Hello, I'm interested in building a solar home from the ground up. My wife and I are currently looking into options in this area of design. Please any input or ideas would be appreciated.
Robert and Amy Appleton <bobn...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Hello, I'm interested in building a solar home from the ground up. My >wife and I are currently looking into options in this area of design. >Please any input or ideas would be appreciated.
> Robert and Amy Appleton
I've designed and built a dozen or so over the last 15 years and they work just fine, even in cloudy Michigan. But I don't think they qualify as great architecture. A couple maybe qualify for decent architecture. If you're going to build a house and hope it will turn into a home for your family, don't put more concern into how you will heat it than you do into its beauty and utility in your every day lives.
Something about solar energy turns folks on and causes them to forget all the other aspects that we should remember in designing a home. I know; I've done it. And I learned that a little subtle use of passive solar elements, some good work in insulating, and some clever assist by small heating units or fans, can go a long ways. Acres of glass, Trombe walls, water barrels, rock bins, etc. belong in laboratories.
End of sermon. There's loads of good literature out there about the technical aspects of solar building. I think Rick Schowolsky's book (can't remember the title --published in about 1983) is outstanding, but there are plenty in the library. While you are at it, locate some general books on home planning. Terence Conran's books may have some ideas for you. Christopher Alexander's work speaks to some people, including myself. Gather visual ideas. Fantasize. Get your kids to help. Go camp on your site. Then worry about how to heat it.
Best of luck.
Philip Kabza CSI AIA Progressive Architecture Engineering Planning Grand Rapids Michigan USA kab...@progressiveae.com
> Hello, I'm interested in building a solar home from the ground up. My > wife and I are currently looking into options in this area of design. > Please any input or ideas would be appreciated.
> Robert and Amy Appleton
Ekotecture International Incorporated
Ekotecture International is a Florida corporation, chartered for the purpose of licensing and franchising individuals, corporations, partnerships, trusts and foundations to design, build, manufacture install and maintain integrated natural energy environments which are powered by the universal energies of gravity, solar and geothermal inertia, evaporation & condensation& phase change.
Integrated natural energy environments or Ekospheres™ are defined as self-contained, self-sufficient, solar gravity geothermal powered, non-polluting, structurally integrated, super strength, lightweight molded structures which float, enabling them to resist damage from earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes or tidal waves. They provide lights, gas, water and food, required or desired by the occupants of the structure.
Mission Statement
€ Promote World Peace through the international economic interdependence of construction coalitions and utility management cartels. € Make the world a better place to live by enrlling humanity into supporting environmental friendly construction. € Prove our love and respect for humanity by dedicating ourselves to education concerning the conservation of our natural resources
Vision Statement
€ Before the year 2006, Ekotecture International will have become the largest construction coalition and utility management cartel in the world. € We will be respected by our peers for the devlopment and delivery of environmentally friendly construction. € We will be sought after as a leader in the international business community because of our innovative and creative marketing of premier Ekotecture technology. € We will be the catalyst for world wide utility management which conserves our earth¹s natural resources.
The energy shortage and gasoline crisis in 1975 activated the mass media, attention, who by 1980 were putting alternative energy designs and inventors on the cover of every national magazine. Fortunately, for Ekose¹a™, this positive publicity created a public demand for our publications and professional services. Between 1979 and 1981, this publicity drove the sales of more than 45,000 buyers to purchase our book and 15,000 purchased construction documents, specifications and limited supervision. From this activity and later follow up studies, we now estimate that there are approximately 20,000 occupied Ekose¹a™ double envelope homes worldwide.
The superior comfort and health standards , interior air quality and thermal performance is now well known after fourteen years of history by satisfied owners. The houses have been monitored and documented by universities, national laboratories and individual owner builder experimenters all over the world. In 1981, DOE sponsored a monitoring & study of an Ekose¹a home built in 1980, near Newport, Rhode Island. The study was supervised by the Brookhaven National Laboratory¹s architect, Ralph Jones. They concluded that, ³the double envelope concept was distinguished in that it allowed for large amounts of glass necessary for light and views without requiring additional energy. They went on to add, ³ that it was the only design they had ever tested which could survive a severe northern winter, unattended without damage to the interior from freezing.
