All posts in the topic Going solar in Minneapolis (Short link)
Summary
- There are 20 posts — by 15 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Jack Ferman at 2007 Jul 05 21:38 UTC
So ... we're doing this remodeling project in the late summer, and along
with replacing our octopus boiler (with a nice asbestos crust), we're
thinking about adding a solar thermal system. (That's the hot-water version,
not the electrical, photovoltaic version.)
The good news is that we have a lot of sun hitting our roof - the solar guys
say it could remove 60 percent of our gas use heating water. (I'll assume
less, but at least it makes for a smaller carbon footprint.)
The bad news is that, because of some south-facing skylights, the panels
would have to extend about five feet above our roof peak.
Does anyone know if the city allows this? I'm going to assume for the sake
of argument that our house doesn't exceed the height limit, and wouldn't
with the solar panels.
The city has a link to the "million solar roofs" campaign. We'd like to be
one of them (while abiding by the zoning code). It'll be interesting to find
out how hard it is.
Any shared knowledge would be much appreciated.
As long as you have adequate support of the solar panels on the north
side, based on manufacturer's specifications, I don't think the city
has rules. Otherwise, it seems just an issue of aesthetics, i.e., I
think it would be butt ugly, to slip into architectural jargon. I
could get used to it as a neighbor, I suppose, but if you're out to
save some gas *and* replacing your furnace, why not look into
geothermal energy as well as solar?
Maybe Justin Eibenholtzl and some of the Southeast Como folks might
chime in with their solar experiences.
David and other Solar Seekers of Minneapolis, Sounds like you might be looking for some pointers that the SouthEast Como neighborhood could help out with. Although a Minneapolis neighborhood, this progressive Neighborhood Revitalization Program neighborhood association has been recognized by the City of St Paul for their environmental efforts that have benefited both the City's of Minneapolis and St. Paul since early 2000. It's been a pleasure working with SECIA over the past few years on many environmental issues. SECIA actually did a solar pilot project starting in 2005 in the City of Minneapolis, where 39 people signed up to install solar thermal and/or solar panels for water heaters over the past two years. I'm sure the installation and inspection questions you have could be answered best by the Enviromental Coordinator Justin Eibenholzl or Jennifer Lee. SECIA's Solar project spearheaded through the maze of the City's codes, inspections, and process to help 20 "Solar Pioneers" (who put half of the money for their panels down up-front for a better bulk purchase price) take advantage of the states rebate incentives and get "Solarize"! This initiative and experience is invaluable when looking at saving money and time to get your solar panels installed. There were alot of kinks during the City process. Some that have since been addressed because of SECIA's leadership and project. With any home project, people like to learn from those that have done the same project before, I'd highly recommend contacting SECIA with your questions. Check out more details about the Solar Pilot Project at _http://www.secomo.org/_ (http://www.secomo.org/) . More Solar Power to You! Amy Luesebrink LBNA/SCNA staff
David,
In the past year, about 19 such solar thermal systems have been
installed on existing homes in Mpls and St. Paul through the South
East Como Improvement Association's Solar Pilot Project. Justin
Eibenholzl, our Environmental Coordinator, spearheaded the project.
I have one of those systems, since last August, and you will indeed
save on gas use. I love mine: in summer months when the furnace is
off I barely use any gas at all--and I cook with gas! I have tons of
super-hot water.
Most pertinently to your question: my house's roof is not at the
correct angle for the solar panels, so the latter had to be installed
up off the roof, rather than laying flat on it. Like yours, except
that my panels are not higher than the peak of the roof.
Luckily, I was having a new roof put on anyway.
The city required (last year) that a structural engineer be hired to
recommend reinforcement of the house's structure, to make sure that
the solar panels would never act like a sail in a big wind and tear
off the roof or do other structural damage. I had to put an extra
cross beam (4" x 10") in the attic, four 4" by 10" beams from it to
the outside wall on the south side, then four 4" x 4" posts up to the
roof deck, all with hurricane ties. To satisfy the city so that they
would issue permits for the solar panels. All very complicated,
especially when the city building inspector then said that "I am not
allowed to climb up on a roof" to inspect the quality of the beams
and posts and hurricane tie work.
