Exhausted By a House That Saves Energy
user-917907
| Posted in General Questions on
An article in the New York Times about a couple who built a very large net-zero house in Vermont, and are now regretting building too large and too complicated.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Search and download construction details
Replies
Very good article. Goes to show technology does not wait for you to grow old before it passes you by.
Wow, do solar panels really need to be shoveled off in the winter? I would have thought that snow wouldn't last long on a dark, slippery incline.
KISS: Keep it simple stupid
There was no need to do the wood pellet and radiant heat. A few ductless mini splits would have solved the issue and made it clean and simple.
I read of so many problems with geothermal systems and similar systems that are complex and expensive to install and operate.
Aaron - If to much snow accumulates on cloudy snowy days it definitely can stick around. Just like a metal roof i suppose. Eventually it will fall of most likely or melt - but sometimes in colder climates mid winter warmups (28-36°) can be far and in between....
Good thing is that when the snow does slide off it does a great job of cleaning the panel of dust. Plus cold air keeps panels cold and efficient - and clear dry air lets a good amount of light to the panel.
Elevator… indoor pool… 5,000 square feet… three heating systems… entirely aside from all the green juju, these attributes are going to make a house a nightmarish amount of labor to maintain. Less is more!
Nick T: do you shovel off your solar panels? Do people generally do the same? Are there any consequences to neglecting that task other than losing a little energy production capacity?
Once the homeowners install some reliable source of heating that doesn't require manual labor to keep running, can't they mothball the farm aspects of the house (chickens, hydroponics), and neglect most of the onerous tasks mentioned in the article (stop shoveling the panels, don't use the insulated shades)?
Peter L: I don't quite understand your comment about ground source heat pumps. They are complex to install, but simple and cheap to operate. Had the residents installed a ground source heat pump from the start (or ductless mini-splits, or even a propane boiler and A/C for that matter), their major complaint of having to constantly labor to shovel fuel in the hopper (or wood in the fire) would be moot.
Nope - don't have any. Only work on the fringe of the industry so hear about it at seminars and in my reading/discussions. Along with it being an interest of mine.
I guess only issue I can think of would be the loss of generation during a pretty good period of the year. They are typically fairly well supported (for wind/snow) - so weight likely would be an issue.
Martin w/GBA would be a better source for that i suppose as he has had a good amount of solar for many years.
Aaron,
Most grid-connected homeowners don't remove snow from their PV panels. Instead, they just wait for warm weather.
If you want to encourage snow to slide off your panels, you can adjust their angle seasonally. In October, the panels can be adjusted to a steep angle, almost vertical, to encourage snow to slide off. In April or May, the panels can be returned to the summer angle. Again, few grid-connected homeowners do this.
Off-grid homeowners really appreciate winter electricity. They are far more likely than grid-connected homeowners to adjust the angles of their panels and rush out with a broom every time it snows. That's what I do.
Martin's the King of off-grid!
Martin I'm curious, how did you resolved your frozen pipe issues?
Richard,
I haven't had any frozen pipes for a long time, but I know all of the thawing tricks to use when thawing is necessary.
We haven't had any below-zero weather yet this season. This morning the thermometer reads 3°F, but that isn't cold enough for me to have to worry about frozen pipes.
A good article.
For all the building science to save energy the greatest is the size of building.
Having rentals you realize no place is too big or too small for a renter. it comes down to how much crap they have. I've had both comments on the same rental before with the same amount of people living their. I think a good rule of thumb is to look at homes historically in terms of size. What is a practical sized home verses what people's dream house size is? Practically a person can easily be in 500 square per person. Means the couple could downsize to a thousand square feet with a guest house for visitors. All the new constructed homes should take a page from rental sizes. I know that the difference between around 900 square foot verses 1200 square foot rental, everything else equal, is not giving me more rent. So practically I go with lower square footage because of maintenance cost and taxes. As a bonus the tenant is paying less for utilities and therefore more likely to pay rent on time and have a happier family (money problems equal divorce)
So the basic foundation to being green is building smaller. Not tiny, but smaller. It makes sense. I would look at average apartment sizes to figure out the average size a new house should be for any given location for a starting point on size. The ability to add more higher quality features is an added bonus.
A good article to show any prospective buyer how a bigger house isn't better at all.
On the small house topic...
I like a decent sized home (not 500/person(where do you fart???!!!)... but also not 2500/person) - I feel the going national Avg/Median for new homes of 2600/2400 isn't a bad starting point (assuming 3+people?) that puts it around 833sqft per person. Big by many standards, bigger then the existing home base, and def. bigger then apartment size.