The Ekose¹a double envelope design provided unexpected surprises and health benefits whenever the south facing solarium was used as a greenhouse garden room. When filled with plants, the envelope air provides an natural electrostatic air ionizing and filtering system. The Ekose¹a™ homes provide an ideal living space, as they have the potential of being filled with beautiful colored flowers, delightful aromas, and green foliage plants which produce oxygen from converted carbon dioxide.
Fast forward 15 years.
In 1991, in the book, Earth in the Balance Albert Gore predicts a global civil war, between the haves and the have nots, resulting from the finite limitations of our present energy technologies and the resources they demand to supply the projected global demand into the next century. He calls for the ³new organizing principle² of civilization to be the search for human life support systems which can be sustained indefinitely and he makes a passionate plea for America to use it¹s technological superiority and ingenuity to lead the world in this critical mission.
In 1993, responding to growing interest and awareness of architects of this crisis, the American Institute of Architects and the International Congress of Architects choose ³sustainable development²as the theme of their annual convention They called for solutions to sustainable development in an international competition to be judged at the time of the annual AIA convention. There has been so much controversy surrounding the subject of defining ³sustainable development² that the judging was delayed and they have yet to circulate the results as promised.
In 1994. President Clinton appointed a panel of national business, scientific and political leaders to the National Commission on sustainable Development. After more than two years of controversy and endless meetings, it has become obvious that none of these committee members could agree on what sustainable development actually consists of. They have yet to come to terms with the jargon and the definition of sustainability.
In 1995, responding to the growing perception within the engineering professions that finding a solution to this economic-scientific-environmental global crisis must now receive the highest priority, the Provost of MIT, the world¹s leading technological research institution asked the head of it¹s Civil Engineering Department, Professor David Marks, to step down and direct an interdisciplinary team to find sustainable solutions. They created the Program for Environmental Engineering, Education and Research which will be known as PEEER. MIT then joined the University of Tokyo and the Federated Universities of Switzerland to form the The International Alliance for Global Sustainability. The first conference was held recently in Peking China.
The question being asked by all of these chief executives, commissioners, scientists and construction professionals alike is; Which sustainable alternative, pollution free technologies can satisfy the present global demand for energy, comfort and conveniences without sacrificing our future security or compromising our future ability to provide these luxuries and necessities to all who will want and need them, into and beyond the next century?
The result is a lightweight, fireproof, insect resistant, floating material which resists heat and moisture transfer. It can be easily cut and sawn by ordinary carpenters, using ordinary tools.
This structure and floating foundation provide a framework around which owners, real estate developers, designers, architects, engineers and contractors have wide latitude to create the exterior style and finish of the building, according to the individual tastes, preferences and needs of each client, site or situation.
There are two articles about double envelope houses in Rodale's New Shelter magazine, of September, 1980, which says "Hard data on double-shell homes" on the cover.
The first article is "Double Shell Houses," subtitled "Finally, some facts," on pp 72-82, in which Larry Stains says:
A promotional brochure for Ekose'a, a San Francisco firm that sells double shell house plans, says its homes "prove it is practical to design and build a structure which maintains any desired range of temperatures through any range of climatic conditions at any place on the earth [above the arctic circle in wintertime, with no sun at all for 6 months? --Nick] without the necessity of mechanical, electrical or fossil fuel back-up systems."
That's a mighty big claim...
Last winter, two double shell houses were monitored by researchers. Their findings indicate:
1) The houses _did_ depend on auxiliary heat; thus the design is not a guarantee of energy self-sufficiency.
2) No way does the earth underneath the house store the majority of the solar heat collected in the greenhouse.
Don't misunderstand. Double shell houses are good houses that use a fraction of the energy consumed by conventional designs. But the double shell design should be understood for what it is, not for what it is cracked up to be. So, for the facts, let's examine two homes...
