New Test House to Generate More Energy than It Uses

September 17th, 2012 by Joshua S Hill

They’ll call anything a laboratory these days. The U.S. Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) last week unveiled its new “house,” which will serve as a testbed to demonstrated that a stereotypical suburban home can generate as much energy as it needs to run in a year.

The facility has already undergone a year-long experimental phase and will now continue to improve test methods for energy-efficient technologies and develop cost-effective design standards for energy-efficient homes that will eventually see a reduction in overall energy consumption and harmful pollution, not to mention saving families money on their monthly utility bills.

The building was constructed to look and feel like an ordinary suburban home, but was built to U.S. Green Building Council LEED Platinum standards.

The house is a two-story, four-bedroom, three-bath home, and it incorporates energy-efficient construction, appliances, as well as energy-generating technologies such as solar water heating and solar photovoltaic systems.

Now it just needs a windmill out the back.

“Results from this lab will show if net-zero home design and technologies are ready for a neighborhood near you,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director Patrick Gallagher. “It will also allow development of new design standards and test methods for emerging energy-efficient technologies and, we hope, speed their adoption.”

There won’t be actual people living in the house, but, to simulate regular living situations, NIST researchers will use computer software and mechanical controls to mirror a family of four living regularly in the house. Lights will turn on and off at specified times, hot water and appliances will run, and small devices will emit heat and humidity just as people would.

The lights and appliances will be powered by the solar photovoltaic system and any excess energy will be sent back to the local utility grid by means of a smart electric meter. On days when the weather prevents conventional use of the photovoltaic system, the house will draw energy from the grid. Combined, however, the house will still create more energy than it uses.

Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: department of commerce, doc, home solar, laboratory house, National Institute of Standards and Technology, net zero, net zero buildings, net-zero house, NIST, residential solar, smart electric meter

About the Author

Joshua S Hill I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket! I also write for Fantasy Book Review (.co.uk), and can be found writing articles for a variety of other sites. Check me out at about.me for more.

http://www.aboutpeople.com.au/ Ian Cleland

It is one thing building an energy efficient homes. The question I ask what is the LCA (life cycle assessment) of the building. You can build a very efficient building if you throw enough money at it. Should it not be the most efficient building with the least impact.
http://twitter.com/solarEworld Solar Energy World

It’s similar to the concept of the Zerohouse:
http://dc.curbed.com/archives/2012/07/a-new-zerohouse-in-waldorf-maryland.php
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  definitely.
Jennifer Prokhorov

Take it a step further. I think some energy-rich environments with smart home constructions could see families living in homes which produce more energy than they consume, contributing the surplus for profit into the grid.
anderlan

No mention of an Energy Recovery Ventilator as in the Passivhaus standard. You need smart ventilation in a tight house.
http://twitter.com/krakenaut predrag raos

This “stereotypical house” is no more stereotypical even in USA, let alone in the world. 46% of young Americans do not want to own a house, preffering to live in densely populated centers. Where solar is off.
Homes use about 1/3 of total electricity, botched US nukes produce about 20%.
About 1/3 of total energy comes as electricity. So even 50% of Americans living in such homes could add only 0.5×0.3×0.3 or about 5% to total power production.
Nukes could add 200% in about 20y without missing a beat — even without major advances, just by regular rationalisation and evolution.
- anderlan
  
  Sounds like you need to support a carbon price if you want a transition away from fossil carbon energy that is based on the merits of each non-fossil energy source.
  - http://twitter.com/krakenaut predrag raos
    
    Fossils are worst solution, nukes are the solution. Wind is at best stop-gap and partial solution. PV will have its niche application, mostly for peak generation. It’s good as long as you understand its limitations, and as long as it doesn’t distract you from the solution. As happened in Germany where green snake oil closed nukes only to resurect coal-fired plants.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      The problem for you is that you are wrong.
      
      Look at the US. We are accelerating the installation of renewables and are not building reactors at a replacement rate for those which are wearing out.
      
      You can make all the statements you want about wind and solar not being sufficient to power the grid but you simply make yourself look like a wrong-headed old crank who doesn’t understand how the grid works and how the energy supply of the future is developing.
      
      Germany did not ” resurect ” coal. T*he new coal burning plants are replacing (not adding to) the older plants that either have been or will soon be decommissioned. By 2020 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity will be decommissioned and only 11.3 GW will be newly installed. That’s a net loss of 7.2 GW of coal generation.*
      
      Rail on, but you’re getting nowhere.
      - burl
        
        You have to be really dense to not watch the wind blow and not realize the wind is the energy choice of the future until we are smart enough to figure out how to harness geothermal for our electricity needs. Geothermal can be an absolute constant and virtually perpetual energy source that would require less exploitation of the environment than is currently happening. The time may be coming soon with more radioactive waves reaching us we may see a jump in solar panel capabilities which could almost make solar relevant. But the sad truth is that we do not currently have viable technology to rely on solar for our energy needs. The winds do not always blow but much more than the sun shines. I would not have a problem with the intelligent and cautious us of Nuclear energy.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Our solar panels are pretty good. Just using existing technology and existing roof space we could produce a huge amount of the power we need. And the price drop is on the way to being cheap.
        
        The missing technology is cheap storage. Not storage, but cheap storage. We’ve got a couple of promising battery technologies in the works and if either pans out then we’ve got the holy trinity – wind, solar, and storage – to give us the power we need.
        
        Geothermal will probably be in the mix, but as a secondary player. Unless someone cracks the ‘hot rocks’/enhanced geothermal problem. Enhanced has a much larger geographical potential while wet rock geothermal is limited.
      - http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
        
        geothermal will be included. but it doesn’t look like it will be a huge piece of the pie.
        
        but, clearly, we’ve each got our own favorite energy source.
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  if you’re going to buy a house, buying a net zero one is one of the greenest things you can do (possibly behind switching to a vegetarian or vegan diet and bicycling).
  
  as for the nuke rant — not really the place for it.