Help Change the World: Share Your Ideas for Green Homes

[taylaron]

im no expert on insulation here; but i know concrete is heavy and expensive and it is only as strong as the stuff you put in the initial mix (normally small rocks)

you are absolutely correct evo, in that contractors need to pass a code; and that's all the must do. no going beyond that line because it costs extra money for them and the buyer.

I respect your opinion evo, but i believe that the majority of people are more willing to pay the electric bill than to "just shut off the AC (or furnace)" we live in a desert where it is very hot in the summer 105+ and cold in the winter 20-30. most people around here are used to the comfort of a heated/cooled room. that option to just shut it off is very dependent on your geological location.

so why not change the housing code? -make the contractor implement this technology. yes it will raise the cost of your house but think about how much money you're saving. THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY YOU ARE SAVING!
NEVER FORGET THAT. people just need to step back and look at how much energy they are wasting daily.
i think that is something our modern world lacks

 

[russ_watters]

THE PEOPLE THAT NEED TO BE GREEN ARE THE CONTRACTORS!
**the contractors need to design and build the houses while implementing new and old green technology.

Developers, actually, but I get your point.

I work for an HVAC engineering firm and one of our major clients a year ago was Toll Brothers. Toll Brothers essentially custom-builds most of their homes for the people they sell them to (and, I think, most developers try to line-up buyers before they break ground). They offer a list - menu-style - of options you can add to your house. They include things like higher efficiency HVAC, radiant heat in the bathroom (both a comfort and efficiency enhancement), higher quality windows, etc. People almost never select these options.

So the level of control that you imply really isn't there. It still comes down to supply and demand and people are not willing to spend a couple of extra percent to have a more efficient house.

The real problem is that people are not forward thinking. They are not willing to pay extra even with the prospect of a short energy/money savings payback.

 

[russ_watters]

you are absolutely correct evo, in that contractors need to pass a code; and that's all the must do. no going beyond that line because it costs extra money for them and the buyer.

so why not change the housing code?

Recently, the minimum residential a/c efficiency was changed from 10 to 13 SEER. You don't have to know what "SEER" is - 13 is 30% more efficient than 10. For vendors, mplimenting this was as easy as re-labeling equipment. Thermodynamically, it just means slightly larger heat exchangers. The increase in the cost of a ~$5,000 air conditioner is perhaps $500 and the annual energy savings is perhaps $250. With a 2 year payback, it would be stupid not to use the higher efficiency unit. Still, the A/C manufacturers sued in protest (why, I don't know - it doesn't hurt them). At the same time, most offer units up to 20 SEER! Why not make the minimum 16?

The point is, yes, regulation can do a lot to help this problem. Though I'm conservative, I'm generally in favor of obvious/sensible regulation such as this.

 

[Evo]

]im no expert on insulation here; but i know concrete is heavy and expensive and it is only as strong as the stuff you put in the initial mix (normally small rocks)

If you are interested in energy efficient housing with very little repairs, fireproof, etc... I suggest you brush up http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/realestate/2003768288_concretehomes01.html

 

[taylaron]

haha, after reading that article and learning that it only costs 4-8 % more on average to build a house out of concrete than wood (which is great for the environment for obvious reasons). hah, i like these concrete houses. i admit i haven't been exposed to them until now; and they seem pretty Eco-friendly and pretty effective.

Russ, its interesting to hear that it costs less to keep your house cool than it does to heat it. isn't it the amount of mass that you're effecting define how much energy you use? it also sounds like the buyer has more options than i thought they had from the sounds of it. which is a good thing of course.
so i suppose you need both the developers and the buyers to be 'green' if a eco-friendly house is to be built and kept working. which completely makes sense.

who would you look towards if you wanted to rase the requirements for housing development? to actually change the code requirements?

 

[bassplayer142]

I believe that if people want to live more green and really stay true to that statement then they have to make a lot of changes. Changes in life style and habitat including many sacrifices. Less energy wasting and more sacrifice. Houses build underground and larger buildings that conserve space and heat would help.

 

[taylaron]

personally, I am all for living in a subterrenian home. of course most of the living space would be below ground but the living room would be above ground. ooooh i have plans...
there are many downsides of living underground (along with many good things); but there is no real sunlight (without sun lights) so you have to buy those "happy lights" that provide some special spectrum that regular bulbs do get. apparently its bad for your health if you don't use them underground.
i asked myself one day: 'why don't we live underground opposed to above ground any ways...?" i came up with the problem of supporting all the weight above you which includes the extra Earth and or complexes above you. ventilation is a big concern because cave-ins are a real factor. of course there are other factors as well. perhaps someone could chip in.

there are some unrealistic fantasies such as moving the whole world underground and employing subway systems as the main transportation. all the surface Earth would be torn up and recycled; trees would be planted,,,,,,wilderness re-established and that would (help?) solve the CO2 emissions problem. kind of make all things better. but that is an extreme that comes at the cost of unifying the people of Earth and making many sacrifices (among many others). you could fill a whole bunch of threads with this stuff so i won't get too carried away.about concrete insulation; doesn't the fact that you're using a solid to insulate something kind of pointless. because perfect insulators are vacuums. air has less mass than concrete per unit of volume. heat can't be transferred in a vacuum (excluding radiant heat)
my point is; wouldn't you want to fill your areas that need insulation with material that has a low heat-transfer ratio? concrete is a solid and will heat up given enough energy.
or is the amount of sheer mass why it is a good insulator? its certainly a good way to store garbage in(recycling).

