Solar powering your community with Clean Energy Choice

Clean Energy Choice (sometimes called third-party ownership) allows a customer to get electricity from a third-party which installs and maintains a renewable energy system on the customer's premises.

With Clean Energy Choice, customers don't have to put any money upfront, the major barrier to installing renewables. The customer either buys the output directly from the third-party owner or pays to host the energy-producing equipment and uses the electricity without any further cost under a long-term contract.

From a presentation by Michael Vickerman, RENEW director of policy and program, at Solar Powering Your Community, October 11, 2012: 

• No up-front capital required from host customers 
• Allows nonprofit entities to partner w/ for-profit companies that can use the 30% federal tax credit 
• Based on a successful model for delivering energy efficiency (performance-based contracts) 
• Could lower energy costs for customers over the contract life 
• Hugely successful in states that allow it (e.g., California and Colorado) 
• It’s your premises, after all 

Focus on Energy Resumes Offer of Renewable Energy Incentives

Immediate release
July 5, 2012

More information
Don Wichert
Interim Executive Director
608.2554044
dwichert@renewwisconsin.org

Focus on Energy Resumes Offer of Renewable Energy Incentives
Financial incentives to support customer-sited renewable energy systems are once again available from Focus on Energy, the ratepayer-funded energy efficiency and renewable energy program in Wisconsin. About $2 million will be available for solar, wind, biomass, and biogas energy systems between now and December 31, 2012.

The resumption of renewable energy incentives marks the end of a suspension on applications for funding support that lasted six months for residential customers and an entire year for business customers.

“We are pleased that the funding uncertainties with Focus on Energy are behind us and that the renewable energy program is back up and running,” said Don Wichert,

Interim Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin (RENEW), a nonprofit renewable energy advocacy organization.

“With the resumption of incentives, there is no need for customers to ‘wait and see’ what the future holds.”

In January, RENEW Wisconsin delivered a letter, signed by over 150 businesses, schools, and local officials, to the Public Service Commission asking the agency “to exercise its oversight authority over Focus on Energy and restore funding, without delay, for renewables at a level consistent with previous years’ allocations.” In early March, RENEW organized a similar write-in campaign to the PSC with over 200 comments submitted.

“I am hopeful that the reinstatement of incentives signals a closer working relationship between renewable energy businesses and Focus on Energy administrators,” Wichert said.

-END- 

RENEW Wisconsin is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that leads and represents businesses, organizations, and individuals who seek more clean renewable energy in Wisconsin. More information on RENEW’s Web site at www.renewwisconsin.org

State’s Hostility Toward Renewables Escalates; “Leaders” Lag Citizenry on Wind Support

Two articles from Catching Wind, a newsletter published by RENEW Wisconsin with funding from a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy:

State’s Hostility Toward Renewables Escalates
At the urging of Wisconsin utilities, several lawmakers have introduced a bill to allow a renewable energy credit (REC) to be banked indefinitely. If adopted, this measure (AB146) would constitute the most devastating legislative assault yet on the state’s renewable energy marketplace, which is already reeling from the suspension of the statewide wind siting rule this March and the loosening of renewable energy definitions to allow Wisconsin utilities to count electricity generated from large Canadian hydro projects toward their renewable energy requirements.

“Leaders” Lag Citizenry on Wind Support
Public support for wind energy development has held strong against the attacks launched by Governor Walker and the Legislature’s new Republican majority, according to a poll conducted between April 11 and April 18 by the St. Norbert College Survey Center for Wisconsin Public Radio.

Asked whether Wisconsin should "increase, decrease or continue with the same amount" of energy supply from various sources, 77% favored increasing wind power, the highest of any option (60% favored increasing hydropower, 54% biomass, 39% natural gas, 27% nuclear, and 19% coal).

Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, Spring 2011

The Wisconsin Renewable Quarterly, the newsletter of RENEW Wisconsin, features these article:

Siting Rule Suspension Rocks Wind Industry
In a move that sent shock waves through the wind industry in Wisconsin, a joint legislative panel voted on March 1 to suspend the wind siting rule promulgated by the Public Service Commission in December 2010.

Community Biogas Project Fires Up
Home to 400 dairy farms, Dane County recently dedicated a community-scale manure-to-methane generating system designed to reduce nutrient runoff into the Yahara Lakes.

Insty Prints: Mpower ChaMpion
But if I can help other businesses make some of the harder choices by being more vocal, then I’m willing to help.

Manitoba Hydro: A Washout?
On behalf of our members and the many businesses and individuals who support the continued expansion of Wisconsin’s renewable energy marketplace, RENEW Wisconsin is here to express opposition to AB 114 (and its companion SB 81), and urges the Legislature not to pass this bill.

Verona Firm Begins Work on “Epic” PV
With the commissioning of its 1,300-module solar electric canopy spanning its parking deck, Epic Systems joins an elite group of Wisconsin companies embracing on-site energy capture to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. At 360 kilowatts (kW), Epic’s new photovoltaic system is the largest solar array in Dane County and the third largest in Wisconsin.

Calendar of Renewable and Energy Efficiency Events
June 17-19, 2001 The Energy Fair. Custer, WI. The nation’s premier sustainable energy education event. Three days of workshops, demonstrations, and exhibits highlighting renewable energy and sustainable living. For details see www.midwestrenew.org.

July 8-10, 2011 EcoFair360. Elkhorn, WI. Join hundreds of exhibitors and presenters and thousands of attendees who will Make Green Happen for three days of education, exploration and inspiration. For details see www.ecofair360.org.

July 16, 2011 Western Wisconsin Sustainability Fair. Menomonie, WI, Dunn County Fair Grounds. Exhibitors from business, government, and non-profi t groups, speakers, workshops, music, energy effi cient vehicles, a photo contest, and a tour of the Cedar Falls Dam. See http://sustainabledunn.org for more information.

July 30, 2011 8th Annual Kickapoo Country Fair. LaFarge, WI. The Midwest’s Largest Organic Food and Sustainability Festival. Food, music, bike and farm tours, cooking demonstrations, theater, kids’ activities, dancing. More information at www.kickappoocountryfair.org.

October 1, 2011 Solar Tour of Homes and Businesses. All across Wisconsin. Owners open their doors to let people see how renewable energy is practical, reliable, and affordable in today’s economy. The homes and businesses often include other energy efficiency and renewable technologies. For details see http://nationalsolartour.org.

