Green Housing Takes Root in Oregon 388
baldinux writes "I was reading an article in the Portland Tribune which showcased the City of Portland's noteworthy 'Rose House' (1.8mb PDF) project, part of the Office of Sustainable Development and Oregon Department of Energy's plan to encourage sustainable, energy-producing, environmentally-friendly housing for the future, a plan which is gaining national and international attention. The Rose House, at only 800 square feet (approx. 244 sq. meters), is equipped with solar panels and incorporates technologies that recapture lost heat and energy during normal appliance operation, such as ventilation. During peak hours -- when power is at highest demand -- the Rose House could produce surplus energy, feeding kilowatt hours back to the power grid, and `rolling back' the meter -- the power authority's way of purchasing the surplus energy and lessening the burden on comparatively 'dirty' power plants. The article suggests that homes like this could see net power bills as low as $0 per year. The environmental benefits of a lessened burden on centralized, often fossil fuel or nuclear, power generation plants would be considerable."
Initial Cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Initial Cost (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Initial Cost (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Initial Cost (Score:5, Informative)
At the moment, though, solar heating or panels are expensive for home owners. You can reduce energy use from the grid more cost effectively with other techniques (insulation, shading windows, more efficient boilers, or even just servicing your boiler) at the moment until volume sales reduces solar panel costs.
Some governments (e.g. Germany) have provided tax incentives to install solar solutions, or required that new government buildings include solar solutions where possible. The latter makes a lot of sense as the cost of solar panels on a new office block is a comparatively small proportion of the total cost, but stimulates the demand for solar panels, hopefully then bringing new production onstream.
Another area that people sometimes neglect when working out how much energy they use is watering their garden. Using tap water means using water that has been purified to human drinking standards, with quite a lot of energy input. Collecting rainwater run off from your house and storing it to water your garden directly saves energy. Given the downpours in the UK in August stopping run off going into your garden and flooding it (we had to bail our sunken patio out!) is helpful too! Mind you, since we had 6 inches of rain in 24 hours (I'd left a glass out in the garden) you'd need a huge water butt to cope!
Re:Initial Cost (Score:3, Interesting)
My dad built two earth-sheltered passive solar homes, which were about 1200 sq ft and cost next to nothing. They didn't have solar panels, but they did have a large greenhouse and a solar water pre-heater. It was basically a box made of foil-backed insulation that had a black 55-gallon drum in it. This was hooked up between the water supply and the hot water heater. When it was sunny out, it preheated the water and saved energy. Since it was an
Odd Place, if you think of it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't the regions of the US that rely heavily on coal or nucler power have the same impitus for cleaner alternatives?
Re:Odd Place, if you think of it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Odd Place, if you think of it. (Score:4, Informative)
Clean power needs natural resources... (Score:2, Informative)
Hydro power is sometimes more disruptive than nuclear power - you never hear nuclear power causing an earthquake [bbc.co.uk] do you ? .
> Why don't the regions of the US that rely heavily on coal or nucler power have the same impitus for cleaner alternatives ?.
Solar panels, Wind power and tidal power plants need a few natural resources which aren't easily transportable. (or think about solar panels in a hailstorm ?).
The best use of solar panels I'v
Re:Clean power needs natural resources... (Score:5, Informative)
For the simple answer to cost of instal is check the power requirement for a simple AC unit. Remember they don't like power sags. Now price a solar system big enough to run the AC. Also price the storage battery or co-gen setup to keep it running when a puffy cloud passes by.
For most people, the required expense to run a high power draw device is beyond a home solar instalation. Most solar instalations are for hot water, and enough electric to run a few small energy effecient appliances. Don't expect to run a regular all electric home of just solar. Expect to use an alternate power source for things like the hot water, heating, cooling and clothes dryer. They won't be solar electric.
Another place to check is your monthly electric bill. Our home of 6 in the summer runs about 35 KWH/day. This is about an order of magnetude above a typical home photo-voltaic instalation. Very deep cuts in electric use are in order to even consider moving off grid. I simply don't have enough money or roof space to supply my current electric demand. Things like the dishwasher, electric dryer, AC, electric heat, and un-effecient refrigeration (fridge and freezer) would have to be replaced.
