I toured one of them this past weekend on the CRES solar home tour.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/pdfs/36102_habitat_denver.pdf
Greedy developers building pretty, expensive, fiberglass insulated, code minimum houses must change soon or they will be out of business.
Consumer education is the force that will put them under as energy costs rise.
H4H’s homes and publicity machine are showing the way. Too bad their homes are butt ugly and they don’t build basements because of construction safety reasons.
Replies
This oughta be a fun thread...
OK, will take a devil advocate roll and find some stuff to pick on to start Ron's 'fun' .... .
1. Photovoltaic is fine for spacecraft but is an energy and $$ loser except in very select locals.
2. The ahbitat house must have gotten a grant from the nat gas industry, otherwise they would use a heat pump and HP augmented solar water heat vs gas. BTW, gas prices are headed north big time.
3. Wierd numbers in the studies, or else everybody else is a true profiligate. Just reviewed records and used 71 MBTUs last year for all heat, cool, lights, appliance, etc and that is for 5300 sq ft and 6 outbuildings vs. the 90+ MBTU that is supposed to a good deal for the habitat house. (did however, use about 138 MBTUs for car gas and machinery diesel, but htat was not on the habitat list.
4. Who the heck wants to live in 1100 sq ft unless you have to or cannot do better. ..... IMNSHO, 4000 sq ft for 2 adults plus another 4000 sq ft of shops is about the minimum for a good comfortable redneck life style..... <G> ...... plus forgot 10 old cars for storage too???
Edited 10/5/2005 1:27 pm ET by junkhound
I agree that photovoltaic is not the most efficient way to generate electricity. If I were looking to generate my own renewable source, I would look into wind power, but that is still a very expensive outlay w/ a long time to recover costs.
Solar is only a "loser" if oil is underpriced and until it is massed produced.
Shell has an entire division marketing it to countries that don't have their heads burried in sand. We have gas stations here in CA who are putting solar cells on their buildings and running their pumps off of them, they don't tend to adopt eco friendly stuff enless it pays...
Wait till we look back at $2 and $3 gas with fond memories...
Junkhound,
"Photovoltaic is fine for spacecraft but is an energy and $$ loser except in very select locals"
Recognizing that a) you live under a perenial cloud cover b) with ample hydro-electric power I understand your position <grin>.
I don't know - does the entire state of California (or a substantial portion thereof) constitute a "very select locale"? 13-year payback (including financing charges) on a 20+ year system feels pretty good to me. My meter's been spinning backwards since August and I'm lovin it! And they just announced another electric rate hike. Sure am glad I'm in one of those select locals - LOL!
Wayne
caveat - this is a grid-tied system. No batteries (that's what drives the payoff negative)
Who besides CA allows hookups to spin the 'meter backwards' , anybody??
Most cogen facilities of any type require a separate meter e.g buy at 10 cents, gety paid 2 cents, etc.
Oberlin Oh spins the meter backwards.
It's a digital Time of Use meter - swings both ways - LOL. I get paid, and pay, the same residential rate. Currently 36 cents per KWH summer peak (M-F noon to 6 pm) and 9 cents off peak. Winter peak is only double off peak. So peak generation time is the same as top pay time - I just need to be sure to not run the AC then.
There was a regional Habitat building science workshop a few years ago in Colorado that was very interesting. While most Habitat houses that I've seen in other parts of the country are pretty basic, many in Colorado, especially central CO are among the most energy efficient homes in the state.
It should be kept in mind that each local Habitat chapter has complete control of the designs they are building, although many are built from pretty standard plans. Habitat houses in the ski towns can sometimes be really impressive with donated lots that are mostly vertical and donated designs from a few architects that I'd like to live in. The end results are pretty nice, but outside the norm for Habitat so nationally or regionally they don't want to focus attention on them since it would only confuse the Habitat mission.
Local chapters are encouraged to build simple homes that have the lowest possible long-term costs (loan repayment, upkeep, storage, utilities, etc.). After they are built the new owners can upgrade them if they want, but the as-built options are typically very few if any.
One ski town Habitat chapter sometimes gets small hot tubs donated and they agree to work them into the house, although it's frowned upon by many who think it's outside the principle of a no-frills design.
:-)
Like I said, select areas. Did not realize you got the same that Con Ed (or whoever) had to pay for peak hub prices, sweet deal. That would even pay to run a diesel if you did your own maintenance. Cogen driving commercial air conditioning pay even with $2.50 gal non-road diesel.
Built a prototype array for NASA 2 years ago, produced 16 kW-hrs a day, about 6 hrs at peak, le's see, thats $5.50 per day, say 120 days* of the year, $1.40 the other 245 days. Could probably DIY reproduce that with surplus spectrolab chips for about $6000 of chips and $4000 fresnel and $1000 for tracking and heat sink, and a few hundred hours work, payoff is $1000 per year, or 1/11 or 9% return on investment. Not to shabby. Even counting your labor is >5% return.
