+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 13747
Total Topics: 270
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 13 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 05, 2019, 08:26:04 pm »

✨ ROB GREENFIELD’S SUSTAINABLE LIVING 🎍 PROJECT 🌞


HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY NEED?
How much do you need to live well…if you don’t need to live large?

A nice place to sleep, a desk, room for some books and a pantry.

And it costs next-to-nothing and it looks like fun. 👍

If nothing else, it would be a great vacation home, or emergency home – for less two weeks in a low rent motel. 

This actually looks great. What a wonderful situation he's created. I wish I was young enough and not a **** slave to my creature comforts such that I could do something like this. I like cable TV, wi-fi and coffee on demand too much!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 05, 2019, 07:23:20 pm »

✨ ROB GREENFIELD’S SUSTAINABLE LIVING 🎍 PROJECT 🌞


HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY NEED?
How much do you need to live well…if you don’t need to live large?

A nice place to sleep, a desk, room for some books and a pantry.

And it costs next-to-nothing and it looks like fun. 👍

If nothing else, it would be a great vacation home, or emergency home – for less two weeks in a low rent motel. 

Not bad.

Click here to support: The Real Food Channel

https://realfoodchannel.com/simple-living-illustrated/

THE BRASSCHECK/REAL FOOD 😋 READING LIST

We recommend these books as a foundation for educating yourself about health in the 21st Century.

www.brasscheck.com/video/the-brasscheck-real-food-reading-list/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 02, 2019, 08:54:49 pm »

THE BEST HOME BUILDING MATERIAL?

SAFE, HEALTHY, AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE, SUPER DURABLE

INTRODUCING NATURAL BUILDING

The best home building material?

Safe, healthy, affordable, sustainable, super durable building material.

And you’ll never see it at Home Depot.
 

More info here:

http://www.dreamweaverscollective.org/ – The featured builder

https://www.cobworks.com/ – How to classes

http://www.cobcottage.com/ – Treasure chest of info on the subject

Click here to support: The Real Food Channel

https://realfoodchannel.com/the-best-home-building-material/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 19, 2019, 12:32:32 am »

Insulated Studs? This is a BIG Innovation in Framing!
1,048,943 views


Matt Risinger
Published on May 31, 2019

In this video, Matt travels to Minnesota to see a house framed with a new innovation in framing that solves the Thermal Bridge issue with typical 2x solid studs.  You don't want to miss this Build Show!

Go to https://www.tstud.com - FYI - This video has overloaded their small company with inquiries so please be patient with their response times. 

TSTUD Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/thetstud/

Huge thanks to our Show sponsors Polywall, Huber, Dorken Delta, Prosoco, Rockwool & Viewrail for helping to make these videos possible! These are all trusted companies that Matt has worked with for years and trusts their products in the homes he builds.  We would highly encourage you to check out their websites for more info. 

http://www.Poly-Wall.com
http://www.Dorken.com
http://www.Huberwood.com
http://www.Prosoco.com
https://www.Viewrail.com
https://www.Rockwool.com

Category People & Blogs
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2019, 02:37:58 pm »

AG, you should enjoy this one. What a terrific idea.


By Daisy Hernandez
Jun 27, 2019


This House Is Made from 600,000 Recycled Plastic Water Bottles

But you'd never know by looking at it.

German and Saulnier shredded and heated the water bottles to form plastic pellets and placed them into a hopper, where they were treated with gases that melted them into a foam. When cooled, the foam becomes solid and is rot- and mildew-resistant. The builders then used the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) panels to create the 5.9-inch-thick walls of the green home.

Besides the fact that the panels utilize plastic that might've otherwise ended up in a landfill or the ocean, they're able to withstand tough weather conditions, too.

German and Saulnier sent a sample panel for endurance testing to Mississauga, Ontario and discovered it could stand firm against against 326-mph winds— two times as strong as a category 5 hurricane. The results are especially impressive considering the panels are lightweight and the wind tunnel reached its max force without being able to cause damage to the test panel.


The hardened foam is covered by a fiberglass skin along both the interior and exterior of the home, and UV paint was used to protect the material from sunlight.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/home/a28209163/recycled-water-bottle-house/


This practical reuse of plastic water bottles is a super idea!
Posted by: Surly1
« on: June 28, 2019, 12:32:15 pm »

AG, you should enjoy this one. What a terrific idea.

This House Is Made from 600,000 Recycled Plastic Water Bottles
But you'd never know by looking at it.





JD COMPOSITES
  • Canadian builders have built a home out of more than 600,000 plastic water bottles.
  • The builders broke down bottles and turned into foam that hardens when cooled. This foam was used to create the walls.
  • The home is the first of its kind to ever be built.

Canadian builders have created a new way to turn plastic waste into environmentally friendly housing. JD Composites, a construction company led by Joel German and David Saulnier, built a three-bedroom home along the Meteghan River in Nova Scotia from more than 600,000 plastic water bottles—but you'd never guess it from just looking at the home.

image
JD COMPOSITES

German and Saulnier shredded and heated the water bottles to form plastic pellets and placed them into a hopper, where they were treated with gases that melted them into a foam. When cooled, the foam becomes solid and is rot- and mildew-resistant. The builders then used the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) panels to create the 5.9-inch-thick walls of the green home.

Besides the fact that the panels utilize plastic that might've otherwise ended up in a landfill or the ocean, they're able to withstand tough weather conditions, too.

German and Saulnier sent a sample panel for endurance testing to Mississauga, Ontario and discovered it could stand firm against against 326-mph winds—two times as strong as a category 5 hurricane. The results are especially impressive considering the panels are lightweight and the wind tunnel reached its max force without being able to cause damage to the test panel.

The hardened foam is covered by a fiberglass skin along both the interior and exterior of the home, and UV paint was used to protect the material from sunlight.

The company plans to list the home for sale, but will rent it on Airbnb if it can't find a buyer.

“If it doesn’t sell, it’s fine,” German told the Hants Journal. “It’s our first one. We’re sort of attached to it.”

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 26, 2019, 03:39:17 pm »



SNIPPET:

America’s 125 million residential units account for approximately 20 percent of the country’s total carbon emissions, but only roughly 12,500 of these units (0.01 percent  :() are operating at net zero energy, according to the Net Zero Energy Coalition’s 2017 inventory. Progress continues to be hindered in large part by the disaggregation of both supply and demand―today, every retrofit is a custom job, involving significant time, complexity and cost.

At the same time, nearly 50 million Americans are living at or below the federal poverty line  :(, with many struggling to pay for their utilities versus other basic needs. While low-income families stand to benefit the most from high-performing buildings, they also face the greatest barriers in accessing them, spending up to 20 percent of their income on energy, compared to just 4 percent for the average US household.

“We are excited to partner with the Rocky Mountain Institute and California Energy Commission to invest in an initiative designed for the multifamily sector,” said Daniel Simmons, Assistant Secretary of DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. “This partnership will help American families realize new energy and cost-saving opportunities while improving their quality of life with more comfortable, healthier homes.”


Read more:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 15, 2019, 04:23:03 pm »

May 15, 2019

WildEarth GUARDIANS


Power to the people


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 25, 2019, 04:58:47 pm »

if your low flow toilet is 20 yrs old it's a first generation.  They always were poor flushers even with perfect venting. The most affordable modern low flow is probably the cadet3 available at any big box hardware store. If it's like here they have a display with ratings for solids and water used. The difference is night and day and it's way cheaper then reworking your vent stack.

Thank you for that info. 👍  I was unaware of that and will keep that in mind about the cadet3 toilet.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 25, 2019, 03:11:56 pm »


I'm going to need a new roof this summer so I am doing research on all the ins and outs of home maintenance. There is a metal roof I am looking at that is a bit pricy but very durable and environentally friendly (it is 100% recyclable and made mostly from recycled metal). We'll see.

You know, if you decide to do this project, a series of dispatches (complete with photos) would be of great interest. The roof itself sounds interesting.

When the roof gets done, I'll see if the roofer will take before, during and after pictures and send them to me via e-mail. We have no cell phone or camera so that's the only way it could happen. If they will do that, I will post them with lots of commentary about it. I am not an expert builder or craftsman as the Canadian dude that posts on the Doomstead Diner (but not on my channel because he doesn't like me giving his builder craftsman highness any lip about Canadian fossil fuel loving stupidity. :D).

I am no expert. But, I am observant and do my homework when commenting on any subject I post on. So, in the event I am able to post about this project, I firmly believe it will aid readers in preparing for a similar project.

I have a small, uncomplicated (no gables ;D 👍) roof. The run from the roof ridge to the fascia is a little less than 8 feet. So, the two sides of 70' by 8' come to about 1,120 sq. ft. of roof plus new ridge vent, drip edge and fascia. I've got a wild idea about extending the eves out 6 inches to help protect the windows but it probably costs too much so fuggetaboudit.

It's been 13 years or so since I used the kerosene fired furnace , so I might just have the stack pulled and the hole plugged with OSB and undelayment in order to have one less potential roof leak location. I would love to eliminate the of vent pipes and roof fans and the bathroom skylight so the roof has no potential leak areas. There is this great peel and stick waterproofing (rubbery and super sticky some hours after placing) that goes on the rake and from the eves up that I am looking at as part of the underlayment.