A high effeciency fridge is a serious chunk of change. I've looked into them.
Re:Clean power needs natural resources... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that at low voltages, the heater doesn't get hot enough to open the bi-metallic switch. The starter winding stays connected all the time and the motor draws about double the power it should
(As an aside, I know that an electronic delay relay could be built that would do the same job, but using a simple R-C delay circuit coupled to a conventional electromagnetic relay, for about 50p in bulk. Maybe modern fridges do actually use this kind of thing instead.)
If you wanted to build an air conditioner that was really immune to supply fluctuations, the obvious choice would be a DC brushless motor. You could run it from mains via a switch mode supply -- they're cheap as chips nowadays -- or straight from DC. Brushless motors are quite tolerant of voltage variations anyway, as long as you can get enough whack to shift the spindle and not so much as to damage the transistors in the drive circuit. And it would also be an idea to give a refrigerator a chimney of its own, so as to dispose of the hot air it produces directly rather than relying on your home's aircon to shift it. If you added a nice big air relief opening, the draught thus created should help to cool the kitchen. In winter, you could divert the fridge flue into an upstairs room (you don't want to get it back anywhere near the fridge). With an aircon, you probably could do something sensible with the meltwater from the ice that builds up on the evaporator, too.
Re:Odd Place, if you think of it. (Score:2)
Why do you have a problem with those two things belonging to one person?
Because that person can't count.
Re:Odd Place, if you think of it. (Score:2)
Love, this is slashdot, we've all got breasts.
Re:Odd Place, if you think of it. (Score:3, Informative)
Two (green) thumbs up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Two (green) thumbs up! (Score:2)
"Should" is the keyword in that sentence. As sad as it is, I really don't see the government, at least not with current policy/spending/etc., creating any sort of incentive here. I mean, if you could theoretically be able to have a power bill of $0, that's not exactly energy(company) friendly.
Just calling it as I see it...
Re:Two (green) thumbs up! (Score:5, Informative)
The economics change, of course, if a majority of the people employ systems like this. At that point, though the energy you sell back is worth less because so many more people are producing it as well.
I realize this article is about Portland, but its state, Oregon, offers tax incentives for certain energy efficiency improvements:
Oregon Residential Energy Tax Credit Program [state.or.us]
Tax credits are available for the following categories:
appliances
fuel cells
HVAC
Solar
Water Heaters
Wind
Vehicles
"The maximum amount of tax credits a resident may receive per year is $1,000 for appliances including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. The maximum amount of tax credits a resident may receive per year is $1,500 for renewable energy equipment such as solar and wind systems. "
If you're smart, you can probably plan part of yoru purchases in December of one year and the rest in Jan of the next. Or possibly spread your project over a few years to maximize the tax break.
Plus, these improvements amount to capital investments in your property which should reduce any taxes incurred from selling a house (though, I think the capital gains tax was eliminated for the owner's residence).
And, such investments done on rental properties will count as costs and will, while reducing your profit, will also reduce the tax on your profit, which could be as high as 40%.
Re:Two (green) thumbs up! (Score:5, Informative)
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy [dsireusa.org]
That includes Federal Incentives [dsireusa.org]
Re:Two (green) thumbs up! (Score:3, Informative)
The State of California will reimburse homeowners who install wind or photovoltaic power approximately 45% of the cost of the system.
In my case, the City of Glendale, California, paid 50% ($21,000) of the total $42,000 cost of having a 4 KW photovoltaic array installed on my roof. What I heard is that they were required to do so by the California Public Utilities Commission. My photov
I don't get this. (Score:2, Informative)
Is the US really that far behind in construction techniques?
Re:I don't get this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't get this. (Score:3, Informative)
The general idea is that the house was designed with the goal of 0 net energy use.
Re:I think you mean "taxpayers" (Score:5, Insightful)
Who has an interest in increasing the size of the market for these products so economies of scale can lower their prices? Taxpayers.
Who has an interest in lowering electrical demand so the possibility of power shortages decreases? Taxpayers.
Everything green... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems more and more that people define their "greenness" as part of their social status. I mean, from hybrid cars to these energy efficient homes, it seems like people have transitioned to environment friendly ways not so much to be friendly to the environment, but rather for others to see.
