Solar Decathlon 2005: 

The Event in Review

October 7–16, 2005
Cover Photos (counterclockwise from upper left): University of Colorado home, Cornell University home, and California Polytechnic State University home

(photos by Chris Gunn). The Colorado team celebrates their first-place finish in the 2005 Solar Decathlon (photo by Stefano Paltera/Solar Decathlon). 
Solar Decathlon 2005: 

The Event in Review

October 7–16, 2005

Susan Moon

Ruby Nahan

Cécile Warner

Michael Wassmer

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

They say that to do something great in life, the accomplishment must have significance. The significance comes 

from making a difference, either in your life or the lives of others. The Solar Decathlon has both. The event 

turns students into leaders, and disbelievers into believers. 

Two years before the contest, when most of the students joined their respective Solar Decathlon teams, little did 

they know how daunting the task would be. From the long hours designing and building a house from the ground 

up, to the demanding requirements necessary to build and occupy a house on the National Mall, competing in 

the Solar Decathlon is hard. For those with the right stuff, it built character and leadership—qualities that will 

change their lives for the better. That’s significant.

To power a house day after day on sunlight is a technological accomplishment that many find hard to believe—

especially in cloudy weather. What the teams proved is that solar energy really works and energy efficiency 

pays off. Considering the consequences of billions of people around the world burning finite fossil fuels at an 

ever-increasing rate, demonstrating technologies that can make a difference is significant.

To everyone who helped, thank you for making the 2005 Solar Decathlon the greatest competition ever held. 

To the 2005 faculty advisors, thank you for providing the motivation and leadership that were instrumental 

in inspiring your students to succeed. Your unwavering belief in their potential has made the difference in the 

stunning demonstration of talent and skill on the National Mall.

To all the students, the class of 2005, thank you for showing the nation and the world that the future is now. 

I applaud each one of you for demonstrating the positive power of ingenuity and productivity. As you move 

on and begin your careers, I expect you to continue to lead us to a brighter future!

To the new teams preparing for the 2007 Solar Decathlon, I hope this technical report provides insight and 

guidance. The report was written with you in mind. In architecture, as well as engineering, the iterative process 

of improving each successive design is the key to making progress. If we are to have cost-effective, appealing 

solar-powered houses in the near future, your designs based on what you have learned will help take us there.

 Sincerely,

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Richard King Richard King

Message from the 

Competition Director

Solar Decathlon Competition Director Richard King (left) 

congratulates members of the University of Colorado 

team on winning the Communications contest. The 

Colorado team would go on to win the overall 

competition.

i
ii

The 2005 Solar Decathlon was made possible under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Solar Energy Technologies Program. DOE partnered with the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL—a DOE laboratory), the American Institute of Architects, the National 

Association of Homebuilders, BP, DIY Network, and Sprint Nextel to sponsor the event. The dedication and 

hard work of the 18 college and university teams from the United States, Canada, and Spain made this second 

competition a great success. The authors appreciate the support and guidance of Richard King, Wendy ButlerBurt, Chris Powers, and John Horst of DOE; Greg Barker and Ed Hancock of Mountain Energy Partnership; 

and Sheila Hayter and Sara Farrar-Nagy of NREL for their contributions and reviews. The authors would also 

like to thank Janie Homan (NREL), who edited the document, and Jim Miller (NREL), who did the document 

layout.

Acknowledgements

Never have so few worked so hard to accomplish so much! After the Opening Ceremony on October 6, the 2005 Solar Decathlon teams paused for a group photo—

likely their last moment of relative calm until the competition ended October 14. 

Photo Credits: The authors would like to acknowledge the talent, patience, and professionalism of the two photographers—

Stefano Paltera and Chris Gunn—who took the vast majority of photos in this report. Unless otherwise attributed, Stefano 

Paltera took the photos in the foreward matter and pages 1–19, and Chris Gunn is responsible for the photos in pages 20–48.
Executive Summary

I

n the fall of 2005, 18 teams from 

colleges and universities across the 

United States, including Puerto Rico, 

and from Canada and Spain, assembled 

in Washington, D.C., for the second Solar 

Decathlon. The Solar Decathlon is a 

collegiate competition that demonstrates 

energy-efficient and solar technologies 

that meet today’s residential energy 

demands. The United States Department 

of Energy (DOE), its National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL), the National 

Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 

the American Institute of Architects (AIA), 

and private-sector partners BP, Sprint 

Nextel, and DIY Network sponsored the 

competition. 

Teams were required to design and build 

small, energy-efficient, completely solarpowered houses and to compete side-byside in 10 contests. The energy source for 

each house was limited to the solar energy 

incident on the house during the competition. The 2005 event took place from 

October 6–16, 2005, on the National 

Mall in Washington, D.C. The Mall was 

again selected for this event because it 

is a national stage, but it necessitated 

the transport of each solar home from its 

campus to and from Washington, D.C., 

at considerable expense. Regulations that 

were designed to protect the National Mall 

limited building size and height, mandated 

handicapped accessibility, prohibited excavation, and limited the entire event (arrival, 

assembly, competition, disassembly, and 

departure) to 21 days. 

Solar Decathlon participants were selected 

through a proposal review in September 

2003. Eight of the selected institutions also 

competed in the 2002 event. The 18 teams 

that participated in the 2005 competition 

follow:

• California Polytechnic State University,

San Luis Obisbo

• Canadian Solar Decathlon (Concordia 

University and Université de Montréal)

• Cornell University

• Crowder College

• Florida International University

• New York Institute of Technology

• Pittsburgh Synergy (Carnegie Mellon, 

University of Pittsburgh, and The Art 

Institute of Pittsburgh)

• Rhode Island School of Design

• Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

• Universidad de Puerto Rico, Mayagüez

• University of Colorado, Denver and 

Boulder

• University of Maryland

• University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

• University of Michigan

• University of Missouri-Rolla and Rolla 

Technical Institute

• University of Texas at Austin

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University 

• Washington State University

The rules for the 10-contest competition 

were revised and improved from the 2002 

inaugural event. They are described in 

detail in the section on Contests and 

Scoring (see p. 6). Each contest was 

worth a maximum of 100 points, except 

Architecture, which was worth 200 points. 

Underpinning all elements of the competition were the requirements that only solar 

energy could be used to power life and 

work; that dwelling livability, aesthetics 

of the structure, and integration of dwelling with energy systems were key 

elements; and that the projects would 

advance the state of the art. The competition houses were required to provide hot 

water for domestic needs and all the electricity for an electric car, lighting, heating 

and cooling, and household appliances—

in short, residential life with all the modern conveniences. The Energy Balance 

contest required that the teams use only 

the amount of energy their systems could 

produce during the event. In a spirit of 

teaching and inspiring, all teams were 

required to open their homes to the public 

during tour hours, to help educate the 

public about their projects and the technologies they employed.

Some 120,000 people visited the 2005 

Solar Decathlon event. The weather was 

inclement during much of the competition 

week, but this did nothing to dampen the 

enthusiasm of the visiting public. Many 

visitors toured the homes, often waiting 

in long lines to do so. Tours provided an 

opportunity to hear each team’s explanation of the home’s features and function, 

and to view each team’s completed interior, including a kitchen, living room, 

bedroom, and bathroom. Homes were a 

minimum of 450 ft2

 (41.8 m2) of conditioned space within a maximum building 

footprint of 800 ft2 (74.3 m2). As in the 

2002 Solar Decathlon, homes employed 

not only sophisticated energy systems, 

they were also beautifully finished and 

furnished inside and out, with thoughtful 

integration of design aesthetics, functionality, and consumer appeal. To learn about 

each team house and individual team 

competition results, see Details by Team 

(p. 19). The event received extensive 

coverage by the national media, as well 

as coverage by each teams’ local media. 

This media coverage resulted in upward 

of 800 million impressions (see Attendance, Media, Web site, p. 3). 

The Solar Decathlon culminated on the 

National Mall, but it is also a two-year 

investment of vast quantities of time, 

III
money, physical labor, and creativity from 

each team and its student and faculty 

members. Teams were composed of architects, engineers, designers, communicators, fundraisers, and builders. Each of 

the 18 participating teams can be justifiably proud of their accomplishments, 

irrespective of their place in the competition overall. The organizers believe these 

early student collaborative efforts in architecture, engineering, and building science 

can become a model to foster improved 

interactions in the building industry, 

resulting in better building designs that 

integrate solar energy with energy 

efficiency. 

The overall winner of the competition, the 

University of Colorado, used a strategy 

of resolutely performing nearly all the 

required competition tasks despite the 

adverse weather conditions. They wanted 

to demonstrate that solar works, even 

when it rains. The Colorado team performed well in many of the 10 contests, 

although they did not receive any points 

in the Energy Balance contest. Their 7-kW 

photovoltaic (PV) array was not the largest 

of the competition, but their energy storage capacity was quite robust and served 

to sustain the house and its efficient loads

(see p. 16 graphs). The team understood 

how the energy flowed in their home, 

having performed a very comprehensive 

modeling of the home prior to the competition. Cornell University placed second, 

and California Polytechnic State University placed third overall in the competition. For more information about the 

awards received by each team, see Details 

by Team (p. 19). 

As in the 2002 event, in 2005 most teams 

used crystalline silicon PV modules to 

provide electricity from the sun. Installed 

peak capacity ranged from 3 kW to nearly 

11 kW. The only limitation on PV system 

size imposed by the regulations was the 

maximum footprint limitation of 800 ft2

(74.3 m2) on all solar and shading components. Two teams used thin-film PV, and 

one of those (Missouri Rolla) integrated 

the solar hot water system with the PV 

to absorb the sun’s heat and collect waste 

heat from the PV modules for heating 

hot water. The other team employing thin 

films, Florida International University, 

used building-integrated PV transparent 

glass amorphous silicon PV panels in 

place of windows.

NREL staff and contractors instrumented 

each home and measured and recorded 

temperature, humidity, lighting levels, 

and other data during the event. The Solar 

Decathlon “solar village” on the Mall was 

connected via wireless networks for data 

acquisition and Internet connectivity, 

allowing the organizers, the teams, and 

the public to monitor the results of the 

competition in near real time, both on 

the Mall and via the Internet. Throughout the competition, all teams responded 

to the meteorological conditions, developing strategies and making trade-offs to 

improve their chances of winning despite 

the lack of sunshine.

The 2005 Solar Decathlon homes raised 

the bar in performance relative to the 

inaugural event. And the team homes 

have proven once again that there are 

multiple aesthetic and functional solutions to the challenge of creating homes 

powered entirely by the sun. The students 

and faculty who participated in the 2005 

Solar Decathlon demonstrated a vision to 

everyone for a bright energy future that 

runs efficiently and dependably on renewable energy.

There will be future Solar Decathlons. The 

next Solar Decathlon will be held in 2007, 

and another in 2009. More information is 

available on the Solar Decathlon Web site 

(www.solardecathlon.org).

Why hold a Solar Decathlon? The 

future of these children, and 

millions like them around the 

world, is a big part of the answer. 

Hundreds of children from area 

schools visited the Decathlon on 

October 11 for the School Day 

event. 

Children who came for School Day 

learned a lot about solar energy 

and energy efficiency—but there 

was also time to enjoy a spirited 

musical interlude with the Solar 

Decathlon team from Puerto Rico.

“It feels so good to see people enlightened 

by what we’ve done. And the kids! Children 

feel we should start doing these things.”

— New York Institute of Technology 

 Team Member Shana Lerner

IV
Table of Contents

Message from the Competition Director............................................................................................................................................I

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................... II

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................................................III

Event Overview............................................................................................................................................................................1

Opening the Solar Village........................................................................................................................................................2

Attendance, Media, Web Site...................................................................................................................................................3

Congressional, White House, and International Interest..........................................................................................................4

Sponsors...................................................................................................................................................................................5

Contests and Scoring................................................................................................................................................................6

Competition Schedule..............................................................................................................................................................7

Jury and Judging Panels......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Competition Organizers.........................................................................................................................................................12

Competition Results and Perspectives............................................................................................................................................13

What Made the 2005 Competition Unique? ..........................................................................................................................13

How Did 2005 Contests and Scoring Differ from 2002?.......................................................................................................15

Team Approaches in 2005 versus 2002 .................................................................................................................................17 

What’s New for the 2007 Competition? ................................................................................................................................18

Details by Team..........................................................................................................................................................................19

University of Colorado, Denver and Boulder........................................................................................................................20

Cornell University..................................................................................................................................................................22

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obisbo ....................................................................................................24

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University...............................................................................................................26

New York Institute of Technology .........................................................................................................................................28

University of Texas at Austin.................................................................................................................................................30

University of Missouri-Rolla and Rolla Technical Institute ..................................................................................................32

University of Maryland..........................................................................................................................................................33

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid........................................................................................................................................35

Pittsburgh Synergy (Carnegie Mellon, University of Pittsburgh, and The Art Institute of Pittsburgh).................................36

Universidad de Puerto Rico, Mayagüez.................................................................................................................................38

Crowder College ....................................................................................................................................................................39

Florida International University.............................................................................................................................................41

Canadian Solar Decathlon (Concordia University and Université de Montréal) ..................................................................42

Washington State University..................................................................................................................................................43

Rhode Island School of Design..............................................................................................................................................45

University of Michigan..........................................................................................................................................................46

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth................................................................................................................................48

Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................49

Web Site Resources.....................................................................................................................................................................50

V
VI
For 10 days in October 2005, a “solar 

village” on the National Mall in 

Washington, D.C., welcomed more 

than 120,000 visitors. Eighteen teams of 

students from colleges and universities 

from the United States (including Puerto 

Rico), Canada, and Spain had come to 

compete in 10 contests to determine which 

team designed, constructed, and operated 

the most attractive and energy-efficient 

home powered solely by the sun. The 

teams also had come to the nation’s capital to share with the public what they had 

learned about the latest solar energy and 

energy efficiency technologies.

The 2005 Solar Decathlon was the second 

such competition, with the inaugural event 

occurring in fall 2002. Public and media 

interest was equally intense the second 

time around. The next Solar Decathlon 

will occur in fall of 2007, with future 

events to occur every two years after that.

Just like the well-known Olympic decathlon, the Solar Decathlon consists of 10 

contests. But the Solar Decathlon centers 

on all the ways we use energy in our daily 

lives—at work, at home, and at play. To 

compete, the teams must design and build 

energy-efficient homes that are powered 

exclusively by the sun. These homes must 

maintain a comfortable temperature, provide attractive and adequate lighting, 

power household appliances for cooking 

and cleaning, power home electronics, 

power an electric vehicle, and provide hot 

water. The contests evaluate the aesthetics 

of the team projects as well. Although the 

homes are small—no greater than 800 ft2

(74 m2)—they must be attractive and easy 

to live in. 

Like the athletic decathlon, the Solar 

Decathlon tests proficiency in a wide 

range of skills. Unlike its athletic counterpart, however, the Solar Decathlon is a 

team event, in which the diversity of abilities comes from the composition of the 

team rather than a single individual. Architecture and engineering students work 

with students from other disciplines, such 

as marketing, communications, graphic 

design, and computer science, to design, 

communicate, troubleshoot, and build this 

challenging project.

The teams built their houses on or near 

their home campuses and transported 

them to the competition site on the 

National Mall. All the houses completed 

their land journey by truck, but the houses 

from Madrid and Puerto Rico also came 

great distances by ship. Some houses 

arrived in one completed piece, and others 

had to be assembled from multiple pieces. 

Assembly of the village in Washington, 

D.C., began at 12:01 a.m. on September 

29, 2005. The teams and the competition 

organizers from the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) worked 

around the clock for seven days to complete assembly of the village.

Event Overview

More than 120,000 visitors came to the National Mall in Washington, D.C., to experience the second Solar Decathlon.

Web Site Resources 

www.solardecathlon.org/2005/

	 technical_report.html

2005 Solar Decathlon Rules and Regulations

Daily Journals 

Daily Event Schedule

Juror and Judge Information

Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Event Overview — 1
Opening the Solar Village

U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. 

Bodman officially opened the Solar 

Decathlon village during a ceremony 

on Thursday, October 6, 2005. Representatives from Solar Decathlon sponsors—NREL, the American Institute of 

Architects (AIA), BP, DIY Network, and 

Sprint Nextel—shared the stage with the 

Secretary, who introduced the 18 teams. 

“These homes are helping to bring the 

promise of solar power to reality,” 

Secretary Bodman said. “It’s inspiring 

to see these young people work together 

through the design and building stages 

of these next-generation homes. I want 

to congratulate all of the teams who are 

competing and note that the awards they 

win here won’t compare to the prize of 

knowing, down the road, that their work 

helped strengthen our world’s energy 

supply with more available use of solar 

power.”

