The Affordable Zero Energy House

Jeff, Let me get this straight- a $75K or 60% premium to simulate a tradtional suburban existence with a two car garage in front- can they walk to a milk store? This isn't part of the solution, it is part of the problem- that if we throw this kind of money and engineering at a typical house that we can just all keep doing what we did before.

Lloyd: Agreed.

This house might be zero net energy, but the transportation costs are much, much higher than my townhome.

While this is a good development, it's not a solution to the problem. Things need to change. And the best thing isn't to build a new house, but to make it cheaper to retrofit older houses.

Good points all, and I was definitely uncomfortable with the suburban development aspect of this. It's a start towards awareness of the issues, not a solution...

As a final point that I forgot before, you could probably take the energy required to dig the clay, fire the bricks and move them to the site and run a conventional house for ten years. Sorry for commenting Jeff, this kind of stuff makes me crazy.

Oh, no problem, Lloyd... I do understand the frustration, and am glad you're bringing up these issues...

This is the kind of thing I was commenting on with the WalMart story. Someone does something really neat and proves some great ideas about ZEH and uses the state of the art of renewable energy in an imminently affordable house, and people log on and say "How wasteful! It uses bricks! It isn't next door to a shopping center!"

Come on people. Let's give credit where credit is due.

Populations increase therefore more houseing is needed. Why bitch about new houseing that is energy efficient?

I agree with Don B - at the level of a single house (or subdivision), green solutions are easy to implement. What Lloyd and others are talking about is at the level of the residential-industrial complex - the legacy of decades-old planning decisions, low-taxed gasoline and free highways, and the abandonment of public schools. Good luck turning that ship around...

Populations increase therefore more houseing is needed.

One needn't necessarily have more housing for more people. One could more intelligently utilize existing building stock, for example.

What we need to remember here is that most people are not as tuned into the environmental problems and solutions as us tree huggers. Many people are not willing to take drastic measures and walk/bike to work. They will continue to live in the suburbs and if a company can at least sell them a green home it is a start. The majority of people in this world are not ready for radical changes to help the environment. We must understand this and slowly wean them off their energy guzzling ways.

You mean like having one room per family like in the third world?

Pragmatic solutions are the way forward, pipe dreams are not.

Well, of course we must fight suburban sprawl; it's simply not sustainable.

But *if* you're going to build a house in suburbia, then it's objectively a good thing to make it a ZEH.

But there it no reason why these technologies couldn't be used in housing located in more sustainable areas, and there is also nothing that says that someone living in a suburbian house couldn't work from home/work close/take public transpotation, or that we couldn't modify the blueprint of suburbia (when there's no cheap oil anymore) to add local stores, schools, workplaces and very efficient public transpotation. These things are absent from suburbia because it was always considered monetarily cheaper to just have everybody jump in their cars and drive to the city, but soon the equation will change (I know those aren't perfect solutions, but I doubt we'll be going for "perfect" very soon, unfortunately, and we already have built all these suburbs - not so easy to relocate all these people).

"you could probably take the energy required to dig the clay, fire the bricks and move them to the site and run a conventional house for ten years."

Who says the conventional house doesn't also have bricks and a basement, though? ;)

You mean like having one room per family like in the third world?

No. That's a strawman argument.

Pragmatic solutions are the way forward, pipe dreams are not.

And that's a conclusion based on your strawman.

Better utilizing existing built infrastructure is very pragmatic. It's a pipe dream to think one can sprawl one's way out of a problem.

I agree that giving credit where credit is due is a good idea, BUT... I rather doubt credit is due here. First, for something to be called a Zero Energy House with any honesty, it should not only consume "zero" (non-renewable) energy where it sits, but it should not encourage its inhabitants to live a lifestyle that in any way requires use of fuel that should not be necessary if things are properly planned.

The problem is that any house built in a low density suburban development almost without exceptions forces its inhabitants to use cars to take care of most of their daily needs. Mass transit in suburban areas just doesn't have sufficient densities to be economically justified, and spread-out suburbs multiply the distances you have to cross to get anywhere by foot, blades, board or bike, so almost without exception they aren't alternatives except to the most patient of people.