I have studied the code about the minimum distance the vent needs to be for proper bathroom flushing. It is possible to vent through the roof, though an electrical fan along vent pipe may be required. My roof ridge vent runs nearly the length of the home and the toilets could, in theory, be vented through there. We'll see. The toilets vent pipes have always been substandard as to easy flushing from the beginning. At first I thought it was just the low water volume new type toilets. After 20 years of often required plunger use, I am convinced that the toilet venting needs help (though they are within proper code required distance from the toilets). We'll see what can be done.

In theory (famous last words), if the roof has ZERO openings on it for pipe vents, the furnace stack, the stove, fans and a skylight, AND ALL the venting goes through the roof ridge vent (with well placed roof cavity mechanical fans helping out), the cost of putting a metal (or shingle) roof would would be much cheaper, faster and leakproof. They would have to put OSB and waterproof undelayment under all those holes where the vents and so on were, of course. We'll see what is most economically feasable.


Here's a screenshot of my sketchup graphic of half of my dream roof:


I'll let you know what develops.
I suppose petty little comments like that are par for the  course. Good luck on your roof project.

I figured that would get your attention.  ;D

Thank you for your well wishes. Feel free to post your thoughts on roofing, venting, eve extension problems and so on. I listen carefully and seriously to builder experts like you, even if I don't always get along with them.  8)
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 25, 2019, 02:51:55 pm »


I'm going to need a new roof this summer so I am doing research on all the ins and outs of home maintenance. There is a metal roof I am looking at that is a bit pricy but very durable and environentally friendly (it is 100% recyclable and made mostly from recycled metal). We'll see.

You know, if you decide to do this project, a series of dispatches (complete with photos) would be of great interest. The roof itself sounds interesting.

When the roof gets done, I'll see if the roofer will take before, during and after pictures and send them to me via e-mail. We have no cell phone or camera so that's the only way it could happen. If they will do that, I will post them with lots of commentary about it. I am not an expert builder or craftsman as the Canadian dude that posts on the Doomstead Diner (but not on my channel because he doesn't like me giving his builder craftsman highness any lip about Canadian fossil fuel loving stupidity. :D).

I am no expert. But, I am observant and do my homework when commenting on any subject I post on. So, in the event I am able to post about this project, I firmly believe it will aid readers in preparing for a similar project.

I have a small, uncomplicated (no gables ;D 👍) roof. The run from the roof ridge to the fascia is a little less than 8 feet. So, the two sides of 70' by 8' come to about 1,120 sq. ft. of roof plus new ridge vent, drip edge and fascia. I've got a wild idea about extending the eves out 6 inches to help protect the windows but it probably costs too much so fuggetaboudit.

It's been 13 years or so since I used the kerosene fired furnace , so I might just have the stack pulled and the hole plugged with OSB and undelayment in order to have one less potential roof leak location. I would love to eliminate the vent pipes and roof fans and the bathroom skylight so the roof has no potential leak areas. There is this great peel and stick waterproofing (rubbery and super sticky some hours after placing) that goes on the rake and from the eves up that I am looking at as part of the underlayment.

I have studied the code about the minimum distance the vent needs to be for proper bathroom flushing. It is possible to vent through the roof, though an electrical fan along the vent pipe may be required. My roof ridge vent runs nearly the length of the home and the toilets could, in theory, be vented through there. We'll see. The toilet vent pipes have always been substandard as to easy flushing from the beginning. At first I thought it was just the low water volume new type toilets. After 20 years of often required plunger use, I am convinced that the toilet venting needs help (though they are within proper code required distance from the toilets). We'll see what can be done.

In theory (famous last words), if the roof has ZERO openings on it for pipe vents, the furnace stack, the stove, fans and a skylight, AND ALL the venting goes through the roof ridge vent (with well placed roof cavity mechanical fans helping out), the cost of putting a metal (or shingle) roof would would be much cheaper, faster and leakproof. They would have to put OSB and waterproof undelayment under all those holes where the vents and so on were, of course. We'll see what is most economically feasable.


Here's a screenshot of my sketchup graphic of half of my dream roof:


I'll let you know what develops.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 25, 2019, 02:50:43 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Good advice that applies to the USA every bit as much as it applies to Australia. 👍

You don’t have to turn your house upside down to bring energy cost down.

This upside-down pyramid shows some recommended steps to increase energy efficiency. The most important thing to remember is that each step should be carried out in the correct order (1-9) to gain the maximum benefit. The first step is relatively easy, but very cost effective. As you go down the steps, the cost and difficulty of the retrofit increase.

Upside Down Retrofitting Energy Efficiency, driving down your heating and cooling energy costs systematically. ✨

 

//
Undertaking all nine steps will result in the ultimate energy efficient house, but rest assure that each step will bring with it some tangible benefits including lower energy bills! 

https://efficiencymatrix.com/upside-residential-energy-efficiency-retrofit/

This is excellent. It seems obvious, but it's nice to have the hierarchy and order in which to do these.
Good stuff, AG. thanks.


You are welcome, bro. 🌞

I'm going to need a new roof this summer so I am doing research on all the ins and outs of home maintenance. There is a metal roof I am looking at that is a bit pricy but very durable and environentally friendly (it is 100% recyclable and made mostly from recycled metal). We'll see.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 23, 2019, 05:00:21 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Good advice that applies to the USA every bit as much as it applies to Australia. 👍

You don’t have to turn your house upside down to bring energy cost down.

This upside-down pyramid shows some recommended steps to increase energy efficiency. The most important thing to remember is that each step should be carried out in the correct order (1-9) to gain the maximum benefit. The first step is relatively easy, but very cost effective. As you go down the steps, the cost and difficulty of the retrofit increase.

Upside Down Retrofitting Energy Efficiency, driving down your heating and cooling energy costs systematically. ✨

 



Step 1:



Caulk above and below the window architraves and around internal door architraves, especially around the top of the door.

Exhaust Fan air leakage

Caulk the skirting boards to the floor.
Seal up any old wall vents with plaster or closed cell foam backing rod.
Seal up holes inside the kitchen, laundry and bathroom cupboards, where plumbing goes through the wall.
Seal up hidden holes behind fridge, dishwasher and oven.
If you have ducted heating, find the return grill, take it off the wall and inspect and seal the cavity behind it.
In areas, you can reach, inspect the insulation for gaps and compression (under the floor, in the ceiling space.)  Insulation works best with perfect coverage.

Step 2:



swampy air leakageDraught-proof your exhaust fans in the toilet (Install a flap that opens when the air is exhausted), bathroom and kitchen, and make sure they are ducted to the outside. At the same time put in place supply air vents, which will allow the exhaust fans to operate efficiently.
Install quality window and doors seals/weather stripping, and make sure the bottom of all external doors have a draught stopper device.  Go to our webshop for door and window seals.

Step 3:

Cover up all evaporative cooler vents during the winter heating period. Open vents act like chimneys during the winter and suck the warm air from the house.  Better yet, have your evaporative cooler removed entirely, and install some localised inverter split systems for cooling.

Step 4:Box Air conditioner Air leakage



Remove old box (wall) air conditioners. They are grossly inefficient and leak lots of air.  Use split systems for Heating & Cooling, and when they are being installed, ensure the contractor understands that all the penetrations need to be made airtight.

Step 5:

Use expandable foam (in a can) to seal the internal wall cavity from inside the attic space.  Also, check gaps and holes in cavity sliding door pockets from above.  Internal wall sliding doors can contribute to significant air leakage.

Step 6:

Use Spray Polyurethane Foam to seal and insulate under the floorboards. This is not a DIY job, but make sure the installer also covers the bottom of external walls to prevent wall insulation from falling.  Also, ensure the installer is reputable.

Step 7:

There are installers capable of insulating existing external walls with loose insulation. It’s non-intrusive and very effective. Unfortunately, this is not a job for the DIY person.
Replace single glazed windows with double or triple glazed.

Step 8:



Uninsulated corner/corniceTight, well-sealed homes need proper ventilation to keep adequate indoor air quality. Consider the installation of a whole house mechanical ventilation system. (Energy Recovery Ventilation System)

They offer:

Filter Dust
Filter Pollen
Guarantee level of CO2 in Living areas
Recover the temperature of the stale air leaving the living space into the new fresh air coming in.

Step 9:

Install double or triple glazed windows.  Ensure the following:

► The gap between panes should be between 10-14mm at least.  Any gap smaller or wider impacts on glazing performance.
► The spacer in between the panes is foam and not steel or aluminium
► The window frame is made of wood or thermally broken aluminium
► If you can afford it, get Low-E Glass
► Once installed caulk around architraves.


Undertaking all nine steps will result in the ultimate energy efficient house, but rest assure that each step will bring with it some tangible benefits including lower energy bills! 

https://efficiencymatrix.com/upside-residential-energy-efficiency-retrofit/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 01, 2018, 03:08:17 pm »

Turning Taiwan's Trash Into Treasure

We have seen buildings made from recycled materials-- but this is 3 stories high!  :o 👍


The EcoARK Pavilion in Taiwan is built largely out of recycled plastic bottles, about 1.5 million of them, making it the world's first fully functional large scale plastic building.

It was the centerpiece for the Taipei International Flora Exposition that ran from November of 2010 until April of 2011.

It weighs 50 percent less than a conventional building, yet it is strong enough to withstand hurricanes, typhoons -- even fire!

The EcoARK pavilion is hailed as a new benchmark for the future of green buildings. It is astounding to see an experimental building on this massive scale, and consider the engineering and imagination that went into making this a viable and safe structure for the public.

If they make it work at this scale, imagine how much else can be done with these building techniques?