The Solar Decathlon teams came to the 

Mall to compete, but they also came to 

share information with visitors. Team 

houses were living demonstrations of the 

latest in energy efficiency and renewable 

energy designs and products, and the best 

in home design. The event was a valuable 

educational opportunity for consumers.

In addition to touring the team houses, 

visitors could attend a variety of free 

workshops. Most workshops, presented 

by DOE, NREL, and the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, were 

about solar energy and energy efficiency 

in the home. The National Association of 

Homebuilders (NAHB), AIA, BP, and 

Sprint Nextel (all of whom are Solar 

Decathlon sponsors) presented workshops for specialty audiences (e.g., 

homebuilders). Also for consumers, the 

Solar Electric Power Association held an 

expo, where 60 solar-related companies 

exhibited their products and services.

On September 30, a Virginia Tech 

student worked on roof installation, a major milestone in building any house, but critically 

important in the Decathlon 

because the roof supports 

the PV system.

Students from the Universidad de Puerto Rico painted the finishing touches on their house on October 5. 

While the students assembled their houses, a team from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory installed monitoring 

systems to capture data essential to conducting several 

of the contests. The University of Michigan house is pictured.

2 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review

NREL/PIX14605

Cécile Warner
The solar village also featured three educational exhibits: Energy Today, Anatomy 

of a House, and Powered by Renewables. 

Visitors could learn about energy sources 

and uses in the United States today and 

in the future, tips on saving energy in the 

home, grid-connected solar electric (also 

called photovoltaic or PV) systems, and 

the renewable energy power systems (PV, 

biodiesel generator, and wind turbine) 

powering the solar village.

Attendance, Media, Web Site

During the 11 days the Solar Decathlon 

was open to the public (October 6–16, 

2005), the event received significant 

foot and Web traffic, as well as media 

coverage. 

About 120,000 visitors came to the 

National Mall to tour the solar village, 

despite overcast skies and rain from the 

opening ceremony until the winner was 

announced on October 14. It rained more 

than seven inches on Friday and Saturday, 

October 7 and 8, alone! See the “What 

Made the 2005 Competition Unique?” 

section (p. 13) for more information 

about the effects of the weather on the 

competition. Fortunately, the village was 

still open to the public on Saturday and 

Sunday, October 15 and 16, so those who 

hadn’t braved the weather earlier in the 

week still had a chance to tour the houses 

under fairly clear skies. 

The official Solar Decathlon Web site, 

www.solardecathlon.org, received about 

73,000 unique visits between October 6 

and October 16, 2005. The average time 

per visit was more than eight minutes. 

Solar Decathlon stories appeared in print, 

online, and on television and radio (see 

summary in Table 1). Highlights included 

stories on or in the CBS Evening News, 

DIY Network, New York Times, 

Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, 

Popular Mechanics, and Sirius radio. The 

Solar Decathlon also was, or will be, featured on five cable shows on Discovery 

Canada, DIY Network, HGTV, This Old 

House, and the New York Times TV/

Discovery Channel. The programs vary 

from short features to full-length 

documentaries. 

With great fanfare, Secretary of Energy Bodman (center), representatives from the Solar Decathlon sponsors, and the student decathletes opened the 2005 Solar Decathlon on October 6.

“Every one of these houses is a marvel of 

engineering and design, and a model of 

creativity and innovation.”

— U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman

 Impressions

Media Type Stories/Airings (in millions)*

Print 178 80

Television 285 18

Cable 

Programming 7 480

Radio 11 109 

Online 383 197

Grand Total 864 884

Table 1. Media Hits, Airings, and Impressions 

for Solar Decathlon 2005

*For print media, impressions were calculated as circulation multiplied 

by 2.5 for newspapers and 3.3 for magazines. For television and cable 

programming, impressions equal the number of viewers; for radio, the 

number of listeners; and for online media, the average number of visitors per site on which a given story was posted. Numbers are rounded 

up or down to the nearest million.

Media interest in the 2005 Solar Decathlon was huge. The story filed by this TV reporter featured the University of Maryland. 

Event Overview — 3
Congressional, White House, and 

International Interest

The 2005 Solar Decathlon attracted members of Congress as well as committee 

staff to the solar village. Several teams 

first caught the attention of their Congressional delegations while their homes 

were under construction. Home district 

visits usually were followed up with a 

visit when teams finished their entries 

on the National Mall. In addition, DOE 

sponsored special Congressional tours 

of the solar village for members and 

staff of the House Science Committee 

and the Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Caucus.

Following visits to the Solar Decathlon, 

Congressional interest only grew. After 

the competition was over, the Energy 

Subcommittee of the House Committee 

on Science held a hearing to showcase 

winning teams and the energy technology 

highlights from the 2005 Solar Decathlon. 

The Subcommittee also examined the 

research and policy implications of the 

Decathlon, including the steps necessary 

to make solar power more viable in the 

mainstream market. 

The White House was also interested in 

the Solar Decathlon. First Lady Laura 

Bush invited Colorado team leader Jeff 

Lyng to sit with her during the State of 

the Union address in January 2006. 

During the address, President Bush 

announced his Advanced Energy 

Initiative, which includes a proposal 

to increase funding for research and 

development of solar technologies.

The international community was also 

well represented at the Solar Decathlon. 

Dignitaries from Spain and Canada came 

to offer encouragement to the teams from 

their countries. Many visitors from Puerto 

Rico came to support their team, and 

tourists from other countries were much 

in evidence during the event. 

Congressman Lamar Smith 

(R-Texas) stopped by with good 

luck wishes for the University of 

Texas team on October 7, the first 

day of active competition.

After the opening ceremony, 

Secretary Bodman (left) and 

Spanish Ambassador to the 

United States Carlos Westendorp 

shared a friendly conversation 

at the Universidad Politécnica de 

Madrid home.

Canadian Minister of Environment 

Stéphane Dion paid a visit to Team 

Canada’s home on October 11. 

The home features a PV window 

complete with maple leaves. 

“As you walk through these fabulous solar 

homes, you’ll see technologies that were 

pioneered at DOE, NREL, and other national 

laboratories.”

— NREL Director Dan Arvizu

4 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
Sponsors

The primary sponsor of the 2005 Solar 

Decathlon was the DOE Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

a DOE laboratory, was charged with 

managing and organizing the competition 

and event. AIA and NAHB spread the 

word about Solar Decathlon to their 

architect and builder members (respectively), provided workshops, and created 

networking opportunities for the students 

and celebrated their accomplishments. 

Private-sector sponsor BP offered 

“at-cost” PV systems to all the teams, as 

well as free technical assistance. Before 

the competition, the company issued a 

request for proposals to the teams to 

encourage innovative applications of 

building-integrated PV. The University 

of Texas won the bid and received a free 

PV system. BP also hosted a reception, 

sponsored the onsite “People’s Choice” 

award, conducted media outreach, and 

bought advertising for the event throughout the Washington, D.C., area. DIY 

Network conducted significant media 

outreach and publicized the event to its 

subscribers via dedicated Web content. 

DIY sponsored an online “Voter’s Choice” 

award and produced a documentary of

the event, which aired December 2005. 

Sprint Nextel brought its “cell on wheels” 

or COW to the National Mall and set up 

a local area network for the whole village, 

providing Internet connectivity and telecommunications support to the teams and 

organizers. The company also provided 

organizers with cell phones to use during 

the event and helped to power the village 

with a fuel cell.

As crowds of visitors lined up to tour the homes, 

the student decathletes assumed one of their 

most important roles: ambassadors for solar 

energy and energy efficiency. Home Tours were 

a component of the Communications contest, 

which challenged teams to communicate their 

experiences to a wide audience—including 

other students and professors, school children, 

tourists, homeowners, and energy and building 

professionals. Through Web sites and public 

tours of the houses on the National Mall, the 

teams shared their stories about the Solar 

Decathlon and the knowledge they had gained.

Students As Solar Energy Ambassadors

Long lines formed outside the Rhode Island School of Design 

home and all the other homes. 

Washington State University team members showed off their 

evacuated-tube collectors for the solar hot water system.

At the California Polytechnic State University home, the learning began outside with signs describing a variety of features, 

including the energy-efficient aspects of the home.

In the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth living room, 

visitors listened closely to a student’s description of various 

features of the house. Questions were encouraged, and the 

students were excellent teachers.

On the Crowder home tour, students showed visitors the 

flooring, trim, and cabinetry—all made from hardwood 

from the Pioneer Forest in the Ozarks.

A student tour guide from the Florida International team 

showed visitors around, pointing out custom track lighting 

that was designed to save energy. 

“Your passion, knowledge, and skills are 

obvious. You have created beautiful houses, 

but they will have very little impact if you 

can’t communicate about them effectively.”

— Solar Decathlon Director Richard King

Event Overview — 5
Contests and Scoring

The 10 Solar Decathlon contests are based 

on three guiding principles:

• During competition, teams must supply 

the energy requirements necessary to 

live and work using only the sunlight 

shining on their entry—the global solar 

radiation incident on the house.

• Houses exemplify good design principles 

that will increase the public’s awareness 

of the aesthetic and energy benefits of 

solar and energy efficiency design strategies and technologies, which in turn

will increase the use of these design 

principles and technologies.

• The work of the teams, organizers, and 

sponsors will stimulate accelerated 

research and development of renewable 

energy, particularly in the area of 

building applications.

Some contests are scored by measuring 

performance, such as meeting certain 

lighting-level or temperature requirements. 

Others require the successful completion 

of tasks. Some contests are scored by 

judges who are experts in architecture, 

engineering, and other appropriate fields. 

The subjective judging evaluates things 

that measurements cannot evaluate, such 

as aesthetics and “livability.” Some contests are scored by a combination of these 

methods.

The 10 Contests 

The following describes the 10 contests 

of the 2005 Solar Decathlon. In 2007, 

there will be changes to some of the 

contests. See “What’s New for the 2007 

Competition” (p. 18).

Architecture (200 points)

Teams were required to design and build 

attractive, high-performance houses that 

integrated solar and energy efficiency 

technologies seamlessly into home design. 

Scoring well in Architecture was crucial; 

teams could earn up to 200 points, twice 

the number of points available in the other 

contests. A jury of esteemed architects 

toured the team homes to judge the 

Architecture contest.

Dwelling (100 points)

Experts from the residential buildings 

industry awarded points for this contest 

based on their evaluations of the “livability” and “buildability” of the homes. 

They assessed whether the houses were 

designed well for everyday living, simple 

to maintain, and attractive to potential 

home buyers. They also evaluated flexibility of design and construction, the construction methods used, and marketability 

of the houses. The Dwelling judges toured 

the team houses to make their assessments.

Documentation (100 points)

The Documentation contest awarded 

points based on how well teams analyzed 

their designs for energy performance and 

how thoroughly they documented the 

design process. Teams were required to 

document all stages of the Solar Decathlon project. A panel of engineers evaluated 

the building energy analyses performed 

by the teams in the early stages of design. 

A panel of architects specializing in 

project management and documentation 

evaluated the teams’ final “as-built” 

drawings. 

Communications (100 points)

The Communications contest challenged 

teams to communicate their experiences 

to a wide audience through Web sites and 

public tours. Points were awarded based 

on success in delivering clear and consistent messages and images that represented 

the vision, process, and results of each 

team’s project. To judge this contest, a 

panel of experts in Web site development 

evaluated the team Web sites remotely, 

while a panel of experts in public relations 

experienced student-led tours of each 

home during the competition.

Comfort Zone (100 points)

The Solar Decathlon teams designed 

their houses to remain a steady, uniform, 

comfortable temperature and humidity 

throughout. Full points for this contest 

were awarded for maintaining narrow 

temperature (72°F/22.2°C–76°F/24.4°C) 

and relative humidity (40%–55%) ranges 

inside the houses. A panel of engineers 

with expertise in building heating, cooling, 

and ventilation also toured the homes 

to make comprehensive assessments of 

thermal comfort and indoor air quality 

and to award points based on those 

assessments.

Signage in the solar village described the ten contests of the Solar Decathlon.

6 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
Appliances (100 points)

To earn points, student teams had to maintain certain temperature ranges in their 

refrigerators (34°F/1.11°C to 40°F/

4.44°C) and freezers (–20°F/–28.9°C to 

5°F/–1.5°C). During the competition, the 

list of tasks included using appliances to 

wash and dry 12 towels on each of 2 days; 

cooking and serving meals to contest 

officials on each of 4 days; cleaning dishes 

using a dishwasher on each of 4 days; and 

operating a TV/video player for up to 

6 hours and a computer for up to 8 hours 

on 5 of the competition days. Points 

were awarded for this contest through 

measurements and task completion.

Hot Water (100 points)

Teams scored points in the Hot Water 

contest by successfully completing the 

“shower tests.” They aimed to deliver 

15 gallons/57 liters of hot water (110°F/ 

43.3°C) in 10 minutes or less. A panel of 

engineering judges also toured each home 

to make a comprehensive assessment of 

the hot water systems and awarded points 

based on those assessments.

Lighting (100 points) 

To win this contest, teams had to meet 

specific lighting-level requirements in 

each room of the house. Contest officials 

measured lighting levels to ensure teams 

maintained typical lighting levels during 

the day and at night. Ideally, lighting 

design incorporated ambient and task 

lighting, electric lighting, and natural 

“daylighting” for energy efficiency and 

occupant comfort. A panel of lighting 

design experts toured the homes to 

subjectively evaluate overall lighting 

design—aesthetics, innovation, and 

annual performance. 

Energy Balance (100 points)

The Energy Balance contest required 

teams to use only the energy generated 

by the PV systems on their houses during 

the competition to provide all of the electricity for the contests. Teams earned full 

points if the energy supplied to the batteries was at least as much as the energy 

removed from the batteries. 

Getting Around (100 points)

In the Getting Around contest, teams used 

electricity generated by the solar electric 

systems on their houses to charge their 

street-legal, commercially available electric vehicles. Points were awarded based 

on how many miles each team completed 

on each day.

Competition Schedule

By the time the teams arrived on the 

National Mall, some contest activities 

had already been completed. The Documentation contest was complete, and the 

Web site judges had begun their evaluations on September 29. But the bulk of 

contest activities occurred while the village was open. To accommodate contest 

activities such as the judges’ tours, some 

of the houses were closed some of the 

time during public hours. See Table 2 

for the complete competition schedule.

Panache was not required of the decathletes, but it was definitely encouraged. Here, New York Institute of Technology students get 

into the spirit of the cooking task.

One of two “laundry days” at the Decathlon featured this Pittsburgh Synergy student, who seems happy to be doing household chores.

Event Overview — 7
September Contests Measurement, Task, or Event

Wednesday 28 Team orientation

Thursday 29–Friday 30 Assembly 

Monitoring equipment installation 

Rules and regulations inspections 

October

Saturday 1– Sunday 2 Assembly 

Monitoring equipment installation 

Rules and regulations, general building planning, structural, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) inspections

Monday 3–Tuesday 4 Assembly 

Monitoring equipment installation 

Network connection

Rules and regulations, general building planning, structural, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and ADA inspections

Wednesday 5 Assembly 

Monitoring equipment installation 

Network connection

Rules and regulations, general building planning, structural, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and ADA inspections

House commissioning

Opening ceremony dress rehearsal

BP opening reception

Thursday 6 House commissioning

Opening ceremony and ribbon cutting

AIA/NAHB student reception

Friday 7 Public tours

Lighting Electric lighting quantity measurements (spot measurements with a hand-held sensor) 

Saturday 8 Public tours

Beginning of “solar only” period

Architecture Architecture jury, Dwelling panel of judges, and House Tours panel of judges toured and evaluated team houses.

Dwelling

Communications

Lighting Electric lighting quantity measurements

Sunday 9 Public tours

Architecture Architecture jury, Dwelling panel of judges, and House Tours panel of judges toured and evaluated team houses.

Dwelling

Communications

Lighting Electric lighting quantity measurements 

Monday 10 Public tours

Comfort Zone Temperature and humidity control measurements

Appliances Refrigerator and freezer temperature control measurements 

Computer and TV/video monitor operation, cooking, and dishwashing tasks required

Hot Water Shower tests required

Table 2. 2005 Solar Decathlon Schedule

8 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
October Contests Measurement, Task, or Event

Monday 10 (cont’d) Lighting Standard usage pattern and integration of electric and natural lighting measurements

Exterior lighting compliance

Lighting panel of judges toured and evaluated team houses. 

Energy Balance Energy Balance measurements

Getting Around Teams drove electric cars for mileage credit.

Architecture Architecture jury and Dwelling panel of judges announced results.

Dwelling

Tuesday 11 Public tours

Comfort Zone Temperature and humidity control measurements

Appliances Refrigerator and freezer temperature control measurements 

Computer and TV/video monitor operation, clothes washing and drying, cooking, and dishwashing tasks required

Hot Water Shower tests required

Lighting Standard usage pattern and integration of electric and natural lighting measurements

Exterior lighting compliance

Lighting panel of judges toured and evaluated team houses. 