I would venture to say (and I can hardly be the first to say this) that *nothing* built in a low-density suburb can justifiably be called a "Zero Energy House". The problem with this is not that it's greenwashing — I don't think that's what's going on — but rather that the people involved are just not clear on the concept. Until people are acquainted with the ideas in _Carfree Cities_, Kunstler's writings, or any of a host of other publications over the past decade, and understand that anything built in suburbia, no matter how well-intentioned, is part of the problem and cannot possibly be part of the solution, we're not close to getting out of the hole we've dug ourselves over the past decades.

What if you want to live in the suburbs?
What if you want a yard to garden, for your kids/dogs to play in?

Some people just don't like living in a congested city environment.

There are different solutions for different types of people.

This "affordable" zero-energy house is an important step.

I think some of you guys need to be more open-minded.

''Better utilizing existing built infrastructure is very pragmatic''
- Very true and it's something I agree with. It is not however a total sollution. Many old buildings can not be reused as it would cost to much to make them safe and insulate them enough to be energy efficient.

I've lived in Oklahoma. For that part of the country this is real progress. The people of Oklahoma for the most part, like to own big ranch houses and SUVs and large pick-up trucks. Coming from the East coast and seeing this was really shocking. I'm really glad to hear of this project, it is an important step in the right direction.

What if you want to live in the suburbs?

Then you'd better enjoy them while you still can. Suburbs only work if you can save more money buying cheap land than you waste paying for extra transportation, and the era of cheap oil is beginning its end.

Jacob, I agree with you. You couldn't pay me a million dollars to move into a high-rise high-density living environment. I would rather live out in the country surrounded by trees and nature. Population explosion is here to stay, and therefore suburban sprawl. Better to make those new houses ZEH and work on replacing the auto fleet to use RE (I know both will take time) than to stuff everyone inside a city high-rise and call that quality of life. Besides, if we put small shopping centers every half-mile to convert existing suburban neighborhoods into self-contained units, we're talking about much larger embodied energy in the materials and much larger land use than if we just built one large shopping center and had everyone from 10 miles around drive to it (using RE transportation of course).

Some responses:

Many people are not willing to take drastic measures and walk/bike to work.

It only seems drastic until you actually do it, and then driving all over creation seems drastic. You'd drag me kicking and screaming back out to the 'burbs.

What if you want to live in the suburbs? What if you want a yard to garden, for your kids/dogs to play in?

I've got a yard. And a garden. And a dog. Living in a city does not mean these things are impossible. Also, there are these things in the city called "parks" and when they're only a ten minute walk away, it's like they're your backyard. And there are community or rooftop gardens, if you really want to garden.

Some people just don't like living in a congested city environment.

I think what people are afraid of is other people. I also think people have a bad idea of what a "congested city environment" is. It's only congested if you try to drive anywhere. And, since that's how folks from the Burbs get to the city, that's what their impression of urban areas.

That and there are people who don't look like them. But that's another story.

I think some of you guys need to be more open-minded.

Don't tell me to be open-minded. I used to think that living in the city would mean bars on my windows and drive-by shootings. I took the risk, open my mind, and moved into the city. And I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

Population explosion is here to stay, and therefore suburban sprawl.

Population explosion is not here to stay. Some developed nations are experiencing negative population growth. And as other nations become industrialized, their population growth will slow as well.

Also, if every family on the planet was give 1/4 acre, we'd need three or four planets to hold everyone. That doesn't include the resources needed to build the houses and, more importantly, transport all the goods hundreds of miles.

I maintain that the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable, and that as energy prices increase, those 1/4 acres of heavily fertilized grass and forty minute commutes and supercenters are going to become a liability instead of an asset.

But maybe that's wishful thinking, because if it does happen, my property values will skyrocket.

Even if that doesn't happen, I don't think that my fellow city-dwellers and I should have to pay taxes to support your energy-expensive lifestyle.