A detailed record of temperatures in the Burns house from mid-October to early February was compiled... then studied by three Boston-area solar engineers... The monitoring equipment consisted of temperature sensors at some 30 points throughout the house, and a data logger to keep track of it all. The findings are revealing. For one thing, temperatures in the living room sometimes fluctuated from the mid 70s on a sunny afternoon to the mid 50s by dawn, when it was 0 F outside...
Another double shell given close scrutiny last winter was Robert and Elizabeth Mastin's house in Middletown, Rhode Island... Last January the house was monitored for 12 days by scientists from Brookhaven National Laboratory. To find out how much heat the house required to stay warm, the scientists installed three 1500-watt heaters in the house, one on each floor. They were controlled by a thermostat which the Mastins were requested to keep at 65 F. Daily records tabulated the electricity used by the heaters. In addition, sensors kept round-the-clock track of household temperatures. Let's look at one of the 12 monitored days: January 18. It was overcast; the outside temperatures ranged from 30 F, at 12:01 a. m. to 41 F at 2 p. m., and back down to 37 F by midnight. The Brookhaven equipment showed that the average "inner house" temperature stayed between 62 and 65 F. It also showed that the three heaters were tapped for 193,707 Btus of back-up heat that day. That's the same as burning two gallons of oil. On a fairly mild winter's day, no less.
The figures for the Burns and Mastin houses help to settle part of the controversy about double shell homes. But details need to be hammered out... Everyone has his pet theory, and one double shell aficionado in California actually talks of "holism" and "loopiness" when explaining the design. [Gee, I wonder who that was...]
There is a side-box that describes complete working drawings for a series of double shell houses, sold by Tom Smith and his partner, John Hofacre, for less than $100. The sidebox also says:
Ekose'a sells blueprints for $500, a semi-custom design service for $4,000, and a full custom design service for 15% of construction costs. In order to get plans, you must purchase their $25 book.
The second article is an interview with the same Tom Smith, "The Double Shell: An owner's Perspective," beginning on page 82. He says, inter alia:
Avoiding confusion about the "envelope" requires only a little deprogramming from the Higher Order of Convective Loopers. The solar function of the house is only part of the story, and _there is no significant storage of excess heat for use during the heat losing times of the day_." [his emphasis]
When asked, "What's the future of the "envelope" system?" (in 1980), he said:
I do not forsee any of the systems we now have surviving past the next few years. We have created a fit of a Frankenstein with my house here because it launched the field of envelope homes and is seen in competition with other systems. Nothing could have been further from my intentions...
I would feel most proud if my house is remembered for being a step in the evolution toward mass energy-efficient design, rather than for introducing the "most efficient system."
[Curious how Tom Smith says "my house," not "Lee Porter Butler's house."]
After working on, literally, hundreds of passive designs, and living in this house over the past three years, I am convinced that energy efficiency will become considerably less exotic in the future. It is my belief that if we just study closely what is going on inside a house, we'll come up with some very simple, if prosaic, solutions. If you have ever spent any time living in other parts of the world you'd realize that a lot of our energy problems stem from just plain doing it wrong. It's a snap to save energy in this country. As soon as more people become involved in the basic math of heat transfer and get a gut-level, as well as intellectual, grasp on how a house works, solution after solution will appear.
In article <3223F312.2...@teleport.com>, Carlos Portela <sola...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Nick,
>Thanks for posting excerpts from those articles. >I've heard of those articles but have never had >a chance to see them.
[....]
>Double envelope homes have some drawbacks, including >lower performance in mild climate (instead of colder >weather), and potential ease of fire spreading rapidly, >which hasn't happened yet, but could happen (DOE >recommends installing sprinklers, but it would >still be a design drawback).
This is a concern in any systems which allows free (convective) flow of air through a reasonable portion of a structure, but particularly so for the envelope design.
I have seen suggested (sorry no reference) that a type of trap-door firestop can be provided in duct areas. Normally the door is held open by a fusible material. In the event of a fire, it is melted and the weighted or spring actuated door closes. (sufficient force to overcome the updraft is obviously required).
