Gov’t Built Solar House Falls Apart

[Scott S]

Mother Nature Puts Freeze on "Green" Solar-powered Toilet
thenewamerican ^ | 12.30.08 | William F. Jasper

Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:28:42 PM by Coleus

With great fanfare, the City of Portland, Oregon, inaugurated its first solar-powered "loo" in Old Town, on December 8. "At the unveiling, mayor-elect Sam Adams gave the fancy new toilet its first ceremonial flush and Commissioner Randy Leonard was awarded with an honorary golden plunger," reported Portland's KGW-TV.

Leonard, who helped design the solar-powered outhouse, said the $140,000 price tag was nothing to worry about because "we're patenting the design and we intend to actually market them." The city could actually make a profit down the road, he said. Mother Nature was less than cooperative, however, dumping record-breaking snowfalls on the Portland area in the three weeks following the green loo's send-off.

According to news accounts, "Snow covered the restroom's roof-mounted solar panels, cutting off the flow of power to the storage batteries, which were completely drained and damaged." And without power, "The heat tape around the water lines stopped working, prompting the bureau to lock it up." No reports yet on how much the repair costs will be, or when the loo will be open for business again.



Scott S

[trularin]

I am not sure, but this may be the first time Roscoe has asked for advise.

[ccomt]

I wonder why nobody consulted an RV dealer to find out how they winterize RV vehicles? Hasn't anyone in the government heard about Propylene Glycol that's safe to put in potable water lines?

[Roscoe]

Water damage keeps solar house closed


Published: May 15, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Order reprints
Related Searches

* "solar-powered house" search results
* "water damage" search results
* "frozen pipes" search results

TROY, Mich., May 15 (UPI) -- A $900,000 solar-powered house designed for the city of Troy, Mich., has never opened because of water damage caused by frozen pipes, an official said.

Carol Anderson, director of Troy's Parks and Recreation Department, said tours of the house can't begin until the damaged floors have been repaired, The Detroit News reported Friday.

"It's not safe right now, and there's no estimated opening time because it depends on when we can get funding," Anderson said.

The 800-square-foot house was built by students from Lawrence Technological University. It had no gas or electrical hookups and was supposed to be livable year-round.

"The system was designed to kick a heater on to keep water from freezing," said Jeff Biegler, parks superintendent. "The heater drew all reserve power out of the battery, causing the system to back down."

Joe Veryser, an associate dean of architecture at the university said, he heard somebody turned the system off and forgot to turn it back on.

© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[VRM]

Roscoe,
So you really want to keep going with this, huh? You really should have quit while you were behind.

The prototype house cost $549,869.03, production units were estimated at $231,076.74 - you can get the real facts on the tech specs (including cost) here: http://www.solar.ltu.edu/2_cost.php


You also posted:

Originally Posted by Roscoe

"The system was designed to kick a heater on to keep water from freezing," said Jeff Biegler, parks superintendent. "The heater drew all reserve power out of the battery, causing the system to back down."

Joe Veryser, an associate dean of architecture at the university said, he heard somebody turned the system off and forgot to turn it back on.

Think about this logically for a minute - if someone shuts off the breaker then all that would be available is the reserve power in the battery.

An LTU official said
"Adjustments were needed in the hot water heating system, and as a consequence the battery-based electrical system was turned off and inadvertently left off. Due to Christmas vacation schedules, this error was not detected until after the pipes froze, causing considerable damage to a section of flooring."

Sounds like an ID-10T error on the part of the maintenance people rather than a failure of the system.

Here is a fun experiment for you:
Shut off your electricity for a cold week next winter - report back here with the results.

Maybe you should just be a man and admit that this was a bonehead hit on a bunch of students that was in no way justified.

Steve

[Buzz]

Unfortunately Steve, when the ultimate goal of a person or persons posting on a forum is to spin the facts in every way inhumanly possible to support and reinforce a pre-determined agenda or position; then truth, honesty and reality become inconvenient annoyances and therefore any attempts at sincere, honest discourse are, quite sadly, pointless.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Buzz

Unfortunately Steve, when the ultimate goal of a person or persons posting on a forum is to spin the facts in every way inhumanly possible to support and reinforce a pre-determined agenda or position; then truth, honesty and reality become inconvenient annoyances and therefore any attempts at sincere, honest discourse are, quite sadly, pointless.

Buzz,
I have to say that you are probably right. I still keep hoping that people will actually look at the data and make their conclusions based on each individual circumstance rather than saying that (in this case) everything eco-friendly is evil and un-American.

Anyway - have a great weekend (though I can't imagine any bad weekends where you live - the grass is always greener, right?)!