I am going to toss in one more thought. The $ 75,000 premium on the house for these systems is 471 per month on your mortgage, or 5652 per year. According to a quick and questionable internet search, the average american spends 1500 per year on household energy, which sounds low to me but lets say it is correct. For this investment to pay off, fuel prices would have to go up almost four times from what they are now and at 12 bucks per gallon mr suburban homeowner is not driving too far. In my day job I sell houses, and have trouble convincing people to pay 10,000 for extra insulation to reduce their operating costs by 25%- they cannot afford the upfront costs. Who will pay $ 75,000 for this? It is not a realistic option. Living with smaller places on smaller lots in tighter environments, in houses that cost no more than current ones but are more efficient and use less resources to build and to operate- that is a realistic solution.

I agree.

I grew up on a farm, but I love living in the city. Most cities in the US are not as densely packed as NYC, and crime has dropped dramtically in most.

And you don't even need to consider a city. A town like little ol' Mayberry will do. There's still plenty of them out there, with stores, schools, churches, recreation and jobs all within a 1-mile radius. You could walk or bike to most of it.

I don't know.. The money argument has been done to death with hybrids, and the fact is, people don't buy cars or houses to save money, otherwise everybody would be living in super small houses and the Toyota Echo would have been a big hit in the US.

As I said, houses in the suburb are certainly not part of the solution, but as long as they are around and as long as money is going to be spent, it might as well be spent on eco-features; dollars saved is debatable, but energy will definitely be saved. It's not all or nothing, however much I wish it was "all".

Some nations are shrinking, yes. But since this article is about a development in the US, my comment was about the US. We'll have population growth for many generations to come, between a continued inflow of immigrants and birthing rates.

I'm not talking about giving everyone 1/4 acre. Some people do like living in urban settings. We wouldn't have cities today if that weren't true. I'm talking about the view of some environmentalists who think everyone should be forced into urban settings at gunpoint. Some people just won't do well in a city setting. Even a small town is too congested for me and many others. The thousand houses just in my zip code attest to that.

The suburban environment is sustainable if we get everyone onto renewable/nonpolluting energy sources. If you are driving a car that is running on hydrogen that was created from solar panel-driven electrolysis, that makes a 40 minute commute and 10 minute drive to the local supercenter quite sustainable. Once the PV and electrolysis equipment is in place, its a sunk cost. Gasoline costs and electric company rates can go up all day long and it won't matter.

What taxes are you refering to Icelander? We all pay taxes that support systems that we don't support or want.

"the view of some environmentalists who think everyone should be forced into urban settings at gunpoint."

Doug, who has said that or advocated for that? If you listen carefully, what most urban enthusiasts are saying is that living in an urban center is hands down more energy-saving and light on the land than living in suburbs or exurbs. Even with hydrogen powered cars and whatnot.

There is also the social factor. In the past, there was a real sense of community that has been lost as neighbors live scattered on 1 - 5 acre lots, at the end of long driveways. Or even in more closely spaced homes where the front of the house is the garage. People drive in, park, walk inside and never engage with their neighbors.

In my compact, urban neighborhood (where I raise chickens, grow vegetables, and can still ride my bike to work and walk to the grocery store), I am quite comfortable letting my kids run around outside because they know nearly everyone around, and everyone knows them.

Say what you will about suburbanites wanting a yard for their kids or dogs - when I am forced (but NOT at gunpoint) to travel in those neighborhoods, it is very rare to actually see a kid or a dog out on the perfectly green lawns.

Soon, it won't be down to what people will 'do well' in. The population is growing, and someday soon, we'll all have to deal with our neighbors getting closer to us.

There's only so much room on this elevator. You can't have it all to yourself forever.

Some people just won't do well in a city setting. Even a small town is too congested for me and many others. The thousand houses just in my zip code attest to that.

I know. I've talked to them. Most of their problems with dense settings boil down to the fact that they don't want to deal with other people.

