Author Topic: The Zero-Energy Smart Home  (Read 10052 times)

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« on: August 19, 2013, 08:50:12 PM »
This home is probably 15 mins from where I live.  I thought that there are some people here who would enjoy learning about this home.  I would really like the solar/on-demand water heater combo they have, among other things...

http://www.techhive.com/article/2045771/a-floor-to-ceiling-tour-of-americas-most-energy-efficient-home.html
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 09:56:18 PM by Crazyfun »

JamesAt15

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Location: Tokyo, Japan
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2013, 10:37:17 PM »
It's an interesting article. I hope we see more homes being built with efficiency in mind from the start.

Still, 4300 sq feet sounds HUGE to me. I wonder if their building price of $150 per sq foot is based on that number? I.e. a smaller house would end up being more expensive per square foot since some of the presumably expensive items like the heat and air exchanger would still cost about the same, despite the smaller area.

Although I guess with the bigger house you have roof space to install 40 solar panels - wow, sounds like a lot! I was a bit surprised to see that they went with a solar power purchase agreement system instead of just owning the panels outright. Wouldn't it kind of annoy you to buy a zero-energy smart home and then still have to pay an electric bill every month to the company that owns your solar panels? (Albeit at 20% off the current going electricity rate.)

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2013, 08:43:01 AM »
It's an interesting article. I hope we see more homes being built with efficiency in mind from the start.

Still, 4300 sq feet sounds HUGE to me. I wonder if their building price of $150 per sq foot is based on that number? I.e. a smaller house would end up being more expensive per square foot since some of the presumably expensive items like the heat and air exchanger would still cost about the same, despite the smaller area.

Although I guess with the bigger house you have roof space to install 40 solar panels - wow, sounds like a lot! I was a bit surprised to see that they went with a solar power purchase agreement system instead of just owning the panels outright. Wouldn't it kind of annoy you to buy a zero-energy smart home and then still have to pay an electric bill every month to the company that owns your solar panels? (Albeit at 20% off the current going electricity rate.)

I agree that 4300 sqft is a big home, even if you're not from Tokyo.  In UT, part of that square footage is from a full daylight basement, which you would be insane not to build since it is super cheap square footage.  We also have large families out here, so 4 bdrms are a must.  I really liked it, because I'm very interested in green building and solar, but a lot of projects are geared for a smaller home.  To build an efficient home that a larger family could actually live in?  That's cool.

Also, Vivint Solar's business model isn't currently allowed in UT.  So I would imagine they built this to show what they do, but that the solar panels will be owned outright by the homeowner.  I agree it's a weird arrangement.  I'd rather invest in the technology and own the panels outright.

Forcus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Location: Central Illinois
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2013, 08:57:16 AM »
I expected it to be revolutionary but it's more evolutionary, which is good to me because that makes it easier to get on board.

Couple things I didn't like:
- Easement / contract for solar panels. Yeah, not for me. I get it, and see why people are doing it, but no.
- 16" on center -> 24" on center. Would not happen here. First I don't think the local code allows it. Second, tornadoes and debris penetration.

From what I've put together loosely the 2x6" isn't even necessary over 2x4" - what's important is an insulator layer between the studs and the outside walls. Also I was surprised they didn't use a spray foam over fill, but I assume that was to keep the cost down.

But good stuff, for sure.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2013, 09:04:17 AM »
Yeah, I'd question whether 4300 sqft is terribly smart.  It's still going to cost more for taxes and furniture and more time to clean and ....

...and $150/sqft is still "expensive" from where I'm from.

I've seen several "smart"/green homes built around here... and they pitch them as if there is no real future cost for the solar/inverter/battery string (if it exists).  These things do take some amount of maintenance and I'm not sure we have a large enough installed base to get a clear number on that sort of thing.  (I'm skeptical... but I could be wrong there.)  When I've run the numbers, it generally takes a government subsidy to make these things cost effective.  (And if that's happening, it means it isn't truly cost effective yet.)

There certainly are lots of things to be learned from these... but on the whole I am not sure its the way to go.  Or... at least not yet.  Mostly I think they're an excuse to buy gadgets and proclaim them as money saving.  Cool..  but sometimes more conventional methods are cheaper.

Oh, and obligatory mention: Z-wave has proven to be a bit of a security threat.

gecko10x

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
    • SawyerPF
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2013, 09:08:02 AM »
So, I didn't read beyond the first few paragraphs - but enough to get the gist.

I'm not a fan of this approach to "energy efficient building" in general- the idea of super air tight, super insulated, and creating a totally separate environment inside.