Energy Balance Energy Balance measurements

Getting Around Teams drove electric cars for mileage credit.

Communications Communications panel of judges announced results.

Canadian Embassy student reception

Wednesday 12 Comfort Zone Team houses were closed to the public for 24-hour measurements of temperature and humidity control.

Appliances Refrigerator and freezer temperature control measurements 

Computer and TV/video monitor operation, cooking, and dishwashing tasks required

Hot Water Shower tests required

Lighting Standard usage pattern and integration of electric and natural lighting measurements

Exterior lighting compliance

Lighting panel of judges announced results.

Energy Balance Energy Balance measurements

Getting Around Teams drove electric cars for mileage credit.

ASHRAE student reception

Thursday 13 Public tours

Comfort Zone Temperature and humidity control measurements 

Engineering panel of judges toured and evaluated homes.

Appliances Refrigerator and freezer temperature control measurements 

Computer and TV/video monitor operation, clothes washing and drying, cooking, and dishwashing tasks required

Hot Water Shower tests required

Engineering panel of judges toured and evaluated homes.

Lighting Standard usage pattern and integration of electric and natural lighting measurements

Exterior lighting compliance

Energy Balance Energy Balance measurements

Getting Around Teams drove electric cars for mileage credit.

Documentation Results of Documentation contest announced. 

Event Overview — 9
October Contests Measurement, Task, or Event

Friday 14 Public tours

Contest measurements and tasks ended at 11:00 a.m.

Overall winner announced at 2:00 p.m.

Comfort Zone Temperature and humidity control measurements 

Engineering panel of judges toured and evaluated homes.

Appliances Refrigerator and freezer temperature control measurements 

Computer and TV/video monitor operation, clothes washing and drying, cooking, and dishwashing tasks required

Hot Water Shower tests required

Engineering panel of judges toured and evaluated homes.

Lighting Integration of electric and natural lighting measurements

Exterior lighting compliance

Energy Balance Energy Balance measurements

Getting Around Teams drove electric cars for mileage credit and drove a final lap around the village.

Comfort Zone Engineering panel of judges announced results. 

Hot Water

Saturday 15 Public Tours

Victory Reception

Sunday 16 Public Tours

Disassembly began after 6:00 p.m. or when house was clear of visiting public, whichever happened first.

End of “solar only” period

Monday 17–

Wednesday 18 Disassembly

10 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review

Site design was featured prominently in the 2005 Solar Decathlon homes. The Cornell garden added serenity 

and a sense of place to the home. 

Cornell students gave away their edible garden one plant at a 

time as they prepared to disassemble their home on October 16. 

Ruby Nahan
Jury and Judging Panels

Architecture Jury

Steve Badanes

Jersey Devil design/build

Ed Mazria

Mazria Odems Dzurec

Sarah Susanka

Susanka Studios

Ken Wilson

Envision Design

Dwelling Panel of Judges

Dennis Askins

Karim Rashid Design

Robert Burt

Bozzuto Construction Company

Sam Grawe

Dwell Magazine

Katherine Salant

Author and nationally syndicated 

columnist

Architectural Documentation Panel of Judges

Phil Bernstein

Autodesk, Inc.

Kathryn Prigmore

HDR Architecture & Engineering

Grant Simpson

RTKL Associates, Inc.

Energy Analysis Panel of Judges

Doug Balcomb and Mike Deru

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Pete Jacobs

Architectural Energy Corporation

Russ Taylor

Steven Winter Associates

Norm Weaver

Interweaver Consulting

Web Site Panel of Judges

Ethan Goldman

BuildingGreen

Kim Master

What’s Working

Alan Wickstrom

BuildingOnline, Inc.

House Tours Panel of Judges

Ben Finzel

Fleishman-Hillard, Inc.

Jaime Van Mourik

National Building Museum

Craig Savage

Building Media, Inc.

Engineering Panel of Judges

Steven Emmerich

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

John Mitchell 

Solar Energy Laboratory, University of 

Wisconsin

Terry Townsend

Townsend Engineering, Inc., Presidentelect of ASHRAE

The House Tours judges experienced and evaluated the student-led tours at the Missouri Rolla home and all other Decathlon homes. 

Event Overview — 11

The Architecture jurors held lively debates about the merits of each entry, including the pictured New York Institute of Technology 

home. The jurors spent 30 minutes at each house—20 minutes interacting with the students and 10 minutes in conference. 

NREL/PIX14604
12 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review

Lighting Panel of Judges

Howard Brandston

Brandston Partnership, Inc.

Sandra Stashik

Grenald Waldron Associates

Gary Steffy

Gary Steffy Lighting Design, Inc.

Competition Organizers

Director

Richard King

U.S. Department of Energy

Project Manager

Cécile Warner

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Rules and Regulations Committee

Michael Wassmer, Chair

Pamela Gray-Hann, Sheila Hayter, 

Linda Hill, Doug Manno, Ruby Nahan, 

Charles Newcomb, Byron Stafford, Robi 

Robichaud, and John Thornton

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Dan Eberle

Formula Sun

Ed Hancock and Greg Barker

Mountain Energy Partnership

Susan Piedmont-Palladino

Washington Alexandria Architectural

Consortium

Howard Brandston (center) announced the results of the Lighting contest just a few minutes after the panel’s deliberations wrapped 

up on October 12. Listening in are (from left) contest official Sheila Hayter and Lighting contest judges Gary Steffy and Sandra Stashik. 

“First, let me tell you how impressed I am 

with all of you. We saw a range of product 

and expense, but in the end, it didn’t 

matter. It was a job superbly done. You 

should all celebrate, because you are all 

winners.”

— Lighting Judge Howard Brandston
On October 14, 2006, the University 

of Colorado placed first in the 2005 

Solar Decathlon, with Cornell 

University, and California Polytechnic 

State University (Cal Poly) placing 

second and third, respectively. Table 3 

on page 14 shows the final placement 

for all teams. To gain a sense of the dayto-day developments during the 2005 

event, please read the Daily Journals 

written by Competition Director Richard 

King (see www.solardecathlon.org/2005/

daily_journal.html). 

This section includes insights and analysis 

by the competition organizers as to why 

the top teams performed well. These 

comments are offered in the spirit of giving all Solar Decathlon teams an equal 

opportunity to learn from past experience 

and compete successfully in the future. 

What Made the 2005 Competition 

Unique?

The 2005 Solar Decathlon teams, like their 

2002 predecessors, were smart, talented, 

inspired, and incredibly hard working. 

But one thing they didn’t share with the 

2002 teams was the luck of good weather. 

It was hot in 2002, and the sun shone 

virtually every day of the event. In 2005, 

it was just the opposite. The sun shone 

during assembly, the clouds rolled in 

before the opening ceremony, the rain 

fell in torrents the first couple of days of 

the event, and the sun wasn’t really seen 

again until after the winner had been 

determined. Solar champions without 

much sun: How did Colorado, Cornell, 

and Cal Poly do it? 

• Balance: They had well-rounded teams 

with “specialists” in areas that affected

performance across all aspects of the 

project and all 10 contests. 

• Organization: They built a strong team

from the beginning of their projects. 

Throughout the two years leading up 

to the event and during the event, they

made sure they knew and understood

the rules and kept current on rules interpretations.

• Communication: An important aspect of 

team organization, all members of the 

teams were aware of progress on the 

whole project, not just their areas of 

expertise.

• Strategy: These teams adjusted their 

strategies to the inclement weather 

earlier than other teams did.

• Luck: All three teams were lucky that 

the weather didn’t improve.

Competition Results and 

Perspectives

Web Site Resources 

www.solardecathlon.org/2005/

	 technical_report.html

Daily Journals

Final Detailed Scores and Standings

2005 Solar Decathlon Rules and Regulations

Brief Contest Reports

Instrumentation and Monitoring for Solar 

Decathlon 2005

“We thank the students for their enthusiasm, 

innovation, hard work, and ability to tread 

water and slog through the mud. We couldn’t 

be more proud of them. This Solar Decathlon 

built on the last one, with the houses even 

more innovative and efficient.”

— David K. Garman, Under Secretary of Energy

On October 14, Under Secretary of Energy David Garman presented the 2005 Solar Decathlon trophy to the University of Colorado team.

“All week, we had no direct sun, but the 

teams were still washing clothes, running 

the dishwasher... If solar energy can work 

this week, it can work anywhere in the 

world!” 

— University of Colorado Student Project Leader Jeff Lyng

Competition Results and Perspectives — 13
 Final Standing Team Architecture (200) Dwelling (100) Documentation (100) Communications (100) Comfort Zone (100)

1 Colorado 162 85 92.3 98 69.137

2 Cornell 188 85 75.76 69.85 84.454

3 Cal Poly 192 95 82.09 75.55 75.44

4 Virginia Tech 200 99 84.69 85.2 62.167

5 NYIT 188 92 73.84 85.4 57.011

6 Texas 180 92 82.7 79.35 69.566

7 Missouri Rolla 172 75 77.47 74.25 61.963

8 Maryland 146 79 75.16 85.8 65.308

9 Madrid 154 75 89.04 69.65 55.845

10 Pittsburgh 180 89 74.56 78.25 53.946

11 Puerto Rico 128 69 66.95 87.3 56.792

12 Crowder 132 70 36.7 52.7 40.387

13 Florida Intl 146 76 71.14 72.55 37.441

14 Canada 116 51 72.68 79.55 68.193

15 Washington State 162 66 78.09 84.5 49.339

16 RISD 180 81 60.52 72.9 50.011

17 Michigan 154 56 83.55 68.3 47.086

18 UMass Dartmouth 100 52 44.55 38.05 24.497

Table 3. Final Results for the 18 Teams of the 2005 Solar Decathlon

Visitors braved stormy weather to spend time at the Decathlon. The teams that answered the challenge of rain and overcast skies 

throughout the competition week were rewarded in the end.

Colorado, Cornell, and Cal Poly had similar strategies during contest week (October 

10–14), when measurements were taken 

to evaluate house performance objectively. 

Consequently, all three teams benefited 

from the foul weather. Why did Colorado 

place first over Cornell and Cal Poly? 

They dominated three contests—Communications, Documentation, and Getting 

Around—that other teams tended to 

overlook in favor of other subjectively 

judged contests. Colorado’s collective 

performance in those three contests was 

enough to overcome their solid, but not 

spectacular, performance in Dwelling and 

Architecture. 

The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University (Virginia Tech) team, 

which finished fourth overall, dominated 

the Architecture and Dwelling contests, 

so why didn’t they win? Unlike Colorado, 

Cornell, and Cal Poly, they gambled that 

the weather would improve. Early in the 

contest week, they shut most of their 

systems down and essentially forfeited 

many points in the objectively evaluated 

contests (e.g., Comfort Zone, Appliances, 

and Hot Water). They bet on the sun shining toward the end of the week. If the sun 

had appeared, Virginia Tech would have 

resumed participation in the objective 

contests and received full points for the 

Energy Balance contest. Colorado, Cornell, 

and Cal Poly wouldn’t have been able to 

receive full points for Energy Balance 

14 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
Appliances (100) Hot Water (100) Lighting (100) Energy Balance (100) Getting Around (100) (miles/points) Total Points (1100)

72.007 95.33 79.938 0 318.8/100.00 853.716

74.381 97 90.574 0 195.2/61.02 826.039

80.392 87.917 92.238 0 83.9/28.50 809.13

22.987 56.083 83.556 60.15 85.1/30.67 784.501

64.135 55.167 81.449 0 149.9/48.61 745.614

51.352 23.5 78.479 42.45 62/21.84 721.235

43.987 28.333 74.142 100 31.3/10.91 718.059

67.981 68.583 85.235 0 101.6/36.93 708.592

64.517 72.583 87.912 0 98.7/36.30 704.844

30.746 47.167 70.632 23.23 15.1/ 9.34 653.575

66.651 22.5 76.485 0 149.1/52.93 626.605

35.629 40.583 80.897 100 98.2/37.73 625.423

13.113 22.5 64.446 100 20.2/10.42 608.009

45.739 46.25 84.628 0 50.6/23.142 586.383

22.392 35.5 65.45 6.26 12.1/ 8.18 575.215

23.667 15.75 85.844 0 1/ 5.00 571.492

17.943 16.25 66.517 0 97.2/35.92 545.568

9.64 10 57.47 0 46.7/19.35 326.755

Virginia Tech was the early favorite after scoring impressive victories in both the Architecture and Dwelling contests. At the pictured 

Architecture award ceremony, juror Sarah Susanka commented, “Everything about this house is wonderful. It took my breath away.”

had the sun shone more, because their 

energy deficit was too great to overcome 

with only a day or two of additional sun. 

Virginia Tech would not necessarily have 

won the competition, but the top three 

finishers would likely have been different.

How Did 2005 Contests and Scoring 

Differ from 2002?

After a review of the inaugural 2002 competition, the organizers at DOE and NREL 

made several changes to the Solar Decathlon contests and scoring. 

Changes to scoring the 2005 competition 

were significant: 

• Scoring of the 2002 competition was

based on team rankings. Teams were 

ranked first through fourteenth 

(14 teams), and scores were assigned 

based on rank. Team scores went up 

and down during the competition, 

because rankings in individual contests

were dynamic. As rankings changed, 

so did scores. In the 2005 competition, 

the ranking system was discarded, and 

points were cumulatively awarded for 

achievement. Generally, team scores

were always increasing from the

beginning of the contests. 

Competition Results and Perspectives — 15
• In 2002, penalties could have a significant impact on scores. For some contests,

the number of penalty points accrued 

effectively determined rankings. Often, 

the team with the fewest penalty points

was ranked first, and the team with the 

most penalty points was ranked last. 

Some penalties were assigned after a 

team had been ranked, thus changing 

their score. By awarding cumulative 

points for achievement, the “need” for 

penalties in 2005 was greatly reduced. 

Although rare in 2005, some penalties 

were assigned and did result in reduction 

of some scores.

• In 2002, 155 points were available in

various contests for using less electrical 

energy to complete specific tasks. 

Several teams gained points in 2002 by

turning off appliances, thereby using less

electrical energy. By eliminating these 

points in 2005, the organizers removed 

the incentive to use such a strategy, 

which is inconsistent with an important

goal of the Solar Decathlon—to demonstrate that solar power can provide the 

energy for a modern lifestyle. This 

change was insignificant to the overall 

competition, because energy efficiency 

was still critically important to success 

in most of the judged contest activities, 

and especially in the measured Energy 

Balance and Getting Around contests.

• In 2002, “partial credit” was not

awarded. In 2005, partial credit was 

awarded for some contest activities.

• In 2002, performance in the Getting 

Around contest was based on total 

mileage credit accrued during the week.

Teams could drive to designated locations to receive a designated number 

of mileage credits. In 2005, performance in this contest was based on a 

team’s accrued daily mileage relative 

to other teams’ accrued daily mileage

credit. Mileage credit was based on 

actual miles driven, and driving routes 

were not specified.

Here’s an idea: Show up at the Solar Decathlon with the biggest, most powerful PV array and you’re 

sure to win. But, wait, that didn’t work in 2005. How about bringing a super-sized energy storage 

system—wouldn’t that be critical to success, especially during the overcast conditions experienced 

in 2005? Not necessarily.

Colorado, Cornell, and Cal Poly finished first, second, and third, respectively, in the 2005 Solar Decathlon. Yet, as shown in Figure 1, the size of their PV arrays ranked only tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth, 

respectively, in the competition. Figure 2 makes the same comparison for energy storage capacity. 

In this case, Colorado, Cornell, and Cal Poly ranked fifth, third, and eighth, respectively. 

The top teams proved in 2005 that energy management was more important than power and energy

storage capacities. Reacting quickly to changing conditions—being willing to change strategies 

based on which approach would garner the most points—was also a key to victory.

PV and Energy Storage: Sizing Up the Systems

DC array rating (kW) Objective score* Final standings (points)

* Total of points received for all objective (measured) contest activities (480 points available). 03826401

UMass Dartmouth

Missouri Rolla

RISD

Washington State

Cal Poly

Pittsburgh

Michigan

Cornell

Colorado

Canada

Puerto Rico

Virginia Tech

Florida Intl

Texas

Madrid

Crowder (MO)

Maryland

NYIT

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

DC array rating at STC (kW)

900

800

700

600

500

400

0

Points

300

200

100

Battery capacity (kWh) Objective score* Final standing (points) Missouri Rolla RISD Washington State Cal Poly

Pittsburgh

Michigan

Cornell

Colorado

Canada

Puerto Rico

Virginia Tech

Florida Intl

Texas

Madrid

Maryland

NYIT

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

DC array rating at STC (kWh)

900

800

700

600

500

400

0

Points

300

200

100

140

* Total of points received for all objective (measured) contest activities (480 points available). 03826402

Figure 1. PV Array Size Versus Finish Order

Figure 2. Energy Storage Capacity Versus Finish Order

16 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
• In 2002, subjective juries and panels 

ranked 14 teams from 1 to 14. In 2005, 

subjective juries and panels were asked 

to follow a general set of scoring guidelines, but were free to award any number 

of points they wanted. Ties were allowed.

