[HN Gopher] Zero energy ready homes are coming ___________________________________________________________________ Zero energy ready homes are coming Author : ricardou Score : 86 points Date : 2023-03-07 19:53 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.energy.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.energy.gov) | dabber21 wrote: | Like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house ? | yourapostasy wrote: | Passiv Haus (or loosely equivalently the US Passive House) is | supposed to be a shorthand to express it takes less energy than | conventionally required to achieve Net Zero. But not all Passiv | Haus designs are necessarily Net Zero, and not all Net Zero | designs necessarily use Passiv Haus to accomplish their rating. | ortusdux wrote: | Basically, but it looks like this certification is protected | and carries benchmarks, similar to the Energy Star program. | Syonyk wrote: | No, because those actually work. But they're also tricky to | operate properly. | | This seems more like "I want you to feel good about your | purchase while you're still dependent on external energy | inputs." | | If you can find details on what it actually requires, please, | share, because I've spent the past 15 minutes snoofing around | and I sure can't find it. | ortusdux wrote: | https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/DOE%20ZER. | .. | Syonyk wrote: | Thanks. So gas water heaters are fine. Yay? | ricardou wrote: | I live on campus at Cornell Tech. The student residence hall[0] | there is built following Passive House standards and it is | actually surprising how good it works. My one complaint is the | heating and cooling systems in every apartment unit are very | heavily regulated, so at times the inside feel and temperature | aren't ideal. It's a minor thing though. | | [0] https://thehouseatcornelltech.com/sustainability/ | al_be_back wrote: | zero energy, zero home then. | orcajerk wrote: | [flagged] | aclatuts wrote: | People go broke if their utilities go up $100 a month. It's | better if houses were built to not depend on volatile energy | prices. Net zero homes basically move the monthly utility cost | from an ongoing variable bill and basically prepays it into the | mortgage which would have more predicable pricing. All that | extra cost should also stay as value to the house. | Syonyk wrote: | They don't! | | They only hate _poor families_ who can 't afford a $500k+ home | and His-and-Hers Matching Teslas. | orangepurple wrote: | If leadership is affiliated with whoever commissioned the | Georgia Guidestones the plan is as follows: | | 1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance | with nature. | | 2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity. | | 3. Unite humanity with a living new language. | | 4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with | tempered reason. | | 5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. | | 6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes | in a world court. | | 7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials. | | 8. Balance personal rights with social duties. | | 9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the | infinite. | | 10. Be not a cancer on the Earth - Leave room for nature - | Leave room for nature. | rafark wrote: | For people allergic to electricity. | la64710 wrote: | $5000 tax credit for a ZERH home that may cost $400k to build. | Just from an incentive pov is it enough to swing the needle? Most | probably I am glossing over something. | ortusdux wrote: | My take on this is that they are making the equivalent of an | Energy Start certification for housing. In theory, having this | cert should raise the value of the house. I view the $5k as a | way to offset the cost of applying. | Ancalagon wrote: | Yeah I'm laughing at this too. With land prices being what they | are, this just means builders will make only luxury multi- | million dollar homes with these codes in mind. | s1artibartfast wrote: | This is a pet issue of mine, having lived in two off grid homes | going back to the 80's. | | The barriers are not materials, technology, or labor, but purely | regulatory. | | I could take my current home off permanently grid with solar | today for less than 10k but to do so would be illegal. | | Permitted grid connected solar costs 5x that and disconnecting | from the grid is not permitted. | potmat wrote: | > disconnecting from the grid is not permitted | | Wait, what? What happens if you just don't pay your bill? | | Edit: Or just disconnect internally, meaning you use no power. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | They are most likely referring to many/most counties require | a grid connection for the home to be considered "habitable". | Refusing and living in a un-habitable home can have all sorts | of fun consequences up to and including the seizure of your | own children by the state. | mattnewton wrote: | Not OP but in many municipalities the dwelling would be no | longer up to code, and therefore illegal to inhabit | dymk wrote: | Illegal to sell perhaps, but where does that mean illegal | to inhabit as well? | wombat_trouble wrote: | Every other home in the US isn't up to code. The code | changes over time and governs all kinds of mundane things | that you as a homeowner don't pay attention to (and | shouldn't be forced to). Not being compliant doesn't make a | home illegal to live in. | | This is different. Many municipalities specifically require | all dwellings to have basic utilities (water, sewer, | electricity, garbage service), even if you're not using | them. Not having that will get you in trouble pretty | quickly. | | Unincorporated areas are usually fair game. | aclatuts wrote: | Disconnecting from the grid is overly romanticized. What you | get from paying the utilities is a team of people who will fix | equipment issues due to failure or the environment. If your | home battery system has issues, scheduling someone could take a | day or more. Off grid electrical services isn't popular enough | to be on call 24/7. And getting parts may get take even more | time. Equipment failure could take your electricity out for | days or weeks. Being fully off grind means over provisioning | your electrical storage and production, adding to costs. You | also would not be able to sell your excess electricity. Also, | in terms of house value, I imagine more people value the peace | of mind of a connected electrical grid over saving the small | fixed monthly connection fee. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I totally agree that it is not for everybody, but I think | there is a place for it and think there should be fewer | barriers . | | I've seen a few people quoted more than 500K for PG&E to run | power to their house. That can buy a lot of redundancy and | peace of mind. Similarly, many cities have power outages | longer than 24 hours on an annual basis in California. At | this point most people in my neighborhood have gas generators | for when the grid goes out. | kibwen wrote: | _> disconnecting from the grid is not permitted_ | | In the context of the OP, which is a federal agency, whether or | not you can build a house that is disconnected from the | electrical grid is determined first by your local laws, and | secondly by your state laws. You can certainly build houses in | the US that aren't on the electrical grid, demonstrating that | there's no federal prohibition against it. | boringg wrote: | To be fair - technology is lacking for people living in the | city to be able to go off grid in a meaningful way. | | Disconnecting from the grid - that sounds like there's some | kind of clause in the area that you live that essentially ties | you to the utility. You must live in on the pacific coast or | SW. | | EDIT: To all the responses - I'm talking off grid as in all | functionality. Sure you can add solar / solar thermal etc | though in many places it isn't cost effective and doesn't make | a lot of sense in a city where the alternative is that those | costs are defrayed across a large base that provides | reliability and service. I don't have much love for utilities | but they do provide a valuable service. | orcajerk wrote: | Things may be different now but some cities used to the | condemn the house if it did not have electricity from a | provider. It is a scam, considering most people did not have | electricity even 100 years ago. | s1artibartfast wrote: | That's fair if you're talking about all utilities in the | city. Sewer and water are the main problems in an urban | environment. Rooftop solar on the other hand is dirt cheap | and only slightly more complicated to install then plugging | in a toaster. | boringg wrote: | Actually rooftop solar isn't dirt cheap where we are. And | typically requires an electric service upgrade - you also | need to make sure you aren't near the end of your roof life | as you'll need to upgrade your roof as well. | | I'm all for it where it makes sense but it isn't a blanket | statement. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I mean dirt cheap and absence of cumbersome regulations | and requirements. For example, you can find panels as low | as $0.07/kwh these days. | | My primary complaint is in agreement; solar is not cheap | once you take them into account | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | > for people living in the city to be able to go off grid in | a meaningful way. | | Everyone has a use for hot water. You can always have off- | grid solar heating an auxiliary tank to take the load off the | primary water heater. | boringg wrote: | Having a hot water heater isn't the equivalent of going | off-grid in a meaningful way. | | You are talking about incremental improvements. | jimt1234 wrote: | I'm just curious: what happens if a home owner installs a bunch | of solar panels and batteries, declares the property "off grid" | (for electricity), then simply stops paying the local utility. | I'm sure the local utility will stop service, which is what the | home owner wants by going "off grid". But does it go beyond | that? Will the local utility put a lien on the house? Will the | local utility send any unpaid "fees" to collection? Does the | local municipality condemn the property (or something similar)? | Are there potential criminal charges? | jedberg wrote: | How would you get enough panels and all the support equipment | for $10K if there were no regulations? I'm looking into it | right now and I don't see a path to that. | mindslight wrote: | > _Permitted grid connected solar costs 5x that and | disconnecting from the grid is not permitted._ | | Why not treat them as independent problems - an off-grid solar | system for most of your electricity, while also maintaining a | nominal (/backup) grid connection? If your home is already | connected to the grid, then I would think the ongoing cost | would be minimal and could be viewed as just another tax. | giantg2 wrote: | Interesting. Is there a good consise page detailing the main | differences between this and older standards? Stuff like cost and | ease of maintenance comparisons? | jabart wrote: | Things switched from insulating the wall cavity to insulating | the outside of the house. Engineers started to factor in the | insulation value of a 2x6 compared to the insulation it was | next to and the heat loss in cold climates. Same applies for | hot climates. Now these homes are being wrapped in insulation | on the outside with all joints sealed, then insulated on the | inside and essentially pressure tested for air leaks. The | houses can be "tight" enough that you have to have a system to | cycle in fresh air in a way that it heats/cools it with the air | that is leaving. You also need a makeup air vent for things | like a stove hood. | | There is a new system that before drywall goes up, they | pressurize the house and spray a caulk in the air that finds | its way to all the pinhole leaks and seals them to further | reduce air leaks during the building process. | amluto wrote: | > You have to have a system to cycle in fresh air in a way | that it heats/cools it with the air that is leaving. | | This is quite nice regardless. Houses are unlikely to be so | drafty that the air inside is always fresh, and a real | ventilation system will deliver fresh, filtered air all the | time. | | > You also need a makeup air vent for things like a stove | hood. | | You need this anyway, at least in CA, if your hood exceeds | 400cfm, and it's probably a good idea regardless. Sadly, high | end hoods seem to mostly have way too much airflow, and | decent makeup air systems are rare and complex. | Gibbon1 wrote: | > Things switched from insulating the wall cavity to | insulating the outside of the house. | | Oh good they finally figured that out. Cause that's where you | want the stuff. And insulating a bunch cavities is labor | intensive. | amluto wrote: | I'm not at all convinced that exterior insulation would | have lower labor cost. You have to competently install | sheets of rigid insulation, and then you need to | competently install siding over it. | | Insulating cavities needs some skilled labor if you use | mineral wool, but a skilled installer goes _fast_. Or you | can use some kind of blown in product, which takes very | little labor. (I have never seen competently installed | fiberglass batts. I'm not sure they really exist.) | mikeyouse wrote: | Insulting cavities _well_ is immensely labor intensive | and unfortunately is still required in homes with | exterior insulation so you 're kind of getting the worst | of both worlds. Exterior insulation is an absolute breeze | in comparison though, there are tons of product on the | market that integrate the sheathing and insulation into a | single