At this home, power company pays you
If you go
What: Midwest Renewable Energy’s Wisconsin Solar Tour. Public open house tours of innovative, energy-efficient homes and businesses in south central Wisconsin. A showcase of renewable energy, green building techniques and sustainable living ideas.
When: 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 6.
Local stops on tour:
-- Stephen and Wendy Tupper residence, 9326 N. Raven Court, Milton. 44 solar panels, innovated steel roof construction, triple-pane “smart” windows, in-floor radiant heat, solar-heated water, gas boiler.
-- Lyle Ackerman residence, 4312 Pheasant Run, Janesville. Roof solar panels that power the home and a Chevrolet Volt.
-- Agsun Corporation, 1321 S. Jackson Street, Janesville. Solar energy tied to power grid.
Details: For more information on the tour, visit midwestrenew.org/solartour.
Photo
From the front, you can barely see the 44 solar panels that provide energy to this newly-built home in Milton.
Photo
The kitchen in a newly built green home in Milton. There are small differences in the design of the home, including light bulbs that take slightly longer to warm up but are more energy efficient.
Photo
Steve Tupper's electronic home energy use gauge allows Tupper to monitor up to the minute how much energy his home produces and uses. Green spikes represent daily energy produced by Tupper's solar panel system. The red spikes show daily energy use.
TOWN OF MILTON — The September sun was hidden by gray clouds, and rain was pattering down.
It meant the 20-foot-tall tower of solar panels in Stephen and Wendy Tupper's rural Milton backyard were basically idle.
But that didn't seem to concern Stephen Tupper as he clicked open a computer program in the office inside of his new, super-energy efficient home on North Raven Court.
The program, a home energy use monitoring system, showed a to-the-minute ratio of Tupper's energy use to energy production during the last month.
On a moving graph, red spikes represented daily energy use. Green spikes showed how much energy the backyard solar panels had produced. The graph showed much more green than red.
In fact, in the last 30 days, the Tupper home's has had less than zero energy use; it's actually produced about $10 more in energy than it has used.
If that trend keeps up this month, Alliant Energy, their power company, will cut the Tuppers a check for the difference.
"Imagine having the power company pay you. It's a great feeling," said Wendy Tupper.
Not shabby, considering that the Tupper's house has 4,000 square feet of mostly open space—and it's chock full of picture windows that bathe most of the rooms in natural light.
Yet when it comes to energy efficiency, the Tuppers have a one-two punch going at their new home. Completed in March by Janesville builder Greg Schauer of Schauer Construction, the house is a blend of alternative energy and sustainable construction.
For electrical production, heating and hot water, the house relies on 44 solar energy collection panels in the backyard.
It uses in-floor radiant heat and has a system that recirculates stale air and squeezes the residual heat out of it, the Tuppers and Schauer explained.
The house also is laid out so that doors and windows channel wind like a shotgun through the center of the open-concept upstairs, quickly venting the house.
"I've nicknamed the style ‘warm eco-minimalism,'" said Wendy Tupper, who is a kitchen and bathroom design consultant.
Schauer estimated the annual cost to heat the house at $264 and the annual cost to cool it at $62. And that doesn't count the Tupper's own solar energy production.
Then there's the actual construction of the house:
-- The triple-pane windows are individually "tuned" with a special coating help control the temperature depending on the season and the angle of the sun.
-- The exterior walls are sealed with a vapor barrier and built to float free from wall studs. That allows extra insulation and prevents warm or cool air from escaping the house through the studs.
-- The steel roof has no exposed fasteners, along with 3-foot window overhangs that shade windows from direct sunlight.
The house has an energy efficiency rating 88 percent higher than standards for new conhome construction, Stephen Tupper said.
"Even without solar power, it would be more efficient than a regular construction home," he said.
Schauer, 28, has a civil engineering degree and has done construction professionally since he was a student at Janesville Craig High School. But energy-efficient home building is a new foray for him.
When the Tuppers asked him to build the home a couple of years ago, Schauer took courses in "green" construction and learned the processes.
He said it took a year of daily collaboration between Schauer, the Tuppers and about 15 subcontractors to finish the house.
The house is being featured in a public open house for the Midwest Renewable Energy Association's Wisconsin Solar Tour on Saturday, Oct. 6.
The association highlights homes and businesses in the Midwest that embrace alternative energy and "green" building techniques.
For Schauer, who'll be leading the tour, it's his first "green" home. But he's hoping it'll become his bread and butter. He said demand for solar-powered, energy efficient homes is growing in Madison and Milwaukee. The Tupper project gives him hope there could be a demand in the area.
Stephen Tupper declined to say how much it cost to build the house or the solar power system.
But Schauer estimated that on average, it costs 7 to 10 percent more to build an energy-efficient house such as the Tuppers' and more to put in alternate energy systems such as solar panels.
In a way, the Tuppers could consider the extra mortgage cost as an up-front electrical bill that's locked in at a 3.5 percent interest rate.
Stephen Tupper said that's a comforting thought when he considers the specter of energy cost increases.
At current energy rates, he estimated it would take 12 to 20 years to break even on upfront costs of the home. Schauer said the solar panels are rated for 25 years before their productivity will begin to wane.
But it's not all about cash savings. Wendy Tupper said her father had built a solar-powered home before the idea was popular. She hoped to someday harness alternate energy herself.