Several contests were changed in 2005: 

• The 2002 Design and Livability contest 

became two contests: Architecture (the 

design aspect) and Dwelling (the

livability aspect), worth 200 and 100 

points, respectively. “Buildability,” 

which had not been evaluated in the

original contest, became a part of the 

Dwelling contest in 2005.

• All elements of the 2002 Design Presentation and Simulation contest were moved 

to the 2005 Documentation contest. The 

Final Project Summary and Pre-Event 

Deliverables contest activities were 

added in 2005.

• The 2002 Graphics and Communications 

contest was renamed Communications, 

and the newsletters contest activity was

eliminated. In 2005, teams were evaluated only on Web sites, house tours, and 

branding effectiveness.

• For the Comfort Zone contest, required 

temperature and relative humidity setpoint requirements were revised, and 

a 24-hour evaluation with tighter tolerances was eliminated. Subjective contest 

activities “Innovation of System” and 

“Consumer Appeal/Integration of System” were changed to “Comprehensive 

Assessment of Thermal Comfort” and 

“Comprehensive Assessment of Indoor 

Air Quality.”

• The 2002 Refrigeration and Home

Business contests were eliminated. 

Elements of these contests were moved

to a new contest called Appliances. 

Required refrigerator set points were

revised. TV/video operation and computer operation requirements were

revised and moved to the Appliances 

contest. The “Office Space Comfort 

and Integration” contest activity in the 

2002 Home Business contest was integrated into the 2005 Dwelling contest. 

The “Contest Diaries” contest activity 

within the 2002 Home Business contest 

was eliminated. 

• The subjective components of the 2002

Hot Water contest, “Innovation of System” and “Consumer Appeal/Integration of System,” were eliminated and 

replaced by the 2005 “Comprehensive 

Assessment of Hot Water System” 

contest activity.

• Laundry and dishwashing tasks were 

moved from the 2002 Hot Water contest 

to the 2005 Appliances contest, and the 

requirements were revised.

• The “Innovation of System/Integration 

of System” and “Consumer Appeal/

Lighting Environment” contest activities 

of the 2002 Lighting contest were

replaced with the “Daylighting Quality” 

and “Electric Lighting Quality” contest 

activities in 2005. The “Kitchen Work 

Surface” continuous light-level measurement was eliminated. The “Office Work 

Surface” continuous light-level measurement was retained and renamed “Integration of Electric and Natural Lighting.” 

The “Handheld Light Meter Evaluations”

contest activity was renamed “Electric 

Lighting Quantity,” but the general

approach was the same. In 2005, the 

“Exterior Lighting” and “Standard 

Usage Patterns” contest activities were 

added to the Lighting contest. These new 

contest activities established more realistic lighting usage profiles in the village.

• The Getting Around contest was broken 

into six distinct activities in 2005. Each

day of driving was a separate contest

activity, and the final lap to mark the 

official end of the competition was 

another distinct contest activity.

Team Approaches in 2005 versus 2002

The 2005 teams clearly made architectural 

design a high priority, and the general level 

of architectural sophistication was greater 

than in 2002. Comments received by the 

competition organizers from visitors to 

the Mall and the Architecture jury support 

that observation. In addition, several 

trends were visible in the 2005 homes 

that indicate an evolution in design from 

the 2002 homes: 

• Several homes in 2002 were modular,

arriving on the Mall in multiple 

“pieces”—whereas 2005 teams moved 

toward single-piece homes.

• Site design, not a significant consideration in 2002, was a prominent feature 

of several overall designs in 2005. 

• Although there were some green roofs 

in 2002, roofs were not intended as

living spaces. In 2005, several teams 

featured habitable green roofs. 

• In 2002, several teams intentionally 

exceeded height and footprint limits,

whereas in 2005, the small number of 

teams that exceeded those limits did 

so unintentionally.

• In 2002, only a couple of teams emphasized general sustainable living practices 

(such as use of environmentally preferable materials, rainwater collection, and 

onsite agricultural production), but in 

2005, many teams made this a focus.

• In 2002, tour routes through the homes

for the visiting public were an afterthought for many teams. In 2005, public 

tour routes were carefully considered by 

most teams.

• In 2005, PV arrays were significantly 

larger than in 2002. 

• In 2002, all teams had solar water 

heaters. In 2005, two teams did not 

use solar water heaters at all.

Several trends remained the same from 

2002 to 2005: 

• Structural integrated panels (SIPs) were

the predominant building envelope 

strategy favored by the teams.

• Thin-film PV was not heavily featured.

Competition Results and Perspectives — 17
Puerto Rico earned second place in the 

Communications contest. They got points 

for easy navigation, solid and consumerfriendly content, and creative graphics 

on their Web site. The team scored big 

points in the House Tours element of the 

Communications contest. According to 

the judges, “They use their culture—

everything from live music and artwork 

on the walls to emphasizing the importance of community in their culture—

as an effective and appealing way of 

branding themselves, their mission, and 

their messages.” 

Puerto Rico won the DIY Network “Voter’s 

Choice Award.” DIY, a Solar Decathlon 

sponsor, invited its Web site visitors to 

vote on their favorite houses based on 

online photos of all competition houses.

• The houses featured a mix of radiant and 

forced-air heating systems.

• Lead-acid batteries remained the battery 

system of choice.

What’s New for the 2007 Competition?

An increase in funding for the teams, 

coupled with a long-term research and 

development goal, marks the biggest 

change for Solar Decathlon 2007. 

Beginning with the 2007 competition, 

teams are being challenged to meet a 

whole-house, levelized energy cost of 

$0.10/kWh by the year 2015, while 

complying with the criteria associated 

with the 10 contests. The 20 entries 

selected to compete in 2007 were chosen 

based on many criteria, including the 

presence of a research and development 

component that meets this critical cost 

outcome. In previous competitions, the 

teams received US$5,000 upon acceptance to compete. The rest of the funding 

for their projects they raised themselves. 

Upon successful completion of a series of 

deliverables, the teams chosen to compete 

in 2007 will receive funding of US$50,000 

per year for two years. Even with these 

additional funds, the teams will still have 

to do considerable fundraising.

There are two significant contest changes 

for 2007. The Dwelling and Documentation contests of 2005 have been replaced 

by two new contests: Engineering and 

Market Viability. Although there are two 

new contests, all the components of the 

Dwelling and Documentation contests 

have been retained. The drawing submittal requirements for the Documentation contest in 2005 are now under the 

Architecture contest. The “Buildability” 

(ease of construction and replication of 

design) and “Livability” components of 

the 2005 Dwelling contest will be evaluated by a jury as part of the “Market 

Appeal” component of the Market Viability contest. The “Project Deliverables” 

component of the Documentation contest 

will also be evaluated within the Market 

Viability contest. A new “Economic Analysis” component to evaluate the teams’ 

methods for reaching the $US0.10/kWh 

levelized-energy-cost goal is part of 

Market Viability. The energy analysis 

component of Documentation is part of 

the new Engineering contest. And two 

subjectively evaluated components of 

Comfort Zone and Hot Water have been 

moved to the new Engineering contest. 

The Lighting contest in 2007 is the only 

contest that has both subjective evaluation 

components and measured performance 

components. 

In addition to these contest-related changes, 

a few other significant changes are worth 

noting, because they may affect the teams’ 

project plans and public perception of the 

event. The “solar only” period, during 

which no generators are allowed without 

significant penalty, will begin five days 

into assembly, which is five days earlier 

than in previous events. This change 

will challenge the teams to get their PV 

systems functioning earlier, and it will 

demonstrate the viability of solar power 

more readily to public visitors. In past 

events, the presence and noise of fossilfuel-powered generators has created a 

conflict with the stated overall goals of 

the event. 

In previous competitions, teams had to 

contain their batteries within the footprint of the house, so most houses effectively had an “unusual” utility room that 

contained a good number of batteries. In 

2007, teams will be allowed to contain 

batteries in a structure outside of the 

house footprint, thereby having the 

option to design houses that look more 

like solar-powered houses that are connected to the utility grid. This change 

is important to public perception and 

acceptance of solar power.

Rhode Island School of Design students served candlelit dinners in their rooftop garden, with the Smithsonian Castle a picturesque 

backdrop. Several Solar Decathlon homes in 2005 featured habitable green roofs.

18 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
In the following pages are details of design 

approaches and philosophies, special 

features, and competition strategies 

related to each team home. Tables 4–8 

include equipment summaries for teams 

that finished in the top five, which is 

important information for 2007 and other 

future decathletes. Similar information is 

included for all 2005 and 2002 teams in 

the online Web Site Resources.

This section also includes team-specific 

comments made by jurors and judges of 

the various contests. This, too, is vital 

information for future decathletes as a 

guidepost of what will (and will not) 

score points—and more importantly, why 

this is the case. Innovation is a key judging criteria, and the judges looked for it 

and rewarded it at every opportunity.

Finally, this section describes the special 

awards that Decathlon teams earned. Solar 

Decathlon sponsors and professional 

organizations see the event as a proving 

ground for the design and engineering 

trendsetters of the future. As such, the

organizations are eager to recognize and 

reward the Decathlon team achievements.

Teams are listed by order of finish.

University of Colorado, Denver and Boulder..................................................................20

Cornell University............................................................................................................22

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obisbo ..............................................24

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.........................................................26

New York Institute of Technology ...................................................................................28

University of Texas at Austin...........................................................................................30

University of Missouri-Rolla and Rolla Technical Institute ............................................32

University of Maryland....................................................................................................33

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid..................................................................................35

Pittsburgh Synergy (Carnegie Mellon, University of Pittsburgh, and 

The Art Institute of Pittsburgh)........................................................................................36

Universidad de Puerto Rico, Mayagüez...........................................................................38

Crowder College ..............................................................................................................39

Florida International University.......................................................................................41

Canadian Solar Decathlon (Concordia University and Université de Montréal) ............42

Washington State University............................................................................................43

Rhode Island School of Design........................................................................................45

University of Michigan....................................................................................................46

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth..........................................................................48

Details by Team

On October 5, when this picture was taken, the 2005 Solar Decathlon opening ceremony was just a day away and the solar village 

hummed with activity. Pictured are members of the Cal Poly team installing safety wires on their ADA-compliant ramp.

Web Site Resources 

www.solardecathlon.org/2005/

	 technical_report.html

2005 Solar Decathlon Rules and Regulations

Equipment Summaries

Complete Drawing Sets for the 2005 Teams

Brief Contest Reports

Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Details by Team — 19
• Most of the home’s furnishings, and even

the tableware, are made of natural materials such as corn, wheat, soy, and even 

coffee. Building on this, the team used 

food-related metaphors in their communications pieces as “branding” elements.

• The team transported the home to and 

from Washington, D.C., primarily using 

a biofuel—B100 (pure) biodiesel. 

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• A radiant-heat floor and well-insulated 

walls (R-30 to R-35) provide uniform 

levels of interior warmth and comfort. 

• A “solar hearth” that contains the home’s 

mechanical systems adds to its interior 

attractiveness.

• The home is designed to be highly accessible to the public, including people with 

disabilities.

• A movable roof constructed of custom

steel struts lowers for ease of travel and

lifts for a feeling of openness and 

increased lighting when the house is 

stationary.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• A ductless, nonintrusive heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system provides cooling for the home. 

The University of Colorado’s entry emphasizes natural materials throughout, as you 

might expect of a team from scenic Colorado. Although the university took top 

honors overall in the 2002 competition, 

the 2005 team didn’t rest on its laurels. 

Instead, they worked hard to design, 

construct, and demonstrate an original, 

sustainable modular home concept. 

When they got to the National Mall, the 

team worked even harder. Faculty Advisor 

Mike Brandemuehl said they were the 

first to arrive and the last to leave each 

day of the competition. The Colorado 

team drove their GEM (electric car) as if 

their lives depended on it, because one 

never knew when an extra point or two 

would be needed. 

What’s Different?

• For the walls, the team combined two 

off-the-shelf “green” building components into one newly patented SIP. 

Colorado’s “BIOSIP” is like a giant 

ice cream sandwich made of two panels 

of Sonoboard—a strong but lightweight

board made of recycled materials by 

Sonoco Company—that are filled with 

BioBase 501, a lightweight foam insulation made from soybean oil by BioBased 

Systems. 

PV and Solar Thermal

• The evacuated tube solar thermal water 

heating system is designed to provide 

heat both for domestic hot water and 

for the integrated radiant floor system.

• The rooftop PV system comprises 32

SunPower 200-watt (W) solar panels 

that are 16% efficient. OutBack Power 

Systems donated the balance of the PV 

system.

• The home demonstrates buildingintegrated PV via the PV awnings that 

provide electricity for the home as well 

as shade for its windows.

The 2005 Colorado team matched its 2002 

counterpart by winning the Communications contest. Both the Web site panelists 

and the House Tour panelists unanimously 

chose Colorado as the winner. The team 

used creative and accessible ways of communicating on their Web site and within 

their house. The judges found the Web 

design to be clean and fresh, while their 

writing style on the Web was snappy, fun, 

and clear, covering a lot of content. The 

House Tour judges echoed the praise: 

“This team’s entire focus seemed to be 

interacting with the public. Food was a 

very effective branding mechanism. The 

tour connected with the technologies... 

this is the team who figured out who the 

audience is.”

It was evident that the Colorado team 

communicated well not only with the 

outside world, but also with each other. 

The members of this team were clear on 

their roles and committed to each other 

and to the goals of the competition.

Colorado also set the standard for Documentation by winning that contest, which 

evaluates the quality of documents submitted for the schematic design, design 

development, construction, and “as-built” 

phases of the Solar Decathlon project. 

University of Colorado, Denver and Boulder

Colorado’s home features a movable roof constructed of custom steel struts that lowers for ease of travel and lifts for a feeling of 

openness and increased lighting when the house is stationary.

20 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
The team performed well in all four components of this contest, a proven key to 

overall success. In particular, the energy 

analysis report was, in the words of the 

judges, “a tour-de-force.” One judge said, 

“This is how it should be done!” 

Key to this team’s overall success, and 

their eventual victory, was their use of 

strategy and the ability to function in 

spite of the rainy weather. On Tuesday, 

October 11, at 8:00 a.m. they decided to 

“live in the house,” which meant operating the system the way a homeowner 

would normally do in a rainy situation 

and draw from the batteries. But they 

had also planned well. “We focused on 

designing for a 40-year model worst case 

weather scenario. That’s why we’re doing 

okay now,” said Colorado team member 

Kristin Field, when presenting to the Engineering panel of judges.

They looked at the scoring spreadsheet, 

considered the weather, calculated the 

number of points they could gain in 

which contests, and developed a strategy 

to win. Like all good competitors, they 

gamed it well. 

First, they took a long hard look at the 

scoring spreadsheet to determine which 

achievements would give them the most 

points. They sacrificed the Energy 

Balance contest to focus on contests that 

required energy usage. To ensure success

in their strategy, they took a gamble on the 

weather. But they also looked at about five 

different weather reports each day, just in 

case they needed to change strategies. 

They knew how best to drive the car, and 

the best time to charge it. Student team 

member Frank Burkholder was their GEM 

specialist. He made it his job to know how 

to get the best mileage out of the car. 

During the summer prior to the competition, Scott Horowitz, Colorado’s calm 

and patient driver, and Burkholder drove 

hundreds of miles to determine the best 

charging per mileage scheme. They found 

that driving a slow and steady 15 mph/

24 km/h gained the most miles/kilometers 

per charge. Each day during the competition, Colorado set the bar for points 

awarded in the Getting Around contest, 

and ended up winning that contest handily. 

The team also did a lot of other things 

right. They scored well in many of the 

judged contest activities. They planned 

for a battery bank that could get them 

through a week of cloudy weather. Their 

energy storage allowed them to score well 

in Getting Around in addition to the Appliances and Hot Water contests. 

Along with the overall Solar Decathlon 

victory, the Colorado team received two 

special awards. BP, a Solar Decathlon 

sponsor, presented the team with its Brand 

Value Award for being “green” and demonstrating environmental leadership. And 

DIY Network, also a Decathlon sponsor, 

bestowed the Best Built Home Award on 

the Colorado house.