Others in our Solar Pilot Project, which involved retrofitting older
homes with solar thermal, did not have quite as extensive a
reinforcement plan; several people have told me that mine was
"overengineered," but I'm cool with having the safest house on the
block when one of our doozie storms comes through.
Justin Eibenholzl at SECIA (612-676-1731; or <email obscured>) has all
the particulars of our Pilot Project participants' experience this
past year.
Good luck! The city has learned some things about retrofits because
of our project and others, and maybe they're not going to quibble
about height for solar.
Connie
Como, in Southeast Mpls
Connie's summary is pretty complete, I don't have much to add. I'm glad
that there are others interested in solar and taking the action steps
necessary to translate good intentions into solar collectors on their
rooftops.
As far as the project goes and City concerns, the main thrust of the City
concerns was liability so they required a structural engineer to sign off on
the installation design and work completed. This cost most people in
Minneapolis between $400-800 just for the engineering consult and the work
to beef up the rooftops cost anywhere from a couple hundred to a couple
thousand--depending on if the home owners did the work themselves, age of
structure, etc... If you're unfamiliar with simpson ties (hurricane ties)
and constructing knee walls, or if you just have an aversion to climbing
into your attic when it is 100 degrees a contractor may be the way to go.
If you're having the work done now or planning it for the near future
letting the contractor know now would be a good thing as many homeowners
found it adventageous to have the updates done as part of other construction
like Connie did. Simpson ties are cheap and easy to install during
construction.
We just held a wrap-up meeting/party last Tuesday and for the 12 homeowners
that participated in Minneapolis the have nothing but good things to say as
they are turning sunshine today into hotwater for tomorrow. One participant
shared the story of how when it was minus 20 in january the water in the
tank was at 110 compare that to the 40 degrees it was coming into my house
and its pretty clear who's saving the $. The participants oriented their
panels in a different way turning them sideways for most of the St.Paul
installations. The owner of Innovative Power Systems lives in St. Paul and
had a good relationship with inspections there and was able to learn from
what happened here in Minneapolis and save those people some major headaches
and some expense.
I hope the City learned as much as the participants and we did in going
through this process. Environmental priorities always seem to get alot of
talk when the heat is on, but seem to fall about 12th on the list as they
have for the last two decades. Hopefully homeowners like you along with
apartment owners and businesses can get this priority bumped up a bit, and
we can help the City see the importance of taking a more active role when it
comes to renewable energy and environment. It is equally important to have
the City recognize the challenges with retrofitting existing structures
which are primarily what we have here in Minneapolis. Developers have
demonstrated they are not ready to build structures with solar panels, green
roofs, or energy efficiency in mind unless they can make a buck. This is
changing, but slower that it should be. There is opportunity for the City
to play a role in policy here also--a duty whose shirking days are coming
quickly to a close.
There's still the federal tax credit which applies to solar thermal systems
which is 30% of the system rebated up to $2000 for residentials (uncapped
for businesses). So the time to do these upgrades is now. Unfortunately,
there are no incentives locally for thermal, besides that you won't pay any
State tax on the solar thermal equipment as it still is for PV panels (as of
2005 for thermal).
