"Greener" heat sources cost money, save energy
Seven years ago, Jeremy Smithson decided it would be neat to heat and light his home with solar power.
Then he did the math.
His 1908 Craftsman on the western slope of Phinney Ridge would need a roof four times bigger just to hold enough solar panels to meet his energy needs.
Now Smithson has a house so tightly insulated "that a BTU can't wiggle out of it." Efficient fluorescent bulbs poke out of the light sockets. Solar panels and tubes line his home's south-facing roof and wall.
"What we discovered is that if you super-insulate, then you reduce your heat requirement to the point where you can solar heat," Smithson said.
Over the year, the home will need roughly 2,000 kilowatt-hours of power from outside sources, down from around 18,500, he said.
Smithson's house demonstrates that with enough determination and careful planning, it's possible to find more renewable, environmentally friendly ways to meet at least part of your heating needs.
But it also shows that it's not simply a matter of throwing up some solar panels and turning on the thermostat.
In a region that fancies itself green, people are trying a variety of ways to stay warm while taking less of a toll on the planet.
Some fuel their oil furnaces with a mixture of vegetable oil and regular petroleum. Some hook their ducts to a super-efficient system that sucks heat from the ground or the air. Some heat water with solar tubes. Others design rooms to soak up as much sunlight as possible.
Those are some of the chief home-heating alternatives available, local energy experts say. But those experts caution that just because those energy sources are cleaner doesn't mean they make economic sense.
Continue reading this story from the Seattle Times:
'Greener' heat sources cost money, save energy