The suburban environment is sustainable if we get everyone onto renewable/nonpolluting energy sources.

So we've got sustainable energy sources. What about all the materials to build the houses and cars and roads and solar panels? Or the nearby farmland that's lost to subdivisions that is producing grass instead of food?

A walkable community will always cost less than a suburb for the same reason a compact car will always cost less than an SUV: It's smaller.

And sustainability isn't just about energy. It's about materials, food production, and how long people can tolerate living in those conditions. Urban areas take fewer materials, leave more land nearby for food production, and promote a sense of community.

What taxes are you refering to Icelander? We all pay taxes that support systems that we don't support or want.

Yes, and I think that's ludicrous, especially when you take my money and subsidize a lifestyle that harms me, makes me less secure, and is unsustainable.

I have no problem paying for your needs. But just because you prefer not to live in the city doesn't mean my tax dollars should go towards fulfilling your wishes.

And I guess all our ancestors that only lived in the wilderness/country until the last few thousand years were all wrong?

What you have been saying is exactly the "at gunpoint" viewpoint I have been talking about. There is absolutely no way everyone can - or will want to - live in urban settings. The embodied energy of all those roads, cars, houses, etc will still be there whether you put people in a city or in a country. The roads still need to be there to get the food into the city and get people between cities. People in the city will still need cars to go on trips and to get their food into the city.

You can build sustainable houses in the country (like straw bale construction). And instead of having nothing but concrete block after block, the only concrete you'll find around me is the foundation of my house. The rest is undamaged nature.

Most people living in city/urban environments use the same amount of land for their house footprint as those in the country - a single-family house will take up 1500 square feet whether its in a PA country side or within NYC limits.

And speaking of big urban settings like NYC. All I hear about are how nobody can afford to buy their own place because even the smallest condo costs a million dollars, and since everyone must rent the rent is through the roof (excepting the rare rent controlled building), and the apartments are all small. So no, a walkable community will always cost MORE than a suburban existance. Basic economic law - high demand makes for high price. I can own the land I walk on and make sure no one comes along and chops down the trees on my land.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an environmentalist like you. I believe fully in renewable energy, land conservation, reducing emissions, etc. I pay my dues to Sierra Club (and run the local Sierra site), I recycle, and I'm working on putting solar on my house and driving high-MPG cars. I just don't agree with making everyone urbanites is the answer.

And instead of having nothing but concrete block after block, the only concrete you'll find around me is the foundation of my house. The rest is undamaged nature.

The concrete and "undamaged nature" things are both wildly inaccurate cliches. Unless you live in an old-growth forest, your "nature" has been damaged just as much as everyone else's.

a walkable community will always cost MORE than a suburban existance. Basic economic law - high demand makes for high price

You also have no basis to say that. One, you're comparing the most expensive urban space in the US (Manhattan) with some generic suburban sprawl. Suburban space around NYC is very expensive by national standards, so the difference between city and suburban real estate there isn't as much as you might think.

Second of all, living in a walkable setting can enable someone not to have a car. Typically, an American spends 1/3 on housing and 1/5 on transportation. Someone without a car can put all of that towards housing, or more towards housing and the remainder towards other things.

Take someone netting $60K annually. Typically $20K would go to housing and $12K to transportation. Someone without a car has up to $32K to put towards housing. That's the difference between a $272K property and a $435K property. Plus, housing is generally an appreciating asset with tax-deductible interest, and cars are just the opposite. It's also about where that money ends up - in your pocket and in your local community, or off to car and oil interests. It's also about the effect on the environment - less pollution or more pollution. It's also about time and health - walkers are healthier, more connected with their surroundings (including people), and have more time than someone locked in their car every day.

I will be the first to admit the drawbacks of urban living, but it doesn't mean that it's some lifeless concrete hell. I honestly don't know of such a place, aside from pockets in the most developed urban cores. Most urban living has plenty of green.

I would much rather live in the city, but my partner doesn't want to. That said, my milk store is within walking distance and I would love to build a ZEH house on my current property.

