Can you build a "green" house in the Adirondacks?

[montcalm]

On the grid topic:

Energy storage is VERY difficult, because at its heart, energy does not like to be stored. The goal is to power the grid with reliable steady sources, to obviate the need for lots of storage. If you do have to store energy, pumped storage is the only practical way. Batteries, despite all the hype, are not even in the running due to cost, leakage, and toxicity.

It's early - I'd give the batteries some time, I bet we'll see some battery farms in the future. I'm not a fan of the idea but a lot of people are pouring money into it now, so it's gonna happen.

Energy "likes" to be stored in certain things. Chemical bonds like those of fossil fuels are fairly stable. The energy stored in mass is pretty stable.

The thing is for a "good" capacitor, be it electrical, hydraulic, or whatever, you want it to be able to store and release energy effectively - you don't want something too stable, but you don't want something too ready to give it up to many different sources.

From Wikipedia:

"Pumped storage is by far the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available, and, as of 2020, the United States Department of Energy Global Energy Storage Database reports that PSH accounts for around 95% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide..."

So engineers have figured out that pumped storage is the only practical method, and that's why it's 95% of storage. And pumped storage facilities have a really big footprint on the scenery. Look at the recent furor over the proposed pumped storage facility in the Catskills.

So large scale storage is simply not coming in the near future. That's the reality. And that's why the grid has to be powered with steady sources (natural gas and nuclear).

While Wikipedia can be hit or miss, I tend to agree with this because I sat with some engineers about a decade ago and we all came to the same conclusion that hydraulic capacitors were likely best large scale way to store (or rather smooth) grid fluctuations.

We definitely need steady load sources, you are 100% correct. No way we could manage the wild swings of 100% wind and solar with hydro. My thought is they will be used to smooth the minor ripples caused by household solar and commercial wind. Not sure what % of power that might be, I'd love to see it go near 100% in the summer and 50% in the winter for residential, but that may be a pipe dream. For commercial I think it's going to be WAY less and they'll likely need steady loads from power plants.

In area like where I live, where there's natural gas, I don't see people switching for heat. That's why I'd like to see less NG power plants and more nuclear - nuclear is far greener and in this area of the world we don't have much worry about catastrophic events (maybe some minor flooding and light tremors) but the NE has it pretty easy. It makes nuclear pretty ideal.

We also have untapped NG reserves - but the danger of polluting ground water or destabilizing aquifers is too big a risk with fracking IMO. We take ground water for granted but if we lost it we'd be in a world of trouble. We already dump far too much salt in our wells.

I really hope in areas where there isn't NG access that geothermal will be a safe, clean option. It really would save us a lot of mess with fracking and pipelines.

[montcalm]

I've done a lot more studying on this - not a lot of tech has changed in terms of solar passive in the past 60 years or so since it was first realized as a functional system, but there are a lot more options to make it work better - I think mainly a lot more environments have been used and the modelling is a lot better now. The Adirondacks would be no better or worse than any other environment if the design is done properly, that means south facing, long east-west profile and the south face clear of most trees. I have a curiosity if the system can be optimized more by using broadleaf trees on the south face to block solar input in the summer. Maybe it's a wash... be interesting to find out.

I was thinking Red Maples would be the ideal for the NE- they grow fast, they grow almost anywhere, they have a thick foliage that blocks a lot of sun in the summer, and when they leaf off they let almost full sun through. It's be nice if they were longer lived, but I think they'd be acceptable for most homes and cheap and easy to replace.

Heat pump systems, like those used in active geothermal are the key. I'm not 100% sure this is ideal technology but it works - two big systems that can be switched to heat pumps besides a heating furnace are the hot water and dryer. Both of which use a HUGE amount of power if run on electricity, but by stealing energy and "moving" it with a small amount of electricity like a heat pump does (think AC in reverse), you can meet all these needs easily with solar.

[montcalm]

So bottom line: Yes, I think it can be done, and not even necessarily "Net Zero". I think full off-grid, solar with wood/propane backup is possible.

Cost at this point in time... eh... not great I don't think. Obviously depends on size but to make it work you need -

1. passive solar home design - use greenhouse effect and thermal mass to retain stable base
2. lots of insulation or a partially subsurface design. Up to R80 in the walls!
3. very efficient windows
4. solar panels and the associated hw - sized of course to home and weather conditions. I did see something along the lines that even the simple, non-tracking systems deliver almost as much output, so it seems like just adding an extra panel and using a fixed system is the best way to go for residential.
5. battery bank - probably err bigger in the Adirondacks during winter although at this point in time probably just cheaper to use your backup i.e. wood or propane to cover.
6. state-of-the-art heat pump heat/ac, hot water, and dryer. Stoves need to likely be induction for electric or stick with propane.

[chairrock]

Right - I was referring to the system they were using in the video. They get cooling somehow - maybe it's a separate water-to-air system? They didn't say.
or just water?

The

[montcalm]

The system heats the house without any booster.. There is a electric heater built in the water furnace, it has never been used, except when we return from vacation and are bringing the temp from 50 degrees up to 70 quickly. I think they filled the closed loop with ethanol, I am not concerned with a leak it is very sturdy. It seems a no brainer to us.

Yup - thanks. I did a lot of reading on this since I asked and they seem more than capable. Especially attractive for solar power coupled with passive solar.

Lots of people up in the mountains of Colorado with functioning systems with winters as harsh or harsher than ours - less moisture, but still cold.

