You’ve likely heard the buzz around solar energy. There’s talk about “renewable energy,” the “green economy” and ways to reduce your “carbon footprint.”

This might all sound very good to you. Or, you might be the skeptical type who cares only about the “green” in dollar bills. Regardless, given the slowdown in commercial real estate, being green can also mean making green. That’s because commercial property owners will find that solar systems provide an opportunity for both clean energy and increased profits.

Commercial property owners can take advantage of price drops and hefty government stimulus to cut their power bills by installing a solar electric system. Solar energy (specifically, solar photovoltaic, or PV, systems) can provide a stable, secure investment by converting the roof of your existing commercial building into another paying tenant.

When examining the financial case for solar, there are four main factors to consider: affordability of the system; return on investment; positive effect on the value of the property; and the hedge the system provides against the rising cost of conventional power.

Rising Cost of Power

Let’s illustrate the cost of a typical solar installation on a commercial roof. Assume that your commercial building meets one of the following criteria: It is owner occupied or the owner pays the utility bill. This is a prime property for a PV system. Let’s also assume that your property uses an average of 200,000 kilowatts of AC power per year and you pay the utility company 15 cents per watt. This means your utility costs would be $30,000 for the current year. Ignoring the fact that in Florida there were rate increases of as much as 30 percent in 2009 alone, the conservative estimate is that rates will increase on average 3 percent to 5 percent annually into the foreseeable future.

What will that mean for your utility cost this year and the next and the next? In 10 years, your business can expect to be paying $39,100, an additional $9,100 annually for electricity. In 20 years, you’ll pay $52,600, an additional $22,600 annually. Your total utility cost over 20 years is a whopping $806,100!

Now, let’s assume that you install a 100kW system on the roof of your building. A system that size will generate $23,000 of averted power costs in its first year. By year 20, those averted costs will have gone to $40,400 in annual savings for a total saving of $619,000 from the original $806,100 in operating expenses.

Installing a solar system now, and fixing your electrical costs by doing so, protects you from the inflation of electricity prices. Also, by producing energy during the daytime, when power is the most expensive for many rate payers, a solar system helps shave the amount of electricity consumed during peak hours, significantly reducing power bills.

In effect, you are locking down your future operating expenses. Any expense you are able to avert is a savingsthat will go right to your bottom line and be recognized as an increase in the building’s operating margin.

Affordability of Solar

The current technology used to generate electricity from the sun has been around for decades, and the technological advances of recent years have greatly decreased the cost of solar energy. These days, a typical commercial installation can cost between $4.50 and $7.50 per installed watt, depending on the size of the system, the type of mounting hardware used (roof or ground), the type of solar panels selected and the features added to the system.

Using a sample cost of $4.75 per installed watt, the total cost of a 100kW system is about $475,000. There are a number of incentives currently offered to encourage the development of renewable energy sources like PV systems. For example, you can immediately subtract a federal tax credit (FTC) of 30 percent off the cost of the system. This drops its cost by $142,500 to $332,500. You are also allowed to depreciate the cost of your system at an accelerated rate. Depending on your location, you may also have other government or utility incentives available to you.

While this is just an overview of the cost of solar (and considerations such as the cost of financing should be included), other auxiliary benefits apply. For a complete financial analysis, all customers should contact a qualified solar system integrator to discuss their specific situation. A qualified integrator will determine what size and type of system will work best for you and will handle much of the paperwork involved in taking advantage of the subsidies.

Return on Investment

The annual return on investment of a solar electric system is similar to those typically seen by commercial property investors. This ROI is the income (annual net after depreciation) divided by the cost of the system (after the FTC). In our example, the investor will see a 9.2 percent ROI plus, more importantly, an immediate cash flow and property valuation increase.

If you believe the cost of energy will continue to rise, this model presents you a stable, safe investment strategy. Many knowledgeable investors would agree that this is an attractive ROI when compared to the rest of the market at this time.

Property Value Increase

The annual saving in your building’s power bill translates into an increase in the building’s value. Since the property costs less to operate, you see an immediate increase in your operating margins. Also, any increase in the operating margin, divided by the capitalization rate (ratio between the net operating income produced by an asset and its capital cost), equals an increase in the resale value of the building.

In our example, the solar system has increased your operating margin and the value of your commercial building. If we look at the increased after-tax cash flow ($43,200) and use a 10 percent cap rate, the resale value of your building just went up by an additional $432,300 in the first year. The end result is an immediate saving in your operating expenses plus an immediate increase in the value of your property. And you will never get a complaint from this new “tenant.” By the way, Florida law now provides an exemption from property taxes for the cost of an installed solar system (Section 196.175, Florida Statutes).

