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

391–400 of 454 posts

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#391

Post by briandon »

Xeoncross wrote: post #287
dublinben wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 In green building that concept has been largely superseded by newer standards like Passive House and Net Zero which generally rely more on air sealing and super-insulation with highly insulated windows.

There is going to be a lot of health fallout though as people start having oxygen depletion from tightly-sealed houses. It's important that even well sealed homes have both A/C fresh air sources as well as ERV/HRV systems that can recapture the heat/cold the house has while replacing the CO2 with outside air.

In addition to concerns relating to carbon dioxide levels, when I contemplate the push for ever-more-tightly-sealed homes and particularly smaller homes with lower ratios of internal air volume to internal surface area (of walls, built-ins like cabinetry, and furniture), the issues stemming from outgassing of volatile organics from the adhesives and sealants as well as from the materials (solid wood became plywood with wood veneering, became sawdust-and-binder with plastic faux-wood veneer, etc.) now composites made of multiple substances and multiple binders and glues.

Some years back, "sick building syndrome" was a prominent topic of discussion and there was a push for fresh air, windows that opened, etc. but this seems to have largely dropped off the radar, afaict.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#392

Post by stouset »

cwalv wrote: post #375
stouset wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What they should or shouldn't want" is already deeply influenced by housing policy. Cheap suburban homes which don't fully pay for their externalities are one result of this housing policy, and children grow up accustomed to this bizarro-world reality where increasingly tank-sized cars (this is—astonishingly—not even hyperbole) are the only practical means by which one can go from Point A to Point B. Meanwhile peopl…

> Given that one of these modes of living reliably produces a happier population Is that really a "given"? > Given that ... one of the core purposes of cooperative government is to find ways to promote outcomes that benefit everyone despite going against individuals' self-interest As I see it, government promotes outcomes that benefit "everyone" only by protecting individuals' self-interest.

Everyone already actively works at protecting their own self interest. We don’t need help promoting good societal outcomes when those are a natural result of people looking out for themselves. Government exists for us to collectively agree that there exist goals that require us to set aside self-interest for the better of everyone.

It’s in my self-interest to take everything you own and to dump my waste in the nearest available yard that isn’t mine. Nobody wants to live in a world where people act like that, so we collectively agree that things are better off for everyone if we respect one another’s property rights and pay someone to take our trash and sewage somewhere else to be dealt with.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#395

Post by pmontra »

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…

> We need to build vertically and re-claim back the resources allocated for car centric design

There are many small towns in Europe surrounded by networks of even smaller towns and one or two house farms. There is nothing to claim back there: they've been like that since well before any European moved to the Americas. That was a way to be close to fields, when economy was mostly farmers and herders and people mostly walked or at best moved in animal powered carts.

Some people move from there to big cities now, some people move from big cities to there. Everybody has a car, it can't be helped. I think that people in big cities will end up with public transport and few cars, but people in small towns and in the fields or in the hills or mountains will keep having a car, maybe just use it less if it costs too much.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#396

Post by londons_explore »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #390
londons_explore wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a problem as long as your grid does dynamic minute by minute pricing. When the price of power drops to zero in the spring/fall, you can be sure there will be plenty of people lapping it up to smelt aluminium, make glass, make steel, make cement, liquify air, make hydrogen, etc. When the price of power is high in the winter, companies will swoop in with gas turbines, power cables from other places, and extr…

I do like the dynamic pricing idea. If you're not well situated for panels you can invest in batteries and sell at night what you bought during the day. I don't have your faith in markets though. The invisible hand is a potent force indeed, but it's just as likely to flip you the bird as it is to solve a problem that you have. There's nothing about a market, for instance, that knows to keep prices high enough to prev…

Oh there is...

Imagine you see all the power being used up ahead of winter, and you predict this problem... Yet it seems like nobody else has noticed...

So you swoop in and, with profits in mind, you buy up some electricity futures contracts for December. They're quite cheap right now, and you suspect that when the blizzard hits they'll be really valuable. By doing so, you push the price of them up a bit.

Meanwhile, Fred over at the hydro plant sees that futures contracts for electricity are higher in December than now, so he'll make more money by switching off the generators now and using that water later in December when he'll get paid more for it.

Bob at the aluminium smelter sees that spot prices for power now are higher (because the hydro shut off), and futures prices suggest they'll be even higher in December too. So it's probably more profitable to shutdown the plant for repairs now, and restart production next year.

See how you noticing this problem started a chain of events that solved the problem? That's the power of markets - they can use the collective knowledge and intelligence of all the participants to solve a problem.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#397

Post by yurishimo »

pmontra wrote: post #395
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…

> We need to build vertically and re-claim back the resources allocated for car centric design There are many small towns in Europe surrounded by networks of even smaller towns and one or two house farms. There is nothing to claim back there: they've been like that since well before any European moved to the Americas. That was a way to be close to fields, when economy was mostly farmers and herders and people mostly…

I live in one of these small European towns. It is honestly mind boggling how far some people drive to go to work here. I'm in The Netherlands around Eindhoven. We have colleagues in Den Bosch, Utrecht and Maastricht driving to work every week. Eindhoven is full of commuters.

Some people take the train, but that isn't always convenient, especially with strikes! Your boss doesn't care that you were 3 hours late due to a bus skipping out on work. Your paycheck cares a lot though.

Back in America, most people I knew lived and worked in the same general region/city. Perhaps this is a uniquely Dutch problem owing to the size of the country, but I don't see how they can reduce car usage without significantly more investment in public transportation. By the looks of the current state of the government, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#398

Post by KptMarchewa »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #170
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.

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…

And if you accepted 5 or seven store apartments you'd have enough space for actual parks.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#399

Post by nunodonato »

chongli wrote: post #354
js8 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe put in some plants?

You'd have to put so many plants in your house that the interior would look like one of those rainforest exhibits at the natural history museum. A couple of houseplants on the windowsill won't even move the needle on CO2 levels in a house occupied by a family.

source?

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#400

Post by lmm »

twblalock wrote: post #356
bandofthehawk wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suburbs are not inherently unsustainable or terribly designed. Some are, but some cities are too. I would guess that most suburbs are financially unsustainable in the long term because they pay less in taxes than it costs to maintain their infrastructure. Strong towns talks about this in great detail.

> I would guess that most suburbs are financially unsustainable in the long term because they pay less in taxes than it costs to maintain their infrastructure. Again, that is something that might be true for some places but not others. I know of suburbs that definitely pay for themselves. And it's not hard to see why -- the property taxes are high and many of the residents are paying high income taxes too. Plus, many…

> Plus, many residents of suburbs commute to work in cities, where they contribute to the success of businesses that pay taxes in those cities.

But often not by enough to balance the amount of publicly-funded road space and parking they use.

> These arguments about taxes are also a form of special pleading that we don't see much of in other debates. Taxes are redistribution. Quite a lot of people and organizations get more in benefits from the government than they pay for, e.g. welfare recipients and students getting grants, companies get subsidies, state governments move money around to pay for schools, etc. Nobody seriously argues that the police and fire departments should only serve people who pay income tax, or that people without children shouldn't be taxed to pay for schools. Yet for some reason people seem to think that suburbs should have a unique requirement to pay for themselves 100% and can't be sustained if they don't.

We absolutely get these arguments on other topics when public money is being spent on luxuries for the wealthy, which is what suburban living is. Police, fire departments, and schools are necessities. Zillion-square-foot homes and lawns are not.

Post reply on HN