|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online January/February 1999
trends
in energy
Making Solar Hot Water Affordable
 |
| Walter Boatright conducts an inspection of an ICS unit in Live Oak,
Florida. Water is both heated and stored in the large tubes inside the
unit. The hot water flows from the unit to the back-up water heater inside
the house when the client uses hot water. |
| Table 1. SWAP Results |
|
Presolar |
Postsolar |
| Average family size |
4.7 |
4.4 |
| Average water-heating electricity consumption (kWh per system,
per year) |
3,100 |
1,500 |
| Water-heating costs per year (8¢/kWh) |
$250 |
$120 |
| Savings-to-investment ratio (SIR)(at 8¢/kWh) |
N/A |
1.0 |
| Solar fraction (percent of hot water heated by solar) |
N/A |
53% |
| Average system coefficient of performance |
0.73 |
1.4 |
| Average SWAP solar system installed cost |
N/A |
$1,550 |
| Gallons used per family per day |
63.8 |
62.5 |
| Gallons used per person per day |
13.6 |
14.2 |
| Average hot-water temperature (in degrees F) |
119 |
119 |
Over a period of 2.5 years, the following variables were
monitored every 15 minutes at 32 instrumented sites: cold- and hot-water
temperatures, collector feed and return line temperatures, flow to and
energy usage of the water heater, and horizontal solar radiation. A one-time
measurement of pump and controller power usage for the direct-pumped systems
was also taken.
Source: Florida Solar Energy Center |
|
 |
| The direct-pumped systems include a pump and a controller mounted
on the water heater. Sensors at the collector mounted on the roof and at
the bottom of the water heater tell the controller when there is enough
solar energy available to heat the water. At those times, the pump turns
on and forces water through the solar collector, where it is heated, and
returns it to the water heater for storage. |
In 1995, a group of agencies in Florida teamed up
to bring low-cost solar systems to low-income households so they could
save money on their utility bills. By the time the program ended in June
1998, they had shown that a solar hot water system that supplies 50% of
the household's hot water needs costs less to build than a conventional
solar system, and still saves residents money. Under the program, more
than 800 such systems were installed in households across Florida.
The Solar Weatherization Assistance Program (SWAP)
was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Florida Energy
Office, and was developed and implemented by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC), local
Florida weatherization agencies, and the Florida solar industry. DCA provided
grants to local weatherization assistance agencies and other nonprofit
agencies to operate SWAP, and SWAP-certified solar contractors installed
the systems. FSEC developed all the technical guidelines for the program
and provided ongoing technical assistance, system monitoring and analysis,
training, and program support to DCA and all the participating local agencies
and installers. The solar systems were given to the various families as
part of local weatherization programs. SWAP was widely administered in
rural and urban communities by nonprofit organizations and governmental
agencies in cooperation with local volunteer groups.
SWAP's goals were (1) to reduce energy consumption
and energy costs for low-income households, (2) to evaluate the feasibility
of incorporating solar systems into national DOE weatherization programs,
(3) to reduce expenditures for the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP), which helps pay residents electric bills, and (4) to
provide a niche market for the Florida solar industry. In order to monitor
how well some of these goals were met, FSEC established an extensive database
to compile and store information obtained by site inspections, surveys,
and utility bill analysis. In addition, computerized data was collected
at more than 30 selected sites to monitor such variables as water temperature,
water consumption, and power usage.
Simplicity Wins
Several types of solar system were installed under
SWAP. The two types that were installed most often were the integral collector
storage (ICS) system and the direct-pumped system.
ICS systems combine heat collection and storage
in one unit. Water is heated in the ICS tubes and flows to the backup water
heater when the residents use hot water. "These systems are ideal for low-income
clients due to their inherent simplicity," says John Harrison, SWAP program
manager. "They have no moving parts and no maintenance requirements. They
are essentially just extensions of the current water piping system."
When the sun is shining, the temperature of the
water coming out of the ICS unit is higher than the setpoint of the electric
water heater, so no electricity is required to heat the water. For example,
when the thermostat of the electric water heater is set at 120°F and
the water coming from the ICS unit is 135°F, the electric element will
not turn on.