I've given you a look at the tip of the iceberg, there's a lot more to it if
people want to know. I haven't even exposed all the benfits, the CO2
reductions, the joy of creating 180 degree water from the sun--never running
out of hot water, washing your clothes in hot or warm for "free". Heating
hot water with the sun's energy is nothing new as all of us know who swim in
the lakes or dip our feet in the kiddie pool. The conversion rate is much
higher too for solar thermal vs electric (30% vs 3-15%). If only thirty
years ago we would have finished what was started in the energy crisis we
wouldn't be in the truly dire straights we are now with our energy decisions
here in Minnepolis causing a whole string of geo-political unrest spanning
this continent and around the globe. The River used to power this mill town
every thing from the grindstones at the Pillsbury A mill to eventually the
electric lights of downtown. In 1911 the power companies saw the demand for
power and built with hand tools and horse drawn equipment the Riverside
power plant fired with coal. That plant is now the oldest in Xcel's system
and generates power in much the same way it did almost a century ago,
burning 4 times the coal it did in 1960 though. About 3million tons of
carbon dioxide come out of that plant along with all the other nasties like
lead, mercury, dioxin, particualte matter.
If we only knew now what we know now, maybe we would we take some action.
>We just held a wrap-up meeting/party last Tuesday and for the 12 homeowners
>that participated in Minneapolis the have nothing but good things to say as
>they are turning sunshine today into hotwater for tomorrow.
But given the growth of the cancer that is crime in
Minneapolis, will those 12 people live here long enough to recoup
their investment?
> One participant
>shared the story of how when it was minus 20 in january the water in the
>tank was at 110 compare that to the 40 degrees it was coming into my house
>and its pretty clear who's saving the $.
In other words, the system was barely able to produce water
above body temperature under no load conditions.
>I hope the City learned as much as the participants and we did in going
>through this process.
Given the Alzimer's like rapid loss of institutional memory
in City Hall, better get that permit application in quick!
> Environmental priorities always seem to get alot of
>talk when the heat is on, but seem to fall about 12th on the list as they
>have for the last two decades. Hopefully homeowners like you along with
>apartment owners and businesses can get this priority bumped up a bit, and
>we can help the City see the importance of taking a more active role when it
>comes to renewable energy and environment.
Good luck, full time Minneapolis politicians can talk the
talk about the environment, but they all get either a city car or a
car allowance. God forbid any citizen should have the nerve to find
an energy source that doesn't pay a "franchise fee" into the city
coffers...
> It is equally important to have
>the City recognize the challenges with retrofitting existing structures
>which are primarily what we have here in Minneapolis. Developers have
>demonstrated they are not ready to build structures with solar panels, green
>roofs, or energy efficiency in mind unless they can make a buck. This is
>changing, but slower that it should be. There is opportunity for the City
>to play a role in policy here also--a duty whose shirking days are coming
>quickly to a close.
A higher priority for the city is to assure the continued
integrity of solar systems- bulletproof solar collectors have yet to
be developed. In fact, many homes in Minneapolis now use no energy at
all to heat water because they've been abandoned due to our city's
out of control crime. I'm glad I didn't sink several thousand dollars
into solar water heating for my home... Bad enough that I have to pay
taxes, water bills, etc.. on a Minneapolis home that I've been chased
out of by crime.
>There's still the federal tax credit which applies to solar thermal systems
>which is 30% of the system rebated up to $2000 for residentials (uncapped
>for businesses). So the time to do these upgrades is now. Unfortunately,
>there are no incentives locally for thermal, besides that you won't pay any
>State tax on the solar thermal equipment as it still is for PV panels (as of
>2005 for thermal).
Even then, the payoff is many years if not decades out. Will
Minneapolis be livable then?
>I've given you a look at the tip of the iceberg, there's a lot more to it if
>people want to know. I haven't even exposed all the benfits, the CO2
>reductions, the joy of creating 180 degree water from the sun--never running
>out of hot water, washing your clothes in hot or warm for "free".
Some people have strange ways of keeping themselves
entertained. No big polluter has lined up to buy greenhouse gas
offsets from any household solar water heater I could install.
> Heating
>hot water with the sun's energy is nothing new as all of us know who swim in
>the lakes or dip our feet in the kiddie pool. The conversion rate is much
>higher too for solar thermal vs electric (30% vs 3-15%).