--Bibi Farber

This video was produced by the BBC during the construction phase.

http://www.nextworldtv.com/page/5702.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 04, 2018, 02:51:41 pm »



Zero-Energy Homes Are Ready for Mainstream Markets

October 2, 2018  |  By Alisa Petersen Michael Gartman

SNIPPET:

Zero-energy (ZE) homes—efficient homes that produce or procure as much renewable energy as they consume over the course of a year—are often marketed as luxury homes, only available to the select few that are willing to pay a significant premium to do the right thing for the environment. In keeping with this luxury perception, research shows these homes are often more comfortable and healthier than conventional homes for a variety of reasons. Mainstream media outlets have suggested cost premiums as high as 40 percent for sustainable real estate.

However, the economics for these homes have changed: ZE homes have quietly passed cost thresholds that make them not only good for the environment but also cost-effective. As the underlying technologies and design elements continue to improve and scale, these costs will continue to decline.

Read more:

https://www.rmi.org/zero-energy-homes-are-ready-for-mainstream-markets/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 04, 2018, 02:38:17 pm »



RMI RELEASES NEW VIDEO ON CARBON-FREE CITIES

Cities are at the forefront of climate change risk and opportunity. Over 9,000 cities are making climate commitments, but they will only get us so far and must be substantiated with on-the-ground solutions that enable cities to make rapid progress toward near-term decarbonization and put them on a path to full climate neutrality. RMI’s new Carbon-Free Cities video highlights work in four cities in Europe, China, India, and the US that are leading the efforts against climate change with innovative on-the-ground projects.

WATCH NOW:


Rocky Mountain Institute

Published on Sep 28, 2018

Cities are at the forefront of climate change risk and opportunity. Nearly 600 cities are making climate commitments, but they will only get us so far and must be substantiated with on-the-ground solutions that enable cities to make rapid progress toward near-term decarbonization, and put them on a path to full climate-neutrality.

The Carbon-Free City Handbook helps city staff implement climate policies and actions that resolutely place their communities on an aggressive path toward sustainable, low-carbon economies.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 14, 2018, 05:50:53 pm »




THE REPORT

Designers vs. Climate Change

Leading architects, designers, and urban planners are devising plans to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Are they our best hope for a brighter future?

Posted July 4, 2018

text by Meaghan O'Neill


SNIPPET:

For professionals like these, business as usual is simply outdated. In the U.S. today, buildings consume 39 percent of total energy used—higher than both the transportation (29 percent) and industrial (32 percent) sectors. But what if buildings—or even entire cities—could generate more energy than they used, clean the surrounding air and water, and even sequester carbon dioxide? The idea isn’t too far-fetched.

Technology to mitigate emissions already exists, is accessible, and can even be cost-effective. And small course corrections in our approach to the built environment could make a big a difference in emissions industry-wide. (Designing for resilience—that is, creating and protecting built environments that will withstand rising seas, more frequent and severe storms, and other effects of climate change—is also paramount.) According to Paul Hawken’s 2017 book Drawdown, if just 9.7 percent of new buildings were net-zero energy by 2050, global greenhouse gas emissions would be 7.1 gigatons lower. That’s equivalent to eliminating annual emissions from all livestock worldwide. Yet the biggest barrier to building greener buildings and cities may not be cost or political will, but simply inertia.

Top: A modern home by ZeroEnergy Design; Above: The interior of a barn renovated by ZeroEnergy Design. Photo: Eric Roth

“Designing a building to code is the worst possible building you could build,” says Horowitz. “We need to do better.” Considering fuel inputs, the entire lifecycle of a building and the future of the grid are essential factors, says Horowitz, a self-proclaimed “data literacy” advocate who joined the Architecture 2030 Challenge (a group with the goal to make all buildings and major renovations carbon-neutral by 2030) as a way to stay publicly accountable for all projects in her portfolio.

It’s also worth mentioning that building smaller, more efficient spaces would go a long way toward reducing our collective carbon footprint. In the 1950s, for example, the size of the average American home was about 1,700 square feet; today, it’s closer to 2,500 🐷 🐖.

Designing for Low Carbon Impact—and Human Beings

“Decisions we make as architects and engineers impact the land we build on for the next 100 years,” says Cara Carmichael, an engineer and environmental designer at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit organization that works to dissuade the use of fossil fuels. With the help of ZGF Architects, RMI recently built its 15,610-square-foot Innovation Center in Basalt, Colorado, to be a showcase of net-zero energy efficiency.


By using high-end windows and insulation, an airtight envelope, passive solar design, natural and efficient artificial lighting, automation and metering, natural ventilation, and photovoltaics, the building can produce more energy than it uses in a year. In cooler months, radiant heating delivers warm air where people need it most, instead of overheating low-use spaces (like ceilings and transitional areas). The result is a building that’s 74 percent more efficient than its average counterpart.

While advanced systems react to external weather and lighting conditions, people who occupy the building retain precise control over their micro-environments. Desk, ceiling, and even in-chair fans allow for personal adjustments. And while a sophisticated louver system creates shade as necessary—eliminating the need for air conditioning—individuals can open windows when they want fresh air. Because buildings like this champion low-tech methods (tight envelopes and LED lighting, for example) rather than high-tech mechanical systems, they can often be built at or near the same cost as a traditional building.

One key to success is the early integration of cross-disciplinary teams who can accurately predict how a building will perform over its lifecycle. “It’s not just a check-the-box thing,” says Carmichael, who collaborated with architects, engineers, land planners, solar and lighting experts, and contractors to crunch numbers from the get-go. “It’s a powerful tool to shape design.”

Net Zero, Passive House, and Living Buildings

Since the 1990s, various certifications, like the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, have emerged for healthier buildings with lower carbon impact. Now, Net Zero, Passive House, and Living Buildings labels are also helping designers create better spaces. Though specific criteria vary, they ultimately share several common goals: The design of built environments that use less fossil fuel energy, produce less pollution, and improve the well-being of people who use them.

Built in collaboration with the Miller Hull Partnership, the Bullitt Center in Seattle, a designated Living Building, is a net-positive energy building that uses photovoltaics to generate power. There’s no cooling system—windows automatically open and close—and it even employs six stories of composting toilets. In short, it operates like a natural system—always responding to its conditions.

Designer Jason McLennan explains Living Buildings in a TEDx talk.


To reduce their impacts significantly, such buildings implement these and other tools, including ground source heat pumps, smart thermostats, green roofs, and closed-loop water systems. While some features remain expensive to install, all are easy to acquire.

Several public and multi-unit Passive House projects are also pushing the efficiency envelope. In New York, the Perch Harlem, designed by architect Chris Benedict, consumes 90 percent less energy than a standard building and 75 percent less than similar new construction. “Making these projects happen—and quickly—at scale is really exciting,” says Horowitz, who has also worked on several multi-unit spaces. Elsewhere, entire communities are working toward net-zero energy goals. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, for example, plans are underway for all new buildings to be net-zero by 2040.

FULL ARTICLE:

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/designers-architects-take-on-climate-change


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2018, 02:20:13 pm »

I will do a bit of shameless plugging for the company. Here is a testimonial to one of our showcase systems. There is nothing modest here to see but it is the reality of what is pushing solar forward. 3 panels on a cabin might be noble in its austerity but those systems do lights some water pumping and a bit of refrigeration at best. This one is a grid zero system which uses the grid when it needs a boost but does not feed back to it.  Enjoy


Nice system, and what a nice testimonial! What's the output?

And the house. Wow. I'll never own anything that nice, I don't expect.

Investment banker? Gold miner?



I wrote this and lost it, so this is the Cliffs Notes version.

I picked this installer because I know someone who works there. Turns out they are a local company but are 100% Sunpower. The Texas franchise, entire state. They do Whole Foods and UT. Lots of high end installs. Their panels are engineered differently than any panel I've ever seen. Design improvements according to them. They claim almost zero hail problems in this hail prone area, which is impressive.

100% Micro-inverters. He said they just bought Enphase and would be using Enphase inverters going forward.


Any feedback on Sunpower?

The deal is excellent. But they have to achieve a certain efficiency level to get me the city rebate. That means I can't immediately put panels on the east facing roof. Because it would lower the efficiency of the entire system.

I'd have to do 43 panels on the south and west faces to max them and get the rebate. That's a 13.8 Kw system and it should cut my grid bill by about half, according to their estimate, and he says they hit it pretty close. I still get the federal tax credit too. That's much more of a subsidy (30%).

I can also get a federal tax credit on adding the additional lower output east-facing panels, which I can add as soon as I collect the rebate on the first install. I haven't yet seen numbers on how much that would add to the output.

They have stellar financing (2.9% for 12 years), so I can buy the 13.8Kw system with the same dollars I'm using to buy power. That seems like a no brainer. I'll max the east roof too, I think. I want to see how much it adds to the bill.

Stellar warranty from Sunpower, which also warrants the install (roof leaks included). They use Invisimount racking. 25 year warranty  on everything, 92% efficiency guaranteed in 25 years.

And once again, the federal tax credit is going away. Not for a couple of years I think, but with the cost of borrowing almost guaranteed to go up too, it looks like a good time to make this happen
.
sounds good. Do a websearch on the reviews of the enphase model they are selecting. They had some duds. I'll admit I'm biased as I had to replace 23 of them out of 40 on a nice old ladies roof this spring. That was 3 years ago though I'm sure they are back on their game now. Split roof partial shade micros are the way to go...