October 26, 2011 Wisconsin’s Solar Decade Conference. Milwaukee, WI. Now in its seventh year, the Wisconsin
Solar Decade Conference is your opportunity to see fi rsthand the latest developments in the world of solar energy. For details see www.solardecade.com.

Touring this year’s renewable energy crop

Commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
September 27, 2010

One of the abiding pleasures of my job at RENEW Wisconsin is going out into the field to visit renewable energy installations. Many of the systems sprouting across the state owe their existence to state and federal policies that make these systems economically viable to their owners.

In turn, some of those policies owe their existence to RENEW, an advocacy organization that has elevated the Wisconsin renewable energy marketplace from a dreamy aspiration to a thriving marketplace employing hundreds of people and generating millions of dollars a year in local revenues.

Whenever I’m asked to describe our mission, I often say that we act as a catalyst for advancing a sustainable energy future in Wisconsin. Our vision of that future places small, entrepreneurial companies at the center of the transition toward clean, locally available energy resources that do not deplete over time.

RENEW endeavors to steer Wisconsin along this path through policy mechanisms that help renewable energy businesses establish themselves in an economy that for many decades has operated almost exclusively on fossil energy. Because of that dependence on concentrated energy sources like coal, natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons, which are still priced very cheaply, the shift to renewable energy has been an uphill battle. The incumbent energy sources are well-entrenched and will not hesitate to expend significant political capital to block policy initiatives aimed at putting renewable energy on a more equal playing field.

At RENEW’s urging, the State of Wisconsin has taken a few measured policy steps to carve out some room for renewable energy. The most important of these initiatives is a statewide incentives program (Focus on Energy) for small-scale renewable energy systems. Though most of Focus on Energy’s budget is set aside for energy conservation and efficiency, about $10 million a year is reserved for customer-sited renewable energy systems such as solar hot water, solar electric, biogas, biomass heating, and small wind.

This program, coupled with several voluntary utility initiatives, has elevated Wisconsin into a regional showcase for renewable energy systems serving dairy farms, cattle farms, orchards, greenhouses, breweries, cheese producers, corporate campuses, apartment buildings, municipal wastewater facilities, schools and technical colleges, and manufacturers.

The policy seeds planted 10 years ago are yielding an impressive crop of installations this year, broadly distributed throughout the state. As important as these policies are, however, these systems don’t get built unless someone decides to spend dollars today to receive a decades-long supply of energy tomorrow. We at RENEW would like to give a shout-out to the owners and installers of this year’s bumper crop of home-grown renewable energy, including:

 The City of Evansville, for hosting a 100 kilowatt (kW) Northwind turbine to serve its wastewater treatment plant. Installer: H &H Solar, Madison.
 Stonehouse Development, for building two Green Built apartment houses in the Madison area, each with 60 kilowatts of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems and solar water heating systems. Installers: Full Spectrum Solar, Madison (PV); Cardinal Solar, Sun Prairie, solar hot water.
 Random Lake School District, for hosting a 50 kW Endurance wind turbine on the high school grounds. Installer: Kettle View Renewable Energy, Random Lake.
 Fountain Prairie Inn and Farms, in Columbia County, for hosting a 50 kW Endurance wind turbine to serve its sustainable family farm. Installer: Seventh Generation Energy Systems, Madison.
 SCA Tissue, Menasha, for hosting four 20 kW Renewegy wind turbines at one of its facilities. Manufacturer and installer: Renewegy, Oshkosh.
 Milwaukee Area Technical College, for building the state’s largest PV system, to be used as a training center. The system is rated at 540 kW. Contractor: Johnson Controls, Milwaukee; Installer: Pieper Power, Milwaukee.
 Montchevré-Betin, Belmont, a producer of goat cheese, for upgrading its wastewater treatment capacity with an anaerobic digester and 335 kW generator. Contractor: Procorp, Milwaukee. System owner: Clear Horizons, Milwaukee.

I urge the citizens of Wisconsin to go out and see for themselves how fertile the territory is here for home-grown renewable energy. As you observe these installations out in the landscape, delivering clean energy year after year to the local area, you begin to appreciate the totality of benefits that these systems yield. If you talk to system owners or installers, you will feel their passion and soak in the positive energy that comes from being part of this growing community. They are, along with the installations themselves, the most persuasive advocates for extending and strengthening Wisconsin’s clean energy policies. They not only represent today’s jobs and business opportunities, but also tomorrow’s hope.

Energizing Fort Atkinson’s Schools from the Sun and Earth

By Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin

As a result of educating themselves on the connection between energy use and atmospheric pollution, several school districts in Wisconsin are taking increasingly aggressive steps to conserve energy as well as produce a portion of what they use on-site. Some have embraced ground source heat pump systems (Fond du Lac High School), while others have installed solar hot water systems (Osceola Middle School) and solar electric systems (Paul Olson elementary school in Madison). Not to be outdone, Wausau East High School recently installed a 100 kilowatt (kW) Northwind turbine, which is now the largest wind generator attached to a school building in Wisconsin.

Yet if one measures success by substantial reductions in energy expenditures and emissions reductions, there is one school district in Wisconsin that stands head and shoulders above its peers: Fort Atkinson. Serving 2,700 school-age children in a community of 12,000, the Fort Atkinson School District operates six buildings: four elementary schools, one middle school and a high school. School officials have made no secret of their aspiration to make Fort Atkinson the most energy-efficient and self-sufficient K-12 district in the state.

Since 2005, Fort Atkinson has rigorously pursued a sustainable energy agenda that integrates, in a systematic and complementary fashion, continuous monitoring of consumption, aggressive building efficiency measures, and renewable energy capture. As articulated in its 2009 energy plan, the district’s principal goals for 2010 are nothing if not ambitious:
 Pare energy costs by 20% from 2005 levels;
 Lower carbon emissions by 25% from 2005 levels;
 Obtain EnergyStar certification for all six schools; and
 Install on-site renewable production at all six schools.

Virtually every renewable energy technology or efficiency measure available to a Wisconsin K-12 district has already been or is about to be deployed somewhere in Fort Atkinson. This lengthy list includes ground source heat pumps, solar hot water systems, lighting retrofits, tankless water heaters, retro-commissioning, occupancy sensors, window replacement, and roof insulation. On the district’s 2010 installation list are a 50 kW wind generator at the high school and a 20 kW solar electric system at Purdy elementary school.

