One gigawatt can power about 1 million U.S. homes. But since solar power is on only about a third of the time, a gigawatt of solar can only power about 330,000 homes.
And by that logic 3 women can have one baby in 3 months.
One gigawatt can power about 1 million U.S. homes. But since solar power is on only about a third of the time, a gigawatt of solar can only power about 330,000 homes.
And by that logic 3 women can have one baby in 3 months.
The difference is around half of Texas's summer electricity usage is on AC. AC use tends to be the best use-case for solar power, as both AC use and solar power are primarily driven by the sun.
Basically, in some cases, the mythical man-month holds.
Which in many ways shows that the state should be encouraging passive houses. A passive house would put less pressure on the power grid when the heat kicks in. On the other hand humidity appears to be the current Achilles heal of these houses.
Great so all we have to do is tear down the roughly 8 million houses and rebuild them...
I agree that *new* buildings need to be built more efficiently, and a lot of existing buildings can be upgraded in various ways to save energy, but shit like "encouraging passive houses" is about as useful a suggestion as "just move where the food is" is for hunger, which is to say not useful at all. =Smidge=
Actually, it's very useful, because we are building new homes somewhat rapidly (albeit mostly for investment purposes, so there's still a housing shortage — many if not most of these new homes are not affordable to those people who need housing) and because most homes in America are built like shit.
I can't compare to other "fully developed" nations because I haven't been to any, but I can compare to what we used to build homes like here in the USA and modern homes are trash. They are built out of a mi
Again, I agree that new buildings need to be constructed to a higher efficiency standard.
However, doing that will merely make the problem worse at a slower rate - it will not solve the already big problem of existing, inefficient buildings. That's why saying "Just build more efficient housing" is not useful. It doesn't actually address the problem. To do that, we need to either upgrade or straight up demolish and rebuild what we already have. =Smidge=
Typically you'd approach such a problem from multiple angles, since there isn't a one size fits all. Examples:
- Existing buildings would need to retrofitted, though would probably only be done if the home owner can recupe the cost within a reasonable time or had a grant to make it more likely they can
- The building code would be updated with certain energy requirements, while it is up to the contractor to work out how to achieve them. The exact technology should not be prescrib
Not really, you can just add another outer skin with the insulation to the current building, change the windows to double/treble glazing insulate the roof properly. All new buildings should be passive or near passive in construction.
Okay so, I work in construction, right? Engineering consultant, mostly commercial and lately municipal stuff. One project, currently under construction, is to make a complex of rent-controlled housing units "flood resilient" as part of ongoing Hurricane Sandy remediation. To accomplish this the design is to add a concrete wall just over 3 feet (just over a meter) all around the existing outer wall, to make it strong enough to resist the flood waters. The goal is to not have the
Great so all we have to do is tear down the roughly 8 million houses and rebuild them...
I agree that *new* buildings need to be built more efficiently, and a lot of existing buildings can be upgraded in various ways to save energy, but shit like "encouraging passive houses" is about as useful a suggestion as "just move where the food is" is for hunger, which is to say not useful at all. =Smidge=
I wasn't suggesting replacing what is already there, but ensuring building codes for new buildings move things in that direction. Not sure why you were so defensive over the idea?
Texas is a real mess right now. It is a State that is rapidly changing, as there is a lot of economic growth, and urban development. That means in order for it to function it will need to apply smarter regulations and a more advanced method of governance, for the growth to succeed and be sustained. While at the same time the big driver of this growth to Texas is lower Taxes and Regulations. This method was sustainable with the Old Texas, because a solid majority of Texans were rural, with a lot of land. So
Your understanding of the state of Texas is decades out of date. Texas, like most of the rest of the US, is mainly urban/suburban and had been for a long long time.
I have to disagree. I've lived in various places in Tx for over a decade. REgardless, the point applies to anyplace with a hot summer day and without a cooling breeze right as the sun goes down -- like near a coast. AC use does not rapidly tail off at dusk. The heated ground and building structure absorbs heat during the daylight and then releases it for hours after dusk. That means AC use continues, at full blast, for hours. This means that solar power is useless to help out. Yes, it can help clip t
As you said, the peak usage is from 2p-4p. That's when the sun is out. Electricity production does not really change throughout the day - modifying output is very expensive. If solar just removes that blip from 2-4, then that means fewer plants run 24/7.
