Green Options

It’s a Bright New Day for Home Solar
Hidden in the fine print of the massive Wall Street Bailout bill that was signed into law last week was a tax credit extension that had alternative energy companies, especially makers of home solar systems, dancing with joy. Instead of losing the federal tax credit at the end of the year, which seemed likely until Wall Street forced Congress to stay in session longer, consumers who install photovoltaic systems will now receive far greater tax savings than they currently enjoy. To put it bluntly, the federal government is willing to pay 30% of your cost to go solar. For a description of the roller-coaster ride that these tax credits have taken over the last few months, read my post from last week, Senate Bailout Plan Could be Boon for Alternative Energies, Home Solar.

Now that the bill has become law, it’s time to reassess the overall costs and return on investment for a home photovoltaic system. Because of their up-front expense, Photovoltaic systems are often viewed as a luxury for the wealthy. And with the down economy it is possible that even these impressive tax credits won’t cause a spike in the purchase of photovoltaic systems. Convincing someone to invest tens of thousands of dollars in something that may take a decade to pay itself off is a hard sell. Let the hard sell begin:

Lost in the economic and political circus of the recent weeks was the failure of congress to extend tax credits for alternative energy companies and homeowners who install solar-power systems. Both the Senate and the House wrote similar bills extending the tax credits and lifting the cap for residential solar-power installation. Until the end of this year, homeowners can receive a federal tax credit of 30% of the cost of a solar-power system, capped at $2,000. With that cap lifted, tax credits to homeowners installing solar-power systems increase dramatically, potentially saving homeowners over $10,000 on home solar systems. In addition, companies that produce electricity from wind will get a one year extension on tax credits, companies that produce electricity from solar will get an eight year extension on tax credits, and companies that produce electricity from other types of alternative energy will get a two year extension on tax credits.

Unfortunately, the Senate and House could not agree on how the continuation of tax credits would be paid for. In the past, such cuts were paid for by eliminating tax breaks for hedge fund managers and from tax increases on oil profits. With no progress made by the end of the session, these tax credits would disappear at the beginning of 2009. A coalition of renewable energy industry representatives warned that billions in research and hundreds of thousands of alternative energy jobs would be lost if the tax credits were not renewed. As of last week, this seemed the likely outcome. The Wall Street meltdown and the failure of the House to pass a bailout bill have given the tax credits new life.

This post is a follow-up to The Fight Over Radon in Granite Countertops Heats Up, which will provide some background information on the granite/radon issue.

With the legion of both deniers and alarmists out there attempting to monopolize the discussion over the safety of granite countertops, it is difficult to find unbiased information.  Peruse the comments in the above post and you can see the discussion has devolved into name calling.  The deniers, many of whom work in the granite industry, blast any insinuation that granite could be dangerous as “fear-mongering” and put down the current research as “junk science.”  The alarmists, many of whom sell competing countertops, argue that consumers shouldn’t take the risk that comes with granite.  The truth, as with most heated arguments, can be found somewhere in the middle.

The folks over at Food Service Warehouse are celebrating the announcement of their Certified Green Commercial Kitchens program by announcing a green commercial kitchen contest, with $40,000 worth of kitchen equipment and supplies going to the winner.  If you operate a commercial kitchen and have taken steps to make it greener, fill out the form by October 31 to enter the contest. It’s free and the prizes include a refrigerator/freezer, steamer, fryer, ice machine, oven, and more.

Food Service Warehouse is an online source for commercial kitchen equipment that has taken impressive steps in encouraging green commercial kitchen practices.  They have devoted dozens of pages to explaining the advantages of going green and giving practical advice on how to achieve it.

Early pioneers of the green movement must be conflicted: Their message has been heard and the green movement has seeped into every facet of our lives, from cars to buildings to food.  But with the movement’s popularity has come what many see as a hijacking of green sensibilities by people and companies who are trying to sell their products, many of which are either only marginally green or completely unnecessary. If the goal is to leave a smaller carbon footprint, to reduce waste, or to conserve energy or resources, we should buy fewer products, not more.

Let’s not start demonizing the corporations, especially those who have advanced conservationism through energy and fuel saving technologies, new environmentally-friendly products at lower prices, and new ways to recycle.  It’s no coincidence that the popularity of the green movement increased dramatically when corporations began to adopt - and promote - green practices.  Conservationism cannot be seen as the enemy of consumerism, but rather a lens through which to view it.

The air is going to get a little bit cleaner come January, 2009 - and that has nothing to do with a new presidential administration.  The California Air Resources Board’s dramatic Air Toxic Control Measure known as “the CARB rule” will go into effect January 1 and will, among other things, mandate a reduction in formaldehyde levels in composite wood products like particle board, hardwood plywood, and medium density fiberboard.  Manufacturers of composite wood products have less than four months to adapt to the new requirements or they will be unable to manufacture or sell their products in California.

