3 ms·
This is an interesting design, but it's probably worth mentioning that any efficiency gains from passive heating are likely far outweighed by the need to drive
by natrius 17y ago
This is an interesting design, but it's probably worth mentioning that any efficiency gains from passive heating are likely far outweighed by the need to drive long distances to get to anything due to the house's remoteness.
- Retric 17y agoThe most environmentally friendly place to live in the US is New York City for that reason. But, this is far closer to an art project than an engineering problem.
- HeyLaughingBoy 17y agoYou assume that you need to get to anything frequently. Although I'm just about 7 miles outside town and therefore it's not an issue for me, I figured out that if in addition to my chickens and veggie garden, I had a few cows (probably miniatures -- they're more feed efficient) and a handful of goats and some fruit trees, I really wouldn't need to leave my property except to work. And that could be done by telecommuting if I were willing to search for that kind of job. My house is built on the east side of a hill. If I were starting from scratch, I'd seriously consider building it into the hill. With solar heating and all the windows on that side -- that's where most of them are now anyway -- and the rest of the house underground. In the summer, my walk-out basement is cooler than the air-conditioned main floor and Minnesota has about the same level of solar insolation as Austin, TX so we have more than enough sun to do it. I like this guy's house and there really shouldn't be any reason it couldn't be built in the average suburban subdivision except for idiotic zoning laws and even more stupid Homeowner's Associations: how people can live in those things is beyond me!