The integrated approach pursued by Fort Atkinson leads to lower operating expenses, which in turn frees up capital for renewable technologies that have higher up-front costs but will deliver energy to the school buildings long after the initial investment is paid off. At the same time, converting sunlight and wind into useful energy sources enable building owners to reduce the variability of their utility costs. For a school district, that means not having to worry about the effect of a colder-than-normal winter on next year’s budget for textbooks.


The solar water heating systems serving the high school and the middle school neatly illustrate this benefit. The radiant energy striking the rooftop panels year-round is efficiently collected and taken inside to preheat the swimming pools in each building. Except during the winter months, the incoming solar energy is sufficient to maintain pool temperatures at 84°F. Even in January, however, the savings that a solar hot water system yields simply by preheating a pool to 70°F is substantial when multiplied over several decades.

The capital required to heat a swimming pool with solar energy is not trivial. For the 48-panel system atop the high school, the installed cost totaled $192,000, while the 32-panel installation serving the middle school came in at $115,000. Dennis Kuchenmeister, who manages the district’s buildings and grounds, estimates a 5% return on investment (ROI) for the high school’s system and an 11% ROI on the middle school’s system. According to Kuchenmeister, the hot water systems will supply about 60% of the heat going into the pools, displacing the equivalent of nearly 9,000 therms a year. The district expects to save $18,000 in avoided fuel costs per year.

Kuchenmeister’s economic estimates factor in incentives from Focus on Energy covering up to 35% of the total installed cost and matching incentives from We Energies, the local utility serving the school district. By taking full advantage of available incentive dollars, the school district was able to reduce the out-of-pocket portion of installation costs by more than 50%.

Because the annual harvest of solar energy striking a particular spot rarely fluctuates by more than 10%, a building owner can be reasonably confident of how much conventional energy an installation will displace. In contrast, the cost of heating a pool with natural gas can easily triple during a 12-month period even when usage remains constant. This in fact happened to Fort Atkinson in the 12 months preceding the installation of its two solar hot water systems in the fall of 2008.

Thus, the real value of Fort Atkinson’s solar hot water installations is in minimizing the district’s exposure to the price volatility associated with unregulated fossil fuels like natural gas. And while it’s true that natural gas prices are presently at five-year lows, they could easily bounce back to 2008 levels in a year or two, depending on events over which end-users have no control. However, by installing a renewable technology that preheats their swimming pools, Fort Atkinson has effectively insured itself against a repeat appearance of the fossil fuel rollercoaster ride that most school districts would just as soon forget.

There are two other reasons why school buildings are well-matched for solar energy installations. First, the buildings themselves are dedicated to a public function that is expected to last for several generations. In such settings it is easier to justify the additional up-fronts costs, especially if the installation also communicates a valuable lesson in sustainability to the entire community. Second, most schools, especially newer ones, have an abundance of flat, unshaded roof space that can support large arrays, irrespective of building orientation.

Real-time production data from both installations can be accessed online by visiting www.fatspaniel.net and searching for the live sites listed under We Energies. The district also uses Energy Watchdog, a web-based program provided by Focus on Energy to track energy usage. This program enables Fort Atkinson to document the energy and cost reductions from measures specified in its energy plan.

The middle school is also one of four schools in Fort Atkinson equipped with ground source heat pump systems that heat and cool the buildings year-round using the nearly constant temperatures in the ground. These systems heat buildings in the winter and cool them in the summer. Ground source heat pump systems are electrically powered; no heating fuel like natural gas or propane is needed to heat the four schools.

“We essentially cut the gas line to our schools,” said Kuchenmeister during a presentation on his district’s sustainable energy initiative last November in Milwaukee.

The operational costs of ground source heat pumps are substantially lower than the HVAC systems they replace. As a result of their renovation, the three elementary schools have seen their energy intensity drop by more than one-half, even though they now have air-conditioning in the classrooms. School officials estimate that all four ground source heat pump systems will save the district $90,000 annually in fuel costs.

As with solar hot water systems, Focus on Energy provides incentives for ground source heat pumps to schools, businesses and residences. The program awarded more than $96,000 towards the four systems installed in Fort Atkinson.

According to a Focus on Energy fact sheet, “a ground source heat pump system is arguably the most efficient technology for heating and cooling Wisconsin homes and businesses.” Given its embrace of that technology and others deployed in its buildings, Fort Atkinson has become, in terms of energy sustainability, arguably the most forward-thinking school district in the state.

RENEW Wisconsin (www.renewwisconsin.org) is an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization based in Madison that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives. Michael Vickerman has been the organization’s executive director since 1991.

Solar Hot Water Systems - Fact Sheet
Fort Atkinson School District

Full Service Installers
Andy DeRocher
Mark O’Neal
Full Spectrum Solar
100 South Baldwin Street, Suite 101
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608.284.9495
info@fullspectrumsolar.com
www.fullspectrumsolar.com

Types of system installations:
Solar hot water, solar electric

Service Territory:
150 miles

At-A-Glance – High School SHW System
Collector space: 1,920 sq. ft (48 4'x10' panels)
Panel manufacturer: Heliodyne Gobi
Tilt angle: 45 degrees
Annual fuel savings: 8,539 therms assuming 80% efficient gas boilers
Avoided CO2 emissions: 47 tons/year
Pool Size: 4,200 sq. ft.
Preheated water volume: 188,227 gallons
Pool operating temperature: 80°F
Incoming water temperature: 55°F
Installation cost: $192,000
Focus on Energy Incentive: $50,000
We Energies match: $50,000
System payback: 10 ¾ years
Installation date: Fall 2008

At-A-Glance – Middle School SHW System
Collector space: 1,280 sq. ft (32 4'x10' panels)
Panel manufacturer: Heliodyne Gobi
Tilt angle: 45 degrees
Annual fuel savings: 8,763 therms assuming 60% efficient gas boiler
Avoided CO2 emissions: 49 tons/year
Pool Size: 2,635 sq. ft.
Preheated water volume: 96,921 gallons
Pool operating temperature: 84°F
Incoming water temperature: 55°F
Installation cost: $115,000
Focus on Energy Incentive: $40,400
We Energies match: $40,400
System payback: 4 years
Installation date: Fall 2008

Sun Harvest Farm: Solar hot water and more

The Koerner's installed the domestic hot water system (right)in March 2006. It also provides a portion of the heat for the house.

