New research will compare systems under a comprehensive set of performance and economic standards.

Both propane tankless water heaters and heat pump water heaters (HPWHs) are considered to be high-performance systems. But research compiled recently by Newport Partners, a building-industry research firm in Davidsonville, Md., shows that in five significant areas—energy source, economics, installation requirements, hot water delivery rates, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions—propane tankless water heaters are the better option.

According to the Department of Energy, residential water heating is often the second largest user of energy in the home and can account for up to a quarter of all household energy consumption. Given the significance of this energy load, for something that homeowners use every day no matter what the climate, construction pros should train to know what the different systems have to offer. Here are some highlights from the Newport’s research compilation:

Energy Source

•Even though HPWHs, which typically run on electricity, might have high efficiency ratings, the upstream electricity that powers them results in significant CO2 emissions. Comparable propane systems emit less than half the greenhouse gases as systems running on electricity to produce the same amount of energy.
•Understanding the true meaning of an appliance’s Energy Factor (EF) is crucial when making comparisons. EF is a standardized measurement of a water heater’s ability to convert incoming energy into hot water. Using EF to compare propane vs. electric systems doesn’t work; it’s like predicting fuel costs for two identical trucks, with one running on diesel and the other gasoline. The comparison doesn’t work unless the price of the energy is factored in.
Economics

•Installed first costs for HPWHs in new construction are nearly 34 percent higher than costs for installing a propane tankless water heater. In a replacement scenario, HPWHs are at least 18 percent more expensive to purchase and install.
•On average, running an HPWH costs about $40 less per year than a propane tankless water heater. But that $40 difference doesn’t take into account a complicated installation that can cost $400 to $650 more.
•It’s important to calculate a water heater’s Annual Cost of Ownership (ACO), which is the cost for buying a unit—spread out over the system’s rated service life—and its annual energy bill. The ACO for a propane tankless unit’s service life 18 percent lower than for an HPWH in new construction and 13 percent lower in a replacement scenario. Another factor: The service life of a propane tankless unit is five to seven years longer than an HPHW.
Installation Requirements

•A propane tankless water heater can be located inside or outside, and can be used as a central system or point-of-use. Their compact sizes saves 16 square feet of space compared to HPWH units, which require at least 1,000 cubic feet of air space around the appliance. HPWHs require installation in locations that remain in the 40- to 90-degree F range year-round, eliminating garage locations in many climates.
•A tankless unit has a dedicated air intake and exhaust; an HPWH exhausts cool air into the home, which can add to the heating costs.
Hot Water Delivery Rates

•Tankless systems deliver triple the hot water flow rate, on average, compared to HPWHs. Even the Energy Star qualification requirements show this difference in delivery rates.
CO2 Emissions

•The CO2 emissions for a propane tankless unit are 39 percent lower that for an HPWH.

The full study by Newport Partners is due to be published later this year. In the meantime, learn more about the advantages of water heating with propane by taking the free online CEU courses available at the Propane Training Academy.

How to Measure the Value of Propane Tankless Units vs. Electric Heat Pump Water Heaters is a post from: Green Living Home Guide

Cost savings, energy efficiency, and an environmentally friendly profile aren’t the only benefits of propane. For those who are so inclined it can also help fuel some of life’s luxuries.

Is propane a lifestyle choice or an ecologically friendly way to attain greater energy efficiency?

For builder Bob Knight, co-owner of Paul Homes in Cape Coral, Fla., it’s both. The combination of energy savings and outdoor luxuries is what prompted him to run most of his new home on propane—inside and out.

After he decided to install a propane-fueled grill and back-up generator in his new home, he kept finding more uses for propane. Now, propane is the energy source for a pool and spa heater, a fire feature in the pool, a fire pit, two tankless water heaters, a clothes dryer, and a wood-burning fireplace with a gas starter.

While saving money on his utility bills wasn’t Knight’s primary goal in using propane, it’s been a nice bonus. He estimates that he is saving about $1,300 per year on his total (gas and electric) utility bill—and that’s in a 3,500-square-foot, two-story home with 5.5 bathrooms.