I suppose part of it shows the philanthropic side of a person, taking care of the poor, defenseless environment that everyone abuses. Part of me wonders, if it were cheap enough for everyone to do, would the wealthy still do it, or would they simply indulge in the excess which they can easily afford?
Re:Everything green... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Everything green... (Score:5, Interesting)
My house was built in 1900. There is no insulation in the walls, none under the floors and only about R12 in the attic. I spent the day at the hardware store looking into insulation options and crawling around under my house with a staple gun.
I plan to spend about $300 to bring our attic up to R42+ (they say 45% of heat loss is through the attic). Does that make me a green snob?
Being environmentally conscious/friendly isn't about being hip and it doesn't require spending a fortune. It's pretty easy, really.
If it does come down to social status for some, I'd rather have green homes and hybrids than monster mansions and Hummers, or even big houses and Dodge Rams...
Re:Everything green... (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing with prices is that goods are sold based on people partly looking at number of units anticipated.
The more people buying, the more people there will be producing and selling solar panels. Out of this will fall companies producing newer, cheaper and more efficient solar panels. I don't know what the manufacturing process is, but I imagine that production levels are not that massive. If volumes go up, you'll end up with a Toyota or Nissan of solar panels, producing them at high efficiency, employing more automation.
Think about something like LCD screens and the price 3 years ago vs now.
Re:Everything green... (Score:3)
Size matters! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the interesting thing here is that they went for a house that is much smaller than the average American house.
Compared to Europeans, Americans live in -huge- houses, which have to be heated/cooled/cleaned, etc.
A smaller house is cheaper to run and takes a heck of a lot fewer resources than a big house.
Re:Size matters! (Score:3, Funny)
Compared to Europeans, Americans live in -huge- houses, which have to be heated/cooled/cleaned, etc.
But if we had smaller houses, we'd have to get rid of some of the junk we never use!
Re:Size matters! (Score:2, Informative)
For example, open plan houses require more energy input as to be comfortable you have to heat or cool a large area. Separate rooms means that you can have a cold kitchen in winter if you are only going to be spending 5 minutes in their putting milk on your cornflakes. Also you can subdivide large living areas with temporary partitions and open them up when you h
Re:Size matters! (Score:2)
Re:Size matters! (Score:3, Informative)
Greenhousing? that means something different here (Score:4, Funny)
Okay. So where's the News? (Score:2, Informative)
I've seen "passive" houses being built for years (in Europe).
Maybe 6 years ago this would have been kind of innovative. But in the year 2004? C'mon!
Rolling back the meter ?. (Score:2, Interesting)
What is more likely is to have a neighbourhood power distribution inside your local transformer loop and
Re:Rolling back the meter ?. (Score:3, Informative)
You install solar panels in Long Island and LIPA will buy power off you.
random link from google [energymatters.org]Suggests those technical problems aren't insurmountable
Re:Rolling back the meter ?. (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, the power man would be in for a shock if the loads weren't properly handled. The power company will require that a cut-off switch (to cut output when the power goes out) be installed for any grid-tie setups.
Doesn't work like that. (Score:2)
Re:Rolling back the meter ?. (Score:2)
As I said before, it has been a long time since I've looked into this . . . it is entirely possible laws may have changed considering the deregulation o
Re:Rolling back the meter ?. (Score:2)
However, in order to do this *safely* you must:
a) Take the DC from the panels and convert it to AC
b) Make sure that AC is in phase with the utility.
c) Make sure that if the utility power goes away, so does your AC onto the mains.
This is what makes feeding power back onto the line complicated - you cannot just hook your panels up to the mains.
It used to be hard to do this, especially for a naturally DC source l
Re:Rolling back the meter ?. (Score:3, Informative)
It's not so simple as plugging into a socket though. You need a unit that takes your power (usually DC from the source) and matches the phase to the supply source.