Will do. Thanks for your advice. It is greatly appreciated.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2018, 02:03:21 pm »


I will do a bit of shameless plugging for the company. Here is a testimonial to one of our showcase systems. There is nothing modest here to see but it is the reality of what is pushing solar forward. 3 panels on a cabin might be noble in its austerity but those systems do lights some water pumping and a bit of refrigeration at best. This one is a grid zero system which uses the grid when it needs a boost but does not feed back to it.  Enjoy


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 30, 2018, 09:36:12 pm »

Sorry David, but the term "rosy" has a connotation of not being real world. Why do you think I would assume otherwise? I do not get it.

I too love RMI. I am glad you share my respect for all the solutions they propose. I apologize if I misunderstood you. They want everybody to go electric. I do too. you said that was a "rosy" scenario. You then said you were going to follow a different path. What, exactly did I miss?
Regarding heating in the winter, my wife really likes our wood pellet stove.

You do not understand how radical that statement is.

When we got the house, it also came with electric baseboard heating, so the understanding was, we would be using that, and the wood pellet stove would get torn out eventually.  But she agreed to give it a try, and we ended up never using the the baseboard heating, only using a couple plug-in electric space heaters for a few hours about a dozen times when we would wake up to find the stove had gone out in the middle of the night.



Oh, I understand how "radical" it seems to most people, all right; So does Amory Lovins.

Amory Lovins on Energy Efficency Breakthroughs (real world 90% plus waste reduction) that seem hard to believe:

Quote
"Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are protected by public incredulity."

JD, I have never had a baseboard spaceheater in my present  70' X 14 ' extremely well insulated and energy efficient Pine Grove Manufactured home. It came with a kerosene fired furnace. That furnace was a cash cow for the maintenance people that had a "silver" or a "gold" contract which included the "inspection" annually and lowered rates for (Help! NO HEAT!) home visits in a winter emergency. Those contracts were ignored by yours truly. Those contracts, as far back as the year 2000, were a MINIMUM of $200 a year. Those contracts DID NOT include fuel costs or routine electrode replacements, though they did include labor. BFD. They would punish you for not taking their contracts by charging you $90 just to come to your home in winter (NO HEAT!) BEFORE parts and labor. And THAT was if it was during a weekday during the day. Nights and weekends were, OF COURSE, extra.

I considered that highway robbery. I still do. I shudder to think what that pack of furnance maintenance crooks charge now.

And then there were those nice folks from Rowley Fuels who wanted my social security number so they could establish an account for me where coulld pay within 30 days of receiving the bill so I did not have to pay when the Kerosene was delivered. I had been their customer in the home I had rented right next to this one (before this one existed) for two years. I was not having any of that. So, I continued to pay on delivery with a check, even though it was a hassle when the weather was really bitter cold and snowy.

Since you do not understand how not having white privilege works, I won't bore you with details about how every dumbassed ignorant local yokel here is NOT asked for a social security number to be billed monthly for his fuel.

Any IDIOT can tell that the fuel company MUST be paid, or they won't keep providing you with fuel. So, you can pretend Rowley fuels was acting reasonably if you wish. They weren't. As I said before, since you have never been in my shoes, you cannot understand how clever Vermont style prejudices are directed towards brown folks like me and my wife. You and I have been down this road before. Believe what you will. I willl not argue with you. The irony for Rowley Fuels' selective social security requests Vermont fun and games "procedure" is that the dude with the "right color" that bought that trailer after I left eventually stiffed Rowley Fuels (I observed fuel deliveries when no one was home. The guy would leave the bill at the door). I know he eventually stiffed them because one winter (a few years later) the Rowley Fuels truck showed up at his home three times within a month after fuel delivery, without delivering fuel. No one would answer the door. A few months later a different outfit delivered the fuel. LOL 

Now I will return to the cost issue.

After the cost of Kerosene went to the moon (around 2003), PLUS some ungodly gauging by the furnance maintenance people, I decided that the furnace was not economically practical, when compared with small electric heaters.

Some background is in order. I had baseboard space heaters a long, long time ago in a two story Colonial (5357 Fortuna Parkway, Clay, New York - you can see it with Google Earth) I owned when I worked at Syracuse TRACON (1978-1982). They've got a pool now. I didn't, but I planted those trees 🌳 🌳in the back .  I also planted two blue spruce 🌲🌲 in the front as wind breaks but the new owners chopped them down around 2002 👎.  I supplemented that incredibly expensive (0.11 per kWh back THEN!) electrical heat with a couple of cords of wood (I would buy annually as logs and saw and split myself) with fireplace heating.

Before anybody jumps in and tells me how fireplace heating is "inefficient" because you actually lose more heat up the chimney than you get from the wood while you are faked out into believing otherwise by the radiant heat from the flames, let me explain that I had an insert in the fireplace with pipes and and tempered glass doors. The heatilator gizmo convected cooler air from the family room into the pipes that fed the air out the upper part of the unit back into the room.

I know how to make a fireplace efficient, even if most people don't. I know how to avoid creosote issues and chimney hot spots too.

Where were we? Right, the kerosene furnace is more thermodynamically efficient than electric heating (WHEN MAINTENANCE, LABOR, PARTS AND BUSH FUEL PRICE SHOCKS ARE IGNORED).

As of 2004, after a winter where a (Help! NO HEAT!) rather expensive maintenance guy almost killed us by setting the electrodes so poorly that some unprejudiced Vermonter with a conscience on the street (DAYS LATER!) stopped and warned us that our stack was all black and billowing black smoke (NO, complaining to the maintenance people did not help. NO, they did not reimburse us for the cost of that visit. YES, we had to pay for ANOTHER visit where a different dude set the electrode gap properly. ). I said, THAT'S IT! I'M DONE WITH THIS CRAP!

We went electric with portable heaters. We heated more ourselves than all 980 square feet of the home.

Yeah, it's not as comfortable as the WASTEFUL PIG HABIT of keeping he house toasty, which is the customary American way. Yeah, I used to do that. Yeah, it should not be done. Yeah, we need to reduce ourselves. Yeah, though it turned out to be more efficient (used LESS ENERGY) than the Kerosene CRAP furnace, I switched so I could save MONEY, not energy.

We do not DO long baseboard space heaters. They are STUPID. They are INEFFICIENT. If you have them, THROW THEM AWAY.

JD, you are a permaculture guy. I suggest you take a HARD LOOK at WHERE those wood chip pellets, that you THINK are coming from waste shrups of shavings or whatever, are REALLY coming from. THAT IS, they are DESTROYING old growth forests for those "efficient" wood pellets! If your supplier has sworn on a stack of Bibles that they do not get their wood from virgin or old growth forests, they are LYING to you. 

Now, with the Vornado use a phenomenon that they poorly understood in the past, a type of air swirl is created that electrically heats with much LESS energy than before.

Go 100% ELECTRIC ZONE Heating, JD. If you can get that juice from solar panels, so much the better, but stop using wood for heat and/or gas for cooking. It's BAD for the biosphere. It provides profits to people that do not give a rat's ass about future generations.

The only one that can claim a lick of sense in continuing to burn wood for heat here is David B. because he harvests it himself, PERIOD.

Anyone that tells you that hydrocarbon heating is more energy efficient than ZONE electrical resistance heating is cherry picking convenient facts and ignoring inconvenient realities of the VAST amount of energy required just to GET THAT HYDROCARBON FROM THE WELL TO THE REFINERY TO STRIP OUT THE OXYGEN TO THEN GO THROUGH THE CRACKING TOWERS TO THE STORAGE TANKS TO THE TRUCK TO THE SUPPLIER TO YOUR HOUSE where, of course, Amerikans bask in high energy density/enthalpy of hydrocarbons for heat and poo-poo those ugly, inefficient, fire hazard, baby killer (you get the idea) electric heaters.  ::)

The fact that ONE furnace requires MUCH MORE energy to manufacture than that needed to manufacture the TOTAL amount of ZONE electric heaters you will need for about FIFTY YEARS OR SO, is somehow not part of the "efficiency" calculations.  ::)

The fact that ONE furnace costs MUCH MORE MONEY than the TOTAL amount of ZONE electric heaters you will need for about FIFTY YEARS OR SO, is somehow not part of the "cost" calculations.  ::)

The FACT that electric heaters are maintenance free versus furnace ANNUAL maintenance inspection costs plus $100 (plus $) winter visits for NO HEAT and labor and parts, are not part of the "cost comparison" calculations.  ::)

Finally, there is one DETAIL that I love to bring up. If the igniter/electrode assemply is not tuned EXACTLY RIGHT, you don't get complete combustion. The electrode gap gets out of spec regularly. Most people don't get it adjusted (unless black smoke is billowing out your stack, of course  :P) more than once a YEAR, if they are thorough. Many have them checked only when the smoke looks strange, NOT even annually.

THEREFORE, any fossil fueler that parades the enthalpy of Kerosene as a justification for using that hydrocarbon CRAP over electric resistance heating is pushing ERRONEOUS energy density figures. Those Infernal electrodes start losing spec within two months of having their gap set. I KNOW. I watched my stack often (experience is the best teacher. :P). Those electrodes WEAR from HEAT in the combustion chamber of the furnace. Those electrodes have to be changed.

You NEVER have to change an electrical resistance on an electric heater unless your dog ate a portion of it.

Burning Kerosene is STUPID. Using electric ZONE small heaters with Vornado swirl technology is SMART.