Formaldehyde came into the public consciousness this past Winter as trailers used for Hurricane Katrina victims were found to contain dangerous levels - click here for those findings.  Urea-formaldehyde is a volatile organic compound that has been linked to health issues ranging from persistent eye and skin irritation to asthma to, in extremely high levels, cancer.  It has been practically banned in Europe, Japan, and Canada.  The United States Green Building Council awards LEED credits for buildings that have eliminated added urea-formaldehyde.  The inclusion of the word “added” is due to the fact that small levels of formaldehyde occur naturally in wood.  Urea-formaldehyde is used in composite wood as a drying agent for glues and adhesives, significantly speeding up the manufacturing process of the composite wood.  For this reason, non-formaldehyde composite woods will come at a higher price.  Add in the increased demand due to the CARB rule and the current limited supply of formaldehyde-free composite wood and we could see increased prices across the board for composite wood products like furniture, cabinets, moldings and millwork, doors, and many other products. 

Already a leader in water and energy conservation in bathroom fixtures, Hansgrohe is preparing to bring to the United States the Pontos Aquacycle grey water system.  Currently available in Europe, the Pontos Aquacycle is a compact and efficient way to convert bath and shower water into clean, filtered water for use in toilets, washing machines, interior cleaning, and exterior watering.  The Pontos Aquacycle ranges in size from a cabinet shaped basic model, cleaning roughly 237 gallons of water a day, to large, hotel use models that clean 3,300 gallons a day.

Silent and odor-free, the Pontos Aquacycle uses a four chamber system to filter the bath or shower water into clean, usable water: two main recycling chambers, a sediment disposal chamber, and a UV-sterilization chmaber.   No date has been set for the US release of the Pontos Aquacycle, but I’ve been told that Hansgrohe is targeting 2009.

Despite the narrowing gap in cost between green building and traditional “to-code” building, most builders and home buyers still perceive the green option to be significantly more expensive.  The reality is that due to increased builder education and an influx of affordable green building products, a building can be built green within the same budget as a non-green building.  According to Clark Wilson, CEO of Austin based Green Builders, Inc., “It’s our job as builders to find those green products that don’t drive up the price of the home.”  Rick Hunter of the St. Louis green building firm Sage Homebuilders agrees:  “With proper planning and a little experience, building green, even certified green, can be done for about the same cost. We are building certified green homes at the highest levels of certification for less than 1% cost increase.”  For an informative breakdown on how green buildings cost from 0 to 2% more than non-green buildings, check out “The True Costs of Building Green” from the folks at Buildings.com.

Now that green building is an affordable option, it’s time to change the way we frame the affordability debate.  Too long have supporters of green building been on the defensive, forced to justify the costs of building more energy efficient, healthier, more sustainable homes.  Instead of focusing on the costs of making your building green, let’s talk about the costs of not building green.

Whether you are developing a new green building product or have recently discovered that the product you have been selling for years satisfies green building program requirements, there comes a point where you must state on your literature which green building (probably LEED) credits your product satisfies or contributes to. It is at this point that usually honest businesses declare their products greener than they really are, crossing the line from green to greenwashing in order to reach the widest green market. Maybe you didn’t understand the requirements for the individual credits. Maybe someone told you to declare as many credits as you possibly could and let the LEED auditors sort them out. Maybe you’re just throwing everything that could conceivably be green against the wall to see what sticks. What you have done is greenwashed your product, which may have been green enough to begin with. But once you greenwashed it, you’ve sent a message that your company a) may not be experienced with green building or b) may not be trustworthy.

As I walked from booth to booth looking for something new and different at last month’s Greening the Heartland conference, I actually did a double take when I saw the words “Green Insurance” on one display.  Here was something new that I had to learn more about - was it another gimmick or attempt to force green into an unrelated industry?  I spoke to Stephen Horack, a ”Green Insurance Specialist” of St. Louis based Huntleigh McGehee, and I have to say that I was sold on the idea right away.  Green insurance is not just a good idea, it’s potentially a revolutionary idea.

Started in 2006 by Fireman’s Fund, a member of the United States Green Building council, green insurance protects owners of green commercial or residential buildings.  In the case of a loss, Fireman’s Fund would bring in a LEED-AP to oversee reconstruction of the building to its original LEED certification level, making sure that the building systems operate at peak performance and in alignment with one another.  If this seems like a no-brainer, consider submitting rebuilding plans to an insurance company that has no experience with green building.  Would you have to explain why every component of the building was built that way, rather than a less expensive non-green alternative?