Sun Harvest Farm, owned by Jerry and Penny Kroener, Ridgeway, WI
Renewable Energy Projects
September 2009 Update

General:
In 2005 we embarked on major renovations and additions to our old farmhouse. This included working with Focus on Energy to have site assessments performed for Solar Photovoltaic, Solar Thermal and Wind Turbine Systems. We also investigated wood burning systems because we have substantial quantities of firewood on our property. Our decisions included the following:
1. Add additional insulation, all new windows and new doors.
2. Replace our old oil burning furnace with a high efficiency propane boiler (our little Munchkin).
3. Install a Solar Photovoltaic grid-connected system to produce electricity.
4. Install a Solar Thermal (hot water) system to preheat domestic hot water and provide some house heat.
5. Install a counter-flow masonry heater fireplace using our own limestone for the masonry cladding.
6. In 2008 we built and installed a hot air collector to provide some heat in our barn workshop.
7. In 2009 we installed our 2nd Photovoltaic grid-connected system.
8. In 2009 we also upgraded our solar hot water storage tank.

Improving Efficiency
Our first goal was to improve the efficiency of the areas in the old part of the farmhouse, and to include very high efficiency within the new addition. We installed new Pella windows and doors throughout. Additional insulation was added where possible and a moisture/air barrier under new fiber cement siding, which was installed on the entire house. The new construction included R-21 insulation in the walls and blown-in R-50 in the ceiling. We removed the old oil-fired hot water heater and the oil burner from the warm air furnace. A high efficiency propane gas boiler (Munchkin T-50) was installed to be our back up for heating and the new domestic hot water tank. We also installed radiant under floor heating in the new great room area and plan to install additional radiant heating in certain of the old house areas. The existing warm air furnace was retained, with the addition of a water-to-air heat exchanger, which allowed us keep the central AC unit and also to provide warm air heating to the upstairs area. We have also installed compact fluorescent light bulbs throughout the entire house and in the barn workshop area.

Solar Thermal Hot Water System
Our system as designed to provide domestic hot water and a portion of the house heating and was put into operation in March 2006. It includes:
+ Eight 4 ft x 10 ft Heliodyne Gobi 410 collectors, ground-mounted at a 60 degree tilt angle
+ 1000 gallon concrete hot water storage tank, with EPDM rubber liner
+ Approximately 600 ft of 1 inch copper tubing made into coils for heat exchangers
+ Pump, valves, expansion tanks, controller, copper piping, propylene glycol, insulation, etc.

We performed a considerable amount of the work to install the system including:
+ Installing the concrete tank and liner
+ Bending the tubing into coils and installing them in the tank
+ Installing 14 concrete pillars
+ Digging trenches and installing piping from collectors into basement
+ Erecting the framework and the collectors

We worked with Light Energy Systems of Madison (now Full Spectrum Solar) to design the system and to provide the parts and some of the labor. The total system cost was approximately $20,000, but we received a Focus on Energy grant of $3,000 and a Federal Tax Credit of $2,000 so our out-of-pocket costs were about $15,000.

During 2009 we decided to replace the concrete tank due to excessive moisture problems in the basement area. We demolished the tank piece by piece and carried it out of the basement. We replaced it with a tank made by STSS Co. Inc from Mechanicsburg PA. The new tank is collapsible so it can be moved through regular sized doorways. When in place it will be 80 round and 4 high with all penetrations installed at the factory according to our heat exchanger specifications. It is sealed, insulated and with hold up to 822 gallons of water. We reused the copper heat exchangers that we had made for the old tank. We also installed a heat dump under the solar collectors, which was made of 24 ft of Slant Fin baseboard hydronic registers. The purpose of the heat dump is to dissipate excess heat produced during the summer when we only use the hot water for pre-heating the domestic hot water. The total costs for the new tank, including demolishing the old tank, were about $3,500.

Masonry Heater Fireplace
We investigated wood-burning systems and decided to build a masonry heater fireplace in order to take advantage of renewable resources on our property. We have an ample supply of trees on our property that we harvest by cutting dead trees. We constructed a woodshed that dries and stores about 10 cords of split firewood.

The fireplace is specially designed to be efficient and environmentally friendly because the combustion chamber burns at between 1500-2000 degrees F. The fire burns for 2-3 hours but the large amount of masonry mass stores and radiates the heat for 12-24 hours. Our fireplace is centrally located so it radiates heat over a large area of our kitchen and great room. Two stainless steel U-Tube heat exchangers are also built into the core to capture some heat, which is circulated to the solar storage tank in the basement.

The core of our heater was designed by Heat-Kit of Canada, but originated centuries ago from designs in Europe and Russia. Gimme Shelter Construction of Amherst, WI constructed the core.

We decided to use natural limestone and sandstone from our property for the masonry cladding. Some of the stones were recovered from the foundation of our old summer kitchen. We performed the masonry work ourselves, which saved us $20,000+ in labor costs. Our cost for the core, chimney materials and mortar for the limestone was approximately $12,000.

Solar Photovoltaic Electric System # 1
This system was designed to produce about half of our annual electricity needs and was put into operation in April 2006. We chose a grid-tied system that sends excess electricity to the Alliant Energy power grid. We have a net-metering agreement where we are compensated for the power we produce at the same rate as we pay for electricity. During the first full year of operation our PV system produced 4,700 kilowatt-hours, which was 43% of our total usage of 11,100 kWh.

The PV system includes the following components:
+ 16 Kyocera 170 watt modules for a total output of 2.7 kW
+ Wattsun dual axis tracker system (the system follows the sun morning until night)
+ SMA Sunny Boy 2500 inverter/controller (converts DC voltage to AC for the grid)
+ Concrete foundation (5 yds with rebar), steel post & framework
+ Disconnect switches, wires, conduit, and other miscellaneous electrical items

Our system produces between 200-600 volts (DC current) when the sun shines. It is facing east when the sun rises and follows the sun all day so it is facing west when the sun goes down. The DC current comes into the basement, goes through a disconnect switch and into the Sunny Boy inverter/controller. This device changes the DC current into AC current and controls how the power goes out into the grid. The current goes outside through a disconnect switch, back through our main breaker panel, and then out through the meter to the grid. The best days are when we are not using much power and the meter is actually going backward!

We worked with Light Energy Systems of Madison (now Full Spectrum Solar) to design the system and to provide the parts and some of the labor.

The total cost of the system was about $25,000, but we received a Focus on Energy grant of $8,700 and a Federal Tax Credit of $2,000, so out out-of-pocket costs were about $14,000.

