Everything Solar Forum

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Hi Keith,

Thank you very much for sharing this list with us. 

Could you say more to explain how all of these topics are policy-related?

Thank you,

Kat

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Sure, thanks for asking.

A large part of the policy impact comes down to federal research priorities, particularly at DOE. There was a comprehensive program of research, development, demonstration and outreach on passive solar and solar thermal systems that was cut by Reagan. Those were tough times at universities and national labs. That was a policy decision. A different decision could be made today.

Researchers for the most part can only submit proposals on topics that are solicited by DOE and other funding institutions. When funding slowly returned, the emphasis was on renewable electric power. DOE, et al., with few exceptions, has not solicited nor funded, passive solar or solar thermal research for decades. In contrast, for example, China, Israel and other countries continued funding solar thermal development, and upwards of 90% of buildings in those countries now have solar thermal hot water systems [M. Thomas. 90% of homes in Israel have a solar water heater. Why don't more Americans use them? Distilled 2023. https://www.distilled.earth/p/90-of-homes-in-israel-have-a-solar]. Again, a difference in policy decisions.

University professors typically teach graduate courses on topics that align with their research. Doing so provides training for the graduate students working on those research projects, some of whom become professors themselves and teach courses and do research on the same topics. No research on ambient energy for buildings, for instance, means that the pipeline of expertise on that topic dries up. The lack of educational opportunities at the graduate level trickles down the undergraduate and primary levels. The root cause is a policy decision.

With little education on the topic, chances diminish that building simulation and building code developers, and even federal policy makers, will know about and incorporate principles of ambient energy. Thus, we get the codes and standards we have today, like IECC 2021 that essentially prohibits passive solar heating. We also get energy policy that neglects the potential of ambient energy. We don't get software that helps architects and builders design ambient-conditioned buildings.

A visible demonstration program in the pre-Reagan era monitored and reported performance of passive solar homes, often at the ASES National Passive Solar Conference and other venues. Publicity emanated from these conferences and created interest from architects and builders, and demand from consumers. Approximately 200,000 passive solar homes were constructed between 1976 and 1986. Funding cuts meant no more demonstrations, loss of interest and the eventual death of the Passive Solar Conference. A policy decision.

Jennifer Granholm could establish a DOE Office of Ambient Energy for Buildings tomorrow (OK, maybe she would have to ask Biden!) and change the trajectory of our energy/climate strategy to a more logical, economical, resilient and equitable direction.

Hi Keith,

Thank you very much for sharing this list with us. 

Could you say more to explain how all of these topics are policy-related?

Thank you,

Kat

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Sure, thanks for asking.

A large part of the policy impact comes down to federal research priorities, particularly at DOE. There was a comprehensive program of research, development, demonstration and outreach on passive solar and solar thermal systems that was cut by Reagan. Those were tough times at universities and national labs. That was a policy decision. A different decision could be made today.

Researchers for the most part can only submit proposals on topics that are solicited by DOE and other funding institutions. When funding slowly returned, the emphasis was on renewable electric power. DOE, et al., with few exceptions, has not solicited nor funded, passive solar or solar thermal research for decades. In contrast, for example, China, Israel and other countries continued funding solar thermal development, and upwards of 90% of buildings in those countries now have solar thermal hot water systems [M. Thomas. 90% of homes in Israel have a solar water heater. Why don't more Americans use them? Distilled 2023. https://www.distilled.earth/p/90-of-homes-in-israel-have-a-solar]. Again, a difference in policy decisions.

University professors typically teach graduate courses on topics that align with their research. Doing so provides training for the graduate students working on those research projects, some of whom become professors themselves and teach courses and do research on the same topics. No research on ambient energy for buildings, for instance, means that the pipeline of expertise on that topic dries up. The lack of educational opportunities at the graduate level trickles down the undergraduate and primary levels. The root cause is a policy decision.

With little education on the topic, chances diminish that building simulation and building code developers, and even federal policy makers, will know about and incorporate principles of ambient energy. Thus, we get the codes and standards we have today, like IECC 2021 that essentially prohibits passive solar heating. We also get energy policy that neglects the potential of ambient energy. We don't get software that helps architects and builders design ambient-conditioned buildings.

A visible demonstration program in the pre-Reagan era monitored and reported performance of passive solar homes, often at the ASES National Passive Solar Conference and other venues. Publicity emanated from these conferences and created interest from architects and builders, and demand from consumers. Approximately 200,000 passive solar homes were constructed between 1976 and 1986. Funding cuts meant no more demonstrations, loss of interest and the eventual death of the Passive Solar Conference. A policy decision.

Jennifer Granholm could establish a DOE Office of Ambient Energy for Buildings tomorrow (OK, maybe she would have to ask Biden!) and change the trajectory of our energy/climate strategy to a more logical, economical, resilient and equitable direction.

Hi Keith,

Thank you very much for sharing this list with us. 

Could you say more to explain how all of these topics are policy-related?

Thank you,

Kat

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Great points, Keith,  I think an attractive, simple-to-read infographic illustrating these points could be a beneficial document that ASES could distribute if you were interested in developing one for the Solar Buildings Division to review. Maybe each division could try to have a simple one-page document on main subjects within that division that could optionally then be included in Solar Today as well. https://ases.org/about/about-us/divisions/

For those of you at SOLAR  2024 in DC in May, let's discuss these issues at the Division Luncheon.  That luncheon is on Wednesday May 22 as well as the three Solar Building sessions so if you can only attend for one day, that might be a good one. https://ases.org/conference/schedule/ Plus the Climate Ride is late Wednesday afternoon. I will be doing the walking part and welcome others to join me either as part of my team or one of your own. https://support.climateride.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=885

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Debbie,

Great idea. I copied below the Key Messages from our workshop white paper. By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? Good plan to involve Solar Building Division members. Feedback welcomed from this forum, as well.

Key Messages

1.   Ambient energy (from sun, air, ground, and sky) can heat and cool buildings; provide hot water, ventilation and daylighting; dry clothes; and cook food. These services account for about three-quarters of building energy consumption and a third of total US demand. Biophilic design (direct and indirect connections with nature) is an intrinsic adjunct to ambient energy systems, and improves wellness and human performance.

2.   The current strategy of electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not meet our climate goals, because the transition to an all-renewable electric grid is too slow. Widespread adoption of ambient energy is needed. Solar-heated buildings also flatten the seasonal demand for electricity compared to all-electric buildings, reducing required production capacity and long-term energy storage. In addition, ambient-conditioned buildings improve resilience by remaining livable during power outages. 

3.   National policies, incentives, and marketing should be enacted to promote ambient energy use. Federal administrative priorities should reflect the importance of ambient energy for buildings. Use of ambient energy should be encouraged through existing and new building codes and standards.

4.   Ambient energy system design tools are needed for architects, engineers, builders, building scientists, realtors, appraisers, and consumers. PVWatts is used over 100 million times per year for photovoltaic system design. A similar, simple, and accessible tool for ambient design is crucial.

5.   Training on ambient energy is needed throughout secondary, post-secondary, and continuing education for workforce development. Currently, only about 10% of colleges teach courses on passive heating and cooling systems.

6.   Ambient-conditioned buildings should be demonstrated in all US climate zones. Performance should be monitored and reported, with quantitative case studies made widely available.

7.   While current technology is sufficient to build high-performance ambient buildings now, research is needed to develop new technologies to harness ambient energy more effectively and more economically.  Such advancements will facilitate adoption of ambient energy technologies in a wider range of buildings, including retrofits. Examples include windows with much lower thermal losses, use of the building shell as thermal storage, alternative light-weight thermal storage systems, sky radiation cooling systems, automated controls for solar gains and passive cooling, and ground coupling.

Great points, Keith,  I think an attractive, simple-to-read infographic illustrating these points could be a beneficial document that ASES could distribute if you were interested in developing one for the Solar Buildings Division to review. Maybe each division could try to have a simple one-page document on main subjects within that division that could optionally then be included in Solar Today as well. https://ases.org/about/about-us/divisions/

For those of you at SOLAR  2024 in DC in May, let's discuss these issues at the Division Luncheon.  That luncheon is on Wednesday May 22 as well as the three Solar Building sessions so if you can only attend for one day, that might be a good one. https://ases.org/conference/schedule/ Plus the Climate Ride is late Wednesday afternoon. I will be doing the walking part and welcome others to join me either as part of my team or one of your own. https://support.climateride.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=885

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Debbie,

Great idea. I copied below the Key Messages from our workshop white paper. By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? Good plan to involve Solar Building Division members. Feedback welcomed from this forum, as well.

Key Messages

1.   Ambient energy (from sun, air, ground, and sky) can heat and cool buildings; provide hot water, ventilation and daylighting; dry clothes; and cook food. These services account for about three-quarters of building energy consumption and a third of total US demand. Biophilic design (direct and indirect connections with nature) is an intrinsic adjunct to ambient energy systems, and improves wellness and human performance.

2.   The current strategy of electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not meet our climate goals, because the transition to an all-renewable electric grid is too slow. Widespread adoption of ambient energy is needed. Solar-heated buildings also flatten the seasonal demand for electricity compared to all-electric buildings, reducing required production capacity and long-term energy storage. In addition, ambient-conditioned buildings improve resilience by remaining livable during power outages. 

3.   National policies, incentives, and marketing should be enacted to promote ambient energy use. Federal administrative priorities should reflect the importance of ambient energy for buildings. Use of ambient energy should be encouraged through existing and new building codes and standards.

4.   Ambient energy system design tools are needed for architects, engineers, builders, building scientists, realtors, appraisers, and consumers. PVWatts is used over 100 million times per year for photovoltaic system design. A similar, simple, and accessible tool for ambient design is crucial.