A grid-tied system is generally much cheaper than an off-grid solution, as there's no need for batteries. Of course, you lose power when the grid does unless you install batteries and a
The future... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the real problem humanity will face is over population. The world is staying the same size, but there are more people. How much longer can people keep cutting down trees, without replacing them, until the price of lumber gets so high that only a small amount of people will be able to afford it. I remember when I was in highschool, the population of the USA was 250 million, and in the papers a few weeks ago it referenced the population at 300 million. If that is correct, we grew by 50 million people in the past 15 years. What will happen in the next 50 years? Is it possible we will pass the half a billion mark? Will we become the next India?
What people should think about is economics. The world is becomming a divided place. Even in the USA. I remember reading an article in school which showed that the top 1% of people in the USA owned 10% of the wealth around the time of the revolution. Today 1% of the USA owns more than 40% of all the wealth. The papers also had an article that Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay. That means buisness will be able to force people to work more hours, without the detterant of paying time_and_a_half. Does that mean we will see 50 hour work weeks and less to show for it? But before anyone decides to jump on the democratic bandwagon, they are not that much better. Both the republican and democratic party are subject to the same rules of the game, the same need to raise moeny and bow to the lobbists. We need a new breed of politicians, but to get them, we need to pay attention and not vote the way we pick what fast food resturan to eat lunch at.
While solar panels might sound cool, it is like a band-aid on a wound to the neck. I don't know what the anwser is. We can't stop people from having kids. We can try and conserve natural resources, but eventually the number of people will be more than the planet can support.
What scares me is the fear that 90% of the population will be pushed into slave like conditions, while the richest 10% live relativly well, even in the worst of conditions. They will hire some of the poor, train them as police or military, and protect the "public peace". Think of India, where even with the poverty, a small percentage of the people live luxeriously, and the rest are controlled by a somewhat corrupt police force and politicians. The rest live on the streat and the have's walk past them, sometimes looking at the have-nots as human garbage, but most of the time trying not to make eye contact.
Social Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt many people would want to live in 800 square foot houses if given a choice. Most people who make money like to build big gigantic houses. Some even like to go into well established neighborhoods, buy an older smaller house, tear it down, and build their McMansion.
I think the real problem humanity will face is over population.
The problem isn't so much overpopulation. The problem is that a small segment of the world's population has acquired a taste for a lifestyle that uses a disproportionate amount of resources.
People need to start choosing to live in a smaller house, driving a smaller car.
The real change will require social engineering on a massive scale.
Imagine if it was considered patriotic (instead of crazy/granola) to use fewer/alternate resources!
Re:Social Engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah... that in a country, where after getting attacked, the President tells people to "go shopping".
Re:Social Engineering (Score:2, Insightful)
People need to start choosing to live in a smaller house, driving a smaller car.
The population density of the United States now is roughly similar to a conservative estimate of peak population density of Celtic Belgium in pre-Roman times. In those days import of resources was negligable, and the yield of agriculture
Re:live in a smaller house, driving a smaller car. (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree that overpopulation is the problem, at least in the medium term. I think the problem is overconsumption, especially by Americans, and that is the issue addressed by the original article.
Re:The future... (Score:5, Informative)
The last I heard, Italy has negative native population growth and its overall population growth is only positive when immigration is taken into account. And while the US has positive native population growth, a great deal of the overall growh is also from immigration.
It probably has to do with more guys getting educated and becoming computer geeks. Their chance of reproducing then drops precipitously because they spend all their time on slashdot.
Re:The future... (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently, though, Italy views that population decline as a real problem - Italy and France are both examining re-upping an old WWII policy of giving medals and other recognition to new mothers. = )
Re:The future... (Score:5, Informative)
Over-population is not quite the problem you think it is. In the United States, pop growth has slowed to a crawl, and most of our growth is due to immigration.
Developed countries the world over have slow (and declining) birthrates. Heck, Italy is trying to encourage their population to reproduce - they are suffering from net population decrease!
World population, based on current trends, is due to stabilize [prb.org] around 2075 at around 9 million people. [geocities.com]
There are a number of reasons for this. Affluent people tend to have fewer kids, merely because they are a hassle. In the more impoverished nations, existing infrastructure is failing to provide for current needs, let alone future growth. For example, one of the largest mass poisonings ever in human history is taking place in Asia [nationalgeographic.com] because of arsenic-laced drinking water.
