We put 70% window tint on our front windows (they face east) and my plants love it now! They seem to like the filtered light (cuts down on heat too). Have you seen any difference in the film yet? We have BIG time!. Hope things go well for you, Paula

Lindsay offers the Earthwise window which is pretty solid. I'd probably prefer it over the others that you have listed. How is this room used? IE, is it conditioned year round, do you run AC in summer, etc. The reason that I ask is the 366 glass is not the best choice for most climates other than those that are hot and sunny. That said, if you do not heat the room during winter and you do cool it in summer, it would be a good choice. Alternatively, if you do heat it, you are better off with a 272 which I'm sure that they offer, if not even a 180 in the event that you typically keep the room "open-air" during the summer months. The reasoning behind my recommendation is that those glass packages will offer major variances in solar heat gain, so you should really customize that choice to how you use the room.

I recently did a lot of research on this and realize this is a very complicated issue. Here is what I can add. 1. The heat you feel from the windows is the infrared radiation from the sun. Clear insulated glass blocks about 50% which in reality, isn't a lot. Low-E adds another 30% which translates to about 65% but I found you still have tremendous heat gain. Low-E,however, is also good in the winter since it will reflect the heat back into the room much better than regular glass. 2. As for films, you get what you pay for. The dilemna here is balancing price with tint. Almost all films will block 98% UV (which fades all fabrics). There are plenty of what I will call "relatively" inexpensive films that are usually applied to commercial buildings. They are dark green or tan, make viewing much less pleasing and in certain conditions (lower light) can reflect like mirror which will drive some people crazy. These run about $4-5 per sq. foot installed but can block up to 75%. The really nice option is very very pricey. There are two films on the market (one is a company v-kool and the other is a Deutch manufacturer I'd have to find) make films that block 50-70% of the infrared radiation with much less tinting. These run about $15/foot installed. Do the math and you can easily several thousand dollars doing 12-15 windows. I will warn you that a 50% block sounds good, but when you hold up a film to your face this is still a lot of heat coming through. Take clear insulated glass. Starts off blocking 50%. Add a 50% film and you now reduce the heat by 75%. I found that the higher blocking films made much more of a difference, but the cost didn't pay. One option is to buy shades that allow light through but block the UV and IR radiation. You have to put these down in the afternoon (can put a timer on electric ones). Another point: Films are very effective for blocking summer heat gain but do not help with the winter problem of a cold window. Only shades (by far most effective) and low-e glass work here. The last option to consider is an awning. Depending on the angle of your house and height of windows, you may not need that large an awning over each window. These will solve the heat problem. I don't know where you live, but I am in Boston where the heat gain is a major issue for 4-6 weeks. With that, there are probably 15 bad days. It's hard to justify the expense in reality, but the a/c will work a lot better. It will be almost impossible to keep any room cool with a standard a/c system if it is drenched in sun. They are not designed to work on the hottest and sunniest days. If so, the system would be way oversized. FYI- Regular screens (Anderson or Marvin) actually block another 50% of the infrared heat. There is a neat device you can purchase which measures BTUs/sq. foot which correlates with the amount of infrared getting through. It is sold by Dodge Industries, Houston, Texas for about $80. I found it very helpful to use and compare different films, shades, screens, etc. Good luck. Paul

This is one of those things that really does take a lot of research and most GCs won't even bring it up (unfortunately for home owners who are then stuck with the energy bills). Since we wanted (and could do on this site) passive solar, we went a step further than most. For those who might be building a new home, here are just a few of the things we did for energy-efficiency. We have Low-E squared , which is more advanced than Low-E, having to do with the layers of silver, reflective capabilities, etc. We have a passive solar design and the Low-E squared is so important for hot summer climates. It may not be as important in cooler zones. There is a slight green tint on our windows which you won't have on Low-E. Energy cost savings in monitored field testing have shown a 30%-50% improvement over regular double pane windows. In addition to zoned heat (upstairs and downstairs), we have a dual-fuel system. The electric heat pump is used until the outside temperature drops below 38%, then the natural gas kicks in. We use programmable thermostats so that we have automatically set heat and a/c for "wake up" "leave" "return" "night" temps. We never go above 71 degrees on the heat or below 75 on the a/c and are very comfortable. We also have insulation that is Guardian, Green Guard Certified, SuperCube II fiberglass. Energy efficient and green certified. We are currently replacing most incandescents with CFLs. The kitchen and master bath are 100% CFL now. Our energy bills are half the cost of previous, much smaller homes that we have owned. We happen to have the cheapest electricity provider around here, too. That helps. I hope this information will help someone. I'm happy to provide more details in an email if needed. Cameron