Right on Robert! MG On 9/24/09 5:43 PM, "Robert Riversong" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Steven, > > If you believe that having a "Wood stove/oven to cook my apple pie and Venison > stew" is essential to your vision of a sustainable lifestyle (and I would > agree that it is - as Nils reminds us, hearth is the heart of a home), then > you might question your choice of a building approach which is incompatible > with hearth. > > Nils suggestions are sound ones: design and build to incorporate the best of > the traditional approaches to living lightly and well. A house with a brain > but no heart is not a sustainable shelter. > > - RR > > --- On Thu, 9/24/09, Steven & Barbara Landau <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> From: Steven & Barbara Landau <[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: Passivehouse in Vermont? - Wood Stove >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 2:28 PM >> >> I actually think Passivehaus is very simple. The only HVAC system is a fan >> and heat exchanger. >> >> No fossil fuels, or even a chainsaw. My concern started with trying to >> find the simplest way to provide hot water, and cooking when there is no >> grid, or spare electronic parts. I understand my great grandchildren >> won't be able to build a passivhouse because there won't be foam, or high >> tech heat mirror glass, but we can now. >> >> I am thinking of long term sustainability for my lifetime in the house ~ >> 40-50 years if I live that long. >> >> Even though I am an electronic controls engineer, I want simple controls, >> mechanical thermostats and timers, I will buy spares and put them on the >> shelf. >> >> I don't want to rely on microprocessor control boards for anything crucial. >> I am going passivehouse so I don't need any backup heat in the middle of the >> winter to prevent freezing. >> >> PV will be used only for critical utilities, HRV fans, a few LED lights, and >> the IPOD and speakers (only to listen to acoustic folk music). >> >> Alot of philosophy but still no Passivhouse Wood stove/oven to cook my apple >> pie and Venison stew. >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Barry Rehfeld <[log in to unmask] >> <http:[log in to unmask]> > >> wrote: >>> I'd be amused about how vermonters are so loyal to sustainable, natural and >>> the like, while snubing their noses at the unnatural and technical, in this >>> case, the Passivehaus, if the global stakes weren't so high and need for >>> radical change so necessary. >>> >>> That means dropping family size down to three, house size back down to 1,500 >>> square feet (tops), dropping the electric gagets in a home from the current >>> average of 28 back down to single digits, meaning no TVs since you already >>> can it all the computer, and absolutely getting those enlarging calorie >>> guzzling bodies into 32 inch waist (men's) pants - or lower - and out of gas >>> guzzling vehicles and onto bikes, running or swimming daily or walking. >>> >>> Nothing personal, but do that and you'll make a much bigger difference than >>> anything wood chip burning will do. Don't do that and at best you're laying >>> a bigger burden on the kids and grandkids; at worst, you're writing their >>> death certificate no matter how sustainable your homes are built. >>> >>> - regards, >>> Barry >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Robert Riversong >>> <[log in to unmask] >>> <http:[log in to unmask]> > >>> wrote: >>>> --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Steven Landau <[log in to unmask] >>>> <http:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >>>>> I fully agree about appropriate technology. What really is the >>>>> alternative other than building a drafty house (uncontrolled ventilation) >>>>> like the 1800's farmhouse next door or leaving the windows open? >>>> >>>> If, in fact, you "fully agree", then you must have a completely different >>>> definition of "appropriate technology" (as do almost all architects, >>>> builders and homeowners). >>>> >>>> An aspect of a dissociative, addictive, self-centered and >>>> intellectually-constrained culture like ours is to see alternatives in >>>> black-and-white terms. Of course the 1800s farmhouse might still be >>>> "appropriate" if we hadn't made the mess of things that we have since then. >>>> But we have to develop appropriate options within our current circumstances >>>> (at least until circumstances drastically change, which is inevitable). >>>> >>>> A start in that direction would be to toss out all national or >>>> international codes and standards and create bio-regionally-appropriate >>>> building technologies. Standardization, like efficiency, is an industrial >>>> value that ignores the diversity of the natural world. >>>> >>>> Then, if we looked to our local environments for available natural building >>>> and furnishing materials, and made our personal lifestyles more natural and >>>> healthy, our homes would not be composed of and filled with so many toxins >>>> that considerable 24/7 air exchange becomes necessary. Then the primary >>>> "pollutant" would be water vapor (carbon dioxide from breathing can be >>>> recycled by house plants, which also can offer other salutary effects). >>>> >>>> Some air exchange would still be required, of course, depending on the >>>> healthfulness of the exterior air (viz. don't build a home in a polluted >>>> environment, or clean up that environment). That can easily be >>>> accomplished, in a relatively controlled manner, with spot exhaust fans at >>>> moisture sources, such as kitchen and bath (assuming indoor cooking and >>>> plumbing is even a necessity for a healthy and happy life - there are a >>>> great number of unquestioned assumptions underlying our housing styles), >>>> and passive make-up air inlets placed in strategic locations (bedrooms and >>>> living spaces). Passive inlets, properly located, can also supply a minimal >>>> amount of passive air exchange without energy inputs and the small amount >>>> of heat loss is insignificant in a small (< 1000 sf), well-insulated house. >>>> Additionally, an exhaust-only ventilation system is the only powered option >>>> which maintains a negative pressure in the entire house, thus preventing >>>> excessive moisture out-migration in winter, which is the source of envelope >>>> moisture damage and the basis for vapor retarder requirements. >>>> >>>> A house envelope, built with all natural, hygroscopic materials and no >>>> vapor retarders (only well-designed weather shields on the exterior) can >>>> absorb and release significant amounts of water vapor safely, thus >>>> buffering variations in indoor RH just as thermal mass buffers temperature >>>> swings. Eliminating all plastic-based materials, including latex paints, >>>> and replacing them with earth-based finishes, also has the advantage of >>>> maintaining a high negative ion count in the interior environment, which is >>>> essential for both physiological and psychological well-being. >>>> >>>> Straw-bale/earth plasters, cob with lime plaster, cordwood masonry, and >>>> native lumber double frames with cellulose are all appropriate building >>>> technologies for the Northeast. Ideally, a shelter would require no outside >>>> power or heat beyond what the environment and the occupants can provide >>>> themselves. And I don't include PV in that category, which is another >>>> high-tech industrial "solution" that has significant environmental impacts. >>>> >>>> - RR >>> >> >>