Colorado’s kitchen is visible from the living room. Clerestory windows at the roofline allow in natural daylight.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 6.98

PV Modules Primary: 34 Sunpower SPR-200-BLK

Secondary: 3 SBM Solar Module-60

Charge controllers 3 Outback MX-60; 1 Morningstar Prostar PS15M-48V

Inverters 2 Outback VFX3648

Battery bank/type 370 AH, 48 V/40 Deka Solar 8L16 flooded lead acid

Space heating Primary: Thermomax Mazdon collectors; solar thermal space heating/

water heating hybrid

Space cooling Mitsubishi mini-split heat pump (HP) with 2 indoor units

Ventilation Energy recovery ventilator (ERV)

Water heating 4 Thermomax MAZ20 evacuated tubes

Primary building envelope/Insulation SIP/Rigid foam (partial soy content)

Table 4. University of Colorado Home Details

Details by Team — 21
Puerto Rico earned second place in the 

Communications contest. They got points 

for easy navigation, solid and consumerfriendly content, and creative graphics 

on their Web site. The team scored big 

points in the House Tours element of the 

Communications contest. According to 

the judges, “They use their culture—

everything from live music and artwork 

on the walls to emphasizing the importance of community in their culture—

as an effective and appealing way of 

branding themselves, their mission, and 

their messages.” 

Puerto Rico won the DIY Network “Voter’s 

Choice Award.” DIY, a Solar Decathlon 

sponsor, invited its Web site visitors to 

vote on their favorite houses based on 

online photos of all competition houses.

After the competition, the team transported 

the house to the Colorado campus, where 

it will be displayed for about a year as a 

tool for education and outreach. Then the 

house will be delivered to its purchaser—

Prospect New Town in Longmont, Colorado—a New Urbanist community featuring sustainable, green-built residences.

The Solar Decathlon house from Cornell 

University is designed for production as 

highly affordable factory manufactured 

housing. Its custom HVAC system combining a heat pump and a desiccant energy 

recovery ventilator, which the team felt 

was ideal for the humidity in Washington, 

D.C., gives the house flexibility in different climates. The house design can be 

tailored to fit the homebuyer’s functional 

needs, aesthetic preferences, and financial 

capabilities.

What’s Different?

• The house is designed for production as 

a modular housing system, with a target 

cost between $50,000 and $100,000.

• The Cornell team was entirely studentrun and led, with faculty serving as 

advisors.

• The key feature of the heating and cooling system is an energy recovery ventilator that houses a silica gel wheel, 

which transfers heat and humidity 

between intake and exhaust airstreams.

• Dinner menus were planned around 

produce from the house’s “edible landscape,” designed to feed two people for 

six months and featuring 30 varieties of 

food plants. 

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• A folding, rather than sliding, glass wall 

(called the “NanaWall”) between the 

living room and patio connects the 

interior and exterior living spaces, but 

also provides an excellent thermal seal.

• The house uses SIPs for the walls instead

of traditional stud-framed construction.

The Colorado team won the Getting 

Around contest handily by implementing a plan to get the most 

miles possible from each charge 

of their electric vehicle. 

Cornell University

The Architecture jury praised the Cornell University house, commenting that the crisp building set in a lush edible landscape made a 

great initial impression. 

22 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
• A student-designed modular cabinetry 

unit spans the north wall and contains 

all the storage for the house.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• The custom energy recovery ventilator 

is coupled with an electric heat pump 

and air-handler. 

• The house features a fully automatic 

computerized control system for the 

energy recovery ventilator and the rest 

of the heating and cooling system; a 

touch-screen control allows for manual 

override.

PV and Solar Thermal

• A 6.2-kW crystalline silicon PV system 

powers the house; all panels were 

donated by General Electric. 

• An evacuated-tube solar thermal system, 

donated by Sun Spot Solar, provides all 

the domestic hot water and radiant floor 

heating.

As the first-place team in both the Comfort 

Zone and Hot Water contests, Cornell 

demonstrated how good engineering 

design integrated with the building architecture will successfully result in good 

indoor environmental quality and meet 

all the household’s hot water needs. 

For the Comfort Zone contest, the team 

incorporated advanced technologies to 

ensure the competition temperature and 

humidity set points were maintained 

throughout the week. Their desiccant 

system allowed them to control the 

indoor humidity levels during most of 

the competition, a feat that only this team 

accomplished during the especially wet 

competition week. A mechanical ventilation system controlled by a CO2

 sensor 

ensured that good indoor air quality could 

be maintained at all times. Cornell demonstrated a comprehensive understanding 

of the engineering required to ensure a 

comfortable and safe indoor environment, 

and they were able to execute their design 

ideas into a system that worked.

The Engineering contest judges reported 

Cornell’s hot water system was a solid 

design that worked quite well. Most 

notably, however, Cornell was the only 

team to successfully complete all nine 

of the shower tests conducted during the 

competition.

The Architecture jury, which ranked the 

Cornell house high (tied for third with 

New York Institute of Technology), was 

impressed from the very beginning by 

several things, commenting that the crisp 

building set in the lush edible landscape 

made a great initial impression. “The entry 

sequence, the layout of the spaces, and the 

excellent cabinet work contributed to an 

interior that lived up to the promise of the 

exterior. While not technically an architectural issue, the business plan to make the 

technologies more acceptable to the public 

by ‘easing into solar’ showed maturity and 

foresight.” 

It was clear from the beginning that this 

team meant business, which served them 

well on their journey to a second-place 

overall finish. They included MBA candidates on their team to assist with fundraising and management. This was truly 

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 6.16

PV Modules 56 General Electric GEPV-110-M

Charge controllers 3 Outback MX-60

Inverters 2 Xantrex SW5548

Battery bank/type 1985 AH, 48 V/24 C&D Technologies msEndur AT-35 AGM lead acid

Space heating Primary: Seido 5-16 collectors; solar thermal space heating/

water heating hybrid

Space cooling Trane split-system HP w/ RotorSource desiccant wheel

Ventilation Desiccant-wheel ERV, exhaust fans

Water heating 2 SUNDA Seido 5-16 evacuated tubes

Primary building envelope/Insulation SIP/Expanded polystyrene

Table 5. Cornell University Home Details

This view of the Cornell living room shows the “NanaWall,” a folding glass wall that eases the transition from indoor to outdoor space.

Details by Team — 23
What’s Different?

• At 2,826 miles/4,548 kilometers, the 

Cal Poly house traveled the furthest 

distance over land to arrive at the 

competition.

• Partly to make a statement on the environmental impact of cars, the team 

decided to rank the Getting Around 

contest last in their order of energy 

priorities during the competition.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The team employed a passive architectural design strategy, incorporating 

as many mechanical and as few automated controls as possible. This socalled “switch rich” strategy is meant 

to help adapt the building to seasonal 

variations and different climates.

• A 13-ft/4-m retractable wall on the 

south side of the house opens to a deck

system surrounded by a rain screen.

a multidisciplinary team of engineers, 

architects, graphic designers, various 

liberal arts students, and landscape architecture students, who developed the beautiful edible landscape and the comfortable 

grass sofa and lounging chair around the 

house. Their landscape architect also did 

the team’s lighting design.

“Our strength was bringing different 

points of view—this was most critical,” 

said team member Emile Chin-Dickey. 

“At times, initially, it was hard to communicate. But we learned how an engineer or architect would think. Eventually, 

sometimes even I (a liberal arts student) 

would make a suggestion, and the architects would say ‘Yeah! That’s good.’ ”

Chin-Dickey said that Cornell used the 

same strategy as Colorado in not participating—in Energy Balance—because, 

“We knew our strengths and chose to 

take advantage of our house performance.”

The team from California Polytechnic 

State University (Cal Poly) dedicated 

themselves to simplicity, employing a 

design strategy that incorporates as many 

mechanical and as few automated systems 

as possible. This approach encourages 

inhabitants to interact with the home and 

also helped the team fit the house and its 

systems on just one truck for the coastto-coast drive from California to 

Washington, D.C. 

The Cornell team’s ingenuity shows with their use of under-the-deck space for battery storage, which obviates the need for a separate 

space inside the house. A rule change for the 2007 Solar Decathlon allows battery storage outside the footprint of the house. 

California Polytechnic State University

Architecture jurors lauded Cal Poly’s choice of exterior materials as innovative, well composed, and well executed—giving the house 

a memorable look.

24 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
• The house is made from local and 

reclaimed materials and includes three 

distinctive sets of materials for each 

major section of the house (mechanical, 

living, and cooking).

PV and Solar Thermal

• The PV array consists of 28 BP Solar 

panels capable of generating as much 

as 4.9 kW. Mounted on the house’s flat 

roof, the system is equipped with two 

maximum power point trackers, allowing the PV array to operate efficiently 

at all times of the day.

• The conventional solar heating system 

consists of two flat-plate collectors that 

provide hot water for domestic use.

Electrical Load

• The “switch rich” house incorporates 

user interactivity with operable windows 

and shades as the predominant strategy 

for controlling temperature.

Good planning helped Cal Poly win the 

Appliances contest. They successfully 

completed more of the Appliances tasks 

than any other team, while maintaining 

near-perfect refrigerator and freezer 

temperatures during the entire competition. This team operated their TV/video 

and computer, prepared meals, ran their 

dishwasher, and washed their clothes 

using hot water (this in itself was a notable accomplishment considering the 

week’s weather), while at the same time 

making sure their refrigerator and freezer 

temperatures consistently stayed within 

the allowed temperature range. During the 

difficult conditions the weather presented, 

only good planning and careful use of all 

energy consumption could have led Cal 

Poly to this level of success in the Appliances contest.

Cal Poly won the Lighting contest because 

their architecturally integrated lighting 

design not only met the competition 

requirements, but also contributed significantly to the comfortable visual environment of the home’s interior. They received 

a near-perfect score in the quantitative 

portion of this contest. In the subjective 

areas, the Lighting judges said the daylighting was bright and all encompassing, 

and that Cal Poly had succeeded in completing an extremely elegant design. The 

judges found the electric lighting system 

to be equally impressive, noting that Cal 

Poly’s use of up and down lighting was 

“wonderful.” 

Cal Poly scored high in design—taking 

second in both the Architecture and Dwelling contests. This house is “elegantly 

made, simple... so much more crafted 

than many of the others, even those with 

a similar idea,” said an Architecture juror.

The Architecture jury commended the Cal 

Poly design for several specific things. The 

choice of exterior materials is innovative, 

well composed, well executed, and gives 

the house a memorable look. The machinemade aesthetic is tempered with a sure 

handling of color, material contrasts, and 

scale. The house is a model of economy 

and simplicity and very much in the modernist tradition of a “machine for living.” 

The jury was impressed with the decision to make a “real kitchen” where one 

could make a “real meal” and then open 

it up completely to the living space. The

attention to craft is impressive, and the 

consistency of material and of language 

for details gives coherence and character 

to the house.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 4.9

PV Modules 28 BP 4175

Charge controllers 2 Outback MX-60

Inverters 2 Xantrex SW5548

Battery bank/type 230 AH, 48 V/24 Trojan 8D AGM lead acid

Space heating/cooling Carrier 2-speed split system HP

Ventilation ERV

Water heating 2 Heliodyne Gobi 410 flat-plate collectors

Primary building envelope/Insulation SIP/Expanded polystyrene

Table 6. California Polytechnic State University Home Details

The Cal Poly interior has an open and airy feel throughout. Work areas in the generously sized kitchen all have a view through a window.

Details by Team — 25
“This house is just really impressive. The 

team did a really professional job in its 

design and construction,” said a Dwelling 

contest judge. “The interior wall panels 

are durable, easy to care for, and look 

really good. If this house were factorybuilt, these panels could be installed precisely, and the clean look demonstrated 

here could be replicated.” The design 

is so clean. It doesn’t feel small, even 

though the conditioned space is one of 

the smallest in the Solar Decathlon.

High scores in the subjective contests and 

solid performance in the objective contests 

led Cal Poly to a third-place overall finish 

in the Solar Decathlon.

Virginia Tech’s Solar Decathlon home is 

designed to be a celebration of solar energy. 

From its floating roof, which gestures 

toward the sun, down through its three 

translucent walls, this home is all about 

light. It’s a modular home that can be finetuned to be enjoyed in nearly any climate. 

What’s Different?

• Although the primary structure is wood 

frame, the east, west, and south walls are 

made of two panels of 35-mm/1.4-in.

polycarbonate material filled with 

aerogel insulation. These translucent 

walls serve to connect the people inside

to their immediate surroundings; motorized MechoShades provide privacy and 

shade, as needed, and can also deflect 

summer heat.

• The ceiling is made of a strong fabric 

material stretched over a curved structure. 

• The home was built on a chassis so it 

could be moved to and from Washington, D.C., in one piece. When it arrived 

at its destination, the structure’s supporting trusses were unfolded and lowered 

to provide support for the exterior deck.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The roof is designed to “float” above a

clerestory atop the walls, giving the 

home a light, airy feel.

• The 3-ft/0.9-m Thermal-Steel north wall

houses most of the electrical and mechanical systems, so visitors and occupants 

alike can easily move through the home.

• The three polycarbonate walls and the 

roof are part of a “tunable” enclosure 

that can be adjusted for many different 

climates.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• The translucent walls allow solar energy 

to help warm the home in cool weather.

• A water-to-water heat pump is used for 

hot water and space heating (by means 

of a radiant floor). 

Cal Poly’s building-integrated PV awning does double duty as a power source and an attractive design element.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

The Virginia Tech home is all about light, from its floating roof, which gestures toward the sun, down through its three translucent walls.

26 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
“good flow” in the house. The judges said 

they could envision people living comfortably in the house, and that the house is 

buildable and marketable. “It pushes the 

limits of the market’s tastes while at the 

same time whetting the market’s appetite 

for something exciting and different. The 

innovation in achieving the desired outcome far surpasses expectations and demonstrates an exemplary level of ingenuity.”

According to the Lighting contest judges, 

Virginia Tech’s lighting design was clean, 

integrated, and “beyond excellent.” This 

team successfully integrated their lighting 

design with the architectural design of the

Lighting (including daylighting)

• Clerestory windows at the tops of the 

walls provide daylight for the home.

• During the day, the ceiling reflects daylight from the clerestories down into the 

home, and at night it reflects the light 

from fixtures at the top of the walls into 

the home.

• Light-emitting diode (LED) lights at the 

bases of walls provide a colorful display 

at night.

PV and Solar Thermal

• The rooftop PV system is pitched and 

can be adjusted to capture an adequate 

amount of sunlight, no matter what the 

season. 

• The team chose to use a ground-source 

heat pump rather than a solar thermal

system to heat water and the interior 

space; on the National Mall, the 

“ground” was a 300-gallon/1136-liter 

water storage tank below the home. 

Bryan Atwood, a student team member 

and one of the designers of the Virginia 

Tech house, put it simply. “Our idea was 

that when the public walks into our house, 

we want them to say ‘it’s better than the 

one I live in.’ ” Succeed they did, taking 

first place in both the Architecture and 

Dwelling contests. 

The Architecture jurors were unanimous 

in their assessment of the Virginia Tech 

house as “absolutely exquisite.” They 

had the sense that nothing had been 

overlooked. And most importantly, they 

sensed that the team had worked particularly well as a team. There were no 

obvious seams between the conventional 

divisions of architecture, engineering, 

and interior design. The jury agreed that 

it was an extraordinary achievement on 

every level. They especially appreciated 

the early commitment to solve the transportation problem as a design problem 

itself. Remarkable also was the design of 

the technological spaces and interfaces, 

reinforcing the jury’s opinion that every 

decision was considered a design decision. 

“As a professional, I’d be proud to have 

done this myself. It’s not just a good project for students, it’s just good,” said one 

Architecture juror.

The Dwelling contest judges noted several 

impressive features in the Virginia Tech 

design. They reported that “everything 

about the design is clever,” from the 

method developed to transport the lightconstruction structure to the user-friendly 

interactions with the sophisticated systems 

within the house. They also noted the 

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 7.2

PV Modules 36 Sunpower SPR-200-BLK

Charge controllers 2 Sunny Island 4500

Inverters 3 SMA Sunny Boy 2500 (grid-tie); 1 SMA Sunny Boy 1800 (grid-tie); 

2 SMA Sunny Island 4248

Battery bank/type 258 AH, 48 V/20 Concorde SunXtender PVX-2580L lead acid

Space heating FHP Manufacturing water-to-water HP

Space cooling Geothermal water-to-air HP

Ventilation Heat recovery ventilator, exhaust fans

Water heating None (FHP Manufacturing WH018 electric water-to-water heat pump)

Primary building envelope/Insulation Wood frame/Aerogel; SIP/Expanded polystyrene

Table 7. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Home Details

This view of the kitchen displays the clean elegance of the interior space found throughout the Virginia Tech house.

Details by Team — 27
house. The lighting in this house contributes to making it very livable. The use of 

residential fixtures gives an otherwise 

modern space a homey feel. Virginia 

Tech tied for first place in the electric

lighting component of the Lighting 

contest. “They got it!” said a judge in 

reference to the controls and dimming. 