I much prefer this approach: http://enertia.com/introduction.html. No HVAC to break, breathes, etc.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 09:10:29 AM by gecko10x »

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2013, 09:58:24 AM »
I'm not a fan of this approach to "energy efficient building" in general- the idea of super air tight, super insulated, and creating a totally separate environment inside.

I much prefer this approach: http://enertia.com/introduction.html. No HVAC to break, breathes, etc.

I liked the concept of the enertia homes, very interesting!  It seems to employ passive solar with an inner envelope idea that is intriguing.  Just wondering how you live with that floor-plan.  Also, I'm not a fan of the pine cabin look, so I wonder if it can be made with different exterior materials?  I really like SIPs, for example. 

I agree that a super tight house isn't my ideal.  We have cool, dry summer nights and I love to  have the whole house fan on all night bringing in the fresh air. 

I think that building a house that's supposed to be great for all climates is crazy.  Each home site, climate, and local natural resources deserves its own consideration in the planning.  This house just gets the conversation going for those who think they couldn't live with renewable energy.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 10:05:18 AM by Crazyfun »

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2013, 10:04:14 AM »
Yeah, I'd question whether 4300 sqft is terribly smart.  It's still going to cost more for taxes and furniture and more time to clean and ....

...and $150/sqft is still "expensive" from where I'm from.

I've seen several "smart"/green homes built around here... and they pitch them as if there is no real future cost for the solar/inverter/battery string (if it exists).  These things do take some amount of maintenance and I'm not sure we have a large enough installed base to get a clear number on that sort of thing.  (I'm skeptical... but I could be wrong there.)  When I've run the numbers, it generally takes a government subsidy to make these things cost effective.  (And if that's happening, it means it isn't truly cost effective yet.)

There certainly are lots of things to be learned from these... but on the whole I am not sure its the way to go.  Or... at least not yet.  Mostly I think they're an excuse to buy gadgets and proclaim them as money saving.  Cool..  but sometimes more conventional methods are cheaper.

Oh, and obligatory mention: Z-wave has proven to be a bit of a security threat.

True, but many forms of energy could never happen without government subsidies.  According to wiki: "The global fossil fuel subsidies were $523 billion and renewable energy subsidies $88 billion in 2011" 

I agree that this home built for the consumeristic crowd, but I'm happy that it was built all the same.

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2013, 10:09:01 AM »
I expected it to be revolutionary but it's more evolutionary, which is good to me because that makes it easier to get on board.

Couple things I didn't like:
- Easement / contract for solar panels. Yeah, not for me. I get it, and see why people are doing it, but no.
- 16" on center -> 24" on center. Would not happen here. First I don't think the local code allows it. Second, tornadoes and debris penetration.

From what I've put together loosely the 2x6" isn't even necessary over 2x4" - what's important is an insulator layer between the studs and the outside walls. Also I was surprised they didn't use a spray foam over fill, but I assume that was to keep the cost down.

But good stuff, for sure.

I wondered also about the 24" on center.  Wonder how they got that approved, but I like thinking outside of the box.  If they can make it structurally sound and use less trees, that would be good.  We don't have tornados here, our main concern is when the big one (earthquake) is coming.  I personally love the idea of SIPs.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2013, 10:14:44 AM »
When I've run the numbers, it generally takes a government subsidy to make these things cost effective.  (And if that's happening, it means it isn't truly cost effective yet.)

To be fair, the only reason that fossil fuels are still cheaper than (most) renewables is that a significant portion of their real costs are externalized. 

When you buy solar energy, you're paying for rare earth element mining and toxic manufacturing processes and end-life recycling costs.  When you buy coal energy, no one is paying for global sea level rise and dying forests and catastrophic hurricanes.  Of COURSE it's cheaper if you don't pay for all the bad stuff.

We have government subsidies on renewables, in part, because spending that money now saves us money in the long run.  That's as true for individuals as it is for society as a whole.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 12:18:26 PM by sol »

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2013, 11:35:28 AM »


True, but many forms of energy could never happen without government subsidies.  According to wiki: "The global fossil fuel subsidies were $523 billion and renewable energy subsidies $88 billion in 2011" 

I agree that this home built for the consumeristic crowd, but I'm happy that it was built all the same.

while I'm not in favor of either subsidy... I suspect if you looked at "subsidy per consumer" there... the fossil fuel subsidy would be tiny in comparison to the renewable subsidy.

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2013, 11:57:41 AM »


True, but many forms of energy could never happen without government subsidies.  According to wiki: "The global fossil fuel subsidies were $523 billion and renewable energy subsidies $88 billion in 2011" 

I agree that this home built for the consumeristic crowd, but I'm happy that it was built all the same.

while I'm not in favor of either subsidy... I suspect if you looked at "subsidy per consumer" there... the fossil fuel subsidy would be tiny in comparison to the renewable subsidy.

