In my opinion as a practising architect for more than 22 years with deep interest in sustainable design. We have to develop a separate design language or ecosystem for Net Zero Buildings. We cannot have regular buildings then have some solar panel. We need plan right to ensure adequate daylighting, then need right material and technology to building.
Many of the design ideas for net zero design cost nothing and save on your power bill. You can get a long way toward net zero with simply smarter design with minimal extra cost, especially using computer simulation to optimize whole system design. Eg run software optimization to find optimal eve overhang and window placement and size. Compare upfront cost versus annual saving from double glazing & various insulation thicknesses, to see what makes most economic sense in your climate. Design floor plan to make best use of indoor thermal mass from sunlight coming in windows. Plant deciduous trees near house to shade in summer but not in winter. Replace old lights with LED lights. Get all the best lowest cost design improvements, then keep going until the additional cost doesn't make worthwhile additional savings. Final cost should not be more than about 10-15% above basic cost to meet minimum code requirements. If cost is higher than that you need to think smarter design.
Hi, I really enjoyed your great videos and I will translate some of them. Do I have your permission to share them with people who speaks in my language? Regards, Anita
0.51- "When conditions improve the onsite renewable energy systems will cover the building's energy need and send excess energy back into the grid to make up the balance". I don't quite get the part about sending the excess energy back to the grid, could someone please illustrate?
Sending excess energy back to the grid means when the solar system on the building produces more energy than the building consumes, the excess is not wasted. That additional power is sold back to the utility provider to use. So the house is in a relationship with the power company. Look up "net-metering".
Long term PV isn't the solution due to the short life cycle, degradation of performance over time, embodied carbon issues, and generally poor performance per ft2. A new clean form of generating energy centrally is what we need.
What if I could help with this and make it better? What if I could show a different way to use the energy we already have in such an incredibly efficient manner that the whole world could benefit from it? Would anyone actually listen? Would anyone sit with me and hear me out? Last thing is the way we use energy is extremely wasteful and destructive and we can fix it, we have every solution needed to do so. When my new lab is finished I will prove it. :)
The public power grid is not a storage battery or intended to provide continued emergency power dip make up from solar wild AC. The cost to the public power grid is nearly the same as if providing all the electric power all the time, but it is may get no payment because the wild AC has been sold back to the public power grid that is nearly worthless at retain prices There is little fossil fuel saving because of needing to stand at the ready to make up any dips in solar panel output. It would obviously be unsustainable if large number of public power grid customers were to generate enough solar wild AC to cover their electric uses over 24 hours made in five hours of the day. All that wild AC from these sources that is enough to run the customer for 24 hours can only supply so many local customers at peak operation before there is nothing that can be down with it locally, but the public power grid can't refuse to buy it, so it has to condition the dips, which cost money, then get rid of the electric power for whatever it might be able to sell if for, to other public power grids. This is the main reason southern California has both the most expensive electricity in the USA and bankrupt public power grids unable to modernize their transmission lines.
Allow Americans to put 99% of the power to run the house and solar panels onto the grid with no issue or fees, if they put more solar panels on their home then their house needs then start charging a fee but all Americans should be able to put solar on to the grid that matches their power usage.
Do not call it zero energy because it still requires grid energy,it still can not run 100% on solar. You also contradict yourselves. You state solar does not significantly reduces energy load cost,but your ,"zero energy" building use solar. Of course solar would not be efficient,if you use too few panels. True zero energy buildings already exist in Finland,Germany,and Sweden. Entire roof tops are made of solar panels. Placing panels on the ground does not maximize sun capture,because building s or trees may obstruct path. This means ground panels require lots of open land,which is wasteful;when rooftops can be custom-made of entirely Solar panels. Outer-layers of walls can have solar panels attached also. That is the idea of a true zero energy building.