One concern, however, was the very 

high connected lighting load.

Greg Mella, representing the American 

Institute of Architects (AIA), a Decathlon 

sponsor, presented an AIA Presidential 

Citation to Virginia Tech. Chip Clark, 

a student architect and member of the 

Virginia Tech team, appreciated the 

accolade. “We worked really hard at 

refining our design. To have people at 

the top of our field say they appreciate 

it is amazing.”

The team from the New York Institute of 

Technology (NYIT) dubbed their house 

“Green Machine/Blue Space.” The design 

consists of two main structures joined by 

an enclosed “sunspace” (like a breezeway). 

The Green Machine structure contains 

most of the home’s mechanical systems, as 

well as the kitchen, bathroom, and a roof 

garden for growing food and collecting 

rainwater. The Blue Space houses areas 

for sleeping, relaxing, or working.

What’s Different?

• There’s a hydrogen fuel cell on the 

premises. 

• A used shipping container forms the 

section of the house that contains the 

mechanical systems, kitchen, bathroom, 

and roof garden. 

• Furniture designed by students creates 

“micro-environments.” Each piece provides temperature/comfort control and 

lighting control within its own area. 

This minimizes the use of large-scale 

mechanical heating/cooling and can 

direct light where it is needed.

• Decathlon visitors were offered a hand

held computer (PDA), which provided

a multimedia animation presentation 

explaining the function of many of the 

home’s key features.

Translucent walls and a curved ceiling, which the Architecture jury 

appreciated, are clearly visible in the Virginia Tech living room.

New York Institute of Technology

The NYIT house design consists of two main structures joined by an enclosed sunspace. An Architecture juror pronounced the house 

“incredibly charming and clever.” 

28 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
mechanical systems; the loft space; and 

the bold step of using hydrogen fuel cell 

technology. The jury felt that each of 

these decisions impacted all aspects of the 

design in a consistent manner that emphasized imagination, innovation, and even 

humor at every scale. “There’s a totally 

different aesthetic here, and it’s incredibly 

charming and clever,” said one juror.

In the Dwelling contest, NYIT again tied 

for third, this time with the University 

of Texas. The Dwelling judges found the 

NYIT design one of the most flexible 

demonstrated in the Solar Decathlon. They 

were sold on the idea of including all the 

expensive components of a house (the 

kitchen, bath, and laundry) in a central 

core section and then attaching the living 

space to this core. “The market potential 

for this core concept is exciting. You 

could easily produce the core and market 

it to builders across the country. A builder 

could purchase the core and then customize the house attached to it. By purchasing 

the core, the builder avoids the complications of having to construct the most 

expensive components of the house.”

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The Green Machine (shipping container) 

provides power and is the beating heart 

of house. The Blue Space contains culturally specific spaces for life and is built 

with materials indigenous to the locale. 

High R-value building panels used in 

this area are made of compressed wheat 

straw. 

• “Micro-environments” of comfort are 

located inside the house to create daylighting and protection from south light. 

PV and Solar Thermal

• Electricity from a roof-mounted PV system is used to separate hydrogen from 

water through electrolysis; the hydrogen 

is stored and later used to power a fuel 

cell that produces electricity and heat 

on demand. 

• A solar-powered evacuated tube system 

is used for domestic hot water. 

Electrical Load

• Highly efficient appliances minimize the 

energy demand.

• An efficient heat pump is used for HVAC.

• A dynamic energy balance model simulates every electrical load in the house.

“We have something very special here,” 

said NYIT student team member David 

Schieren. “Hydrogen is the fuel of the 

future. And it’s just as safe as any fuel 

out there. Visitors embrace it. That’s why 

we’re here on the Mall.” The public’s 

interest was clearly remarkable, as evidenced by people standing outside in the 

rain to learn about the hydrogen system.

NYIT shared (with Cornell) a third-place 

tie in the Architecture contest. The NYIT 

house provoked the most discussion 

among the Architecture jurors. Several 

fundamental decisions impressed them: 

the initial diagram splitting the serving 

and the served spaces; the concept of 

micro-environments, which yielded an 

unexpected marriage of furniture and 

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 10.8

PV Modules 54 Sanyo HIP-200BA3

Charge controllers n/a

Fuel cell Plug Power GenCore 5T48

Hydrogen generator Proton Energy Systems HOGEN RE

Primary energy storage Low-pressure hydrogen; high-pressure hydrogen

Backup battery bank/type 33 AH, 48 V/4 AGM lead acid

Space heating/cooling Mitsubichi mini-split HP w/ 3 indoor units

Ventilation Exhaust fans

Water heating Thermomax MAZ30 evacuated tube 

Primary building envelope/Insulation SIP/Pressed agricultural products

Table 8. New York Institute of Technology Home Details

The loft bedroom of the NYIT house is above the living room. The living, dining, and home-office furniture were designed and built by 

NYIT students to be multifunctional.

Details by Team — 29
The NYIT team showed that even if you 

have a complex technology, you are still 

able to convey your ideas to the public. 

The Communications contest judges 

scored NYIT well. “Their house tour was 

told in clear, friendly terms. They made 

the technology more approachable. We 

were very impressed by the ‘hydrogen 

guys’ outside. They were so enthusiastic.”

The University of Texas at Austin team 

used their Solar Decathlon experience to 

educate their local community—including 

children—about sustainable design, solar 

power, and energy efficiency. Their house 

design embodies these concepts, with an 

aesthetically pleasing blend of local natural 

materials and cutting-edge technology. The 

SNAP house (for Super Nifty Action Package) consists of prefabricated modules 

that snap together for ease of transportation and assembly on the National Mall.

What’s Different?

• The team incorporated a broader vision 

of homeowners participating in the 

energy economy by producing, as well 

as consuming, energy.

• A green roof is planted with native Texas 

grasses.

• “SNAPcomm”—a touch-screen LCD 

panel with custom programming (done 

by students)—is integrated with a computer to control all systems in the house 

and obtain information (such as weather 

data) from the Internet. 

• The emphasis is on sustainable materials 

that are recyclable or have recycled content, have low-energy life cycles, or are 

reclaimed. 

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• Prefabricated modules snap together for 

ease of transportation and construction.

• Sliding doors and operable windows 

open up the livable spaces to each other 

and to the outdoors.

• Built-in furniture has flexible uses, such 

as office/entertainment cabinetry.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• Most windows are operable, allowing for 

cross breezes and reducing the need for 

active cooling.

• The PV array is elevated above the roof 

structure to ventilate waste heat.

Visitors stood in line in the rain to view the hydrogen fuel cell system, here being described by two NYIT student team members. 

University of Texas at Austin

The Texas house consists of prefabricated modules that snap together. The Architecture jury was impressed with the team’s grasp of 

getting the passive elements right first, before adding high-tech elements.

30 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
• Southern glazing is recessed under the 

PV panels and behind sliding louvered 

panels, which block unwanted sunlight.

• Consolidated space for heating and cooling systems forms a “spine” for the 

house.

PV and Solar Thermal

• The PV array comprises 42 BP 4175 

modules with enhanced silicon nitride 

monocrystalline cells. 

• The evacuated tube array for hot water is 

placed vertically along the edge of the 

south deck to define an outdoor space.

• The house incorporates four PV panels 

manufactured by Romag in partnership 

with BP that are laminated between 

glass to create a solar shade that also 

transmits light.

The SNAP house features northern clerestory windows and a southern window 

wall to maximize daylighting and minimize solar heat gain and glare. LEDs are 

used for artificial lighting because of their 

size, energy efficiency, and negligible heat 

gain. A rich pallet of materials, including 

mesquite flooring, impresses visitors.

The Architecture jury commented that the 

SNAP house was successful on many 

levels. It was memorable, clever, well 

done, and original... super nifty in fact. 

The jury consistently looked for an 

understanding of passive principles, and 

the SNAP house demonstrated a grasp 

of the importance of getting the passive 

elements right first, before adding the 

high tech. The theme of connections was 

carried through literally, in the highlighting of the joints between modules, and 

experientially in the relationship of inside 

and outside, and from room to room.

“What a great impression this house made 

on us!” commented a Dwelling contest 

judge, noting an easy and natural flow 

pattern through the house. The judges 

liked seeing where the sections of the 

house are connected and said the team 

did a nice job with the transition between 

the sections. “The innovation in achieving 

the desired outcome far surpasses expectations and demonstrates an exemplary level 

of ingenuity.”

The Engineering contest judges recognized 

the team for doing many right things with 

their engineered systems. The size of the 

solar collectors and storage tank were well 

matched. Ceiling fans helped mix the air 

in the space. The team provided the right 

amount of separation between their air 

supply intake and system exhaust. They 

did a nice job limiting the possible sources 

of volatile organic compounds and other 

contaminants, and they included dehumidification in their system design.

Prior to the competition on the National 

Mall, BP Solar held a separate competition open to all Decathlon teams, with 

a free PV system as the awarded prize. 

Texas won, and they were awarded a set 

of BP 4175 PV panels (valued at about 

$40,000), which they used on their house. 

BP representatives felt that among all the 

entrants, Texas had most successfully 

integrated the PV panels into the home’s 

design. After the competition ended, BP 

presented Texas with a BP Brand Value 

Award for Performance, which signifies 

setting global standards. 

The University of Texas design includes plenty of natural light and mesquite (abundant in 

Texas) wood flooring.

Details by Team — 31
The team from University of MissouriRolla and Rolla Technical Institute chose 

a traditional design that pays tribute to 

Frank Lloyd Wright. 

What’s Different? 

• Uncommon for a solar house of this size, 

the northern roof has the same pitch as 

the southern roof. The team felt it was 

more important for the house to blend 

into traditional designs than to have the

ideal pitch for solar. The students ran 

computer simulations to be sure their 

desired pitch would meet the energy 

needs of the house.

• Everything in the house is subtly 

designed around a mathematical 

sequence known as the Fibonacci 

Sequence, or the Golden Ratio. This 

shape can be found in most shapes in 

nature, from pinecones to seashells.

• Frank Lloyd Wright, who also incorporated the Golden Ratio into his designs, 

influenced the house’s relationship to 

nature and many aspects of the design, 

such as the shape and color of the trim.

• This is the only house in the competition 

that uses thin-film PV panels as the 

primary power source.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The house contains 28 windows and trim 

and built-ins in shapes and colors reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright’s shapes 

and colors.

• The house is made from SIPs and has a 

standing seam cooper roof.

PV and Solar Thermal

• The team placed importance on sizing 

the PV array efficiently.

• The solar thermal/electric system is combined into one hybrid system, producing 

both hot water and electricity.

• The house is equipped with radiant floor 

heating.

The Architecture jury was surprised and 

impressed by the quality of the home’s 

interior. It was clear to the jury members 

who had seen the 2002 entry that the team 

had made an effort to address past weaknesses. That said, “Really good design 

requires a real team effort, and including 

architecture students on the team might 

have made the difference between a nice 

house and a great house.” The extensive 

glass and careful placement of windows, 

the cabinetry (especially the featured 

kitchen island), and the oak trim were 

elements the jury singled out as particularly commendable.

To the Dwelling contest judges, the house 

seemed so much bigger than only 500 ft2

/

47 m2 of conditioned space. One judge 

noted that he saw more of a home quality 

University of Missouri-Rolla and 

Rolla Technical Institute

The Missouri-Rolla house design is traditional in its reflection of the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. But it’s forward-looking as the only 

house in the competition that uses thin-film PV panels as the primary power source.

32 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review

The kitchen, with its central island, was very popular with visitors to the Missouri-Rolla house. DIY Network presented the team with 

the “Best Kitchen Design Award.”
DIY Network, a Decathlon sponsor, 

echoed the Dwelling judges about the 

quality of the Missouri Rolla kitchen. 

DIY presented the team with the “Best 

Kitchen Design Award.”

than a “weekend” quality. “The workmanship in this house is quite good, and the 

mass market appeal would be very high 

for this design.” The kitchen island was 

very well done. Finally, the judges felt 

that although this design was very marketable and livable, the innovative ideas that 

would contribute to the state of the art 

were limited. 

For the House Tours portion of the Communications contest, the judges liked what 

they saw: “Having an energetic person out 

front was fantastic. Clearly as a team, they 

want to make the house tours matter. They 

are passionate. They set us up well, and 

they explained the craft side. The answer 

tent (an outdoor staging area for visitors) 

is a great idea for when they have elbowto-elbow people.”

Missouri Rolla was one of three winners 

of the Energy Balance contest, by ending 

the competition with as much or more 

energy stored in their battery systems as 

when they began the competition. 

Details by Team — 33

University of Maryland

The Maryland house was the “People’s Choice Award” winner of the 2005 Solar Decathlon. The Dwelling contest judges commented 

that the house feels big and comfortable, with a kitchen layout that is very usable.

In the words of its architect, the University 

of Maryland’s elevated house is “anchored 

to the Earth, yet touches it lightly.” To 

achieve this vision, the students focused 

on teamwork and student leadership. Material choices were also very important to 

this team, as was finding an appropriate 

permanent location for the house.

What’s Different?

• The house has an exposed structure with 

an unusual curved roof, integrating the 

solar panels into the form of the structure.

• Elevating the house reduced its footprint, 

which allows for more surface permeability. Site placement and land-use 

issues are important components of 

residential sustainability.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• Clean, simple lines and a spacious floor 

plan emphasize a simple and sleek space.

• All walls are stick frame construction 

with an innovative environmentally 

sensitive blow-fill insulation. 

• Southern-facing windows allow the concrete floor to absorb heat from the sun.

• Two porches, which are accessed from 

the kitchen and bedroom, contribute to 

the open feel to the house.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• The team selected polypropylene pipes 

for plumbing to avoid using PVC (polyvinyl chloride) piping.

• A radiant flooring system covers the 

entire home.

PV and Solar Thermal

• Charcoal-gray BP Solar panels are integrated into the design, forming part of 

the overall architectural character of the 

house.

• The PV power conversion system is from 

OutBack Power Systems.

• An evacuated tube system with twinglass solar tubes is used for hot water.

Early on in their planning process, the 

Maryland team developed and ratified 

a team constitution, placing particular 

emphasis on student leadership and integration among disciplines. The team’s 

first private donation was from a recent 

University of Maryland graduate and former 2002 Solar Decathlon team member.
The BP group thought well of the house, 

presenting Maryland with its Brand Value 

Award for innovation and delivering 

breakthrough solutions. And the Maryland house proved the popular favorite at 

the 2005 Solar Decathlon by winning the 

“People’s Choice Award,” sponsored by 

BP. The many thousands of visiting public, 

who were offered ballots and the opportunity to vote their personal preference, 

determined the winner of this award.

The house is elevated with the mechanical 

elements underneath and a floating floor. 

This design approach allowed for 770 ft2/

72 m2 of livable space inside of a maximum-allowable footprint of 800 ft2

/74 m2. 

A primary student goal was to make sure 

the house had a permanent home after the 

competition. They found a worthy recipient and donated the house to a 13-acre 

(5.3-hectare) community farm for use 

as a staff residence (through the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning 

Commission). Red Wiggler Farm employs 

mentally challenged adults and provides 

opportunities for local youth to participate 

in small-scale farming.

The Dwelling contest judges commented 

that the house feels big and comfortable, 

with a kitchen layout that is very usable. 

“Really good workmanship went into 

constructing this house. A builder would 

be able to easily construct this house either 

on site or in a factory.” The judges added 

that although this design is very marketable and livable, the innovative ideas that 

would contribute to the state-of-the-art 

were limited.

The Lighting contest judges appreciated 

the nice warm feel the team created in 

their house with both their electric lighting 

and daylighting designs. “The lighting 

levels were enough that a person could 

easily function in the house when it was 

daylit. The team picked the perfect color 

for the walls. The color is reminiscent of 

the sun, yet it also reflects somewhat.”

The Communications contest judges 

praised the team for really planning how 

people would circulate through the house, 

for their elegant presentation, and for having a great brochure for visitors. “There 

will be a lot of families coming down to 

the competition, and this is one of the 

few teams that made a tangible effort to 

reach out to children.”

A welcoming living area greets visitors on entering team Maryland’s home. Clerestory 

windows above the space provide lighting during the day.

34 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
The house from Universidad Politécnica 

de Madrid is designed to be an attractive 

and comfortable Mediterranean style home 

that anyone could enjoy living in, apart 

from its energy efficiency and solar generation features. The house includes “greenhouse windows” and movable walls—

allowing for an interior patio—that provide a great interior/exterior connection. 

The hydraulic wall in the living area that 

opens to accommodate a larger space 

gives the house its name: the Magic Box.

What’s Different?

