From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Any suggestions on builders/architects in the Northeast?
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:57:36 -0400
Message-ID: <fo2ga3lf08ou9pl0ib1hbb5p347fntlr31@4ax.com>

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:39:53 -0400, "Eric" <esmith007REMOVE@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>Just starting to think seriously about building a efficient house.  If you
>guys had to start from scratch, what would you do?
>I'm thinking for a minimum:  Passive solar house layout, Rainwater flush
>toilets, icynene insulation, PV array for appliances, solar hot water...
>Not sure about a wind turbine, probably won't deal with net metering, at
>least not at first.
>Any thoughts or advise would be appreciated, including designers,
>architects, builders...

What you've described is a money pit.

First thing I'd do is choose a place to live where electricity is cheap and the
climate mild.  Oh wait, I've already done that.

If I wanted a truly efficient house, I'd go underground.  Come to think of it, that's
what I'm about to do too.

The next biggest improvement is to build only the house you need and not the house
that tries to convince the neighbors that your pecker isn't teeny.  I'm the polar
opposite of an econazi but even I'm starting to take offense to some of the
McMansions that I'm seeing going up in this region.

Passive solar's OK if the view is good in that direction.  I'd rather go active solar
to free up the design for what I want and not what the sun dictates.  Super-efficient
insulation is obviously cost-effective.  Solar water heating is also OK but not
great.  PVs?  If you have grid power, forget it.  Put the money you didn't spend in
the bank and retire early.  Or if you feel the urge to blow the money, build a
bonfire using greenbacks.  If you can use geo-sourced HVAC then that's a big win.

But going underground is probably the single largest improvement that you can make.
HVAC becomes trivial when the outside conditions remain in the ~55 deg range.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Any suggestions on builders/architects in the Northeast?
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:37:23 -0400
Message-ID: <2aeia3he1cimaer1nc13r5mc65e2lo4vt9@4ax.com>

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:46:07 GMT, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:57:36 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>>But going underground is probably the single largest improvement that you can make.
>>HVAC becomes trivial when the outside conditions remain in the ~55 deg range.
>
>I don't believe that. First, it won't be 55 in most locations. A
>neighbor tried it, and it's not nearly as cool as he expected. I'm
>thinking that his surrounding ground temperature (N AZ) is probably
>about 75 in summer.

Arizona is "typical"?  Ya, right.  In these parts, which I suspect are closer to
typical than out "there", root cellars have been used for centuries and they do a
fine job of staying nice and cool.  A neighbor has one as large as my living room. We
seem to congregate there a lot this time of year.

Beyond anecdotal data, there are reams of hard data showing how efficient
subterranean houses are.  Perhaps you could avail yourself of some of that so you
won't have to rely on beliefs?


>It's a fairly small space, and once he's in it
>with some appliances, surveillance monitors (yes, plural) ... Second,
>additional construction costs will eat up most if not all the savings.

I'm not a survivalist so that kind of crap won't be an issue.  Construction costs
depend entirely on how the job is done.  I'm designing mine around two marine cargo
containers to be welded together.  The containers are strong enough to be
direct-buried, are water and vapor-proof and cheap.  After the interior is finished
out, there will be no evidence of the outer shell construction.  I've already
purchased the containers - less than a kilobuck for two - and have them stored on a
friend's farm.  As my design evolves I suspect that I'll add a third container for my
shop.

The heat load, along with air quality issues will require ventilation, of course, and
some cooling in the summer.  I have a large about 5 acre, 75 ft deep spring-fed lake
that also maintains a bottom temperature in the 50s that I'll draw on.  There's
enough flow through the lake that I can generate all the electricity I need including
that necessary to pump the cool water from the lake bottom.  Other than food and
clothes, I'll be totally self-sufficient.

>Third, living underground is weird. I visited one once that I liked -
>central dome lit courtyard-style living room, surrounding rooms had
>windows to the courtyard. But my wife wouldn't even consider the idea.

Mine wouldn't either.  She's gone now so plans are proceeding :-)

>Even though the owners had done a great job trying to mitigate the
>bunker feel, it was still there loud and clear. I'd bet that if
>everyone lived underground, there'd be a lot more depression etc. It's
>the polar opposite of thoughtful planning that aims to encourage
>neighborliness, sense of community, etc.

Oh BS!  What sense of neighborliness do you have when you're inside stuck in front of
the toob or the computer?  My sense of community is strolling or riding my scooter
over to see my neighbors or to sit around at the general store chewing the fat.  I
don't need to be able to spy on my neighbors to feel neighborly.

If you develop mental problems about underground living then obviously that's not the
lifestyle for you.  I love it.  I like the almost complete lack of energy demand for
HVAC, no roof to blow away or get loaded down with ice and snow, the ability to laugh
at tornadoes and floods (mine's going into the side of a small mountain), highly
secure against burglary and vandalism, little fire hazard, etc.  My door will open
onto a deck cantilevered over the lake and the view from the picture window will be
of the same gorgeous lake.  I tend to be a night owl so the completely dark bedroom
will be a boon.  I can always pipe in light if I find that I need more than the
fluorescents provide. I can't think of anything nicer.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Any suggestions on builders/architects in the Northeast?
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:16:39 -0400
Message-ID: <bvbka3hpceaf0jc04edjpt7fm49n59oqi3@4ax.com>

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:14:26 GMT, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:37:23 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:

>>Arizona is "typical"?  Ya, right.
>
>I didn't say that it was. The point is that once the ground is
>ventilated/exposed, it won't be "ground temperature" anymore.

