I recently spoke with Cornell University Solar Decathlon participant Spencer Lapp about his reactions to the Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon competition, which ended on October 16, 2009. Lapp’s primary focus was to design the kitchen appliance module for the Cornell house, and also assisted with construction and other duties during the 2008-2009 academic year. He attended the competition in Washington, D.C. with the Cornell team, where the house placed 7th out of twenty. Technische Universität Darmstadt (Team Germany) were the overall winners, presenting a rectangular, two-story design they called “surPLUShome.”
Discussing the experience on the National Mall, Lapp was generally impressed by the variety of designs. Organization is an important aspect of a successful and competitive house (especially in areas like leadership, public relations, communication, and transportation); Lapp thought that each team handled their logistical issues skillfully, and competed with both rigor and courtesy.
By getting so many students from so many different parts of the globe involved, the competition succeeds in raising awareness about current problems in design efficiency. In the 2009 competition, the crucial event was “Net Metering,” in which the house is fitted with a meter to calculate its energy output. These numbers were tabulated on the last day of the competition, and decided the overall winner. Lapp suggests that while energy output is important to each solar house, the competition is weighted too heavily in this particular event. In his opinion, in coming years, the Department of Energy could think about redistributing the points in the ten different competitions to give more importance to issues like architecture and engineering. Currently, the Architecture and Engineering events (along with five others) are scored out of 100 points, while the Net Metering competition is scored out of 150 possible points. The remaining two events are scored out of 75 points. This means that Net Metering accounts for 15% of a team’s total score, which Lapp feels is too much.
Rice University's ZEROW HOUSE
One issue that Lapp feels was not addressed properly was that of cost efficiency. He said that Rice University, for example, created a functional and livable home called ZEROW HOUSE for about $100,000, but placed 8th in the competition after attaining a low score in the Home Entertainment event. This particular event requires that the solar home provide power to a television and computer for a specified period of time. The affordability of the home was thus trumped by its poor score in an event that caters to the more frivolous items in the home. On the Solar decathlon website, the Rice University team describes their project: “Instead of building a house just for the competition, [we] designed a home they could give back to the community. The team has already negotiated an agreement with Project Row Houses, a local community development organization, to give the ZEROW HOUSE a permanent home in Houston’s Third Ward after the competition.” ZEROW HOUSE was the only competition entry to cost less than $250,000. By contrast, the winning house cost in the range of $650,000 – $850,000.
When discussing the judging, Lapp said that he would have liked more feedback on particular events, especially in Architecture. He also suggested that, while the single-family residence is a good place for students to innovate, the ideas about energy efficiency could be expanded to building types that are not privately-owned. Community centers, schools, libraries, museums, and other civic institutions would benefit greatly from the ideas that the Solar Decathlon competition generates. Lapp hopes that in the future, the competition will encourage the use of solar efficiency beyond the home.
As a way to organize my thoughts for an upcoming presentation, and also for the erudition of you, the faithful readership, I’d like to discuss visa restrictions in the U.S., with a primary focus on artists.