<RANT>
What truly amazes me is the sheer number of people who don't google whatever they're talking about before they say it. The volume of uninformed, stupid comments on the Internet that can be corrected with 10 minutes of googling and quick research is mind-boggling.
People with access to this kind of information should not be making the stupid comments they are. That they do, anyway, and don't get flogged on the streets is a mere testament to the fact that humanity does not yet value intelligence and critical thinking over stupidity.
I daresay we are entering a new era of humanity - the era of the informed but ignorant idiot. The information is there - cheap, easily available. Tools that our ancestors would have killed for - and we use it to pass along mundane drivel because "we feel" or "we think" rather than actually use that tool to anywhere near its true potential.
Sad. TV is used for network television and advertising, instead of mass education and information. News shows on TV are remarkably shallow and uninformative. The best bet are the "nature" shows, which are nice but curiously designed towards complacency.
We are in the middle of a mass extinction event [well.com] brought about, no doubt, by people who chcose not to be informed, and make decisions based on ego and inadequate information.
We need to pay attention, people!
</RANT
Re:The future... (Score:2)
Re:The future... (Score:2)
We're not overpopulating the world. It appears we'll max out by 2050 and then the population will start pulling back a bit.
As for "cutting down trees without replacing them", you're just plain wrong there man. In the US, there are more trees now than there were a hundred, or even 200 years ago.
Everything gets better as technology increases. We need less and less land to produce food for everyone.
So what we SHOULD do is push everywhere else in the w
Re:The future... (Score:3, Interesting)
My curre
hippie heating! (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the advantages I guess to living in a state with dirt cheap electricity and *way* too much water
Cost of the Solar Cells? (Score:3, Interesting)
I just do not see how they can build the house for what they are saying they can. I also do not understand why they had to get a 15,000 grant to build a home that costs nothing to heat/cool.
Re:Cost of the Solar Cells? (Score:2)
Check out www.homepower.com, they're pretty good on thi ssort of thing.
Waste heat to electricity. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/ar
Although the technology is still in its early stages , it looks promising enaugh to reduce energy waste in households.
Passive heating = the HURD of architecture (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Because, for one, you can't even open a window to let fresh air in - it would disrupt the heat cycle. Oh - and that people don't feel comfortable with styrofoam walls. And that the kitchens are usually in the middle and have no ceiling, etc...
Passive heating = way forward. (Score:5, Informative)
Even 'regular' houses have no excuse not to be more efficient. Heat reclaimation units deal with pre-heating incoming air with the outgoing (hey, Wickes in the UK sell a packaged unit suitable for retrofit to an average UK house for less than 160quid last I checked; payback is 15-18months ). That also deals with odour, air moisture content etc. It's quite easy to get a 3-bed UK semi (say 100sq.m.) down below 1.2Kw design heatloss for a 19degC interior / -1degC exterior temp difference.
At which point, you might note, overheating can actually become an issue with typ. family (2 adults at 135W each @average activity, two kids at 100w each, modicum of household gizmos). Your only real losses are top-up heating overnight and domestic hotwater.
(yes I am an architect)
The Endless Possibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
There are endless techniques that we can integrate into new homes, many of which should be REQUIRED, including solar panels which are yes very expensive now and not very efficient in energy producing terms, but what about new designs for homes including bigger windows and skylights using low emissivity glass [atofinachemicals.com]. There have been advancements in new heating technologies like using heat tapped from the Earth's Core [wired.com], and using renewed and recylced building materials. We have the tech, lets put it to use!
Hello America (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ah (Score:3, Insightful)
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Energy costs are (comparatively) low in the US. And people will buy what they can afford. If energy costs skyrocketed, fewer and fewer people could afford to buy giant energy-sucking houses, and they wouldn't get built. It's the same reason that rising petrol costs have made hybrid cars popular (although those t
Takes Root (Score:2, Funny)
Staggered Stud Construction (Score:2)
http://www.mnpower.com/energyhome/technology/sh e ll
"Staggered stud construction eliminates the thermal bridging of wall studs and allows space for a high density blown cellulose insulation giving the walls and R-Value of 30. Wall studs are placed at 24" on-center with a single top plate. The roof trusses are lined up directly over the wall studs."