[TCD]

The system heats the house without any booster.. There is a electric heater built in the water furnace, it has never been used, except when we return from vacation and are bringing the temp from 50 degrees up to 70 quickly. I think they filled the closed loop with ethanol, I am not concerned with a leak it is very sturdy. It seems a no brainer to us.

Antifreeze is Ethylene Glycol; that's probably what they used. (Note, very different chemical from Ethanol!)

I like all these ideas. My location is challenging (High Peaks region, north facing heavily wooded property at 1800') so most of this would not work for me. But if you can get a valley location, south facing location, and pull out all the stops (geothermal mass, earthen berms, south facing construction, lots of high transmission glass, heat pump, ideally your own pump storage facility, etc.) you might be able to make it work. It's just going to cost an awful lot up front!

[montcalm]

Antifreeze is Ethylene Glycol; that's probably what they used. (Note, very different chemical from Ethanol!)

I like all these ideas. My location is challenging (High Peaks region, north facing heavily wooded property at 1800') so most of this would not work for me. But if you can get a valley location, south facing location, and pull out all the stops (geothermal mass, earthen berms, south facing construction, lots of high transmission glass, heat pump, ideally your own pump storage facility, etc.) you might be able to make it work. It's just going to cost an awful lot up front!

I hope it's not EG! I think Ethanol would be sufficient and much safer if there was a leak.

North facing is going be an issue especially on a mountainside.

Woods can be worked with - I truly think you could skip AC and use passive cooling with tree shading. The solar panels would be on the roof so that is clear anyway, and in all seasons they absorb most of the thermal energy as well!

Yes, cost is an issue. Updating an existing house... eh... I don't know? I really think passive solar and massive thermal mass and insulation are going to be key for this area.

I think on new houses it could be cost effective within a few years, or at least based on numbers I've seen on how cost is coming down. If you don't have the budget up front, spend it on insulation, design and windows and use the grid connection, then add solar as you can afford it later. Adding solar to existing houses is the less fruitful reality we're going to deal with.

[Zach]

The idea of a 'green' house is very interesting for sure. I lived in a passive solar house in Maine till I was 15 and someday if I get the chance to build a house I would want to make it passive solar too. One thing in your writing that made me wonder is a clothes dryer. When I was a kid we had one but used it maybe only 2-3 times a year, and for the last 20 years I haven't had access to one at all. They are energy hogs. We hang laundry outside when the weather is suitable, and in the winter or on rainy days hang it inside. In the winter it dries very fast due to the dry air in the house, but in the summer it can take 2 days to dry jeans inside. We try to do laundry on dry days spring through fall for this reason.

[chairrock]

[QUOTE=Zach;287792]The idea of a 'green' house is g inside if it is too damp outside, but rarely.

[montcalm]

The idea of a 'green' house is very interesting for sure. I lived in a passive solar house in Maine till I was 15 and someday if I get the chance to build a house I would want to make it passive solar too. One thing in your writing that made me wonder is a clothes dryer. When I was a kid we had one but used it maybe only 2-3 times a year, and for the last 20 years I haven't had access to one at all. They are energy hogs. We hang laundry outside when the weather is suitable, and in the winter or on rainy days hang it inside. In the winter it dries very fast due to the dry air in the house, but in the summer it can take 2 days to dry jeans inside. We try to do laundry on dry days spring through fall for this reason.

Awesome!

As far as the dryer, I only mention it because I didn't know about heat pump dryers previously. There's no reason you need to have one, but a traditional electric dryer is a HOG, and probably not feasible with solar power. Gas or propane dryers exist, but the idea is to minimize or eliminate that altogether.


Unfortunately I think the majority of people who are lucky enough to have the money to build a new home want a McMansion and not something sensible.

The rest of the NY is either in crumbling slums, or trying to maintain aging houses from the "Boomer" era.

[billconner]

I agree to your last paragraph in particular Montcalm, but don't leave out the old houses, pre boomer. It is to bad the overall condition is not great. Around here they build or cover existing with that ZipR - so maybe improving. Just wish they'd put siding on the ZipR as it seems to remain for years.

Great thread!

[montcalm]

Right Bill LOL - I was including the historic homes in the crumblers unless you happen to own one and be well off enough to keep it in historic condition. Not for everyone.

I grew up in one from the late 1800s. It was probably better off as a memory.


I have a post-WWII "Boomer" house now. No idea what to do with it. Not even close to anything I've been discussing or want it to be, not worth the money to update. Best it can hope for is a few solar panels (I have a nice low-angle south facing roof) and maybe a gas range and dryer. We have NG in abundance here - I don't want to use it, but I don't see much other choice that's affordable. The wiring from this era is terrible and gutting are re-wiring isn't cost effective, unfortunately. I see so many homes from this era, and they probably all have the same issues.

[billconner]

Partially restored, partially rehabbed two old houses - 1889 in New Haven and 1904 in Oak Park. Now in a 1994 soulless house but my wife likes it. For first time thinking of very modern modifications, and ones with good resale value. Odds are I won't live here 30 years like last one - I'd be 100.

Good thing about this house - good insulation!

[montcalm]

Don't get me wrong - I love old houses... but you need a certain character and good bank roll to keep them going. I don't think our old house even had insulation!

[St.Regis]

Back when I was growing up every house had a clothes line. And just about every kid that was tall enough could relate to the phrase "getting clothes-lined". Now, it's rare to see a clothes line, unless it's at an Amish or Mennonite home.