Agreed, but at the current rate of crime propagation a home
in even the best neighborhood in Minneapolis may be unlivable before
the system has paid for itself. Minneapolis needs to make their city
safe for investment before they can expect the citizens to pour their
hard earned cash into energy improvements that may not pay off for
decades.
>If we only knew now what we know now, maybe we would we take some action.
To stop the criminal's takeover of Minneapolis.
a Minneapolitan taking refuge from crime in Starbuck,
Dyna Skuyter
David,
It looks like you've gotten some good advice from Connie and Justin. I would
further emphasize the structural work you might have to do - they can correct
me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of the 12 SE Como solar projects
featured panels that extended quite so far over the peak. This may enhance the
"sail" effect, so budget in some dollars for the structural work you're likely
to have to do.
There have been some good discussions in Regulatory Services about how to best
serve people, like you, who are considering doing something very positive, but
with which staff have relatively little experience. I believe that Reg.
Services Director Rocco Forte is attempting to include some dollars in his '08
budget request for training his development review staff on dealing with all
current green building techniques, including renewables. The upcoming report
from the Green Institute on the SE Como Solar Pilot Project's experience with
the City's regulatory processes will really help us identify the improvements
we need to make.
I do have one policy question that has come up on a hypothetical basis in
conversations I've had with Zoning staff, on which I'd appreciate some feedback
from folks on this list. If David's house was built to the upper limit (which
I expect to be 30', down from 35' as of this morning, due to CM Hodges' Infill
Housing Ordinance), should the solar panels he wants count towards the overall
height of the house? Should the City require someone in that position to get a
Conditional Use Permit to increase the height of their home? Should solar
panels be treated differently from antennas, or similarly? What do you think?
Lastly, a clarification for Dyna: not all Council Members are taking the car
allowance. I'm not sure which ones are, but Council Member Gordon is not.
Robin Garwood
Aide to Second Ward Council Member Cam Gordon
Cooper neighborhood
Thanks very much for the info & responsiveness, Robin -
The solar-thermal system ain't cheap - early quote is $9,500, not including
structural stuff. With a $2,000 federal rebate, the net is $7,500. The solar
guys claim we'd save 60 percent of our gas use; since we used 1,250 therms last
year, that would amount to 750 fewer therms. At a buck a therm, that's $750 a
year, or a 10-year payback. (Our goal is not pure payback, but it's part of the
picture. I'm assuming the savings will be less than claimed.)
But then there's the structural stuff scares the heck out of me. We have a
finished attic - seemed like a good idea at the time! Plus, another couple
grand - possibly more. And it sounds like I have to pay somebody just to look
at it, whether we do the system or not.
Ironically, we're also considering replacing our 45-percent-efficient octopus
boiler with either an 83 percent or 93 percent efficient boiler. Together with
an indirect water heater (no flame; uses the boiler to heat the water), we're
looking to save about 40 percent of our bill there. But if we do the
high-efficiency boiler/water heater, it actually lengthens the solar payback...
As for the height limit, I hadn't thought I might be caught in the height
lowering. Oh well; Betsy's bill is a good one, and I'm a communitarian guy.
Also, I'm not willing to do something that hurts my neighbor's sunlight. That
would be part of the decision-making process.
I wouldn't be in favor of a blanket "solar waiver" without more study. As a
personal principle, I think my neighbor to the north already gets enough
shading from us and something in the code should preserve her "sun rights." (I
think this should extend throughout the zoning code, but if getting a "solar
variance" means recognizing "sun rights," it's a good place to start.) If there
was no diminution of those rights, I'd favor a waiver of some feet above the
height limit - not sure how many feet, though.
Can anyone refer me to the best city person to talk these things through?