Reducing your carbon footprint or decreasing dependence on foreign oil might be important to you. Or, it might not. Yet, the bottom line is that installing a solar electric system likely makes financial sense for your property right now.

If you are a commercial property investor who feels uneasy about the current market, investing in a PV system may offer the long-term stability you are seeking at a reasonable rate of return.

Editor’s note: Lynnette Acosta is vice president of marketing at QuickBeam Energy LLC in Winter Haven. She can be reached at lynnette.acosta@quickbeamenergy.com. The numbers in this article have been rounded to the nearest hundredth for ease of reading.

People tend to put on their thinking caps during a recession. Take Jim Henson, for example. During troubling economic times, he invented his world-famous Muppet characters and subsequently launched an entertainment empire. Hewlett-Packard Development Co. also got its start during down times, growing from a $538,000 investment in a garage at the end of the Great Depression.

Most likely, history will repeat itself. We’ll see another Trader Joe’s or MTV get its start during the current tough economy. And there’s a chance that MoveGreen, a Casselberry-based company, just might be a contender.

MoveGreen (www.mymovegreen.com) sprang up last year, and its eco-friendly idea is proving to be popular in both commercial and residential markets.

“The beauty of it is that it’s a simple concept,” says Bob Cannon, co-founder of MoveGreen. “We rent reusable plastic bins as an alternative to the traditional disposable cardboard box and packing tape.”

Trash Talking

Only about half the cardboard that Americans discard actually gets recycled, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And since the average American moves more than 16 times in a lifetime, all the bubble wrap, Styrofoam peanuts and boxes really add up.

Consider this: If the average person uses 50 cardboard boxes per move, in a lifetime each person runs through about 800 boxes on moves alone.

“When you reuse cardboard boxes, they can last for approximately four moves. However, many times they are discarded after only one move and end up in a landfill,” says Cannon. In comparison, the stronger, more durable plastic bins, or SmartPacks, that MoveGreen rents can be reused several hundred times. After that, they are recycled and made into new bins.

“It just made more sense to use a reusable, environmentally conscious product over the alternative,” says Greg Dalglish, who used MoveGreen products when he moved from Columbia, S.C., to Orlando in October. Better yet, he was pleasantly surprised that the price to rent SmartPacks, which come in large, extra-large and wardrobe sizes, was actually less than that of comparable cardboard boxes.

The cost to rent a MoveGreen box is $1.75 per week. The cost of a similar cardboard box is $3.50 or more.

Angela Shaw also used MoveGreen products recently to move delicate event decorations from the University of Central Florida’s main campus to SeaWorld Orlando. Not only were none of the items damaged en route, she was wowed by how easily the bins stacked on top of one another, like life-sized Legos. With the help of a dolly, she easily moved four SmartPacks at once. “In the past, we've used cardboard boxes that we've had to collect and store around the office,” she says. “Or, we’ve purchased oversized plastic bins that usually resulted in unmanageable weight loads.”

Startup Smiles

The concept of renting reusable plastic bins is certainly not new. In the past, though, it’s been limited to Fortune 500 companies, moving from office to office, or supermarkets and pharmacies that need to move products.

Now that the residential market has picked up on it, the popularity will likely increase. Plus, the poor economy has actually worked in the startup’s favor. “We were able to get the business up and running without a huge investment of capital,” notes Cannon.

In fact, MoveGreen’s founders snatched up a 4,000-square-foot warehouse recently at a 50 percent discount. “Our trucks, all our expenditures were [obtained] at a discount,” Cannon adds. And look for more MoveGreen locations in the future, as the founders hope to franchise, starting with an Atlanta location, within six months.

Overall, MoveGreen founders say their goal is to reinvent the moving process.

“Twenty years down the road, who knows?” says Cannon. “Perhaps cardboard will be a thing of the past.”

Imagine, as a business owner, paying for leasehold improvements once but being able to repurpose them over the life of your company as space, technology and personnel needs change, by using above-floor modular assets.

Or, imagine purchasing case goods that integrate with systems furniture and are reconfigurable to adapt to new requirements.

What about discovering that these business decisions also enable you to provide a workplace that maximizes the performance and well-being of your personnel and is good for the environment?

Oh, and you can achieve these benefits without additional costs.

It’s not just a dream anymore.