Another le's see - buy the power at night for what, 4 cents?, sell it back noon-6PM for 34 cents. 30 cents profit. 16 kW hours at 90% round trip efficinecy is a motor generator lifting/dropping 460,000 pounds 100 feet, or a ten yard cube of dirt only 10 feet. HMMM>>>
Whoops, just flunked econ 101 - if everybody does it, there goes the 34 cent peak pricing - which is the big hole in the affordable solar power niche -- go for it while you can if in the select area.
*but, only a few days at 34 cent peaking likely, not 120?
Junkhound, I love the way you think! If power companies are building plants to harvest the off peak capacity, http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_1875_4797_4010-3663-0_0_0-0,00.html then you'd think they'd gladly pay us independents to do it for them...Unfortunately, I think they only will pay you retail for the same $ that you used off the grid. That is, they will allow you to have a zero electric bill, but won't ever send you a check.
Pumped storage is cheaper than building a whole new plant, and way less than 1/2 the cost of solar. Current costs for coal fired plants including all environmental issues is about $1,100 per kW. Transmission lines add another few hundred.
I tried to sort out CA rule 21 once, but you can get definetely get paid in CA. I know you can get also paid in WA, but it is very differential, e.g pay 8 cents, get at most 2.5 cents for what yu generate, 2 separate meters, no backwards meter spinning.
CA and a few other states are legislative gravy train anomalies that you and I pay for, to wit: .
Here are some solar power economics : Small photovoltaic solar costs today are roughly $7K to $8K kWp installed.
Economic Break even points vary widely due to legislation and rate structures – these can change at any time.
Numbers* include State, federal, and local incentives, energy savings, environmental value, etc. . Examples:
You can spend up to $15.5K per kWp in NY and still come out ahead over the lifetime of the system. of that $15.5K, nearly $13K is incentive payouts. CA is second, with $11K per kWp, >$7K incentives.
Solar currently has a payoff only in 4 other states - in all 44 other states, there is never a payback economically at current rate structures.
In many states, Breakeven is under $3000 kWp, less than the cost to build even DIY.
*source: http://www.ewh.ieee.org
-
Edited 10/6/2005 7:38 am ET by junkhound
Edited 10/6/2005 7:41 am ET by junkhound
Well if you calculate what we spend to keep the Middle East stable into gasoline costs, gas just might be a bit more expensive and your calculations of the cost for solar might look different just as they will when we start running out of oil which most people are saying is only 20 years away.
It is just like people bitching about "subsidized" mass transit but forgetting who pays for all the costs associated with building roads, policing traffic laws, and overseeing car registration, etc.
start running out of oil
nah, just < $90 bbl will dissapear, numbers I've seen are that the Alberta tar sands become economical to process (in an ecologically sound manner mind you) at about $85 bbl. $4 (2005 $$) gas (plus tax natch') is about it in 20 plus years for another 100 years, with intermediate peaks (granted, maybe very high) while the sands are developed.
One of these days fusion will get working, wont need oil except for relatively cheap chemical feedstocks. Has been said for 100 years that oil is too good a rescource to burn, hasn't stopped me and probably has not stopped you??
As far as mass transit, the stuff proposed in the seattle area it would be cheaper to GIVE a $700,000 condo downtown to every projected rider!
Tar sands? Economically viable absolutely, however by the time the purpose built refineries come on line and the pipelines to transport it are built, there may not be an economy capable of paying for it.
As for your santimonious comment about burning oil for fuel, my Geo gets probably twice whatever you drive AND I live where I can walk to work.
Mass transit works best in high density environments, something real estate developers despise. Don't forget it was oil and rubber companies that bought up all the OLD rapid transit systems and ripped them out. Sacramento used to have one that covered the entire corner of California, a place bigger than some states. Standard Oil destroyed that one.
my Geo gets probably twice whatever you drive
WOW, your Geo gets 84 mpg? My oft rebuilt '71 Datsun truck only gets 42 mpg.
IIRC, Grand Coulee dam has a load leveling setup that pumps water to an uphill reservoir during off-peak hours, and uses it to run generators on the way back down during peak hours. That's in your corner of the country, isn't it?
-- J.S.
Right John, pumped storage is one of the economically sound ideas that work everytime. Especially in the springtime, lotsa DC link power sent to CA and Pasadena then.
Coulee other side of the mountains from here though.
BTW, the big power links and the hijinks on CA 'deregulation' a few years ago really 'screwed the pooch' on former 4 cent kW-hr rates here though. >:(
Who besides CA allows hookups to spin the 'meter backwards' , anybody??
If my memory serves me.... In Wisconsin, a farmer put up a windmill to generate electricity. The wind was blowing so hard he ran his meter backwards for the whole month and the utility owed him money. They jumped on him big time and shut him off the grid. He eventually went to the Supreme Court and the decision came down that the electrical companies must buy back the power but at a lower rate. So they went to the farmer and installed two meters. One for incoming and one for outgoing.You get out of life what you put into it......minus taxes.
Marv
New York allows what is called net metering
"Too bad their homes are butt ugly and they don't build basements because of construction safety reasons."
Also don't need an architect's/engineers's stamp if there's a basement (at least in Ohio).