Solar Photovoltaic Electric System # 2
In 2009 we installed our second PV system. We took advantage of a special program from Alliant Energy where we have contracted for 10 years to sell all of the power produced by the system for 25 cents per kWh. It did require us to install a new meter pedestal, at a cost of $1,100 so that the electricity from the new system could be metered separately. We also have to pay about 41 cents/day for the new meter charge, as well as sign up for the Alliant Second Nature program (where we pay a small premium for our energy purchased, which will be from renewable sources). Our total cost for the system was $31,168, and we did some of the work ourselves (digging, concrete, trenching, wire, etc). We will get a 25% Focus on Energy grant of about $7,800 and a 30% Federal tax credit in 2010 of about $9,300. Therefore, our out of pocket costs will be about $14,000. This system has the potential to produce about an 11% annual rate of return.

We purchased the main part of the system from DH Solar. Their system uses a tracking system that they adapted from their experience with commercial satellite tracking systems. The system has 16 Suncast PV panels, each of which is rated at 210 watts, or a total of 3.36 kW. The inverter is a SMA Sunny Boy 3000US.

Barn Workshop Hot Air Collector System
In 2008 we designed, built and installed a hot air collector system on the south side of the old milkhouse. The collector was made from tempered glass, aluminum expandable tubes, painted black, and solid foil-faced insulation. The 6 outlet and inlet piping contains a bi-metallic sensor/control relay and a small in-duct fan to pipe the heat into the barn workshop. The total cost of this system was about $600. A woodstove in the milk house provides backup heat on cloudy days, which is piped with the same piping system into the barn. This is a trial and error system. It looks like we might have to reposition the system to more directly face south to maximize the heat output.

Solar outlook set to dim in 2010

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 23, 2009

MORE INFORMATION
Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

Utilities’ voluntary incentives hit limits

(Madison, WI – October 23, 2009) In contrast to the rapid growth experienced in the last three years, a leading state renewable energy advocacy group expects a sharp decline in installed solar electric capacity in 2010.

In statements directed to the Public Service Commission (PSC), three utilities – Wisconsin Electric Power (WE), Wisconsin Power and Light (WPL), and Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) – acknowledged yesterday that their voluntary solar incentive programs will be discontinued for new customers. All three had offered, on a limited basis, a special buyback rate for the generated electricity, which effectively cut in half the payback period for the systems.

“These three incentive programs spurred homeowners and businesses to install nearly 2.5 megawatts of solar electric capacity,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. “But for those incentives, we wouldn’t not have reached the milestone that PSC Chair Eric Callisto recently celebrated at the installation of a system serving the Town of Menasha.”

“Though voluntary initiatives are certainly welcome, they cannot by themselves sustain a vibrant solar marketplace. By far the most effective way to maintain solar’s momentum is for the Legislature to require utilities to purchase a set amount of renewable energy from their own customers at a reasonable price,” said Vickerman.

Going into 2010, the only investor-owned utility that has a special buyback rate is Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E), which pays its customers 25 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generated from their solar systems. MG&E’s voluntary program still has room for another 600 kilowatts of customer-owned solar.

Until their voluntary initiatives had reached capacity, both WPS and WPL had been paying the same rate as MG&E, while WE had offered a 22.5 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated.

“If renewable energy is to drive job growth in Wisconsin, lawmakers must create favorable marketplace conditions to support new installations going forward. No policy will accomplish that goal more effectively than a state initiative to establish higher buyback rates,” Vickerman said.
END

Comments in opposition to PSC staff recommendation to raise rates in MGE's Energy for Tomorrow program

COMMENTS FILED ELECTRONICALLY IN

Application of Madison Gas and Electric Company for Authority to Change Electric and Natural Gas Rates 3270-UR-116

Commentor Information:
Name: Michael Vickerman
Address: 509 Elmside Blvd.
City: Madison State:WI Zip:53704
E-mail: mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org

To the Commission:

I would like to comment on the recommendations from PSC staff (witnesses John Feit and Jerry Albrecht) to increase the premium charged to Green Power Tomorrow subscribers. I approach this issue from a multiple of perspectives: (1) as a professional renewable energy advocate; (2) as a 100% program subscriber (since 1999); and (3) as a proud owner of a 1.7 kW solar electric system that was installed after Madison Gas and Electric launched its Clean Power Partners program in 2008.

All of MGE's Clean Power Partners, (including me) sell the output from our solar systems to Green Power Tomorrow program subscribers through a 25 cents/kWh buyback rate. Among these customer-producers of clean energy are TDS Custom Construction, Goodman Community Center, City of Madison, Dane County Regional Airport, Madison No Fear Dentistry, and Isthmus Engineering.

The solar buyback rate is supported through voluntary purchases of renewable electricity. When the Clean Power Partners program was announced, MGE envisioned a 300 kilowatt ceiling on solar energy purchases through the special tariff. All Clean Power Partners must subscribe to Green Power Tomorrow. At the same time Clean Power Partners was launched, MGE reduced the subscription premium to a penny per kWh. The declining premium sparked a significant upsurge in subscribership, which enabled MGE to carve out a larger space for solar electric production supported by the program. The ceiling on the Clean Power Partners program is now one megawatt.

I mention Clean Power Partners to highlight the link between subscription volume and solar electric production. The larger the volume of electricity flowing through Green Power Tomorrow, the greater the amount of solar generation that the program can support. The reverse, however, is also true.

The participation rate of these programs is very sensitive to premium amounts. According to research compiled by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the median premium price of voluntary programs nationwide is about a penny per kWh. Programs with higher premiums have a significantly smaller participation rates than Green Power Tomorrow. Forcing MGE to increase its renewable energy premium would trigger a falloff in participation, which in turn would very likely result in higher rates to nonparticipating ratepayers. Moreover, a contraction in subscribership may very well force MGE to curtail its Clean Power Partners program due to insufficient program revenues.

Clearly, the special buyback rates offered by MGE, Wisconsin Power & Light and We Energies have delivered a positive jolt to Wisconsin's solar electric marketplace. Wisconsin is actually a regional leader in solar electric capacity. No other Midwestern state comes close to where Wisconsin is right now. Given the significant progress made in the last three years, how does it benefit the state to choke off the one enabling policy that makes solar generation a reasonable value proposition to responsible energy users?

Shifting gears somewhat, there is an implicit understanding among program subscribers that they are committing to energy resources whose costs are fixed through long-term contracts. Many of these subscribers are likely to react negatively to a higher premium, because they know that the renewable resources leveraged through Green Power Tomorrow are not going up in price. They are likely to interpret an increased premium as expressing a public policy preference for burning more fossil fuel to take advantage of temporary dips in coal and gas prices. Is that really the message the PSC wishes to convey?

