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

Zero energy ready homes are coming

energy.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 454 posts

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#161

Post by hedgehog »

paiute wrote: post #102
paiute wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not super intuitive at first, but its cold climates were this is actually a big issue. Water vapor "wants" to equalize from a more humid to less humid environment. So when it's cold out - the humidity can drop rather low. Then you take a shower and create water vapor - which flows into the walls, through the insulation, and condenses against the colder exterior. Open a wall in any stick frame house in the rocky…

This installation chart is a pretty useful starting place, regrettably local codes often require you to do the wrong thing https://www.certainteed.com/insulation/resources/do-i-need-v...

Have you investigated a combination of additional vapor permeable exterior insulation and impermeable primer for the interior walls? You may be able to minimize the amount of moisture staying in the walls and still hit your thermal goals.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#162

Post by prottog »

roywiggins wrote: post #150
prottog wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without subsidies from the inner core Like how the residents of New York City are able to get the food and water it needs all produced within the five boroughs? Or is that a different kind of "subsidy" from the hinterlands.

Are the hinterlands selling food to cities below cost? Probably not. It's not a subsidy.

Then who's selling roads and bridges and other services to suburbs below cost?

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#163

Post by rootusrootus »

xthrown1 wrote: post #124
danans wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of this is dependent on highways and new roads, new electrical, water, and sewage infrastructure. What if this was done this brownfield development in areas with existing infrastructure? New development doesn't need to be coupled with sprawl. There is a significant amount of multifamily development that looks exactly like that. The IRA also included large incentives for the retrofit of the existing housing stoc…

[flagged]

> Infrastructure only lasts 30 years

I live in a suburban area that has been around since the early 1900s and we're not suffering infrastructure collapse. Your number smells like BS.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#164

Post by johnweldon »

pchristensen wrote: post #159
johnweldon wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, people will always choose to spend money living as close to their ideal as they can, with the resources they are able to give toward it. The fact that so many people choose to live in suburbs, or the "sticks", suggests that there is something desirable to _them_ about living there. I.e. the same spending power required to live in a house in the suburbs, or rurally, could usually be used to live in…

No one is questioning that people want to live in suburbs. People object to the government power preventing any additional development in these low density areas. These areas are desirable, but economically uncompetitive.

I agree with your take.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#165

Post by taude »

xputer wrote: post #113
IncRnd wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of this is dependent on highways and new roads, new electrical, water, and sewage infrastructure. This is all very expensive to build and maintain, and the cities and municipalities are left to foot the bill. That's not generally how this works. There aren't necessarily highways and new paved roads going to rural properties. Electrical service isn't only downtown in cities but for miles outside of them or from…

[flagged]

I don't think you're using the term "food desert" properly like you think you are. In the suburbs, it's expected that you'll get to your local grocery store and find healthy foods available at reasonable prices. In a food dessert, your local 15 grocery stores/bodegas/whatever you all them, won't have access to healthy foods. You might see a banana, or something, and it'll cost 4x what it would cost at a regular grocey store, hence there's an affordability aspect, to it, too.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#166

Post by rootusrootus »

xthrown1 wrote: post #130
Dig1t wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this mean exactly? Like we should be forcing people to move into big cities? What about all the people that don't want to live that kind of lifestyle?

Let them pay the $20,000 in rates they will without subsidies from the inner core. The free market will sort it out in short order.

What about those of us who live in suburban towns that are doing just fine for well over a century and not getting any subsidies from this mythical 'inner core'? From where did you pull that $20K number?

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#167

Post by Nition »

awb wrote: post #75

Tough acronym to say, and spell apparently > … Zero Energy Ready Homes (ZERH) their standard offering. To this point, our ZEHR program … Sometimes acronyms get too cute, but there’s value to something that can easily be said in conversation or in one’s head while writing

Zero Energy Heady Roams. Maybe a mountain walk.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#168

Post by johnweldon »

oangemangut wrote: post #156
johnweldon wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, people will always choose to spend money living as close to their ideal as they can, with the resources they are able to give toward it. The fact that so many people choose to live in suburbs, or the "sticks", suggests that there is something desirable to _them_ about living there. I.e. the same spending power required to live in a house in the suburbs, or rurally, could usually be used to live in…

Sure, when we subsidize all expensive bits of suburban living it artificially decreases the cost to the home owner of all the negative externalities.

I appreciate this argument - and there is some truth to it, but certainly not to the point of (paraphrasing here) "anyone who doesn't want to live in the city is participating in a Ponzi scheme"

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#169

Post by kiba »

johnweldon wrote: post #164
pchristensen wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is questioning that people want to live in suburbs. People object to the government power preventing any additional development in these low density areas. These areas are desirable, but economically uncompetitive.

I agree with your take.

Desirable to who? It's not like folks have much of a choice in the density of housing and transportation.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#170

Post by at-fates-hands »

Fauntleroy wrote: post #137
kitsunesoba wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert in this field, but I think that changing zoning in current suburbs to mixed use would go a long way towards fixing them. The central wards of Tokyo are surrounded by such mixed use residential areas and it works extremely well, with most necessities being within walking distance or at worst biking distance. It wouldn't fix the suburbs' lack of density, but it'd still be a marked improvement. It'd theore…

If you can find a way to convince Americans they don't all need a yard that can easily fit 6 (japanese) houses, we'll be well on our way.

Well in the city where I live (Minneapolis) they've been tearing down houses in several areas of the cities where post-world war II architecture was abundant. Small houses (under 1,500 sq ft) with a small front yard and back yard. The very typical "American Dream" kind of a starter house.

Now they're getting bought up and the people are literally building houses from every end of the lot, often time getting variances for setbacks. They've decided that yards and green space are no longer important. They want wedge a three story 5K sq ft house on the same lot where a much smaller home fit.

So, I would agree and say to an extent, people are already there in terms of dealing with no lawns, now its just getting them to accept several houses on the same lot instead of their massive mcmansion.

Post reply on HN