Zero Carbon living…didn’t quite work out. Didn’t they do some calculations on this first? Sheesh.
Looks like some sort of Noah’s Ark sort of design. I suppose that was the idea.
Zero Carbon living…didn’t quite work out. Didn’t they do some calculations on this first? Sheesh.
Looks like some sort of Noah’s Ark sort of design. I suppose that was the idea.
Okay, so they built a house without insulation …but they were radical in minds! Don’t forget that! Now I’m gonna switch off my computer, but it’ll takes half a minute which consume energy, but luckily I have a sledgehammer, …and ¤#%”4$£@ur momisugly$€34″–… .. .
@Mark Twang
Alas they are not merely stupid hippies, they are dangerous subversives who want us all to go back to living in caves – except that then the planet won’t support our population without the technology that facilitates it – so hundreds of millions would die.
The warm-mongers are communists and anarchists and they are a hairs-breadth away from becoming eco-terrorists. Already they vandalise large cars in London and it’s only a matter of time before they start attacking people.
Low carbon? It would fall down without it. The frame is made of wood.
One has to ask what happened to the stove?
Either it is missing, or is not permitted for use in a classroom, or just as plausibly that it is nobody’s job to light it. A stove pipe is visible in the ZEDFactory picture.
———————————————————————-
They can’t have a stove because then it wouldn’t be ‘zero carbon’.
Agree that it’s curious that there are no desks or other signs of teaching in the picture. Now that it can’t be used for zero carbon teaching, what’s the bet they end up putting a stove in and turning it into a lovely staffroom? I mean, we couldn’t let such a nice room go to waste, could we?
Charlotte Linacre, Campaign Manager at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said, “They must stop spending taxpayers’ hard earned cash on expensive pet projects that do nothing to improve pupils’ education.”
In light of the fact that heat was never a part of the building design, I agree it was a complete waste of taxpayer money, particularly when the school district is stuggling to accomodate an influx of new students.
However, I do think this was a valuable educational experience for the students. It is important that young people understand the complications of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Moreover, adequate solutions are needed if we are able to sustain life in a colder climate.
That said, I still can’t fathom why they did not plan to heat the building.
Ralph,
In my engineering zeal, I didn’t even see the main issue – methane is not a “renewable” resource it is a “fossil fuel” – it’s doomed to fail. This bus project is obviously a boondogle and , I’m sure that was known before it was embarked upon. I am also sure that the whole system was budgeted with surplus funds, as funding this with borrowed money would simply be foolish. If borrowed money was used, you must consider the cost of the money as well.
At any rate, the whole project makes no economic or pollution reduction sense. That was easy to determine ahead of time so, there must be some other rationale behind it.
Wow! I love it as a teacher when I am provided a real-world opportunity to create a critical thinking activity for my lesson bank.
I’ve downloaded both articles regarding this fiasco. I’ve also downloaded several photos and design pictures from the ZED folks.
This will result in a great packet that highlights what happens when folks making decisions on the basis of something other than “technical”, “engineering” or “scientific” skills are in charge and the end result. Of course, I’ll be sure to put in some followup questions aimed at examining the economic impact as well as the potential harm to those it was supposed to serve.
The ZED design itself doesn’t look so bad…looks as though they have a little of everything in their plan as noted by others here.
=8-)
For $50k you can buy a bunch of fire retardant insulating foam and some ground source heat pumps. I’d bet that would work a ton better.
Could have saved some money based on UofM experience. Part of article reprinted below followed by link to full article. I can’t find any information concerning the monthly cost of energy for this house but I am quite sure that $1,000,000 for a 550 sq ft house is a little steep. I have a 2400 sq ft home in northern NY (cost $150,000 ten years ago)that uses nat gas for heat . My energy costs average $200/mo for gas AND electric so, that extra $850,000 would buy my energy for 354 years. Aside from that, what family could live in 550 sq ft or assemble the home from a kit.
“University of Minnesota students’ prize-winning solar house has no buyers
by Anissa Stocks, Minnesota Public Radio
October 26, 2010
St. Paul, Minn. — University of Minnesota students have spent months trying to sell their prize-winning solar-powered house but so far no one is buying it.
The 550 square-foot house is on display across the street from the Bell Museum in Minneapolis as part of its “Sustainable Shelter” exhibit. The house, with a gabled roof, is shaped like a typical Minnesota family home. But the roof is covered in solar panels, making it look futuristic.
The house placed fifth internationally in the Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon last year. Although building costs reached $1 million, including a $100,000 Department of Energy grant and many donations, the house’s market value has been set at $550,000 based on the cost of materials and labor.
Project coordinators put the home up for auction at a $200,000 minimum bid in the spring — slightly higher than the median value of a single-family home in the metro area at about $185,000.
But the house has languished on the market since last spring. Those involved with the project say the weak housing market is partly to blame, but another factor is that the house requires self-assembly. The real estate market is driven by location, and the solar house doesn’t have one. ”
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/26/solar-house-no-buyers/
A dozen cows in there will heat that space just nicely….
and they only need to be fueled by grass….
However, the methane gas that they produce won’t fit the “theme”.
Damn all the carbon based life forms!! They’re totally fouling up the planet!!
Maybe burn some of the wood it’s made out of in a wood stove, that will make it nice and cozy in there…. oops… that damn carbon cycle again… what to do? what to do?