Let's summarize the consequences of a higher premium:

1) Decline in program participation rate, due to a combination of economic impacts and negative reinforcement.
2) Decline in program revenues, forcing MGE to compensate through higher rates on all customers.
3) Premature seizing up of the solar electric marketplace in the Madison area.

It is highly ironic that the PSC would consider inflicting such a cascading sequence of perverse outcomes to a nationally recognized renewable energy program like Green Power Tomorrow. Just last month, MGE's renewable energy program received the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Utility Green Power Program of the Year Award. The award was announced at the Green Power Leadership Awards banquet in Atlanta, Georgia. The honor bestowed to MGE was well-deserved, as evidenced by the letter I wrote in support of its program (see below).

Let's not wreck a good thing. Please refrain from forcing MGE to raise its premium on current and future renewable energy subscribers. Thank you.

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
222 S. Hamilton Street
Madison, WI 53703

Home address:
509 Elmside Blvd.
Madison, WI 53704
+++++++++++++++++

June 5, 2009

Mr. Courtney Welch
Green Power Leadership Awards
Navarro Research & Engineering for
U.S. DOE Golden Field Office
1617 Cole Blvd, MS 1501
Golden, CO 80401

Dear Mr. Welch:

It is with great pleasure that I submit this letter of support on behalf of Green Power Tomorrow, the highly popular renewable energy subscription program offered by Madison Gas & Electric. I offer this letter of support not only in my capacity as a professional renewable energy advocate, but also as a customer purchasing 100% of household electrical use through this program.

By any objective standard, MG&E's program is a hit with its customers. As reported in NREL's annual assessment of leading green power programs, Green Power Tomorrow has the second-highest customer participation rate (9.7%) among investor-owned utilities in the United States. The program ranks sixth among all utilities in sales as a percentage of total retail electricity sold (3.8%). Through a judicious blend of wind projects from the region, MG&E was able to lower its premium to one cent/kWh, which set the stage for the upsurge in customer participation in 2008. Many a Madison landmark, from the State Capitol to Monona Terrace Convention Center, is powered in part through Green Power Tomorrow.

Notwithstanding its modest premium, the program also supports customer-owned photovoltaic systems through a special buyback rate fixed at $0.25/kWh for 10 years. Called Clean Power Partners, this initiative has motivated dozens of customers to install PV on the residence or business. Last August, I became a Clean Power Partner, when the electricity from the newly installed 1.7 kW system on our house began flowing into the grid. With this installation we now produce nearly emission-free 2,000 kWh/year on top of the 4,000 kWh/yr of emission-free electricity we buy from MG&E. In the 18 months since Clean Power Partners was launched, customer participation has surpassed MG&E's initial expectations, prompting the utility to increase the ceiling on this initiative from 300 kW to one megawatt.

More than a renewable energy program, Green Power Tomorrow is a community-based sustainability initiative that supports about 50 MW of windpower that otherwise would not have been part of MGE’s resource portfolio. Instead of settling for small, incremental growth for its program, MGE elected to pursue a more ambitious path that would be appealing and affordable to a broad cross-section of its customer base, and the results are impressive. In my estimation, it is an outstanding candidate for this year's Utility Green Power Program of the Year.

Sincerely,

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin

Educating Schools on Solar Air Heating

by Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
October 2009

After reviewing several proposals, Focus on Energy selected two locations for showcasing this particular solar energy application.

One of the Focus on Energy-funded demonstration sites is the Cooperative Educational Service Agency, located in Chippewa Falls.

Better known as CESA 10, this agency provides energy management services to 30 school districts in northwest Wisconsin. A low-rise building with plenty of unshaded roof space, the CESA 10 office presents an ideal setting to test a solar application that could very well be a good technology fi t for the schools served by this agency.
“We hope this installation will enable us to practice what we preach,” said Todd Wanous, an energy manager at CESA 10 and the driving force behind this demonstration. Placed in service in August 2009, CESA 10’s innovative installation features Wisconsin’s first example of a modular rooftop air heating system called SolarDuct®.

On the roof are three banks of corrugated collector panels, each connected to the building’s air handling system. The dark-colored panels are covered with ventilation holes that draw in outside air. Sunlight striking the panels warms the air passing through the holes. Through the ducts running behind the arrays, ventilation fans draw the preheated air into the building’s air handling system.

CESA 10’s SolarDuct® unit is designed to supplement, not replace, the natural gas furnaces that used to be the sole source of space heat.

However, this system does not necessitate additional fans or blowers to move the preheated air throughout the building. As a result, there is no parasitic energy loss to factor in.

Continued.

This article first appeared in Sustainable Times, October 2009

RENEW, Farmers Union, and partners launch Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign

For immediate release: December 3, 2008

For More Information Contact:
Adrienne Joseph or Sue Beitlich
715-723-5561/715-379-2712 or 608-769-7625
wfuadriennej@charterinternet.com or wfusueb@charter.net

WFU and partners announce launch of Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign
Madison, Wis. (December 3, 2008) – Wisconsin Farmers Union officials gathered at the Wisconsin State Capitol today to announce the launch of the Homegrown Renewable Energy Campaign. WFU and its campaign partners laid out four state policy initiatives that will address the challenge of global climate change.

“The Wisconsin agriculture and forestry industries are essential to expanding a renewable energy economy in our state,” said Sue Beitlich, WFU president. “Renewable energy will help us to achieve greater energy and economic security, create new jobs, strengthen agricultural markets and reduce carbon emissions.”

Building on Gov. Jim Doyle’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand renewable energy, and the recommendations of his Global Warming Task Force, WFU along with Clean Wisconsin, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute and RENEW Wisconsin, have developed a campaign to support the following initiatives to expand energy and heat production from biomass:

• Create the Biomass Energy Crop Reserve Program, establishing 10-year contracts to pay landowners in exchange for planting bioenergy crops that are energy efficient and preserve natural resources.
• Expand Renewable Fuels for Schools and Communities by setting up funding sources for those who would like to purchase equipment for biomass systems that replace fossil fuel and save tens of thousands of dollars in fuel savings.
• Launch a Renewable Energy Buyback Program that will fairly compensate small-scale renewable energy producers who generate renewable electricity (biomass, solar, wind and hydro).
• Encourage the establishment of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard to reduce carbon intensity of transportation fuels.

“These policies taken together not only create more jobs on Wisconsin’s farms and their rural communities but could also reduce global warming emissions by 6 to 7 million tons per year, equivalent to taking 600,000 cars off of Wisconsin’s roads,” said Keith Reopelle, Senior Policy Director for Clean Wisconsin.