Urban homes can be quite cheap.

Pittsburgh for example, has lots of nice, safe, walkable neighborhoods, and you can get a nice house for 60-100k. That means yard, garage, low population density and low cost of living. It's also a very 'woodsy' town.

In the little town where I grew up in Ohio - seated in the middle of large forested areas - you could get a big house for 30-40k, and still have community living.

When people talk about how Europe was quick to adapt to greener lifestyles, it was simply because most Europeans already live in small communities. It was a no-brainer.

"Most people living in city/urban environments use the same amount of land for their house footprint as those in the country - a single-family house will take up 1500 square feet whether its in a PA country side or within NYC limits."

Not if you consider the footprint of the long driveway from the road to the house, the garage and other outbuildings necessary to store the vehicles required to go to the store and buy a gallon of milk.

Pleas: How is living on an acre or two of land alone (or with a few family members), driving everywhere you need to go, converting open land to subdivisions sustainable??

And I guess all our ancestors that only lived in the wilderness/country until the last few thousand years were all wrong?

Actually, our ancestors lived in dense villages and pretty much walked as their only form of mobility. Thanks for bringing that up.

No, they weren't all wrong. Far from it.

a single-family house will take up 1500 square feet whether its in a PA country side or within NYC limits

My house's foundation is about 600 square feet, and I live in one of the least dense parts of town. Most single family houses in the denser urban areas have even smaller footprints than that. Walk around Georgetown or North Beach some time and you'll see what I mean.

And I guess all our ancestors that only lived in the wilderness/country until the last few thousand years were all wrong?

Our ancestors lived in small towns, walked pretty much everywhere, and almost all of them never went more than 20 miles from where they were born.

Doug, I think you do not have any real idea of what living in a city is like.

A response to various posters...

Actually until around 10,000 years ago humans (and their predecessors) were hunter-gatherers for many millions of years. The development of agriculture allowed people to congregate into towns and villages - and with it things like the plague, and lack of clean water. Granted, civilized advances in areas like art and science blossomed, too. Its only been in the last 100 years or so that city life has lost its nastier problems like open sewers and contaminated water supplies. So to say that "our ancestors lived in dense villages" is taking a myopic view of history. Like I said in a prior post, that's only been in the last few thousand years. Those pre-agriculture ancestors were much more in touch with the environment than us modern environmentalists - especially compared to those living in urban settings.

Most people in the US do not live in or near old-growth forest. An unfortunate result of logging in the last 100 years. I'm sure you don't live in old-growth forest either. It is our mission to save the environment as it stands today, even if the trees that surround our homes are only 50 years old.

Yes, I have lived in city environments for about 2/3 of my life. A single-family house, a townhouse, and apartments have all been part of the "walkable lifestyle" you describe. And I do have a basis for saying that an urban homestead is more expensive. Check out any real estate listing on the net. Per-acre and per-square-foot land and homes are more expensive in urban settings. Again, its supply and demand. There are more people per acre (which is what you are arguing you want...high density) so therefore there is more demand for every acre available. Real estate listings bear this out, and my personal experience does too. My townhouse cost about 10 times more per acre and about the same per square foot as my place in the country.

The ratio of asphalt and concrete to available land is through the roof in a city or urban setting compared to the countryside. Hard for you to argue that my driveway is an issue when you compare the ratio of its size compared to the 3+ acres of woodland and meadow that surrounds it.

So exurbanites are really modern hunter-gatherers?

I think I've heard it all now.

Gee, I don't remember saying that. Amazing that you can hear what you *want* to hear.

Please quote me where I said that - or infered that. That's definitely not what I was discussing.

There are realistic goals for environmentalists like getting people to adopt solar, getting off of oil, and insulating their houses to the highest rating. We have clear paths that will reach those goals. Then there are impossible goals like moving everyone to little towns or big cities.