“Electricity is still relatively inexpensive in Florida now, but I anticipate the cost per kilowatt hour will go up,” says Knight. “My energy costs are lower with this new home than they were in my 2,600-square-foot old home, and I think propane is what’s made the difference. Plus, it doesn’t take long to pay for itself.”

Knight’s experience is not atypical: PERC’s research with the Propane Energy Pod shows that installing propane systems instead of those running on other energy types frequently reduces overall energy costs—even in warmer climate zones like Florida.

The builder does a lot of entertaining, “so it’s great to have propane for everything in the backyard,” says Knight, who finished his home in May 2010. “I like sitting around a fire with no smoke, watching water from the fire bowl spill into the pool. I can heat up the spa or use the grill without having to worry about running out of gas.”

Knight’s extensive use of propane has also become a selling tool for him. “A lot of our customers aren’t familiar with propane, but once I tell them that I use it at my own home, that they won’t even see the underground tank, and that the delivery process is easy, then they’re comfortable with it,” he says. “Once they go for putting in a tank I say, ‘Let’s look at the things you can add on to this for the future.’”

Green Living Benefits of Propane Homes is a post from: Green Living Home Guide

Fossil fuels are used to make energy we use, but once they are gone we will never get more of them. Coal, oil, and natural gas all fall into this category. They are used all over the place in high amounts so you may not realize that they are in limited supply.

These forms of energy have been used mainly because they are affordable and they don’t take up very much room to incorporate. They can be transported anywhere they are needed as well. With natural resources there have to be certain elements in place in order to take advantage of them.

The concept of renewable energy embraces the ability to use the resources we naturally have, but that we will never run out of. This way we can continue to have all the benefits we want without destroying the Earth.

We also won’t be preventing future generations from having the chance to future grow and evolve beyond what we were able to see take place in our own lifetime. This process involves taking these types of natural resources and turning them into a product we can use for power.

That means a great deal of information and technology has to be collected and evaluated. Many of these methods though continue to see advances in the designs and processing which will result in them being even more valuable in the future than they are right now.

Most will agree that renewable energy sources are better for the environment. The burning of fossil fuels including gasoline and coal isn’t good for the environment. These natural resources will allow us to save resources and at the same time to live in a cleaner environment than we have now.

Many believe it isn’t practical or safe to depend only upon these types of resources though. That is because the sun doesn’t always shine so the energy can’t be collected. There are many places where the sun is blocked for days due to the changes in the seasons.

You can’t predict how much wind will be produced or how much power can be taken from the water. It will vary significantly but there is no reason why we can’t rely upon these renewable energy sources as the primary providers. We can then depend on fossil fuels as back up so we never have to go without the energy we want to use.

Chances are you have heard about the various forms of renewable energy but not in detail. Keep on reading and you will get all the information you need including the pros and cons of each type. You will find each of them does offer some hope for the future though as far as reducing our dependency on those resources which we can’t replenish.

What is Renewable Energy? is a post from: Green Living Home Guide

(Crain’s) — A co-owner of Willis Tower is rethinking a $350-million plan to make the 110-story skyscraper more eco-friendly, according to a lawsuit.

Pickering & Associates LLC, a public affairs firm hired to find public financing sources for the project, alleges that landlord American Landmark Properties Ltd. breached its contract with Pickering by trying to fire the firm Feb. 1, without a required 30-day notice.

The breach “occurred shortly after American Landmark informed Pickering that American Landmark was re-evaluating the viability of the (project) and the possibility of funding it through public sources,” says the complaint, filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

American Landmark unveiled the ambitious plan for the former Sears Tower in June 2009, calling it one of “the most significant sustainable modernization projects of an existing building ever taken.”

The so-called Greening Project would include replacing all 16,000 windows in the tower, 233 S. Wacker Drive, and adding grass and wind turbines to its roof. American Landmark at the same time also announced plans to build a luxury hotel next door to the skyscraper.

Now, according to the WSJ, the IPCC is working to heal the bruises on its tarnished image, to smooth over the negative effects of inside dialog such as this:

As climate change gained public attention in recent decades, some IPCC-affiliated scientists privately expressed concerns that conclusions were risked getting oversimplified. Keith Briffa, a climate scientist at East Anglia, expressed this worry in emails to colleagues in 1999, as work intensified on the IPCC’s third major report, published in 2001. Mr. Briffa’s particular concern: tree rings.

Scientists use tree rings and other proxies to assess temperatures thousands of years ago, before thermometers existed. Wider rings indicate greater growth, generally suggesting warmer temperatures, or higher precipitation, or both. Mr. Briffa pioneered the technique.

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more,’ ” he wrote to other researchers in the email, among those hacked at East Anglia. “In reality the situation is not quite so simple,” Mr. Briffa wrote.

Simon Property Group via a press release made public this morning that just more than a week ago it submitted a formal bid to acquire General Growth Properties for about $10 billion.

General Growth has not yet responded to the release. All indications are that General Growth would like to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as an independent entity. To date it has been extremely successful in restructuring its secured debt. It still, however, has about about $6 billion in unsecured debt that must be restructured. A big chunk of that is believed to be owned by Simon Property Group with Canadian REIT Brookfield Asset Management Inc. owning another big piece of that debt. As unsecured creditors, both firms have the a great deal of power over the fate of the bankrupt entity and can end up owning most of the company in the event of a debt-for-equity swap. In addition, holders of unsecured debt will get to vote when General Growth’s plan for exiting bankruptcy is presented to creditors. For its part, General Growth recently sought to extend the exclusivity period for the filing of its reorganization plan by six months, until the end of August, in part to deal with this debt.

Simon’s offer says that General Growth’s shareholders would get $9.00 per share in the deal. That’s actually lower than where General Growth’s stock is trading in the OTC markets. Indeed, with this announcement the stock will probably jump even higher. Pre-market activity has the stock at $10.60 and counting.

It appears Simon’s play here is to offer unsecured creditors 100 cents on the dollar for the debt they own rather than face any reduction in that amount that General Growth might seek as it continues with its restructuring.

The full text of Simon’s release is below: (more…)

According to the Wall Street Journal:

The price also is far below the $75 million financing that the MBA received from a group of banks led by PNC Financial Services Group Inc. to finance the purchase.

Now investors and lenders are assessing the fallout. According to the New York Times:

Yet in walking away, the partners, Tishman Speyer Properties and BlackRock Realty, have left tenants in limbo and other investors with far bigger losses.

Many of the other companies, banks, countries and pension funds — including the government of Singapore, the Church of England, the Manhattan real estate concern SL Green, and Fortress Investment Groups — that invested billions of dollars in the 2006 deal stand to lose their entire stake.

And according to WSJ, the biggest question on the table is who takes control of the property:

The leading contender to get initial control is CW Capital, a servicer that represents the investors who hold the $3 billion first mortgage on the property. That mortgage was packaged into commercial mortgage-backed securities known as CMBS. But the property’s debt structure is complicated and others are likely to push for control, including possibly the thousands of residents of the more than 50-year-old complex.

In addition to the first mortgage, there is $1.4 billion of junior, or “mezzanine,” debt on the property and some holders of that debt have also been maneuvering for control in recent weeks. Some junior creditors may try to replace the Tishman venture as owners by agreeing to pay the debt service on the first mortgage. If CW Capital takes over, the mezzanine investors likely will suffer a big loss.

Now the question is, “who will take the keys on behalf of which level of debt,” said Mark Edelstein, head of the real-estate group at law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP. According to a person familiar with the situation, the Tishman venture has reached out to CW Capital to start the property-transfer process.

While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them, people briefed on the matter say.

One focus of the inquiry is whether the firms creating the securities purposely helped to select especially risky mortgage-linked assets that would be most likely to crater, setting their clients up to lose billions of dollars if the housing market imploded.

Some securities packaged by Goldman and Tricadia ended up being so vulnerable that they soured within months of being created.

“The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,” said Sylvain R. Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York. “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”