“Wisconsin's natural resources, employment opportunities and energy security can greatly benefit from a renewable, bio-based economy,” said Margaret Krome, Policy Director for Michael Fields Agricultural Institute. “However, we need strong policies to jump start this new economy and ensure that it will be accessible by all and sustainable.”

The four partners along with endorsing organizations, Organic Valley, Agrecol Corp., the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, Marth Wood Products, the Wisconsin Biodiesel Association, Green Diesel Wisconsin Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, Wisconsin Center for Environmental Education, Midwest Renewable Energy Association and the Partners in Forestry Landowners Cooperative, are continuing to ask organizations and individuals for their support of the campaign. For more information, the public can visit www.wisconsinfarmersunion.com.END
Wisconsin Farmers Union, a member-driven organization, is committed to enhancing the quality of life for family farmers, rural communities and all citizens through educational opportunities, cooperative endeavors and civic engagement.

Testimony in WPS Rate Case, asking for a docket to set uniform buy-back rates across utilities

Michael Vickerman submitted the following testimony (a question and answer format) in the WPS rate case (Docket No. 6690-UR-119) on behalf of RENEW Wisconsin:

Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A. . . . The purpose of my testimony is to show that differences in utility buyback rates for solar electricity are beginning to skew the Wisconsin marketplace, resulting in a concentration of installation activity in those territories that offer the most attractive rates. This asymmetry is a reason for convening a proceeding to set Advanced Renewable Tariffs for distributed renewable generation sources that are technology-specific and are uniform across service boundaries. . . .

Q. Which utilities offer a special solar electric buyback rate to customers?
A. We Energies (WE) instituted in January 2006 a 22.5 cent/per kWh buyback rate for solar electric installations. The next utility to offer a solar electric buyback rate was Madison Gas & Electric (MGE). Its 25 cent/kWh rate took effect January 2008. Both rates are fixed over a 10-year term. They are available to all residential, commercial and industrial customers of WE and MGE until a certain capacity threshold is reached. WE’s experimental solar tariff was initially capped at 500 kW. In 2007 WE raised the cap to 1 MW. MGE initially set a ceiling of 150 kW for its solar electric buyback rate, but has since raised it to 300 kW.

Wisconsin Power & Light has proposed a 25 cent/kWh rate as part of its pending rate case. If approved by the Public Serviced Commission, it would take effect January 2009.

In addition to its 22.5 cent/kWh solar rate, WE provides a significant up-front incentive to nonprofit customers that seek to install solar electric systems. Unlike the solar rates offered by WE and MGE, which are adjuncts of their voluntary renewable energy purchase programs, WE’s nonprofit incentive program is supported by all of its customers.

Q. Are the higher buyback rates for solar beginning to influence the marketplace?
A. We’re starting to see signs that they are. Focus on Energy keeps track of the flow of solar electric incentive checks by utility territory. From May through July 2008, Focus incentives supported the installation of 253.8 kW of customer-sited solar generating capacity. Of that total 116.2 kW were installed in WE territory, constituting about 46% of the statewide total. Slightly more than 24 kW of solar were installed in MGE territory during the same time. Taken together, about 55% of Focus on Energy-supported solar electric capacity was interconnected to WE’s and MGE’s distribution systems during that period. For comparison purposes, WE and MGE make up less than half of the state’s electricity sales.

I expect the solar buyback rates offered by WE and MGE will attract an even larger share of total installation volume as the year wears on. Bear in mind that MGE’s solar buyback rate has existed for less than nine months, and we are likely to see a surge of installations in the second half of 2009. Focus on Energy’s August results should be available before the technical hearings begin.

Q. During the same three-month period, how many kW of Focus on Energy-supported solar electric capacity were completed and interconnected to WPS?
A. According to Focus on Energy records, 13 kW of solar electric capacity were added to WPS’s system between May 1st and July 31st, 2008. That number is about 5% of the total solar electric capacity supported by Focus on Energy during that time. For comparison purposes, WPS accounts for about 15% of the state’s electricity sales.

Full testimony here.

Fossil Fuel Watch: Solar, The No-Risk Path to Wealth Creation

Fossil Fuel Watch
Vol. 6, Number 5, March 20, 2007
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin

Awhile back, I wrote a column which was highly critical of using payback analysis to figure out whether installing a solar hot water system on one’s house makes economic sense. In almost every example you can imagine, the payback period for today’s solar installations ranges between long and forever. For my system, which started operating in January 2006, payback will be achieved in a mere 19 years using today’s energy prices, though by the time 2025 rolls around, half of Florida might be under water and the rest of the country out of natural gas.

What message does payback analysis convey to the average household contemplating a solar installation? It can be boiled down to this harsh assessment: the chances that you will be living in the same house when the system is fully paid off are remote, so you’re better off leaving solar off the table.

Indeed, payback analysis reinforces the popular perception that solar energy is unaffordable, and that homeowners should wait for technological improvements or cost reductions before pursuing this energy option. But from the standpoint of energy security and climate protection, every day of inaction leaves us in a deeper hole. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for external triggers -- be they painful market signals or nasty resource wars -- to spur us into doing the right thing.

But there’s no reason to let payback length rule one’s ability to invest in sustainable energy for the home or business, especially if there are other approaches to valuing important economic decisions. One way to sidestep the gloomy verdicts of payback analysis is to do what most companies do when contemplating a long-term investment like solar energy -- calculate the internal rate of return (IRR) on the invested capital. The definition of IRR is the annualized effective compounded return rate which can be earned on the invested capital, i.e. the yield on the investment.

By using this familiar capital budgeting method, I’m able to calculate an IRR of 6.1% for my solar water heater if natural gas prices rise a measly 3% per annum. That yield exceeds anything that a bank will offer you today. It will likely outperform the stock market this year, which is due for a substantial downward adjustment to reflect the slow-motion implosion of the housing market now underway. And, unless you live in a gold-rush community like Fort McMurray, Alberta, your house will do well just to hold onto its current valuation, let alone appreciate by six percent.

While all investments pose some degree of risk, the return on a solar energy system is about as safe and predictable as, well, the rising sun. Fortunately for the Earth and its varied inhabitants, the center of our solar system is situated well beyond the reach of humanity’s capacity to tamper with a good thing.