Assuming moderate heat loading, the temperature remains remarkably low.  If that
wasn't true then root cellars would not work.
>
>> In these parts, which I suspect are closer to
>>typical than out "there", root cellars have been used for centuries and they do a
>>fine job of staying nice and cool.  A neighbor has one as large as my living room. We
>>seem to congregate there a lot this time of year.
>
>Sure. Underground is cooler anywhere, and cool enough some places. But
>building below ground will still generally cost more than it will save
>in heating/cooling energy.

That's a meaningless statement.  If one tries to duplicate an above-ground house
underground with "features" like vaulted ceilings and piped-in light in every room
then sure the cost may be higher.  But adapting the house design to the underground
environment makes the costs roughly equivalent and many times cheaper.  Do a little
research and see for yourself - I have.

>>I'm not a survivalist so that kind of crap won't be an issue.
>
>I believe that, but you still sound a whole lot like every survivalist
>I've ever met.

You really have me scratching my head on that one.  I'm not sure how wanting to live
in an isolated area and wanting to be practically independent of the outside world
(it's not how much you make, it's how much you get to keep) makes me a survivalist.
Oh well, takes all types to make up Usenet.


>>  I'm designing mine around two marine cargo
>>containers to be welded together.  The containers are strong enough to be
>>direct-buried
>
>Hmm.... I'd need to see some proof of that, assuming they're to be
>buried deep enough to get the full effect of underground temps.

Go for it, dude.  If you can do simple math you can do the same calculations I've
done.  One nice clue is the service they're subjected to routinely.  Stacked
many-deep on the deck of an ocean-going vessel.

>I also
>doubt that you could get an occupancy permit (without engineered
>shoring) from most any building department, which makes the concept a
>non-starter in most places.

Scratching my head on this one again.  Why would anyone want to live in a place where
he had to deal with that kind of rot?  I certainly would not.

If that were an issue, the solution is simple.  A PE's stamp on the drawings is all
the inspectors require in these parts, at least based on my experience designing high
rise billboards.  I do the design work, the PE checks it and puts his stamp on it and
the building inspector applies his rubber stamp.  Simple, easy and the cost is only a
couple hundred bux.

>
>>, are water and vapor-proof
>
>Huh? Why will they rust less than this?
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6759273.stm How will you know that
>they aren't rusting once they're buried?

Have you ever looked at a containerized cargo container or ever considered the
service conditions they routinely survive in?  Some clues: tons of cargo, stacked
high, rolling ship deck, salt water, ocean storms.

>I've heard that one before - heat with a candle, yada yada. But there
>always seems to be a propane tank lurking...  I believe that in the
>right circumstances energy self-sufficiency can be done cheaply, but
>what you're proposing sounds like it will be fueled by sweat equity.
>Which is cool, but wishful thinking for most.

That seems to characterize your posts in this thread.  "I've heard" and "I believe".
Typical middle class American, unfortunately, incapable of thinking inside the box,
much less outside.

>>Oh BS!  What sense of neighborliness do you have when you're inside stuck in front of
>>the toob or the computer?  My sense of community is strolling or riding my scooter
>>over to see my neighbors or to sit around at the general store chewing the fat.  I
>>don't need to be able to spy on my neighbors to feel neighborly.
>
>You're missing the point. Have you noticed how people turn into robots
>when riding an elevator?

I have but it has nothing to do with being in a box.  This has been studied
extensively.  The reason people clam up is that their personal spaces have been
invaded.

>How neighbors in subdivisions sometimes don't
>know the name of the guy two doors down?

No, never had that problem.  I know all my neighbors and all the neighbors in the
neighborhood before this one.  In both neighborhoods, periodic, usually monthly,
community meals were/are routine.  Maybe it's a Southern thang.  We are, after all,
known for our friendliness.

Methinks you need to get away from the toob and go meet your neighbors.  You're
regurgitating a couple of fairly popular media-created myths.

>How workers in windowless offices become cranky?

I suspect that has something to do with being stuck in a cube farm and has something
to do with that 4-letter word called W*O*R*K.  I know that I frequently got cranky
even with a window office when I had to engage in that activity.

>
>>If you develop mental problems about underground living then obviously that's not the
>>lifestyle for you.  I love it.
>
>There ya' go - can you agree that underground living is a niche thing?
>
>>  I like the almost complete lack of energy demand for
>>HVAC,
>
>I think you'll find out as many others have, that it will be a reduced
>demand, but a long way from "almost complete lack".

Since I can do math and know how to use the ASHRAE handbooks, I don't have to guess,
I know how the house will perform.

Well enough of this.  You're a typical clueless Usenet alligator - all mouth and no
brain.  I'll be happy to chat with anyone who has serious interest in underground
housing but I have no interest in this kind of pointless exchange.

John