True, but as Sol said, much of the cost of fossil fuels is subsidized externally.  Here in Utah, we are completely surrounded by mountains.  This keeps pollutants in a bowl until a stronger pressure can blow them out.  Fossil fuels are taking a direct toll on our health, and there are numerous studies going on that indicate a devastating effect on the very young, the very old, and those with respiratory or immune issues.  In winter we get day after day of "red air days", where you are recommended to stay indoors.  Not very mustachian to not ride a bike or run on the trails because the air is so bad.

And don't get me started on where nuclear would be without subsidies...

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2013, 12:05:42 PM »
And don't get me started on where nuclear would be without subsidies...

Nuclear gets subsidized?  Since when?  (Not counting R&D costs that were part of science & military spending, of course.)  Nuclear in fact gets anti-subsidized, as nuclear plants have to pay extra fees that coal, hydro, &c don't.

lauren_knows

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Annandale, VA, USA
  • Happiness is a choice
    • The Crowdsourced FIRE simulator
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2013, 12:21:15 PM »
Amazing stuff.  I'm always insanely jealous when I read about homes like this.  We're planning on moving in 2-3 years, and would build a home like this in a heartbeat...I just wish land didn't cost so damn much in the area that I live.  The article quotes $150/sqft to build.  Our current place is plenty big enough at 2100sqft (700 of which is semi-finished basement area).  That'd be $315k to recreate... to bad I can't find a damn lot of land for less than $300k.

nawhite

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: Golden, CO
    • The Reckless Choice
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2013, 12:52:01 PM »
I agree with the people arguing that this house is too damn big. 4300sqft is bigger than 3-4 houses of people on this forum.

This house reminds me of the "not-so-green" house The Atlantic ripped apart a few months ago: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/01/good-and-important-it-leed-can-be-so-embarrassing/4435/

Basically, from an energy footprint standpoint, you're much better optimizing for minimum transportation needs than minimum home energy needs.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2013, 12:58:38 PM »
Amazing stuff.  I'm always insanely jealous when I read about homes like this.  We're planning on moving in 2-3 years, and would build a home like this in a heartbeat...I just wish land didn't cost so damn much in the area that I live.  The article quotes $150/sqft to build.  Our current place is plenty big enough at 2100sqft (700 of which is semi-finished basement area).  That'd be $315k to recreate... to bad I can't find a damn lot of land for less than $300k.

So... I don't think cost per square footage scales in a linear fashion.  In other words, the infrastructure "costs a lot" and that gets averaged over "big footprint."  Multi story dwellings get "cheaper per square foot" roofing and foundation because they're shared.

For example: we designed our house with an unfinished upstairs.  We built it for about $130/sqft.  Once the upstairs is finished, it looks like it will be about $100/sqft. 


Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2013, 01:27:53 PM »
And don't get me started on where nuclear would be without subsidies...

Nuclear gets subsidized?  Since when?  (Not counting R&D costs that were part of science & military spending, of course.)  Nuclear in fact gets anti-subsidized, as nuclear plants have to pay extra fees that coal, hydro, &c don't.

I'm at the orthodontist with my kids, but here's an article to get started on.

http://m.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2013, 01:36:06 PM »
I agree with the people arguing that this house is too damn big. 4300sqft is bigger than 3-4 houses of people on this forum.

This house reminds me of the "not-so-green" house The Atlantic ripped apart a few months ago: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/01/good-and-important-it-leed-can-be-so-embarrassing/4435/

Basically, from an energy footprint standpoint, you're much better optimizing for minimum transportation needs than minimum home energy needs.

I agree that 4300 sqft is insanely big compared with the worlds standards.  But houses that size are going to be built, and I would prefer that they be built with renewable energy in mind.

It's great to read everyone's opinions on the house. It's either full of badassity, or in the antimustachian hall of fame, depending on your perspective!

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2013, 01:41:53 PM »
And don't get me started on where nuclear would be without subsidies...

Nuclear gets subsidized?  Since when?  (Not counting R&D costs that were part of science & military spending, of course.)  Nuclear in fact gets anti-subsidized, as nuclear plants have to pay extra fees that coal, hydro, &c don't.

I'm at the orthodontist with my kids, but here's an article to get started on.

http://m.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

caveat: I know nothing about whether there are or are not subsidies... but I found the executive summary humorous.  Paraphrasing:  "Subsidies are bad because they mask the true cost of an item and businesses learn to depend on them and can't exist without them"  ....
conclusion (still paraphrasing) "we should subsidize something else instead."