Paul Miller could be the City guy to contact. http://www.swjournal.com/articles/2006/02/21/news/news02.txt This organization which runs an annual Solar Tour could have experts who could help...perhaps tour participants could share their experience. http://www.mnrenewables.org/events/solartour/index.php Don't know if this fellow at 38th and Bryant is still among the living but he could be a resource: http://www.solarhardware.com/ There is a house with solar panels near Urban Bean at 32nd & Bryant but the house is for sale so the residents who installed the solar panels may have moved. So is Kingfield going to follow Como's example and devote NRP money insolar projects? Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
Madeline asks:
So is Kingfield going to follow Como's example and
devote NRP money insolar projects?
Me [wearing my Kingfield Neighborhood Assn. president's hat]:
We will soon unveil a loan program for energy improvements. Up to 10K per
person, 5 years, 5 percent interest rate. Covers lots of things besides solar -
there are many ways to skin the energy-consumption cat - but presumably solar
as well. I don't plan on applying because of my office with the organization.
PS We have lot of other green initiatives in the neighborhood, including a rain
garden (stormwater diversion) program. There are some incredible installations
already. Volunteers welcome to our very active Green committee. See
www.kingfield.org.
My partner and I are trying to buy a home in North Minneapolis. This home is
condemned and in foreclosure so if we get it we will have quite a project and
we will need to hire contractors to bring the house up to current code. We
would like to do as much GREEN rehabilitation as possible including solar
panels if we can (the roof is HUGE and needs to be replaced anyway). We won't
have an enormous amount of money to work with though, roughly $30k and we will
need structural work I am suspecting.
What government, state, federal or local, grants are available to people like
us?
Who has suggestions, tips, hints and anything else helpful for our potential
project?
Much as I hate to interogate a newbie ...it would be interesting to know more about Imperfectly's intentions...a green renovation of a North Minneapolis house for $30K... am I dreaming? $30K might score ya half a new kitchen in SW Mpls... Although if this is real and not a dream and not an investment scheme, there are several agencies that could help. ...would Imperfectly LIVE in this house, be able to keep it out of foreclosure, or find tenants that A. Won't trash the house? B. Be able to survive life in a war zone? James Eli Shiffer has been chronicling the fate of 2717 Penn Ave No to which he has just added a 7th stanza: 2717 Penn Avenue North: the end draws near http://www.buzz.mn/?q=node/1826 ...paging...Dyna Sluyter to respond. Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
Here's some more info for the thread.
The structural costs of adding solar to an existing remodeling project can
be zero or close to zero as it was for Wendy Menken (in Como who did it as
part an attic redo) and most of the people in St. Paul. Hurricane ties,
that's it. The panels weigh less than typical 40-year shingles per sq. ft.
so if you plan early and you work out a bulk discount on structural engineer
time like in a project it doesn't mean lots of expense. But, don't belive
me, ask a Menken.
In the past few years I've paid anywhere between 90cents and $1.95 a therm.
If you look at the 5 year and ten year forecasts for gas prices, doubling is
in the near future. So if your payback is 10 years at a buck a therm at
$2/therm its 5 years ,and $3/therm its 3.33 years--you get the picture. But
don't believe me, read the DOE forecasts or the Green Institute's recent
report on biomass for Rock-Tenn (p.51).
The payback is immediate in some ways, as pointed out by a solar user here
in Como who is also a green architect in the neighborhood. Immediately you
cut those carbon emissions, immediately you generate carbon offsets (which
have a value if traded on the carbon market), and immediately you are not
extracting and burning a limited fossil fuel in a non-sustainable way. So
if going green is your priority an not maximizing your investment solar and
wind make good sense. But, don't believe me, ask someone with panels.
Some Como residents were concerned about vandalism, since we have lots of
drunken college students flinging things around on weekends and for that
polycarbonate panels could cover the glass this is what they often use in
bus shelters or as "bullet proof" or shatterproof coverings for windows.
But, don't believe me, ask an engineer.