"I always said if we ever built, we'd try to do it this way," Wendy said.
For the couple, as important as saving money is to simply save energy.
"It's just the right thing to do," Stephen Tupper said.
Sep 16, 2012 at 8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
I was listening to Clark Howard several days ago when I heard him talking about solar panels and how the cost has decreased by up to 97%, so I went to his website and here is what he said:
By Clark Howard
I feel very strongly that we as a country can do so much more on the energy independence front than we've done. We've only just begun with our exploration and conservation efforts.
I believe we need a national policy of having our truck fleets run on natural gas. Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than diesel. We're already starting to see some delivery services like UPS run more of their fleets on natural gas.
Meanwhile, we shouldn't overlook solar energy. The Wall Street Journal reports the economics of solar are becoming more compelling for businesses first and residents second.
In the U.S., we will install more solar this year than we did the entire last decade, something like the equivalent energy to two giant nuke power plants being built from scratch. The cost of panels has dropped by 97% in a generation. That's down from an equivalent of $30 a watt to 84 cents today, according to The Wall Street Journal.
People who naysay about solar and wind power have historically done so because of static analysis. They take only today's numbers and say, "This will never work." But that kind of attitude sells American ingenuity short.
It doesn't count on the power of science and technology to make better products and lower costs over time.
For example, the first computer I bought for my business was a used one for $30,000 in 1982. Yet my wristwatch today is smarter than that computer I bought used for $30,000 30 years ago!
Never sell short our ability to create change.
Sep 15, 2012 at 6:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
I learned that once you hook up your solar power to the grid and become a power supplier you lose your status as a home consumer and your rates go up. Also they only pay you a fraction of what they charge you for power. It will take 17-25 years for you to break even on a solar system.
Sep 15, 2012 at 4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.alliantenergy.com/SaveEnergyA...
-
You don't need solar panels to "go green" with your utilities and smaller homes are more eco-friendly (not jealous, just factual).
Sep 15, 2012 at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Keep in mind it's a lot easier to build these into a new home than to retrofit them onto an older home. dakman, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about; photovoltaic costs have dropped significantly in just the last few years. whz_bng, you're only counting the money they get back from the utility; you're not counting what they SAVE in power they don't have to pay for.
.
Still, let's take that $45K cost, and assume that 30% of it is paid for by the federal tax credit, leaving about $30K installed. Amortize that on a 30-year mortgage and you get $140/month -- but the chart provided shows energy produced and/or saved at $160-170. So essentially it's the same as getting $10 back from the utility PLUS $20 back in savings every single month. This doesn't count the cost savings from the heating and cooling that aren't necessary because the house is so energy-efficient to begin with (something that isn't possible in most retrofits, anyway), or the property tax exemption, or other things they don't have to pay for.
.
Yes, energy efficiency costs more up front. Yes, when energy costs are low it can extend your expected return on investment date farther into the future. But nobody expects energy costs to drop, or even to stay where they are forever. Meanwhile, not only are you saving yourself money, you're saving the construction costs of new power plants, you're saving the air and the water, and you're making all the commenters on Gazettextra grouse at you -- probably the best benefit of all.
.
frogger and factsplease do have points. For most people the best way to save energy is simply to live in a smaller home and use less in the first place. But if you can put in the investment for a net-zero-energy home I don't see why someone can't build as big a house as they can afford (well, there are other green issues such as manufacturing carbon deficits and so forth, but they're less directly measurable). At least they're mitigating the negative effects from what they build, which is more than most people can claim.
Sep 15, 2012 at 11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Exactly what I was thinking, molson711. I don't do it often, but every time I glance through the comments on this website I'm amazed at the abundance of stupidity. Give it a rest, people, and stop trying to make yourselves feel better by posting silly arguments about people that do better than you.
Sep 15, 2012 at 5:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Geez, what a bunch of whining haters. They have a big house, so what? Wouldn't we all like more room. Yes, the cost was extra, so what? If we all had the required cash to make these kind of "green" additions to our own homes, wouldn't we? Try and look at the bright side of things for once in your lives instead of trying to shoot down everything that's good because you can't have the same thing. Get off the computer, get to work and you, too, might be able to afford the better things in life! 'Nuff said.
Sep 14, 2012 at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Not sure that I would want the view of 44 solar panels in my backyard, BUT I do love the architecture of the home. Enjoy! :)
Sep 14, 2012 at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
dakman- THis is what I was curious about. How much initial $$ up front.
I would like new efficient windows but with having 35 of them we woudl have to live to be 200 to break even.
Because they like 4000 SQ FT.
A 400 sq ft shoe box would be even less than 2000 but only if you like to live in a shoe box.
Sep 14, 2012 at 4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
The article did not mention the cost of the 20' of solar panels. Maybe $45K. 20 yr life span. $2250 a year for 20 yrs plus 3.5% int to get back $10 a month. It sounds good until you cost it out. Know what you are getting into before you spend that kind of money.
Sep 14, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just think how much more efficient it would be if it were 2000 sq ft instead of 4000 sq ft! Do they really need that much space to heat/cool/fill with "stuff"? I love the concept and kudos to them for doing what they did, but it seems kind of contradictory to build a HUGE "energy saving" house.
-
http://www.envirocitizen.org/article/the...
Sep 14, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don't be so easily fooled, with the current cost of solar technology, they're very unlikely to see a return on their investment.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.