I have done ALL the math on furnaces. They are NOT cost efective. The defenders of that hydrocarbon burning CRAP will argue until the cows come home about hydrocarbon high energy density/enthalpy and the "horrendous" efficiency losses using a resistance to heat with entail. They will yaba-daba-doo about how electricity is mostly produced by burning hydrocarbons, as if the OBVIOUS solution to that was not simply getting MORE electricity from Renewable Technology, NOT keeping on with the hydrocarbon horseshit!

I am SICK AND TIRED of the DUMBASSED GAME the proponents of this insane, unsustainble clusterfuck called hydrocarbon based civilization keep trying to play by defending the abysmal stupidity, as well as totally unjustified INEFFICIENCY, never mind the POLLUTION added on, of this SUICIDAL use of hydrocarbons. These IDIOTS are quiet as DEATH about the 174,000 PLUS gasolene fires in cars each year PLUS the 500 or so deaths each year, just in the USA, from CO poisoning CAUSED by using hydrocarbons for heat.

Quote
CO poisoning is the nation's leading cause of accidental poisoning deaths ☠️. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that about 500 people die due to CO poisoning annually. https://sf-fire.org/carbon-monoxide-facts

INSTEAD, these hydrocarboon hustlers wail and moan about those electric space heaters burning down houses and killing all those poor people that didn't use hydrocarbons to heat their home, like all good Germans Americans should. 😇

BULLSHIT! Vornado, and other types of top notch small area electric heaters have all sorts of failsafes now. They use air swirl fluid dynamics physics (NEW scientific knowledge pioneered by AMORY LOVINS!) that vastly improved efficiency. In addition, there are some other high tech type electric heaters, that, though above my budget, are even more efficient.

Yeah, I know I'm not going to convince that pack of stubborn hydrocarbon loving mules here of going fully electric. I get that. They are married to the past. That past is killing us. They DO NOT get that. I do.

The only downside, which I DO NOT consider a downside, but some bright bulb here certainly may consider it as a downside, is the water pipe risk of freezing. The furnace has ducts under the floor, next to the water pipes. The ducts, though insulated, stlll lose some heat that keeps the pipes well above freezing. So, since we switched to all electric nearly 15 years ago  ;D, we have to open the faucet a bit during the two most bitterly cold months here (January and February).

Anyone that claims hydrocarbon heating is more efficient than electrical resistance heating is married to the past and quoting inaccurate figures from old electrical use technology, as well as furnace efficiency figures based on complete combustion, something that does NOT happen for ten months out of the year, in addition to all the other vast amount of energy required to get that crap to your house.

Amory Lovins HAS DONE ALL THE MATH. Electric heating is NOT "radical". Electric heating is the only truly sustainable way to heat, as long as we get that juice from Renewables. See below how the Rocky Mountain Institute has PROVEN that electrical resistance heating is the tecchnology everyone should embrace NOW.

Quote
  The Innovation Center redefines how occupants experience and control their individual comfort. Integrative design eliminated mechanical cooling and reduced the heating system to a small, distributed electric-resistance system.

Most buildings rely on blowing hot or cold air using large combined HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems to maintain a set temperature, which wastes energy and actually has little impact on how comfortable a person feels. In contrast, the Innovation Center addresses all six factors that impact individual comfort, requiring dramatically less energy.

Six Factors that Influence Comfort

The Innovation Center’s comfort strategy is guided by the following factors, which were delivered according to listed design strategies:

Air velocity: Fans overhead, USB and standing fans, and fans in personal heating and cooling chairs

Surface temperature:
Superinsulating windows and envelope, thermal mass, bio-phase-change materials in walls and lightshelves, predictive preconditioning by charging thermal mass with a night flush, and personal heating and cooling chairs

Air temperature: Natural ventilation, operable windows, distributed, radiant heating mats in floors, and aggressive heat recovery (90% efficient) to preheat ventilation air

Clothing level:
Adaptive dress code for staff and event attendees

Metabolic rate: Stand-up desk options

Humidity: Not actively controlled

Technologies to Deliver Comfort

Several technologies are used in the Innovation Center to deliver thermal comfort, using the least amount of energy possible including:

Electric floor mats provide targeted, radiant heat to occupants and are only used on the coldest mornings.

Personalized heating/cooling chairs provide occupants with individual thermal controls by delivering heating and cooling directly to their body with only 14 watts in heating mode, and four watts in ventilation mode.

Personal USB fans that plug into computers for each occupant. Good airflow, (>120 fpm) enables air temperatures to be four degrees F warmer without making occupants uncomfortable.

High-efficiency ceiling fans that use only two to 30 watts depending on speed settings, exceeding ENERGY STAR requirements by 450–750%

 https://rmi.org/our-work/buildings/pathways-to-zero/scaling-zero-net-carbon/rmi-innovation-center/thermal-comfort/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 05:40:09 pm »

Bananas 🍌 at 8,000 feet in colorado without hydrocarbon heat 1982-2009!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 05:29:51 pm »

EcoWatch

By Natural Resources Defense Council

Jun. 25, 2018 11:52AM EST

Clean Electric Heating Already Cost-Effective for Many  

By Pierre Delforge

A new report bolsters the case for widespread electrification of heat ⚡  and hot water ⚡ in buildings.

The report by the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)  finds that replacing onsite use of fossil fuels in buildings by efficient and flexible electric ⚡ heating is a key component of the deep decarbonization necessary to limit global average temperature increase to 2°C.

It also concludes that if our country is to reach decarbonization goals, it will require eliminating most or all of the pollution generated by the burning of fossil fuels in furnaces and water heaters, along with other measures.

The report reinforces the findings of an earlier NRDC study, which cites broad electrification of buildings, factories and vehicles as among the ambitious but achievable actions needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 and stave off the worst effects of climate change.

NRDC's report, America's Clean Energy Frontier: The Pathway to a Safer Climate Future, envisions roughly 90 percent of U.S. residential and commercial buildings to use electric space- and water-heating appliances by 2050, up from just under half today. It also calls for boosting the use of electric vehicles so that they represent about 30 percent of new vehicle sales by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050.

Both reports highlight the benefits of using electricity from an increasingly clean grid in place of fossil fuels like natural gas for space and water heating, an often overlooked, but critical path for reducing carbon pollution.

RMI's report, The Economics of Electrifying Buildings, notes that electrification ⚡ can deliver cost savings, especially for new home construction, oil and propane customers, and homes that bundle electrification with rooftop solar.

When owners of existing homes install or replace an air conditioner at the same time as they electrify heating, electrification costs roughly the same as a new gas furnace and A/C. And this is when home electrification is still avant-garde, and early adopters pay premium prices for equipment, installation and electricity use. As the market develops, competition increases, and utilities offer electric rates that better reflect the cost of supplying energy at different times of day, electrification costs will come down, making it the more cost-effective option for most Americans.

Electric space and water heating also can be managed to shift energy consumption in time, aiding the cost-effective integration of large amounts of renewable energy onto the grid, the report notes. This can further reduce carbon pollution and generate utility bill savings. This is already becoming important in states like California which have committed to ramping up their use of clean energy like solar and wind power.

Both reports are must reads for state and local officials who have moved to pick up the slack on climate action in the absence of Washington's leadership in confronting the crisis. The authors have the following recommendations for utilities, regulators and policymakers:

1. Prioritize rapid electrification of buildings currently using propane and heating oil in space and water heating.

2. Stop supporting the expansion of the natural gas distribution system, including for new construction.

3. Bundle demand flexibility programs, new rate designs, and energy efficiency with electrification initiatives.

4. Expand demand flexibility options for existing electric space and water heating loads.

5. Update energy efficiency resource standards and related goals to account for total energy reduction across fuels (fossil fuels and electricity).

California, long a clean energy trendsetter, has already taken steps to promote electrification in transportation and in buildings.

But more can—and must—be done.

California is considering legislation that would promote building decarbonization.

Assembly Bill 3232, which has passed the Assembly and is now before the Senate, would require the California Energy Commission to assess how best to reduce emissions from residential and commercial buildings by at least 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030.

Senate Bill 1477, which has passed the Senate and is before the Assembly, would require the energy commission to develop two programs: the first to provide incentives for designers and builders to innovate and build near-zero emissions new buildings; the second to spur the market development of clean heating technologies such as high-efficiency heat pumps.

The fossil fuels and the electricity we use in buildings are responsible for roughly one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and natural gas and propane burned for space and water heating are the largest source of those emissions.

Nationally, the burning of fossil fuels for space and water heating in buildings generates 560 million tons of carbon pollution each year, a tenth of total U.S. emissions, the RMI study notes.

Substituting electricity for fossil fuels to heat homes and businesses could cut U.S. carbon pollution by 10 percent, the RMI study says.

But building electrification faces challenges, such as low consumer awareness of the benefits and availability of the technology, limited contractor expertise and higher upfront costs for high-efficiency products.

SB 1477 would help reduce costs by developing the market for clean heating technologies in the way that California's Solar Initiative has driven the growth of solar in the state. As RMI's analysis points out, the cost of new heating technology such as heat pumps will decline as the market grows.

As RMI's and NRDC's reports spell out, electrification offers significant opportunities to cut harmful pollution, and reduce utility bills, two critical opportunities to help mitigate California's air pollution and housing affordability challenges.

