Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building a modern home in the woods

johnnyrodgers.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 508 posts

Re: Building a modern home in the woods

#281

Post by hinkley »

Aeolun wrote: post #36
thex10 wrote: post #32

> Geothermal wasn’t viable on the slope and with the space we had to work with, so we switched to an air source heat pump for exchange. The bigger issue was that the energy demands for the house, which included hot water heating for the pool and hot tub, outstripped the electrical supply we could get on a rural residential build: 400A. We eventually settled on supplementing our electrical generation with propane, whi…

400A?! My house can make do with 60A, and my previous one with 40A Do they use 350A to heat a swimming pool? Talk about a waste of energy.

One space heater is 12-15 amps. I can't count how many people I've had to explain that to as they scratched their heads why they keep tripping the circuit breaker in the winter.

Also lesser know fact: A circuit breaker doesn't cut off at the rated amperage. It cuts off when it spikes above that amperage. When the current is steady, you can blow past the limit, but one little wobble and it will finally trip. "I wasn't doing anything different" being a common refrain. A little ripple from the city power or the other end of the house can push it over.

Re: Building a modern home in the woods

#282

Post by [deleted] »

MezzoDelCammin wrote: post #50

"The bigger issue was that the energy demands for the house, which included hot water heating for the pool and hot tub, outstripped the electrical supply we could get on a rural residential build: 400A" Am I the only one who almost spit out his coffee when reading this paragraph? I mean, building a remote home in the middle of a forest is a cool idea, sure. But then end up feeding the whole thing with 400A worth of e…

[deleted]

Re: Building a modern home in the woods

#284

Post by MisterTea »

jcrawfordor wrote: post #201
MisterTea wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since our voltage is 120/240 volt split phase or 120/208 open Y service (less common) we tend to need higher currents for main breakers/fuses. The old standard for a home was 100 amps whereas modern homes are built with 200 amp mains. I suppose the low cost of air conditioning and heat pumps has raised this demand. Otherwise our lighting and appliance loads have become more efficient. A 230/400V open Y service at 25…

My impression is that in many European countries much lower supply ratings are normal (like 25A, I think I've even seen 17A on an apartment with A/C!) and it's just sort of accepted that you will trip the main breaker if you run too many things at once. In the US tripping the main breaker would be a pretty crazy occurrence, we seem to always spec in order to make that very difficult to do. I wonder if one difference…

> if you have say 100A service you could pull 150A for a decently long time before the main trips, perhaps for the runtime of some appliances, and over time that could lead to heat problems.

Depends on the trip curve and the age of the overcurrent device. Looking at the trip curve for a Fuji BW250 (125-250 amp frame size), at 150% the device will trip in what looks like 5-30 minutes. Any load over 10x rated current is an instant trip.

There was a scandal many years ago where an electrical equipment manufacturer, Federal Pacific, was caught rigging its testing machines to pass faulty or poorly performing circuit breakers. It was found that some of those breakers would carry 150%+ rated current without tripping. They were responsible for quite a few electrical fires and were sued into oblivion.

Re: Building a modern home in the woods

#285

Post by nostromo »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #229
folkrav wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snow removal must be... fun.

I can't believe no one at any step of the process gave them a warning about flat roofs, huge glass windows, having a pool, etc. in frigid mountain areas with tons of snow. I feel like there must be a lot more to this story, like cycling through different architects and engineers until one would finally not tell them the idea was bonkers.

A flat green roof. Which is much worse than just a flat roof.

The drainage will clog and they’ll risk having a leaky roof every spring. And you can’t get up there with a snow shovel because it’s a green roof and you’d scrape off all the dirt and plants.

Re: Building a modern home in the woods

#286

Post by hgomersall »

adamcharnock wrote: post #230
mahogany wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you use a set of plans specifically for the A-frame studio house, or was it an amalgamation of a bunch of different resources? I'd love more resources on it if you have a suggestion.

I would love to be able to suggest something, but I think I just made up the design from my own head. I had a rough plan, and I made the rest up as I went along. If you send me an email (see my profile -> website) I can share with you the construction photos.