Direct-pumped systems, on the other hand, consist
of a flat-plate collector, a pump, and a controller that determines when
the pump should be on. The pump forces water through the solar collector,
where it is heated and returned to the water heater in the house. Then
it is stored until it is needed. Both the ICS system and the direct-pumped
system include a backup electric water heater for use during inclement
weather.
Both systems were used throughout Florida in
the program. The ICS system was used mainly in north and central Florida.
It was chosen for these areas both because of its simplicity, and because
the large thermal mass of its component tubes prevents the water inside
from freezing. The direct-pumped system was used mainly in south Florida,
where freezing temperatures are not as common.
Smaller Is Better
The program required that the systems be sized to
provide at least 50% of each home's hot-water load from solar energy. They
are much smaller than the conventional systems that, in Florida, usually
supply 70% or more of the load. The SWAP systems use conventional 40- to
50-gallon electric water heaters with 24-32 ft2 flat-plate solar
collectors (for the pumped systems) or 24-32 ft2 collectors
(for the ICS systems), and have an average installed cost of just $1,555.
Conventional systems, on the other hand, typically use an 80-gallon solar
tank and a 40 ft2 collector, and cost from $2,500 to more than
$3,000.
FSEC determined that the smaller tanks and collectors
were the most cost-effective for this program because they greatly reduced
the cost of the installed systems and maximized energy utilization, and
because low-income residents could easily replace the smaller water heaters
in the future (they are readily available from plumbers and home improvement
centers). Furthermore, the SWAP solar installers had no advertising costs
and were able to make bulk purchases, which also helped keep the prices
low.
NEAT SIRs
FSEC monitored 32 of the installed solar systems--19
ICS systems, and 13 direct pumped systems. They were monitored for one
year before and one year after the systems were installed, in order to
obtain pre- and postinstallation comparisons.
A primary goal of the monitoring was to determine
the savings-to-investment (SIR) ratio, according to the Department of Energy
Weatherization Program's National Energy Audit (NEAT) procedure. In general,
measures with SIRs of 1 or greater are considered cost-effective. The SWAP
monitoring revealed that the SWAP systems met DOE weatherization program
requirements, with an average SIR ratio of 1, based on electric rates of
8¢ per kWh and a 20-year system life span. Of course, the SIR increases
with higher electric rates, because the measures save more money.
FSEC monitoring revealed that, overall, energy
heating consumption for the SWAP system users was reduced by more than
half (see Table 1). The average solar fraction for the program was 53%.
Just Flip a Switch
More than 800 systems were installed at no charge
in low-income homes as a result of SWAP, bringing low-cost hot water to
more than 3,500 people. One user says, "Since my pumped solar system has
an on-off switch that turns the electricity to the water heater off, during
sunny days we always keep the switch off. That way, all the hot water that
I use is made by the sun. It really cuts my utility bill." Had the homeowners
paid the $1,500 to $2,500 cost of the systems, they would have saved enough
in energy costs to get their money back in approximately eight to nine
years.
FSEC conducted detailed surveys of all program
participants. More than 35% of them responded, and the majority said they
were quite satisfied with their solar system, had adequate amounts of hot
water, and did not experience any inconvenience once the solar system was
installed. The survey did reveal, however, that residents needed more education
regarding the operation and maintenance of their solar systems.
FSEC also conducted detailed inspections of more
than 25% of the 801 systems to make sure they were installed properly and
were operating as designed. In general, the inspections revealed that there
were few component failures, that most installation discrepancies were
easily fixed, and that most discrepancies were related to workmanship rather
than to problems with the equipment.
A Solar Success
According to Harrison, FSEC feels that SWAP was
quite successful. It showed that solar hot-water systems can be cost-effective
in warm-climate states, and that they can offer attractive savings to low-income
clients.
The inexpensive, simple, and reliable solar systems
used in this program are available to anyone. Although many people express
a desire to use renewable energy resources, the high initial costs of conventional
solar hot-water systems make them impractical for many consumers. SWAP
shows that a reasonable balance between initial cost and final solar fraction
can be achieved, thereby making solar hot water more affordable.
SWAP program director John Harrison, FSEC
senior research engineer Steven Long, and freelance writer Michael Major
contributed to this report.
Publication of this article was supported
by the U.S. Department of Energy's
Office of State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency, and Renewable
Energy.
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About
Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright Notice
|