We now need to turn the opportunities into action.

https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-electric-heating-2581218126.html
RMI press releases are always so rosy. Its very hard to do heating on renewables in the more northern climes. The mismatch between sun hours and heat requirements is hard to overcome. Banked hydro and massive wind deployment but still.  The new generation of heat pumps hold promise but it locks you into a grid dependant net metered scenario.  I dislike grid tied. It has its uses but you have to buy in to all the losses and costs of a large grid and it does not foster conservation or resiliency.  I will be moving to solar electric hot water for summertime usage within two years Far too much solar in the summer so use it or loose it. For winter time heat I'll stick to my wood stove.
Cheers,   David

As long as you do what you are presently doing to keep your family happy and healthy, you are a credit to the human species in regard to prudent energy use. That said, remember that most people live in urban environments where they cannot go out and chop some wood, as you can. I live in a wooded area and am prohibited from touching any tree in my rented lot for any reason.

In regard to your view that RMI likes to paint "rosy" scenarios, I beg to differ. That group of scientists as as hard nosed as they come. Their Chief Scientist, Amory Lovins (he is a physicist), way back in the 1980's, designed and built his own fluid measurement instruments, Said instrument data forced the college textbooks on fluid dynamics to be rewritten. The math formulas were wrong. Amory Lovins proved they were wrong. Mechanical Engineers, because they used these faulty math formulas to design the air conditioner compressors and radiators and pipes that fed gasses or liquids into and out of machinery, from giant power plants to lawn mowers, had inadvertently reduced their efficiency by several percentage points. 👎 

Please do NOT say that RMI is painting "rosy" scenarios, David. This society owes RMI BIG TIME for many improvements in refrigeration technology and pipe design, never mind their massive contributions to insulation efficiency in buildings.

RMI did the reinsulating and heating and cooling efficiency maximizing work on the Empire State Building some years back. That building now saves well over one million dollars a year in energy costs. That isn't "rosy", that is real. When Amory Lovins makes the claim that our society can run with 80% less energy, that is not based on happy talk or hopium speculation, it is based on hard nosed scientific, real world analysis of how energy is used and abused in our civilization. It's not "rosy scenario" talk.

Here's what Amory Lovins says about the typical reaction to his claims:

Quote
Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are protected by public incredulity. - Amory Lovins

In order for you to know how serious, how detailed, how thorough and how reality based Amory Lovins and his Associates at the Rocky Mountain Institute are, please copy these videos and watch them when you aren't busy. Your Expert Crafstman comprehensive knowledge of building techniques, energy use and insulation materials, as well level of unnecessary energy use inefficiency our civilization operates under will get some good, money making tips from watching these videos. Amory Lovins knows his applied energy use science.



You misunderstand. I love RMI, get all the emails, watch the videos etc. That is not what I mean by rosy. Their numbers always work they are always right on.  This would be a long drawn out series of posts so I won't go into it if you do not see it yourself. No time, no energy.
cheers, David

Sorry David, but the term "rosy" has a connotation of not being real world. Why do you think I would assume otherwise? I do not get it.

I too love RMI. I am glad you share my respect for all the solutions they propose. I apologize if I misunderstood you. They want everybody to go electric. I do too. You said that was a "rosy" scenario. You then said you were going to follow a different path. What, exactly did I miss?
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 04:43:27 pm »

EcoWatch

By Natural Resources Defense Council

Jun. 25, 2018 11:52AM EST

Clean Electric Heating Already Cost-Effective for Many  

By Pierre Delforge

A new report bolsters the case for widespread electrification of heat ⚡  and hot water ⚡ in buildings.

The report by the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)  finds that replacing onsite use of fossil fuels in buildings by efficient and flexible electric ⚡ heating is a key component of the deep decarbonization necessary to limit global average temperature increase to 2°C.

It also concludes that if our country is to reach decarbonization goals, it will require eliminating most or all of the pollution generated by the burning of fossil fuels in furnaces and water heaters, along with other measures.

The report reinforces the findings of an earlier NRDC study, which cites broad electrification of buildings, factories and vehicles as among the ambitious but achievable actions needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 and stave off the worst effects of climate change.

NRDC's report, America's Clean Energy Frontier: The Pathway to a Safer Climate Future, envisions roughly 90 percent of U.S. residential and commercial buildings to use electric space- and water-heating appliances by 2050, up from just under half today. It also calls for boosting the use of electric vehicles so that they represent about 30 percent of new vehicle sales by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050.

Both reports highlight the benefits of using electricity from an increasingly clean grid in place of fossil fuels like natural gas for space and water heating, an often overlooked, but critical path for reducing carbon pollution.

RMI's report, The Economics of Electrifying Buildings, notes that electrification ⚡ can deliver cost savings, especially for new home construction, oil and propane customers, and homes that bundle electrification with rooftop solar.

When owners of existing homes install or replace an air conditioner at the same time as they electrify heating, electrification costs roughly the same as a new gas furnace and A/C. And this is when home electrification is still avant-garde, and early adopters pay premium prices for equipment, installation and electricity use. As the market develops, competition increases, and utilities offer electric rates that better reflect the cost of supplying energy at different times of day, electrification costs will come down, making it the more cost-effective option for most Americans.

Electric space and water heating also can be managed to shift energy consumption in time, aiding the cost-effective integration of large amounts of renewable energy onto the grid, the report notes. This can further reduce carbon pollution and generate utility bill savings. This is already becoming important in states like California which have committed to ramping up their use of clean energy like solar and wind power.

Both reports are must reads for state and local officials who have moved to pick up the slack on climate action in the absence of Washington's leadership in confronting the crisis. The authors have the following recommendations for utilities, regulators and policymakers:

1. Prioritize rapid electrification of buildings currently using propane and heating oil in space and water heating.

2. Stop supporting the expansion of the natural gas distribution system, including for new construction.

3. Bundle demand flexibility programs, new rate designs, and energy efficiency with electrification initiatives.

4. Expand demand flexibility options for existing electric space and water heating loads.

5. Update energy efficiency resource standards and related goals to account for total energy reduction across fuels (fossil fuels and electricity).

California, long a clean energy trendsetter, has already taken steps to promote electrification in transportation and in buildings.

But more can—and must—be done.

California is considering legislation that would promote building decarbonization.

Assembly Bill 3232, which has passed the Assembly and is now before the Senate, would require the California Energy Commission to assess how best to reduce emissions from residential and commercial buildings by at least 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030.

Senate Bill 1477, which has passed the Senate and is before the Assembly, would require the energy commission to develop two programs: the first to provide incentives for designers and builders to innovate and build near-zero emissions new buildings; the second to spur the market development of clean heating technologies such as high-efficiency heat pumps.

The fossil fuels and the electricity we use in buildings are responsible for roughly one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and natural gas and propane burned for space and water heating are the largest source of those emissions.

Nationally, the burning of fossil fuels for space and water heating in buildings generates 560 million tons of carbon pollution each year, a tenth of total U.S. emissions, the RMI study notes.

Substituting electricity for fossil fuels to heat homes and businesses could cut U.S. carbon pollution by 10 percent, the RMI study says.

But building electrification faces challenges, such as low consumer awareness of the benefits and availability of the technology, limited contractor expertise and higher upfront costs for high-efficiency products.

SB 1477 would help reduce costs by developing the market for clean heating technologies in the way that California's Solar Initiative has driven the growth of solar in the state. As RMI's analysis points out, the cost of new heating technology such as heat pumps will decline as the market grows.

As RMI's and NRDC's reports spell out, electrification offers significant opportunities to cut harmful pollution, and reduce utility bills, two critical opportunities to help mitigate California's air pollution and housing affordability challenges.

We now need to turn the opportunities into action.

https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-electric-heating-2581218126.html
RMI press releases are always so rosy. Its very hard to do heating on renewables in the more northern climes. The mismatch between sun hours and heat requirements is hard to overcome. Banked hydro and massive wind deployment but still.  The new generation of heat pumps hold promise but it locks you into a grid dependant net metered scenario.  I dislike grid tied. It has its uses but you have to buy in to all the losses and costs of a large grid and it does not foster conservation or resiliency.  I will be moving to solar electric hot water for summertime usage within two years Far too much solar in the summer so use it or loose it. For winter time heat I'll stick to my wood stove.
Cheers,   David

As long as you do what you are presently doing to keep your family happy and healthy, you are a credit to the human species in regard to prudent energy use. That said, remember that most people live in urban environments where they cannot go out and chop some wood, as you can. I live in a wooded area and am prohibited from touching any tree in my rented lot for any reason.

In regard to your view that RMI likes to paint "rosy" scenarios, I beg to differ. That group of scientists as as hard nosed as they come. Their Chief Scientist, Amory Lovins (he is a physicist), way back in the 1980's, designed and built his own fluid measurement instruments, Said instrument data forced the college textbooks on fluid dynamics to be rewritten. The math formulas were wrong. Amory Lovins proved they were wrong. Mechanical Engineers, because they used these faulty math formulas to design the air conditioner compressors and radiators and pipes that fed gasses or liquids into and out of machinery, from giant power plants to lawn mowers, had inadvertently reduced their efficiency by several percentage points. 👎 

Please do NOT say that RMI is painting "rosy" scenarios, David. This society owes RMI BIG TIME for many improvements in refrigeration technology and pipe design, never mind their massive contributions to insulation efficiency in buildings.

RMI did the reinsulating and heating and cooling efficiency maximizing work on the Empire State Building some years back. That building now saves well over one million dollars a year in energy costs. That isn't "rosy", that is real. When Amory Lovins makes the claim that our society can run with 80% less energy, that is not based on happy talk or hopium speculation, it is based on hard nosed scientific, real world analysis of how energy is used and abused in our civilization. It's not "rosy scenario" talk.