Here's what you said:
"And I guess all our ancestors that only lived in the wilderness/country until the last few thousand years were all wrong?"

then you followed it with:
"Actually until around 10,000 years ago humans (and their predecessors) were hunter-gatherers for many millions of years.... So to say that 'our ancestors lived in dense villages' is taking a myopic view of history. Like I said in a prior post, that's only been in the last few thousand years. Those pre-agriculture ancestors were much more in touch with the environment than us modern environmentalists - especially compared to those living in urban settings."

All of this is put in the context arguing for the superiority of your suburban lifestyle, and you raise the point (for a reason I can't fathom) that there are similarities with early humans being "in touch with the environment".

OK, so I'm really at a loss as to how a modern suburbanite is "in touch with the environment" in any way shape or form. They have more personal property, yes, but they still spend most of their time indoors watching TV, or in their cars driving around. They aren't foraging through the woods hunting deer with speers, being at one with Gaia.

If you're going to bring up ancient history, again I ask - how did those people get around? By car? Did hunter-gatherers set up their homes, however temporary, 1/2 mile from each other?

Then there are impossible goals like moving everyone to little towns or big cities.

That's a huge strawman. Please point me to anyone saying we need to have a mass relocation of people out of their suburban properties into big cities or little towns.

What you keep missing is that the suburban "lifestyle" is a fantasy. It's not sustainable, no matter how clean our energy or how efficient our homes. And you also keep rejecting all the upsides of less sprawl and keep mischaracterizing urbanity as being devoid of natural space.

Actually I do see the benefits of combating urban sprawl. On the surface - if it were theoretically possible - it would reduce the oil consumption, reduce pollution, and hopefully allow for closer relationships between neighbors. The whole point of documentaries like "The End of Suburbia" (www.endofsuburbia.com) are to point out the folly of suburban lifestyle with the advent of peak oil in the next few years. Along with the air and water pollution that comes from an oil-based society.

What you are missing is once we get off the oil drum and onto renewable energy supplies (and sustainable building practices), the "fantasy of suburbia" becomes reality again. The pollution source is gone and peak oil won't matter because we will have moved on. Part of that change is what this article discusses. The builders of that house could have gone much further, but in this case the point was to show that a conventional house still can be made much better.

What you are missing is once we get off the oil drum and onto renewable energy supplies (and sustainable building practices), the "fantasy of suburbia" becomes reality again.

Really? What will cars be made of? Hemp? And the roads? Organic cotton?

Renewable energy is not a cure-all.

I'm from Oklahoma. It's different than other places in that there are wide open spaces in the middle of cities and college towns that you can build on-- and are HIGHLY walkable to stores. I grew up in the suburb of Norman and my family had NO CAR for my WHOLE LIFE. We were fine.

Sorry to dig up the old post but very interesting.

The articles are interesting but the commentary is very enlightening.

I wonder how much of the general population is seriously environmentally concerned/motivated?
I know mainstream advertising is starting to catch on slowly.

I think these houses would appeal to the environmentally apathetic at large. Those who don't want to stand out and be noticed. I won't get ito the city vs. suburban living. Clearly the technology in the house can be adopted in both settings. The technology can evenused to retrofit other structures.

Premium- yes, alternative energy stuff can be expensive up front. But hopefully it will become more affordable as it is adopted on a wider scale with increased competition.
The alternative energy fields now seem to be like aviation in the early 1920s - plenty of ways to make inroads.
In many ways these ideas were explored in the 1970s as energy costs climbed and gas shortages loomed. But they were abandoned as crises abated.
A lot of these ideas are becoming popular again. 'Popular' means more acceptance and more venture capital dollars and brain power can be devoted to solutions.

Yes, it is better to retrofit older existing houses and buildings than to build new ones. But just think of some mega builder who is going to do a bunch of units - isn't it better to build as efficiently and smartly as possible?

The garage in front -
Well, you should have some space for house batteries, bicycles for the family which are easily deployable, a vented biodiesel backup generator,
rainwater storage tank, gardening tools, electric scooters/car, etc.

vsk

I'm looking for a Zero-Energy contractor in East Tennessee to build a new house
McMinn Co.