You see but you do not observe.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"
Math (Score:3, Insightful)
One gigawatt can power about 1 million U.S. homes. But since solar power is on only about a third of the time, a gigawatt of solar can only power about 330,000 homes.
And by that logic 3 women can have one baby in 3 months.
Re:Math (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is around half of Texas's summer electricity usage is on AC. AC use tends to be the best use-case for solar power, as both AC use and solar power are primarily driven by the sun.
Basically, in some cases, the mythical man-month holds.
Re: Math (Score:2)
Which in many ways shows that the state should be encouraging passive houses. A passive house would put less pressure on the power grid when the heat kicks in. On the other hand humidity appears to be the current Achilles heal of these houses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great so all we have to do is tear down the roughly 8 million houses and rebuild them...
I agree that *new* buildings need to be built more efficiently, and a lot of existing buildings can be upgraded in various ways to save energy, but shit like "encouraging passive houses" is about as useful a suggestion as "just move where the food is" is for hunger, which is to say not useful at all.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, it's very useful, because we are building new homes somewhat rapidly (albeit mostly for investment purposes, so there's still a housing shortage — many if not most of these new homes are not affordable to those people who need housing) and because most homes in America are built like shit.
I can't compare to other "fully developed" nations because I haven't been to any, but I can compare to what we used to build homes like here in the USA and modern homes are trash. They are built out of a mi
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I agree that new buildings need to be constructed to a higher efficiency standard.
However, doing that will merely make the problem worse at a slower rate - it will not solve the already big problem of existing, inefficient buildings. That's why saying "Just build more efficient housing" is not useful. It doesn't actually address the problem. To do that, we need to either upgrade or straight up demolish and rebuild what we already have.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Right, we need to do both things.
There are no simple solutions to problems of this complexity, only complex ones.
If the problem is distributed, the solution needs to be distributed.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically you'd approach such a problem from multiple angles, since there isn't a one size fits all. Examples:
- Existing buildings would need to retrofitted, though would probably only be done if the home owner can recupe the cost within a reasonable time or had a grant to make it more likely they can
- The building code would be updated with certain energy requirements, while it is up to the contractor to work out how to achieve them. The exact technology should not be prescrib
Which is it? (Score:2)
First you said we're building homes nobody can afford.
Then you said we're building homes more cheaply than ever before.
Which is it?
Also, do you *really* believe that most of the new houses are sitting empty because nobody can afford to live there? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
whee [census.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Just add another outer skin"
Okay so, I work in construction, right? Engineering consultant, mostly commercial and lately municipal stuff. One project, currently under construction, is to make a complex of rent-controlled housing units "flood resilient" as part of ongoing Hurricane Sandy remediation. To accomplish this the design is to add a concrete wall just over 3 feet (just over a meter) all around the existing outer wall, to make it strong enough to resist the flood waters. The goal is to not have the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great so all we have to do is tear down the roughly 8 million houses and rebuild them...
I agree that *new* buildings need to be built more efficiently, and a lot of existing buildings can be upgraded in various ways to save energy, but shit like "encouraging passive houses" is about as useful a suggestion as "just move where the food is" is for hunger, which is to say not useful at all.
=Smidge=
I wasn't suggesting replacing what is already there, but ensuring building codes for new buildings move things in that direction. Not sure why you were so defensive over the idea?
Re: (Score:3)
Texas is a real mess right now. It is a State that is rapidly changing, as there is a lot of economic growth, and urban development. That means in order for it to function it will need to apply smarter regulations and a more advanced method of governance, for the growth to succeed and be sustained. While at the same time the big driver of this growth to Texas is lower Taxes and Regulations. This method was sustainable with the Old Texas, because a solid majority of Texans were rural, with a lot of land. So
Re: (Score:1)
Your understanding of the state of Texas is decades out of date. Texas, like most of the rest of the US, is mainly urban/suburban and had been for a long long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Do passive houses actually work if built using carpentry instead of masonry which is AFAIK the prevalent way in the USA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I think of construction techniques that handle hot climates well, I think of Norway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say check out "The Build Show" by Matt Risinger, since he covers passive and low energy homes in many of his videos:
https://www.youtube.com/user/M... [youtube.com]
One thing I like about him is that he actually admits to screw ups and the learning points from them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As you said, the peak usage is from 2p-4p. That's when the sun is out. Electricity production does not really change throughout the day - modifying output is very expensive. If solar just removes that blip from 2-4, then that means fewer plants run 24/7.