Hot water is usually considered to be 125 degrees (or hotter), so 110 is 15
degrees from that. Body temperature is 98.6 so above that will be percieved
as "hot". The 40 degree water that comes in from the City in the winter
time is considered "cold". 40 degrees is 60 degrees away from "hot" meaning
you have to use a lot of energy to heat that difference vs. the 110 in
winter meaning that even in the dead of winter--solar thermal panels will
heat your water and save you money. In summer the systems will get it up to
180-200 easy if the controller is set that high--which the solar installers
won't typically allow. But, don't belive me ask a solar installer or put
your hand in water 180 degrees and let us know if you think it's up to
Paris' standards ("that's hot").
If you go to the DOC website they'll tell you that typically people can heat
75-90% of their hot water. Some pepole end up shuting off their hot water
heater since they can use hot water as available. Don't believe me, look up
solar thermal on the Dept of Commerce's website under Energy Information
Center.
Now that we have a almost a dozen systems in Minneapolis and 5 in St. Paul
if you have questions I can take you over to real people's homes and you can
ask real questions about real issues you may or may not have. You can tell
those people all day long how solar doesn't work and then maybe you'll want
to knock on your neighbor's door and tell them their Toyota Prius doesn't
save gasoline, and see if that response is similar. Adding alcohol and being
extra belligerent always bolsters this process . I recommend gin & tonics,
which are in season don't you know.
I gotta go, I have a belligerent republican [confused libertarian] friend to
entertain with the above procedure and hope he doesn't blow off his hand
with illegal fireworks in the process.
>The structural costs of adding solar to an existing remodeling project can
>be zero or close to zero as it was for Wendy Menken (in Como who did it as
>part an attic redo) and most of the people in St. Paul.
As well it should be- the weight of the collector tanks is no
more than a good snow load.
>In the past few years I've paid anywhere between 90cents and $1.95 a therm.
>If you look at the 5 year and ten year forecasts for gas prices, doubling is
>in the near future. So if your payback is 10 years at a buck a therm at
>$2/therm its 5 years ,and $3/therm its 3.33 years--you get the picture. But
>don't believe me, read the DOE forecasts or the Green Institute's recent
>report on biomass for Rock-Tenn (p.51).
As I heat with renewables (corn and wood pellets), my only
natural gas use is for the water heater and the pilot light on the
space heater I keep around for backup. My natural gas bill is about
$30 a month. If I shut off the space heater completely and install a
natural gas powered demand water heater for $1000 my gas bill would
drop to about $10/month. That's about a 4 year payback, a pretty good
deal. Costs for an electric demand water heater are similar but the
initial investment is lower- I've got one here that I picked up on
sale for less than $200. Even if I ran it an hour a day it would
still heat all the water I need and then some for less than
$10/month. I priced out a bare bones solar water heater system and it
was about $3000+ just for materials. That gives at least a 25 year
payback, none too attractive when you can get 5% returns on pretty
safe bonds.
>The payback is immediate in some ways, as pointed out by a solar user here
>in Como who is also a green architect in the neighborhood. Immediately you
>cut those carbon emissions, immediately you generate carbon offsets (which
>have a value if traded on the carbon market), and immediately you are not
>extracting and burning a limited fossil fuel in a non-sustainable way.
Running full tilt that little demand water heater is using up
maybe 3 horses for less than an hour a day. Compare this to the big
trucks that use up 100 times that much energy and the locomotives
that use 1000 times that much energy running day and night. If you
want to save energy and reduce pollution, don't waste your time on
the toys- go after the big belchers.
>So
>if going green is your priority an not maximizing your investment solar and
>wind make good sense. But, don't believe me, ask someone with panels.
Not being independently wealthy like most of our citizens, I
have to have some economic payback in my lifetime to make me go green.
>Some Como residents were concerned about vandalism, since we have lots of
>drunken college students flinging things around on weekends and for that
>polycarbonate panels could cover the glass this is what they often use in
>bus shelters or as "bullet proof" or shatterproof coverings for windows.