• Nearly 40 students participated in the 

Madrid team, and most of them came 

to Washington, D.C., for the Decathlon.

• The house has sliding interior walls 

allowing it to be one large space or 

three or five spaces. The living room 

is also movable and creates an interior 

courtyard.

• Greenhouses on the south wall and a 

green roof provide a strong interior/

exterior connection. 

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The house is designed to emphasize 

comfort and attractiveness, as well as 

energy management.

• Extensive use of clay tile on walls as well 

as roofs and floors provides effective 

insulation while adding to the Mediterranean feel.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• The key feature of the heating and cooling system is use of commercially available gel phase-change material under 

the floor for preheating or precooling 

intake air.

• Highly effective insulation, including 

clay tiles in the outer walls, is a key 

part of the house’s heating and cooling. 

• The house features fully automatic controls for the lighting system and heating 

and cooling system, both of which can 

be operated manually. 

PV and Solar Thermal

• The house uses fives different types of 

panels. All are frameless laminated 

crystalline silicon panels chosen to 

Universidad Polytécnica de Madrid

Students from the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid brought their “Magic Box” home across the ocean—to the delight of visitors on 

the National Mall. Documentation contest judges felt that Madrid’s design drawings set a new standard for the competition.

Team Madrid’s living room features 

windows with solar-electric cells. A 

wall of the room can move to reveal 

an interior patio.

Details by Team — 35
show how well they can be incorporated 

into the house design and perform architectural functions.

• The PV system includes a monitoring 

system for supervision purposes, as well 

as an energy management system for 

an efficient use of solar energy.

• An evacuated-tube solar thermal system 

provides the domestic hot water. Heat 

from the draining shower and dishwasher 

is captured for preheating incoming hot 

water.

The Madrid team finished second in the 

Documentation contest, which evaluates 

the quality of documents submitted for 

the schematic design, design development, 

construction, and “as-built” phases of the 

project. Up to 100 points were available 

based on the evaluation from a panel of 

judges who scored each team’s submittals. 

The Madrid drawings set a new standard 

for the competition. One judge commented 

that the entire Madrid submittal serves as 

an effective case study, and that it “goes 

beyond just being an effective set of drawings. It is a wonderful exercise in effective 

communication.”

The Lighting contest judges thought the 

students gave a lot of thought to their design and were able to give good rationalization for most of their design decisions. 

The judges, however, would have preferred 

to see more integration between the lighting 

and architecture. “This design feels like 

there should be a lot of light, yet it didn’t 

feel as bright as one might expect.”

The Communications contest judges said 

the model houses (in an outdoor staging 

area) were great, and that the team’s 

brochure did an excellent job of telling 

the Madrid story. One bit of advice from 

the judges involved the team’s concept: 

“The Magic Box is an incredibly cool 

concept that should have been much 

more integrated into the house tour.”

36 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review

Pittsburgh Synergy (Carnegie Mellon, University 

of Pittsburgh, The Art Institute of Pittsburgh)

The back, south-facing porch of the Pittsburgh house makes an inviting seating area. The Dwelling contest judges commented on the 

“edgy” look and “radical student architecture” of the house.

The Pittsburgh Synergy Solar Decathlon 

team includes students from Carnegie 

Mellon, University of Pittsburgh, and 

The Art Institute of Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh house is intended to be a bridge to 

housing of the future. It features north 

and south walls tilted toward the sun and 

a translucent polycarbonate north wall. 

What’s Different?

• To better use solar resources, the north 

and south walls of the home tilt 12o to 

the south.

• The north wall of the home, enclosing all 

the “service” areas including the bedroom, is made of translucent cellular 

polycarbonate glazing.

• The translucent wall can be used for 

video projection of campus information 

at the house’s planned permanent location on the Carnegie-Mellon campus.

• For this team, the KISS Principle stood 

for Keep It Simple, Students.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The living area of the home, referred to 

as a great room, features a total-glass 

south wall and cement floor for thermal 

mass to aid heating and cooling. Shades

for the south wall are manually controlled—the team believing that the 

occupants are the best operators.

• Environmentally sustainable building 

materials are used for most of the house.

• The home is intended to be simple, 

geometric, and elegant.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• A variable-speed, mini-split system heat 

pump is used for heating and cooling.

• A 150-ft2/14-m2 evacuated glass tube 

solar thermal slab heating system will 

be activated when the house returns to

Pittsburgh. 
concept, but it appears that everything 

could get wet with this particular layout.”

The Dwelling panel of judges singled out 

Pittsburgh’s ingenious furniture design, 

saying it went beyond the competition 

expectations. Also, the judges noted that 

the concrete flooring got a true test during 

the Dwelling panel’s visit because weather 

was rainy the entire week of competition. 

“It held up well to the foot traffic during 

the rainstorms, which proves that it is 

a low-maintenance floor. This is a nice 

livability feature.”

• Upon return to Pittsburgh, a geothermal 

heat pump (helpful for Pittsburgh winters 

and not possible on the Mall in D.C.,) 

will be added. 

PV and Solar Thermal

• The 5.1-kW solar array features 30 BP 

Solar modules.

• The house’s 12o tilt to the south makes it 

easier to accommodate the PV system.

• A solar water heating system (which is 

allocated relatively more of the rooftop 

solar resource than the PV system) provides hot water for radiant, in-floor heating and domestic hot water. 

This was the first house the Architecture 

jury visited, so they had little sense of 

relative success or expectations. The 

jurors’ memories of the quality of this 

house, however, were so strong that they 

decided to revisit it during deliberations. 

Seeing it full of visitors did nothing to 

diminish the first impression of a “spacious feeling” and a “beautiful job of 

identifying the different spaces” in a 

small footprint. The articulation of different areas was remarkable. The jury 

commended, in particular, the recognition 

that an airlock at the entry is an important 

part of a coherent thermal strategy. The 

house demonstrated architectural innovation, a rich material palette, and a memorable form, all of which answered the 

challenge admirably.

The Dwelling contest judges commented 

on the “edgy” look and “radical student 

architecture” of the Pittsburgh house 

(such as the 12o tilt and the wall slats 

running on an angle). Although such 

houses are starting to have appeal to 

the general consumer, the judges felt that 

this house would not necessarily appeal 

to the mass market yet. Another comment 

was that, “The open bathroom is a neat 

The dining, home-office, and living spaces of the Pittsburgh house commune with the outdoor seating area through large, southfacing windows.

Details by Team — 37

After results were announced for each contest, the decathletes 

would hustle over to the scoreboard to see their teams’ standing. 

The scoreboard was updated every 15 minutes.
The Solar Decathlon team from Puerto 

Rico brought the warmth of island life 

to the National Mall. Hospitality and 

social interaction are fundamental to 

Puerto Rican culture. The house design 

encourages these values by creating a 

direct visual and physical relationship 

between interior and exterior spaces.

What’s Different?

• Along with the Madrid team, this team

had to be ahead of the curve—they 

shipped their house to the competition 

across the ocean and needed to complete 

it sooner than the other teams.

• Students modified the clothes dryer to

use solar hot water heat instead of electricity, which was designed to save 

significant amounts of electricity.

• The roof angle was designed with a 

20o pitch. Although not optimal for a 

PV system in Washington, D.C., the 

team felt this was important because 

it’s the norm in Puerto Rico. 

• Undergraduate students did all the 

design and construction. 

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The house has an expandable, modular 

design.

• By situating the terrace by the living 

room, the living space seems bigger 

and more open.

• Exterior beams and columns reflect the 

horizontal aesthetics of Puerto Rican 

design and attach to the exterior of the 

house.

• The house features many off-the-shelf, 

consumer-available materials.

• Variations in interior elevations separate 

common spaces.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• Team members modified a conventional 

air-conditioning system, which controls 

both the house’s temperature and relative 

humidity. 

PV and Solar Thermal

• Using the solar hot water system for 

clothes drying required more solar 

collectors, a larger storage tank, and 

higher-temperature water, but it saved

electricity.

• The PV system comprises 40 BP Solar 

modules (BP-4175) with 44 MK-8A8D 

batteries. The inverters, charge controllers, and the rest of the PV system are 

from Xantrex.

No matter the weather, the students from 

Puerto Rico remained exuberant throughout the competition. “Mi casa es su casa” 

(My house is your house), they said when 

welcoming visitors into their home. House 

tours were a major focus for this team, 

Universidad de Puerto Rico

The Puerto Rico house has large south-facing windows to maximize the daylight and minimize use of electric lights. Fixed louvers over 

the windows block radiation, but let in sunlight.

The living room of the Puerto Rico house opens up to an outdoor deck, a design that encourages the hospitality and social interaction 

so important to Puerto Rican culture. 

38 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
with the twin goals of sharing the Puerto 

Rican lifestyle and making all visitors, 

both English- and Spanish-speaking, 

feel especially welcome. 

The house has large south-facing windows 

to maximize the daylight and minimize 

use of electric lights. Fixed louvers over 

the windows block radiation, but let in 

sunlight.

Puerto Rico earned second place in the 

Communications contest. They got points 

for easy navigation, solid and consumerfriendly content, and creative graphics 

on their Web site. The team scored big 

points in the House Tours element of the 

Communications contest. According to 

the judges, “They use their culture—

everything from live music and artwork 

on the walls to emphasizing the importance of community in their culture—

as an effective and appealing way of 

branding themselves, their mission, and 

their messages.” 

Puerto Rico won the DIY Network “Voter’s 

Choice Award.” DIY, a Solar Decathlon 

sponsor, invited its Web site visitors to 

vote on their favorite houses based on 

online photos of all competition houses.

Crowder College

The Crowder team used the American Arts & Crafts style native to their region to inspire this modified bungalow design. 

The Solar Decathlon team from Crowder 

College in Neosho, Missouri, adapted an 

architectural style integral to the history 

of the area—the American Arts & Crafts 

house. 

The style incorporates many of the same 

principles that are known today as sustainable design: beauty and functionality; 

harmony with the surrounding landscape; 

an open, inviting floor plan; built-in details 

such as benches and bookcases; and windows for ample light and appealing views.

What’s Different?

• The courtyard on the north side of the 

building is accessible from the home’s 

interior. 

• The home features an improved PVthermal design that was originally 

showcased in the 2002 Decathlon 

competition. In addition to generating 

electricity, the integrated modules are 

also designed to supplement the solar 

domestic water heating, space heating, 

and space cooling systems.

• Hardwood flooring, trim, and cabinetry 

are from the Pioneer Forest, the only 

forest in Missouri certified as renewable 

by the Forest Stewardship Council.

• The team used electricity from the trailermounted, portable solar-electric system 

designed for the 2002 Decathlon competition to power tools during construction.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• Steel/foam panelized wall and roof construction were chosen to facilitate quick 

assembly after transport.

• Steel studs are used for the structure, 

which can stand up to a tornado.

• Flexible spaces allow for dual use, such 

as a bedroom with a wall bed that can 

be put away during the day.

• The team applied a common unit of 

measure (approximately the length of 

the solar panel) to determine dimensions 

for recesses, doorways, window placement, and private spaces.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• The team modified and improved the 

water-heating system designed for the 

2002 competition. 

• Waste heat from the PV modules heats 

water through a system of copper tubes 

attached to the back of the modules and 

an extra layer of glazing added above 

the modules.

Details by Team — 39
• Some components of the system are used 

to chill water at night to help with airconditioning.

PV and Solar Thermal

• The hybrid PV/thermal modularized 

solar system uses high-efficiency, heattolerant Sanyo HIT 190 modules that 

can maintain higher voltages at higher 

temperatures.

• Roof design is based on the dimensions 

of the panel itself.

It took three trucks to get the Crowder 

house to Washington, D.C. The first one 

broke an axle. The second one lost a 

wheel. But, the third truck was the charm 

and delivered the team’s house to the Mall. 

Rather than dwell on the negative and sit 

idle while waiting for their house to arrive, 

the Crowder students pitched in to help 

another team. In the true spirit of camaraderie, they went to work on the Cornell 

house, whose team was light on “people 

power” the first day. The Cornell students 

reciprocated by helping Crowder catch up 

once their house arrived.

Crowder was one of three winners of the 

Energy Balance contest, by ending the 

competition with as much or more energy 

stored in their battery systems as when 

they began the competition.

The Lighting contest judges ranked the 

team well, saying they did an incredible 

job considering the resources immediately 

The Crowder team chose wood from 

the Pioneer Forest in the Ozarks for 

much of the cabinetry, trim, and 

flooring in their home.

40 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review

available to them. “Even though the students did not have the tools and expertise 

to guide them like some other teams had, 

they had good intuition and made some 

nice decisions.”

Sometimes the decathletes just had to grab a quick nap. In this 

case, a Pittsburgh Synergy student took a moment to recharge 

her batteries.
Florida International University

Reflecting Florida’s architectural roots, the northern facade of the Florida Intl house is virtually all windows, which are protected by 

operable louvered blinds to control daylighting.

The Solar Decathlon team from Florida 

International University named their 

U-shaped house Engawa, which is a 

Japanese architectural term that describes 

space both inside and out. The house is 

centered around a courtyard, and by 

adapting the interior walls, the U shape 

can be transformed into a square and 

four rooms can become one. 

What’s Different?

• Using the steep roof, the house’s rear 

gutter can be used to incorporate a rainwater catchment system.

• The team drew on diversity, with representatives from many cultural backgrounds and many disciplines—including 

creative writing, journalism, architecture, 

and engineering.

• The ductless HVAC system uses refrigerant and a variable speed compressor 

for maximum efficiency; the system’s 

programmable controls adjust the temperature if someone leaves the room.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The design emphasizes historical ways 

of heating and cooling, with operable 

windows and blinds. 

• The design can easily be expanded to 

work with any square footage.

• The structure is made of a unique prefabricated steel frame with insulated 

foam panels.

• All building materials are hurricane 

compliant.

• The interior walls can be changed in any 

way; there are no load-bearing walls in 

the interior.

• The interior incorporates bamboo flooring and non-toxic natural paints.

PV and Solar Thermal

• Thin-film PV-integrated windows can 

be used as a projection surface for film, 

video, or visual presentations.

With contest rules stipulating a maximumallowable footprint of only 800 ft2

/74 m2, 

the teams were looking to double up on 

functionality wherever possible. Florida 

Intl answered this call with two Murphy 

beds, one in the living room and one in 

the bedroom.

There is playful track lighting on high 

ceilings weaving throughout the space. 

A “smart” system controls lighting, shades, 

The bedroom footprint of the Florida 

Intl house is a mirror image of the 

living room footprint, but furnished 

differently.

Details by Team — 41
and HVAC. The house incorporates LED 

lighting, occupancy sensors, skylights, 

and light shelves. A light shelf is a passive 

architectural device that permits daylight 

to enter deep into a building. Light shelves 

enhance daylight quality, conserve energy 

by allowing perimeter light to be dimmed 

or turned off, and increase occupant comfort. Reflecting Florida’s architectural 

roots, the house’s northern facade is virtually all windows, which are protected 

by operable louvered blinds to control 

daylighting.

Canadian Solar Decathlon (Concordia University 

and Université de Montréal)

Team Canada’s home was designed for a harsh northern climate. The DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office and NAHB 

awarded the team a first-place plaque for building the most energy-efficient house at the Decathlon. 

Florida Intl was one of three winners of 

the Energy Balance contest, by ending the 

competition with as much or more energy 

stored in their battery systems as when 

they began the competition. This was a 

bit like making lemonade if you have 

lemons. According to team member 

Eugenia Demarco, “Our biggest problem 

was that when the competition started, our 

batteries weren’t fully charged. This really 

hurt us during this rainy week. We have 

efficient lights, efficient air-conditioning.” 

The Communications contest judges 

thought that Florida Intl had a great 

theme with the Engawa concept by 

giving the public something to take away. 

The students explained the technology in 

user-friendly language and talked about 

features in terms of how you would live 

in the house.

Florida Intl won the DIY Network Award, 

which was based on votes from DIY’s 

network and DIYnetwork.com staff.

The Canadian Solar Decathlon team 

included tight walls, lots of thermal 

storage, and plenty of foam insulation 

in its home designed for a harsh northern 

climate. Yet about 50% of the house is 

(triple glazed) window area. The home’s 

high-tech features—such as a home automation system that links temperature to 

window blinds and roof-integrated PV 

panels—are meant to invisibly control 

the energy in the home.

What’s Different?

• The team designed a home automation 

system that monitors the home’s 

temperature and links to controls 

throughout the house.

• Phase-change materials and a wall of 

water placed adjacent to a window 

serve as thermal storage.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The home includes tight walls, lots of 

thermal storage, and plenty of foam 

insulation.

• Rather than using plastic siding, the team 

chose environmentally friendly wood 

siding.

PV and Solar Thermal

• The PV panel is integrated into the 

roofing materials.