Anyone able to provide less nebulous design specs?
Nick Pine <n...@ufo.ee.vill.edu> wrote: >There are two articles about double envelope houses in Rodale's New Shelter >magazine, of September, 1980, which says "Hard data on double-shell homes" >on the cover.
>The first article is "Double Shell Houses," subtitled "Finally, some facts," >on pp 72-82, in which Larry Stains says:
> A promotional brochure for Ekose'a, a San Francisco firm that sells double > shell house plans, says its homes "prove it is practical to design and build > a structure which maintains any desired range of temperatures through any > range of climatic conditions at any place on the earth [above the arctic > circle in wintertime, with no sun at all for 6 months? --Nick] without the > necessity of mechanical, electrical or fossil fuel back-up systems."
"Uses solar, gravity and geothermal inertia, _eliminating_ fuel consumption, maintenance and replacement costs." [emphasis added]
I would think that even if they could produce on the energy claims that they wouldn't claim that it would last forever and be maintenance free...
The book 'EKOSE'A HOMES' is defined as a
"beautifully illustrated 115 page book describes 23 stock designs for building systainable, healthy, beautiful homes in any climate."
> Last winter, two double shell houses were monitored by researchers. > Their findings indicate:
> 1) The houses _did_ depend on auxiliary heat; thus the design is not > a guarantee of energy self-sufficiency.
> 2) No way does the earth underneath the house store the majority of > the solar heat collected in the greenhouse.
> Don't misunderstand. Double shell houses are good houses that use a fraction > of the energy consumed by conventional designs. But the double shell design > should be understood for what it is, not for what it is cracked up to be. > So, for the facts, let's examine two homes...
[bulk of a well written article deleted]
Thanks for passing along the results.
>When asked, "What's the future of the "envelope" system?" (in 1980), he said:
> I do not forsee any of the systems we now have surviving past the next few > years. We have created a fit of a Frankenstein with my house here because it > launched the field of envelope homes and is seen in competition with other > systems. Nothing could have been further from my intentions...
> I would feel most proud if my house is remembered for being a step in the > evolution toward mass energy-efficient design, rather than for introducing > the "most efficient system."
I wish I could recall where but I thought to have read of some less formal testing that showed at least one envelope house not even to follow the expected air-flow patterns, no matter meet the unrealistic expectations cited further above.
The envelope was/is an interesting concept and certainly a worthy experiment, but it is a fairly expensive way to build a house and the performance clearly isn't on par with the propaganda.
It's fun to rib Nick about some of his schemes and play devil's advocate with him but but his primary emphasis that 'simple is good', and 'it doesn't have to be expensive to work' are fundamentally sound and the right direction to go.
gps (spelling disclaimed, etc. Someday I'll go back to grade school...)
> Hello, I'm interested in building a solar home from the ground up. My > wife and I are currently looking into options in this area of design. > Please any input or ideas would be appreciated.
> Robert and Amy Appleton
Contact Mr. Solar's Newletter (Charlie Collins) at the following E-mail address: MrSo...@netins.net. He published a great Solar newsletter. I am no expert, but I am a registered architect with some experience. Feel free to contact me - if I can help, I will.
>>Thanks for posting excerpts from those articles. >>I've heard of those articles but have never had >>a chance to see them.
>[....]
>>Double envelope homes have some drawbacks, including >>lower performance in mild climate (instead of colder >>weather), and potential ease of fire spreading rapidly, >>which hasn't happened yet, but could happen (DOE >>recommends installing sprinklers, but it would >>still be a design drawback).
>This is a concern in any systems which allows free >(convective) flow of air through a reasonable portion >of a structure, but particularly so for the envelope >design.
>I have seen suggested (sorry no reference) that >a type of trap-door firestop can be provided in >duct areas. Normally the door is held open by a >fusible material. In the event of a fire, it is melted >and the weighted or spring actuated door closes. >(sufficient force to overcome the updraft is >obviously required).
>Anyone able to provide less nebulous design specs?