>But, don't believe me, ask an engineer.
Being a sometime North Minneapolis resident, I've had to
study up on ballistics engineering. I'm writing from within what is
essentially a bunker in my shop, with several hundred pounds of corn,
bulk powdered detergent, and ice melter in front of me. To my left is
a car, and to my right is a thick steel woodstove and toolbox. Behind
me are 3 motorcycles and more heavy steel stuff. This is how we
survive on the Northside. I and all my neighbors have had bullets
come through our windows- how long do you think a solar panel would
last up here? As for plexi, the military has driven the price for the
good optically clear stuff beyond what we can afford.
>Hot water is usually considered to be 125 degrees (or hotter), so 110 is 15
>degrees from that. Body temperature is 98.6 so above that will be percieved
>as "hot". The 40 degree water that comes in from the City in the winter
>time is considered "cold". 40 degrees is 60 degrees away from "hot" meaning
>you have to use a lot of energy to heat that difference vs. the 110 in
>winter meaning that even in the dead of winter--solar thermal panels will
>heat your water and save you money. In summer the systems will get it up to
>180-200 easy if the controller is set that high--which the solar installers
>won't typically allow. But, don't belive me ask a solar installer or put
>your hand in water 180 degrees and let us know if you think it's up to
>Paris' standards ("that's hot").
I'm quite aware of the physics- I went a summer without a
water heater and it wasn't all that bad. However, there are still
times when you need really hot water for degreasing, washing
cookware, etc..
>If you go to the DOC website they'll tell you that typically people can heat
>75-90% of their hot water. Some pepole end up shuting off their hot water
>heater since they can use hot water as available. Don't believe me, look up
>solar thermal on the Dept of Commerce's website under Energy Information
>Center.
Again, I'm quite aware of the physics and costs. In fact, if
you want to cover your whole roof and yard with solar collectors and
build a big enough heat storage medium you could probably heat your
house as well as your bath water- but it'd probably cost more than
your house!
>Now that we have a almost a dozen systems in Minneapolis and 5 in St. Paul
>if you have questions I can take you over to real people's homes and you can
>ask real questions about real issues you may or may not have. You can tell
>those people all day long how solar doesn't work
I have no doubt that the systems work, but at $20,000 and up,
when will they pay for themselves?
>and then maybe you'll want
>to knock on your neighbor's door and tell them their Toyota Prius doesn't
>save gasoline,
Compared to what? And with many more enlightened motorists
switching to renewables the Prius can't even run on, who cares?
> and see if that response is similar.
I question the environmental wisdom of anyone that tells me
they've bought a Prius or installed solar electric panels. Why?
Because they obviously aren't real good at math and science or just
bought those green fashion accessories to look cool. My VW TDI diesel
car cost a bit over $100 more than the gas equivalent and had paid
back that premium by 40,000 miles. A Prius costs twice as much as an
equivalent conventional car and will probably never pay for itself.
>Adding alcohol and being
>extra belligerent always bolsters this process . I recommend gin & tonics,
>which are in season don't you know.
Humans do not run well on alcohol, exhibiting instability in
both gait and cognitive functions. The alcohol is much better used as
a motor fuel provided the driver stays away from the alcohol supply.
None the less, I suspect small amounts are useful to drown the
sorrows of the folks that paid $30,000 for a Prius before they did
the numbers.
runnin' on renewables in Hawthorne (corn) and Starbuck (biodiesel),
Dyna Sluyter
David: You may want to talk to your neighbor, Don Johnson. He lives behind Anderson Antiques on 38th & Grand and sells solar equipment. He used to have that show on AirAmerica called Energy Efficiency Hour. He gives back to the grid and is an expert in all things solar and absolutely passionate about the topic. He is dead serious about environmental issues and lives a minimally impactful lifestyle. He has been through lots of installations and would probably love to talk with you. Actually, he is dealing with throat cancer and can't talk too much. Here is a link to his site: http://www.solarhardware.com/ Nikki Carlson, Linden Hills
"A Prius costs twice as much as an
equivalent conventional car and will probably never pay for itself."