unit so it installs just like any other exterior | sheathing would. | amluto wrote: | I watched a crew install a blown fiberglass product: they | stapled fabric over the walls, poked holes in it, and | stuck a hose in each hole so a machine in their truck | could flow fiberglass into the cavity. It went very | quickly and fully filled the cavities. | | John Mansville Spider Plus looks like another interesting | product -- blown fiberglass that is just sticky enough | that it can supposedly be applied to walls and even | ceilings without anything to contain it. | TrueSlacker0 wrote: | How will I get to experience opening up a wall in the house I | have lived in for a decade to find McDonalds trash stuck in | the wall instead of insulation? | ortusdux wrote: | Heat exchangers are a big one, but they are not yet that | common in the US. They are used to pre-heat the makeup air. | I'm looking into one atm as part of a HVAC upgrade as | currently running a bath fan with all the windows closed will | draw air down the chimney. | oh_sigh wrote: | I understand you can just check the pressure during a blower | test to see if there are leaks, but how do they actually | identify where the leaks are? Go around all over the house | with a smoke gun? | mikeyouse wrote: | Largely yes. You don't need to survey every inch though | since leaks aren't present in the middle of walls, but | typically at complex areas (around windows, roof | penetrations, can lights, outlets, rim joists, etc) so a | little smoke quickly IDs those issue areas. Another way way | to find leaks is to run the blower door tests on a day | where there's a large temperature differential (ideally | when it's very cold outside). You can use a thermal camera | before the test and then after you depressurize the house | for a 10 or 15 minutes - the leaky areas are perfectly | obvious on the thermal since the cold outdoor air is | washing over the walls near the leaks. Taking the | before/during thermal videos on a walkthrough lets you | compare the side-by-side later on and ID which spots need | attention. | Syonyk wrote: | If there's a good thermal difference between interior | temperature and exterior temperature, a thermal imager will | help catch an awful lot of the leaks. | jws wrote: | There are tax credits to the builder to offset some of the | increased up front cost, $2000 + $500 for some systems, and 22% | on PV systems. It looks like the homeowner can get a $5000 tax | credit for 10 years. | | The goal is to transition to housing which can be powered by | renewables. To that end there are requirements for the thermal | integrity of the envelope and windows, there must be electric | run for HVAC heat pumps, hot water heat pumps, and at least one | EV parking space. Lighting must be modern high efficiency | stuff. Ductwork must be inside the thermal envelope. There are | indoor air quality standards to meet. | Syonyk wrote: | https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/zero-energy-ready-home... | seems to be the main landing page, and it's a bit handwaving... | | > _A DOE Zero Energy Ready Home is a high-performance home that | is so energy efficient that a renewable energy system could | offset most or all the home 's annual energy use._ | | "Most or all" and "annual energy use" allow for some massive | wiggle room. Annual energy use by who? A family with a couple | teenage girls is going to likely use a lot more hot water than | a family with a three year old boy. | | I can't find any actual concrete details on it, annoyingly. So | I have to agree that it's more of a feel-good listing until | proven otherwise. | giantg2 wrote: | I was really interested in the insulation part and building | design. The only thing I could find was that it has to be | energy star, which is only 10% better insulation than code. | mikeyouse wrote: | ACH2.0 in most of the upper part of the country is pretty | aggressive. The 2015 ICC isn't a slouch either -- say | you're in Chicagoland building a new home, this would | mandate R49 in the attic, R20 in the walls (or R13 in the | bays + R5 exterior), R15 on basement walls, R30 in the | floors. | | It could of course be much more aggressive, and likely will | be eventually, but if you had a ACH2 house with those | insulation values, minimum U-0.3 windows, >0.94 efficient | gas furnace / high quality heat pumps, it would be a _very_ | efficient house. | | Table R402.1.2 here: | https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IECC2015/chapter-4-re- | resi... | itake wrote: | I'm also curious if there is a path to upgrade existing homes | to this standard or do you have to demolish and rebuild (which | is not legal in many cities). | amateuring wrote: | no, it's just a feel good PR campaign | smolder wrote: | To get really high R value on insulation, often that means a | 2x6 or 2x8 framed outer wall to allow for the additional | thickness needed by the insulation. Double pane windows are | well-surpassed by those with many panes and carefully designed | frames with low thermal bridging. Aside from more insulation | you need great air sealing, across every joint and in every | window and door frame. Older construction had no explicit | ventilation, just a lot of leaking such that the house | "breathed". On modern, efficient homes, the air seal is very | tight for efficiency reasons, so you _need_ an ERV /HRV system | to exhange air for you to keep the air healthy, while | minimizing energy loss for that airflow. Insulating materials | used inside the roof and sheathing are typically closed cell | foam or rockwool, or in Europe they sometimes use a wood fiber | based insulation. There are lots of caulks and adhesive tapes | for getting a good air seal, and there's also a technique where | one pumps the house frame full of a vapor that reacts across | pressure drops and plugs any holes it flows through. | | Last, well insulated homes can get cheap heating and cooling | from modestly sized heat pumps which are very efficient. One | zero energy home I saw has heat exchangers on the roof to | capture energy from the sun for warm water as well, | supplemented by heat pumps powered by photovoltaics. | gregwebs wrote: | What about the existing housing stock? There's a lot of energy | upgrades that pay off well over a couple decades, but not when | you move an average of every 7 years and the new homeowners don't | know how or care to value your upgrades. | | I think the government could create regulation to fix the | incentives here. Something like allowing enhanced energy | efficiency to be paid over time by creating a lien on the house | that a new homeowner has to continue to make payments towards. | paiute wrote: | Those dehumidifiers make these places uninhabitable for me. | Constant low humidity is really unhealthy. Without them these | ultra insulated homes have major vapor and mold issues. Being | highly