5.   Training on ambient energy is needed throughout secondary, post-secondary, and continuing education for workforce development. Currently, only about 10% of colleges teach courses on passive heating and cooling systems.

6.   Ambient-conditioned buildings should be demonstrated in all US climate zones. Performance should be monitored and reported, with quantitative case studies made widely available.

7.   While current technology is sufficient to build high-performance ambient buildings now, research is needed to develop new technologies to harness ambient energy more effectively and more economically.  Such advancements will facilitate adoption of ambient energy technologies in a wider range of buildings, including retrofits. Examples include windows with much lower thermal losses, use of the building shell as thermal storage, alternative light-weight thermal storage systems, sky radiation cooling systems, automated controls for solar gains and passive cooling, and ground coupling.

Great points, Keith,  I think an attractive, simple-to-read infographic illustrating these points could be a beneficial document that ASES could distribute if you were interested in developing one for the Solar Buildings Division to review. Maybe each division could try to have a simple one-page document on main subjects within that division that could optionally then be included in Solar Today as well. https://ases.org/about/about-us/divisions/

For those of you at SOLAR  2024 in DC in May, let's discuss these issues at the Division Luncheon.  That luncheon is on Wednesday May 22 as well as the three Solar Building sessions so if you can only attend for one day, that might be a good one. https://ases.org/conference/schedule/ Plus the Climate Ride is late Wednesday afternoon. I will be doing the walking part and welcome others to join me either as part of my team or one of your own. https://support.climateride.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=885

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Hi Keith,

Glad you are excited about the idea of the Technical Divisions of ASES creating one-page infographics on the various subjects that relate to each division. You asked:

By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? 

Yes! I guess what used to be called brochures in the paper days. If members have one-page examples to share, that would be good. I seem to remember that someone in ASES created some recently - Ella?  I could see a template being provided for all to use. 

Before anything becomes officially promoted by each division, I think it would be fun (and educational) to have ASES members submit one-page infographics about subjects that they feel particularly knowledgeable about in the division in which they are a member, or have an interest in joining. That would be one way to get an informal peer review first. The information could be pulled from the educational portion of your website, a paper or poster, or a webinar.  Those going to the conference (in person or virtually) could post them on the conference platform. I can also see some good ones being developed out of the conference material. ASES's mission is education-based and much of that knowledge is held by members.

I'd like to suggest that when you are ready to share one, you start the Subject line of the posting with: Infographic, (tech division name), (short infographic name). For instance, Keith's could be: Infographic, Solar Buildings, Ambient Energy

Excited to see what develops! 

Debbie,

Great idea. I copied below the Key Messages from our workshop white paper. By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? Good plan to involve Solar Building Division members. Feedback welcomed from this forum, as well.

Key Messages

1.   Ambient energy (from sun, air, ground, and sky) can heat and cool buildings; provide hot water, ventilation and daylighting; dry clothes; and cook food. These services account for about three-quarters of building energy consumption and a third of total US demand. Biophilic design (direct and indirect connections with nature) is an intrinsic adjunct to ambient energy systems, and improves wellness and human performance.

2.   The current strategy of electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not meet our climate goals, because the transition to an all-renewable electric grid is too slow. Widespread adoption of ambient energy is needed. Solar-heated buildings also flatten the seasonal demand for electricity compared to all-electric buildings, reducing required production capacity and long-term energy storage. In addition, ambient-conditioned buildings improve resilience by remaining livable during power outages. 

3.   National policies, incentives, and marketing should be enacted to promote ambient energy use. Federal administrative priorities should reflect the importance of ambient energy for buildings. Use of ambient energy should be encouraged through existing and new building codes and standards.

4.   Ambient energy system design tools are needed for architects, engineers, builders, building scientists, realtors, appraisers, and consumers. PVWatts is used over 100 million times per year for photovoltaic system design. A similar, simple, and accessible tool for ambient design is crucial.

5.   Training on ambient energy is needed throughout secondary, post-secondary, and continuing education for workforce development. Currently, only about 10% of colleges teach courses on passive heating and cooling systems.

6.   Ambient-conditioned buildings should be demonstrated in all US climate zones. Performance should be monitored and reported, with quantitative case studies made widely available.

7.   While current technology is sufficient to build high-performance ambient buildings now, research is needed to develop new technologies to harness ambient energy more effectively and more economically.  Such advancements will facilitate adoption of ambient energy technologies in a wider range of buildings, including retrofits. Examples include windows with much lower thermal losses, use of the building shell as thermal storage, alternative light-weight thermal storage systems, sky radiation cooling systems, automated controls for solar gains and passive cooling, and ground coupling.

Great points, Keith,  I think an attractive, simple-to-read infographic illustrating these points could be a beneficial document that ASES could distribute if you were interested in developing one for the Solar Buildings Division to review. Maybe each division could try to have a simple one-page document on main subjects within that division that could optionally then be included in Solar Today as well. https://ases.org/about/about-us/divisions/

For those of you at SOLAR  2024 in DC in May, let's discuss these issues at the Division Luncheon.  That luncheon is on Wednesday May 22 as well as the three Solar Building sessions so if you can only attend for one day, that might be a good one. https://ases.org/conference/schedule/ Plus the Climate Ride is late Wednesday afternoon. I will be doing the walking part and welcome others to join me either as part of my team or one of your own. https://support.climateride.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=885

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

In the near future as humans of earth fully begin to realize the power of our sun to deliver all the energy they will ever need to each and every geographical location on the planet unanimous -   Human based policy will change as " Policy " is truly an human institution along with education and yet current ideas may not reflect the needs, and or wants of a future generation that should desire a more integrated rapport with our neighborhood star. 

Hi Keith,

Glad you are excited about the idea of the Technical Divisions of ASES creating one-page infographics on the various subjects that relate to each division. You asked:

By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? 

Yes! I guess what used to be called brochures in the paper days. If members have one-page examples to share, that would be good. I seem to remember that someone in ASES created some recently - Ella?  I could see a template being provided for all to use. 

Before anything becomes officially promoted by each division, I think it would be fun (and educational) to have ASES members submit one-page infographics about subjects that they feel particularly knowledgeable about in the division in which they are a member, or have an interest in joining. That would be one way to get an informal peer review first. The information could be pulled from the educational portion of your website, a paper or poster, or a webinar.  Those going to the conference (in person or virtually) could post them on the conference platform. I can also see some good ones being developed out of the conference material. ASES's mission is education-based and much of that knowledge is held by members.

I'd like to suggest that when you are ready to share one, you start the Subject line of the posting with: Infographic, (tech division name), (short infographic name). For instance, Keith's could be: Infographic, Solar Buildings, Ambient Energy

Excited to see what develops! 

Debbie,

Great idea. I copied below the Key Messages from our workshop white paper. By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? Good plan to involve Solar Building Division members. Feedback welcomed from this forum, as well.

Key Messages

1.   Ambient energy (from sun, air, ground, and sky) can heat and cool buildings; provide hot water, ventilation and daylighting; dry clothes; and cook food. These services account for about three-quarters of building energy consumption and a third of total US demand. Biophilic design (direct and indirect connections with nature) is an intrinsic adjunct to ambient energy systems, and improves wellness and human performance.

2.   The current strategy of electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not meet our climate goals, because the transition to an all-renewable electric grid is too slow. Widespread adoption of ambient energy is needed. Solar-heated buildings also flatten the seasonal demand for electricity compared to all-electric buildings, reducing required production capacity and long-term energy storage. In addition, ambient-conditioned buildings improve resilience by remaining livable during power outages. 

3.   National policies, incentives, and marketing should be enacted to promote ambient energy use. Federal administrative priorities should reflect the importance of ambient energy for buildings. Use of ambient energy should be encouraged through existing and new building codes and standards.

4.   Ambient energy system design tools are needed for architects, engineers, builders, building scientists, realtors, appraisers, and consumers. PVWatts is used over 100 million times per year for photovoltaic system design. A similar, simple, and accessible tool for ambient design is crucial.

5.   Training on ambient energy is needed throughout secondary, post-secondary, and continuing education for workforce development. Currently, only about 10% of colleges teach courses on passive heating and cooling systems.

6.   Ambient-conditioned buildings should be demonstrated in all US climate zones. Performance should be monitored and reported, with quantitative case studies made widely available.

7.   While current technology is sufficient to build high-performance ambient buildings now, research is needed to develop new technologies to harness ambient energy more effectively and more economically.  Such advancements will facilitate adoption of ambient energy technologies in a wider range of buildings, including retrofits. Examples include windows with much lower thermal losses, use of the building shell as thermal storage, alternative light-weight thermal storage systems, sky radiation cooling systems, automated controls for solar gains and passive cooling, and ground coupling.

Great points, Keith,  I think an attractive, simple-to-read infographic illustrating these points could be a beneficial document that ASES could distribute if you were interested in developing one for the Solar Buildings Division to review. Maybe each division could try to have a simple one-page document on main subjects within that division that could optionally then be included in Solar Today as well. https://ases.org/about/about-us/divisions/

For those of you at SOLAR  2024 in DC in May, let's discuss these issues at the Division Luncheon.  That luncheon is on Wednesday May 22 as well as the three Solar Building sessions so if you can only attend for one day, that might be a good one. https://ases.org/conference/schedule/ Plus the Climate Ride is late Wednesday afternoon. I will be doing the walking part and welcome others to join me either as part of my team or one of your own. https://support.climateride.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=885

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Hi Keith,

Glad you are excited about the idea of the Technical Divisions of ASES creating one-page infographics on the various subjects that relate to each division. You asked:

By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? 

Yes! I guess what used to be called brochures in the paper days. If members have one-page examples to share, that would be good. I seem to remember that someone in ASES created some recently - Ella?  I could see a template being provided for all to use. 