I don't think it is a fair discussion to even start talking about size, when the topic home is a mansion. The fact that it is well above code is at least something good about it. :-/
The idea that people should live in the same size home now....as they did in 1980 or 1940 or in London... is a bit off. Or the idea that people who make $100-500k a year need to live in the same(or same size) home as someone who rents a small apartment and works the nightshift at a security desk?
Before our child was born, my wife and I lived in a 650 square foot one bedroom apartment. The size was perfect. After the addition to our family, all we needed was another bedroom. That was it. No extra bathroom, no den, no playroom, no family room, no man cave, no walk-in closet the size of a bedroom, nada. Just another bedroom. We eventually ended up moving to the smallest house we could find - 1,100 square feet with 3 beds and 2 baths. We still haven't used the second bathroom and the third bedroom is mostly vacant. People can thrive in a much more compact space than is commonly assumed. I grew up in a 2,800 square foot house and am convinced that the only reason for such houses is to be inhabited by either enormous Mormon families with like 7 kids, or by people who actually can't stand one another and need totally separate spaces to avoid as much interaction as possible because the house is cheaper than divorce.
Right, that's called the hedonic treadmill. But research shows that people stuck on it aren't actually deriving any additional happiness from their "upgrades." It's that their standards are rising so it requires more to make them happy. This is getting sort of off-topic, but I would suggest that the absolute best thing you can do for your own happiness is to get off the treadmill rather than acquiesce to the desire to constantly want more. This desire has no natural limit, and following it ultimately leaves you hollow and exhausted the more relentlessly you pursue it, as the couple profiled in the article illustrates.
This isn't say that more is never better, but I think it's definitely worth finding a sensible place where you can be content once you find a reasonable amount of comfort. As applied to houses, this means things along the line of forgoing the home theater room and just going to the theater or a bar to watch the game. The idea of a "green" 5,000 square foot house with an indoor pool, an elevator, and three heating systems seems borderline ludicrous to me.
I lived in a dorm in college...the size didn't bug me one bit. Wasn't a fan of noise or having to worry about my noise on occasion. Stayed in studios as well... and cheap one bedrooms. Again they were great at the time. Wouldn't go back to that however after 10yrs of living in two different houses (except for vacation home or late life downsizing).
Watch psuedo reality shows like "Love it or list it" and you can quickly see the reasons. (although over hyped...and often ridiculous)
I'm often reminded of the small house mentality by family with small homes - as you trip over toys/cables/mail... and wait to use the 1 bath... or go home after late night because of lack of sleeping area. Watch the big game at a 65° angle in a tight living room... etc.
Homes can often designed to make best use of space. Heck their are entire websites dedicated to small/tiny spaces. But I think most people get a similar problem in the boating world... two foot itis... each boat (over the course of a boaters life) is always just a little bigger or they want a bigger boat eventually (either by 'need' or envy). Or with cars... people slowly move to nicer cars it seems and once you go nice its tough to back to a econo car.
--(to keep on topic more...i'll taper off i'll just edit to end it...)--
V------ WELL SAID Nathaniel G ! Well said. Hard to fight it in some respects, its ingrained in people to strive for 'more' , more money, more power, gold, happiness, jewels, house, status, etc...
It's still a free country, right? If someone wants 500 square feet per person or 1,500 square feet per person, that is their right. We can debate about what's the "green" size or what is "morally green" but in the end it is up to the homeowner. The whole "I'm more morally greener than you" because I live in a 300 sqft apartment is nonsense.
Who defines what is the per person square foot rule in order for it to be "green"?
Size matters when being green. Being a free country has nothing to do with it. Materials, heat/cooling loads and maintenance are part of the whole picture. The apartment size in your area should be a starting point to define what size is green for a house. Apartment sizes are determed to go give the highest ROI without being too small that no one lives in them. You can say everything above those sizes is excess for a house easily when talking about being green. A home owner could have a 5000 square foot house. To call it green would be a stretch.
Being smaller doesn't mean less practical space per say. One of the rentals I have has a small kitchen with a pantry. That pantry is equal to 9 three foot cabinets with an extra shelf in them each. It also has three cabinets. Another rental has twice the size kitchen and has only room for three cabinets without the ability to have a pantry. Which kitchen is better? The smaller one of course.
Having a smaller place that is greener isn't a rich verses poor arguement. It's a life style choice. Would you rather pay a million on a house and make payments or build a small place with cash and have money to go on trips every month, have nicer things in the house, better car, etc...?