As consumer demand has increased and manufacturing processes have evolved, it is now possible for these decisions to make financial sense, not only for the long term but also from day one.

A recent search of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Web site (www.usgbc.org) found that in the past 18 months, eight for-profit companies in the Orlando area have registered their interior renovations as LEED Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) projects. For those who remain unfamiliar with the term, LEED is an acronym for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. As I see it, this confirms a trend: More businesses are implementing green options, even in economically challenging times.

The facilities at Florida Business Interiors provide an interesting case study in the evolution of sustainable interiors. The current corporate headquarters, built in 2003, is in a 48,000-square-foot warehouse in Lake Mary. While the majority of the building is used as warehouse space, a showroom and offices have been created, using raised access flooring and moveable walls. The offices have stunning storefronts with combinations of wood and glass, all of which can be moved quickly and easily with no damage to carpets, ceiling or exterior walls.

The “working showroom” comprises modular components that are moved and reconfigured to accommodate new technology and the changing needs of departments and individuals.

In 2003, the modular workspace concept was fairly new. Selections weren’t available at as many price points as today, and modular construction installation costs were higher due to the inexperience of labor in working with those products. Some subcontractors on the project realized they had overestimated the labor portion of services, such as painting, electric, voice and data distribution. Working in the open space of the shell allowed them to complete the work in less time and with less waste than anticipated.

Fast forward to 2007, when Florida Business Interiors made the decision to open a Tampa showroom. A 5,000-square-foot space was located in an old cigar factory in Ybor City. Because of the historic status of the building, there were many restrictions related to leasehold improvements. Originally designed using traditional construction, the project was then redesigned with raised access flooring and moveable walls. When the costs for both approaches were compared, the modular design was significantly cheaper.

It was clear that both the manufacturing and construction industries had come a long way in four years to make this approach to interior improvements the smart business choice.

Only after the business case had been decided did the team review a LEED Scorecard and find that the project might qualify for LEED-CI consideration. In December 2008, the project was registered with the Green Building Council.

Today, such a strategy can be applied at most companies. Many people are marching toward a paperless world. As they do so, owners and managers are reevaluating their use of space and looking for strategies to turn unproductive office or file space into income-producing areas. Other companies are downsizing, right sizing or otherwise changing the way they do business.

Today’s climate requires solutions that allow companies to be flexible and efficient.

Editor’s note: Karen Stiles, a senior sales consultant for Florida Business Interiors, is a LEED-Accredited Professional.

Forward thinkers at Burke Hogue Mills Inc. have designed what might be the most environmentally conscious architectural office building in Florida.

by Sarah Sekula

A lot has changed for Bob Burke since the 1960s, when he attended the University of Florida and rallied for the environment. One aspect, however, remains constant. Today, as principal and chief executive officer of Burke Hogue Mills Inc., he is still wearing his ecological sensitivity on his sleeve.

This time, the stakes are a bit higher — $4 million higher, to be exact. After 35 years of renting office space, he and his partners were finally able to buy land and build a new headquarters in Lake Mary.

Inside, visitors quickly notice it’s not just any building. The two-story, 15,500-square-foot space is the only architectural office in Florida with a gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C.

“One major difference is how open and airy the office feels,” says Job Captain Katie Romano. “The abundance of natural light pouring into the two-story open design studio is energizing.”

Plus, from her workstation she can see past the low partitions around her and through the tinted windows straight to the pond and conservation area outside. And she has a climate control feature (as do all the office workstations), allowing her to adjust the temperature of her workspace.

Beyond that, the building’s aesthetics are equally impressive. The corrugated metal feature wall and exposed beams with circular cutouts give the space a contemporary look.

Once thing that’s absent: the new-office smell. “The air quality is a priority in our design,” says Burke. In turn, the architects nixed all phosphates and chemicals. Instead, they have Merv 13 filters on all air-handling units plus eco-friendly paints, sealants and green-cleaning supplies, making the air quality inside the building healthier than in the city and suburbs as a whole.

Planetary Concerns

That said, why go through the trouble of designing a sustainable building? The answer is easy. Globally, the energy consumed inside buildings is considered one of the most problematic for the environment. In fact, building design, construction and operations account for more than 30 percent of the country’s total energy use.

“We are guests on this planet,” Burke comments, “along for a limited time ride. So, it is incumbent upon us to preserve and improve the environment for future generations.”

Parenthetically speaking, Burke says, this way of thinking translates into the use of dual-flush toilets, waterless urinals and energy-saving hand dryers. It means incorporation of a low-energy traction elevator and construction materials made of recycled goods. All of which BHM has done.

