Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In the spring of 2020, Aurora Ferrari looked at the plot of land sandwiched between her D.C. backyard and an alley, and saw potential. Today, it’s the site of the city’s first “net-zero” accessory dwelling unit — meaning the 600-square-foot apartment that Ferrari built there produces more energy than it consumes...
...After putting the structure through a rigorous energy evaluation, the city determined last year that it did indeed qualify as the first net-zero ADU within the District. The achievement didn’t come easy. It took the better part of two years to come to fruition, including around nine months to obtain the necessary permits and roughly seven months to actually construct it. Ferrari says the project ran about $330 per square foot, or about $200,000 in all. That amount doesn’t count the hundreds of hours she devoted to researching the best materials and techniques and coordinating all the experts involved..." Location is DC
It,,s difficult to see how they calculate this to be a NetZero building, given all the steel and concrete involved, but I,ll let that slide.
I built my 2800sq ft earthbrrm house (almost 5x bigger) for $45 a SQ ft (8x cheaper). It costs me $1000 a year to heat it in cold WI with wood (net zero CO2 production) and no need for AC. ...
...but she deserves a cookie for virtue signaling, even if not for brains....
"May equates creating an airtight home to “building a really good thermos,” because the same principles apply."
This is the part I don't understand. I would think working with the local environment would be better than creating a thermos. Having windows that open and allow circulation of fresh air seems better than installing special equipment.
It,,s difficult to see how they calculate this to be a NetZero building, given all the steel and concrete involved, but I,ll let that slide.
I built my 2800sq ft earthbrrm house (almost 5x bigger) for $45 a SQ ft (8x cheaper). It costs me $1000 a year to heat it in cold WI with wood (net zero CO2 production) and no need for AC. ...
...but she deserves a cookie for virtue signaling, even if not for brains....
BTW- air tight buildings can be very unhealthy.
You developed a large amount of land, hurting whatever ecosystem it's in. Land use is a bigger problem than efficiency. Particularly rural land use.
Also, you must have done your own work...or paid peanuts.
And let's not pretend that cutting trees down and emitting particulates is some panacea. Those are problems too.
Do you drive a lot as well? Again, huge problem from a production, fuel, safety, and land use perspective. Cities are at least efficient on a per-person basis.
You're virtue signalling, but a much bigger environmental problem.
"May equates creating an airtight home to “building a really good thermos,” because the same principles apply."
This is the part I don't understand. I would think working with the local environment would be better than creating a thermos. Having windows that open and allow circulation of fresh air seems better than installing special equipment.
You developed a large amount of land, hurting whatever ecosystem it's in. Land use is a bigger problem than efficiency. Particularly rural land use.
Also, you must have done your own work...or paid peanuts.
And let's not pretend that cutting trees down and emitting particulates is some panacea. Those are problems too.
Do you drive a lot as well? Again, huge problem from a production, fuel, safety, and land use perspective. Cities are at least efficient on a per-person basis.
You're virtue signalling, but a much bigger environmental problem.
If I don,t cut down a tree and cause it to rapidly oxidize to give me heat, it would eventually die and oxidize more slowly, but oxidize away none the less. Net change to the environment = Zero....
By using a gassification furnace, virtually no particulates are released to the air.
BTW...check the ecology/forestry lit to verify that woodland harvested and left to MotherNature returns via natural ecological succession to healthy forest faster than harvested land artificially replanted with trees. Nobody laments the demise of the corn stalk at the yearly harvest. Trees are a crop that takes 40 years between havests. Patience is a virtue
If I don,t cut down a tree and cause it to rapidly oxidize to give me heat, it would eventually die and oxidize more slowly, but oxidize away none the less. Net change to the environment = Zero....
By using a gassification furnace, virtually no particulates are released to the air.
BTW...check the ecology/forestry lit to verify that woodland harvested and left to MotherNature returns via natural ecological succession to healthy forest faster than harvested land artificially replanted with trees. Nobody laments the demise of the corn stalk at the yearly harvest. Trees are a crop that takes 40 years between havests. Patience is a virtue
That statement is not true.
Defining a "healthy forest" or whatever you objective is for a forested property is very helpful.
If you want to grow trees to sequester carbon, you want to plant trees.
If you want to grow trees to make money, you might want to plant trees.
If you want to grow trees to have a forest, you might want to go with natural regeneration.
In any case, you want a registered professional forester managing your property.
Commercially replanted woods after a harvest is not the same as a natural forest anymore than a corn field resembles a natural grassland. You,re right: we need an operational definition of healthy forest for a scientific discussion....That info about recovery time is from WI DNR foresters based on test plots/empirical data. I too was surprised to hear it.
You can,t sequester carbon by planting trees unless you artificially limit the time scale. You may temporarily take CO2 out of the air for a few decades, but the tree is destined to die and return the CO2 to the atm--no net change. It,s like delaying making a payment on a loan-- you only stay richer temporarily....and a grassland accomplishes more photosynthesis (ie- more CO2 removed from the air) each year than a forest.!!
Homes have to breathe just like you or I do. It's a mistake to go overboard on this, as many people have found out the hard way. You end up w/ all sorts of problems that affect the home and the people in it. What may be best for making the home energy efficient is not necessarily best for living in it. Besides, the only way to create more energy than you consume requires nuclear fusion. I doubt that a house can do that. No matter how you look at it, $200,000 for a 600 foot living area is way too much money. "Net Zero" is just a term, it really doesn't exist. There is always a loss of energy.
Last edited by stephenMM; 03-22-2024 at 02:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