The collector system is simplicity itself; the panels just sit there gathering all that exogenous, renewable energy during daylight hours, unencumbered with moving parts that can wear out. The panels degrade slightly from one year to the next, but they shouldn’t lose more than 20% of their efficiency over a 30-year period. And, in the event of a violent weather event like a hailstorm, one’s homeowner insurance policy should cover the damage. All told, solar energy, whether used for electricity or heat, is about as close as it comes to a risk-free investment.

But what about solar’s contribution to the market value of the house it serves, which can be easily measured? A 10-year-old solar energy system should deliver 20 more years of electricity or heat, reducing that house’s energy overhead during that period. In the case of my installation, the 20 years of avoided energy purchases starting in Year 11 should exceed my entire out-of-pocket expense. One can infer from that calculation that houses that capture solar energy on-site will appreciate faster--or depreciate more slowly -- than houses that don’t.

Granted, calculating the IRR of a solar installation doesn’t capture the full range of benefits that flow to the system owner. It doesn’t, for example, factor in the possibility that, before too long, natural gas will become a rationed energy source, but that’s a political outcome whose probability and impacts are, at this point, unquantifiable. True, environmental externalities can be modeled but it’s just an academic exercise until emission offset markets like the Chicago Climate Exchange become accessible to homeowners and small business owners as well as to utilities and multinational corporations. But calculating the installation’s IRR allows system owners to see something about solar energy that is not revealed in payback analysis, which is that obtaining electricity and/or heat from the sun is a sustainable and risk-free way of creating household wealth. And if the numbers support this conclusion, then why aren’t we reinvesting every last penny of profit from our fossil fuel-based economy into creating a renewable energy platform for the future?

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return

Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch is a RENEW Wisconsin initiative tracking the supply demand equation for these fossil fuels, and analyzing its effects on prices, consumption levels, and the development of energy conservation strategies and renewable energy alternatives. For more information on the global and national petroleum and natural gas supply picture, visit "The End of Cheap Oil" section in RENEW Wisconsin's Web site. These commentaries also posted on RENEW’s blogand Madison Peak Oil Group’s blog.

Fossil Fuel Watch: Meet My Solar Clothes Dryer

by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
Vol. 5, Number 9, December 28, 2006

A year ago my wife was firmly in charge the household laundry. Now, not only am I washing and drying all our clothes, including the sheets, towels, and pillow cases, I find myself looking forward to doing it. What is going on here?

A divorce? Wrong answer. Anyway, that would only explain the shift in personnel, not the attitudinal change. A personality transfer à la “Freaky Friday”? Incorrect. This is not a case of life imitating a Disney movie.

Place the blame instead on our rooftop solar water heating system, which was installed in January 2006. That purchase challenged me to think about integrating our solar ration"the daily allotment of sunlight that falls on our house and yard"more effectively into our regular routines. And few routines are as unavoidable as doing the laundry.

It so happens that we share a clothesline with two neighboring households. In years past, my wife would hang the clothes out to dry during the warm summer months, but in the colder months she would simply transfer the wet clothes to the gas-fired dryer stacked above the washing machine.

One may wonder: why deviate from that routine? Using the washing machine and dryer in our decidedly unfinished basement would allow her to go through a week’s worth of dirty laundry and finish the job in three hours.

But some time this spring, a question started plaguing me: if it’s a good thing to use sunlight instead of natural gas to wash clothes, why isn’t it equally true for drying them? And if my solar panel can preheat up my water tank on a sunny day in March, why not rely on the same energy source to dry the wet clothes after they’ve been washed?

With these questions tumbling round and round inside my brain, I decided to take action by commandeering the laundry and doing it myself. So what did I learn?

First and foremost, weather conditions should be the deciding factor in selecting when to do the wash. On cold days, clothes dry much faster in breezy, sunny days than in slack days under overcast skies. If you’re depending on the weather to deliver the energy it takes to dry your laundry, you’ll need scheduling flexibility and an opportunistic attitude. And I can’t emphasize enough the value of periodically checking the Internet weather sites, particularly the radar images, to avoid being unpleasantly surprised by sun showers or swiftly moving thunderstorms.

Everything you hang on the solar dryer, as I like to call it, will become dry over time. The same is true for garments hung inside your house or apartment. But there will be occasions, especially around the winter solstice, when there isn’t enough solar energy outside to finish the job by sundown. If your goal is to avoid using a fossil-fueled dryer, then you’ll need to deploy a drying rack or two to take advantage of the low-humidity warmth inside your dwelling. In the dead of winter, your furnace or wood stove can deliver whatever supplemental heat is needed to dry a full load of laundry in a 24-hour cycle.

Since I’ve taken over laundry duties, the combination of our solar ration and the available indoor heat handles about 80% of what the gas dryer used to do. The only action the gas dryer sees these days is towels and heavy garments.

And how is my obsession with the solar ration affecting our bottom line? While it’s too soon to estimate an annual savings, we did use about 20% less natural gas this November versus the year-earlier period, even though November 2005 was a much warmer month.

The rewards of a well-used solar dryer are by no means limited to the energy and dollar savings reported on the monthly utility bill. The best part of the package is the time spent outside. There you can take the pulse of the day from the sunlight, clouds, air temperature, wind and humidity that make up this continuous flux of energy that we call the weather. Relying on solar energy in this way makes a person more attuned to the ebb and flow of weather conditions. Yes, forsaking the fossil-fueled dryer for the great outdoors does take more time and effort, but it’s a small price to pay for eliminating the drudgery that comes with doing the laundry on autopilot.

Amazingly enough, community prohibition of clotheslines is not uncommon in the United States. Ironically, this inane belief that the sight of gym trunks and sweat socks hanging in a yard will drive property values lower is strongest in the Sun Belt, a region where solar drying"and water heating--should be the norm and not the exception. What can you say about a mindset that thinks nothing of wasting a precious fossil fuel on doing the laundry just to keep up appearances? Given how prevalent this silly and self-destructive behavior is in our land, is the imminent arrival of the oil peak and terminally declining natural gas stocks necessarily a bad thing?

----------

Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch is a RENEW Wisconsin initiative tracking the supply demand equation for these fossil fuels, and analyzing its effects on prices,
consumption levels, and the development of energy conservation strategies and renewable energy alternatives. For more information on the global and national petroleum and natural gas supply picture, visit "The End of Cheap Oil" section in RENEW Wisconsin's web site: www.renewwisconsin.org. These commentaries also posted on RENEW’s blog: http://www.zmetro.com/community/us/wi/madison/renew
and Madison Peak Oil Group’s blog: http://www.madisonpeakoil-blog.blogspot.com