insulated is good but at a point it's just silly. I'd | rather see efforts to insulate old trailers, manufactured homes, | etc. Rich people experimenting with zero energy homes don't need | a credit. | olau wrote: | I agree on low humidity being bad, but your remark on | insulation does not seem correct. I'm only familiar with cold | climates, so perhaps I'm overlooking something, but mold needs | moisture to grow, so it will appear where water condenses out | of warm air on a cold surface. You can typically see this in | windows. | | So you need to prevent cold surfaces. The best way to do that | is improving the insulation. The reason you can see water drops | in the windows is precisely because they are inadequately | insulated (e.g. only double paned). | | Now, it's true that if you make an airtight home, then you need | some kind of air exchange. And if it's really cold outside, | then even if it's wet, once that air is warmed up, it ends up | at a low relative humidity. In that case you need a humidifier. | I guess depending on the outside air, you'd probably need both | to stay in a comfortable range. | paiute wrote: | It's not super intuitive at first, but its cold climates were | this is actually a big issue. Water vapor "wants" to equalize | from a more humid to less humid environment. So when it's | cold out - the humidity can drop rather low. Then you take a | shower and create water vapor - which flows into the walls, | through the insulation, and condenses against the colder | exterior. Open a wall in any stick frame house in the rocky | mountain region and mildew will be present. I am building a | highly insulated house in a cold climate area and have | blasted all the wood with copious amount of a silver based | coating to inhibit mold growth. | paiute wrote: | This installation chart is a pretty useful starting place, | regrettably local codes often require you to do the wrong | thing https://www.certainteed.com/insulation/resources/do- | i-need-v... | BenjiWiebe wrote: | We have a highly insulated home with a heat recovery air | exchanger. | swalling wrote: | The location of the home (Fairhope, Alabama) is in a humid | subtropical climate where the average humidity is above 70% | year round. I couldn't find any data but seems possible that | the net average interior humidity is not actually that low? | Waterluvian wrote: | Aren't larger, opulent home designs far more difficult to make | energy efficient? | Syonyk wrote: | Generally, yes. They tend to have a lot of corners (for their | "architectural features" checklist), and those are really hard | to insulate well. | | They also tend to be purchased by people who don't care in the | slightest about energy efficiency, because if you can buy a | $10M home, the difference between $500/mo or $1500/mo in energy | costs doesn't matter to you. | wolfram74 wrote: | Competing element though is they probably have more land to | put solar on, so if they don't find it to be aesthetically | incompatible, they could probably push through those energy | losses. | ahoy wrote: | Yeah, this strikes me similarly to the all-electric Hummer SUV. | What on earth are we doing here. | paganel wrote: | Crazy how the Americans try to create "zero energy homes" | (whatever that means) using basically wood structures. Wood is a | very, very bad heat insulator. | | The best proven heat insulator when it comes to building a home | is earth itself, that's why for hundreds to thousands of years | dug-out huts have been the norm on several continents, for | different cultures/civilisations. Granted, you cannot build a | macmansion-like house using only earth+some wood. | Baeocystin wrote: | Almost half of Americans live in an earthquake zone. Wood is a | hell of a lot safer than masonry in such conditions. | eej71 wrote: | Not pictured, the homes that won't be built because the | regulatory regime has either outlawed them or priced them out of | profitable existence. | ovi256 wrote: | What is stopping homeowners from building these better homes | today ? | xyst wrote: | Money | anonuser123456 wrote: | Knowledge/Risk is probably a lot more impactful. | | Builders themselves are slow to adopt new technology vs. do | what they've always done. Part of that is because it's hard | to learn news things. Part of it is because new things have | lots of unknown and builders shoulder that risk. | xyst wrote: | I just see this as another subsidy for single family housing | developments. | | The home may be "zero energy ready" or whatever greenwashing term | they want to use. But the fact is they are spending that energy | in driving from the sticks (in some cases >20 miles away) and | back, driving from their home to the grocery store and back, | driving to areas of interest (ie, parks, restaurants, doctors | appointments). | | All of this is dependent on highways and new roads, new | electrical, water, and sewage infrastructure. This is all very | expensive to build and maintain, and the cities and | municipalities are left to foot the bill. | | American housing is a Ponzi scheme and this only helps perpetuate | it. We need to reverse this trend with significant investments in | public transportation and other alternative forms of | transportation which can scale to meet the needs of the future. | We need to build vertically and re-claim back the resources | allocated for car centric design (ie, highways, parking lots, | parking garages, roads, street parking) and re-allocate it for | more housing, businesses, and public transportation. Entities | that can generate new income for the municipality and city. | | In parallel, can work to preserve our existing natural green | spaces and hopefully over time expand those green spaces which | give us breathable air, drinkable water, protection from natural | elements (ie, floods or long periods of torrential rain), and | help keep viruses and other bad elements out of human | populations. | taude wrote: | We already have solutions in place being implemented in the | next 10 - 15 years for electric cars and car-based carbon | emissions. So carbon based commuting is going to get fixed. | | People in the U.S. won't be living in dystopian China-style 40 | floor housing anytime soon, in ways that is sounds like you're | hoping for with dense city living. | IncRnd wrote: | > All of this is dependent on highways and new roads, new | electrical, water, and sewage infrastructure. This is all very | expensive to build and maintain, and the cities and | municipalities are left to foot the bill. | | That's not generally how this works. There aren't necessarily | highways and new paved roads going to rural properties. | Electrical service isn't only downtown in cities but for miles | outside of them or from solar, propane, or any one of the many | other technologies. | | As everyone who has built a property outside of some service | area knows, the homeowner is the one who pays to drop the lines | or service to the properety. Water almost always comes from a | well on the property, and sewage tanks are how the sewage are | handled. | | Later, if Frank & Martha's property gets annexed into the city, | they will pay taxes and will be just as entitled to city | services as others. They already pay county, state and other | taxes, which means they are entitled to whatever their taxes | pay for. | | _" In general, rural areas in the United States have higher | homeownership rates than urban areas. Compared with urban | areas, where the homeownership rate was 59.8 percent, rural | areas had a homeownership rate of 81.1 percent."