Before anything becomes officially promoted by each division, I think it would be fun (and educational) to have ASES members submit one-page infographics about subjects that they feel particularly knowledgeable about in the division in which they are a member, or have an interest in joining. That would be one way to get an informal peer review first. The information could be pulled from the educational portion of your website, a paper or poster, or a webinar.  Those going to the conference (in person or virtually) could post them on the conference platform. I can also see some good ones being developed out of the conference material. ASES's mission is education-based and much of that knowledge is held by members.

I'd like to suggest that when you are ready to share one, you start the Subject line of the posting with: Infographic, (tech division name), (short infographic name). For instance, Keith's could be: Infographic, Solar Buildings, Ambient Energy

Excited to see what develops! 

Debbie,

Great idea. I copied below the Key Messages from our workshop white paper. By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? Good plan to involve Solar Building Division members. Feedback welcomed from this forum, as well.

Key Messages

1.   Ambient energy (from sun, air, ground, and sky) can heat and cool buildings; provide hot water, ventilation and daylighting; dry clothes; and cook food. These services account for about three-quarters of building energy consumption and a third of total US demand. Biophilic design (direct and indirect connections with nature) is an intrinsic adjunct to ambient energy systems, and improves wellness and human performance.

2.   The current strategy of electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not meet our climate goals, because the transition to an all-renewable electric grid is too slow. Widespread adoption of ambient energy is needed. Solar-heated buildings also flatten the seasonal demand for electricity compared to all-electric buildings, reducing required production capacity and long-term energy storage. In addition, ambient-conditioned buildings improve resilience by remaining livable during power outages. 

3.   National policies, incentives, and marketing should be enacted to promote ambient energy use. Federal administrative priorities should reflect the importance of ambient energy for buildings. Use of ambient energy should be encouraged through existing and new building codes and standards.

4.   Ambient energy system design tools are needed for architects, engineers, builders, building scientists, realtors, appraisers, and consumers. PVWatts is used over 100 million times per year for photovoltaic system design. A similar, simple, and accessible tool for ambient design is crucial.

5.   Training on ambient energy is needed throughout secondary, post-secondary, and continuing education for workforce development. Currently, only about 10% of colleges teach courses on passive heating and cooling systems.

6.   Ambient-conditioned buildings should be demonstrated in all US climate zones. Performance should be monitored and reported, with quantitative case studies made widely available.

7.   While current technology is sufficient to build high-performance ambient buildings now, research is needed to develop new technologies to harness ambient energy more effectively and more economically.  Such advancements will facilitate adoption of ambient energy technologies in a wider range of buildings, including retrofits. Examples include windows with much lower thermal losses, use of the building shell as thermal storage, alternative light-weight thermal storage systems, sky radiation cooling systems, automated controls for solar gains and passive cooling, and ground coupling.

Great points, Keith,  I think an attractive, simple-to-read infographic illustrating these points could be a beneficial document that ASES could distribute if you were interested in developing one for the Solar Buildings Division to review. Maybe each division could try to have a simple one-page document on main subjects within that division that could optionally then be included in Solar Today as well. https://ases.org/about/about-us/divisions/

For those of you at SOLAR  2024 in DC in May, let's discuss these issues at the Division Luncheon.  That luncheon is on Wednesday May 22 as well as the three Solar Building sessions so if you can only attend for one day, that might be a good one. https://ases.org/conference/schedule/ Plus the Climate Ride is late Wednesday afternoon. I will be doing the walking part and welcome others to join me either as part of my team or one of your own. https://support.climateride.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=885

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

@Ella Nielsen, I'd like to invite you to join this conversation about the infographic. 

Hi Keith,

Glad you are excited about the idea of the Technical Divisions of ASES creating one-page infographics on the various subjects that relate to each division. You asked:

By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? 

Yes! I guess what used to be called brochures in the paper days. If members have one-page examples to share, that would be good. I seem to remember that someone in ASES created some recently - Ella?  I could see a template being provided for all to use. 

Before anything becomes officially promoted by each division, I think it would be fun (and educational) to have ASES members submit one-page infographics about subjects that they feel particularly knowledgeable about in the division in which they are a member, or have an interest in joining. That would be one way to get an informal peer review first. The information could be pulled from the educational portion of your website, a paper or poster, or a webinar.  Those going to the conference (in person or virtually) could post them on the conference platform. I can also see some good ones being developed out of the conference material. ASES's mission is education-based and much of that knowledge is held by members.

I'd like to suggest that when you are ready to share one, you start the Subject line of the posting with: Infographic, (tech division name), (short infographic name). For instance, Keith's could be: Infographic, Solar Buildings, Ambient Energy

Excited to see what develops! 

Debbie,

Great idea. I copied below the Key Messages from our workshop white paper. By infographic, do you mean something with fewer words and more pictures? Good plan to involve Solar Building Division members. Feedback welcomed from this forum, as well.

Key Messages

1.   Ambient energy (from sun, air, ground, and sky) can heat and cool buildings; provide hot water, ventilation and daylighting; dry clothes; and cook food. These services account for about three-quarters of building energy consumption and a third of total US demand. Biophilic design (direct and indirect connections with nature) is an intrinsic adjunct to ambient energy systems, and improves wellness and human performance.

2.   The current strategy of electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not meet our climate goals, because the transition to an all-renewable electric grid is too slow. Widespread adoption of ambient energy is needed. Solar-heated buildings also flatten the seasonal demand for electricity compared to all-electric buildings, reducing required production capacity and long-term energy storage. In addition, ambient-conditioned buildings improve resilience by remaining livable during power outages. 

3.   National policies, incentives, and marketing should be enacted to promote ambient energy use. Federal administrative priorities should reflect the importance of ambient energy for buildings. Use of ambient energy should be encouraged through existing and new building codes and standards.

4.   Ambient energy system design tools are needed for architects, engineers, builders, building scientists, realtors, appraisers, and consumers. PVWatts is used over 100 million times per year for photovoltaic system design. A similar, simple, and accessible tool for ambient design is crucial.

5.   Training on ambient energy is needed throughout secondary, post-secondary, and continuing education for workforce development. Currently, only about 10% of colleges teach courses on passive heating and cooling systems.

6.   Ambient-conditioned buildings should be demonstrated in all US climate zones. Performance should be monitored and reported, with quantitative case studies made widely available.

7.   While current technology is sufficient to build high-performance ambient buildings now, research is needed to develop new technologies to harness ambient energy more effectively and more economically.  Such advancements will facilitate adoption of ambient energy technologies in a wider range of buildings, including retrofits. Examples include windows with much lower thermal losses, use of the building shell as thermal storage, alternative light-weight thermal storage systems, sky radiation cooling systems, automated controls for solar gains and passive cooling, and ground coupling.

Great points, Keith,  I think an attractive, simple-to-read infographic illustrating these points could be a beneficial document that ASES could distribute if you were interested in developing one for the Solar Buildings Division to review. Maybe each division could try to have a simple one-page document on main subjects within that division that could optionally then be included in Solar Today as well. https://ases.org/about/about-us/divisions/

For those of you at SOLAR  2024 in DC in May, let's discuss these issues at the Division Luncheon.  That luncheon is on Wednesday May 22 as well as the three Solar Building sessions so if you can only attend for one day, that might be a good one. https://ases.org/conference/schedule/ Plus the Climate Ride is late Wednesday afternoon. I will be doing the walking part and welcome others to join me either as part of my team or one of your own. https://support.climateride.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=885

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Sorry for the delay in responding. Other commitments got in the way, including the ASES conference.

"it can only be implemented on new construction." Simply not true. Sure, there are some existing buildings for which using ambient conditioning would be challenging or essentially impossible. Lack of solar access may a deal killer for a particular building, but district heating is another option. There are also those for which ambient remodeling would be simple. Insulation is straight-forward to add in many cases. Similarly, windows are easy to upgrade and relocate. Adding thermal mass can be a challenge, but slab-on-grade houses already have a lot of mass, which may be a large fraction of that necessary to get to 100%. Air sealing typically amounts to a little caulking and a lot of labor. It can be done.

"Mother nature would be happier with the latter (renewable power)." As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" ;^) An ambient-conditioned building uses more insulation, but cellulose (recycled newspaper), arguably the best choice, has negative global warming potential by some measures. Such a building needs no extra windows (just windows in the right places), so that is a wash. Thermal mass, even with today's high carbon concrete, pays back in a few years. An ambient-conditioned building will last for decades for little maintenance and no need for replacement of critical components.

Compare that to the environmental cost of producing PV panels, wires and towers for distribution, and batteries for storage. PV performance degrades at about 1% per year and batteries have to be replaced after a few thousand cycles, causing even greater environmental cost.

It isn't even close. Mother Nature clearly favors ambient-conditioned buildings.

Agreed, capitalism is the crux in the US. However, capitalism can't work when there is so little awareness of other potential solutions. Heat pumps are widely promoted, but finding an architect/builder for an ambient building is hard, even if the consumer knows to look for one. 

The ball, which was picking up speed, was buried in the 1980s. We need to get the ball rolling again. That is where policy comes in.

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

I don't want to go long here. Just not in the mood.

But, I think you are underestimating the ease and cost of home remodeling. District heating, is an urban, high pop density available solution. 

Myself, heating and cooling excluding DHW (I am 90% active solar there) is maybe 20-25% of all my loads. So PV (22MWH's a year) is an excellent solution. I could not drive my 25,000 EV miles a year on heat, for one....

Happy Memorial Day...

Sorry for the delay in responding. Other commitments got in the way, including the ASES conference.

