Slashdot Mirror


German Team Wins 2009 Solar Decathlon

An anonymous reader writes "Our team recently competed in the 2009 US Department of Energy Solar Decathlon. The Solar Decathlon is a 2-year competition that challenges university students from 20 US and international teams to design, build, and operate the most attractive and energy-efficient solar-powered house. Objective scores are based on comfort control, appliance performance, net-metering, and home entertainment. Subjective contest scores are determined by juries that weigh the engineering design, architectural design, as well as marketing and communication strategies. Team Germany took 1st place due to a large net production of electricity, while Team California claimed top honors in the Architecture contest. Minnesota won the engineering design section. However, looking beyond the contest winners, the main purpose of the event is to raise awareness about solar technology and sustainable design. As part of this campaign, products used in all 20 homes are listed on the DOE website. The most exciting aspect is that the construction and engineering documents and communication materials from all teams are open-sourced for anyone to use or modify!"

12 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Hopefully ... by foobsr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The most exciting aspect is that the construction and engineering documents and communication materials from all teams are open-sourced for anyone to use or modify!

    ... they have chosen a proper "IP-format" to avoid patent trolls to grab ideas in order to 'protect' them.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    1. Re:Hopefully ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... they have chosen a proper "IP-format" to avoid patent trolls to grab ideas in order to 'protect' them.

      They did, it's called publication. Nothing that YOU can do will prevent the patent office awarding someone else a patent for something you created, but publishing provides strong evidence of prior art. Way to karma whore, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Re:solar by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Informative

    Photovoltaic maybe, but solar thermal is wholly ready now and efficient for the average home owner, especially evacuated tubes:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_collector#Evacuated_tube

    A few racks of those on the roof, when coupled with a passive haus, which can be built with 5% cost of a normal house, would probably cover a 95% of normal household's heating/hot_water needs with no major electric/natural_gas/oil backup required, even in the mild climates such as the north-east states:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

    Even in Canada, there seem to be projects revolving around that type of thing:
    http://www.dlsc.ca/how.htm

    Photovoltaic is what, 15-30% at best? Solar Thermal can be up to 90% and evacuated tubes are pretty cheap now.

  3. Nice but by samuX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm very happy to see this kind of competition however from a scientific prospective i see some problem: saying you save co2 with solar energy is a bit "gross", first to produce all those solar panels you had to pollute the environment so the first question someone should ask is : ok solar is good but how much do you pollute to produce one flat panel ? Are we sure the pollution made (and i'm not speaking only about amount of CO2 but also toxic in rivers, sea etc. etc. ) to make a solar panel is less than the one we would make to make the same power from "classic" method ? CO2 savings: well this is just ridiculous: a nuclear reactor, a wind reactor, a carbon fuel power plant, a hydroelectric power plant. 4 ways of getting electricity, four different amount of Co2 produced, so from what kind of power plant does your electricity come, this is how you try to figure out your real "co2 savings" . Next thing to speak about should the fact that our pollution doesn't come only from Co2 but from toxic wastes too, so measuring pollution with Co2 is ineffective and misleading. I really DO care for my planet and sometimes looks like all this "environmental talks" are just exscuses to push new products rather than really doing something to make earth a better place for our future generations but I might be wrong .

    1. Re:Nice but by rdnetto · · Score: 3, Informative

      The pollution produced in the manufacturing of a solar panel is a one time cost. The pollution involved in producing & supplying a fossil fuel is an ongoing cost. All you have to do is use the solar panel for more than, say, a year, and you've already broken even in terms of pollution.
      Obviously this is an oversimplification (not all forms of pollution are equal), but you get the idea.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    2. Re:Nice but by samuX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what you say is reasonable but there are a lot of assumptions and i really would like to see some numbers.
      Back in the old days pc were relatively polluting and none ever thought about that. Now we know of all the toxic problem related to their making - and their reciclying - so most companies are working on making them more "green".