It would be absurd beyond comprehension to make a true zero-energy home with solar power. You would need storage, lots of storage, batteries would not do it. You would need to produce hydrogen, store it in massive tanks, burn it in a generator for when the sun isn't shining, and round-trip efficiency would be ~20%. The most rational thing is someplace like Norway with massive hydro power with reservoir storage and using heat pumps and electric vehicles can make a *TRUE REAL - NO BS - NET ENERGY ZERO TOWN* full of buildings. That is a rational example. What the DOE is hyping here is pure BS.
Keepskatin you are so wrong The energy needed to make up for the loss of power in the line that reaches to your house is significant and it's cost savings when you have solar on your home...
"Net-Zero Energy Buildings" is a classic Straw Man. Virtually ZERO meaning and ZERO relevance. Yeah, so you take an Energy Efficient home - very nice - add a bunch of Solar Panels and subtract Energy Usage of the Home from the Energy supplied to the Grid. Brilliant. How about a building with a Wind Turbine? How about a building with a Wind Turbine 100 yds away? Or one with a big mother Wind Turbine on the property producing 100x the total energy consumed by the home & barn & outhouse all constructed with 2x4 walls and zero insulation - are they now "net energy zero" homes. A net energy zero outhouse? How about someone who owns a small hydro plant supplying 10X the energy their home(s) consume - do they get to declare my home is "net-zero energy"? Why can't I get to declare my home "net-zero energy" because I supply clean, green energy to the Grid, working at a Hydro plant? And is that Net-zero Energy on a cold year with little sunshine? Or just on a good warm year with lot's of sun? And if I buy shares in a Nuclear Power plant that produces clean, green energy year round, more than my home consumes do I get to declare my home is "net-energy zero". "Net-energy zero" - another NUTTY Greenie catchphrase that in reality is just an embellishment to hide the INCREDIBLY bad economics of Solar Power. I've repeatedly shown how bad the economics of Solar power are, so new Greenie idea, just combine it with building efficiency in a hope to bury the terrible economics. A huge subsidy for the rich to buy expensive homes while the poor & middle class can't even afford a shack to live in. How about instead use that subsidy money for a good, basic home for the poor and middle class, with good insulation - like R18, instead of R12, a very tight envelope, double pane windows with southern exposure (in the north), heat exchanger on furnace and air exchange, maybe-maybe Solar Hot water in a good location, and minimum cost construction. Screw the wacky, hyper-expensive Solar Power SCAM & Super-duper extreme Energy Efficiency. What is the marginal cost of Hyper-Super-Duper Energy Efficiency vs just a good basic level of Energy Efficiency? $10k-$40k/kwth avg heat energy savings, I bet. When Nuclear Energy is $0.7 to $2k per kwth avg heat energy. Get 5-60X the Energy Savings by just installing Nuclear Power plants.
You're the fool, Ontario is paying 6.8 cents/kwh for Nuclear, 14.1 cents/kwh for Wind, 17 for NG & 48 cents/kwh for Solar. So intermittent low grade solar is only 7X more expensive than Nuclear and Solar is ~30X higher emissions than CANDU nuclear per kwh.
@@whykhr where do you get you emissions numbers? I'd like to see something that actually gives those numbers as so many just don't even think about that or the emissions of LED production either.
In my opinion as a practising architect for more than 22 years with deep interest in sustainable design. We have to develop a separate design language or ecosystem for Net Zero Buildings. We cannot have regular buildings then have some solar panel. We need plan right to ensure adequate daylighting, then need right material and technology to building.
whatever it takes the thing ,must be done..> before its too late:)
@@paragbharadia2895 это0 ПП
Many of the design ideas for net zero design cost nothing and save on your power bill. You can get a long way toward net zero with simply smarter design with minimal extra cost, especially using computer simulation to optimize whole system design. Eg run software optimization to find optimal eve overhang and window placement and size. Compare upfront cost versus annual saving from double glazing & various insulation thicknesses, to see what makes most economic sense in your climate. Design floor plan to make best use of indoor thermal mass from sunlight coming in windows. Plant deciduous trees near house to shade in summer but not in winter. Replace old lights with LED lights. Get all the best lowest cost design improvements, then keep going until the additional cost doesn't make worthwhile additional savings. Final cost should not be more than about 10-15% above basic cost to meet minimum code requirements. If cost is higher than that you need to think smarter design.