Here's what Amory Lovins says about the typical reaction to his claims:

Quote
Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are protected by public incredulity. - Amory Lovins

In order for you to know how serious, how detailed, how thorough and how reality based Amory Lovins and his Associates at the Rocky Mountain Institute are, please copy these videos and watch them when you aren't busy. Your Expert Crafstman comprehensive knowledge of building techniques, energy use and insulation materials, as well as your knowledge of the level of unnecessary energy use inefficiency our civilization operates under will get some good, money making tips from watching these videos. Amory Lovins knows his applied energy use science.



   Energy efficiency 1 Amory Lovins


Energy efficiency 2 Amory Lovins
Some Key points about "rocket science" t=4292
Energy efficiency 3

Energy efficiency 4


Energy efficiency 5


Bananas 🍌 at 8,000 feet in colorado without hydricarbon heat 1982-2009!

The next industrial revolution
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 26, 2018, 10:16:32 pm »

EcoWatch

By Natural Resources Defense Council

Jun. 25, 2018 11:52AM EST

Clean Electric Heating Already Cost-Effective for Many  

By Pierre Delforge

A new report bolsters the case for widespread electrification of heat ⚡  and hot water ⚡ in buildings.

The report by the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)  finds that replacing onsite use of fossil fuels in buildings by efficient and flexible electric ⚡ heating is a key component of the deep decarbonization necessary to limit global average temperature increase to 2°C.

It also concludes that if our country is to reach decarbonization goals, it will require eliminating most or all of the pollution generated by the burning of fossil fuels in furnaces and water heaters, along with other measures.

The report reinforces the findings of an earlier NRDC study, which cites broad electrification of buildings, factories and vehicles as among the ambitious but achievable actions needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 and stave off the worst effects of climate change.

NRDC's report, America's Clean Energy Frontier: The Pathway to a Safer Climate Future, envisions roughly 90 percent of U.S. residential and commercial buildings to use electric space- and water-heating appliances by 2050, up from just under half today. It also calls for boosting the use of electric vehicles so that they represent about 30 percent of new vehicle sales by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050.

Both reports highlight the benefits of using electricity from an increasingly clean grid in place of fossil fuels like natural gas for space and water heating, an often overlooked, but critical path for reducing carbon pollution.

RMI's report, The Economics of Electrifying Buildings, notes that electrification ⚡ can deliver cost savings, especially for new home construction, oil and propane customers, and homes that bundle electrification with rooftop solar.

When owners of existing homes install or replace an air conditioner at the same time as they electrify heating, electrification costs roughly the same as a new gas furnace and A/C. And this is when home electrification is still avant-garde, and early adopters pay premium prices for equipment, installation and electricity use. As the market develops, competition increases, and utilities offer electric rates that better reflect the cost of supplying energy at different times of day, electrification costs will come down, making it the more cost-effective option for most Americans.

Electric space and water heating also can be managed to shift energy consumption in time, aiding the cost-effective integration of large amounts of renewable energy onto the grid, the report notes. This can further reduce carbon pollution and generate utility bill savings. This is already becoming important in states like California which have committed to ramping up their use of clean energy like solar and wind power.

Both reports are must reads for state and local officials who have moved to pick up the slack on climate action in the absence of Washington's leadership in confronting the crisis. The authors have the following recommendations for utilities, regulators and policymakers:

1. Prioritize rapid electrification of buildings currently using propane and heating oil in space and water heating.

2. Stop supporting the expansion of the natural gas distribution system, including for new construction.

3. Bundle demand flexibility programs, new rate designs, and energy efficiency with electrification initiatives.

4. Expand demand flexibility options for existing electric space and water heating loads.

5. Update energy efficiency resource standards and related goals to account for total energy reduction across fuels (fossil fuels and electricity).

California, long a clean energy trendsetter, has already taken steps to promote electrification in transportation and in buildings.

But more can—and must—be done.

California is considering legislation that would promote building decarbonization.

Assembly Bill 3232, which has passed the Assembly and is now before the Senate, would require the California Energy Commission to assess how best to reduce emissions from residential and commercial buildings by at least 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030.

Senate Bill 1477, which has passed the Senate and is before the Assembly, would require the energy commission to develop two programs: the first to provide incentives for designers and builders to innovate and build near-zero emissions new buildings; the second to spur the market development of clean heating technologies such as high-efficiency heat pumps.

The fossil fuels and the electricity we use in buildings are responsible for roughly one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and natural gas and propane burned for space and water heating are the largest source of those emissions.

Nationally, the burning of fossil fuels for space and water heating in buildings generates 560 million tons of carbon pollution each year, a tenth of total U.S. emissions, the RMI study notes.

Substituting electricity for fossil fuels to heat homes and businesses could cut U.S. carbon pollution by 10 percent, the RMI study says.

But building electrification faces challenges, such as low consumer awareness of the benefits and availability of the technology, limited contractor expertise and higher upfront costs for high-efficiency products.

SB 1477 would help reduce costs by developing the market for clean heating technologies in the way that California's Solar Initiative has driven the growth of solar in the state. As RMI's analysis points out, the cost of new heating technology such as heat pumps will decline as the market grows.

As RMI's and NRDC's reports spell out, electrification offers significant opportunities to cut harmful pollution, and reduce utility bills, two critical opportunities to help mitigate California's air pollution and housing affordability challenges.

We now need to turn the opportunities into action.

https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-electric-heating-2581218126.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 05, 2018, 04:51:34 pm »



Frying Pan Tower: Coast Guard Light Station-Turned Adventure Bed and Breakfast Up for Auction

May 3, 2018 by Mike Schuler

The light tower was built in Louisiana and brought by barge to Frying Pan Shoals in 1966. Photo: Frying Pan Tower

For decades, the Frying Pan Tower, located some 34 miles off the coast of North Carolina, functioned as a U.S. Coast Guard light station, serving as an aid to navigation and alerting ships to the shallow shoals just beyond.

But after more than 25 years of continuous operation, the light station went dark in 1992 and slowly fell into disrepair. That is until 2010 when North Carolina resident, Richard Neal, purchased the tower from the U.S. government and spent the following years turning it into an “adventure” bed & breakfast.

Starting today, however, Neal has put the tower up for auction to the highest bidder, with a minimum starting bid of just $10,000. 👀  :o

But before you whip out your checkbook (or PayPal), there are a few things to keep in mind.

The Frying Pan Tower is accessible only by helicopter or boat. It does get hit by hurricanes. And, I would assume, it requires constant upkeep. Other than that, it looks homey. You’ll have plenty of privacy. It’s located in waters just beyond Federal and State limits so you won’t have to pay taxes or adhere to U.S. laws.

There’s also has full kitchen, high-speed internet, cold and hot running water (filtered rainwater, no water bills!), solar and wind power, backup generators, and redundant communications, among many other amenities. It’s also located in 50-feet of clear blue water near the Gulf Stream, so it’s a great place to take a dip or catch your dinner  😋  ;D right from the deck.

As far as the bed and breakfast part goes, Frying Pan Tower offers 3-day, 2-night packages for up to 8 to 12 guests in 8 guest rooms each with their own ocean view (obviously).

Here’s more about the tower provided in the auction description:

The light tower is a steel oil drilling platform, known as a “Texas Tower” on top of four steel legs that has been modified to be used as a lighthouse. The eighty (80) foot light tower is located approximately 32 miles southeast of Bald Head Island, NC and marks the shoals at the confluence of the Cape Fear River and the Atlantic Ocean. The platform consists of a main floor is a living area of approximately 5,000 square ft. that includes 5 twin bedrooms, 3 queen bedrooms, a crew room with 3 twin beds, stainless steel kitchen, workshop/hoisting area, storage rooms, laundry, recreation area and 2 toilet facilities. The top is the steel I-beam supported helipad. The corner light tower houses an internal staircase, a lantern room at the 126′ level and an observation platform for equipment at 134′ above the water. The maintenance level provides access to the steel truss structure and I-beam cross members, holding tanks and an emergency ladder to the water on the North East leg.

Still sound good to you? More information about the auction can be found here or check out the video below:


http://gcaptain.com/now-is-your-chance-to-own-the-frying-pan-tower-a-former-light-station-turned-adventure-bed-breakfast/

UPDATE on bids:

May 4, 2018

HIGH BID: $33,333.33

BIDDER ID: xxxxxxxxxxxx1203V

The Frying Pan Tower is located out of sight of land in 50 ft. of clear blue Atlantic waters (lat & lon  33°29′N 77°35′W) With the Gulf Stream close by, we often are pleasantly warm when it's still cold onshore and mild when it's too hot to walk on the sand at the beach so don’t let a great weekend go to waste, come be part of history!

http://www.fptower.com
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 26, 2018, 07:05:22 pm »

🌟 DIY dome homes built from AirCrete are an affordable & ecofriendly option

Derek Markham

October 6, 2017



Informative article with video and graphics:


https://www.treehugger.com/tiny-houses/diy-dome-homes-made-aircrete-affordable-ecofriendly-option.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 04, 2018, 03:10:48 pm »

Photo by Archi0780 of earth house estate in Dietikon made by Peter Vetsch (CC BY-SA license)

Earth-Sheltered Home Plans — Modern Designs, Earth Lodges, Prehistory, & Skara Brae
t
February 3rd, 2018 by James Ayre

SNIPPET:

Earth-sheltered homes are homes built using soil or substrate of some kind as external thermal mass to provide insulation, and various climate control properties. To put that in plain language, earth-sheltered homes use dirt, rock, and vegetation to protect the home from the elements.