Futuristic Model

The only downside? Cost. With all the green features BHM added to its building, the total bill was an extra 20 percent over the cost of a comparable conventional building. The HVAC system alone cost $420,000.

The overall price tag isn’t necessarily typical, however. “Our goals were very high because we knew we wanted to be a teaching facility,” says Cam Hogue, BHM architect and principal. “Had our aspirations not been so high, it could still have been green at less than a 5 percent premium.”

Overall, the partners hope others follow in their footsteps and embrace green architecture as an everyday reality. One eye-opener is the reactions of folks touring the building who spot the wildlife around the pond, including waterfowl, sandhill cranes, hawks, eagles and otters.

“This is why we should do what is responsible.” Burke points out. “Their world deserves it.”

It’s certainly a new way of seeing a building — as an integral part of the environment.

PVC’s use in the distribution of water and wastewater across America is coming into question.

Lou Musante is on a mission, and he’s turning his attention to Central Florida.

The founder of Echo Strategies, a 25-year-old firm that specializes in marketing research, with offices in Pittsburgh, Toronto and Orlando, has a background in chemistry and information science. These days, he’s combining those disciplines to focus on the distribution of water and wastewater in cities across America. Specifically, working with the Clean Water Pipe Council, a national organization, and using data from the National Resources Defense Council, Musante is targeting the use of polyvinyl chloride in pipes.Yes, PVC.

Durable and flexible PVC is, of course, popularly used in a wide variety of applications, from electrical conduit and signs to ceiling tiles and pipes. His contention: Regarding municipal water-pipe use, PVC, although often less expensive to purchase than alternatives, particularly in smaller pipe sizes, ultimately is inefficient and potentially toxic to the environment.

At the very least, he’s intent on making PVC a point of discussion.

“We’re trying to build awareness,” he says.

Most recently, he’s worked with city water officials in Austin, Texas; Madison, Wis.; and Portland, Ore., to introduce his research findings and successfully spur discussion. Now, Orlando.

Talking in terms of carbon footprint and sustainability, he comes armed with a litany of facts and figures. For starters, the collection, distribution and treatment of drinking water and wastewater nationwide, not only consumes vast amounts of energy, they also release approximately 116 billion pounds of carbon dioxide each year — equivalent to the global warming caused annually by 10 million cars, according to the National Resources Defense Council.

In terms of dollars, Musante points out that for every five miles of pipe — a relative drop in the bucket for municipal water distribution — a typical utility could save $17,000 a year by not using PVC plus reduce atmospheric carbon emissions by 200 metric tons. In addition, with most PVC pipe being sold with 50- to 100-year lifecycles, that five-mile stretch could cost the utility roughly an extra $1 million over 50 years in electricity-pumping charges and save putting 100,000 tons of carbon into the air.

He also cites that providing households with safe drinking water and wastewater disposal accounts for about 4 percent of the nation’s entire power generation.

Then there’s the corporate social-responsibility side. Most notably, PVC manufacturing is dangerous to plant workers and harsh on the environment, and PVC products are virtually unrecyclable due to their high number of chemical additives, he offers.

The challenge, Musante says, isn’t finding research data to support his position. It’s getting people to pause, comprehend and, in turn, act accordingly. He laments that while debates involving what he calls the “invisible infrastructure” — such as energy, solar, thermal, wind and transportation — are commonplace in company boardrooms and legislative halls near and far, the topic of water is typically absent.

“There’s much less discussion about water,” he says.

“We need to get people to think about the invisible infrastructure and the decisions the city councils and the water utilities are making on something as mundane as a water-pipe material.”

At stake is a huge market. Roughly half of the world's PVC resin manufactured annually is used for producing pipes for municipal and industrial applications. In Orange County, for example, where a much-publicized green effort has taken hold, PVC is used in both water- and sewer-related applications.

According to Jason Herrick, who manages the capital improvement program for Orange County Utilities, county officials haven’t completed a recent analysis of PVC’s possible negative environmental impacts but would be open to such a review. Any changes would depend on the magnitude of those findings. He also said that PVC “isn’t as durable as once thought” and that problems sometimes exist with “improper installation and manufacturer anomalies.”

At the same time, he noted that full PVC replacement would be “difficult,” costing hundreds of millions of dollars. His conclusion: “It’s a viable product.”

Musante presents a counter view. “I think 90 percent of the plastics out there are essential to our society,” he comments. “People talk about a world without plastics; those are just radicals. But PVC, because it has chlorine in it, is a bad material.”