Thank you. I understand. Thank you very much.
Hi,
I really enjoyed your great videos and I will translate some of them. Do I have your permission to share them with people who speaks in my language?
Regards,
Anita
ITS VERY INTERESTING FACTS
It's a very good idea indeed but i'm not sure about the cost! I believe that's a major concern for those who are seriously considering adopting it
Such a great video
excuse me sir, may i add this video to my project for assignment purpose only?
0.51- "When conditions improve the onsite renewable energy systems will cover the building's energy need and send excess energy back into the grid to make up the balance". I don't quite get the part about sending the excess energy back to the grid, could someone please illustrate?
Sending excess energy back to the grid means when the solar system on the building produces more energy than the building consumes, the excess is not wasted. That additional power is sold back to the utility provider to use. So the house is in a relationship with the power company. Look up "net-metering".
ゼロ エネルギーも誤解をまねく (mislead) 疑いが強い。太陽光発電 (pv, solar) などについてゼロ エミッション、再生可能エネルギー、自然エネルギーなどと表現されてきた誤解と同じ。重要なことは entropy の増大をいかに抑制するか。つまり、廃棄物の管理が充実された発電方法を使うことである。この記述時点の太陽光発電所のほとんどでは、蓄電設備または火力発電所（年間 7~8 割）を必要とする。火力発電所で ccs をするなら、それでも、かまわないが ccs に過度に依存することにも危険がある。水素による蓄電では、水素という元素の性質からエネルギー密度が低くなりやすいことや、水素にも爆発等の危険があることに注意されなければならない。
Would you agree with me that Nuclear energy seems to be the best solution regardless of the danger risks since everything has its own risks?
Nice
How is a zero energy building more comfortable than a building powered by conventional methods?
Long term PV isn't the solution due to the short life cycle, degradation of performance over time, embodied carbon issues, and generally poor performance per ft2. A new clean form of generating energy centrally is what we need.
What if I could help with this and make it better? What if I could show a different way to use the energy we already have in such an incredibly efficient manner that the whole world could benefit from it? Would anyone actually listen? Would anyone sit with me and hear me out? Last thing is the way we use energy is extremely wasteful and destructive and we can fix it, we have every solution needed to do so. When my new lab is finished I will prove it. :)
Did you finish building your new lab?
OMG they are telling us... how THEY will manage us... are you kidding me!
The public power grid is not a storage battery or intended to provide continued emergency power dip make up from solar wild AC. The cost to the public power grid is nearly the same as if providing all the electric power all the time, but it is may get no payment because the wild AC has been sold back to the public power grid that is nearly worthless at retain prices There is little fossil fuel saving because of needing to stand at the ready to make up any dips in solar panel output.
It would obviously be unsustainable if large number of public power grid customers were to generate enough solar wild AC to cover their electric uses over 24 hours made in five hours of the day. All that wild AC from these sources that is enough to run the customer for 24 hours can only supply so many local customers at peak operation before there is nothing that can be down with it locally, but the public power grid can't refuse to buy it, so it has to condition the dips, which cost money, then get rid of the electric power for whatever it might be able to sell if for, to other public power grids. This is the main reason southern California has both the most expensive electricity in the USA and bankrupt public power grids unable to modernize their transmission lines.
Allow Americans to put 99% of the power to run the house and solar panels onto the grid with no issue or fees, if they put more solar panels on their home then their house needs then start charging a fee but all Americans should be able to put solar on to the grid that matches their power usage.
We're building a new #NetZeroEnergy home and need info for our architect - is your website - www.NetZeroEnergy.com ?