Such homes can offer significant advantages over conventional approaches when it comes to reducing heating/cooling costs and needs, indoor temperature variation, and durability (ability to remain unaffected by high winds and storms).

Image by Archi0780 (CC BY-SA license)

Designs can vary quite a bit — with homes being either nearly completely encased in earth and underground (as in traditional quiggly/kekuli designs in Pacific North America); built above ground but completely encased in thick earth (like traditional Plains and Eastern Woodlands Indian “Earth Lodges”); embedded into cliffs and caves; built as wattle-and-daub homes set several feet into the ground; amongst a great many other options.

As alluded to above, earth-sheltered homes are found all over the world and likely go very, very far back in time … possibly even further than “home sapiens” do — as seems to be true of long-houses, seaworthy ships, and temporary yurt-style structures, amongst other technologies (needles/sewing, jewelry, blades of various kinds, highly specialized fishing hooks and traps, etc.).

Image via Good Home Designs

Full article with more pictures:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/03/earth-sheltered-home-plans-modern-designs-earth-lodges-prehistory-skara-brae/

Quote
Barry Alternative Fact Covfefe

The hype behind earthship homes is greater then their performance, humidity is often very high, they gravitate towards 10C (nicer then freezing winter but much cooler then humans are accustomed to even in summer), they are expensive to build, they can be very maintenance intensive (and leaky), the thermal mass sucks heat away from the home and so forth. Thats not even getting in to the Radon concerns.

Green Building Advisor has an article called "Earthship Hype and Earthship Reality" that explains the hype rather well.

agelbert > Barry Alternative Fact Covfefe

The ambient temperature of a home reliant on passive geothermal, such as the Earthship type home, is dependent on the latitude and altitude of the terrain they are built at. One cannot use broad brush criticism on this type of construction. In some places it is a good idea and in some places it is a bad idea.

In order to be truly objective in doing a cost benefit analysis of passive geothermal advantaged homes versus more conventional above ground homes, you must compare the thermal conductivity of the materials used for the structures.

For example, at an outside air temperature of 25C (77F),
earth is 1.50,
ground or soil/moist area 1.00,
ground, plaster/sand 0.71,
water 0.58,
ground or soil/dry area 0.50,
sand/dry 0.25,
plywood 0.13,
straw slab insulation 0.09,
and 0.024 for air.

Source:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

The value for air is a bit misleading. The fact is that air must not be moving for that value to be of any use for insulation. Air around an above ground structure is always moving, thereby drawing heat away from the structure immersed in the air. The cost of insulating in air must be compared with the cost of insulating with other materials like straw slab with earth berming, which has such great value as insulation because it does trap air in cellulosic material.

It is true that moving earth around a home costs a lot of money. That alone jacks up the price of an "Earthship" type home above what most people can afford, as you have noted. There are other high cost issues like meeting code requirements for a home that is, like a basement, in need of a certain number of exit areas in case of fire.

However, there are potentially huge savings to the earth bermmed or buried home due to reduced insurance costs. These homes, provided they are above any flood prone areas, are virtually impervious to storms which produce high winds, torrential rain, lightning and tornados.

Global Warming will visit that type of damage to above ground homes with increasing frequency and consequent cost. So, the added security the passive geothermal advantaged homes boast will increase their popularity.

All that said, provided you build your earth bermed or buried home in an area that geothermally works to give you 61 degrees F (about 16C) year round, instead of 50F (10 C), the energy required for heating and cooling will be far less than that of a conventional above ground home, regardless of how well the above ground home insulated.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 03, 2018, 04:47:50 pm »

Tesla To Sell Solar Products In 800 Home Depot Stores

February 1st, 2018 by Steve Hanley

SNIPPET:

With 2,200 stores, Home Depot is one of the largest retailers in America. By July of this year, 800 of those stores will have high-profile, 12 foot high, 7 foot wide displays advertising Tesla kiosks located inside. Staffed by Tesla employees , they will feature Tesla solar products — solar panels, rooftop solar systems, and Powerwall storage batteries. Bloomberg reports some locations will also have interactive demonstrations of how the products work.

Full article:✨

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/01/tesla-sell-solar-products-800-home-depot-stores/



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 19, 2018, 01:06:21 pm »

Nomadic home prototype built out of a shipping container (Video)

Kimberley Mok (@kimberleymok)

Design / Green Architecture

January 18, 2018

SNIPPET:

© Cocoon Modules

Repurposing shipping containers for human habitation is a bit of a hit-or-miss affair: sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes it doesn't.

Nevertheless, that hasn't stopped designers from trying. Natural mattress company Coco-mat of Greece (previously) teamed up with Greek shipping container architecture startup Cocoon Modules to create this fresh-looking prototype for an earthquake-resistant modular home that features smart, energy-efficient technology.

As the Cocoon Modules design team explains:

Our modules are more than 15% cheaper than the prefabricated construction in Greece and 30% cheaper than the traditional [construction]. They can be built within weeks in designated industrial spaces and can then be transported and placed on site. By using the modularity of the container we create ergonomic spaces of great design that can be expanded as LEGOs do.


full article with several pictures:

https://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/shipping-container-home-cocoon-modules-coco-mat.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 17, 2017, 02:20:06 pm »




Swiss Solar Decathlon House Scores a Perfect 100 in Engineering

October 16, 2017

By Renewable Energy World Editors
   
Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Daniel Simmons today announced the winning team of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Decathlon 2017 in Denver, Colorado. The Swiss Team took first place overall by designing, building, and operating the house that best blended smart energy production with innovation, market potential, and energy and water efficiency. The University of Maryland took second place followed by the University of California, Berkeley and University of Denver team in third place.

“The U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon provides real-world training and experience for the energy professionals of tomorrow,” said Acting Assistant Secretary Simmons. “It is also a live demonstration of innovative products available today that can help tackle global energy challenges such as reliability, resilience, and security.”

The teams competed in 10 contests throughout a nine-day stretch that gauged each house’s performance, livability and market potential. They performed everyday tasks including cooking, laundry and washing dishes, which tested the energy efficiency of each house. Full competition results and details about the individual contests may be found at www.SolarDecathlon.gov.

“This prestigious competition engages students from across the country and internationally to develop the skills and knowledge to become the next generation of energy experts, and I want to recognize all of these teams for their hard work and dedication,” said Linda Silverman, director of the Solar Decathlon. “Today’s results are the culmination of two years of collaboration among students from different academic disciplines — including engineering, architecture, interior design, business, marketing, and communications — who otherwise might not work together until they enter the workplace. Together, we’re ensuring that employers have the qualified workers they need to support American job growth.”

The results of the Market Potential and Engineering contests were also announced today. Northwestern took first place in market potential by scoring 92 of 100 possible points. For the Market Potential Contest, each competing house was evaluated by a jury of professionals from the home-building industry that evaluated the overall attractiveness of the design to the target client and the market impact potential of the house. Some of the criteria included appeal and marketability for the target client, the livability in meeting the target client’s unique needs, the house’s cost-effectiveness, and how easily the competition prototype could be constructed successfully by a general contractor.

Bob Dixon, director of the Office of Strategic Programs in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at DOE, presenting the award, said, “The jury said that this team exhibited an outstanding use of focus groups, in-home visitation, storyboards, and a socio-linguistic analysis used to identify and validate design attributes through interviews in their target market segment.”

Team Netherlands claimed second place in the Market Potential Contest with 90 points, and Team Daytona Beach took third place with 85 points.

The Swiss Team took first place in engineering with a perfect score of 100 possible points. For the Engineering Contest, each competing house was evaluated by a group of prominent engineers who determined which house best exemplifies excellence in innovation, system functionality, energy efficiency, system reliability, and documentation through their project manual and construction drawings.

Bob Dixon, presenting the award said, “The jury believes the first-place house in the Engineering Contest offers comprehensive performance modeling that sports clear graphs, detailed explanations and a variety of representations. The quality of the thermal envelope is exceptional and carefully calibrated to the target climate with very good resistance to heat flow, a solid focus on airtightness, and high-quality components such as triple-glazed windows and sliding doors.”

University of Nevada, Las Vegas claimed second place in the Engineering Contest with 98 points, and Northwestern took third place with 95 points.

This year’s collegiate teams were chosen nearly two years ago through a competitive process. The selected teams and their projects represent a diverse range of design approaches, building technologies, and geographic locations, climates and regions – including urban, suburban and rural settings. They also aim to reach a broad range of target housing markets including empty-nesters, disaster relief, low-income, multigenerational, single-family and Native American communities. Teams have gathered their combined interdisciplinary talents to design and build the houses, as well as to raise funds, furnish and decorate the houses, and optimize the houses’ performance.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/10/swiss-solar-decathlon-house-scores-a-perfect-100-in-engineering.html

+-Recent Topics

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
October 23, 2019, 01:10:29 am

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 11:40:06 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 08:49:12 pm

2020 Presidential Election by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 08:41:55 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 08:32:03 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 07:58:16 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 07:42:51 pm

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 07:02:12 pm

This startup is building a massive indoor farm in a Rust Belt steel town by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 04:58:20 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
October 22, 2019, 04:39:00 pm