From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:03:16 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <7520009@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:
|> 
|> I just read a book written by the Hawkweed Group, a solar architectural
|> firm from Wisconsin.  They make a claim that a passive solar house
|> can be built just as cheaply (or even cheaper) than a conventional house,
|> and that over 90% of the heating requirements of the house will be provided
|> by the sun.

|> So, what's the story?  [of the lack of solar homes]
 
|> (2) - Builders won't risk building solar homes because there's a good
|>       chance that they won't sell.
|> 
Builders in general are extremely conservative and focus on making
the first cost as low as possible on homes that historically have
a good record of sales.

|> (3) - People don't want solar homes because they are ugly.
Solar homes can be ugly, but they don't have to be.
|> 
|> (4) - Other.  Please specify.

A big problems is the definition of "passive solar house".  Any
house that is not in a cave has some "passive solar" component.

If the definition is the %90 stated above, that may be your answer.
Depending on the location the percentage reduction in heating and
or cooling which can be achieved "economically" varies considerably.

The builders focus on "first cost" is really the problem.  That's why
Hurricane Andrew caused so many problems.  Unfortunately the consumer
(the home buyer) of mass market homes has little choice given the 
banking system and the builder's perception of their tastes.

It seems that the only way things like this change is through the 
specification of building codes.  This is unfortunate as I would much
rather see the market being driven by consumer sophistication and 
demand.  If energy costs were significantly higher this demand for more
energy efficient homes might materialize.

The "bigger is better" philosophy of americana may be the root of the
problem.  It is hard to see the quality of an energy efficient home.  Those
that do see this and perceive the long term economics often demand
more efficient, better designed homes.  Unfortunately there are few
mass market homes that meet this criteria.  Most are designed for the
most square feet for the buck.  Until this philosophy changes we will
probably be stuck with the home designs we have.

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu

|> 
|> I left out the argument that most houses are built on small lots today
|> and will eventually be shaded by tall trees.  Where I live, there are
|> no trees in new subdivisions and it will take quite a few years before
|> shading is a problem.  If a passive solar house really costs the same
|> to build, and people could save $30-$100/month on heating bills, why
|> aren't they insisting on them?
|> 
|> I suspect that a passive solar home really does cost more, and that
|> item (3) is a BIG issue (hence item (2) follows as a corollary).
|> --
|> Duane Jacobson