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

241–250 of 454 posts

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#241

Post by makomk »

Symbiote wrote: post #116
jonfw wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we expect industry to take up the excess, than either 1. that industry will only operate according to the weather or 2. We'll still need some variable power generation that can be switched on when wind or solar isn't producing enough

A few industrial users can weather changes in supply, with notice of the expected price in advance. The aluminium smelter can heat to x+250°, let things cool to x° while people cook their evening meal, then heat up again afterwards. A large supermarket chain can set their refrigerators to 5°, but by allowing the range to move between 3° and 7° can save significant power. (One of the big British supermarkets already d…

That only works on short timescales, which isn't the main problem because there are so many ways of solving that (for example batteries or thermal storage for home heating).

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#242

Post by jamiek88 »

loeg wrote: post #218
Syonyk wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The physical structure. Replace the wood in my designs with welded hunks of old steel pipe and you have his design.

Thanks. I'm perplexed why you would need to weld pipes in this application if a wood structure is also suitable.

Simply because it's cheaper than clamps. Not easier, but cheaper. It's not for structural strength.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#243

Post by Johnny555 »

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.

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.

I think we are on our way there, most new developments around here have houses that are nearly the size of the lot, with a tiny back yard and smaller front yard, and little room between houses. Developers get more money by making lots small and houses big, so there’s little incentive to have the large suburban d yards that wises to be common.

Of course, the houses are much larger than their Japanese counterparts. My Japanese mother in law thinks we are wealthy based on the size of our house, but we’re one of the smallest homes in the neighborhood,

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#244

Post by asciimike »

snow_mac wrote: post #235
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…

Why the hell would I live in an American city? I live in Colorado. Denver is our 'city', there is no parking, no room for my 2 dogs and my kid would not have a giant backyard to play in. Instead, I have a 3400 sq ft house on 10,000 sq ft of land with giant trees everywhere. I'm within 2 miles of lightrail, that I will never use. I work from home, I have a home office with a indoor, led powered garden with fresh fruit…

> Denver banned the scooters and other options from lyft and bird, so I have to lug my giant body from location to location? No thanks, I'll take my 4000 pound car to the restaurant instead.

Is there a source for this? I live in Denver and am currently staring at a dozen Lyft scooters and a few bikes parked on the corner next to my apartment. Lime also operates scooters and bikes, which I usually see parked across the street at the apartments next door.

There are a few places that are geofenced (e.g. along 16th St Mall), but judging by how many people I see riding them on e.g. Cherry Creek trail as I'm biking, I don't think they're generally banned.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#245

Post by s1artibartfast »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #227
s1artibartfast wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean dirt cheap and absence of cumbersome regulations and requirements. For example, you can find panels as low as $0.07/kwh these days. My primary complaint is in agreement; solar is not cheap once you take them into account

What period of time is that kWh over?

kWh/kh :P That is to say, 7 cents per watt or 7 grand for a 10 KW array

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#246

Post by tshaddox »

johnweldon wrote: post #140
xyst wrote: post #64

I just see this as another subsidy for single family housing developments. The home may be "zero energy ready" or whatever greenwashing term they want to use. But the fact is they are spending that energy in driving from the sticks (in some cases >20 miles away) and back, driving from their home to the grocery store and back, driving to areas of interest (ie, parks, restaurants, doctors appointments). All of this is…

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…

> 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.

The fact that people dump their sewage into the creek instead of paying for proper sewage treatment/disposal suggests that there's something desirable to _them_ to do the easier and cheaper thing. Of course! The problem is externalities.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#247

Post by danans »

loandbehold wrote: post #160
xthrown1 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Complete nonsense. Power lines last 100+ years with little maintenance. Roads may need to be repaved after 30 years, but it's only fraction of the cost of building them from scratch. Stop promoting StrongTowns nonsense, his analysis were shown to be completely off base.

Their infrastructure lifetime numbers may be overly pessimistic, but nothing in your statement rebukes Strong Towns' thesis that the maintenance costs of infrastructure for sprawl were not realistically projected or accounted for.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#248

Post by SamBam »

Syonyk wrote: post #28

When you've confused "per kWh cost" with "energy to the house delivery costs," this sort of stuff sounds good on paper, but it doesn't fundamentally solve the problem that in the winter, homes use a lot more energy than they can generate, and in the spring/fall, they will generate a lot more energy than they need. I've got a large ground mount solar install I put in a few years ago (15.9kW nameplate, though mostly ea…

> It's not a big deal with only a few people on the grid, but if every house were doing this,

"Renewable is great, but if we're already generating all our power by renewables then..."

This argument is silly because we are nowhere close to having this problem yet. And as we start to approach that golden age (I mean, "problem") we'll have other alternatives.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#249

Post by johnweldon »

tshaddox wrote: post #246
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…

> 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. The fact that people dump their sewage into the creek instead of paying for proper sewage treatment/disposal suggests that there's something desirable to _them_ to do the easier and cheaper thing. Of course! The problem is externalities.

I think your comment is a bit misleading.

Dumping sewage into a creek is an externality that is bad.

Someone preferring to live in a suburb does not mean they're generating externalities at that level.

The very reason I pushed back on the comment was because of this black and white thinking.

Saying

> The fact that people dump their sewage into the creek instead of paying for proper sewage treatment/disposal suggests that there's something desirable to _them_ to do the easier and cheaper thing. Of course!

seems condescending to me. As though "those" people don't have the character or moral rectitude to live in the city. Maybe I'm reading in more than you intended.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#250

Post by jjav »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #149
jjav wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suburban developments in the US are often in food deserts. There's usually nothing within walking distance and if there is it is prohibitively dangerous and unpleasant to walk there. Is there data to back this up, particularly the "usually" part? Having nearly always lived in suburban areas (a few times rural), food shopping is nearly always within an easy walk. I'm sure there are some cases where this might not be…

If you have to cross a 40ft+ road with vehicles traveling at 50mph (i.e. 40mph speed limit), I consider that not walkable. And 5 lane 40mph arterial roads (two each way and 1 turn lane), seems to be a standard feature of all suburbs all around the country, on which most grocery stores and shopping are located.

> If you have to cross a 40ft+ road with vehicles traveling at 50mph (i.e. 40mph speed limit), I consider that not walkable.

Ok, but that's a quite radical limitation to the definition of walkable. What is the reason to put up self-imposed limitations like that?

I mean, by that definition even most of Manhattan wouldn't be called walkable even thought it's the most walkable city in the US!

In my very suburban neighborhood, I can very easily walk to a 24hr supermarket in about 5-6 minutes, so I often do (except when it's super cold/raining).

Yes, I do have to cross a 4 lane road (two this way, two that way). I press the pedestrian crossing button, wait a handful of seconds and once it's my turn I cross the road with cars traveling at 0mph since they all have a red light.

Post reply on HN