Sounds like most builders I've come across. The difference is they normally have a design they're supposed to work from.

Re: Building a modern home in the woods

#287

Post by rland »

jeffbee wrote: post #213
MezzoDelCammin wrote: post #50

"The bigger issue was that the energy demands for the house, which included hot water heating for the pool and hot tub, outstripped the electrical supply we could get on a rural residential build: 400A" Am I the only one who almost spit out his coffee when reading this paragraph? I mean, building a remote home in the middle of a forest is a cool idea, sure. But then end up feeding the whole thing with 400A worth of e…

The whole thing is pretend environmentalism. It starts out with some superficially "green" elements like solar power but eventually throws it all out the window when that conflicts with luxury or desire. In the end they've built a huge, inefficient house with enough embodied energy to power Ghana for a year, only accessible with the family's giant gas-guzzling truck, as depicted.

Pure comedy.

> A goal for the build was to limit impact to the site during construction, and then to limit the footprint of the home after completion. In pursuit of this we planned an efficient mechanical design that would feature solar panels for electricity generation tied to the grid, geothermal for heat exchange, and no fossil fuels.

Oh, great, sound like you have some good environmental principles!

> However, we quickly ran into several problems with this approach.

Yeah, it can be a bummer to sacrifice your own comfort. But it is worth it for the environment!

> The bigger issue was that the energy demands for the house, which included hot water heating for the pool and hot tub, outstripped the electrical supply we could get on a rural residential build: 400A.

Wow, that's a lot of electricity. Like, a loooooot. Maybe we can pare it down a little bit -- limiting our impact is important, right?

> We eventually settled on supplementing our electrical generation with propane, which we had hoped to avoid

Right?

O-oh. Oh so you're using propane to heat the pool.

Yeah.

Re: Building a modern home in the woods

#288

Post by dahfizz »

hinkley wrote: post #270
dleslie wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Pemberton, no less. An outdoor pool, _very_ large windows, open/not-enclosed outdoor patios, etc etc. They've basically planned to heat the outdoors when it is below 0C a few months out of the year; and most of the year it's below 18C. And all that exposed, non-insulated concrete. The thermal mass they have to heat is practically unbounded. Bonkers. They're going to have a hell of the time with the weathering on t…

Only if it doesn't burn down first in a forest fire.

Are there forest fires as far north as Vancouver? It gets wet & cold up there. I though forest fires was mostly a California problem.

Re: Building a modern home in the woods

#289

Post by pengaru »

MezzoDelCammin wrote: post #50

"The bigger issue was that the energy demands for the house, which included hot water heating for the pool and hot tub, outstripped the electrical supply we could get on a rural residential build: 400A" Am I the only one who almost spit out his coffee when reading this paragraph? I mean, building a remote home in the middle of a forest is a cool idea, sure. But then end up feeding the whole thing with 400A worth of e…

The house is obscene, but just because one has 400A service doesn't necessarily mean they're being inefficient in doing so.

It could just be to handle momentary bursts, and the equipment drawing that power might actually be doing the job more efficiently than something that does it slower, drawing more power cumulatively over a longer period of time.

Re: Building a modern home in the woods

#290

Post by wernerb »

mediaman wrote: post #275
skeletal88 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live we have to pay to the electric grid for the amps on the main breaker. Because the grid has to be able to provide those, needs to be planned accordingly, needs to have the proper diameter cables and transformers, etc. Even if we don't use them. So having 300A "just in case we need it" would be insanely expensive on the monthly bill. This amount of apmeres is more like for a workshop, small industrial or o…

Many utilities will do this based not on the amperage to the house but the peak kw used in a billing cycle - a capacity charge. This helps incentivize reduced peak usage. In your scenario it's strange because you have zero incentive to keep your maximum usage below the breaker amount, other than the per-kwh cost.

I live in the same such country with such rules. They assume rightly that if you request that amperage you will use it and they will plan and bill you to handle it. And yes we then also pay per kWh :)

Why would it be harmful to run at the amperage that I'm buying ? What disincentives do I need?

Post reply on HN