Carbon dioxide is not the problem. We could spend this money on cleaning up toxic chemicals instead. Politicians can run the same “Carbon Scam” on toxic products and actually do some good for the environment. This is becoming a “blood libel” against CO2. Find a real problem to tackle like those toxic plumes blowing in from China. CO2 ain’t the enemy… pollution and our overuse behavior is the real danger.
So the school district built a fair-weather-only classroom at about the same cost (?) as a year-round facility? Seems a bit extravagant in these hard times, but worth it if the kids see what a zero-carbon (and non-nuclear) future is really like (actually not so bad if only humans can learn to hibernate during cold weather).
Thanks to the posters who brought up the hydrogen bus and off-grid PortZed housing development. Next to these, the “Living Tent” seems almost brilliant. Could WUWT cover these stories in more depth?
jrwakefield says: “Will the ideologs ever learn that they cannot defy the laws of physics…?”
They will continue to believe that they can as long as they have the power to steal from you.
Really dumb design. Passive solar can do a lot better, even when it’s not intentional.
I was just noticing this in my own tiny hovel. Outside temp right now is 8F. The south-facing front wall has two double-glazed windows and a wooden door with a glass storm door. Now, with the sun brightly shining, the wooden inner door is almost too hot to touch — measures 90F — and the electric baseboard heater is turning on about 1/8 of the time. When the sun isn’t shining, the baseboard heater has to be on about 7/8 of the time to maintain the same comfort for such a low outside temp. Clearly the sun is doing most of the work. Thanks, old Sol!
American architects before the ’60s understood passive solar quite well, though they didn’t call it passive solar.
As long as engineering decisions are made by politicians and zealots, the laws of Physics will continue to be irrelevant. The general public seems not to understand that you cannot get more than 100% efficiency out of a system and, in fact, that at each energy transformation “step” the efficiency is less than 100%. They also don’t understand that the overall efficiency is the product of the individual step efficiencies.
Most people think that perpetual motion is easily achievable.
I don’t get it… there’s plenty of wood there to build a nice, cozy fire.
Stick a nice split-system heat pump air conditioner in there, and they could use it year round…
I know – wash my mouth out…
Sounds pretty educational to me. Have the kids stay overnight in the thing in January (bring lots of blankets!) and then write an essay about what life would be like if all the carbon restrictions the greens are bucking for became reality.
OK, so Her Majesty’s Government has decided in its infinite wisdom to go all aout with subsidies and tax breaks for solar electricity, in spite of its large and growing deficit.
On an island where an essential part of every well-dressed gentleman’s outfit is his trusty umbrella.
Where most of the heating is provided by “electric fires”, and where heat is needed more at night than during the day (surprise!), and moreover where the sun obstinately refuses to shine at night (double surprise!).
It is perhaps no coincidence that this island was also the place of origin of the phrase, “barking mad.”
They should power Parliament House in the same green manner, that would give the politicians first hand experience of what the greens are proposing. Epic failure.
“But there is snag – its solar panels only provide enough energy to power a few lightbulbs.”
At some point you have to lay some blame on the parents – who at least are capable of grousing a little about the 37 thousand dollars, but who continue to entrust these people with the duty of educating their children.
“But there is a snag – the tolerant, environmentally trained children were not able to reason, read, or figure.”
Actually you can get an efficiency of > 100%. You need to use a heat pump.
Your typical reverse cycle air-con, when heating, is a heat pump. You can get an efficiency from a good one of about 400% or more. This measures electrical energy in and total heat circulated into the building. Because the heat pump moves heat (and the electrical energy is used to make that movement), you get what seems a paradoxical result.
When you take into account burning coal, gas, or similar to make the electricity with a system efficiency of about 50% (assuming a modern gas plant, about 60-65% and transmission losses of about 15%), the net effect is that your energy in -> heat out is about 200%.
Meaning that a heat pump is actually one of the most efficient means possible for heating.
(And OK we can juggle the numbers… a heat pump run by hydro power for example, really does give you something for nothing. Oh, whoops, forgot. Building dams for hydro is evil too.)
Seen on another site…
“…It’s worth children sitting in dark, cold rooms if it saves just one polar bear. Fact! The children are just polluters of the future, why would we want to be kind to them?..”
[/sarc]
It’s pretty, but that much flammable material would never pass the fire-codes in a civilized country, especially without a sprinkler system for fire suppression. Changes I would think about making is going to a ceramic tile floor on a thick block of concrete for added thermal mass and running some hot water pipes through it and connecting them to some very generous solar collectors for heating and adding an electric baseboard unit or two to make up any heating shortfall. We could pretend the electricity came from the wind-farm to keep the greenies happy.
I think all you commenters are just critics, being critical of a really good idea.
You just do not understand.
It works so well in theory.
End of story.
One or more should be built in every school.
It is soooooooooooooooooooo progressive too.
(in the worst sense of that well misused word).
>>Sal Minella says: February 25, 2011 at 7:57 am
>>Ralph,
>>Diesel engines run in the 22% – 25% efficiency range but, the
>>following quote indicates that these busses should never be built
>>on cost alone.
Sorry, in Europe we are waaayy beyond that.
Normal European turbo diesels are running at around 40 – 45% efficiency, which is far better than any hydrogen powered vehicle can achieve. I agree with the previous poster, who put hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles at 22% efficiency.
My twin turbo diesel large 5-door family saloon does 48 mpg on mixed driving (not too heavy a right foot). Take it on a run and keep the speed at 55, and it will push 65 mpg.
.