

PAGE 112

$(15,000.00) $(10,000.00) $(5,000.00) $$5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 2001901801701601501401301201101009080706050Percent of ProductionLCC LCC Figure 4-23. LCC for Sensitivity Analyses112

PAGE 113

CHAP TER 5 CONCLUSIONS Todays homeowners need to have knowledge of the electrical consumption of their home. The method by which electri cal consumption is reduced is site specific. In general, the means of reducing consumption is less expensive compared to not reducing consumption. Once educated on where most of the consumption o ccurs, decisions can be made on what and how much money should be spent on upgrades using LCC tables to see whether or not the upgrade is feasible. As stated previousl y, the new alternative may have a greater LCC, but the consumption maybe less. It is because of this fact, that a greater LCC for an efficiency upgrade can make the PV more feasible, thus making the overall LCC lo wer. The reduction of energy is important for solar electric installation, and s hould be done before sizing the PV for the current consumption. With regards to the size of the PV, a se nsitivity analysis became important when comparing the sizes related to the production to consumption rati o. Installing a larger size system that produces more electricity than consum ed proved to be less expensive over the life of the system, even though there wa s a greater expense initially. The energy reducing template was important in reduction of electricity, which allowed for a PV system to be installed on the south faci ng roof. The reduction template also proved to be effective in making the home a net zero energy home. The LCC template was set up so the consumption was entered and the size and LCC of the PV and the solar thermal was calculated. 113

PAGE 114

CHAP TER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS For future studies of life cycle costing of PV and solar thermal, examining different manufacturers of PV and different solar thermal systems for a specific site might influence the optimum systems. Colder climates might need di fferent systems to deal with the weather. The energy reducing template could be used in other homes, but there may be a change made to the spreadsheet, to include other items in the home. Also this template could be used to compare homes built over different periods of time, by looki ng at the principal building materials. Two buildings/homes from different periods, in the same area, would allow for the examination of construction methods, and how those methods a ffect the consumption with regards to the envelope. There is more than one technology that allows a home to be a net zero energy home, and those could be explored. The key would not be to try to cover every aspect of consumption, but simply, a specific area. This template could be used with commerc ial buildings, but just on a larger scale. Commercial buildings have historical data and typically a set occupancy schedule. It would also have different system options systems th at are not seen in residential. Further research could be done on the envelope of the home. This area could be explored more with hand calculations as well as an energy model to alter the glazing type and size, as well as insulation. The glazing and insulation could th en be put into an LCC table and compared with the existing materials. 114

PAGE 115

LIST OF REFERE NCES Black, Andy. "Does it pay? Figuring the financial value of a solar or wind energy system." Solar Today Fall 2008: 28. "Blower Door Test." Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 2 Nov. 2008 . "Clothes Washers." U.S. Department of Energy. 22 Oct. 2008 . Dell'Isola, Alphonse. Value Engineering Practical Applic ations for Design, Construction, Maintenance & Operations Boston: R.S. Means Company, 1998. Dickinson, Sally. "Electric bill." Personal interview. 18 Oct. 2008. "Dishwashers." U.S. Department of Energy. 22 Oct. 2008 . Eyzaguirre, Claudia. "Paying for your solar elect ric system Find rebates and tax credits to finance it." Solar Today Fall 2008: 29. Fults, Jason, and Eduardo Vargas. "Energy Improvements to your home and business made easy." Energy Efficiency. Indigo Green Store, Gainesville. 14 Feb. 2009. Gibson, Scott. "The New Age of Photo." Fine Homebuilding Dec. Jan. 2007-2008: 56-62. GRU Customer Bulletin. Ga inesville: GRU, 2008. Hall, Mike. "Working with a so lar installer Experience counts. And read your contract." Solar Today Fall 2008: 26-27. Energy Star. 22 Oct. 2008 . "HVAC." U.S. Department of Energy. 22 Oct. 2008 . Jacobson, Barry. "Solar Electric Estima te." Personal inte rview. 23 Nov. 2008. Lane, Tom. "Battery Storage." Personal interview. 18 Oct. 2008. Lane, Tom. Solar Hot Water Systems Lessons Learned 1977 to Today Gainesville: Energy Conservation Services of North Florida, Inc., 2004. "Lighting." U.S. Departme nt of Energy. 22 Oct. 2008 . Lorenz, Shawn. "Solar Electric Estimat e." Personal interview. 19 Jan. 2009. 115

PAGE 116

Masia, Seth. "Efficiency upgrades Upgrades to insulation, windows, and doors will be money well spent." Solar Today Fall 2008: 24-25. Merry, Liz, and Seth Masia, eds. "Solar electric system basics Reliable power, with no moving parts." Solar Today Fall 2008: 16-18. "New Products." Solar Today Fall 2008: 30. "Refrigerators." U.S. Department of Energy. 22 Oct. 2008 . Ries, Robert. "Life Cycle Costing." Value Engineering. The Rinker School of Building Construction, Gainesville. Feb. 2008. Rolland, Megan. "City OKs higher buyb ack rate in solar program." Gainesville Sun 19 Dec. 2008: 1B. Rolland, Megan. "GRU solar plan given city approval." Gainesville Sun 21 Nov. 2008: 1A+. Rolland, Megan. "Is solar the right fit?" Gainesville Sun 20 Nov. 2008: 1A+. Rolland, Megan. "Profitable panels: GRU unveils new solar incentives." Gainesville Sun 14 Oct. 2008: 1A+. Young, Diana, Liz Merry, and Seth Masia, eds. "Solar water hea ting Take the load off your water heater." Solar Today Fall 2008: 12-14. 116

PAGE 117

117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kevin received his M.S.B.C. from the Univer sity of Florida in the summer of 2009. He first attended the University of Florida in the fall of 2002, as a transfer student from Daytona Beach Community College, now Daytona State Colle ge. He received his Bachelor of Design in Architecture from the University of Florida in the spring 2006. He is cu rrently pursuing a Ph.D. in building construction with a continued focus in solar technologies for residential and commercial applications.