Comments on: New Test House to Generate More Energy than It Uses

By: Ian Cleland

Ian Cleland — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:53:00 +0000

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.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:31:00 +0000

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.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:30:00 +0000

definitely.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:28:00 +0000

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.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:29:00 +0000

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.

By: burl

burl — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:11:00 +0000

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.

By: Solar Energy World

Solar Energy World — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:16:00 +0000

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

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:33:00 +0000

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.

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:43:00 +0000

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.

By: Jennifer Prokhorov

Jennifer Prokhorov — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:49:00 +0000

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.

By: anderlan

anderlan — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:47:00 +0000

No mention of an Energy Recovery Ventilator as in the Passivhaus standard. You need smart ventilation in a tight house.

By: anderlan

anderlan — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:46:00 +0000

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.

By: predrag raos

predrag raos — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:40:00 +0000

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.