Do not call it zero energy because it still requires grid energy,it still can not run 100% on solar. You also contradict yourselves. You state solar does not significantly reduces energy load cost,but your ,"zero energy" building use solar. Of course solar would not be efficient,if you use too few panels. True zero energy buildings already exist in Finland,Germany,and Sweden. Entire roof tops are made of solar panels. Placing panels on the ground does not maximize sun capture,because building s or trees may obstruct path. This means ground panels require lots of open land,which is wasteful;when rooftops can be custom-made of entirely Solar panels. Outer-layers of walls can have solar panels attached also. That is the idea of a true zero energy building.
It would be absurd beyond comprehension to make a true zero-energy home with solar power. You would need storage, lots of storage, batteries would not do it. You would need to produce hydrogen, store it in massive tanks, burn it in a generator for when the sun isn't shining, and round-trip efficiency would be ~20%. The most rational thing is someplace like Norway with massive hydro power with reservoir storage and using heat pumps and electric vehicles can make a *TRUE REAL - NO BS - NET ENERGY ZERO TOWN* full of buildings. That is a rational example. What the DOE is hyping here is pure BS.
Keepskatin you are so wrong The energy needed to make up for the loss of power in the line that reaches to your house is significant and it's cost savings when you have solar on your home...
Am ok with it. The import export to the grid will utilise the grid as 'battery'.
Lo denuncie toma eso meñaestra culera de ingles. Que me dejo un chingo de tarea
"Net-Zero Energy Buildings" is a classic Straw Man. Virtually ZERO meaning and ZERO relevance. Yeah, so you take an Energy Efficient home - very nice - add a bunch of Solar Panels and subtract Energy Usage of the Home from the Energy supplied to the Grid. Brilliant. How about a building with a Wind Turbine? How about a building with a Wind Turbine 100 yds away? Or one with a big mother Wind Turbine on the property producing 100x the total energy consumed by the home & barn & outhouse all constructed with 2x4 walls and zero insulation - are they now "net energy zero" homes. A net energy zero outhouse? How about someone who owns a small hydro plant supplying 10X the energy their home(s) consume - do they get to declare my home is "net-zero energy"? Why can't I get to declare my home "net-zero energy" because I supply clean, green energy to the Grid, working at a Hydro plant?
And is that Net-zero Energy on a cold year with little sunshine? Or just on a good warm year with lot's of sun? And if I buy shares in a Nuclear Power plant that produces clean, green energy year round, more than my home consumes do I get to declare my home is "net-energy zero".
"Net-energy zero" - another NUTTY Greenie catchphrase that in reality is just an embellishment to hide the INCREDIBLY bad economics of Solar Power. I've repeatedly shown how bad the economics of Solar power are, so new Greenie idea, just combine it with building efficiency in a hope to bury the terrible economics. A huge subsidy for the rich to buy expensive homes while the poor & middle class can't even afford a shack to live in.
How about instead use that subsidy money for a good, basic home for the poor and middle class, with good insulation - like R18, instead of R12, a very tight envelope, double pane windows with southern exposure (in the north), heat exchanger on furnace and air exchange, maybe-maybe Solar Hot water in a good location, and minimum cost construction. Screw the wacky, hyper-expensive Solar Power SCAM & Super-duper extreme Energy Efficiency. What is the marginal cost of Hyper-Super-Duper Energy Efficiency vs just a good basic level of Energy Efficiency? $10k-$40k/kwth avg heat energy savings, I bet. When Nuclear Energy is $0.7 to $2k per kwth avg heat energy. Get 5-60X the Energy Savings by just installing Nuclear Power plants.
whykhr nuke plants have been losing money on their operations for several years now get with the facts fool...
You're the fool, Ontario is paying 6.8 cents/kwh for Nuclear, 14.1 cents/kwh for Wind, 17 for NG & 48 cents/kwh for Solar. So intermittent low grade solar is only 7X more expensive than Nuclear and Solar is ~30X higher emissions than CANDU nuclear per kwh.
@@whykhr where do you get you emissions numbers? I'd like to see something that actually gives those numbers as so many just don't even think about that or the emissions of LED production either.