Comments on: Next Steps: If You Build, Build to Net Zero http://www.nesea.org/green-building/next-steps-if-you-build-build-to-net-zero/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=next-steps-if-you-build-build-to-net-zero We Connect Sustainability Professionals to Ideas and Each Other. Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:06:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Diego http://www.nesea.org/green-building/next-steps-if-you-build-build-to-net-zero/#comment-270 Diego Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:14:39 +0000 http://www.nesea.org/blog/?p=493#comment-270 Mary, basically you're right. We are overusing the planet. But I don't think we will change much by telling the people to live a simpler live. An ACI member described how she lived at 59 degrees in her house to protect the planet for future generations. By insulating the walls to passive house standard she would use much less AND be comfortable. What do you think people will favor? Only with net zero dwellings, electric and public transportation and cradle to cradle production and consumer cycles will we be able to live with 9 billion other people on this planet. If we don't achieve these goals, wars over scarce resources will be the result. The Article stated: "(My cabin) It has a 4.6kW array and three 3×7 thermal panels for DHW. These things are not trivial, once an intelligent orientation and envelope is done, they are absolutely needed steps to get to net zero." A 4.6kW array is not necessary to get to net zero. A big PV array is just the result of an inefficient envelope and inefficient appliances. The passive house standard proves this in many thousand examples in the US and Europe. The Passive House Planing Package (PHPP - $200) is the planing tool for new and old house retrofits. The PHPP-accuracy was proven in many thousand real world passive houses built or retrofitted. The simplicity of the passive house principles together with the PHPP planing software are unbeatable, because it follows a whole system approach! www.passivehouse.us PS: I am not affiliated in any way to the passive house institute. This is only my humble opinion. I believe this is the way to go. Why waiting for net zero, when there are many thousand examples on how to do it right the first time? Mary, basically you’re right. We are overusing the planet.

But I don’t think we will change much by telling the people to live a simpler live.

An ACI member described how she lived at 59 degrees in her house to protect the planet for future generations. By insulating the walls to passive house standard she would use much less AND be comfortable. What do you think people will favor?

Only with net zero dwellings, electric and public transportation and cradle to cradle production and consumer cycles will we be able to live with 9 billion other people on this planet. If we don’t achieve these goals, wars over scarce resources will be the result.

The Article stated:
“(My cabin) It has a 4.6kW array and three 3×7 thermal panels for DHW. These things are not trivial, once an intelligent orientation and envelope is done, they are absolutely needed steps to get to net zero.”

A 4.6kW array is not necessary to get to net zero. A big PV array is just the result of an inefficient envelope and inefficient appliances. The passive house standard proves this in many thousand examples in the US and Europe.

The Passive House Planing Package (PHPP – $200) is the planing tool for new and old house retrofits. The PHPP-accuracy was proven in many thousand real world passive houses built or retrofitted.

The simplicity of the passive house principles together with the PHPP planing software are unbeatable, because it follows a whole system approach!

http://www.passivehouse.us

PS: I am not affiliated in any way to the passive house institute. This is only my humble opinion. I believe this is the way to go. Why waiting for net zero, when there are many thousand examples on how to do it right the first time?

]]> By: Robert Riversong http://www.nesea.org/green-building/next-steps-if-you-build-build-to-net-zero/#comment-269 Robert Riversong Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:36:49 +0000 http://www.nesea.org/blog/?p=493#comment-269 Net zero is the wrong equation for living lightly and sustainably on the earth. The sum can be zero even if you over-consume energy as long as you spend enough money, purchase and install enough generating capacity, to produce as much as you are using. The goal should not be to use technology (with all its inherent unintended consequences and externalities)to compensate for our wastefulness, but to simply use far, far less. Less energy, fewer resources (particularly manufactured products), much smaller and simpler homes. Net zero advocates forget that it's not just energy that we humans consume in excess. We are turning the earth's resources - organic and inorganic - into millions of tons of human biomass and over-swarming a planet which simply cannot support such a plague. Any real solutions will involve not more technology, but far less and simpler technologies, smaller simpler shelters, and much simpler lifestyles. Net zero is the wrong equation for living lightly and sustainably on the earth. The sum can be zero even if you over-consume energy as long as you spend enough money, purchase and install enough generating capacity, to produce as much as you are using.

The goal should not be to use technology (with all its inherent unintended consequences and externalities)to compensate for our wastefulness, but to simply use far, far less. Less energy, fewer resources (particularly manufactured products), much smaller and simpler homes.

Net zero advocates forget that it’s not just energy that we humans consume in excess. We are turning the earth’s resources – organic and inorganic – into millions of tons of human biomass and over-swarming a planet which simply cannot support such a plague.

Any real solutions will involve not more technology, but far less and simpler technologies, smaller simpler shelters, and much simpler lifestyles.

]]>