"it can only be implemented on new construction." Simply not true. Sure, there are some existing buildings for which using ambient conditioning would be challenging or essentially impossible. Lack of solar access may a deal killer for a particular building, but district heating is another option. There are also those for which ambient remodeling would be simple. Insulation is straight-forward to add in many cases. Similarly, windows are easy to upgrade and relocate. Adding thermal mass can be a challenge, but slab-on-grade houses already have a lot of mass, which may be a large fraction of that necessary to get to 100%. Air sealing typically amounts to a little caulking and a lot of labor. It can be done.

"Mother nature would be happier with the latter (renewable power)." As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" ;^) An ambient-conditioned building uses more insulation, but cellulose (recycled newspaper), arguably the best choice, has negative global warming potential by some measures. Such a building needs no extra windows (just windows in the right places), so that is a wash. Thermal mass, even with today's high carbon concrete, pays back in a few years. An ambient-conditioned building will last for decades for little maintenance and no need for replacement of critical components.

Compare that to the environmental cost of producing PV panels, wires and towers for distribution, and batteries for storage. PV performance degrades at about 1% per year and batteries have to be replaced after a few thousand cycles, causing even greater environmental cost.

It isn't even close. Mother Nature clearly favors ambient-conditioned buildings.

Agreed, capitalism is the crux in the US. However, capitalism can't work when there is so little awareness of other potential solutions. Heat pumps are widely promoted, but finding an architect/builder for an ambient building is hard, even if the consumer knows to look for one. 

The ball, which was picking up speed, was buried in the 1980s. We need to get the ball rolling again. That is where policy comes in.

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Hopefully, I have made my point that, even though it can be challenging for some existing buildings, ambient conditioning isn't just for new construction. My family have been builders for four generations that we know of. Maybe longer if we dug into ancestry. So I know a bit about remodeling.

Thumbs up for solar thermal hot water. So much better for our climate goals that heat pump water heaters.

We should remember that the ultimate goal is to eliminate fossil fuel combustion and carbon emissions. Unless you have storage, your PV is only powering heating and cooling for about 8 hours of a 24 hour day (when the sun is out). For the other two thirds of the day, your utility is burning fossil fuels (their PV doesn't work at night either) to send you electricity to heat/cool your house. Ambient conditioning can serve for the entire day because of its inherent thermal mass. It is built-in storage.

Another way to look at this is that when you are using PV for heating or cooling, you can't use it for appliances, EVs, etc. That means you need more PV to cover those loads that truly need electricity. Then when you are not heating or cooling, you have extra for which your utility may or may not pay you a fair price to feed into the grid. With ambient conditioning, you could power everything that requires electricity with 20-25% fewer PV panels, and worry less about net metering.

I don't want to go long here. Just not in the mood.

But, I think you are underestimating the ease and cost of home remodeling. District heating, is an urban, high pop density available solution. 

Myself, heating and cooling excluding DHW (I am 90% active solar there) is maybe 20-25% of all my loads. So PV (22MWH's a year) is an excellent solution. I could not drive my 25,000 EV miles a year on heat, for one....

Happy Memorial Day...

Sorry for the delay in responding. Other commitments got in the way, including the ASES conference.

"it can only be implemented on new construction." Simply not true. Sure, there are some existing buildings for which using ambient conditioning would be challenging or essentially impossible. Lack of solar access may a deal killer for a particular building, but district heating is another option. There are also those for which ambient remodeling would be simple. Insulation is straight-forward to add in many cases. Similarly, windows are easy to upgrade and relocate. Adding thermal mass can be a challenge, but slab-on-grade houses already have a lot of mass, which may be a large fraction of that necessary to get to 100%. Air sealing typically amounts to a little caulking and a lot of labor. It can be done.

"Mother nature would be happier with the latter (renewable power)." As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" ;^) An ambient-conditioned building uses more insulation, but cellulose (recycled newspaper), arguably the best choice, has negative global warming potential by some measures. Such a building needs no extra windows (just windows in the right places), so that is a wash. Thermal mass, even with today's high carbon concrete, pays back in a few years. An ambient-conditioned building will last for decades for little maintenance and no need for replacement of critical components.

Compare that to the environmental cost of producing PV panels, wires and towers for distribution, and batteries for storage. PV performance degrades at about 1% per year and batteries have to be replaced after a few thousand cycles, causing even greater environmental cost.

It isn't even close. Mother Nature clearly favors ambient-conditioned buildings.

Agreed, capitalism is the crux in the US. However, capitalism can't work when there is so little awareness of other potential solutions. Heat pumps are widely promoted, but finding an architect/builder for an ambient building is hard, even if the consumer knows to look for one. 

The ball, which was picking up speed, was buried in the 1980s. We need to get the ball rolling again. That is where policy comes in.

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

You can definitely retrofit insulation, but in our current economic model, the payback period is very long since the cost is usually high... ie you typically have to rip off the siding, tear out windows and doors, add insulation and any necessary support structure, then put it all back.  That said, I agree, long term, it's still the way to go.  it makes the most sense to do it when you're already doing a major remodel--in fact it's tragic that major remodels happen without adding significant insulation.  It's also tragic that it's hard to find good windows.

Riding my bike around Seattle (where I live) I see older homes getting torn down all the time and replaced with... well, built to current energy code (ie mediocre insulation) and windows randomly pointing everywhere (and often too large). It's always 10 (or 100) of those for every one built that actually has good insulation... I suspect that's the case all over the country.  Plus most urban areas were laid out with complete  disregard to solar access.

To me, it's a question of how to get people to change their mindset, but given that we're not a culture that thinks particularly long term, I don't see this happening anytime soon.  Super-insulated, passive building are an investment in the future.  That said, there is a contingent that argues that cheap ubiquitous storage (batteries or whatever) is a more straightforward solution.  Still, it's a lot easier if buildings all took a passive approach.

Hopefully, I have made my point that, even though it can be challenging for some existing buildings, ambient conditioning isn't just for new construction. My family have been builders for four generations that we know of. Maybe longer if we dug into ancestry. So I know a bit about remodeling.

Thumbs up for solar thermal hot water. So much better for our climate goals that heat pump water heaters.

We should remember that the ultimate goal is to eliminate fossil fuel combustion and carbon emissions. Unless you have storage, your PV is only powering heating and cooling for about 8 hours of a 24 hour day (when the sun is out). For the other two thirds of the day, your utility is burning fossil fuels (their PV doesn't work at night either) to send you electricity to heat/cool your house. Ambient conditioning can serve for the entire day because of its inherent thermal mass. It is built-in storage.

Another way to look at this is that when you are using PV for heating or cooling, you can't use it for appliances, EVs, etc. That means you need more PV to cover those loads that truly need electricity. Then when you are not heating or cooling, you have extra for which your utility may or may not pay you a fair price to feed into the grid. With ambient conditioning, you could power everything that requires electricity with 20-25% fewer PV panels, and worry less about net metering.

I don't want to go long here. Just not in the mood.

But, I think you are underestimating the ease and cost of home remodeling. District heating, is an urban, high pop density available solution. 

Myself, heating and cooling excluding DHW (I am 90% active solar there) is maybe 20-25% of all my loads. So PV (22MWH's a year) is an excellent solution. I could not drive my 25,000 EV miles a year on heat, for one....

Happy Memorial Day...

Sorry for the delay in responding. Other commitments got in the way, including the ASES conference.

"it can only be implemented on new construction." Simply not true. Sure, there are some existing buildings for which using ambient conditioning would be challenging or essentially impossible. Lack of solar access may a deal killer for a particular building, but district heating is another option. There are also those for which ambient remodeling would be simple. Insulation is straight-forward to add in many cases. Similarly, windows are easy to upgrade and relocate. Adding thermal mass can be a challenge, but slab-on-grade houses already have a lot of mass, which may be a large fraction of that necessary to get to 100%. Air sealing typically amounts to a little caulking and a lot of labor. It can be done.

"Mother nature would be happier with the latter (renewable power)." As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" ;^) An ambient-conditioned building uses more insulation, but cellulose (recycled newspaper), arguably the best choice, has negative global warming potential by some measures. Such a building needs no extra windows (just windows in the right places), so that is a wash. Thermal mass, even with today's high carbon concrete, pays back in a few years. An ambient-conditioned building will last for decades for little maintenance and no need for replacement of critical components.

Compare that to the environmental cost of producing PV panels, wires and towers for distribution, and batteries for storage. PV performance degrades at about 1% per year and batteries have to be replaced after a few thousand cycles, causing even greater environmental cost.

It isn't even close. Mother Nature clearly favors ambient-conditioned buildings.

Agreed, capitalism is the crux in the US. However, capitalism can't work when there is so little awareness of other potential solutions. Heat pumps are widely promoted, but finding an architect/builder for an ambient building is hard, even if the consumer knows to look for one. 

The ball, which was picking up speed, was buried in the 1980s. We need to get the ball rolling again. That is where policy comes in.

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

You can definitely retrofit insulation, but in our current economic model, the payback period is very long since the cost is usually high... ie you typically have to rip off the siding, tear out windows and doors, add insulation and any necessary support structure, then put it all back.  That said, I agree, long term, it's still the way to go.  it makes the most sense to do it when you're already doing a major remodel--in fact it's tragic that major remodels happen without adding significant insulation.  It's also tragic that it's hard to find good windows.

Riding my bike around Seattle (where I live) I see older homes getting torn down all the time and replaced with... well, built to current energy code (ie mediocre insulation) and windows randomly pointing everywhere (and often too large). It's always 10 (or 100) of those for every one built that actually has good insulation... I suspect that's the case all over the country.  Plus most urban areas were laid out with complete  disregard to solar access.

To me, it's a question of how to get people to change their mindset, but given that we're not a culture that thinks particularly long term, I don't see this happening anytime soon.  Super-insulated, passive building are an investment in the future.  That said, there is a contingent that argues that cheap ubiquitous storage (batteries or whatever) is a more straightforward solution.  Still, it's a lot easier if buildings all took a passive approach.

