+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 11100
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Carbon Neutral Buildings  (Read 4027 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #60 on: March 12, 2017, 02:15:15 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: These Container housing buildings aren't carbon neutral, but considering how cheap they are to set up, I'm sure they can easily be made carbon neutral.  ;D


Gorgeous Hotel Constructed From Shipping Containers Leaves Landscape Untouched

Mar. 10, 2017 03:22PM EST

MANY great pictures!  ;D

http://www.ecowatch.com/shipping-container-hotel-quadrum-2307833903.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2017, 06:01:08 pm »
Welcome to Apple Park, possibly the world's coolest office building   

Space race ... It’s not just big blue-chip organizations that are investing in better offices

Other than a mild sense of Sunday-night dread, offices rarely inspire much emotion among staff. But from now on Apple employees can be forgiven for going to work with a spring in their step.

The headline figures associated with the tech giant’s new ‘Apple Park’ headquarters are staggering – over the next six months or so, 12,000 employees will be moved to the 175-acre campus, which is reported to have cost $5 billion to construct.

Six years ago, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs addressed a Cupertino City Council meeting in California where he unveiled plans to create “the best office building in the world”.

It was Jobs’ last public appearance before he died. Now, his vision has been realized, and the end result is a futuristic four-storey, circular edifice that resembles a grounded spaceship.

Apple Park houses a 1,000-seat auditorium, a 100,000 square ft (9292 sqm) fitness centre, 300,000 square ft (27,870 sqm) of secure research and development facilities, two miles (3.2 km) of walking and running paths, 1,000 bicycles, an orchard, a meadow and a pond.


The migration of Apple workers is reportedly underway, with a steady flow of 500 employees expected to start work at the shiny new HQ every week until the mass relocation is complete.

But how exactly will such an ambitious, not to mention expensive, move benefit Apple?

‘The home of innovation’

It’s a slightly depressing fact that most people spend almost their entire working life inside an office. Apple hopes that moving to a state-of-the-art workplace will have an energizing effect on its workers.

With a market capitalization of more than $800 billion, Apple clearly isn’t short of cash. Yet that doesn’t mean spending isn’t carefully scrutinized – the vast expense of Apple Park initially raised eyebrows among some shareholders.

But for Jobs and other members of Apple’s senior leadership team, the estimated $5 billion cost was a price worth paying to cultivate innovation among staff and ensure the company continues to attract top-class personnel in the years ahead.

Speaking at a launch event in March last year, CEO Tim Cook said: “Steve's vision for Apple stretched far beyond his time with us. He intended Apple Park to be the home of innovation for generations to come.

“The workspaces and parklands are designed to inspire our team as well as benefit the environment. We've achieved one of the most energy-efficient buildings in the world, and the campus will run entirely on renewable energy."


Other cool offices around the world

Apple Park may have caught the attention of envious employees from California to Calcutta, but there are plenty of other offices around the world that put the average workplace to shame.

Amazon is building a spectacular office in downtown Seattle where workers will soon be able to hold meetings and take lunch breaks inside three gigantic glass spheres that contain plants, streams and even a few treehouses.

The tallest of the glass and metal spheres rises 90 ft (27m) and is more than 130 ft (40m) in diameter, with two smaller spheres to each side.


The Edge building in Amsterdam, designed for consultancy firm Deloitte, has been billed as the world’s greenest, and possibly smartest, office space. It even has espresso machines that “recognize” workers and remember how they like their coffee.


However, it’s not just big blue-chip organizations that are investing in better offices.

Last year, the Guardian newspaper ran a feature on the world's coolest offices in which ordinary workers championed their extraordinary workplaces.

Concepts included a rooftop terrace in Berlin that hosts BBQs, beer drinking and morning yoga classes; an indoor go-karting track in an office block in Canada; and treadmill desks at Ernst&Young’s London office.

Most of us can only dream of working in such an environment, but as employers up their game to attract and retain skilled staff, perhaps in the future more people will enjoy coming to the office.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/05/apple-park-coolest-office-building-in-world/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #62 on: June 14, 2017, 05:49:27 pm »
Quote
Mark had spent years studying how to make green roofs succeed in the harsh Texas landscape. The secret was simple: bring back the plants that were here before European settlement.

Author Christopher Brown’s Natural Underground Home In The City

June 14th, 2017 by Guest Contributor



https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/14/author-christopher-browns-natural-underground-home-city/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #63 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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #64 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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #65 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/



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #66 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.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #67 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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #68 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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #69 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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #70 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
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #71 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?
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #72 on: June 28, 2018, 05:40:09 pm »
Bananas 🍌 at 8,000 feet in colorado without hydrocarbon heat 1982-2009!
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #73 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/
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 04:49:22 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15381
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #74 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


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Money by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 09:56:45 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 09:37:29 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 09:10:55 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 02:34:18 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 12:17:36 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 07:15:13 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 04:16:22 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 09:35:12 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 09:25:57 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 05:07:12 pm