Does anyone do this? Do car
Solar power and storage technology (Score:3, Informative)
How green are photovoltaics? (Score:4, Insightful)
To build fields of solar arrays or mirrors in the desert wrecks the desert, and then you have to deal with transmission line losses which are significant. Same problems with wind, geothermal, hydro, and tidal power - you wreck the environment you install them in to some degree and then you pay transmission line inefficiencies.
And often in these articles they don't talk about the cost of photovoltaics, either. They are semiconductors, which take larges amounts of energy to produce, and require some really nasty chemicals to process as well. So for every house you build with a photovoltaic roof, you've got to deal with those issues, which means it's going to take some time before you net any power or positive environmental impact.
There was an article in Discover Magazine last year about a company who was making a solar power generator based on a Stirling engine and they were claiming some impressive efficiencies. Manufacturing these was an issue of machining which can be made pretty clean - I thought that this was a cool idea. (I'd link to it but I'm in lynx right now and don't feel like googling it - sorry!)
Also you've got the issue of what to do at night. Of course hooking to the grid takes care of that right now but it means that you're relying on "dirty" power at night, and once enough people switch to this model then that would be all the dirty power was there for. Of course, it's sunny somewhere all of the time but then you've got transmission line issues. Putting batteries in your basement is an option, but most of those technologies are nasty too - lots of heavy metals to deal with. "My" solution for that - flywheel storage... I don't know if anyone is seriously working on that one though.
Re:How green are photovoltaics? (Score:2)
I keep seeing these claims again and again. The thing I can't help but wonder, is why if these are so effecient, is why there isn't one under the hood? Even the green cars such as the Honda Insite and Toyota Prius use internal combustion engines. I keep thinking there is a reason we don't see sterling engines in transpor
Re:How green are photovoltaics? (Score:2)
Well, you still need heat to run it. Internal combustion engines have become very clean and the issues with manufacturing them are very well understood, too. And to the best of my knowledge, noone has ever built stirling engines of significant size at production quantities. Even if you made it gasoline powered (using the same infrastructure we currently have) you'd have to prove it was reliabl
Re:How green are photovoltaics? (Score:3, Informative)
That's because of low power-to-weight ratio, because they take time to start up, and because they run at a constant, low RPM.
They are used a lot as power generators, on boats for example.
But that could change some day. There is this company [airsport-corp.com] that tries to manufacture and market an aviation Stirling engine. And I'm working on a very low weight, variable-RPM Stirling engine based on this concept [promci.qc.ca] of an
transmission line losses? (Score:3, Interesting)
The solar field in california (bakersfield, I believe) uses high temperature collectors, molten brine, and a stirling engine to generate power, and so far as I know the best that's done is
Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, just publish easy steps for the new homebuilder and people will listen. I'm 2/3 the way into building a new house. Months ago I tried to have Slashdot run a "Ask Slashdot" on this very issue. It was rejected , of course.
Here is what I actually did: thermal barrier in the attic, manifold water system, insulated all interior walls, install only one waterheater, cathedral ceilings, return-air ductign in all major rooms and high SEER air conditioning system. Wish I could have found other (affordable) ways to save energy.
Re:Stupid (Score:2)
My current place (UK, suburbs of Cambridge, so hardly 'inner-city') I consider large for the two of us living here and is two floors, approx 15' x 26' (~780 sq. ft). It would be fine for a small family (one kid/dog etc).
Re:Stupid (Score:3)
Nice blanket statement you've got there. Like everything else in real estate, it comes down to location--maybe the above is true where you live, but most homes around here (Greene County, Tennessee) including new construction are significantly smaller than 2000sqft. My house is 2650sqft (oddly enough, given that it was built 85 years ago) and dwarfs just about everything else in the neighborhood, including the new homes.
square feet and square meters (Score:3, Informative)
in case any non-americans are wondering why the size of the apartments is "only 244 square meters", 800 square feet is in fact about 75 square meters.
converting areas is different from converting lengths... tsk tsk.
-duncan
800 sq ft. != 244 sq m (Score:2)
800 sq ft == 74.32 sq m
In case some metric users think americans are crazy for calling a 2626 sq ft (244 sq m) house "too small".