Hopefully, I have made my point that, even though it can be challenging for some existing buildings, ambient conditioning isn't just for new construction. My family have been builders for four generations that we know of. Maybe longer if we dug into ancestry. So I know a bit about remodeling.

Thumbs up for solar thermal hot water. So much better for our climate goals that heat pump water heaters.

We should remember that the ultimate goal is to eliminate fossil fuel combustion and carbon emissions. Unless you have storage, your PV is only powering heating and cooling for about 8 hours of a 24 hour day (when the sun is out). For the other two thirds of the day, your utility is burning fossil fuels (their PV doesn't work at night either) to send you electricity to heat/cool your house. Ambient conditioning can serve for the entire day because of its inherent thermal mass. It is built-in storage.

Another way to look at this is that when you are using PV for heating or cooling, you can't use it for appliances, EVs, etc. That means you need more PV to cover those loads that truly need electricity. Then when you are not heating or cooling, you have extra for which your utility may or may not pay you a fair price to feed into the grid. With ambient conditioning, you could power everything that requires electricity with 20-25% fewer PV panels, and worry less about net metering.

I don't want to go long here. Just not in the mood.

But, I think you are underestimating the ease and cost of home remodeling. District heating, is an urban, high pop density available solution. 

Myself, heating and cooling excluding DHW (I am 90% active solar there) is maybe 20-25% of all my loads. So PV (22MWH's a year) is an excellent solution. I could not drive my 25,000 EV miles a year on heat, for one....

Happy Memorial Day...

Sorry for the delay in responding. Other commitments got in the way, including the ASES conference.

"it can only be implemented on new construction." Simply not true. Sure, there are some existing buildings for which using ambient conditioning would be challenging or essentially impossible. Lack of solar access may a deal killer for a particular building, but district heating is another option. There are also those for which ambient remodeling would be simple. Insulation is straight-forward to add in many cases. Similarly, windows are easy to upgrade and relocate. Adding thermal mass can be a challenge, but slab-on-grade houses already have a lot of mass, which may be a large fraction of that necessary to get to 100%. Air sealing typically amounts to a little caulking and a lot of labor. It can be done.

"Mother nature would be happier with the latter (renewable power)." As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" ;^) An ambient-conditioned building uses more insulation, but cellulose (recycled newspaper), arguably the best choice, has negative global warming potential by some measures. Such a building needs no extra windows (just windows in the right places), so that is a wash. Thermal mass, even with today's high carbon concrete, pays back in a few years. An ambient-conditioned building will last for decades for little maintenance and no need for replacement of critical components.

Compare that to the environmental cost of producing PV panels, wires and towers for distribution, and batteries for storage. PV performance degrades at about 1% per year and batteries have to be replaced after a few thousand cycles, causing even greater environmental cost.

It isn't even close. Mother Nature clearly favors ambient-conditioned buildings.

Agreed, capitalism is the crux in the US. However, capitalism can't work when there is so little awareness of other potential solutions. Heat pumps are widely promoted, but finding an architect/builder for an ambient building is hard, even if the consumer knows to look for one. 

The ball, which was picking up speed, was buried in the 1980s. We need to get the ball rolling again. That is where policy comes in.

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

You can definitely retrofit insulation, but in our current economic model, the payback period is very long since the cost is usually high... ie you typically have to rip off the siding, tear out windows and doors, add insulation and any necessary support structure, then put it all back.  That said, I agree, long term, it's still the way to go.  it makes the most sense to do it when you're already doing a major remodel--in fact it's tragic that major remodels happen without adding significant insulation.  It's also tragic that it's hard to find good windows.

Riding my bike around Seattle (where I live) I see older homes getting torn down all the time and replaced with... well, built to current energy code (ie mediocre insulation) and windows randomly pointing everywhere (and often too large). It's always 10 (or 100) of those for every one built that actually has good insulation... I suspect that's the case all over the country.  Plus most urban areas were laid out with complete  disregard to solar access.

To me, it's a question of how to get people to change their mindset, but given that we're not a culture that thinks particularly long term, I don't see this happening anytime soon.  Super-insulated, passive building are an investment in the future.  That said, there is a contingent that argues that cheap ubiquitous storage (batteries or whatever) is a more straightforward solution.  Still, it's a lot easier if buildings all took a passive approach.

------------------------------
Bob Scheulen

Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2024 08:28 AM
From: M Keith Sharp
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

Hopefully, I have made my point that, even though it can be challenging for some existing buildings, ambient conditioning isn't just for new construction. My family have been builders for four generations that we know of. Maybe longer if we dug into ancestry. So I know a bit about remodeling.

Thumbs up for solar thermal hot water. So much better for our climate goals that heat pump water heaters.

We should remember that the ultimate goal is to eliminate fossil fuel combustion and carbon emissions. Unless you have storage, your PV is only powering heating and cooling for about 8 hours of a 24 hour day (when the sun is out). For the other two thirds of the day, your utility is burning fossil fuels (their PV doesn't work at night either) to send you electricity to heat/cool your house. Ambient conditioning can serve for the entire day because of its inherent thermal mass. It is built-in storage.

Another way to look at this is that when you are using PV for heating or cooling, you can't use it for appliances, EVs, etc. That means you need more PV to cover those loads that truly need electricity. Then when you are not heating or cooling, you have extra for which your utility may or may not pay you a fair price to feed into the grid. With ambient conditioning, you could power everything that requires electricity with 20-25% fewer PV panels, and worry less about net metering.

------------------------------
M Keith Sharp
Emeritus Professor
Louisville KY

Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2024 05:15 PM
From: william fitch
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

I don't want to go long here. Just not in the mood.

But, I think you are underestimating the ease and cost of home remodeling. District heating, is an urban, high pop density available solution. 

Myself, heating and cooling excluding DHW (I am 90% active solar there) is maybe 20-25% of all my loads. So PV (22MWH's a year) is an excellent solution. I could not drive my 25,000 EV miles a year on heat, for one....

Happy Memorial Day...

------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com

Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2024 11:04 AM
From: M Keith Sharp
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

Sorry for the delay in responding. Other commitments got in the way, including the ASES conference.

"it can only be implemented on new construction." Simply not true. Sure, there are some existing buildings for which using ambient conditioning would be challenging or essentially impossible. Lack of solar access may a deal killer for a particular building, but district heating is another option. There are also those for which ambient remodeling would be simple. Insulation is straight-forward to add in many cases. Similarly, windows are easy to upgrade and relocate. Adding thermal mass can be a challenge, but slab-on-grade houses already have a lot of mass, which may be a large fraction of that necessary to get to 100%. Air sealing typically amounts to a little caulking and a lot of labor. It can be done.

"Mother nature would be happier with the latter (renewable power)." As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" ;^) An ambient-conditioned building uses more insulation, but cellulose (recycled newspaper), arguably the best choice, has negative global warming potential by some measures. Such a building needs no extra windows (just windows in the right places), so that is a wash. Thermal mass, even with today's high carbon concrete, pays back in a few years. An ambient-conditioned building will last for decades for little maintenance and no need for replacement of critical components.

Compare that to the environmental cost of producing PV panels, wires and towers for distribution, and batteries for storage. PV performance degrades at about 1% per year and batteries have to be replaced after a few thousand cycles, causing even greater environmental cost.

It isn't even close. Mother Nature clearly favors ambient-conditioned buildings.

Agreed, capitalism is the crux in the US. However, capitalism can't work when there is so little awareness of other potential solutions. Heat pumps are widely promoted, but finding an architect/builder for an ambient building is hard, even if the consumer knows to look for one. 

The ball, which was picking up speed, was buried in the 1980s. We need to get the ball rolling again. That is where policy comes in.

------------------------------
M Keith Sharp
Emeritus Professor
Louisville KY

Original Message:
Sent: 05-01-2024 05:43 PM
From: william fitch
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com

Original Message:
Sent: 04-02-2024 06:48 AM
From: M Keith Sharp
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

------------------------------
M Keith Sharp
Emeritus Professor
Louisville KY

Original Message:
Sent: 03-29-2024 02:18 PM
From: Kat Friedrich
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

------------------------------
Kat Friedrich
Editor in Chief
American Solar Energy Society
Monona WI
------------------------------

Bob,

    I agree with most of what you say. The main issue is "cheap batteries." Batteries are not the whole picture. The latest estimates for a 100% renewable grid are $8 - $21 trillion, which includes the other important pieces, namely renewable generation, transmission lines and utility-scale storage. The fraction of this needed just for heating and cooling translates to $14K to $50K per building in the US. Most new and lots of existing buildings could be conditioned with ambient energy for less.

     We need a national program to increase awareness and easy-to-use software tools for designing ambient buildings. Improved building codes would make a big difference. Below is an incomplete plot of the progression of IECC minimum wall R-vale for climate zone 5 as an example. Another step to R-45 would a level at which many buildings could be near 100% ambient conditioned if the rest of the components were designed well, including the right windows, air-sealing and thermal mass. 

You can definitely retrofit insulation, but in our current economic model, the payback period is very long since the cost is usually high... ie you typically have to rip off the siding, tear out windows and doors, add insulation and any necessary support structure, then put it all back.  That said, I agree, long term, it's still the way to go.  it makes the most sense to do it when you're already doing a major remodel--in fact it's tragic that major remodels happen without adding significant insulation.  It's also tragic that it's hard to find good windows.

Riding my bike around Seattle (where I live) I see older homes getting torn down all the time and replaced with... well, built to current energy code (ie mediocre insulation) and windows randomly pointing everywhere (and often too large). It's always 10 (or 100) of those for every one built that actually has good insulation... I suspect that's the case all over the country.  Plus most urban areas were laid out with complete  disregard to solar access.

