<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Energy Producing Home In Disguise</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html</link>
	<description>The Guide To Efficient Living</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:10:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Phillips</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-142048</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Phillips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:20:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-142048</guid>
		<description>Would be interested to know the sized systems they are using for both solar arrays. Wisconsin has pretty good sun hours and with the addition of Geothermal the home is probably doing pretty well, but I would love further clarification.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would be interested to know the sized systems they are using for both solar arrays. Wisconsin has pretty good sun hours and with the addition of Geothermal the home is probably doing pretty well, but I would love further clarification.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Outdoor Curtains</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-125869</link>
		<dc:creator>Outdoor Curtains</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-125869</guid>
		<description>Wow! It was amazing. I&#039;m glad to have that house. An energy producing home is really great. May I know how much is that house?
 I would like to have that someday.  Thanks for sharing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow! It was amazing. I&#8217;m glad to have that house. An energy producing home is really great. May I know how much is that house?<br />
 I would like to have that someday.  Thanks for sharing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-119508</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-119508</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s no way a house that produces 52 kWh/day is remotely cost efficient.  

I built an off-grid home which produces between 5 and 15 kWh/day with a 1.5 kW solar array and 1 kW wind turbine.  My energy budget is 6 kWh/day unless it&#039;s a productive day in which case we can get a little wasteful.  The architectural style of my 3200 sqft home is a hybrid of gothic and neoclassical, which is like the polar opposite of typical modern-looking off-grid homes.  The passive solar and thermal mass didn&#039;t really cost much more than a typical home, though the spray-foam insulation was significantly more costly and the active power generation components totaled around $75k including panels, turbine, evacuated tubes, batteries, inverter, pumps, breakers, etc., and related infrastructure.  

To generate 52 kWh/day reliably, you would need at least a 10 kW nominal array, bare minimum (20 kW more likely).  Just for the panels, that would cost in the neighborhood of $50k to $100k, not including mounting, tracking system, wiring, grid-tie inverter, breakers, and everything related to that geothermal system and solar thermal.  On the website, they claim the cost in excess of a typical home of the same size was about $150,000 before rebates, or about 50% more expensive.

Also, just from looking at that photo, I know that little effort was expended in architectural energy considerations.  A ranch is much less efficient than a two-story of the same floor area.  In a two-level home, you require half as much roof and floor area to insulate and have more south-facing window area to collect passive solar heat.  Also, if they have passive solar and solar thermal and are well-insulated, then I don&#039;t know what the purpose of the geothermal system is.

I would have reservations about this house performing as advertised.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s no way a house that produces 52 kWh/day is remotely cost efficient.  </p>
<p>I built an off-grid home which produces between 5 and 15 kWh/day with a 1.5 kW solar array and 1 kW wind turbine.  My energy budget is 6 kWh/day unless it&#8217;s a productive day in which case we can get a little wasteful.  The architectural style of my 3200 sqft home is a hybrid of gothic and neoclassical, which is like the polar opposite of typical modern-looking off-grid homes.  The passive solar and thermal mass didn&#8217;t really cost much more than a typical home, though the spray-foam insulation was significantly more costly and the active power generation components totaled around $75k including panels, turbine, evacuated tubes, batteries, inverter, pumps, breakers, etc., and related infrastructure.  </p>
<p>To generate 52 kWh/day reliably, you would need at least a 10 kW nominal array, bare minimum (20 kW more likely).  Just for the panels, that would cost in the neighborhood of $50k to $100k, not including mounting, tracking system, wiring, grid-tie inverter, breakers, and everything related to that geothermal system and solar thermal.  On the website, they claim the cost in excess of a typical home of the same size was about $150,000 before rebates, or about 50% more expensive.</p>
<p>Also, just from looking at that photo, I know that little effort was expended in architectural energy considerations.  A ranch is much less efficient than a two-story of the same floor area.  In a two-level home, you require half as much roof and floor area to insulate and have more south-facing window area to collect passive solar heat.  Also, if they have passive solar and solar thermal and are well-insulated, then I don&#8217;t know what the purpose of the geothermal system is.</p>
<p>I would have reservations about this house performing as advertised.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stevo</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-104305</link>
		<dc:creator>stevo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:39:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-104305</guid>
		<description>i love this stuff -- im putting together a blog with some of my favorite news and whatever i can find...its going to be centralized around this whole idea of home self sufficience

check it out and leave your thoughts!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i love this stuff &#8212; im putting together a blog with some of my favorite news and whatever i can find&#8230;its going to be centralized around this whole idea of home self sufficience</p>
<p>check it out and leave your thoughts!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BrightHome</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-96517</link>
		<dc:creator>BrightHome</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:12:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-96517</guid>
		<description>Very cool. We work on old, historical homes and try to maintain that look and make them more energy efficient.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very cool. We work on old, historical homes and try to maintain that look and make them more energy efficient.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benjamin</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-89846</link>
		<dc:creator>Benjamin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-89846</guid>
		<description>In response to Marley-
The Dvice article about the house (see link at the end of the post above) features more photos of the completed home, including the rooftop PV setup.  There is also a video tour of the home.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to Marley-<br />
The Dvice article about the house (see link at the end of the post above) features more photos of the completed home, including the rooftop PV setup.  There is also a video tour of the home.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marley</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-89736</link>
		<dc:creator>Marley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-89736</guid>
		<description>A quick look at the website for the &quot;EP Home&quot; shows not a single shot of the rooftop PV?... that is either a HUGE oversight or evidence that this house is a total sham.  The rendering is not at all convincing.  The specifications are weak and misleading.  The developer appears to be speculative as best.  Is this house even finished yet?

A little dose of healthy skepticism.

Note to Neumann Developments: post proof or you will soon learn that there IS such a thing as bad-press.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A quick look at the website for the &#8220;EP Home&#8221; shows not a single shot of the rooftop PV?&#8230; that is either a HUGE oversight or evidence that this house is a total sham.  The rendering is not at all convincing.  The specifications are weak and misleading.  The developer appears to be speculative as best.  Is this house even finished yet?</p>
<p>A little dose of healthy skepticism.</p>
<p>Note to Neumann Developments: post proof or you will soon learn that there IS such a thing as bad-press.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toshiba Dynario Fuel Cell Device Charger - Zidee.com</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-89027</link>
		<dc:creator>Toshiba Dynario Fuel Cell Device Charger - Zidee.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:21:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-89027</guid>
		<description>[...] An Energy Producing Home In Disguise [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] An Energy Producing Home In Disguise [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: yesp</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-88783</link>
		<dc:creator>yesp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:40:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-88783</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d love to build house like this. The demand for something like this in Nebraska just isn&#039;t there. I built sips house 10 years ago and it is very energy
efficient and it could easily be upgraded to produce more energy than it consumes. Thanks for email</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d love to build house like this. The demand for something like this in Nebraska just isn&#8217;t there. I built sips house 10 years ago and it is very energy<br />
efficient and it could easily be upgraded to produce more energy than it consumes. Thanks for email</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/energy-producing-home-disguise.html/comment-page-1#comment-88776</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:17:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metaefficient.com/?p=3923#comment-88776</guid>
		<description>I love that for once metaefficient is showing us an evolutionary example of efficiency.  Seriously, this kind of energy saving technology adds practically nothing to the cost of any new suburban construction today.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love that for once metaefficient is showing us an evolutionary example of efficiency.  Seriously, this kind of energy saving technology adds practically nothing to the cost of any new suburban construction today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