Is this simply a anecdotal pilot? (Score:2)
The average size of a middle class newly constructed house seems to be 2000-2500 square feet in many areas of the US (this statement is anecdotal . . . based on what I've seen, but I think its a reasonable estimate). In the US, energy costs are cheap. And I assume that the $117,000 cost of construction cited in the article does not include the lot . . . the actual cost of a home like
Put your money where your mouth is. Green Up (Score:3, Informative)
http://massenergy.com/Green.FAQs.html
For a few cents extra per kwh, you can have clean power without an initial investment. If you truly care about the environment, you should be buying clean power. You have a choice of wind, solar, hydro or various mixes (at varying cost.)
Re:800 SF? (Score:2, Interesting)
800 sq ft is a decent sized one bedroom apartment, or a fairly small two bedroom.
Re:800 SF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell, if it was only 15% more they could get very low interest loans from the power company to help pay for the extra. AEP/TXU provides such loans to redo AC with lower energy units and to install heat pumps.
I bet you they are comparing the cost of this home to the cost of a new home, new land and new utility connections. It is in their best interests to play with the numbers
the misery love company (Score:5, Insightful)
As for "wasteful nature", the Earth sheds only 30% [wisc.edu] of the power it receives in sunlight. The other 70% is consumed in the complexity of natural processes, with human life balanced amidst the cycles. Even that 30% albedo might not be "wasted" - it's too early to tell, until we understand even a little about the conditions where it goes, far from the planet. Nature's conservation is an inspiration, not an invitation to waste.
Re:800 SF? (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdotters will be happy to know that the "spare bedroom" has been converted to a home office, and is well stocked with computer gear. These folks aren't dottering old people, they're very active. No, the house doesn't have a formal dining room, a media room, an acre-sized kitchen or any of the other appointments common in the million-dollar, Street of Dreams homes on your average home tour, but it is comfortably sized for a retired couple who want to live life.
Home construction prices in Portland seem to run somewhere over $100 per square foot, but when you get down to smaller sizes, the price per square foot goes up, because you still have to have a kitchen and bathroom, no matter how large or numerous your rooms are.
Re:800 SF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Are they talking about Texas...?
Building costs vary from state to state, county to county and even city to city. Portland, being Oregon's major city, may have higher building costs than the rest of the state, and quite possibly higher than where you are in Texas.
800 sq feet isn't huge, but is plenty of space for an individual or couple without kids and not planning any straight away. At $117k, the mortgage would be close to average rent with lower bills and, unlike rent, payments would be building equity.
do the math, homey (Score:5, Interesting)
By the time you ditch the heater, air conditioner, water heater, dishwasher... how much money do you think that saves? The stove and fridge will be more expensive than "conventional" but the fridge is only maybe twice as expensive, the stove less than that.
My dream home isn't even this big - I've been working on plans for one roughly half this size, constructed on part of an old house trailer frame. I had an office in the back (now used as a storage shed) roughly 10x12 feet, 2x4 walls and one layer of fiberglass insulation - even when it was ten degrees outside I sometimes had to open the door to cool the place off because the heat from the computer and stereo would get the place so hot.
A developer here in Mississippi has been building tiny homes for years and has, pretty much by himself, converted a run down part of town into a fairly high rent community [thecottondistrict.net] - there's a "church [thecottondistrict.net]" (where my buddy used to live) and across from that what looks like a Beale Street hotel [thecottondistrict.net], and several other small homes. It looks almost like a toy model of New Orleans, and the houses are very practical. It's just a matter of accepting the paradigm - once you stop saying it can't be done, one quickly realizes just how practical it can be.
Re:800 SF? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is way off, in the area of Texas I am in you can build a new home for about 70-90 per square foot . Plus [800 sq ft] is way small if you plan to have a family.
It may be small, but it isn't too small. I grew up in a house of roughly 1200 sq ft (excluding basement) with four other siblings. My wife grew up in a house of roughly 800 sq ft with two other siblings.
As long as children share bedrooms, and you forgo the formal dining room, family room, media room, and den, it is doable. Why spend money on rooms you aren't going to use? A living room works just as well as media room/family room. A dining room can be formal or informal. Bedrooms are for quiet study and sleeping, they don't need to be the size of aircraft hangers.