To me, it's a question of how to get people to change their mindset, but given that we're not a culture that thinks particularly long term, I don't see this happening anytime soon.  Super-insulated, passive building are an investment in the future.  That said, there is a contingent that argues that cheap ubiquitous storage (batteries or whatever) is a more straightforward solution.  Still, it's a lot easier if buildings all took a passive approach.

Hopefully, I have made my point that, even though it can be challenging for some existing buildings, ambient conditioning isn't just for new construction. My family have been builders for four generations that we know of. Maybe longer if we dug into ancestry. So I know a bit about remodeling.

Thumbs up for solar thermal hot water. So much better for our climate goals that heat pump water heaters.

We should remember that the ultimate goal is to eliminate fossil fuel combustion and carbon emissions. Unless you have storage, your PV is only powering heating and cooling for about 8 hours of a 24 hour day (when the sun is out). For the other two thirds of the day, your utility is burning fossil fuels (their PV doesn't work at night either) to send you electricity to heat/cool your house. Ambient conditioning can serve for the entire day because of its inherent thermal mass. It is built-in storage.

Another way to look at this is that when you are using PV for heating or cooling, you can't use it for appliances, EVs, etc. That means you need more PV to cover those loads that truly need electricity. Then when you are not heating or cooling, you have extra for which your utility may or may not pay you a fair price to feed into the grid. With ambient conditioning, you could power everything that requires electricity with 20-25% fewer PV panels, and worry less about net metering.

I don't want to go long here. Just not in the mood.

But, I think you are underestimating the ease and cost of home remodeling. District heating, is an urban, high pop density available solution. 

Myself, heating and cooling excluding DHW (I am 90% active solar there) is maybe 20-25% of all my loads. So PV (22MWH's a year) is an excellent solution. I could not drive my 25,000 EV miles a year on heat, for one....

Happy Memorial Day...

Sorry for the delay in responding. Other commitments got in the way, including the ASES conference.

"it can only be implemented on new construction." Simply not true. Sure, there are some existing buildings for which using ambient conditioning would be challenging or essentially impossible. Lack of solar access may a deal killer for a particular building, but district heating is another option. There are also those for which ambient remodeling would be simple. Insulation is straight-forward to add in many cases. Similarly, windows are easy to upgrade and relocate. Adding thermal mass can be a challenge, but slab-on-grade houses already have a lot of mass, which may be a large fraction of that necessary to get to 100%. Air sealing typically amounts to a little caulking and a lot of labor. It can be done.

"Mother nature would be happier with the latter (renewable power)." As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" ;^) An ambient-conditioned building uses more insulation, but cellulose (recycled newspaper), arguably the best choice, has negative global warming potential by some measures. Such a building needs no extra windows (just windows in the right places), so that is a wash. Thermal mass, even with today's high carbon concrete, pays back in a few years. An ambient-conditioned building will last for decades for little maintenance and no need for replacement of critical components.

Compare that to the environmental cost of producing PV panels, wires and towers for distribution, and batteries for storage. PV performance degrades at about 1% per year and batteries have to be replaced after a few thousand cycles, causing even greater environmental cost.

It isn't even close. Mother Nature clearly favors ambient-conditioned buildings.

Agreed, capitalism is the crux in the US. However, capitalism can't work when there is so little awareness of other potential solutions. Heat pumps are widely promoted, but finding an architect/builder for an ambient building is hard, even if the consumer knows to look for one. 

The ball, which was picking up speed, was buried in the 1980s. We need to get the ball rolling again. That is where policy comes in.

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

I agree storage is key--at least in terms of technical problems.  The rest of the problem is cultural/political---ie what we will actually choose to do.  Building codes help, but they often turn political, resulting in something that doesn't make anyone happy.  I'd rather see code go to a max heat loss at some standard design conditions (probably varying by climate zone) than the current prescriptive codes, but then I've seen passivehouse certified buildings (ie not really prescriptive) that are only passive in the sense that they highly engineered thermos bottles that really ignore passive solar.  If you want a passive solar building you have to think in those terms and accept a larger daily temperature fluctuation than most people are accustomed to (even though my experience is that it's still typically only 6F.. although I stayed in an earthship for a few days once...the temperature varied about 20F one day...although would probably be less than half that with decent glass and better insulation.).

But besides building operation, there is still the transportation sector, and consumption of goods and services,  and increasingly also energy sucking computers... not to mention the embodied energy in construction, where sadly most buildings don't last 100+ years, and a building industry that has never been very forward looking. The technical problem is hard enough, but the people problems seems harder.

If i had my way, I'd live in some little community where cars are all out on the periphery and hardly used and most everything I needed I could get by walking, biking or public transit, much of my food was local, and most everything I owned was both durable and repairable.  Having local energy production meet most of my needs is just part of that picture.  Even ignoring climate change, and all the other problems with fossil fuels, this still seems like the best way to live (to me anyhow).  Obvious in addition to having to completely change the built environment, this means PV/wind/etc, local storage and some transmission line capacity.  While I suspect many ASES members would have similar dreams, the general population doesn't seem to share our desires.

Information helps, building codes will help, technical breakthrus in storage will help, but I still think this is fundamentally a people problem

Bob,

    I agree with most of what you say. The main issue is "cheap batteries." Batteries are not the whole picture. The latest estimates for a 100% renewable grid are $8 - $21 trillion, which includes the other important pieces, namely renewable generation, transmission lines and utility-scale storage. The fraction of this needed just for heating and cooling translates to $14K to $50K per building in the US. Most new and lots of existing buildings could be conditioned with ambient energy for less.

     We need a national program to increase awareness and easy-to-use software tools for designing ambient buildings. Improved building codes would make a big difference. Below is an incomplete plot of the progression of IECC minimum wall R-vale for climate zone 5 as an example. Another step to R-45 would a level at which many buildings could be near 100% ambient conditioned if the rest of the components were designed well, including the right windows, air-sealing and thermal mass. 

You can definitely retrofit insulation, but in our current economic model, the payback period is very long since the cost is usually high... ie you typically have to rip off the siding, tear out windows and doors, add insulation and any necessary support structure, then put it all back.  That said, I agree, long term, it's still the way to go.  it makes the most sense to do it when you're already doing a major remodel--in fact it's tragic that major remodels happen without adding significant insulation.  It's also tragic that it's hard to find good windows.

Riding my bike around Seattle (where I live) I see older homes getting torn down all the time and replaced with... well, built to current energy code (ie mediocre insulation) and windows randomly pointing everywhere (and often too large). It's always 10 (or 100) of those for every one built that actually has good insulation... I suspect that's the case all over the country.  Plus most urban areas were laid out with complete  disregard to solar access.

To me, it's a question of how to get people to change their mindset, but given that we're not a culture that thinks particularly long term, I don't see this happening anytime soon.  Super-insulated, passive building are an investment in the future.  That said, there is a contingent that argues that cheap ubiquitous storage (batteries or whatever) is a more straightforward solution.  Still, it's a lot easier if buildings all took a passive approach.

Hopefully, I have made my point that, even though it can be challenging for some existing buildings, ambient conditioning isn't just for new construction. My family have been builders for four generations that we know of. Maybe longer if we dug into ancestry. So I know a bit about remodeling.

Thumbs up for solar thermal hot water. So much better for our climate goals that heat pump water heaters.

We should remember that the ultimate goal is to eliminate fossil fuel combustion and carbon emissions. Unless you have storage, your PV is only powering heating and cooling for about 8 hours of a 24 hour day (when the sun is out). For the other two thirds of the day, your utility is burning fossil fuels (their PV doesn't work at night either) to send you electricity to heat/cool your house. Ambient conditioning can serve for the entire day because of its inherent thermal mass. It is built-in storage.

Another way to look at this is that when you are using PV for heating or cooling, you can't use it for appliances, EVs, etc. That means you need more PV to cover those loads that truly need electricity. Then when you are not heating or cooling, you have extra for which your utility may or may not pay you a fair price to feed into the grid. With ambient conditioning, you could power everything that requires electricity with 20-25% fewer PV panels, and worry less about net metering.

I don't want to go long here. Just not in the mood.

But, I think you are underestimating the ease and cost of home remodeling. District heating, is an urban, high pop density available solution. 

Myself, heating and cooling excluding DHW (I am 90% active solar there) is maybe 20-25% of all my loads. So PV (22MWH's a year) is an excellent solution. I could not drive my 25,000 EV miles a year on heat, for one....

Happy Memorial Day...

Sorry for the delay in responding. Other commitments got in the way, including the ASES conference.

"it can only be implemented on new construction." Simply not true. Sure, there are some existing buildings for which using ambient conditioning would be challenging or essentially impossible. Lack of solar access may a deal killer for a particular building, but district heating is another option. There are also those for which ambient remodeling would be simple. Insulation is straight-forward to add in many cases. Similarly, windows are easy to upgrade and relocate. Adding thermal mass can be a challenge, but slab-on-grade houses already have a lot of mass, which may be a large fraction of that necessary to get to 100%. Air sealing typically amounts to a little caulking and a lot of labor. It can be done.

"Mother nature would be happier with the latter (renewable power)." As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" ;^) An ambient-conditioned building uses more insulation, but cellulose (recycled newspaper), arguably the best choice, has negative global warming potential by some measures. Such a building needs no extra windows (just windows in the right places), so that is a wash. Thermal mass, even with today's high carbon concrete, pays back in a few years. An ambient-conditioned building will last for decades for little maintenance and no need for replacement of critical components.

Compare that to the environmental cost of producing PV panels, wires and towers for distribution, and batteries for storage. PV performance degrades at about 1% per year and batteries have to be replaced after a few thousand cycles, causing even greater environmental cost.

It isn't even close. Mother Nature clearly favors ambient-conditioned buildings.