_ [1] | | [1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random- | samplings/2016/... | xputer wrote: | Replace "rural" with "suburban" and their points all hold | true. Suburban developments in the US are often in food | deserts. There's usually nothing within walking distance and | if there is it is prohibitively dangerous and unpleasant to | walk there. | | Add to that minimum lot sizes, setback laws, exclusionary | zoning and minimum parking requirements and it's no wonder | that young people cannot buy a home these days. | jjav wrote: | > Suburban developments in the US are often in food | deserts. There's usually nothing within walking distance | and if there is it is prohibitively dangerous and | unpleasant to walk there. | | Is there data to back this up, particularly the "usually" | part? | | Having nearly always lived in suburban areas (a few times | rural), food shopping is nearly always within an easy walk. | I'm sure there are some cases where this might not be so, | but I doubt it's the norm. For rural areas, sure. | IncRnd wrote: | They certainly don't seem to be talking about suburban | homes. | | > But the fact is they are spending that energy in driving | from the sticks (in some cases >20 miles away) and back, | driving from their home to the grocery store and back, | driving to areas of interest (ie, parks, restaurants, | doctors appointments). | bcrosby95 wrote: | Many of your points are valid for many suburbs but also not | for many others. Talking generally like this is weird, I've | lived in about 6 different suburbs my whole life and | _nothing_ you listed was true for any of them. | | I'm not a fan of suburbs but I'm tired of people holding up | the _worst possible examples_ and saying "SEE, SUBURBS | SUCK!" | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | > This is all very expensive to build and maintain, and the | cities and municipalities are left to foot the bill. | | Look, I hate Single Family Housing as much as anyone - but | roads are BY FAR the most expensive part of infrastructure you | mentioned - and those are financed by gasoline taxes. | | If the people in the sticks are buying a lot of gas, they're | paying a lot more taxes for the roads, too. | | It'd be nice if property taxes were slightly higher in suburban | areas to make up for the higher costs - but it really wouldn't | need to be _that_ much higher. Houses usually cost more than | condos - so you 're paying more property tax already by having | a more expensive home... | | Sure, there's exceptions like condos in Manhattan and near the | beach and ski resorts, etc... | verall wrote: | According to some quick googling, about 26% of roads are | financed by gasoline tax, another 11% from tolls, and the | rest from federal and state general funds: | | https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center- | initiative... | askvictor wrote: | > roads are BY FAR the most expensive part of infrastructure | you mentioned - and those are financed by gasoline taxes. | | Do you have any sources for that? I'm in Australia, where | fuel costs about twice what it does in the US. A decent | portion of that is taxes/duties, but road spending is taken | from consolidated revenue, and fuel taxes ultimately | contribute a minority of the spending on roads. So unless the | cost of fuel production is massively lower in the US, | something doesn't add up. | loeg wrote: | GP is likely talking about US federal gas taxes -> Highway | Trust Fund -> Federal highway spending. | | Notably, though, the HTF spends more than it earns in gas | tax revenue; the shortfall comes from the general fund. And | also Federal highway spending does not cover all highway | spending; the rest comes from the states[1][3]. Federal | highway spending also does not cover local roads at all. | | [1]: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/full- | reports/... | | [2]: (Above image from | https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57138 ) | | [3]: https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/ | bobthepanda wrote: | They are not wholly funded by gas taxes. At best, federal | roads are half-funded by gas taxes, and local roads are not | at all. | loeg wrote: | > roads are BY FAR the most expensive part of infrastructure | you mentioned - and those are financed by gasoline taxes. | | This is a common misunderstanding of how roads are funded. | Roads are not solely funded by gas taxes and are | predominantly paid for by funds raised from sources other | than gas taxes. | hahaxdxd123 wrote: | > Look, I hate Single Family Housing as much as anyone - but | roads are BY FAR the most expensive part of infrastructure | you mentioned - and those are financed by gasoline taxes. | | I don't think that's true. Gasoline taxes aren't high enough | to pay for roads. | | https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/ | | It seems as of 2015, 50% of road related costs came out of | general taxes. And as gas taxes have remained fairly | constant, while roads have become more expensive to repair as | they get worse, I can only think that number has gone up | since then. | [deleted] | xputer wrote: | Roads are absolutely not financed by gasoline taxes. They are | massively subsidized by the federal government. Watch some | videos about Strong Towns to learn about the problems that is | causing in regions that are not experiencing constant growth. | | https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN. | .. | bitwize wrote: | Indeed. Time to break out the omnitool Hackernews favors for | solving very large scale problems: government regulation. | Nationalize zoning laws, ban home ownership, and herd the | population into bughive arcologies in major cities, where | they'll be fed vegan or insect-protein-fortified food brought | by Amazon delivery drones. | | If Hackernews believed in god, surely this would be their idea | of heaven. | Syonyk wrote: | > _All of this is dependent on highways and new roads, new | electrical, water, and sewage infrastructure._ | | If you're 20 miles outside a town, you almost certainly have | electrical service, but are on a well and septic system. City | water and sewer doesn't make sense