In a nutshell, according to the Clean Water Pipe Council, rigid PVC water pipes can catalyze bacterial and coliform contamination in potable water systems due to large voids created inside pipe joints. Those effects could worsen in hotter regions like Florida, the council contends, adding that PVC pressure pipe used for water distribution is weaker than alternative green materials and has thicker pipe walls and smaller inside diameter. As a result, more energy is required to pump water through a PVC system, leading to higher electricity costs, the council contends.

Also, utilities that use PVC water pipe along with chloramines as an alternative to chlorine to disinfect their water run the risk of lead leaching. That occurred in Washington, D.C., and officials are still dealing with a messy situation.

In the long run, Musante asserts, alternatives to PVC simply make more environmental and fiscal sense.

Locally and statewide, his initial goal is to make PVC use a part of the conversation, a consideration, among decision makers. The ultimate goal is help generate legislation that would mandate an analysis of lifecycle costing before a utility’s purchase of pipe for water distribution.

“What we’re doing is taking a scientific approach to helping people look at alternative materials,” he says.

And so, in Orlando and with a clear message, Musante is plotting his approach. A watershed moment for PVC alternatives?

Sakilé products are made from all-natural ingredients.

With her skincare line, Eco-minded Karen Peters is building a business while revealing beauty secrets of ancient cultures.

Karen Peters was traipsing through remote villages in Cameroon, Africa, when it hit her. Everyone she met in the bush country, from young children to elder Baka tribesmen, had flawless skin. No blemishes. No wrinkles. Just smooth, soft complexions.

Could it be their environment? Peters thought. They were surrounded by wonderfully cool breezes from the ocean and the sweet mellow aroma of hibiscus and eucalyptus trees. And instead of smokestacks and gas fumes, they had majestic palms as far as they eyes can see, surrounded by stunning black-sand beaches and waifs of lemongrass.

Was it the food they ate — the freshest papaya, sugar cane and cassava yams? Collard greens and spinach? Eguzi pudding, made with fish, spices and banana leaves?

Her curiosity was on overload.

After three months in the peaceful villages, she returned home to Ocoee. First on her agenda: buy $50 worth of ingredients, all indigenous to Africa, and start experimenting. Her lab: the kitchen. Her favorite elements: baobab fruit seed oil, cocoa butter and aloe vera.

Soon enough, friends and family were clamoring for the mélange of sweetsmelling products. Peters responded by launching Sakilé (pronounced “sahkey-lay”), an African word meaning peace and beauty, her own natural skincare line.

Lotions and Potions

On a near-daily basis, Peters concocts rich liquid creams laced with lemongrass, lavender and lemon ginger. Her cocoa butter shampoo is a mix of moisturizers designed to cleanse the hair without stripping the scalp. And her refreshing basil lime shower gel softens and tones the skin without leaving it dry.

Better yet, the products ($14 to $20) are all free of perfumes, preservatives and synthetic ingredients. Her mixtures are so pure, in fact, that she was able to help relieve her son’s eczema with a product she created as part of her Honey B.U.N.S. baby line.

Peters is onto something. She now serves customers nationwide with her Internet-based business. And she sees the demand as a natural progression in environmental awareness.

To that end, she focuses on quality, not quantity.

“I make it in small batches,” Peters says. “My product cannot sit on the shelf for two years or in a warehouse like most over-the-counter products can.”

This, of course, contributes to a pricier product. Nevertheless, natural skin care is increasing in popularity. Mass-market products like Organic wear, Physicians Formula and Burt’s Bees (which is now owned by The Clorox Co.) are evidence of that fact. Even fashion designers like Stella McCartney have launched lines made solely from purely organic extracts.

Even so, it is still a challenge to change people’s way of thinking. “We buy things based on smell,” says Peters, “and we might read the ingredients later.”

Simply put, many people adore aroma and still prefer to buy from the trendy stores that market their superintense fragrances, she points out. What’s unfortunate, she comments, is that many of those products are made with water and synthetic oils, fragrances, preservatives and fillers.

Yet, the use of such products can often do more harm than good by irritating or drying out the skin, Peters advises. “If there are [ingredients] you are finding hard to pronounce,” she says, “you want to stay clear from it. There can be up to 200 chemicals in one little fragrance oil.”

With her green-groomin knowledge and passion, it’s no surprise that Peters has attracted a nationwide cult following that continues to blossom. Apparently, many people agree with her simple philosophy: “There are so many things in nature that just cannot be mimicked.”