Marine base to house largest solar-powered residential community in U.S.

May 21, 2010 By Martha Quillin

For young Marines at Camp Lejeune, green isn't just the color of uniforms anymore. On Thursday, the base celebrated its status as the site of what will be the largest solar-thermal-powered residential community in the continental United States.

By using solar to heat water for 900 homes, the project is expected to prevent the release of 1,035 tons of into the air each year, the equivalent of taking 255 cars off the road, according to the company that developed it. Ultimately, thousands of homes on the Onslow County base and at other military installations could have similar systems.

FLS Energy, a solar power specialty company based in Asheville, N.C., has begun installation of the systems on new and existing homes at Lejeune. On Thursday, Gov. Bev Perdue visited one home in the Tarawa Terrace II subdivision where the was put in just over a week ago.

"This is really a big deal for North Carolina and America," she told media gathered for the tour. "You don't often in life have a chance to watch some big change happen."

Just as the military has, in the past, made those in its ranks change their behaviors about race, drug abuse or domestic violence, it will now be able to change the way its young recruits treat the earth itself.

The families who occupy these houses, Perdue said, will live their lives as environmental stewards, "because the Marine Corps has said they will."

Sgt. Kirk Paulson and his wife, Jamie, who let Perdue peer into their utility closet at their 40-gallon water heater, are glad to be part of the project.

"I'm kind of excited about it," Jamie Paulson said. "I think it's a great move forward."

It might not be as easy if the couple weren't living in base housing.

The 10-by-4-foot perched on the roofs of the homes at Tarawa Terrace and the hardware that connects them to the water heater inside cost about $7,000.

These are being paid for through a complex financing arrangement through which FLS borrows money from Bank of America. The bank gets to use state and federal tax credits that come with solar power, and FLS earns income from the systems by selling the kilowatt hours they produce to Duke Energy, which pays for them at a reduced rate compared to electrical kilowatt hours.

And the company that runs base housing gets a break on its electricity bills.

"Everybody wins," said Brownie Newman, director of project financing for FLS.

For now, the company is mostly involved in large-scale projects on properties that won't change hands before the solar systems have paid for themselves.

The systems being installed at Lejeune should be able to produce about 75 percent of the hot water an average house uses in a year, Newman said.

After heating and cooling the living space, heating water is the third-largest use of electricity in most homes, he said.

Explore further: Californians bask in solar energy


Related Stories

Californians bask in solar energy

January 4, 2007

Soaring energy costs, environmental consciousness and financial incentives have combined to make solar panels part of the California housing landscape.

Canada awards $1.1M for energy projects

November 21, 2007

The Canadian government is investing in solar energy, awarding $1.1 million for projects promoting photovoltaic and solar thermal power technologies.

The 1930s semi goes green

April 22, 2008

Three million of them were built; they stimulated a boom in employment and turned a nation of shop keepers into a nation of home owners. The 1930s semi is an icon of its age but 80 years on it is about to undergo a green ...

Water heaters put solar energy within reach

January 21, 2009

Andrei Mitran of Cary says he has no desire to live "off the grid." But when choosing a replacement for his 18-year-old hot water heater, the computer programmer says he decided to look into purchasing a solar unit.

There's money to be saved in solar

February 17, 2009

A series of solar panels on the roof converts the sun's rays to electricity, the electricity then flows through cables to the circuit breaker, where it's consumed in the building. The result -- a reduction in energy costs.

Recommended for you

Inferring urban travel patterns from cellphone data

August 29, 2016

In making decisions about infrastructure development and resource allocation, city planners rely on models of how people move through their cities, on foot, in cars, and on public transportation. Those models are largely ...

How machine learning can help with voice disorders

August 29, 2016

There's no human instinct more basic than speech, and yet, for many people, talking can be taxing. 1 in 14 working-age Americans suffer from voice disorders that are often associated with abnormal vocal behaviors - some of ...

Apple issues update after cyber weapon captured

August 26, 2016

Apple iPhone owners on Friday were urged to install a quickly released security update after a sophisticated attack on an Emirati dissident exposed vulnerabilities targeted by cyber arms dealers.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
How much energy was used to produce the technology? Is it less than the amount the technology produces over the course of it's lifetime? If not then the technology is still net energy negative.
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
$7,000 is a total ripoff. Typical governmental boondoggle. The real price of a 4'x10'panel and controls, plus a 40 gallon tank with electrical backup should be in the $3,000 range, considering the low technical skills involved in plumbing and the low cost of labor in that area. Good idea, crooked contractor.

The energy net is very positive for solar thermal. Remember, it's typically a 30-year service life. In SoCal, that panel will put out 50k BTU per day, and they're replacing electric water heaters.
not rated yet May 21, 2010
"How much energy was used to produce the technology? Is it less than the amount the technology produces over the course of it's lifetime? If not then the technology is still net energy negative."

I've heard this comment used far too often... The thing people aren't taking into consideration is the SUPPORTING (buying and deployment) of such alternative energy sources will (or should) increase the development dollars and man-hours invested in improving said technologies.

With the logic you are suggesting... why on earth would we go out an drill for a 50 gallon drum of oil back at the beginning of the oil industry when the energies used then to create the drum, manufacture the drilling rig, engineer the pumping station etc etc etc was quite likely far more then the 50 gallon drum of oil itself!

Yes I'm generalizing and no I don't have the facts to back up my point but if we followed your advice we'd never invest in any other energy technologies... EVER!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.