Agreed, capitalism is the crux in the US. However, capitalism can't work when there is so little awareness of other potential solutions. Heat pumps are widely promoted, but finding an architect/builder for an ambient building is hard, even if the consumer knows to look for one. 

The ball, which was picking up speed, was buried in the 1980s. We need to get the ball rolling again. That is where policy comes in.

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Bob,

    I like the max heating/cooling load limit. The original Passive House limit of 10 W/m^2 is a nice round number, and allows ~100% ambient conditioning in many climates with south glass of 5-10% of the floor area and a reasonable amount of thermal mass. The thermos bottle just needs a few south windows and some mass inside.

   The large temperature swings of classic passive solar buildings are a result of the design. Interesting about the large earthship swings. It makes sense. Large solar gains contribute to high temperature during the day, then large envelope losses cause low temperature at night. With smaller solar gains and smaller losses, swings can be decreased. Your comment motivated me to calculate the swings in my house (see plot). These are the maximum minus the minimum temperature for each 24 hr period during 2022. The swings over 4 F were all during early Jan as the house was warming up after an unusually long storm during the holidays. The house was also unoccupied during the holidays, so a worst-case scenario.

A new program of outreach and education would change some minds, but you are right, some are not interested. That is why I think we need codes that promote ambient buildings. Heard through the grapevine that Massachusetts is considering adopting a Passive House-like building code. It is a good first step.

I agree storage is key--at least in terms of technical problems.  The rest of the problem is cultural/political---ie what we will actually choose to do.  Building codes help, but they often turn political, resulting in something that doesn't make anyone happy.  I'd rather see code go to a max heat loss at some standard design conditions (probably varying by climate zone) than the current prescriptive codes, but then I've seen passivehouse certified buildings (ie not really prescriptive) that are only passive in the sense that they highly engineered thermos bottles that really ignore passive solar.  If you want a passive solar building you have to think in those terms and accept a larger daily temperature fluctuation than most people are accustomed to (even though my experience is that it's still typically only 6F.. although I stayed in an earthship for a few days once...the temperature varied about 20F one day...although would probably be less than half that with decent glass and better insulation.).

But besides building operation, there is still the transportation sector, and consumption of goods and services,  and increasingly also energy sucking computers... not to mention the embodied energy in construction, where sadly most buildings don't last 100+ years, and a building industry that has never been very forward looking. The technical problem is hard enough, but the people problems seems harder.

If i had my way, I'd live in some little community where cars are all out on the periphery and hardly used and most everything I needed I could get by walking, biking or public transit, much of my food was local, and most everything I owned was both durable and repairable.  Having local energy production meet most of my needs is just part of that picture.  Even ignoring climate change, and all the other problems with fossil fuels, this still seems like the best way to live (to me anyhow).  Obvious in addition to having to completely change the built environment, this means PV/wind/etc, local storage and some transmission line capacity.  While I suspect many ASES members would have similar dreams, the general population doesn't seem to share our desires.

Information helps, building codes will help, technical breakthrus in storage will help, but I still think this is fundamentally a people problem

Bob,

    I agree with most of what you say. The main issue is "cheap batteries." Batteries are not the whole picture. The latest estimates for a 100% renewable grid are $8 - $21 trillion, which includes the other important pieces, namely renewable generation, transmission lines and utility-scale storage. The fraction of this needed just for heating and cooling translates to $14K to $50K per building in the US. Most new and lots of existing buildings could be conditioned with ambient energy for less.

     We need a national program to increase awareness and easy-to-use software tools for designing ambient buildings. Improved building codes would make a big difference. Below is an incomplete plot of the progression of IECC minimum wall R-vale for climate zone 5 as an example. Another step to R-45 would a level at which many buildings could be near 100% ambient conditioned if the rest of the components were designed well, including the right windows, air-sealing and thermal mass. 

You can definitely retrofit insulation, but in our current economic model, the payback period is very long since the cost is usually high... ie you typically have to rip off the siding, tear out windows and doors, add insulation and any necessary support structure, then put it all back.  That said, I agree, long term, it's still the way to go.  it makes the most sense to do it when you're already doing a major remodel--in fact it's tragic that major remodels happen without adding significant insulation.  It's also tragic that it's hard to find good windows.

Riding my bike around Seattle (where I live) I see older homes getting torn down all the time and replaced with... well, built to current energy code (ie mediocre insulation) and windows randomly pointing everywhere (and often too large). It's always 10 (or 100) of those for every one built that actually has good insulation... I suspect that's the case all over the country.  Plus most urban areas were laid out with complete  disregard to solar access.

To me, it's a question of how to get people to change their mindset, but given that we're not a culture that thinks particularly long term, I don't see this happening anytime soon.  Super-insulated, passive building are an investment in the future.  That said, there is a contingent that argues that cheap ubiquitous storage (batteries or whatever) is a more straightforward solution.  Still, it's a lot easier if buildings all took a passive approach.

Hopefully, I have made my point that, even though it can be challenging for some existing buildings, ambient conditioning isn't just for new construction. My family have been builders for four generations that we know of. Maybe longer if we dug into ancestry. So I know a bit about remodeling.

Thumbs up for solar thermal hot water. So much better for our climate goals that heat pump water heaters.

We should remember that the ultimate goal is to eliminate fossil fuel combustion and carbon emissions. Unless you have storage, your PV is only powering heating and cooling for about 8 hours of a 24 hour day (when the sun is out). For the other two thirds of the day, your utility is burning fossil fuels (their PV doesn't work at night either) to send you electricity to heat/cool your house. Ambient conditioning can serve for the entire day because of its inherent thermal mass. It is built-in storage.

Another way to look at this is that when you are using PV for heating or cooling, you can't use it for appliances, EVs, etc. That means you need more PV to cover those loads that truly need electricity. Then when you are not heating or cooling, you have extra for which your utility may or may not pay you a fair price to feed into the grid. With ambient conditioning, you could power everything that requires electricity with 20-25% fewer PV panels, and worry less about net metering.

I don't want to go long here. Just not in the mood.

But, I think you are underestimating the ease and cost of home remodeling. District heating, is an urban, high pop density available solution. 

Myself, heating and cooling excluding DHW (I am 90% active solar there) is maybe 20-25% of all my loads. So PV (22MWH's a year) is an excellent solution. I could not drive my 25,000 EV miles a year on heat, for one....

Happy Memorial Day...

Sorry for the delay in responding. Other commitments got in the way, including the ASES conference.

"it can only be implemented on new construction." Simply not true. Sure, there are some existing buildings for which using ambient conditioning would be challenging or essentially impossible. Lack of solar access may a deal killer for a particular building, but district heating is another option. There are also those for which ambient remodeling would be simple. Insulation is straight-forward to add in many cases. Similarly, windows are easy to upgrade and relocate. Adding thermal mass can be a challenge, but slab-on-grade houses already have a lot of mass, which may be a large fraction of that necessary to get to 100%. Air sealing typically amounts to a little caulking and a lot of labor. It can be done.

"Mother nature would be happier with the latter (renewable power)." As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" ;^) An ambient-conditioned building uses more insulation, but cellulose (recycled newspaper), arguably the best choice, has negative global warming potential by some measures. Such a building needs no extra windows (just windows in the right places), so that is a wash. Thermal mass, even with today's high carbon concrete, pays back in a few years. An ambient-conditioned building will last for decades for little maintenance and no need for replacement of critical components.

Compare that to the environmental cost of producing PV panels, wires and towers for distribution, and batteries for storage. PV performance degrades at about 1% per year and batteries have to be replaced after a few thousand cycles, causing even greater environmental cost.

It isn't even close. Mother Nature clearly favors ambient-conditioned buildings.

Agreed, capitalism is the crux in the US. However, capitalism can't work when there is so little awareness of other potential solutions. Heat pumps are widely promoted, but finding an architect/builder for an ambient building is hard, even if the consumer knows to look for one. 

The ball, which was picking up speed, was buried in the 1980s. We need to get the ball rolling again. That is where policy comes in.

The inherent problem with all of the above, or the challenge if you wish, is that really it can only be implemented on new construction. Well over 50% of the existing housing that is being used today, will be around way after 2050, even 2075. Changing over to RE as energy sources is simpler than changing the end user environment.

Even if possible, would you rather upgrade 100,000 home's to use less energy (FF based) or change one power plant from FF to RE powering those 100,000 homes? Mother nature would be happier with the latter. Its allot like choosing to stop burning FF creating CO2 in the air, than to try and take it back, after you already put it there. It is more efficient in a one to many relationship, to change the one, than the many.

That said, I love Super insulated construction and passive solar, when you can do it. Eliminate the loads, eliminate the energy and associated resources. Been around since the 70's and 80's, as noted...

Ultimately, that which gets chosen, makes the most money for Capitalism, which is why all those things have been around and went no where, by the numbers.

Kat,

Buildings account for nearly half of US energy use and a large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are tremendous opportunities for reducing the impact of buildings by adopting policies that promote the use of ambient energy for a wide range of applications, including heating, cooling, hot water, daylighting, ventilation, cooking and clothes drying.