As for the housing costs, locations differ. For example, in Texas, where you are at, I'm guessing 2x4 construction is the norm. In Minnesota, where I am at, 2x6 construction is mandated by building code. In Texas, I'm guessing you can get by with a small crawlspace, or slab-on-grade. In Minnesota, the frost line is so deep that by the time you get below it, its trivial to add a basement. Etc, etc.
Re:800 SF? (Score:5, Interesting)
what he said.
we bought a 2600sf house on 4 acres for myself, my wife, and three pets. probably about 1/4 to 1/3 of it is essentially unused space - she spends most of her time in the 8x22 sun room on the south side, and i spend most of mine in the 12x21 office on the north side. there are a couple rooms that we don't step foot in for weeks. every time i walk by them, the mortgage payment figure slides around before my eyes. quickly followed by the climate control expense.
if i had it to do over again, i would go smaller, more energy-efficient, and put the savings toward more land, (even) more privacy, closer to the ocean, or just plain more leisure time; but this was our first house, and we wanted a "nice" place and didn't really give as much thought to the day-to-day practicalities involved.
my current daydream is to get together with a few other people/couples and go in on a fully self-sustaining vacation house on the shore somewhere. this would allow us to buy land more cheaply (inaccessible, unserviced by utilities, etc), and put the money toward a nice waterfront view and privacy.
the house mentioned in the article doesn't quite fit the bill, since it's designed to be hooked up to the grid and contribute energy back at some times, and draw energy off it during others; but the technologies used would be applicable to a self-sustaining house as well. and any experimentation that drives the initial price of these technologies down is very welcome.
Re:800 SF? (Score:3, Funny)
--- Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of damp gravel, work a twenty-hour day at the mill for tupp
Re:800 SF? (Score:2)
See Here [palmdrive.net] for conversions.
Re:800 SF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Man, you americans sometimes seem so weird. Sorry, for saying this, but here in Germany, a house with 240 square meters is more than average. A lot of families WITH children live in flats of 60-70 square meters or houses around 120-140 square meters. 240 square meters would be considered luxurious. I guess the US are really just bigger than Europe...
Re:800 sq ft = 74.322432 m3 (Score:5, Informative)
You mean 800 sq ft = 74 m2.
P.S. Google? Just use units(1).
Re:800 sq ft = 74.322432 m3 (Score:2, Funny)
You think a units error is "technical"?
And what exactly are "metres xor 2"?
800 sq. ft. = 74m**2.
FORTRAN FOREVER.
(I tried to put ² or ² in my post, but slashcode zaps it).
Re:800 sq ft = 74.322432 m3 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:800 sq ft = 74.322432 m3 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Solar Electricity (Score:2, Funny)
About chopsticks (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Solar Electricity (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Solar Electricity (Score:3, Insightful)
Note most panels are rated at 25degC surface temperature, but under standard illumination, and depending on ambient temps, will typically be running at 55-65degC. That's one reason it's difficult to achieve rated output.
Finally, the panels don;t
Re:Solar Electricity (Score:3, Insightful)
Try using online resources such as Wikipedia:
I think I've read somewhere that solar panels cost more in energy to create than they ever produce. Is this correct?
Although I can't find the exact answer to this rumour (thankfully other people have beaten me to it anyway, see the other replies to your post), there's a lot of interesting information about solar cells [wikipedia.org] there.
I've also read that the Chinese were not responsible for chopsticks, although they were responsible for fortune cookies. Apparently
Re:A square foot is _how_ big, exactly? (Score:2)
(By the way, it does agree with you.)
Re:How many times must it be said? bullshit call (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Do solar cells produce more energy than is used during their manufacture?
Yes. The amount of time it takes for a technology to produce more energy than was used in their manufacture is called the energy payback time. Solar cells have an energy payback time ranging from a few months to 6 years, depending on the type of materials, the type of solar cell and where it is used. Solar cells have warranties well in excess of these numbers, typically 20 years. The origin of the popular myth that solar cells do not produce enough energy in their lifetime to recover the energy in making them is unknown, as every published study has shown that solar cells produce more energy in their lifetime than the energy used in production.
I wonder if
Re:How many times must it be said? (Score:3, Informative)