at those sort of densities. | You also probably have the land to easily put a nice ground | mount PV array in, and grow a good bit of your own food, should | you care to. | themitigating wrote: | I don't think this is the case for suburbs, at least for | water. Septic tanks are used I think | Syonyk wrote: | Suburbs aren't generally described as the "sticks." That | would be exurbs or lower. | | A typical suburban subdivision will have city water and | sewage, though depending on the details, you might have a | couple community wells and individual septic fields (or a | link to city sewage). | mikeyouse wrote: | Not to interrupt a good rant, but the program includes | duplexes, townhomes, multifamily projects, and mixed use | buildings with residential less than 6 stories. It's a sensible | plan that was passed by sensible people who actually do have | climate goals in mind. | | https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/DOE%20ZER... | danans wrote: | > All of this is dependent on highways and new roads, new | electrical, water, and sewage infrastructure. | | What if this was done this brownfield development in areas with | existing infrastructure? New development doesn't need to be | coupled with sprawl. There is a significant amount of | multifamily development that looks exactly like that. The IRA | also included large incentives for the retrofit of the existing | housing stock. | xthrown1 wrote: | >What if this was done this brownfield development in areas | with existing infrastructure? | | Infrastructure only lasts 30 years. We should be sunsetting | suburbs, not expanding them. | Dig1t wrote: | What does this mean exactly? Like we should be forcing | people to move into big cities? What about all the people | that don't want to live that kind of lifestyle? | xthrown1 wrote: | Let them pay the $20,000 in rates they will without | subsidies from the inner core. | | The free market will sort it out in short order. | throwaway894345 wrote: | People are going to build new homes outside of dense urban | cores and suburbs either way; may as well build them 'green'. | We need to be more flexible and realistic with our | environmentalism--people just aren't going to give up meat, | cars, or houses overnight so we need to allow progress where we | can actually get it. | louwrentius wrote: | > American housing is a Ponzi scheme and this only helps | perpetuate it. We need to reverse this trend with significant | investments in public transportation and other alternative | forms of transportation which can scale to meet the needs of | the future. | | Thank you. This is what notjustbikes and climate town agitate | against in their youtube channels. | [deleted] | swatcoder wrote: | It's not precedented, wise, or even realistic to expect all of | civilization to live in cities surrounded by unspoiled | wilderness. | | Highly efficient low density housing has a place. So does high | density housing. | | Everything you say about improving urban development practices | is valid, but doesn't mean that efforts to improve | suburban/exurband/rural development are problematic. They're | all inextricably part of the future and they all have their own | development needs. | kibwen wrote: | OP links to https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/zero-energy- | ready-home... , which explains that its definition of a Zero | Energy Ready Home is "a high-performance home that is so energy | efficient that a renewable energy system could offset most or all | the home's annual energy use". | fwlr wrote: | So it seems in practice the main way you achieve this | certification is to dramatically cut heating losses by using a | lot of insulation and make the house essentially air-tight. | Obviously you can't have an air-tight house for very long, you | need fresh air. So you have explicit vents for incoming and | outgoing air, and you run the incoming air (which is fresh, but | not the temperature you want) through a heat exchanger with the | outgoing air (which is stale, but is at the temperature you | want). This recovers most of the heat you put into your inside | air, so you need very little heating to maintain the desired | temperature. | | This is actually a really good thing, I think. The minimum | airflow rating these houses have to meet is of course going to be | suboptimal, but the hard part of airproofing is already done and | it's easy for the homeowner to simply beef up the heat exchanger | and air pump to get ideal airflow. The homeowner can also install | an air quality filter on the airpump and now their entire house | has filtered air. Great way to get that PM2.5 level down to where | it should be! | ahoy wrote: | This is good, in the way that filtered cigarretes are better than | unfiltered. | | As long we we keep building & being forced to live in low | density, single-family houses, we'll keep consuming the huge | physical and energy resources necessary to sustain them. | | I'm not saying we have to turn every neighborhood into manhattan, | far from it. But this is similar to the gas -> electric car | change. Yeah, it's a marginal improvement on what we're doing | now, but its so far away from the kind of changes we need to make | that it's almost dispiriting to see it presented as some kind of | remarkable progress. | mym1990 wrote: | Who is forcing you to live in a SFH? Do we need to go confront | them? | awb wrote: | Tough acronym to say, and spell apparently | | > ... Zero Energy Ready Homes (ZERH) their standard offering. To | this point, our ZEHR program ... | | Sometimes acronyms get too cute, but there's value to something | that can easily be said in conversation or in one's head while | writing | Syonyk wrote: | When you've confused "per kWh cost" with "energy to the house | delivery costs," this sort of stuff sounds good on paper, but it | doesn't fundamentally solve the problem that in the winter, homes | use a lot more energy than they can generate, and in the | spring/fall, they will generate a lot more energy than they need. | | I've got a large ground mount solar install I put in a few years | ago (15.9kW nameplate, though mostly east-west facing panels so a | bit less annual production than you'd expect, just more "sunup to | sundown" production), and it's been a chilly winter, so with an | air source heat pump and keeping the house fairly cool, I'm still | net +4MWh from the grid in the last 4 months. | | Meanwhile, when it warms up a bit more, I'm generating 10x what | the house uses during spring/fall mornings (10+ kW production on | a sub-1kW house draw for long periods of the day). It's not a big | deal with only a few people on the grid, but if every house were | doing this, it would be a very big problem for grid stability. | | I've also got experience with the off-grid lifestyle, as my | office is 100% off-grid/standalone, and I don't pretend that | system is