Ever since I watched Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, I was shocked to learn how urgent it is that we need to be responsible with the way we live. What is it that we are leaving to our future generations? I would not want our kids to ask us one day “Why didn’t we do anything when we had the chance?” Contrary to popular belief that most of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is from our vehicles, the true culprit is from coal burning power plants. Consuming less energy is our most direct way of saving our environment.
A housing project in IJsselstein, Holland, sets a great example of what we can do by using solar energy, one of the cleanest forms of renewable energy. Traditional crystalline solar panels cost about $50 per square foot. They are made with silicon wafers produced by the ‘price-gouging’ tech industry An alternative thin film solar panel, unlike crystalline panels, are made by depositing a layer of semiconductors onto glass or a flexible polymer. A third of the price per square foot of crystalline panels, the black or dark purplish thin film panels don’t make the building seem a sci-fi movie set. The only downside of thin film (which incidentally is the same technology that fuels your trusty solar-powered calculator and digital watch) is that it’s about half as efficient as crystalline panels. Since thin film is so cheap, the easy solution is to use more panels to achieve the same energy output. The upside is that you can integrate this thin film right into the architecture of your home or building without the characteristic “panels on the roof” look.
One nice example of this is found in the IJsselstein project homes. These become very attractive multilevel solariums – each unit almost completely encased in photovoltaic panels. Can you see them?
The glass cladding with the thin film panels provides over 30 percent of the total energy needs of each house. This “solar glass” also helps the 1,400 sq. ft. space feel larger and more open.
Yes, the upfront cost is higher than traditional construction. But the energy savings assure future ROI. But the biggest savings is in a positive environmental impact. That’s priceless…
Perhaps the savings come from not having the high replacement/maintenance costs that would normally be associated with regular construction material? Or perhaps it was built by true professional “experts” that know what they are doing (non-union), care about what they are doing (non-union) and take the time to do it right because of the impact they can have on the environment (non-union), so that the quality and longevity of the actual construction method saves money and offsets the carbon foot print over the life of the home? Maybe it’s both?
In addition it was not stated in the article, but maybe the materials are recyclable, or renewable?
Would it be possible to elaborate on that?
On a last note I would also like to say that this “wart of a dwelling” has more character and interest than the over produced, non-descript, architecturally confused, ginourmous, inefficient, cookie cutter homes that are currently being crapped out on a daily basis. No wonder people don’t want to buy new homes any more.
Can I order a supply a few months in advance?