• A solar thermal system using evacuated

tube collectors provides domestic hot 

water and assists with space heating.

This home features occupancy sensors and 

digitally controlled lighting. Motorized 

blinds prevent heat from the sun from 

entering the south-facing windows during 

summer. Warm air from the solar panels, 

which would normally simply dissipate, 

finds a use in the clothes dryer.

The Lighting contest judges commented 

that this team went all out with their lighting control system, which was the strength 

of the overall design. But the judges felt 

the team missed some opportunities to 

choose fixtures that would have celebrated 

the space.

42 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
The Communications contest judges liked 

the team’s use of a maple leaf motif and 

thought the Web site reflected an excellent job in identifying the audience, adding that the content was original and the 

writing solid. 

The DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office and the National 

Association of Homebuilders recognized the team with a first-place plaque 

for building the most energy-efficient 

house. The prize also included sending 

two students to the International Builders’ 

Show in Orlando, Florida, in January 2006.

Decathlon sponsor BP presented the 

Canadian team with a BP Brand Value 

Award for Progressiveness, which signifies always looking for a new and better 

approach.

As the only team in the competition from 

the northwestern United States, the Washington State University team saw the Solar 

Decathlon as an opportunity to showcase 

many products and technologies from their 

region. The team designed their house to 

Team Canada’s living room features 

an abundance of natural daylighting. Motorized blinds prevent 

heat from the sun from entering 

the south-facing windows during 

summer.

Washington State University

The shipping container in which the Washington State house traveled formed the core of the house on site at the National Mall. The 

Architecture jury admired the team’s exuberance of ideas and the risks taken in their execution.

What’s Different?

• The student team built the refrigerator, 

furniture, structural connections, and 

the cabinetry.

• The shipping container in which the 

house traveled formed the core of the 

house on site at the National Mall.

• The team used a new type of SIP that 

was designed by a Spokane architect. 

It is the inverse of a traditional SIP in

that the interior is a corrugated steel 

frame and the polystyrene is on the 

exterior. Electrical and plumbing can 

run through the SIP without compromising its structural integrity. 

• The team modified a hot water tank by

replacing the alternating current (AC) 

heating elements inside the tank with 

direct current (DC) elements that draw 

directly on the PV panels, allowing full 

use of the PV system.

be affordable, but also to have wide appeal 

and exemplify sustainability along with 

architectural beauty. As a result, the students emphasized space planning, used 

function to create beauty, and selected 

their building materials carefully. 

Details by Team — 43
• Hot water is produced by an evacuated 

tube system. 

The Architecture jury admired the team’s 

exuberance of ideas and the risks taken in 

their execution, commenting that, “This 

house combines imagination with pragmatism, offering a realizable vision of 

solar living. It’s fun and clever in a unique 

way... almost funky, with an ad hoc feeling of using found materials.” 

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The skin of the building, decking, and 

siding are made of wood-plastic composite products donated by Washington 

State’s Wood Materials and Engineering 

Laboratory and produced by the students.

• Composite decking and siding give a 

Northwest “feel,” but are more cost 

efficient and sustainable than products 

made solely of wood.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• The fully integrated heating and cooling

system is based on a system from Glacier 

Bay, which makes highly efficient refrigerators for the marine industry. The 

refrigerator is so efficient that the compressor has to run only 4% of the day. 

The rest of the time, the compressor is 

available for space cooling.

• The system draws on waste heat from 

the refrigerator’s compressor to preheat 

domestic hot water.

PV and Solar Thermal

• The PV system comprises 16 RWE 

Schott Solar PV panels and an OutBack 

inverter.

Washington State students built the house’s refrigerator, furniture, structural connections, and cabinetry.

At the Solar Decathlon victory reception, 

the Washington State students were recognized for creative fund-raising. They had 

the lowest cash budget of any team and 

completed their project almost entirely 

with in-kind donations. They came up 

with clever vehicles for fund-raising, 

including holding a series of telethons. 

They showed no fear in “cold calling” 

potential sponsors and were often rewarded 

for their efforts. The team commented that 

they had received overwhelming support 

from sponsors and the local community.

44 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review

Solar Decathlon Project Manager Cécile Warner stands ready 

to distribute towels for the laundry activity of the Appliances 

contest. A whole lot of towel washing went on during the 

competition, but not much drying. The dearth of sunshine 

during competition week had teams factoring energy expenditures on a points-per-kWh basis—and many deemed 

drying towels expendable. 
Rhode Island School of Design

The RISD house is designed for an urban setting and to allow use as a row house. Heliotropic vertical louvers track the sun to keep out 

unwanted heat.

The house from the Rhode Island School 

of Design (RISD) is fresh and innovative 

both in look and feel and in energy management. The house is designed as a home 

office for an urban setting and to allow 

use as a row house. From the heliotropic 

metallic louvers on the exterior to phasechange energy storage at its core, the 

house is designed to maximize energy 

efficiency and minimize the need for 

solar panels.

What’s Different?

• A sliding glass wall between the living 

room and the balcony deck allow the 

living area to open up to a sidewalkcafé-style indoor/outdoor space.

• The house features an elegant rooftop 

garden to keep it cool and in touch with 

nature in the midst of city life.

• Phase-change materials are used for both 

heating and cooling.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The house is designed for an urban setting. The north and south sides are very 

open, but the east and west sides have 

Heating and Cooling Systems

• A passive strategy is used for heating and 

cooling (no furnace or air-conditioning 

chiller); electricity is used only for 

pumps and fans.

• Both heating and cooling are radiant from 

water pumped through pipes.

• Heliotropic vertical louvers track the sun 

to keep out unwanted heat.

PV and Solar Thermal

• The house has only 24 PV panels and 

2 solar hot water panels, with the latter 

also used to heat the phase-change material for the heating system.

• A central goal of the house design was to 

minimize the need for energy.

Because of the stream of visitors at the 

Decathlon, the house was designed with 

a clear circulation promenade through it. 

All utilities are in one place and visible 

from outside the house through a removable panel. An entire school class at RISD 

only “sliver” windows that could be eliminated if common walls were needed for 

row house use.

• The bedroom converts to a home office 

with one wall having a Murphy bed and 

another having office fixtures that also 

fold away.

Details by Team — 45

The south wall of the RISD house opens 

up completely so that its inhabitants 

can extend their living area, weather 

permitting.
submitted proposals for the lighting system, which features two custom-designed 

task lamps. Radiant-heated floors were 

fairly common on the National Mall, but 

RISD had the only home with a radiantheated ceiling. This allowed custom tube 

lights (with magnetic bases) to be positioned anywhere on the ceiling or used as 

task lights.

Part of the heating and cooling system was 

the use of 144 “bricks” of an advanced 

phase-change material positioned under 

the floor. RISD students told visitors to 

think of the bricks as a battery to store 

heat and cold. With each brick able to 

store 4,000 Btu, the homeowner could 

collect heat during sunny periods and 

bank it for cloudy periods.

RISD was one of two winners of the Electric Lighting component of the Lighting 

contest. The judges commended the 

students for using real creativity in their 

electric lighting design: “The coloration 

works really well, nice and warm. The 

wall sconces are marvelous. This lighting 

design is very appropriate for a residential 

application.”

The Architecture jury praised the house, 

singling out the artwork and furnishings, 

cork floor and cabinetry, phase-change 

subfloor, and heliotropic louvers as 

exemplifying a consistent exploration 

of the world of materials, whether for 

performance or experience. “In this way, 

the contribution of students of art and 

design were equal to those of engineering 

and architecture in making the house a 

singular vision of the house of the future.”

University of Michigan

The Michigan house is based on monocoque designs from the aircraft and automobile industries, in which the external skins of an 

object support some or most of the load of the structure.

At the 2005 Solar Decathlon, MiSo* wasn’t 

a type of soup... it was short for Michigan 

Solar House Project. The house design is a 

prototype for a housing system that can be 

mass-produced, an approach and process 

that creates less material waste and 

encourages longer usable life. Modular 

construction allows consumers to add 

more space or customize the house in

other ways.

What’s Different?

• The house is based on monocoque 

designs from the aircraft and automobile 

industries, in which the external skins of 

an object support some or most of the 

load of the structure. The design resists 

wind loads of at least 90 mph/145 km/h. 

• Although not a traditional material in 

“green” architecture, aluminum was 

chosen for the shell of the house. The 

material quality of aluminum is not downgraded extensively when recycled and its 

light weight is ideal for the portability of 

the modules. 

• The house features a solar chimney, in 

which the sun heats air in glass spaces 

at the base of the south wall. The hot air 

then rises along the curve of the roof and

is either released into the house in the 

winter or outside in the summer. A specialized ceramic paint coating inside an 

8-in./203-mm cavity provides insulation 

value in addition to the air itself. 

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• A curved roof allows for natural passive 

ventilation in the interior and superior 

airflow control through dampers at the 

base and at the top. DC-powered fans 

add assistance at critical temperature 

extremes.

• Three materials make up the interior 

pallet of finishes: ash wood, stainless 

steel, and sunflower board. 

• Each module of the house is constructed 

from four major structural components: 

solar chimney, north roof, north wall, and 

floor. The infrastructure of the modules 

46 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review
makes it possible for HVAC, plumbing, 

and electrical systems to be seamlessly 

connected, regardless of order or 

configuration.

• A single circulation path and open floor 

plan maximize the use of space and 

optimize future reconfiguration of spaces 

through the addition or substitution of 

modules. 

Heating and Cooling Systems

• The solar thermal panels on the roof are 

supplemented by a small electric heater. 

The water storage tank in the center of 

the house serves as the hub for hot water 

control to heat the radiant floor.

• The solar chimney is, in effect, one of 

the heating and cooling systems in the 

house. The cavity of air keeps hot air 

out of the house for cooling conditions 

and, with the opening and closing of 

specially placed louvers, can also be 

used to heat the interior of the house.

PV and Solar Thermal

• A 6-kW system of 32 Sanyo HIT 190-watt 

PV modules is arranged in 6 rows along 

the curved roof; the inverter is from OutBack Power Systems.

• A closed solar thermal system by Viessman can heat 50 to 60 gallons/189 to

227 liters of water per day to about 

This arching window follows the 

roofline of the Michigan house and 

provides natural daylighting into 

the home’s work and living spaces.

140oF/60oC through the use of an evacuated tube system. The storage tank was 

specifically designed to minimize the 

losses of heat when occupants are not 

using hot water by providing insulation 

as well as some minimal electric backup 

heating.

Details by Team — 47

Many Solar Decathlon teams adopted the 

architectural style, functional considerations, and spatial configurations native 

to their regions. In a similar vein, the 

Michigan team adapted the manufacturing knowledge and sense of craftsmanship identified with the Great Lakes area 

and synthesized them into a new system 

meant for dwelling.

All decathletes were required to wear Solar Decathlon 

identification at all times on the National Mall. NYIT 

students made sure that Zero, the team dog, was in 

full compliance.
48 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

The UMass Dartmouth Solar Decathlon home now resides in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, where it is being used as a solar technology 

research center for the community.

 The house from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth was designed with 

the Solar Decathlon in mind, but it also 

adheres to guidelines that would make 

it suitable for Habitat for Humanity. To 

learn about the requirements for such a 

home, the UMass Dartmouth team helped 

an Oak Ridge National Laboratory group 

build a Habitat home in Tennessee. 

What’s Different?

• The house was built in three pieces for 

shipping. Only two were actually part 

of the Decathlon entry—the third provided a second bedroom for the permanent home.

Architecture, Interior Comfort

• The house is designed to deemphasize 

technology, use off-the-shelf components, and look like a “normal” home.

Heating and Cooling Systems

• The house is very tightly constructed. 

A blower-door test was conducted by 

ENERGY STAR home raters.

• The house is heated with radiant flooring.

PV and Solar Thermal

• One roof-mounted evacuated-tube solar 

thermal system is used for the radiant 

floor system. 

• The PV system is rated at 3.1 kW and 

uses a dual inverter.

This engineering-dominated team received 

considerable support from its Southeastern 

Massachusetts community, including 

architectural design, construction by a 

private firm, and help from a large number of UMass Dartmouth alumni. The 

budget for the entire project was less than 

$75,000. Two of the appliances were 

donated by Whirlpool, a regular Habitat 

for Humanity sponsor. 

UMass Dartmouth was one of three teams 

(with Crowder and RISD) that suffered 

major transportation-related mishaps 

en route to the competition. An accident 

during transport left half of the house in 

Massachusetts. The team later went back, 

loaded it on a flatbed, and brought the rest 

of their house to the National Mall, but it 

was too late to assemble it properly. This 

misfortune actually provided a unique 

opportunity for the public to see how a 

modular home comes together.

The UMass Dartmouth Solar Decathlon 

home now resides in Berkeley Springs, 

West Virginia, some 80 miles/129 kilometers from the National Mall. Mountain 

View Builders, LLC, a “green” building 

company, transported the house from the 

Mall to the permanent site, where it is 

being used as a solar technology research 

center for the community.

Each Solar Decathlon home was required to provide a well-lit 

work area. The UMass Dartmouth team placed theirs next to 

a south-facing window for plenty of natural light.
Abbreviations and Acronyms

AC alternating current

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AIA American Institute of Architects 

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

C Celsius

Cal Poly California Polytechnic State University

COW cell on wheels

DC direct current

DOE Department of Energy

ERV energy recovery ventilator

F Fahrenheit

Florida Intl Florida International University

GEM Global Electric Motorcar 

in. inch

HP heat pump

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning

km/h kilometers per hour 

kW kilowatt

LED light-emitting diode

m meter

MiSo Michigan Solar House Project

mm millimeter

mph miles per hour

NAHB National Association of Homebuilders

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NYIT New York Institute of Technology

PDA personal digital assistant

PV photovoltaics

PVC polyvinyl chloride

RISD Rhode Island School of Design

SIP structural insulated panel

SNAP Super Nifty Action Package

STC standard test condition

UMass University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

Virginia Tech Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

W watt

Abbreviations and Acronyms — 49
Web Site Resources

www.solardecathlon.org/2005/technical_report.html

50 — Solar Decathlon 2005: The Event in Review

2005 Solar Decathlon Rules and 

Regulations

The official rules and regulations for the 

2005 Solar Decathlon.

Daily Journals

During the competition, daily updates 

written by Competition Director Richard 

King were posted on the Web site. These 

journals give a sense of day-to-day life 

during the competition.

Daily Event Schedule

This schedule contains all activities the 

teams needed to know about, 24 hours 

a day, from the time of their arrival in 

Washington, D.C., through assembly, the 

competition, disassembly, and departure.

Juror and Judge Information

Brief biographical information about each 

juror and judge.

Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in 

Review

Report about the 2002 event.

Final Detailed Scores and Standings

The complete scoring spreadsheet, including very detailed information for each 

team and contest.

Brief Contest Reports

Teams had the option of submitting a brief 

report for the subjectively judged contest 

activities listed below. Before the event 

began, these reports were given to members of the jury or panel of judges associated with each of the contest activities. 

The jurors and judges used the reports to 

preview what they would be evaluating at 

the event. The contest reports provided by 

the teams ranked in the top three for each 

activity are included. All contest reports 

from the Colorado team are also included. 

• Architecture Jury Evaluations

• Dwelling Panel Evaluations

• Communications Panels Evaluations 

– Web Site 

– House Tours

• Lighting Panel Evaluations

– Electric Lighting Quality 

– Daylighting Quality

• Engineering Panel Evaluations (Comfort 

Zone and Hot Water)

– Comprehensive Assessment of Thermal 

Comfort

– Comprehensive Assessment of Indoor 

Air Quality

– Comprehensive Assessment of Hot 

Water.

Instrumentation and Monitoring for 

Solar Decathlon 2005

Description of the monitoring equipment 

used in the competition.

Equipment Summaries

Information about the following equipment 

used in each 2005 and 2002 competition 

house:

• Space heating, cooling, and ventilation

• PV systems

• Electrical storage and conversion

• Water heating systems

• Building envelope materials.

Complete “As-Built” Drawings and 

Submittals from the 2005 Teams

Drawings and other required information 

such as equipment and specifications as 

submitted by the teams for the 2005 competition. These files are in variety of file 

formats, which may or may not be readable by any given user.
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States 

government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability 

or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service 

by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or 

favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily 

state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

 and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

E-mail: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

E-mail: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

 online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm
For More Information:

The Solar Decathlon Web site, 

www.solardecathlon.org

Toll-free number, 800-368-1311

Richard King

U.S. Department of Energy

Mail Stop EE-2A

1000 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121

Phone: 202-586-1693

richard.king@ee.doe.gov

Cécile Warner

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Mail Stop 3214

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401

Phone: 303-384-6516

cecile_warner@nrel.gov

Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy

by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),

a DOE national laboratory

DOE/GO-102006-2328

June 2006

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.