cheap. Just neat. And even with 5kW of solar hung for a | ~100 sq ft shed, I still need propane or a generator in the | winter every now and then to keep things sane in here. | turtlebits wrote: | Energy efficiency is always good, and I'm glad the government | is incentivizing it. | | A passive house can have 10% the energy cost/use of a regular | "code" house. Even off grid, this can immensely help in the | size of your battery required. | londons_explore wrote: | This isn't a problem as long as your grid does dynamic minute | by minute pricing. | | When the price of power drops to zero in the spring/fall, you | can be sure there will be plenty of people lapping it up to | smelt aluminium, make glass, make steel, make cement, liquify | air, make hydrogen, etc. | | When the price of power is high in the winter, companies will | swoop in with gas turbines, power cables from other places, and | extra insulation to keep houses warm with lower energy costs. | Entrepreneurs will see this coming, and will be there ready to | provide power or power-saving measures to those who did not | prepare. | | As long as the market can set a price, the market will solve | each problem. The people to lose out will be customers who | don't adapt to keep their costs down - for example those who | heat their 1960's uninsulated home with electric baseboard | heaters. | | There are already plenty of seasonal industries - like tourism. | Power hungry industries will become seasonal or migratory too. | eppp wrote: | I have been toying with the idea of buying used panels in bulk | and doing the same, but the payoff just isnt there at the | current battery price. What kind of frame did you install to | mount the panels? I have tons of room for ground mount and | would love to do it diy as soon as the costs line up. | Syonyk wrote: | My system is grid tie, because the local plans review process | and I didn't see eye-to-eye on batteries. I have a solar | power trailer for backup power. | | https://www.sevarg.net/tag/solar2020/ documents the build. My | frames are timber, though a neighbor built a very similar | system with metal frames and 72 cell panels, and got his | costs down quite a bit further - he's around $1/W installed, | mine was somewhat higher at about $1.50/W (more expensive | panels and a good bit more expensive frame setup). | | If you can weld, and find used pipe to build your frames | with, you should be able to do sub-$1/W for a DIY install. | AdrianB1 wrote: | No welding is needed, you can use metal clamps to hold the | pipes together. I have my panels on metal structure with no | welding, I used bolts for joins. | Syonyk wrote: | Yes, but the clamps I've found designed for that sort of | use are quite expensive, and add a substantial margin to | the project cost - and they're not needed if you can weld | it up, or have someone else weld it up. | | As I understand NEC from talking to various people and | reading quite a bit of it myself, someone else can do the | frames for a homeowner installed solar project, but | "rails and up" has to either be the homeowner or a | licensed electrician, because the rails are typically | considered part of the grounding system and therefore | electrical work. | | In any case, costs doing it yourself are far, far lower | than paying someone else to do it. And ground mount is an | awful lot nicer to work with than roof mount. | loeg wrote: | What do you use pipes for? | jrs235 wrote: | What if instead of batteries you hooked up a boiler to heat | water or a deep chest freezer to cool water and then used | heat exchangers to heat or cool overnight when solar doesn't | work? I'm assuming no one does this because batteries are | likely cheaper than this type of setup. | Syonyk wrote: | You're welcome to do that, and it's something some off grid | systems use, but the energy storage in that sort of thing | is fairly poor. Go do the math on it, but you'll find a 55 | gallon drum of water, from "room temperature" to "really | darn hot" holds 15-20kWh of energy. It's useful, but not a | staggeringly large amount for a typical house, that can | easily use more than that on a single day's heating. | | Thermal mass storage requires a _lot_ of mass to do | anything useful, or the ability to run exceedingly high | temperatures. Or a phase change. Molten salt storage can | store a lot of energy, but you 're at "very hazardously | hot" temperatures with "stuff that's mind-bogglingly | corrosive when hazardously hot." It's not the sort of thing | most people would want to mess with at home. Myself | included, and my tolerance for experimentation is pretty | darn high. | Someone wrote: | > It's useful, but not a staggeringly large amount for a | typical house, that can easily use more than that on a | single day's heating. | | This article isn't talking about typical houses of today. | The typical future house should be a lot better | insulated. | anonuser123456 wrote: | Sounds like you need a geothermal ground loop. | Syonyk wrote: | I live on what can be reasonably approximated as a "pile of | rocks." It's fairly thin dirt on top of a lot of basalt. I've | considered it, but the cost to install such a unit is quite | staggering, before I buy a backhoe to install it. | | I'll consider one of those if I have to replace my unit at | some point, but I'm far more interested in adding simple | solar thermal collectors to directly add energy from the sun | on the partly cloudy or clear days we have, vs ripping up | half an acre of rock to put the loops in, or figuring out | where I can punch another well for heat exchange. | ajross wrote: | > it doesn't fundamentally solve the problem that [...] | | Is that the "fundamental" problem being solved, though? Or is | it just an externality that needs to be addressed? It seems | like the "fundamental" problem here is trying to maximize | deployment of renewable generation, and that construction like | this is a great step in that direction. (Not the least of which | because it pushes the investment required onto consumers | willing to bear the costs, and "generates jobs" in the process. | Siting a new wind farm is a ton more complicated, and let's not | even talk about the difficulty of installing a scratch-built | reactor.) | | I mean, it's true, that at the end of the day home energy | generation is just PV solar, and PV solar doesn't behave like | gas plants and that needs to be addressed at the grid level. | But that's not an argument against PV solar, it's just an | engineering problem. | Syonyk wrote: | > _But that 's not an argument against PV solar..._ | | It can certainly be an argument against residential rooftop | solar. | | In general, "industrial solar" (ground mount, high voltage | strings, single axis trackers) is sub-$1/W installed. | Residential rooftop solar is still $2.50-$4/W depending on | where you are, because it has quite a few additional | requirements (per-panel rapid shutdown in NEC 2017, various | other requirements on the panel and interconnects that add | cost), and, _often,_ poor siting from partial shading reasons | (chimneys, vent stacks, trees, other bits of roof, etc). | | I don't mind making homes more suited to solar (oversize the | main busbar with a "solar ready" panel, route conduit up to | the roof, require all vent stacks be on the north side of the | roof), but it's a rather uncontrolled solution that's of | limited "actually solving the problem" use. Low levels of | penetration are easy to deal with, higher levels start to get | really hard, when you've got whole subdivisions shifting from | "lots of production" to "lots of consumption" as clouds go | over. | | Or, we get used to less reliable, more intermittent energy | again, and a lot of the problems go away. Just, that | generates other problems. | | The power grid is a lot more fragile than most people assume. | ajross wrote: | > Low levels of penetration are easy to deal with, higher | levels start to get really hard | | Well, yeah. So pick the low hanging fruit and sell it to | the FAANG hippies. I still fail to see the problem here. No | one is promoting rooftop solar as a one-stop-shop trip to | renewable utopia, just as a effective and immediately | deployable generation mechanism in a regulatory environment | not well-suited to agile and rapid solutions of any kind. | | If we get to the point where the hippies are buying up all | the panels and the grid solutions can't get them cheap | enough, that's the time to start complaining. Not now. | antisthenes wrote: | Once use cases like yours become more common (e.g. 4MWh | surplus), industries will adjust and buy surplus power from | homeowners like you, and the nation as a whole will spend less | time and effort on maintaining the grid and power plants that | generate electricity. | | We will be able to run power-hungry industries (e.g. steel- | aluminum/smelting) for very little cost. | | > And even with 5kW of solar hung for a ~100 sq ft shed, I | still need propane or a generator in the winter every now and | then to keep things sane in here. | | What about a large thermal mass wood/pellet stove? There's | plenty of wood waste floating around that could heat a small | house/shed in the couple of winter months when the solar panels | don't do the job. | jonfw wrote: | If we expect industry to take up the excess, than either 1. | that industry will only operate according to the weather or | 2. We'll still need some variable power generation that can | be switched on when wind or solar isn't producing enough | Symbiote wrote: | A few industrial users can weather changes in supply, with | notice of the expected price in advance. | | The aluminium smelter can heat to x+250deg, let things cool | to xdeg while people cook their evening meal, then heat up | again afterwards. | | A large supermarket chain can set their refrigerators to | 5deg, but by allowing the range to move between 3deg and | 7deg can save significant power. (One of the big British | supermarkets already does this.) | Syonyk wrote: | Wrong way. The house has pulled an extra 4MWh from the grid | during the winter months (and pushes more than that back | during the rest of the year). I'm past net zero on an annual | basis, but that doesn't mean that even a large array is able | to cover my energy needs in the winter few months. | | I'm grandfathered into an arrangement where I pay my $5/mo | and get unlimited net metering, but it's not remotely | reasonable to pretend that I'm not heavily using the grid | overnight, in the winter, etc. | eppp wrote: | You still have to maintain the grid for others to buy it and | to balance it. The maintenance costs of the grid are going no | where but up. More usage, more right of way, more towers, | more wire, more labor. | notShabu wrote: | A GPT blurb about what goes into a zero energy ready home: | | > | | There are several core technologies and products that go into | creating a Zero Energy Ready Home. These include: | | Advanced insulation materials: These materials are used to reduce | heat loss and gain through walls, roofs, and floors. Examples of | advanced insulation materials include spray foam insulation, | rigid foam insulation, and blown-in cellulose insulation. | | High-performance windows: These windows are designed to minimize | heat loss and gain and to improve comfort and natural lighting. | They typically have low-e coatings, multiple panes, and insulated | frames. | | Efficient heating, cooling, and ventilation systems: These | systems use advanced technologies to reduce energy consumption | and provide a comfortable indoor environment. Examples include | geothermal heat pumps, air-source heat pumps, and energy recovery | ventilation systems. | | Solar panels: These panels are used to generate renewable energy | and can be installed on the roof or integrated into the building | envelope. They can provide enough energy to power the home and | even send excess energy back to the grid. | | Energy-efficient appliances and lighting: These products use less | energy than conventional models and can help further reduce | energy consumption in the home. | | Building automation systems: These systems allow homeowners to | control and monitor energy use and other home systems remotely, | which can help optimize energy efficiency and comfort. | | Producers of these products include a variety of companies, from | large multinational corporations to smaller regional | manufacturers. Some examples of companies that produce products | for Zero Energy Ready Homes include Owens Corning and Johns | Manville for insulation, Andersen and Marvin for windows, Carrier | and Lennox for HVAC systems, SunPower and Tesla for solar panels, | and Nest and Ecobee for smart thermostats. There are many other | companies and products available, and choosing the right ones | depends on factors such as climate, building design, and budget. | | > | Syonyk wrote: | Congratulations, you've found something to describe, in a dull | and useless way, the concept of energy efficiency in a home. | Blown-in cellulose is "advanced," huh? | | It doesn't answer any of the specific questions about what's | specifically different in a Zero Energy Ready Home from | something Energy Star rated, and it's filled with weasel words | and vague handwaving statements. | | I could nitpick the response further against the actual PDF | linked elsewhere in the thread, but there's no particular | point. | milliams wrote: | "Zero-energy ready homes" or "Zero energy-ready homes"? | dimitrios1 wrote: | There are some good ideas here that I hope take off like | ventilating dehumidifiers. So much of what we perceive as | discomfort in our homes comes down to the humidity rising and | stale air. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-07 23:00 UTC)