A few facts that could be expanded upon in articles for Solar Today:

1. Electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not solve the problem, because it is projected that utility electricity will still be 44% from fossil fuel by 2050. Net zero buildings are not enough, because at night when PV is not producing, the building is using electricity made from fossil fuels. The building problem will get worse with the expected doubling of built floor area by 2060.
2. Estimates for an all-renewable grid range from 8 to 21 trillion dollars (and even higher). The fraction of that cost just to heat and cool buildings amounts to 14,000 to 50,000 dollars per building. In many cases, ambient energy can accomplish this task for a lot less.
3. Ambient-conditioned buildings are more resilient to power outages, which can be expected to become more frequent as storms become more severe. Where conventional buildings reach uncomfortable and even dangerous temperatures quickly when the power goes out, ambient-conditioned buildings can stay comfortable for days and livable indefinitely.
4. The Department of Energy has no upper level offices devoted to buildings and, in fact, only 7% of its budget is spent on buildings. With the large contribution of buildings to our climate problems, they deserve greater attention.
5. Codes and standards for buildings largely ignore ambient energy. Even worse, IECC 2021, the latest code used in many localities, essentially outlaws passive solar heating in climate zones 0-5, because windows with solar heat gain constant SHGC greater than 0.4 are prohibited.
6. Courses on solar thermal applications are offered at fewer than about 10% of universities.
7. Awareness of the potential of ambient energy is low among builders, realtors, architects, engineers and consumers.
8. The National Renewable Energy Lab hosts PVWatts for designing photovoltaic systems, but similar, easy-to-use software for ambient-conditioned buildings is not available.

These problems are largely policy issues. Technology to construct buildings that can heat and cool themselves with ambient energy has been available for decades. New developments could make such performance easier to accomplish, but marketing and promotion through policy is arguably more important.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

It is clear that the architecture of cities have not been developed with integration of solar energy in mind. Thus, I think policies targeting both existing and new buildings must be concurrently addressed to reduce the environmental impact of energy systems.

Examining solar PV cost figures below reveals that residential PV is notably pricier than commercial or utility PV, with soft costs comprising a significant portion. Implementing shared street side PV systems among multiple apartments or connecting buildings with new short power distribution lines to share PV from parking lots for example, can lead to larger, economically favorable systems beneficial to all. Despite recognized advantages, community solar is still in its infancy, as depicted in the latest figure.

Policies promoting the development of community energy systems, encompassing solar PV, batteries, mini pumped hydro storage, flywheels, ground/water source heat pumps, thermal energy storage, and building insulation, among others, can ensure widespread access to cleaner energy at affordable rates for both residences and businesses.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

It is clear that the architecture of cities have not been developed with integration of solar energy in mind. Thus, I think policies targeting both existing and new buildings must be concurrently addressed to reduce the environmental impact of energy systems.

Examining solar PV cost figures below reveals that residential PV is notably pricier than commercial or utility PV, with soft costs comprising a significant portion. Implementing shared street side PV systems among multiple apartments or connecting buildings with new short power distribution lines to share PV from parking lots for example, can lead to larger, economically favorable systems beneficial to all. Despite recognized advantages, community solar is still in its infancy, as depicted in the latest figure.

Policies promoting the development of community energy systems, encompassing solar PV, batteries, mini pumped hydro storage, flywheels, ground/water source heat pumps, thermal energy storage, and building insulation, among others, can ensure widespread access to cleaner energy at affordable rates for both residences and businesses.

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

One other thing that is a big factor is this. Heating and cooling, accomplished by gening heat or moving it around (AC) is always just that, if taken from sources that are just that. 

Solar thermal, geothermal (low temp), air, as generation can ONLY be used for that. A PV module gens elect which has a high level usage domain. Its output can charge you cell phone, run a computer or TV, run a HP for AC, melt steel or charge your EV if you like. Additionally, it can be transported with little loss over great distances. "Heat" can not be. You pretty much have to use it in place, on site if you wish. Now as currently stands, Solar thermal is way more efficient than PV, but plumbing is also way messier that electrical wiring, and harder to do. You never have to worry about a wire springing a leak and flooding your house. Burn it down maybe, but not flooding. And even Solar thermal has electrical wiring, so still some level of electrical risk.

These reasons and more are why PV was favored over thermal regarding tax credits, grid tie over stand alone for PV, in the PV market, etc. once it became cheap enough to enter the "game" in qty.. (Not $8 a watt).

Regarding the whole info-picture-graphics thing, I think it is a great idea and a year or so ago, created that "cartoon" based one pager, trying to explain (3rd grade level) RE VS the others for PV. But, I am not an artist and really don't know any which you need for these types of things...

Good idea though....

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

There are several states reconsidering net energy metering (NM) to reduce value of residential PV electricity exported to grid . There are some valid reasons based on grid dynamics (duck curve). The utilities also claim it results in cost shifting. They tend to neglect the benefits and only view the costs. It would be good to publish a story explaining the problem, what different states are proposing to address it, and whether these policies would be effective or just decrease the revenue loss from 1:1 offset on PV-customer electic bill.  If these bills go into effect,  residential PV installs might decrease by alot while PV+ battery installs would increase a little.

Steve 

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

There are several states reconsidering net energy metering (NM) to reduce value of residential PV electricity exported to grid . There are some valid reasons based on grid dynamics (duck curve). The utilities also claim it results in cost shifting. They tend to neglect the benefits and only view the costs. It would be good to publish a story explaining the problem, what different states are proposing to address it, and whether these policies would be effective or just decrease the revenue loss from 1:1 offset on PV-customer electic bill.  If these bills go into effect,  residential PV installs might decrease by alot while PV+ battery installs would increase a little.

Steve 

------------------------------
Steven Hegedus
Professor and Senior Scientist
University of Delaware
Newark Delaware

Original Message:
Sent: 03-29-2024 02:18 PM
From: Kat Friedrich
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

------------------------------
Kat Friedrich
Editor in Chief
American Solar Energy Society
Monona WI
------------------------------

Hey Steve:

When I read your blip here, I was going to respond, but then got distracted by my NIMBY dream. However, now that it was satisfied, in short, this whole whining by utilities about bringing production on-line that is not theirs, is such a misdirection.

When have you ever heard a utility refuse to give or complain about bringing a customer on line, do to load conditions and or any associated back feed disruptions? 

"I am sorry, we cannot connect you to the grid because you have to many inductive variances in your load dynamics." 

Yes, like that is ever going to happen. What do they do? They solve the engineering issues and connect them to the grid so they can start getting those "Ben Franklins".

End of story.

I wrote about this in my article:

https://fcfcfcwearesolar.blogspot.com/2021/10/balancing-load.html

which I had posted in the past.

The Gorilla in the room is Demand Destruction, for them. It is that simple.

This is the primary reason the grid should be Socialized, pure and simple. No more regulated monopolies.

------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2024 11:37 AM
From: Steven Hegedus
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

There are several states reconsidering net energy metering (NM) to reduce value of residential PV electricity exported to grid . There are some valid reasons based on grid dynamics (duck curve). The utilities also claim it results in cost shifting. They tend to neglect the benefits and only view the costs. It would be good to publish a story explaining the problem, what different states are proposing to address it, and whether these policies would be effective or just decrease the revenue loss from 1:1 offset on PV-customer electic bill.  If these bills go into effect,  residential PV installs might decrease by alot while PV+ battery installs would increase a little.

Steve 

------------------------------
Steven Hegedus
Professor and Senior Scientist
University of Delaware
Newark Delaware

Original Message:
Sent: 03-29-2024 02:18 PM
From: Kat Friedrich
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

------------------------------
Kat Friedrich
Editor in Chief
American Solar Energy Society
Monona WI
------------------------------

Hey Steve:

When I read your blip here, I was going to respond, but then got distracted by my NIMBY dream. However, now that it was satisfied, in short, this whole whining by utilities about bringing production on-line that is not theirs, is such a misdirection.

When have you ever heard a utility refuse to give or complain about bringing a customer on line, do to load conditions and or any associated back feed disruptions? 

"I am sorry, we cannot connect you to the grid because you have to many inductive variances in your load dynamics." 

Yes, like that is ever going to happen. What do they do? They solve the engineering issues and connect them to the grid so they can start getting those "Ben Franklins".

End of story.

I wrote about this in my article:

https://fcfcfcwearesolar.blogspot.com/2021/10/balancing-load.html

which I had posted in the past.

The Gorilla in the room is Demand Destruction, for them. It is that simple.

This is the primary reason the grid should be Socialized, pure and simple. No more regulated monopolies.

------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com

Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2024 11:37 AM
From: Steven Hegedus
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

There are several states reconsidering net energy metering (NM) to reduce value of residential PV electricity exported to grid . There are some valid reasons based on grid dynamics (duck curve). The utilities also claim it results in cost shifting. They tend to neglect the benefits and only view the costs. It would be good to publish a story explaining the problem, what different states are proposing to address it, and whether these policies would be effective or just decrease the revenue loss from 1:1 offset on PV-customer electic bill.  If these bills go into effect,  residential PV installs might decrease by alot while PV+ battery installs would increase a little.

Steve 

------------------------------
Steven Hegedus
Professor and Senior Scientist
University of Delaware
Newark Delaware

Original Message:
Sent: 03-29-2024 02:18 PM
From: Kat Friedrich
Subject: What policy topics do you think Solar Today should cover this fall?

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

------------------------------
Kat Friedrich
Editor in Chief
American Solar Energy Society
Monona WI
------------------------------

There are several states reconsidering net energy metering (NM) to reduce value of residential PV electricity exported to grid . There are some valid reasons based on grid dynamics (duck curve). The utilities also claim it results in cost shifting. They tend to neglect the benefits and only view the costs. It would be good to publish a story explaining the problem, what different states are proposing to address it, and whether these policies would be effective or just decrease the revenue loss from 1:1 offset on PV-customer electic bill.  If these bills go into effect,  residential PV installs might decrease by alot while PV+ battery installs would increase a little.

Steve 

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles? 

Just saw a study by the DOE that we will need 91,000 miles of high voltage transmission lines by 2035 to meet grid demands.  Yet in 2021 we built 386 miles of new lines (and average 645 miles per year over the past decade).  Anybody have any idea how to square that circle?

We're getting ready to publish an issue of Solar Today this fall that will focus on renewable energy policies in the United States. 

What are some impactful and important policies that you think we should cover? Would any of you be interested in pitching articles?