Name an "equivalent conventional car" that sells for half of a Prius. Name ANY
car that sells for half new. And it may be true that you can't justify a Prius
on payback, but you can justify it on the basis of not enriching Islamists and
reducing carbon footprint. I think that might be just enough for some. The
CHEAPEST car would be an old smoking junker. But many people don't want to
save the maximum amount if it means fouling the air that they and other people
breathe.
Jim Mork
Cooper
Folks:
Just a note of caution about thread drift here. The topic was originally
about installing solar in Minneapolis (i.e., permits, examples, etc.). We
should be careful not to make this a generalized non-local-specific
alt-energy discussion.
This is not directed specifically to Jim, but to the whole forum.
David Brauer
Forum manager
> "A Prius costs twice as much as an
> equivalent conventional car and will probably never pay for itself."
>
> Name an "equivalent conventional car" that sells for half of a Prius.
Name ANY car that
sells for half new.
Don't forget solar cooking--and we have a home grown solar cooker manufacturer right here in Mpls-- http://www.solarovens.org/sossport.html I have bought two of the Solar Oven Society's "Sport" models, one I just gave away and the other sees pretty much constant use on sunny days. No extra heat in the kitchen in the summer time, and hot stew in the winter! I've stopped counting how many batches of banana bread I've made in it and other solar cookers I've collected. Check out solarcooking.org and click on the manufacturer's link, with two or three of these, most families could cook for the entire day, even up here at 45 degrees latitude. We haven't calculated how much gas this saves us, and we don't have A/C in our house which we would use less of anyway since we aren't heating up the kitchen with the cooking, but of course every meal we make in the solar saves us in natural gas (or electrical e.g., with a crock pot)... Luther Krueger, Lyndale
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Luther Krueger wrote: > Don't forget solar cooking--and we have a home grown solar cooker > manufacturer right here in Mpls-- > > http://www.solarovens.org/sossport.html > > I have bought two of the Solar Oven Society's "Sport" models, one I > just gave away and the other sees pretty much constant use on sunny > days. No extra heat in the kitchen in the summer time, and hot > stew in the winter! I've stopped counting how many batches of > banana bread I've made in it and other solar cookers I've collected. I think the local enterprise has done well. See the following. From Cook's Illustrated: For those tempted to purchase one, we would recommend the SOS Sport Oven. It had the greatest capacityit could hold a small baking sheet, while we had to use the pot lid to bake the cookies in the Sun Ovenand kept the most level temperature. Since it doesn't have reflectors, it was less sensitive to passing clouds and less finicky about being positioned to follow the sun. The Hot Pot is simply too limiting. It can't bake and it did the worst job of holding heat against a passing cloud or when not oriented properly. With its reflectors, the Sun Oven attained the hottest temperature, but it was more susceptible to temperature fluctuations, making it difficult to judge cooking time. It actually overcooked food. The panels could not be removed, making it awkward to clean, and the size of the oven was limiting. It was also $60 more expensive than the Sport. Laura Southeast/Como Laura Waterman Wittstock President and CEO Wittstock & Associates 913 19th Ave SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 612-387-4915 www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
I may have harped on this before, so apologies. Our building code
ordinances do not seem to foster solarization. Witness the recent
spate of Monster Houses having got construction permits. In these
cases, did the authorities consider whether the neighbor to the north
would be forestalled from doing solar? I communicated this concern to
my CC member and she forwarded it to Ward 13 CCM - however, the
Strib's account of the new ordinance did not even hint that
solarizing would be enhanced by the ordinance. So who has the truth
on the aspect of Mpls Going Solar - is it just mouthwash?
Jack Ferman
Kingfield Neighborhood
<email obscured>
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.