Daniel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2013, 01:48:09 PM »
I was at a presentation by Pecan St., a Energy monitoring think tank, and one of the nonintuitive things they had observed is that green homes and non-green homes use almost exactly the same amount of energy.

There were two reasons they had found: 1. The green homes were much larger on average (so the energy/sq. ft. was actually lower) and 2. Having a green home impacts your usage pattern (they kept their homes cooler in the summer).

Forcus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Location: Central Illinois
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2013, 02:24:44 PM »
Part of the sizing might be for efficiency. That is, a certain amount of real estate is needed for solar panels and passive water heating, etc. Also I've seen some eco homes where there is more designed in mass and that is what helps regulate the inside temperature. But yeah I think most of it in this case is vanity. Oh well, keep what works, get rid of the rest.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2013, 11:14:13 AM »
I was at a presentation by Pecan St., a Energy monitoring think tank, and one of the nonintuitive things they had observed is that green homes and non-green homes use almost exactly the same amount of energy.

There were two reasons they had found: 1. The green homes were much larger on average (so the energy/sq. ft. was actually lower) and 2. Having a green home impacts your usage pattern (they kept their homes cooler in the summer).

This is an interesting point.  My spouse and I think about solar panels on occasion, but since our electric bill averages less than $50/mo, he's said that it would only make sense if we planned to crank up the AC in the summers.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2013, 12:09:39 PM »
I'm at the orthodontist with my kids, but here's an article to get started on.

http://m.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

Typical anti-nuclear distortion of facts.  For one instance, nuclear power plants pay the government a fee for storage & disposal of waste ($765 million/year, per this: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/yucca-mountain-reprieve-nuclear-waste-storage-site/story?id=19961367 ), while fossil-fuel plants just dump their waste in the air, or pile the solid parts somewhere.  This is equated to subsidizing nuclear.

I agree that 4300 sqft is insanely big compared with the worlds standards.  But houses that size are going to be built, and I would prefer that they be built with renewable energy in mind.

Keep in mind that, at this state of the technology, it's going to be fairly rich folks who can afford to build such houses, just as it's fairly rich folks who can afford electric cars.  4300 sq ft is not insanely big by "rich folks' house" standards.  Just as with any new technology, these rich early-adopters help pay development costs, and allow the new tech to spread to the mass-market if it works out.

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2013, 01:41:27 PM »
Quote from: link=topic=8158.msg126552#msg126552 date=1377027713
I'm at the orthodontist with my kids, but here's an article to get started on.

http://m.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

Typical anti-nuclear distortion of facts.  For one instance, nuclear power plants pay the government a fee for storage & disposal of waste ($765 million/year, per this: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/yucca-mountain-reprieve-nuclear-waste-storage-site/story?id=19961367 ), while fossil-fuel plants just dump their waste in the air, or pile the solid parts somewhere.  This is equated to subsidizing nuclear.

At the risk of going off-topic, that article simply states that the federal government has taken money for storage sites that it has not provided yet. That doesn't prove that nuclear hasn't taken subsidies.  Living in UT, I can tell you that there are a lot of people here in the west that don't want to be the nation's dumping ground anymore.  Just because it's a desert, doesn't mean it has no value.  If the nuclear plant is producing waste in Michigan, let Michigan store it. 

I also disagree that nuclear could exist without massive subsidies from US tax payers.   Here's an article from Germany about subsidizing nuclear:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/19/europe-nuclear-energy-idUSL6N0FP2P820130719
If nuclear were self-sustaining, we wouldn't be having this argument.  Add into that you have to transport the waste, store the waste until the end of time, and secure the waste (Dirty bombs, anyone?).  Yep, I'm still hoping the future isn't nuclear.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 06:46:41 PM by Crazyfun »

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2013, 02:07:38 PM »
I'm at the orthodontist with my kids, but here's an article to get started on.

http://m.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

Typical anti-nuclear distortion of facts.  For one instance, nuclear power plants pay the government a fee for storage & disposal of waste ($765 million/year, per this: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/yucca-mountain-reprieve-nuclear-waste-storage-site/story?id=19961367 ), while fossil-fuel plants just dump their waste in the air, or pile the solid parts somewhere.  This is equated to subsidizing nuclear.