Steve

[Joe Wicked]

I know I am going to regret posting, but the article says that the heater drained the batteries and then later says that an associate dean from the college "Heard" someone forgot to turn a breaker back on. Each scenario has it's own implications and issues. Did the system fail because the batteries died (engineering fail), or did it fail because someone forgot to turn the breaker on (maintenance fail)? Each side here is choosing the one they think is the right one.

Great piece of reporting there. Contradicting facts are sloppy journalism and sadly accepted as good works.

[1ntCobra]

Back in the late 70's my great aunt went up to her son's house for the Christmas holidays. Upon returning to her home, she had found the heater failed, the pipe burst, the floors buckled, the foundation shifted in some places. The insurance paid out 10's of thousands of dollars to repair the disaster.

I see the point now. Being on the grid, powered by natural gas and electric, using an american made heater is just not to be trusted. Americans and their engineering failures of the so called greatest generation from the WWII time period, well they just turned out to be a bunch of short bus losers too.

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

Back in the late 70's my great aunt went up to her son's house for the Christmas holidays.
I see the point now. Being on the grid, powered by natural gas and electric, using an american made heater is just not to be trusted. Americans and their engineering failures of the so called greatest generation from the WWII time period, well they just turned out to be a bunch of short bus losers too.

Personally I think you are being rather harsh on your Great Aunt....but then again I never met her.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

Personally I think you are being rather harsh on your Great Aunt....but then again I never met her.

I'm only being harsh on my Great Aunt as she was part of her failed generation that settled for less than perfection. How is it that she could accept that some failure with her heater, the natural gas or electric grid could cause the partial destruction of her home. Why wasn't there some sort of fail safe? Perhaps a redundant backup heating system built into her home to prevent the pipes from freezing.

We are certainly holding up a student project with far, far less damage caused by human error to up to a standard of perfection. Why not hold up the same standard to a 1950's build home/heating system where the heating system was NOT accidentally left turned off before leaving for a holiday vacation. If anything we should hold a real home that people live in to a higher standard than a student project that nobody expects to live in.

And what the heck was up with the building standards in the 1950's that my Great Aunt's house built 3 blocks from the bay in New Jersey was on a crawl space foundation 2 cinder blocks high off the ground? Why is it that it was not until decades later they realized that houses there should be built on pilings like 10 feet off the ground?

I have to agree with you 392cobra, all of us Americans with our college students, engineers, utility companies, building standard committees are all a bunch of losers who belong on the short bus.

[J. T. Toad]

You're comparing this implementation of flawed technologies to the invention of the light bulb?

Steve. Laughable. I'd expect a better argument, please try again.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

You're comparing this implementation of flawed technologies to the invention of the light bulb?

Steve. Laughable. I'd expect a better argument, please try again.

Well of course I could do better. I just felt that there was a need to keep it simple.

So what flawed technologies were there in the house? Does a regular house in Michigan ever get frozen pipes if the heat is shut off? It looked like flawed maintenance to me.

So in a CC theme...All of the Cobra roadsters (FIAs and others) are short bus fodder because they were not able to accomplish Shelbys goal of beating Ferrari. There is a cool pic of an SA roadster at '63 Sebring with the letters TYFAIM (This Year Ferraris Ass Is Mine) in the rear roundel under the numbers. Well, it wasn't. The Ferrari GTOs were still chewing up everything in sight. Shelby needed to develop the more aerodynamic Daytona. The Daytona Coupes managed to win the GT class at LeMans in '64, but Ferrari still won the FIA title. Shelby would not win the championship until '65. It also took Ford a few years and LOTS of money to finally beat Ferrari overall at LeMans (not just GT class) with their GT40s.

The solar house built by LTU did not win, but it was the only one of the 20 competitors to have 2 separate bedrooms, and it was also viewed as actually livable. LTU had never been invited (you have to get an invitation) to this event before, and many of the others like Cornell and the winning German team had competed before.

I hate to say it, but the lovable Herbie usually only beats Porsche 917s and Ferrari 512s in the movies. LTU did beat a number of other teams in various aspects of the competition, but I think even they knew that the overall win was going to be tough.

Do you think they learned anything from their efforts? And as students, wouldn't that be the ultimate goal?

Steve

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

You're comparing this implementation of flawed technologies to the invention of the light bulb?

Steve. Laughable. I'd expect a better argument, please try again.

Yeah I have to agree with you Toad, Edison goes on the short bus too. He tried so many ways of making light bulbs, but then gave up when he made one that only lasted for like 1500 hours. Why didn't he work at it until he made one that lasts forever? I have to change light bulbs when they burn out, why is that? I don't go around replacing ceiling fans, light switches or the wiring in my house because they don't burn out. Why should I settle for light bulbs that burn out?

[VRM]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

Yeah I have to agree with you Toad, Edison goes on the short bus too. He tried so many ways of making light bulbs, but then gave up when he made one that only lasted for like 1500 hours. Why didn't he work at it until he made one that lasts forever? I have to change light bulbs when they burn out, why is that? I don't go around replacing ceiling fans, light switches or the wiring in my house because they don't burn out. Why should I settle for light bulbs that burn out?

