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

271–280 of 454 posts

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#271

Post by dublinben »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #208

Contrary to what I am seeing in comments on HN, this is not just for single family detached housing. If you go to the ZERH website, under Program Requirements it says: Versions 1 and 2, Single Family, Multifamily, and Manufactured Homes https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/zero-energy-ready-home... Additionally, one of the photos in the featured article has the following caption: Lopez Community Land Trust built thi…

What makes you think that project is relying on passive solar? In green building that concept has been largely superseded by newer standards like Passive House and Net Zero which generally rely more on air sealing and super-insulation with highly insulated windows.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#272

Post by bluGill »

johnweldon wrote: post #195
babypuncher wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are able to make that choice because we pretty heavily subsidize it for them. Rural communities receive a disproportionately large amount of federal aid per capita in order to build and maintain the infrastructure that makes that lifestyle possible. If the individual cost of buying a house "in the sticks" was reflective of that, people might start to think twice.

> If the individual cost of buying a house "in the sticks" was reflective of that, people might start to think twice. I don't buy that subsidization is what makes buying a house "in the sticks" so much cheaper.

It is partially supply and demand, and partially the sticks have much less services. Gravel roads are cheap. Libraries cost money, so rural areas do without

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#273

Post by adeimantus2001 »

johnweldon wrote: post #249
tshaddox wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Suburban development, as it stands in America today, has enormous levels of externalities. The roads and sewers of suburban developments are subsidized by downtown areas which are more tax-dense. Suburban development requires cars which are always the least efficient way to get around vs. walking/transit, regardless of electrification. Suburban homes are large and freestanding both of which detract from building energy efficiency. Most suburban homes today are built with only a 50 year expected lifespan making them incredibly wasteful compared to construction in other parts of the world.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#274

Post by bluGill »

Johnny555 wrote: post #243
Fauntleroy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incenti…

Most people don't use their yard. They don't have more than a few flowers in the garden. 20 minutes with a push mower is enjoyable exercise but they wouldn't want it to take longer.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#275

Post by bluGill »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #196
johnweldon wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we need to convince someone they don't "need" anything? Each person has the best information about their own situation to decide what they need (or even want - you don't have to _need_ something to have to justify _wanting_ it)

If you think about it, younger market participants are being effectively priced out with just about every expense set against that generation. Even if they feel/think ( depending on philosophical bent in that area ) they need X, they may not simply be in a position to do that. I am obviously biased given that I currently exist in a suburb.

As already stated, young people are not allowed to build what they can afford.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#276

Post by rcme »

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.

Do people prefer to dump sewage in creeks? The GP said people live as close to their ideal as they can within their means. Generally, people with the means to afford sewers or septic tanks choose to use them.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#277

Post by DoreenMichele »

beebmam wrote: post #270
DoreenMichele wrote: post #208

Contrary to what I am seeing in comments on HN, this is not just for single family detached housing. If you go to the ZERH website, under Program Requirements it says: Versions 1 and 2, Single Family, Multifamily, and Manufactured Homes https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/zero-energy-ready-home... Additionally, one of the photos in the featured article has the following caption: Lopez Community Land Trust built thi…

It seems unbelievably stupid to me to build solar panel based homes where I live: the northwest US. Makes a heck of a bunch of sense in CA or TX though.

Passive solar design is about creating a home which needs little energy to stay at a comfortable temperature. It's unrelated to generating electricity via solar power panels.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#278

Post by bscphil »

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…

"If one simply becomes wealthier than the Earth can even potentially sustain for more than a tiny portion of the population at once, living within visual distance of any other person becomes undesirable."

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#279

Post by karaterobot »

ahoy wrote: post #93
Waterluvian wrote: post #16

Aren’t larger, opulent home designs far more difficult to make energy efficient?

Yeah, this strikes me similarly to the all-electric Hummer SUV. What on earth are we doing here.

In theory, taking something people were already buying in a highly polluting form, and giving them the option to buy the same thing in a less polluting form.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#280

Post by twblalock »

adeimantus2001 wrote: post #273
johnweldon wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Suburban development, as it stands in America today, has enormous levels of externalities. The roads and sewers of suburban developments are subsidized by downtown areas which are more tax-dense. Suburban development requires cars which are always the least efficient way to get around vs. walking/transit, regardless of electrification. Suburban homes are large and freestanding both of which detract from building ener…

People keep talking about the "subsidies" as if they apply to all suburbs. It seems to be an article of faith. It really needs some evidence (preferably from an unbiased source).
Post reply on HN