As far as butt-ugly goes, there's a number of competitions partially sponsored by Habitat for Humanity for designers to come up with more contemporary designs. Was in one a couple of years ago . . . about 500 entries, didn't place but got selected with the top 100 for a national tour. So a strong desire is there, just hard to go from paper to reality. Anyone interested at other options (some on the bizarre side) check out
http://www.secca.org/homehouse/winners.html
http://www.urban-habitats.org/
Question: what about fiberglass insulation is bad? Or is it that there's something else comparable/better?
That's neat that H4H is getting concerned about style as well as energy.
It's hard to achieve and maintain low air infiltration rates with fiberglass compared to spray foam, SIPs, etc.
See page 2 of my link above.
"Greedy developers building pretty, expensive, fiberglass insulated, code minimum houses must change soon or they will be out of business."
"Greedy developers"? I'm sorry, I thought America was a capitalist country that allowed the market to set pricing. If you think developers are greedy, maybe you A) shouldn't buy or B) push for communism with the "state" can set the pricing.
Your thread is either an attempt to agitate the forum or just plain stupid. H for H isn't a trend setter for neither building nor this country. Their homes are essentially a double wide on a slab foundation. You've been watching too much NBC & MSNBC and their "effort" to rebuild the gulf states buy framing walls in NYC and LA and shipping them across the country. Great PR but just a stupid idea.
And if you think any developer is in competition in any way with H for H, you have a lot to learn about building.
I am a developer, and you absolutely right about market forces. In the media these days, you hardly ever see the word developer without that modifier.
You're also right that H4H is a double wide on a slab. But they HAVE taken a real initiative toward zero energy that no private developers have yet. It's the consumers that influence developers, and until recently home energy consumption has been a non-issue to new home buyers.
H4H gets tons of publicity. Buyers will start asking "If H4H can build a zero energy home for $60/ft, why can't I get one for $150/ft.?" And the answer is yes they can as soon as builders and developers learn the important points and implement them.
Yes, I'm trying to agitate.
Junkhound,
Sorry for my confusion. My link above is a good description of the H4H homes, but isn't the zero energy one that I toured, which was built in 2005: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003529.html
H4H pays little for the labor. That brings the price/sqft way down. They also get donations of materials. Again that brings the price down.My shop cost $20/sqft plus labor. Consider it a house. I can use the restroom at the gas station. I can eat at the diner. It is real easy to build cheap.
Edited 10/5/2005 7:29 pm ET by GHR
>> H4H pays little for the labor. <<
Well, sort of... Where I live in Wake Co NC volunteers do the carpentry, sometimes the roofing, painting, shrub planting and a few other items... They hire out the surveying, footers, brick work, plumbing, HVAC, elect, insulation, sheetrock, flooring, concrete, grading and even the roofing for 7:12 or greater roofs.
>> They also get donations of materials. <<
Here in Wake County most building material donations are taken for sale in their "Re-Use" store. Generally, they don't use donated materials because it just ends up being a bunch of odd stuff, the the volunteers are challenged enough without trying to figure out how to put together a kitchen of cabinets that aren't for the house that they are building. They do use some donated material, like odd-lot donated brick, and they get all the backer rod they can use for free from a local factory.
The mileage of your H4H may vary. Here they build about 50 houses a year and they are able to achieve this via some of the above procedures. About 1/2 of the houses they build are energy star certified.
As far as your shop without kitchen or bathroom - hey... I built a really cool dog house out of scrap stuff from the job site... I guess that qualifies too...
As far as the title of this thread "Habitat Homes are the Best".... Locally they do a nice job with some aspects of the efficiency of the building. As far as the workmanship it varies wildly mostly toward the sub-standard side. The thing that I really think is a joke though is that the quality of the .org employees is marginal at best - the construction management process is punctuated often with anywhere from incompetence to occasional colossal F-ups... I could give a hundred stories...
Edited 10/5/2005 8:39 pm ET by Matt
" publicity machine "
What publicity machine? Or is that YOU?
That is not a H4H generated program.
It is a Building Amereica program. H4H is just the sponsor on one demonstration project. How many other homes like that have H4H done oout of all their homes.
And if you check into it some of the other demonstration projects have been done by those "greedy developers". In fact some of those "greedy delopers" have applied some of the features into their standard house.
Kevin, This is going on all over the country. A buddy of mine is the developer of this one:http://www.silverwood-inc.com/ "what's in a name?" d'oh!
H4H projects are all different. The ones I worked on were actually quite nice looking from a distance. An architectural firm donated the design work. They had a very convenient floorplan, too, two story with attached garage. No doubt others are just boxes. The downside is that everything was dead minimum cheap as possible on materials - Hardie over 3/8" sheathing, aluminum windows.
They're a charity, they take what gets donated, and stretch it as far as they can.
-- J.S.
"They're a charity, they take what gets donated, and stretch it as far as they can."
Correct and cant be criticized from this angle . Of course they are simple and by all means they should be .
Now why dont all come up and sign up to donate some labor?
Tim