regarding PV cells, wouldn't you agree that the highest recorded efficiency rate of PV cells is 6.4 percent. that's incredibly inefficient compared to even 50%. if we're not getting the results we're looking for, don't you think we should go a different direction? (considering how long we've been on this one.) *oh boy! i increased efficiency by 0.2%!.. come on guys.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, its interesting to hear that it costs less to keep your house cool than it does to heat it. isn't it the amount of mass that you're effecting define how much energy you use? it also sounds like the buyer has more options than i thought they had from the sounds of it. which is a good thing of course.

No, it's all about heat transfer. Besides the sun (which is a similar effect to if it were 10 degrees warmer outside), what makes a house hot or cold is the temperature difference between inside and out. Where I live, it can be as hot as 95 or as cold as 10. If room temp is 75 in summer and 70 in winter, the delta-T is up to 70-10=60 degrees in winter and (95+10)-75=30 in summer. So that's twice as much heat transfer.

Also, at night in the summer, you don't need much AC (the temp still drops to the 70s) but in winter, you need heat 24/7, since it rarely gets above 45 in my area.

For someone who lives in Florida, AC is the bigger issue. There is also the caveat that the way heaters and air conditioners do their thing is fundamentally different (except in the case of a heat pump).

who would you look towards if you wanted to rase the requirements for housing development? to actually change the code requirements?

Congress.

 

[taylaron]

great..
good luck with congress kids...

 

[mheslep]

...
regarding PV cells, wouldn't you agree that the highest recorded efficiency rate of PV cells is 6.4 percent. that's incredibly inefficient compared to even 50%. if we're not getting the results we're looking for, don't you think we should go a different direction? (considering how long we've been on this one.) *oh boy! i increased efficiency by 0.2%!.. come on guys.

Best PV technology called 'multi unction' is 40.7% efficient as of 2007, very expensive. Used in the Mars Rovers.
Page 14-15:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/42276.pdf

~21% efficient for the best commercially available PV cells

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Best PV technology called 'multi unction' is 40.7% efficient as of 2007, very expensive. Used in the Mars Rovers.
Page 14-15:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/42276.pdf

~21% efficient for the best commercially available PV cells

"Very expensive" is an understatement. What was the cost of the solar cells used on the Mars rovers, per square meter?

 

[taylaron]

Best PV technology called 'multi unction' is 40.7% efficient as of 2007, very expensive. Used in the Mars Rovers.
Page 14-15:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/42276.pdf

~21% efficient for the best commercially available PV cells

oh, i must have been talking about plastic pv cells. i frequently get news on them.
but still, we've got a price problem on the commercial end. what spectrum does the 40% efficient version absorb? i know most of the solar energy is in the infra red spectrum. compared to the amount of visible light.

40% currently possible
20% mildly affordable

dont you think its worth trying a different direction/ approach to this technology? or is it simply not that simple?

 

[mheslep]

"Very expensive" is an understatement. What was the cost of the solar cells used on the Mars rovers, per square meter?

$ millions I read, can't find the source.

 

[taylaron]

subterranean homes help

I'm doing a subterranean theme for a 'green' contest and I'm trying to come up with the pros and cons of living underground; here is what i have so far:

PROS

• earth/ soil is a good insulator
• more surface area above ground for farming
• low noise levels- no need to drown out your daughters stereo.
• not much of a need to heat in the winter (if you're deep enough)
• want a bigger house? dig deeper!
• somewhat resistant to natural disasters (for those tornado victims...)

CONS

• Structural support
• ventilation
• emergency exit/ cave-in
• excavating effectively
• lighting

remember, many of these cons are existent in conventional above-ground style homes.

regarding the excavation problem; I have come up with the following solution(s)
1. suck the Earth out with a giant robotic vacuum and deposit soil above ground for farming. (although it uses an enormous amount of energy...probably not practical)
2. any ideas? -(I try not to think about 'if its possible, its been done' saying)

if anyone can provide some perspective or their opinion; it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

 

[JasonRox]

Just for everyone's info.

Before suggesting and unique idea you may have, you should do a patent search and if that's successful, file a provisional patent application BEFORE posting here. Provisional patents are cheap and do NOT require lawyers to fill out. If you want more information on where to go after doing that, let me know (I don't need to know the idea). I can't help you fully, but I do believe you should keep it protected.

After you filed a provisional application (less than $200), you can share your idea and know it's protected.

 

[taylaron]

Just for everyone's info.

Before suggesting and unique idea you may have, you should do a patent search and if that's successful, file a provisional patent application BEFORE posting here. Provisional patents are cheap and do NOT require lawyers to fill out. If you want more information on where to go after doing that, let me know (I don't need to know the idea). I can't help you fully, but I do believe you should keep it protected.

After you filed a provisional application (less than $200), you can share your idea and know it's protected.

Ideas are not protected; it is those who want to exploit copywrited ideas to make a profit that are illegal.
to my understanding.