      So what about solar panel ? Are they made with this concepts in mind or are they made just as cheap as possible without taking in account pollution made to make them or not? How long does it takes to make them "greener" or , using math, when this is true ?

      "amount of electricity of one panel per day" * "X days" + "pollution produced to make that panel" > "pollution per day of a fossile fuel power plant giving the same amount of electricity"
      (i really hope it's readible)

      Also you forget that solar panel will not last forever, so depending on the X of the equation above you can make some good assumption rather than running to solar panel because "they told me it's green so it must be".

  4. Limp icks by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm waiting for the nuclear heptaluge.

  5. Re:Where to find the open sourced docs ? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Informative

    Go to the teams site e.g. http://www.solardecathlon.org/2009/team_germany.cfm
    On the bottom right are the zip files. They contain the complete technical drawings.

    What more do you want? If you want to build the exact same thing, you'll probably still need an architect. But hey, you also need a IT guy for installing bind.

    Cool, on page 419 they describe how they moved the house from Darmstadt to Washington DC. So that's your blueprint for stealing it!

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  6. Congrats to the team! by BlackPignouf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Congrats to the team! What TFS doesn't say, is that TU Darmstadt won this competition for the 2nd time in a row.
    Our research center was involved in the energy system design for the 2007 edition, but TU Darmstadt failed to mention it anywhere.

    Nice to see that they achieved to win without screwing anyone this time!

  7. Re:solar by Rasta_the_far_Ian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unfortunately, unless we pass a law that eliminates the ability of Home Owner Associations to deny approval for solar energy devices, these are not likely to become widespread.

  8. Re:solar by ender06 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Solar thermal can be up to 90% efficient? Have you heard of the laws of thermodynamics and Carnot efficiency? The average power plant peaks at about 60-65% efficient.

    Sure, right now photovoltaics are only 15-30% for system efficiency, thats system, not just the cells. But PV is not restrained by the Carnot efficiency because it is not a heat engine. More demand = more research = better cells. Just look at the space grade cells and PV concentrator cells. World record right now is about 43% efficient.

  9. All serious contenders bought German equipment by Jameson+Burt · · Score: 2, Informative

    I viewed these houses over four different days, from construction to display.
    Among the top contenders, some equipment was obviously German,
    Bosch Dishwashers and German refrigerators for most every top contender.
    Others viewing these solar houses often asked where to get some equipment on the top houses.
    Solar cells: Germany
    Heat exchanger: Germany
    Kitchen equipment: Germay
    . . .: Germany
    While some contest categories like architecture couldn't rely on German equipment,
    this solar house contest seemed like the post WWII race for the best space program
    -- who had the better German scientists, USSR or US with Werner von Braun.
    Amongst these houses, who had the better German solar, heating, kitchen, ... equipment.

    A couple years ago, Germany produced half the world's solar power.
    While one can laud Germany, one must take note that the U.S. has bowed out of much science, technology, and the education of them (except biology, medicine, computers, and military equipment).
    All the women and men on the German Team prodded the audience
    and answered questions like engineers
    -- a half Carribean, half German woman answered questions in contrasts
    that signaled her engineering mind.
    In contrast, the Virginia Tech team seemed lackadaisical
    lounging around, ignorant about many aspects of their own house
    -- was the Virginia Tech team just there to party?
    In front of their TVs and computers, in their cars and trains,
    with four times the population of Germany,
    half the U.S. badmouths science and the striving for its knowledge (elitism).

    Still, from wherever energy generation and usage technology comes, we are thankful.
    The German house used phase-changing materials to dampen energy fluctuations,
    a couple types of solar cells including some for shaded areas,
    and was the only house with a second livable level.
    Another house could electrically dim its windows.
    The University of Illinois Urbana Champaign house sealed its doors like a commercial freezer.
    One house changed one wall's colors according to cool or warm temperatures.
    Thank you, scientists.