I think Goddard has to ride the short bus as well. The Freds and Toads of his day knew that his experiments would go nowhere. I remember reading in grade school about how a MA paper wrote something about a rocket experiment missing the moon by a few hundred thousand miles or so.
I guess those V2 rockets Germany launched at England were just clever fakes. I just wish we had known before we wasted all that money launching satellites.


Steve

[J. T. Toad]

This "maintenance problem" is like, to use the prior analogy, showing up to race @ LeMans with square tires, a Briggs and Straton power plant, and forgetting fuel.

I hate to say, but the application of present day technologies to prove an "everybody should be doing this" mentality is juvenile.

The energy storage (battery) wouldn't have been able to realistically sustain the house from the get go. Let alone the implied environmental concerns for the ENTIRE experiment.

I would hate to be on the space station, submarine, airplane, to find out failure would be written off as a "maintenance" issue.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

This "maintenance problem" is like, to use the prior analogy, showing up to race @ LeMans with square tires, a Briggs and Straton power plant, and forgetting fuel.

I hate to say, but the application of present day technologies to prove an "everybody should be doing this" mentality is juvenile.

The energy storage (battery) wouldn't have been able to realistically sustain the house from the get go. Let alone the implied environmental concerns for the ENTIRE experiment.

I would hate to be on the space station, submarine, airplane, to find out failure would be written off as a "maintenance" issue.

To imply that everyone should be building houses according to a student project is stupid. I don't think that was implied. I had mentioned in an earlier post that decades ago my college was involved with building solar powered cars for a competition. It's been a couple of decades and I don't see us driving solar powered cars, nor would I ever expect that one of the student built solar cars would ever be considered for mass production for everyone. It is just a student built prototype. A fully engineered car meant for production, like a Mustang, Accord, Caravan etc. will have 100's of millions spent on engineering, testing, tooling, documentation, service training, etc. And that is with evolutionary changes. Shifting to newer technologies like hybrids I'm sure costs more.

Likewise, we don't use student projects as actual nuclear submarines, space shuttles or commercial aircraft. And even with 10's of billions spent on engineering safety and redundant systems on nuclear submarines and space shuttles, we have seen nuclear subs sink on their maiden test voyages and lost a couple of shuttles as well. Those are dangerous environments and even the best minds don't devise the perfect foolproof designs to eliminate all risks of the danger.

[J. T. Toad]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

To imply that everyone should be building houses according to a student project is stupid. .

uh... okay, and state legislatures haven't imposed solar requirements on new construction and 'housing efficiency' mandates.

To think a project like this doesn't influence policy and public opinion is naive and beyond stupid.

Read the "purpose" on their own website?
http://www.solar.ltu.edu/3_purpose.php
Just like a U.N. mandate, one would have to be pretty ignorant to not see the agenda behind statements like,

"It is our team's purpose and mission is to demonstrate to the public how small changes in building and design practices can have a global impact."

Personally, I think a Michigan winter without adequate shelter defines a dangerous environment.

[VRM]

JT,
Perhaps you should post the second sentence of the purpose as well as the first:
By following the principles of reduction, sustainability, and energy conservation, our team will construct and display a solar home that benefits the surrounding environment without sacrificing aesthetics or comfort.

Personally, I would think that 'comfort' would include not freezing during Michigan winters.

Steve

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

uh... okay, and state legislatures haven't imposed solar requirements on new construction and 'housing efficiency' mandates.

To think a project like this doesn't influence policy and public opinion is naive and beyond stupid.

Read the "purpose" on their own website?
http://www.solar.ltu.edu/3_purpose.php
Just like a U.N. mandate, one would have to be pretty ignorant to not see the agenda behind statements like,

"It is our team's purpose and mission is to demonstrate to the public how small changes in building and design practices can have a global impact."

Personally, I think a Michigan winter without adequate shelter defines a dangerous environment.

The cost to equip a home for solar power is not really cost effective yet. I just google'd and found a site saying that $20k could buy a decent system for electric generation. Well if my electric bill averages $175 a month, it is going to take a long time to pay for that system assuming that system brings my grid cost of electricity effectively to zero. That looks like 9.5 years. The average length of home ownership is supposedly 7 years in this country. So for the average family installing a system, it would not pay off (unless they move to another solar powered house, which is unlikely).

Perhaps nano-technology applied to solar cells and batteries along with mass production could make this cost effective sometime in the future, but I don't see investing in this at the present time. I suspect that many people doing this now do it are treating it like a "green" status symbol as opposed to being practical.

I do recall that there is some place in Germany where politics insists on solar panels. So there is some danger in having government mandate this stuff.