You're quoting someone else and attributing it to me.  (Just FYI)

mgreczyn

  • Guest
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2013, 08:09:44 AM »
I'm at the orthodontist with my kids, but here's an article to get started on.

http://m.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

Typical anti-nuclear distortion of facts.  For one instance, nuclear power plants pay the government a fee for storage & disposal of waste ($765 million/year, per this: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/yucca-mountain-reprieve-nuclear-waste-storage-site/story?id=19961367 ), while fossil-fuel plants just dump their waste in the air, or pile the solid parts somewhere.  This is equated to subsidizing nuclear.

I agree that 4300 sqft is insanely big compared with the worlds standards.  But houses that size are going to be built, and I would prefer that they be built with renewable energy in mind.

Keep in mind that, at this state of the technology, it's going to be fairly rich folks who can afford to build such houses, just as it's fairly rich folks who can afford electric cars.  4300 sq ft is not insanely big by "rich folks' house" standards.  Just as with any new technology, these rich early-adopters help pay development costs, and allow the new tech to spread to the mass-market if it works out.
All forms of power generation once examined closely receive or have received government subsidies.  Nobody's innocent in this business :)  One industry's "subsidy" is another industry's "incentive", and the more clever the lobbyists the more hidden the subsidy.  The other fundamental truth about energy is that there is no such thing as consequence free energy. When we get into the practical reality of nuclear energy in particular, in a rational world it's a great idea.  But, we live in an irrational world and the building of nukes often boils down to this choice:
Cheap. 
Safe.
Fast.
Pick one.

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2013, 01:05:09 PM »
I've noticed a lot of these energy efficient homes look like a) greenhouses or b) concrete bunkers.  I understand that it is a choice of architecture style, but it doesn't do the energy efficiency movement any good to suggest that energy efficient = live in dystopian concrete bunker. There was one featured in the NY Times that literally looked like a set from a bad sci-fi movie, complete with fake giant air vents. Does anyone here with experience in the field have thoughts on this? Is there something about a non-concrete veneer that effects efficiency?

DIYRooftopSolar

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2013, 02:45:01 PM »
Hi, newly registered Mustachian here (but long time reader).  Just wanted to join in this discussion to share our experiences with our Net Zero Home:

*30 yr old home, added 33 panels to the roof for total of 7 kW.  Produces all the electricity we need plus a surplus that is sold back to the utility for profit.
*Home is 2400 sq. ft., added insulation and other typical energy-saving techniques before installation
*Cost after incentives under $6,000 in 2010.  Calculated that in 2013 prices, cost would be half as much.

Thanks to MMM's "How To Start A Blog" post, I've created a website to document our journey with more details:
http://diyrooftopsolar.wordpress.com/



Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2013, 03:41:37 PM »
Hi, newly registered Mustachian here (but long time reader).  Just wanted to join in this discussion to share our experiences with our Net Zero Home:

*30 yr old home, added 33 panels to the roof for total of 7 kW.  Produces all the electricity we need plus a surplus that is sold back to the utility for profit.
*Home is 2400 sq. ft., added insulation and other typical energy-saving techniques before installation
*Cost after incentives under $6,000 in 2010.  Calculated that in 2013 prices, cost would be half as much.

Thanks to MMM's "How To Start A Blog" post, I've created a website to document our journey with more details:
http://diyrooftopsolar.wordpress.com/

Thanks for posting!  The website looks great. I'd love to hear more about how you did your installation. I'm not sure I'm handy enough to tackle it myself, but I'd love to read about it!

SMP

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Age: 41
  • Location: NRW, Germany
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2013, 02:54:03 AM »
Nice article about a nice house/technique
But in MY eyes this is not very special or advanced. This is in other parts of the world quite normal.
Even if not regarding if you build up a house of massive bricks, concrete or wood, you could set the goal much higher. Why do the only heat up the water up to 86°F/30°C? I would take some more solar panels (for hot water, not for electric energy) and heat up the water to 204°F/96°C? Then you dont need to store 200 gallons for the same amount of energy, approx. 50 would be enough.
Or you just store 200 gallons at the high temperature and dont need to reheat the water, so you dont have to have an water heater running on natural gas. This even works fine in Germany.

In my opinion this are just some low hanging fruit.
But it is still better than doing it like before.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2013, 02:56:41 AM by SMP »

DIYRooftopSolar

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: The Zero-Energy Smart Home
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2013, 08:47:49 PM »
Quote
I'd love to hear more about how you did your installation

Mrs.Green'stache, thanks so much for the kind comments!  I'm working on adding more specific details to help people out with the nitty-gritty installation work, but my initial purpose of the blog is just to let people know how attainable solar power really is and dispel the myth that solar is super expensive.  My husband and his dad did all the installation so I need to sit down with them and get the important details down and then I'll add them to the site.
http://diyrooftopsolar.wordpress.com/

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!