Posts: 436763 Topics: 21976 LOGIN

Home >> Property and Real-Estate >> Microhomes

22.11.2008, 18:35 quote

god

Microhomes - small pre-fab houses for little money.....

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2360513

Quite interesting......

 

22.11.2008, 18:40 quote

god



The one above is designed by Colani:









 

22.11.2008, 18:46 quote

rocketgirl

They're not micro homes, they are blooming massive! Good grief, that one on the video is bigger than my pad, and mine's supposedly quite big.....obviously in the usa they are used to having mansions!

 

23.11.2008, 09:22 quote

god

Have a look here:



...but this is not quite a Microhome...this is a zero-energy house.

 

23.11.2008, 10:41 quote

politegorilla
politegorilla Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 444 Location: United Kingdom, England, Berkshire
View user's profile Visit poster's website

god wrote:
Have a look here:

...but this is not quite a Microhome...this is a zero-energy house.


A lot of metal, materials and manufacturing effort have clearly gone into that house. This has all consumed energy, as will any future running repairs.

 

23.11.2008, 19:02 quote

god

That's right. But it does produce more energy then it consumes....so it is rather a "positive energy" house. If every house did that you could get rid of power plants....and I am sure there are also less ugly houses with the same energy-coefficient.

It is made of glass&concrete...no metal however. The transparency of the windows is controlled electronically...


There is also more and more people who built houses of "straw", wood and clay - that have the same stability as a concrete building and that do not need any traditional heating system. So 100% recycable and Co2 neutral.

http://www.strohhaus.com/strohhaus.htm

 

23.11.2008, 20:48 quote

vtwinster

I remember seeing that house made out of straw in the paper :O
Supposed to be nice and cheap to build Razz

I like that "Zero Energy" house.

gorrila wrote:
A lot of metal, materials and manufacturing effort have clearly gone into that house. This has all consumed energy, as will any future running repairs.

Yes, but the same amount of effort has gone into making the houses we all live in, apart from that one has no living expenses IE, Self Sufficient.

 

23.11.2008, 22:15 quote

politegorilla
politegorilla Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 444 Location: United Kingdom, England, Berkshire
View user's profile Visit poster's website

A "true" zero energy house would be built in a temperate climate, with locally available, renewable materials. Wattle and daub is one such method.

The inhabitants would have to not use powered equipment, travel by vehicles or require things to transported to them for their consumption.

As soon as you connect running water, for example, you take on a share in the responsibility for a complicated infrastructure. On the other hand if you just use a stream you incur environmental costs.

In other words you can't judge a building solely by it's absence of an electricity bill.

A single power station could even be less costly for the environment than the extremely large number of power-generating houses needed to replace it.

In other words there is no simple answer, be wary of salesman or evangelists bearing simplistic solutions ...

 

23.11.2008, 22:23 quote

ed85

Am I right in thinking that certain areas of Germany are obliged to have green rooves?

 

24.11.2008, 08:34 quote

politegorilla
politegorilla Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 444 Location: United Kingdom, England, Berkshire
View user's profile Visit poster's website

Can't find any direct confirmation of this, using a quick Google search, but they seem certainly have a strong national enthusiasm for the concept.

 

26.11.2008, 09:37 quote

god

politegorilla wrote:
A "true" zero energy house would be built in a temperate climate, with locally available, renewable materials. Wattle and daub is one such method.

The inhabitants would have to not use powered equipment, travel by vehicles or require things to transported to them for their consumption.

As soon as you connect running water, for example, you take on a share in the responsibility for a complicated infrastructure. On the other hand if you just use a stream you incur environmental costs.

In other words you can't judge a building solely by it's absence of an electricity bill.

A single power station could even be less costly for the environment than the extremely large number of power-generating houses needed to replace it.

In other words there is no simple answer, be wary of salesman or evangelists bearing simplistic solutions ...


At least you know what energy you have saved by avoiding "traditional" bulding methods involving concrete, steal, old-fashioned heating and temperature control systems....

 

26.11.2008, 09:39 quote

god

It solves 3 problems at the same time:

1. You save money
2. It helps the environment
3. You don't have the problem that in the winter the air is too dry and in the summer too humid...as clay for example binds humidity and helps to control the humidity level in a natural way.

 
 
Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum