Just to be clear, I am of the position that if we can make houses produce as much energy annually as they consume that is to be considered net zero. the surplus can be put back on the grid to supplement commercial and industrial. With that in mind I think it is easier to hit that goal. Cheers!
Jeff, watching your channel in South Bend, Indiana and loving the content. I'm glad you're exploring this topic, although I have more confidence in the market providing affordable net zero solutions than the government (but I would love to be surprised!) If you get a chance, check out a 'different' form of geothermal being demonstrated in Nebraska: ruclips.net/video/ZD_3_gsgsnk/видео.html. It may not be a solution for the inner cities, but I think it might even be a "DIY" form of geothermal...if you can operate a backhoe. I'm sure even in Canada the temperature is pretty constant and relatively warm just 8' below the surface.Anyway, keep up the great work!
@@HomeRenoVisionDIY I see the same sort of costs to retrofit an oil furnace to an Energy Star air-source heat pump + electric furnace and people install those all the time. If you're trying to retrofit a house with an existing boiler + in-floor heat then ground-source can be viable
You can do this on the cheep! Where I live there are rural places in Idaho with no power hookups. Out of necessity people live off solar and augment with trees they grow for wood stoves or supplement with LP. If they were able to sell back their energy they would be net zero. It's not just a rich mans game. If you build with a purpose its easy. Probably would be cost prohibitive to rebuild those mid century homes for most people but as a nee build we have the technology NOW and this is for 3 bedroom 2 bath "normal?" Houses not tiny house stuff
"This new generation is coming on, and they're challenging the status quo, and I think that's awesome." This kind of attitude is exactly why Jeff is such a likeable person.
I never assume to know it all, just like to share what I have learned and be open to new ideas. Each generation has had a failure and an awesomeness. To close you eyes and ears in judgement keeps us all down.
Factors of net zero: 1: increased insulation 2: air tight envelope 3: efficient heating, a/c, water heat, appliances, lighting. 4: an energy source I recommend making four episodes on each topic.
You are talking passive home, been around many years. only a few in real life, but coming, anyway, author have not cover full story between technology and government policy, especially policy ..
I am going to start with energy supply which is by itself the single most fluctuating issue. each area of the continent has different source AND SUPPLY NEEDS.Since we all need a tailored solution then we need to have a lot of tools in the box.
@@friendsonearth Building to passive house standards is the best way to achieve a net-zero house by reducing energy consumption. (Not the cheapest, though)
Totally agree. I'm currently building an ICF house with radiant heated floor. I love my ICF walls (Nudura). They are definitely going a step further for Jason's factors 1 & 2 above. Much less heating required in winter and staying fresh and dry during summer.
10 points: * "Net zero" explicitly doesn't mean "Off-grid". "Net" means you send more energy to the grid than you consume. It doesn't mean that at all times, even during 100-year-storms in January, you're producing enough electricity for the house and car to run. * Paying a little bit more for framing and insulation doesn't exactly break the bank on a new home build. The extra materials are roughly on par with the shift from "normal" circuit breakers to more expensive AFCI circuit breakers. The workmanship necessary to keep superinsulated homes in moist climates free from rot for a hundred years, that may take a little extra effort: vented rain screens, extra wide roof overhangs, meticulous and redundant means of airsealing. * One of the major sacrifices is glazing ratio. You can't yet have window walls (most of all on the north side of the home), because windows in conventional production techniques make crappy walls. Even here, though, there do exist products where people have solved for higher R value, they're just niche & expensive right now because nobody's using them yet. * Ovens don't benefit from induction; Electric resistance works fine. "Induction furnace technology" is gibberish. Many, many homes already use electric heat pumps, in a central air system or a mini-split, for space heating year round already. * Don't expect dramatic revolutionary improvements in either photovoltaic or battery tech; There's a reasonable prospect of utility-scale batteries that are much cheaper, but other than that you're basically looking at incremental evolutionary improvements. * Hot water thermal stores running on excess photovoltaic energy seem to be by far the cheapest way to balance heating loads (of both hot water and space heating) in the home, and hardly anyone is working with them yet. ruclips.net/p/PLVe7nJBrjHReCvpEjC_M_rBGiT74JpTxV This guy built a solar thermal collector system with storage tank for this purpose, and later moved to PV with storage tank; It cost him pennies on the dollar vs a battery system. It wouldn't be that hard or expensive to mass produce a simple insulated tank. * Bigger houses are not much harder to make net zero using rooftop collection, because conductive heat losses go up with surface area, and so does photovoltaic generation. Multifamily homes & townhomes have especially low heat loss. * Net zero is a lot more useful of a concept in North Carolina than in Toronto, because of the climate, sure. But you guys still have a good amount of wind potential (which is only useful at utility scale), hydropower, and rural utility-scale solar potential. You can approach carbon neutral without infinite rooftops. * You can, though, expand your rooftops. There's nothing saying that zoning can't be amended to allow, eg, an open canopy over your driveway festooned with solar panels, right up to the road line. * One of the things nobody seems to be discussing right now is specific to cold climates. Solar panels still work moderately well at your latitude in winter, but they stop working completely under snow cover. We need an easy, automatic method of snow clearance that doesn't involve spending energy melting it. I tend to think mounting them on some kind of rack that can flip itself over is the best way, since the surfaces are fragile.
I say bring on the sheeps wool....I am a knitter too.... Great natural insulation. As well as air space helps hold 40 degrees average temp not as much to go up or down....great for cooling.... Thanks Julie
I always find the comments and this channel insightful. * If you travel to the EU insulation and framing techniques have already changed to go towards net-zero. *Germany now has triple glazed units with a IR coating to help stop ingress and egress of heat allowing for more traditional glazing ratios - currently expensive but quickly coming down as it's now used in office blocks as well as residential applications. *Ovens/ mini split etc we completely agree. *Battery tech completely agree. *Hot water thermal stores are currently used in Norway and Sweden from bottom to top of the house as a central column water store, used for radiant heat circuits and hot water storage. Often tied into geothermal and PV systems with conventional backups going unused. *rooftops also agree. My final point is someone did actually debut a solar snow scraper that was basically a giant windscreen scrapper and antifreeze sprayer that pulled the snow down and off the panels once a morning. Outside of NA the technology is already around but Canada and the USA seem to be very late adopters compared to the EU zone.
@@effervescence5664 YES, there was the roll out shingle solar strips roofing.... hail resistant too. That company was in Michigan I think, USA people did not support them at all. The EU did. If I remember right valentines day 2008 they folded. He and his wife in their 90s. Filed bankruptcy. He also was studying tablets in the gas tank hydrogen maybe... Thanks julie...but, if your panels aren't 100 watts... your aray is smaller, put it on the ground PVC tub it to the house then you can string it fish put lines in. Last I look the panels are were 500 moncrystaline...a few years ago...don't follow the idiot do your own reveiws and research ...I have been verbally abused by some solar people like the roof thing... After I do my weatherazation project I will see how much kw I use. Off season I use 4 kw perday a dryer day I use 6 kw. I just bought a new TV not a movie screen five hours day usage 5 kw per year...I am on the plains my state ranks low cost electricity..but I like the independence factor.....I just want the tv for local news. I may be able to go completely off grid, I won't though. I am NOT spraying antifreeze anywhere. I just bought a bunch of bluebell seeds et al. I want a nontoxic yard thank you very much. I Just looked up my state 10.05 cents per kwh...another thing my state does not promote alternatives. I totally disagree with that. I am also going to add a slightly bigger fridge. Change my tiny fridge into a freezer. I did it backwards, how low can I go, not how high I can go the usage that is. As for changing my small fridge I learned that from the backwoodsman1 youtuber Martin's cabin...portage canoer...Forester like guy....Canada Minnesota boundries waters true type A male..yes I am envious of his area..as a young person until I was 15 16 went to Walker Minnesota area not to fish but to sail my dad was a sailor until two years before his death 89 type A too. The fridge propane, fridge gone frozen due to bear control separate from a solar cabin in conjunction a burried cooler to defrost..... Thanks
This I think is far more relevant to the majority of people. Additionally net zero doesn’t necessarily mean well insulated and well built it means that we produce an equal amount of energy that we use...
Exactly, this is what I am hoping to do with my 1960 house. Can I still do a external insulation blanket and vapor barrier, after removing the brick. I would love to do that. Things like that.
I was in Photovoltaics research 40 years ago. The improvements have been incremental since then, and there is no new physical principle that is likely to result in a "breakthrough" in terms of efficiency. Panels require maintenance, get damaged, and have to be replaced every few years. Basically they never make enough electricity to even pay for themselves. Tax "credits" (making your neighbors pay for your panels) only create the illusion of break-even. Large-scale adoption would be an environmental and economic disaster. It requires an enormous ego to force your neighbors to chop down their 100-year-old trees so that you can have a few bucks more electricity, and the backlash in many locales will be fierce. Where I live litigation over a single large cottonwood tree held up a necessary road extension for a year. Anyone who has every designed anything that required a battery (like I have) will tell you that batteries are a really terrible power source. We use them because we have to, and put up with the inconvenience of replacing and/or recharging them. Liquid fuels have at least an order of magnitude more energy density than the best battery, and are not going to go away. Once again, tax "credits" (making your neighbors pay for your batteries) only create the illusion of affordability. Even if we switch entirely to Nuclear power, a significant proportion of that power for the foreseeable future will go toward making liquid fuel for the transportation sector (unless somebody actually invents a "Mr. Fusion" to power our flying cars). Gaseous fuels aren't going away either, for the same reasons. A modern gas furnace is almost impossible to beat in terms of efficiency. Efficiency is good, but people are not going to choose to live in Tiny Houses. Even in abject poverty they will live in extended family groups in a larger structure because it's more efficient in terms of infrastructure, materials and per capita energy consumption (not to mention division of labor and inter-generational knowledge transmission). There is no Free Lunch. Net Zero will not scale up.
Spending my first night in a homemade 40sq ultra light RV. Built with R-23 all around. Solar powered with 12v systems. Built for less than $2500. Single 24M so far love it.
I'm building a net-zero house in Colorado, at least I'm trying with limited technology and by following a few important principles. We'll see how much it will be and how good it will be.
Every comment should start with location. Needs here in Georgia (Mostly keeping cool) are different than Northern Wyoming. Southerners in GA used to keep cool with High ceilings, Wrap around porches or deep over-hangs, and Shutters on the windows. All help the home require less energy to stay cool. Out buildings were used for kitchens to keep the heat away from the house.
Also want to add that the Bosch ventless dryer was a life saver in my 1910 home. I think all new dryers should be ventless. It makes sense. Switzerland have outlawed vented dryers.
My husband and I are working towards a net zero home. We bought a 500 sq ft house for 6000.00. I already have an induction stove top but I love the kitchen you built behind you.
1910 home here. We're about to remove the crumbling plaster on the outside of our home. Outside of the home was lathe and plaster. It's too far gone for anymore patchwork. We are going to use tyvek>EPS foam>rainscreen>Hardie board. I'm a bit undecided between EPS and Rockwool comfortboard for exterior insulation, any input on that part is appreciated. The inside of the upper floor has been recently renovated, we added another 2x4 wall staggering the studs inside and used Rockwool. The walls went from zero insulation to R28. We reinsulated the attic, it is now R40. When we install the new exterior siding, should we attempt to put Rockwool in the wall cavities that don't have insulation? There is currently no vapour barrier on the inside walls of the lower floor, so I'm a bit concerned about drying. The thing about these old homes is they weren't built with modern life and mechanica systemsl in mind. Hence all the chimneys and stove ports I've had to remove! I think everyone should take extra efforts to insulate their homes to the maximum it will allow. I think I remember calculating that around R40 is where you start to see diminishing returns. Let's all just consume less, be efficient in our methods and stop producing and accepting poorly built and unnecessary products.
I really appreciate this video, however I think you should have brought up passive tech and living. I live in Kingston and visited a house in Prince Edward County that was called an Earthship. The man who built the house had all of his heat from the sun and in the middle of January, I stepped in and in five minutes I had my boots and winter coat off because I was sweating. The only system he had in the house was a/c for humidity and the house was running off batteries and solar panels. 1600-1800 sq ft completely off grid, very impressive and converted me from skeptic.
Jeff I love that you are starting this discussion. What about geothermal? A lot has happened in the last 5 years to make it more affordable and possible in a smaller space with cheaper vertical wells.
sorry Paul, in my experience it just isn't warm enough in the winter or cold enough in the summer for the price tag! Perhaps I am wrong but I tried to get geothermal companies to work with me on my farm house and they all backed away. so I am thinking what i am thinking until someone has the balls to prove otherwise.
My dad has been in the geothermal industry for 30+ years. Geothermal can make sense in a net zero house, depending on the size of the house. If it's tiny then you can possibly heat the net zero house for 1KW of electric resistance. In that case, it's cheaper to just use straight electricity. The more efficient you make the house, the smaller and cheaper the geothermal system could be. Initial installation cost is the most prohibitive reason not to use geothermal right now. For a conventional house in Ontario you could be looking at 30k+ or so which is hard to make back on savings due to Ontario's soaring electricity costs. These days when gas is so cheap, it's harder to make an argument for geothermal instead of gas based on the monthly savings of a geothermal system. I would say it's easier on a new build if you're willing to roll the cost into the 25 year mortgage, but retrofit cost, most people won't have the 30k+ sitting around to drop on it. Now go with a net zero house, your geothermal system cost can be much less because your required heating/cooling capacity is so much less. Trade off though is the extra cost of the house. For the vertical drilling, I think here in Ontario it's still something like a minimum of $10/ft. So you're looking sometimes at least $10k just for drilling. With the smaller ultrasonic drilling rigs, they can do it cheaper and quicker, but they still seem to be rare in this part of the world. When my dad was doing installations, there was one that he knew of and used sometimes. I grew up with geothermal in our house. The system was sized for around 90% of the winter heat load to keep the cost down a bit. It had 10KW duct heater which could make up required load on the cold -30C winter nights.This happened rarely though so it wasn't something that was running often. Our house had 2x6 walls and code at the time was only 2x4 so we were a bit ahead in terms of a standard build house, but the house was still a cheap semi and nothing special other than that. Housing in Ontario these days is out of reach for a lot of people, so adding on the cost of geothermal and net zero seems to be only for the rich/well off unfortunately.
Jeff, Even here in the US it depends on the state you live in and how much of a tax rebate you can get to reduce the upfront cost. Even more important now that the feds have moved away from helping out the growth of alternative fuels. Unfortunately, where any of these alternative technologies are heavily dependent upon political support to see them succeed.
Hi Jeff, been following you for a few years now and your videos have helped me improve my house in many ways. I am very glad you are talking about this. I actually work in this field and build a business around it. I completely agree with your statements. One thing I will add is that the technology already exists. But like you mentioned it is really expensive and unaffordable for most people. Would it be possible to set up a phone call? I am based in The Netherlands and the technology is much further than in the U.S. or Canada. It also has the backing of the government so that has definitely helped in speeding things up. Hopefully we can connect and maybe even collaborate in making a prototype home. Thank you again for the video.
Hey Bob. Can I aks what the name of your company is. I want to build my own home and am looking into net zero. But I cannot find that much in the Netherlands that will really help. I have some ideas but still. Alvast bedankt
One interesting thing I’ve seen (on RUclips) for cost effective and efficient home building is the T-Stud. It’s an easy way to build a wall that helps prevent heat losses through the wall (via the solid wood) for not a whole lot more than traditional studs with a few other benefits like strength and acoustics. I haven’t looked at the company in a while but last I saw they were working on other similar products.
Hi Jeff, you have already started on a net zero house by making it air tight and adding insulation. I spent some time in Norway when I was working and when I got home I insisted that I wanted triple glazed windows, it was hard to find anyone how could produce the windows but I got what I wanted and at the same time I increased the thickness of my insulation on the inside and outside (I found a product that had 3 inches of foam on a waterproof & airtight system) and everyone thought I was mad. My roof was not in the correct orientation to make solar panels very productive but I have them on my roof anyway and my gas bill for the whole year was under £10:00. I have gas central heating but I have not needed to switch it on at all.
Achieving a net-zero house can be done in many ways. The best way (most expensive) is to build a Passive House which will reduce your energy consumption to as close to zero as today's technology will allow. This can be achieved in a house of any size, you don't have to go down to a tiny home to get net-zero. Creating a passive house or a net-zero house is going to cost a lot more than today's run-of-the-mill code-built house. The owners need to sacrifice something by either: *Shrinking square footage to reduce heating and cooling requirements - Cheapest route, highest sacrifice for daily living. *Greatly increasing insulation and air tightness - Expensive, meticulous building practices need to be strictly adhered to, Passive House standard, advanced framing *Generate a lot of energy - Large solar array, can be ugly and expensive. It comes down to balancing energy consumption with energy generation. Unfortunately the majority of homes built, over 90% if I had to guess, are energy pigs. They are just not insulated well and they leak a ton of air. So for most houses to get to net zero without huge renovation is going to mean increasing generation as much as possible, which is wasteful.
This topic is so vitally important, thanks for starting to address it. For those who think its a good idea, I'd like to know how you would go about doing it. I welcome you to continue that research. Apparently the engineeing has been there since the 80s. But how to practically add the insulation and adjust the glazing ratios etc to get it done? This is where you can make a huge difference because you are one of the best diy information sources going right now.
1. Heat pump 2. Atmospheric water generater 3. Solar panels 4. Increased insulation 5. Tankless water heater 6. Rain water harvesting 7. Compost toilet 8. Biogas digester 9. Small home wind turbines 10. Smaller home 11. Tesla power walls (powr strage We could start an online list and create an open source net zero home. Aiming to keep it between 50k - 100k
Home RenoVision DIY living in a well-fitted van is a highly valid choice for uni students. When I think what my life would have been like as a youngster moving away from my parents for the first time if I hadn't had to pay rent and if I'd had a home *I could take to parties with me, and not have to wait until the next morning to get public transport home* - it's mindblowing how much better everything would have been. At least half of the bad choices I made in my late teens and early twenties were triggered by being broke and either homeless or unable to afford good food because I was paying rent out of a student allowance.
I think this is a great conversation, I know I watch alot of Matt Risingers show, and goes wayy deep into passive house and net zero home standards, and I don't think its as complicated as people make it out to be. I believe this is all hinged on how well a house is insulated and sealed. Now the amount of insulation needed depends heavily on your climate zone, so gettin a texas house to net zero standards is probably wayy less energy intensive than heating a house up in Canada. The amount of energy required to maintain room temp in a house that is properly air sealed goes wayy down so you can get away with less tonnage on your AC system. I recently bought a house that was built in 1962(1800 sq/ft), although it meets code(in Washington State), I'm still interested in seeing if pulling the siding, and if required re-sheathing and taping all the seems/flashing/windows etc, then adding external insulation(and an air exchanger) would bring a house closer to that standard, at least make it so that a 10-15kw solar array would provide the heating requirements and standard living. I just watched a video on Jerryrigseverything that installed a DIY solar system and it cost roughly half of what a installed system would...I'm not saying they are not big projects, but definitely in the realm of do it your selfers. I'd be keen on seeing content of taking an older house, and bringing it up to passive/net zero standards as best as possible. I think its much easier to build this standard into new housing, but if one could renovate a house to those standards, and save on cost by doing yourself..I think thats a worthwhile endeavor. Thanks!!
We already have induction ovens, we call them microwave ovens. But they operate on the same principle as induction, but rather than heating the pan, they heat the food directly.
Hey Jeff, I know we don't know each other but you've been teaching me how to do so many things around my house that I felt like I've known you for awhile now. Thank you and I hope you and your family are well during this time.
A lot of people talk about net zero but really the issue is the carbon foot print of the life cycle of the house. That includes building, running, maintaining, and demolishing the house. Building a passive house or any house can be carbon intensive or it could be carbon sink. It depends on the design and construction methods. If you take energy off a clean grid, the running energy may not be as critical as one might think. So it is far more complex than blinding going after net zero or a passive house. A passive house or net zero house may have a much larger carbon foot print than a more typical house that uses materials that are a carbon sink that is run on a cleaner grid.
IMO, government doesn't really do anything well or efficiently. You said that if private industry creates (will create) technology that's unaffordable, I think the thing you maybe overlook is if there is no ROI, private industry is not interested in donating time and money to research unaffordable technology. The goal is for industry to create affordable technology (make a profit). Thank you for the discussion!
My 2 cents on that topic as I am in the process of building a country house and the topic is really interesting - The Question needs to be dissected based on the formula of Net 0: Energy Intake = Energy Consumed - Energy Produced
Two main things: 1 Natural Gas is one of the best cheapest ways to heat our homes in the North so I don't know why we would get rid of it when we can simply reduce the amount we use through new technology over time. 2. The Free market it is what will drive innovation, not taxpayer dollars, when the patients expire they will be reproduced over & over and over again and drive the cost down. I think the driving force of change will come from companies that say you are paying X per year doing it the old way, doing it our way can say you X money over Y years. Just looking at Lighting technology, LED lights use SO much less electricity, it's not even a question of the environment its wow these lights save me a ton of money & are bright. Market based solutions at reducing cost and you can never go wrong. Now if my city would give me my own Home Owners tax money back if I put up solar panels, sure I would use my own money to reduce my energy cost. But, I don't want my taxes going up.
As a Net Zero home owner with an electric car, it is simply a lack of vision. The tech is there, just communicate how one can do it. And watch their eyes open up to the possibility. Love the induction stove top.
The bottom line is it's a fun challenge. I got a crappy old condo and cut my annual energy usage in half so far. I started to save money but I'm cozier in the winter and cooler in the summer. I didn't expect to enjoy it this much.
"This Old House" recently did a net zero project. Somewhere in one of their narratives they casually stated that making a net zero house would raise the cost of the home about *thirty percent* over a non-net zero house. To answer the question, no, most "regular folks" can't afford thirty percent more for a house payment. Also keep in mind that the people that "This Old House" does projects for these days are venture capitalists, bankers, and doctors; basically *very affluent* people. By no stretch of the imagination, are they "regular folks. TOH's projects have lost relevance for regular folks, and have become simply vicarious viewing.
Jeff I don't even own a house and I watch your channel all the time. The show This Old House just did a net zero renovation for some rich picky guy in Rhode Island (not Canada cold but quite cold). I can't even imagine how much that house renovation costs they even taped into geothermal to heat and cool the house, lots of cool things to see on that house.
Thanks for talking about this, even if it takes you a little out of your comfort zone! I don't think this is a political topic -- we're talking about what works, what doesn't, and what we need to get there. I think the tech is also already there, even if it is still pricey. There are now Net Zero homes that are quite large, at least in the US. That is, I wouldn't call them an "every man/woman" home ... more expensive to build than the costs they offset, but that's anything with new technology, and I appreciate that they're putting the money in now so we learn more. What we really need are systems that are "set to go" rather than what are typically many layers upon other layers to try to reach net zero. Even Zip Systems, in all their glory, are just one layer of several to get to net zero. Until we get it down to a simpler system, costs will remain unreasonably high for the typical person.
I live in southern Ontario (canada), and actually looking at building in a year or two, net-zero is actually one of my goals I'd like to try and achieve... I already drive an electric vehicle 95% of the time and love not having to rely completely on fluctuating gas prices but that's a whole topic all together... We actually have a netzero older retroffited house in our area, so it is possible... I'm fortunate enough to already have a plot of land available for my new build and considering the house prices these days, I think I can build a netzero, future proof house for the same price as a "cookie cutter" style typical new built houses these days,... Here's my "money is no object" pipe dream.... Since I have a large and wide piece of land available, building a single floor ranch, (I know, cheaper to build up than wide) but my goal is to achieve maximum roof dimensions for solar, keeping my eye out on Tesla's new V3 of their solar roofs, keeping roof lines as simple as possible, nothing fancy (it will be a boring looking house), At the very least, a metal roof with solar panels if not a Tesla Solar roof. Next on the list is geothermal, again,... I have the land, I can do horizontal trenching rather than vertical drilling making it a cheaper installation, keeping the cost a little more reasonable... I've seen systems supporting both in floor heating (for basement) and forced air for main floor, so looking at that option... The next thing I'm carefully looking at developments on is Vehicle to Grid, apparently my electric car (Nissan Leaf) can already do that with a CHADEMO connector, Tesla is rumoured to have that capability built in as well more information on this might be revealed on their upcoming "battery day"... If that is the case, with my next vehicle purchase one vehicle will likely be a storage battery on wheels (instead of a powerwall)... again... waiting on technology advancements and announcements to get there... I do believe this is the future, and we're well on our way there... I know you didn't want to get political, but unfortunately our power generation is still controlled by the government... The way it is now, I believe we have a limit on how much solar generation we can do... I don't understand why, If I have the surface area to produce more solar, I should be allowed to... This I believe is political issue, the energy company that's tied to the government still wants to make their money and needs to be addressed, let me know if there's other reasons that may not be political, safety? fire hazards?... I really do think an efficient house design, with geothermal and solar are key components... And if the Tesla rumours are true with PVP, V2G and other advancements come on the market, we're looking at this as a "New Normal" within 5 years. (If you have read up to here,... in a typical Canadian fashion, I'm sorry..., this has been lengthy...) Thanks,
Good discussion Jeff and that might be the most important thing. If people are talking about it, they are thinking about it. As others have said net zero is producing as much as you use in a year. I don't think you need to produce on site. I would think shares in a solar farm would count if you can't have the solar you need at your house. As for heat in the winter geothermal is a good source. I'm just south of you in NY and my geothermal system heats our new 1900 sqft house for about a dollar a day in the winter. We don't walk around in shorts either (back to the selfish meme) 65 degrees works for us.
I've no idea what post WWII Canada was like, but where I grew up in the U.S.A. our parents all had homes a third or less of the size of today's homes. 7 people in a 1050 sq ft house in my family's case. So step 1 is to reduce the size of the heated area. You Canadians can't really rely on solar, but in Virginia, I use 13.5KwH per day over the winter (and that's with the heat pump) and have roof space for a 20KW solar system. I'd need 80KwH of storage to make it through a week of bad weather, and charge an electric car. So my solar system is probably a $50K system. On a little more than an acre, I have a septic system, and have room to put in a well, but the county doesn't issue permits if you can connect to county water. I do have enough land for either a ground loop or well for a geothermal system. Retrofitting my existing home to get close to a net zero home is prohibitive. It would honestly be better to knock down and build from scratch. In short, I can do some things to economize an existing house, but a true net zero single family home needs to be built small, in the sunbelt, on at least an acre of land, and from the ground up with energy efficiency taking priority over all else.
Super insulation is great, but moisture has to be addressed inside the home. Here in Illinois, the power companies have upper hand. You can bank your extra solar power but you still have an electric bill. And the rates are subpar.
Last year, This Old House did a net-zero renovation. I haven't seen all the episodes for it, but it seemed an interesting thought experiment. I call it a thought experiment, because outside of a very few, who can afford to have the sheer amount of insulation put on their house to reduce the transfer. This house had on it's roof the sheathing, a waterproofing layer, another layer of sheathing, 5 inches of mineral wool, a third layer of sheathing, a second waterproofing layer, then the shingles. And that's just the outside. On the inside of the roof they went with 2 inches of closed-cell foam insulation and 7.5 inches of open-cell foam. Total R value of 65. The exterior of the house also had special foam insulation backed sheathing. Looked like the whole house could probably be heated by a 40 watt light bulb. I am not against this, don't get me wrong. But right now, unless you are pulling in half a million or more, this level of innovation is a pipe dream. :( Small things, like the induction cooker, hybrid water heaters {which I want to get when my current heater goes), ways to seal air (heat) loss, etc., those are the ways to go.
Jeff, for furnaces we don't really need any induction technologies. Heater made of nichrome wire is all you really need for a furnace. It's 100% efficient in converting electricity into heat. The only way to be more efficient in heating is to turn towards heat pumps - they are more than 100% efficient (no superunity magic here, though) because they don't create heat energy, but rather move energy into the house from the outside. Still, heat pump is quite an energy guzzler, so I don't see it being powered by a solar panel, especially on a cold cloudy day when you need this heating.
Very well said Jeff. Only BIG problem: the resources for solar panels and batteries and all the crap you need to be net-zero is higher than just frakking for clean-burning natural gas. And when those panels and batteries get used up, the toxic mess left behind can't just go into a regular landfill. It probably gets dumped into the ocean, to be honest. At least with frakking, the geologists who work for those companies usually look for places to do the least amount of damage. Even in places like Alaska, you don't even have to frak. The fissures are already there and it comes out of people's kitchen taps! Natural gas is and will be the best way to go. If someone has the money and can do the net-zero lifestyle, more power to them. I like the comfort and affordability of natural gas. I appreciate hearing your views on the subject. That cooktop looks amazing by the way.
@@gemada99 Such a compelling argument. I've changed my mind on the facts I posted. You're a great debater. Thanks for offering nothing to the conversation.
@@timcotrell9753 solar panels pay back their full carbon life cycle in under a year and are recycled, and batteries are also recycled. Fossil gas on the other hand, just spews methane into the atmosphere forever (Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is a strong greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame), and fracking contaminates drinking water.Thanks for playing though.
@@gemada99 Recycled? Ha! Is that why we were in Afghanistan for 20 years? Lithium recycling? My batteries say wrap in newspaper and discard them in the trash. I haven't found anywhere that recycles toxic waste. Wake up. All this green energy nonsense is just that. Nonsense. Quit drinking the kool aid with your paper straw that sticks to your lips and uses more energy to make than a plastic straw. Green energy is A LIE. Read about it from an independent news source. Open your eyes. Your being deceived.
@@timcotrell9753 NREL, Lazard LCOE, IEA, RMI, the list of unbiased sources goes on and on. We've been recycling $150 car batteries for 40 years, so why wouldn't we be recycling much more expensive lithium batteries (not that we'll need to recycle lithium car batteries for at least 20 years since they are new on the market and will easily last that long in a car and then repurposed as stationary storage). Solar panels also last 30 years or, but recycling facilities are already available in most civilized countries for both solar panels and lithium ion batteries. How's that gasoline/diesel/methane recycling project going? Oh that's right, I forgot that fossil fuel recycling is called "melting the ice caps". You can tilt at windmills all you want, but renewables are now winning out on economics alone. Dino-juice days are numbered.
You are absolutely right. "Net Zero" technology is years away. Good concept, but it's a future mindset. Something we can all think about. In the mean time, we can build smarter with the technology we have now, and add on technologies as they become available (and hopefully affordable).
My power company does a free audit once every year to every 5 years to let u know where ur spending the most and how u can improve it...I told these guys I'm working toward an electric tankless water heater and a rocket mass heater to completely remove natural gas from my home and they flat out told me that it was a bad idea
Net zero and passive house designs are very realistic for thoughtful new builds. The challenge is moving the existing stock of housing in that direction through retrofitting. PV, energy storage and increasingly efficient appliances and devices will likely lead the way. And in truth, even if retrofits don't get to net zero, moves in that direction in the retrofit/rehab market can only be for the good.
Solar Voltaic Paint - it has 1.33w per 25cm2 of painted space. Can face light, not just south facing. Entire house, roof, garages, out buildings can be painted. 💥🌝
I have multi ideas read. Collect all rain for water with affordable filters. Also no more grass systhethic grass only. Only newest materials. Solar heater for energy along with wind or geothermal. Hemp can be used for everything. Wireless appliances think new cell chargers or car chargers.
Hey Jeff, love all your videos. You are the go to for our 6 months of remodeling so far! I'm about to wall paper and make custom closet thanks to your video. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW TO WALLPAPER OUTSIDE CORNERS? DO YOU JUST LINE UP?
The best way to net zero is to build with passive house standards, PHIUS in the US and PHI everywhere else. Reduce the biggest loads in the house, heating and cooling, and your mechanicals are all efficient electric. Which means your PV array is much smaller. The cost to build that way is about 5-10% more than code, but I've seen some projects come in with no extra cost.
I love passive houses. They always make them and forget 1 important thing. They never make them smaller. Who decided that we need 2000 sq ft in order to maintain sanity?
@@HomeRenoVisionDIY totally agree. The problem is the huge majority of people who even look into building to passive house are upper middle class and richer and they still need to keep up appearances.
There are advantages of being off the grid. However it should be understood everything has a cost and nothing is free. What do you think will happen if Canadians are told they can no longer burn wood. Did people realize the hazardous materials produced in making solar cells and lithium ion batteries? Again there is a cost. You have a point.
I'm hoping to eventually renovate my 1929 farm house in the city to be close to NetZero, it's going to be a bear of a project... I expect that to achieve it the house will have to be stripped back to the studs, resheathed to eliminate thermal bridging and have the roof line reoreinted from an E/W gable to a South facing ramp for max solar. Fun stuff 😄
That's going to be a challenge; might not be economically feasible to hit net zero right now but I'm sure you can make a major change and still get good value. I've found that the toughest part of planning upgrades on older homes is dealing with the foundation; it either needs to be upgraded to the same standard as the floors above or isolated from the rest of the house (difficult if there's infrastructure down there, eg: hot water tanks & pipes)
Totally doable NOW. This is here NOW. 4 season climate makes it more difficult but possible as of NOW. Kinda spendy, as a generational investment something your family keeps after you pass It's it's a value. As of now but even in Alaska and here in the Northern Rockey Mt we have people living off grid/ producing as much energy as they consume.
Haha yeah check out the Marisk House which is in Alaska somewhere, built in 2011 and I think still holds a record for air tightness. This design definitely makes some sacrifices... but it's an older example that was trying to prove a point.
The technology is already here. I'm a passive certified builder in Ontario and I can tell you it's on the designers and builders. They are building to such a low quality and have no clue about "passive or netzero" homes when the topic comes up. And as for designers, they allow owners to design what ever fancy home they like without educating them on the repercussions intricate detailing. Like I said, it's not a technology problem, it's an education problem. If you're ever near Cornwall, Ontario, you're more than welcome on site and I can walk you through the details of what a standard should be in this climate!
You are correct with the industry wanting to get paid. What is the cost of that stove. Which I love the stove by the way. I also priced out the most efficient shower system to conserve water as I am using rain water - $500.00. These are all great produces, but the fact is I can not afford a $500.00 shower head. I do what I can and accept what I can not change on my level.
The way to move to net zero in my opinion is as follows a. Insulate your home to a lot better than code requirements b.The envelope of the home should be as air tight as possible c. Use heat exchange air filtration to get fresh clean but warm air into the home d. Make use of solar gain orientate the home to face south with large windows and a concrete slab floor to store the free energy from the sun. d1. Create Shading overhangs to protect the home in the night of summer. d2. Find a high efficiency heat and cooling source (air source /ground source heat pump) e. Reduce the usage of electricity by using energy efficient appliances. f. Fit a solar array and battery storage that is bigger than your needs g. Use excess energy production to heat hot water (alsoreuse wasted heat energy) h. Drive an electric vehicle (in the future there will be vehicle to grid connections so you can power your house with your car) i. Plan ahead technology is changing all the time.
When you talked about government funding of of scientific research I was like, "yes go Jeff!! ". This is so important on so many different levels. Not just climate science.
Light tubes are not a sustainable solution. Sure, you don't need to turn on those 13 Watt light bulbs... but now you have a tube that goes straight through your insulation to the outdoors
@@MacGyverCanada Yes, agreed, similar to the effect of glass windows. And the best 'filler' for light tubes, fiber optic cable (not DIY), is still expensive. I do like the way that light levels mimic the outdoors when they're not covered in snow. And basements, when the power is out, could benefit. At least they're not as bad as some fireplace chimneys if there aren't too many tubes placed. Most of my thinking is stuck in power outage situation avoidance, perhaps not an issue with a self-powered home.
It's totally 100% possible to build a net zero home and it actually saves you money in the medium to long term, it makes sense not just for the environment, but for your pocket also
If we get to where people like us install our own solar systems, it is very affordable and pay off in only a few years. I had solar panels installed and mine will pay for themselves in 15 years or so. I did get a 30% tax credit. Most of the expense was labor of course. Without the labor cost it would payoff in more like 5 years. When I had it installed I had never even seen a solar system on a house up close. After seeing it and watching it get installed, I see it is really an easy project.
If you have access to free wood and you can improve your envelop to current standards, it fairly easy to heat with a wood stove. I am still waiting for a solar roof product that will replace some of the asphalt shingles. The induction stove, heat-pump water heater / air conditioner / clothes driers are all promising technologies. I think that many current houses have too many issues and it may be more cost effective to move.
I think w e have recently witnessed the effect of lower emissions globally. To deny that we are not enjoying the clean air would be ostrich like. I also feel like a real solution has to be affordable so what we are being offered now just isn't the trick.
Taxing carbon emissions is likely to prompt a very rapid consensus on and interest in the most effective and least expensive ways to save energy. Right now "What happens if fuel becomes scarce/costly" is just a distant possibility in most homeowners' heads.
I see it as a spectrum where Net-Zero is in the middle. We've been deeply net-negative throughout history (using coal, oil, natural gas, wood) and need to move towards Net-Zero or Net-positive eventually over time. I think the awareness is now there, but it's still will take time to make it affordable to actually do it widespread.
I have to disagree. You can build a family sized net zero ready house today with existing technology. For a reasonable cost. We are currently doing it right now. It just takes contractors with an understanding of building science, planning, investing in the building envelope and systems for the house and a willingness to pay attention to the air leakage details. 1800 sq ft home with an air tightness of 0.6 ACH50 is easily possible. How much power do you need? Again with planning, not very much.
Thanks for the interesting topic. I agree, todays homeowners (me included) are heavily invested in a comfortable lifestyle. Small steps to improve efficiencies are the best way to go, bite size chunks. Remember how well the trades embraced metric in Canada....?
Always love your videos sir... But one technology you havent mentioned here to help with heating in Canada is geothermal... That works like a charm. Ive litterally split my electric bill in half since i got it installed and that is with my entire family being inside the house for a full year thanks to Covid. Granted, its not cheap but it does work and makes financial sense in the long run
Many net-zero building methods can improve building efficiency and quality with out the goal of achieving net-zero. So an all or nothing mindset can be limiting. Let's talk about opportunities to implement net-zero concepts during renovations. Most content on net-zero is for new construction.
@@ClayAutery Sounds like a great idea. The problem is affordability. Where I am at - Vancouver, BC - there is already a great shortage of affordable living. New construction of the type you are thinking of, would increase the cost; and not by an insignificant percentage. Add to that the SEVERE shortage of qualified techs to build these new houses ... not gonna happen for a while.
Net zero in my opinion is that you produce as much as you consume on average over the course of a year for example. Yes in Canada winter you will use more energy, but if you can produce enough in the summer to offset, you could still be considered net zero.
I just want to add something for the viewers. This video is from the perspective of someone in Canada. In places like California, where there is lots of sun, net zero energy homes are extremely doable. Starting in 2020, all new residential builds (in California) must be net zero energy by law and, by 2030, all commercial builds must be net zero energy.
wind turbines, there is a local manufacturer that supplies 90% of its energy use using wind turbines. just a suggestion but take a look at something called an earth ship house. there is one in Canada. part of zero net is in construction materials. a straw bale house has r 19 insulation can be built any size.. 350 sq. feet to 2000 sq feet they are labor intensive to build however. sort of a trade off energy saving/ higher cost to build in-less you have friends and family willing to help coat it in mud/ stucco. take a look at rocket mass heaters as well it operates on a small amount of wood. fired once usually in the coldest weather every other day. while not in Canada as far as i am aware but i know of several used in the states of Oregon, and Montana
It's a fun convo to have but realistically in Canada its a huge challenge.....If you combine "super" insulation, Geothermal (heating) and solar you can come close to a net zero home but solar alone usually wont cut it and in some provinces like Quebec your limited to a maximum amount of power you can actually legally produce and power is so cheap @0.05c kw/h it doesn't even make sense to buy solar power it would take 20yrs just to recup the cost (and panels are "efficient" for about 20yrs....) even if you get overstock panels from places like Wholesalesolar. I am an electrician by trade and im starting to look into building my own house with solar, UPS and a backup generator but more for my personal fun then actual necessity or making a difference...
In Quebec the electricity is already cheap & renewable (hydroelectric) so I wouldn't push anyone in that province toward solar PV. Emissions reduction makes more sense there. Cheap power does make electric vehicles look quite attractive!
I haven't read all of the comments, but I didn't see anything related to smart technology and feedback loops. As home tech becomes smarter and learns or is programmed with our routines the less that it needs to use in a full 24-hour cycle. There's already a lot of technology that does this, but it's not quite ubiquitous. Additionally, as technology progresses to a point to provide us feedback on our usage we, as a society, will become more aware of our usage and our waste. Seeing that you used 1000kWh last month is much different than seeing it broken down and realizing that TV that stays on all day is using 250 of those kWh (exaggeration, but you get my point). And lastly, battery technology was barely mentioned but I think that will be the crux of our net zero (as it was defined in the video) home. If you can store all of the energy that you'll need for 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month(?!) then you truly don't need the grid (unless you live in Norway during the Winter). I also think a lot could be said for technologies that are already on the market though probably not as widely used in North America. Things such as hydronic (radiant) floor heating, heat exchangers/heat pumps. Automatic blinds, automatic lights, tankless water heaters... the list goes on. Each of these may not mean much in terms of savings on their own but combined they provide a significant reduction in our ecological footprint. Now only if the barrier for entry for most of these wasn't so high.
Saw an ad for a "tree" that used cupped "leaves" to harness wind power for personal property. It was about 5k. Forget where I saw it but looked so cool, lol
I looked up the tech again to refresh my memory. Turns out the product was just hype, and the output was actually much less than advertised. One would need 22 of them to net zero a house. 🤣
I wonder if the biggest barrier for net-zero or passive house to be widely adopted is just to get people collectively to think about a longer time scale. If people are moving on average every 7 years or so, it doesn't make sense to pay a premium for efficiency that pays back in 10 years or 15 or 20. But if we look at the life of a well built house being 100-300+ years, that 10-20 year initial payback period is miniscule in comparison. So how to incentivize builders/buyers to make that investment, even if the payoff will only be spread out through successive generations? I face a similar issue as a renter right now -- I'd love to get solar, but I won't be living here long enough for it to pay back in time before I move away. I don't understand the 500 sqft limitation Jeff mentioned. Matt Risinger and some guest builders he has on his channel make much bigger homes than that to passive house standards. If anything, shouldn't efficiency go up with the volume of the building, as internal volume to external surface area ratio goes up? I also would encourage more talk about the benefits to quality of life with things like HRV systems and a well sealed, well insulated home. It is not a compromise, it is a big boost in comfort, especially for allergy sufferers. An air tight house with constant hepa filtered fresh air circulating in is a dream come true... A house that is a perfect comfortable temp no matter what corner you're in or if you're near a big window, no matter the time of year... lovely!
For those of us starting a family and wanting to buy our first home, what is the best option to obtaining an energy efficient house? We are moving to northern Ontario where homes are cheaper, should we renovate or build ?
How about the combination of an ICF built home and geothermal/solar/heat stove Old Carepntry teacher in school used ICF a lot. Him and his dad built homes in Alberta for themselves. They use one of the ultra efficient wood stoves that was connected to his infloor heating and he only used a few dollars a year in extra heating costs since ICF has such great insulation value and pretty easy to do. I have looked more into geothermal( with ICF) as it seems viable in much of Canada especially in the West. Add solar for power usage. Just some thoughts. Looking forward to the series.
net zero in the great white north is next to impossible. I live in the middle of Arizona and am net zero (by your definition) my solar panels generate more than we use. the big myth about it all is that you pay for the power, you then sell power to the utility company for less than they charge so 1 kw from them is 50% more than 1 kw we make. this takes our monthly bill from 250 to 100 but not to zero. If I bought a 15000 buck battery system every 5 to 10 years and went off grid (first I would be living in a home that is not up to par for my county building department) and then I would have hundreds of lbs of toxic heavy metal to dispose of. Financial incentives will need to be in place... increased power rates for no solar or wind power equipped homes, and then net metering (equal price regardless of which way the meter spins). Natural gas use would have to be offset by electric generation. The building codes would need to change to increase the insulation and decrease the air leakage in our homes. Bottom line for me is that until countries that want this standards are willing to pay 2000% of their GDP to pay for this stuff (particularly in cold climates) to retrofit.
I'd love to be able to go net zero, but the execution of that for most people is beyond our pocket books for even a lot of the smaller technologies. I am renovating to all LED lighting. I use a Nest thermostat to heat during the winter so I can schedule out how and when the furnace comes on. As I am renovating I am adding insulation and updating the drywall. To be able to improve my water supply I am looking at a full repipe to better plumbing materials or Pex and that is a good couple of thousand with the age of the house and the addition of some pieces required by code that I am not comfortable adding in at this point (plumbing is not a strong area for me). This includes updating my water heater. In order to be able to ensure that I can run some of these technologies I need to upgrade my electrical supply, but in our area any new or upgraded electrical drops have to be buried and so I am looking at $7k to $10k to run from the pole, underneath a county road and up to the house, replace the meter back and run a line to the breaker panel. Four of my windows need to be replaced but its an older house so replacements are not a normal size and will need to be custom. I have excellent exposure to the sun with the roof at a southern slant, but unless I can buy the panels outright, I am locked into a contract with a solar panel company and I am not sure if ANY of them are above board after doing a lot of research. Plus the fact that the current technology doesn't allow maintaining decent electrical generation if even a small portion of the panels are blocked by clouds or shade (it's amazing the percentage of drop in generation that occurs when even 5% of the cells are blocked or in shade.) But I am ranting in hopes that some of these things change and become usable...
I think a lot of the fear around renovating for energy savings is that we are unsure if the tech will hold its value or need to be replaced in 5 years. That is a huge cost !
ThisOldHouse did a whole series a few years back where they built a net zero house in Rhode Island. It was expensive but definitely doable even in a cold climate. As time goes on, the technologies will become cheaper enabling more and more people to afford it.
Induction technology isn't going to help heat our homes more efficiently. Electric heat is already 100% efficient: for every one kilowatt of heat you put into your electric furnace or electric baseboards or electric water heater, you pay for one kilowatt of electricity. However, it's not a cheap way to heat your house. Plus, induction energy (which is essentially radio waves) needs metal to couple to and get hot. It doesn't heat up things like air or granite. As for net-zero homes, you can have as large a house as you want, as long as it is insulated enough, and you have some way to replace the heat it loses, either with solar thermal or solar electricity or wood or geothermal or, more likely, a combination of those things. And you don't need ten acres of solar cells to power a normal-sized house. But what you DO need is enough batteries for when the sun isn't shining, and that is where the real issue lies. Batteries are still too expensive and don't last long enough to be practical for everyone to go out and buy a room full of them. But that is changing, and sometime in the next ten or twenty years, battery technology should catch up to solar electric technology to provide a viable path for affordable net-zero homes. Finally, solar cells are not going to be four times more efficient in the near future. Yearly gains in efficiency are more like 0.5 to 1%. Certainly, there are ways to make 60% efficient solar cells (20% is common today), but they are very, very, very expensive, and not anywhere ready for prime time.
Once somebody invents a highly efficient Air Conditioning system the move to Net Zero will be much easier. AC uses the most energy in a home by far, but yes the move to Net Zero in both residential and commercial is crucial. I think legislation (if any) should gradually increase along with tech so maybe all new construction should be Net 30%, then maybe in 5-10 years Net 50%, and so on until all new commercial and residential structures are built to Net Zero standards.
If you build a really air tight and insulated house then you can really downscale your A/C system. It's amazing the difference in heating/cooling a house built today vs a house built in the 70's or older. I think increased building codes could really help. Increase air tightness standards, increase effective insulation standards, etc. are a good way forward. Most builders just go with the cheapest options to meet requirements and raising those will help the average house be closer to being energy efficient.
I think competition between several private companies is the only hope to get reasonable pricing... I am sure it will be many years of price gouging but eventually they may get there... counting on the government to do anything to expedite the process is probably futile
I appreciate that idea, however in Ontario we spent over 30 billion dollars on old solar and wind that is almost useless. I wonder where we would be if they funded private companies to do research??????
Net zero doesn't mean off grid. It just means that over the course of a year the home creates as much energy as it consumes. So you create excess in the summer and sell to grid, and import from grid in the winter when your solar is producing less. There are many net zero homes with no gas connections being built in Alberta and they cost about 7-10% more than a conventional home, and they aren't small either. So the technology is here and is affordable right now. Just ease up on the kitchen upgrades and you have it covered ;) No future tech is required.
Perhaps you could build a experimental basis model tiny house, monitoring it's performance throughout the years in different weather conditions? Having easy change different external insulation materials, heating, cooling, air exchange systems. Solar heated stone mass wall, and other ideas to add later on in the experiment.
We need to insulate like crazy, reduce thermal bridging as much as possible, and then we can select smaller hearing and cooling systems. We can already get off natural gas with heat pumps. Then make up the remainder with renewables (solar) and battery storage for when the sun's not shining.
@@HomeRenoVisionDIY Agreed, but in Canada, we are heating dominant. Insulation needs to increase to reduce heating load, which is the single largest end use of energy by far. By using heat pumps with high COP and heat recovery, we can really put a dent in this. Signed, a passionate engineer and energy manager.
I agree that these healthy for us and our planet technologies need push from us and our government! We need this sooner than later. Now with Canada considering green and net-zero technology is the time to ACT!
Most people in that new trend are actually forced into it because housing have gone so expensive in North America, particularly Canada. I mean, I have a decent salary and the idea of buying a home is more terrifying than COVID-19. I cannot imagine people who make 45K here in Canada, how are they going to pay for a home? Couples who make around 80K together are roasted, most of their income would be spent in a mortgage. That is why we see so many people trying to get out of rent and reducing because housing is freaking expensive not because people are shifting status quo. The thing is that we humans are awesome adapting and laying to ourselves.
Very good video, really appreciate the cost perspective. As we see house's that are "net zero" but they are either tiny or they are million dollar projects, not ideal for the way the average build goes.
Not true you can do it on the cheep! People near me have been living off grid for a long time out of necessity. The future is NOW. Yes you see big millionaire mcmansion places like this in magazines but where I live in Idaho there are people who live in 3 bedroom 2 bath houses that run off solar and and heat their homes with trees they grow. People who live off solar and augment power by LP only during the winter who would be able to sell surplus electricity during the summer if they were grid connected. Cost prohibits retrofitting old houses but for new constitution it's a thing.
If more infrastructure (maintenance of water, sewer, gas, electric systems and supply lines) was owned and maintained by the government, this would be much more feasible to implement. By this, I'm talking about gov't sponsored public works in expanding wind turbine energy production (think how much space is unused in Hamilton, ON for ex) and solar energy production. I do hope this happens, though.
Just to be clear, I am of the position that if we can make houses produce as much energy annually as they consume that is to be considered net zero. the surplus can be put back on the grid to supplement commercial and industrial. With that in mind I think it is easier to hit that goal. Cheers!
Howcome geothermal energy was not talked about?
25,000 for a system install. not affordable!
Jeff, watching your channel in South Bend, Indiana and loving the content. I'm glad you're exploring this topic, although I have more confidence in the market providing affordable net zero solutions than the government (but I would love to be surprised!) If you get a chance, check out a 'different' form of geothermal being demonstrated in Nebraska: ruclips.net/video/ZD_3_gsgsnk/видео.html. It may not be a solution for the inner cities, but I think it might even be a "DIY" form of geothermal...if you can operate a backhoe. I'm sure even in Canada the temperature is pretty constant and relatively warm just 8' below the surface.Anyway, keep up the great work!
@@HomeRenoVisionDIY I see the same sort of costs to retrofit an oil furnace to an Energy Star air-source heat pump + electric furnace and people install those all the time. If you're trying to retrofit a house with an existing boiler + in-floor heat then ground-source can be viable
You can do this on the cheep! Where I live there are rural places in Idaho with no power hookups. Out of necessity people live off solar and augment with trees they grow for wood stoves or supplement with LP. If they were able to sell back their energy they would be net zero. It's not just a rich mans game. If you build with a purpose its easy. Probably would be cost prohibitive to rebuild those mid century homes for most people but as a nee build we have the technology NOW and this is for 3 bedroom 2 bath "normal?" Houses not tiny house stuff
"This new generation is coming on, and they're challenging the status quo, and I think that's awesome."
This kind of attitude is exactly why Jeff is such a likeable person.
I never assume to know it all, just like to share what I have learned and be open to new ideas. Each generation has had a failure and an awesomeness. To close you eyes and ears in judgement keeps us all down.
Factors of net zero:
1: increased insulation
2: air tight envelope
3: efficient heating, a/c, water heat, appliances, lighting.
4: an energy source
I recommend making four episodes on each topic.
You are talking passive home, been around many years. only a few in real life, but coming, anyway, author have not cover full story between technology and government policy, especially policy ..
I am going to start with energy supply which is by itself the single most fluctuating issue. each area of the continent has different source AND SUPPLY NEEDS.Since we all need a tailored solution then we need to have a lot of tools in the box.
@@friendsonearth Building to passive house standards is the best way to achieve a net-zero house by reducing energy consumption. (Not the cheapest, though)
Please include trends in costs.
Totally agree. I'm currently building an ICF house with radiant heated floor. I love my ICF walls (Nudura). They are definitely going a step further for Jason's factors 1 & 2 above. Much less heating required in winter and staying fresh and dry during summer.
10 points:
* "Net zero" explicitly doesn't mean "Off-grid". "Net" means you send more energy to the grid than you consume. It doesn't mean that at all times, even during 100-year-storms in January, you're producing enough electricity for the house and car to run.
* Paying a little bit more for framing and insulation doesn't exactly break the bank on a new home build. The extra materials are roughly on par with the shift from "normal" circuit breakers to more expensive AFCI circuit breakers. The workmanship necessary to keep superinsulated homes in moist climates free from rot for a hundred years, that may take a little extra effort: vented rain screens, extra wide roof overhangs, meticulous and redundant means of airsealing.
* One of the major sacrifices is glazing ratio. You can't yet have window walls (most of all on the north side of the home), because windows in conventional production techniques make crappy walls. Even here, though, there do exist products where people have solved for higher R value, they're just niche & expensive right now because nobody's using them yet.
* Ovens don't benefit from induction; Electric resistance works fine. "Induction furnace technology" is gibberish. Many, many homes already use electric heat pumps, in a central air system or a mini-split, for space heating year round already.
* Don't expect dramatic revolutionary improvements in either photovoltaic or battery tech; There's a reasonable prospect of utility-scale batteries that are much cheaper, but other than that you're basically looking at incremental evolutionary improvements.
* Hot water thermal stores running on excess photovoltaic energy seem to be by far the cheapest way to balance heating loads (of both hot water and space heating) in the home, and hardly anyone is working with them yet. ruclips.net/p/PLVe7nJBrjHReCvpEjC_M_rBGiT74JpTxV This guy built a solar thermal collector system with storage tank for this purpose, and later moved to PV with storage tank; It cost him pennies on the dollar vs a battery system. It wouldn't be that hard or expensive to mass produce a simple insulated tank.
* Bigger houses are not much harder to make net zero using rooftop collection, because conductive heat losses go up with surface area, and so does photovoltaic generation. Multifamily homes & townhomes have especially low heat loss.
* Net zero is a lot more useful of a concept in North Carolina than in Toronto, because of the climate, sure. But you guys still have a good amount of wind potential (which is only useful at utility scale), hydropower, and rural utility-scale solar potential. You can approach carbon neutral without infinite rooftops.
* You can, though, expand your rooftops. There's nothing saying that zoning can't be amended to allow, eg, an open canopy over your driveway festooned with solar panels, right up to the road line.
* One of the things nobody seems to be discussing right now is specific to cold climates. Solar panels still work moderately well at your latitude in winter, but they stop working completely under snow cover. We need an easy, automatic method of snow clearance that doesn't involve spending energy melting it. I tend to think mounting them on some kind of rack that can flip itself over is the best way, since the surfaces are fragile.
I say bring on the sheeps wool....I am a knitter too.... Great natural insulation. As well as air space helps hold 40 degrees average temp not as much to go up or down....great for cooling.... Thanks Julie
I always find the comments and this channel insightful.
* If you travel to the EU insulation and framing techniques have already changed to go towards net-zero.
*Germany now has triple glazed units with a IR coating to help stop ingress and egress of heat allowing for more traditional glazing ratios - currently expensive but quickly coming down as it's now used in office blocks as well as residential applications.
*Ovens/ mini split etc we completely agree.
*Battery tech completely agree.
*Hot water thermal stores are currently used in Norway and Sweden from bottom to top of the house as a central column water store, used for radiant heat circuits and hot water storage. Often tied into geothermal and PV systems with conventional backups going unused.
*rooftops also agree.
My final point is someone did actually debut a solar snow scraper that was basically a giant windscreen scrapper and antifreeze sprayer that pulled the snow down and off the panels once a morning. Outside of NA the technology is already around but Canada and the USA seem to be very late adopters compared to the EU zone.
@@effervescence5664 YES, there was the roll out shingle solar strips roofing.... hail resistant too. That company was in Michigan I think, USA people did not support them at all. The EU did. If I remember right valentines day 2008 they folded. He and his wife in their 90s. Filed bankruptcy. He also was studying tablets in the gas tank hydrogen maybe... Thanks julie...but, if your panels aren't 100 watts... your aray is smaller, put it on the ground PVC tub it to the house then you can string it fish put lines in. Last I look the panels are were 500 moncrystaline...a few years ago...don't follow the idiot do your own reveiws and research ...I have been verbally abused by some solar people like the roof thing... After I do my weatherazation project I will see how much kw I use. Off season I use 4 kw perday a dryer day I use 6 kw. I just bought a new TV not a movie screen five hours day usage 5 kw per year...I am on the plains my state ranks low cost electricity..but I like the independence factor.....I just want the tv for local news. I may be able to go completely off grid, I won't though. I am NOT spraying antifreeze anywhere. I just bought a bunch of bluebell seeds et al. I want a nontoxic yard thank you very much. I Just looked up my state 10.05 cents per kwh...another thing my state does not promote alternatives. I totally disagree with that. I am also going to add a slightly bigger fridge. Change my tiny fridge into a freezer. I did it backwards, how low can I go, not how high I can go the usage that is. As for changing my small fridge I learned that from the backwoodsman1 youtuber Martin's cabin...portage canoer...Forester like guy....Canada Minnesota boundries waters true type A male..yes I am envious of his area..as a young person until I was 15 16 went to Walker Minnesota area not to fish but to sail my dad was a sailor until two years before his death 89 type A too. The fridge propane, fridge gone frozen due to bear control separate from a solar cabin in conjunction a burried cooler to defrost..... Thanks
@@effervescence5664 yes,USA far behind. deep state here, owning everything...
Can you do videos on how to maybe not go to Net Zero, but make an old house more energy efficient - DIY, and as affordable as possible?
This I think is far more relevant to the majority of people. Additionally net zero doesn’t necessarily mean well insulated and well built it means that we produce an equal amount of energy that we use...
Exactly, this is what I am hoping to do with my 1960 house. Can I still do a external insulation blanket and vapor barrier, after removing the brick. I would love to do that. Things like that.
WE HAVE PLANS IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS TO DO A VARIETY OF HOUSE RENOVATIONS TO SHOW FOLKS HOW TO GET GREAT RETURNS FOR LOW INVESTMENTS. cHEERS!
Oh yes please! Most of us live in older places that need to be updated ! And show us how it is best to be done
Absolutely!! I have three houses built in 50's and 60's...and also considering at some point redeveloping the land for two of them
I was in Photovoltaics research 40 years ago. The improvements have been incremental since then, and there is no new physical principle that is likely to result in a "breakthrough" in terms of efficiency. Panels require maintenance, get damaged, and have to be replaced every few years. Basically they never make enough electricity to even pay for themselves. Tax "credits" (making your neighbors pay for your panels) only create the illusion of break-even. Large-scale adoption would be an environmental and economic disaster. It requires an enormous ego to force your neighbors to chop down their 100-year-old trees so that you can have a few bucks more electricity, and the backlash in many locales will be fierce. Where I live litigation over a single large cottonwood tree held up a necessary road extension for a year.
Anyone who has every designed anything that required a battery (like I have) will tell you that batteries are a really terrible power source. We use them because we have to, and put up with the inconvenience of replacing and/or recharging them. Liquid fuels have at least an order of magnitude more energy density than the best battery, and are not going to go away. Once again, tax "credits" (making your neighbors pay for your batteries) only create the illusion of affordability. Even if we switch entirely to Nuclear power, a significant proportion of that power for the foreseeable future will go toward making liquid fuel for the transportation sector (unless somebody actually invents a "Mr. Fusion" to power our flying cars). Gaseous fuels aren't going away either, for the same reasons. A modern gas furnace is almost impossible to beat in terms of efficiency.
Efficiency is good, but people are not going to choose to live in Tiny Houses. Even in abject poverty they will live in extended family groups in a larger structure because it's more efficient in terms of infrastructure, materials and per capita energy consumption (not to mention division of labor and inter-generational knowledge transmission).
There is no Free Lunch. Net Zero will not scale up.
wasn't net zero a terrible internet service provider from the 90's
Still is a terrible ISP
Funny!
Spending my first night in a homemade 40sq ultra light RV. Built with R-23 all around. Solar powered with 12v systems. Built for less than $2500. Single 24M so far love it.
I'm building a net-zero house in Colorado, at least I'm trying with limited technology and by following a few important principles. We'll see how much it will be and how good it will be.
Every comment should start with location. Needs here in Georgia (Mostly keeping cool) are different than Northern Wyoming.
Southerners in GA used to keep cool with High ceilings, Wrap around porches or deep over-hangs, and Shutters on the windows. All help the home require less energy to stay cool.
Out buildings were used for kitchens to keep the heat away from the house.
Oh how times have changed. I still like a wrap around porch!
Also want to add that the Bosch ventless dryer was a life saver in my 1910 home. I think all new dryers should be ventless. It makes sense. Switzerland have outlawed vented dryers.
My husband and I are working towards a net zero home. We bought a 500 sq ft house for 6000.00. I already have an induction stove top but I love the kitchen you built behind you.
Nice.
1910 home here.
We're about to remove the crumbling plaster on the outside of our home.
Outside of the home was lathe and plaster. It's too far gone for anymore patchwork. We are going to use tyvek>EPS foam>rainscreen>Hardie board. I'm a bit undecided between EPS and Rockwool comfortboard for exterior insulation, any input on that part is appreciated.
The inside of the upper floor has been recently renovated, we added another 2x4 wall staggering the studs inside and used Rockwool. The walls went from zero insulation to R28. We reinsulated the attic, it is now R40.
When we install the new exterior siding, should we attempt to put Rockwool in the wall cavities that don't have insulation? There is currently no vapour barrier on the inside walls of the lower floor, so I'm a bit concerned about drying.
The thing about these old homes is they weren't built with modern life and mechanica systemsl in mind. Hence all the chimneys and stove ports I've had to remove!
I think everyone should take extra efforts to insulate their homes to the maximum it will allow. I think I remember calculating that around R40 is where you start to see diminishing returns.
Let's all just consume less, be efficient in our methods and stop producing and accepting poorly built and unnecessary products.
I really appreciate this video, however I think you should have brought up passive tech and living. I live in Kingston and visited a house in Prince Edward County that was called an Earthship. The man who built the house had all of his heat from the sun and in the middle of January, I stepped in and in five minutes I had my boots and winter coat off because I was sweating. The only system he had in the house was a/c for humidity and the house was running off batteries and solar panels. 1600-1800 sq ft completely off grid, very impressive and converted me from skeptic.
I have read a little and watched RUclips videos on Earthships. I love the idea of these homes. About as self sufficient as we can get I think.
Jeff I love that you are starting this discussion. What about geothermal? A lot has happened in the last 5 years to make it more affordable and possible in a smaller space with cheaper vertical wells.
sorry Paul, in my experience it just isn't warm enough in the winter or cold enough in the summer for the price tag! Perhaps I am wrong but I tried to get geothermal companies to work with me on my farm house and they all backed away. so I am thinking what i am thinking until someone has the balls to prove otherwise.
My dad has been in the geothermal industry for 30+ years. Geothermal can make sense in a net zero house, depending on the size of the house. If it's tiny then you can possibly heat the net zero house for 1KW of electric resistance. In that case, it's cheaper to just use straight electricity.
The more efficient you make the house, the smaller and cheaper the geothermal system could be. Initial installation cost is the most prohibitive reason not to use geothermal right now. For a conventional house in Ontario you could be looking at 30k+ or so which is hard to make back on savings due to Ontario's soaring electricity costs. These days when gas is so cheap, it's harder to make an argument for geothermal instead of gas based on the monthly savings of a geothermal system.
I would say it's easier on a new build if you're willing to roll the cost into the 25 year mortgage, but retrofit cost, most people won't have the 30k+ sitting around to drop on it.
Now go with a net zero house, your geothermal system cost can be much less because your required heating/cooling capacity is so much less. Trade off though is the extra cost of the house.
For the vertical drilling, I think here in Ontario it's still something like a minimum of $10/ft. So you're looking sometimes at least $10k just for drilling. With the smaller ultrasonic drilling rigs, they can do it cheaper and quicker, but they still seem to be rare in this part of the world. When my dad was doing installations, there was one that he knew of and used sometimes.
I grew up with geothermal in our house. The system was sized for around 90% of the winter heat load to keep the cost down a bit. It had 10KW duct heater which could make up required load on the cold -30C winter nights.This happened rarely though so it wasn't something that was running often.
Our house had 2x6 walls and code at the time was only 2x4 so we were a bit ahead in terms of a standard build house, but the house was still a cheap semi and nothing special other than that.
Housing in Ontario these days is out of reach for a lot of people, so adding on the cost of geothermal and net zero seems to be only for the rich/well off unfortunately.
Jeff, Even here in the US it depends on the state you live in and how much of a tax rebate you can get to reduce the upfront cost. Even more important now that the feds have moved away from helping out the growth of alternative fuels. Unfortunately, where any of these alternative technologies are heavily dependent upon political support to see them succeed.
@@HomeRenoVisionDIY you don't need to do geo, there are heat pumps that will go from air to water at -25 celcius. (Mitsubishi) where COP is 4
Hi Jeff, been following you for a few years now and your videos have helped me improve my house in many ways.
I am very glad you are talking about this. I actually work in this field and build a business around it. I completely agree with your statements. One thing I will add is that the technology already exists. But like you mentioned it is really expensive and unaffordable for most people.
Would it be possible to set up a phone call? I am based in The Netherlands and the technology is much further than in the U.S. or Canada. It also has the backing of the government so that has definitely helped in speeding things up. Hopefully we can connect and maybe even collaborate in making a prototype home.
Thank you again for the video.
Hey Bob. Can I aks what the name of your company is. I want to build my own home and am looking into net zero. But I cannot find that much in the Netherlands that will really help. I have some ideas but still.
Alvast bedankt
One interesting thing I’ve seen (on RUclips) for cost effective and efficient home building is the T-Stud. It’s an easy way to build a wall that helps prevent heat losses through the wall (via the solid wood) for not a whole lot more than traditional studs with a few other benefits like strength and acoustics. I haven’t looked at the company in a while but last I saw they were working on other similar products.
Hi Jeff, you have already started on a net zero house by making it air tight and adding insulation. I spent some time in Norway when I was working and when I got home I insisted that I wanted triple glazed windows, it was hard to find anyone how could produce the windows but I got what I wanted and at the same time I increased the thickness of my insulation on the inside and outside (I found a product that had 3 inches of foam on a waterproof & airtight system) and everyone thought I was mad. My roof was not in the correct orientation to make solar panels very productive but I have them on my roof anyway and my gas bill for the whole year was under £10:00. I have gas central heating but I have not needed to switch it on at all.
Achieving a net-zero house can be done in many ways. The best way (most expensive) is to build a Passive House which will reduce your energy consumption to as close to zero as today's technology will allow. This can be achieved in a house of any size, you don't have to go down to a tiny home to get net-zero. Creating a passive house or a net-zero house is going to cost a lot more than today's run-of-the-mill code-built house. The owners need to sacrifice something by either:
*Shrinking square footage to reduce heating and cooling requirements - Cheapest route, highest sacrifice for daily living.
*Greatly increasing insulation and air tightness - Expensive, meticulous building practices need to be strictly adhered to, Passive House standard, advanced framing
*Generate a lot of energy - Large solar array, can be ugly and expensive.
It comes down to balancing energy consumption with energy generation. Unfortunately the majority of homes built, over 90% if I had to guess, are energy pigs. They are just not insulated well and they leak a ton of air. So for most houses to get to net zero without huge renovation is going to mean increasing generation as much as possible, which is wasteful.
This topic is so vitally important, thanks for starting to address it. For those who think its a good idea, I'd like to know how you would go about doing it. I welcome you to continue that research. Apparently the engineeing has been there since the 80s. But how to practically add the insulation and adjust the glazing ratios etc to get it done? This is where you can make a huge difference because you are one of the best diy information sources going right now.
1. Heat pump
2. Atmospheric water generater
3. Solar panels
4. Increased insulation
5. Tankless water heater
6. Rain water harvesting
7. Compost toilet
8. Biogas digester
9. Small home wind turbines
10. Smaller home
11. Tesla power walls (powr strage
We could start an online list and create an open source net zero home. Aiming to keep it between 50k - 100k
Jeff has mentioned living in a van a few times now. I think he's trying to tell us something.
At least he's not advocating living in a van down by the river...
@@NavyCopMA1 Awesome reference.... We miss you, Chris!
Thank you! Lol! Yes, we definitely do miss him...
Thinking about my kids. LOL
Home RenoVision DIY living in a well-fitted van is a highly valid choice for uni students. When I think what my life would have been like as a youngster moving away from my parents for the first time if I hadn't had to pay rent and if I'd had a home *I could take to parties with me, and not have to wait until the next morning to get public transport home* - it's mindblowing how much better everything would have been. At least half of the bad choices I made in my late teens and early twenties were triggered by being broke and either homeless or unable to afford good food because I was paying rent out of a student allowance.
I live in Florida and I am constantly amazed by how few people use solar here...🤔
I think this is a great conversation, I know I watch alot of Matt Risingers show, and goes wayy deep into passive house and net zero home standards, and I don't think its as complicated as people make it out to be. I believe this is all hinged on how well a house is insulated and sealed. Now the amount of insulation needed depends heavily on your climate zone, so gettin a texas house to net zero standards is probably wayy less energy intensive than heating a house up in Canada. The amount of energy required to maintain room temp in a house that is properly air sealed goes wayy down so you can get away with less tonnage on your AC system. I recently bought a house that was built in 1962(1800 sq/ft), although it meets code(in Washington State), I'm still interested in seeing if pulling the siding, and if required re-sheathing and taping all the seems/flashing/windows etc, then adding external insulation(and an air exchanger) would bring a house closer to that standard, at least make it so that a 10-15kw solar array would provide the heating requirements and standard living. I just watched a video on Jerryrigseverything that installed a DIY solar system and it cost roughly half of what a installed system would...I'm not saying they are not big projects, but definitely in the realm of do it your selfers. I'd be keen on seeing content of taking an older house, and bringing it up to passive/net zero standards as best as possible. I think its much easier to build this standard into new housing, but if one could renovate a house to those standards, and save on cost by doing yourself..I think thats a worthwhile endeavor. Thanks!!
We already have induction ovens, we call them microwave ovens. But they operate on the same principle as induction, but rather than heating the pan, they heat the food directly.
Curious what your thoughts are on geothermal HVAC. Interesting to see it starting in New York State in US.
Hey Jeff, I know we don't know each other but you've been teaching me how to do so many things around my house that I felt like I've known you for awhile now. Thank you and I hope you and your family are well during this time.
A lot of people talk about net zero but really the issue is the carbon foot print of the life cycle of the house. That includes building, running, maintaining, and demolishing the house. Building a passive house or any house can be carbon intensive or it could be carbon sink. It depends on the design and construction methods. If you take energy off a clean grid, the running energy may not be as critical as one might think. So it is far more complex than blinding going after net zero or a passive house. A passive house or net zero house may have a much larger carbon foot print than a more typical house that uses materials that are a carbon sink that is run on a cleaner grid.
I'm glad to see that common sense is not totally dead. I find your channel content helpful and enjoyable.
IMO, government doesn't really do anything well or efficiently. You said that if private industry creates (will create) technology that's unaffordable, I think the thing you maybe overlook is if there is no ROI, private industry is not interested in donating time and money to research unaffordable technology. The goal is for industry to create affordable technology (make a profit). Thank you for the discussion!
My 2 cents on that topic as I am in the process of building a country house and the topic is really interesting -
The Question needs to be dissected based on the formula of Net 0:
Energy Intake = Energy Consumed - Energy Produced
Two main things: 1 Natural Gas is one of the best cheapest ways to heat our homes in the North so I don't know why we would get rid of it when we can simply reduce the amount we use through new technology over time. 2. The Free market it is what will drive innovation, not taxpayer dollars, when the patients expire they will be reproduced over & over and over again and drive the cost down.
I think the driving force of change will come from companies that say you are paying X per year doing it the old way, doing it our way can say you X money over Y years. Just looking at Lighting technology, LED lights use SO much less electricity, it's not even a question of the environment its wow these lights save me a ton of money & are bright. Market based solutions at reducing cost and you can never go wrong.
Now if my city would give me my own Home Owners tax money back if I put up solar panels, sure I would use my own money to reduce my energy cost. But, I don't want my taxes going up.
Geothermal looks great though if it can be done in a person's area.
Yes! Agreed Tara! Thanks for this!
As a Net Zero home owner with an electric car, it is simply a lack of vision. The tech is there, just communicate how one can do it. And watch their eyes open up to the possibility. Love the induction stove top.
The bottom line is it's a fun challenge. I got a crappy old condo and cut my annual energy usage in half so far. I started to save money but I'm cozier in the winter and cooler in the summer. I didn't expect to enjoy it this much.
Great job!
Out of curiosity Chris, what changes have you made? Most videos out there deal with houses and not condos.
"This Old House" recently did a net zero project. Somewhere in one of their narratives they casually stated that making a net zero house would raise the cost of the home about *thirty percent* over a non-net zero house. To answer the question, no, most "regular folks" can't afford thirty percent more for a house payment.
Also keep in mind that the people that "This Old House" does projects for these days are venture capitalists, bankers, and doctors; basically *very affluent* people. By no stretch of the imagination, are they "regular folks. TOH's projects have lost relevance for regular folks, and have become simply vicarious viewing.
Jeff I don't even own a house and I watch your channel all the time.
The show This Old House just did a net zero renovation for some rich picky guy in Rhode Island (not Canada cold but quite cold). I can't even imagine how much that house renovation costs they even taped into geothermal to heat and cool the house, lots of cool things to see on that house.
Thanks for talking about this, even if it takes you a little out of your comfort zone! I don't think this is a political topic -- we're talking about what works, what doesn't, and what we need to get there. I think the tech is also already there, even if it is still pricey. There are now Net Zero homes that are quite large, at least in the US. That is, I wouldn't call them an "every man/woman" home ... more expensive to build than the costs they offset, but that's anything with new technology, and I appreciate that they're putting the money in now so we learn more. What we really need are systems that are "set to go" rather than what are typically many layers upon other layers to try to reach net zero. Even Zip Systems, in all their glory, are just one layer of several to get to net zero. Until we get it down to a simpler system, costs will remain unreasonably high for the typical person.
I live in southern Ontario (canada), and actually looking at building in a year or two, net-zero is actually one of my goals I'd like to try and achieve... I already drive an electric vehicle 95% of the time and love not having to rely completely on fluctuating gas prices but that's a whole topic all together... We actually have a netzero older retroffited house in our area, so it is possible... I'm fortunate enough to already have a plot of land available for my new build and considering the house prices these days, I think I can build a netzero, future proof house for the same price as a "cookie cutter" style typical new built houses these days,... Here's my "money is no object" pipe dream.... Since I have a large and wide piece of land available, building a single floor ranch, (I know, cheaper to build up than wide) but my goal is to achieve maximum roof dimensions for solar, keeping my eye out on Tesla's new V3 of their solar roofs, keeping roof lines as simple as possible, nothing fancy (it will be a boring looking house), At the very least, a metal roof with solar panels if not a Tesla Solar roof. Next on the list is geothermal, again,... I have the land, I can do horizontal trenching rather than vertical drilling making it a cheaper installation, keeping the cost a little more reasonable... I've seen systems supporting both in floor heating (for basement) and forced air for main floor, so looking at that option... The next thing I'm carefully looking at developments on is Vehicle to Grid, apparently my electric car (Nissan Leaf) can already do that with a CHADEMO connector, Tesla is rumoured to have that capability built in as well more information on this might be revealed on their upcoming "battery day"... If that is the case, with my next vehicle purchase one vehicle will likely be a storage battery on wheels (instead of a powerwall)... again... waiting on technology advancements and announcements to get there... I do believe this is the future, and we're well on our way there... I know you didn't want to get political, but unfortunately our power generation is still controlled by the government... The way it is now, I believe we have a limit on how much solar generation we can do... I don't understand why, If I have the surface area to produce more solar, I should be allowed to... This I believe is political issue, the energy company that's tied to the government still wants to make their money and needs to be addressed, let me know if there's other reasons that may not be political, safety? fire hazards?... I really do think an efficient house design, with geothermal and solar are key components... And if the Tesla rumours are true with PVP, V2G and other advancements come on the market, we're looking at this as a "New Normal" within 5 years. (If you have read up to here,... in a typical Canadian fashion, I'm sorry..., this has been lengthy...)
Thanks,
Good discussion Jeff and that might be the most important thing. If people are talking about it, they are thinking about it. As others have said net zero is producing as much as you use in a year. I don't think you need to produce on site. I would think shares in a solar farm would count if you can't have the solar you need at your house. As for heat in the winter geothermal is a good source. I'm just south of you in NY and my geothermal system heats our new 1900 sqft house for about a dollar a day in the winter. We don't walk around in shorts either (back to the selfish meme) 65 degrees works for us.
I've no idea what post WWII Canada was like, but where I grew up in the U.S.A. our parents all had homes a third or less of the size of today's homes. 7 people in a 1050 sq ft house in my family's case. So step 1 is to reduce the size of the heated area.
You Canadians can't really rely on solar, but in Virginia, I use 13.5KwH per day over the winter (and that's with the heat pump) and have roof space for a 20KW solar system. I'd need 80KwH of storage to make it through a week of bad weather, and charge an electric car. So my solar system is probably a $50K system.
On a little more than an acre, I have a septic system, and have room to put in a well, but the county doesn't issue permits if you can connect to county water. I do have enough land for either a ground loop or well for a geothermal system.
Retrofitting my existing home to get close to a net zero home is prohibitive. It would honestly be better to knock down and build from scratch.
In short, I can do some things to economize an existing house, but a true net zero single family home needs to be built small, in the sunbelt, on at least an acre of land, and from the ground up with energy efficiency taking priority over all else.
Super insulation is great, but moisture has to be addressed inside the home. Here in Illinois, the power companies have upper hand. You can bank your extra solar power but you still have an electric bill. And the rates are subpar.
Last year, This Old House did a net-zero renovation. I haven't seen all the episodes for it, but it seemed an interesting thought experiment. I call it a thought experiment, because outside of a very few, who can afford to have the sheer amount of insulation put on their house to reduce the transfer. This house had on it's roof the sheathing, a waterproofing layer, another layer of sheathing, 5 inches of mineral wool, a third layer of sheathing, a second waterproofing layer, then the shingles. And that's just the outside. On the inside of the roof they went with 2 inches of closed-cell foam insulation and 7.5 inches of open-cell foam. Total R value of 65. The exterior of the house also had special foam insulation backed sheathing. Looked like the whole house could probably be heated by a 40 watt light bulb.
I am not against this, don't get me wrong. But right now, unless you are pulling in half a million or more, this level of innovation is a pipe dream. :(
Small things, like the induction cooker, hybrid water heaters {which I want to get when my current heater goes), ways to seal air (heat) loss, etc., those are the ways to go.
Jeff, for furnaces we don't really need any induction technologies. Heater made of nichrome wire is all you really need for a furnace. It's 100% efficient in converting electricity into heat. The only way to be more efficient in heating is to turn towards heat pumps - they are more than 100% efficient (no superunity magic here, though) because they don't create heat energy, but rather move energy into the house from the outside. Still, heat pump is quite an energy guzzler, so I don't see it being powered by a solar panel, especially on a cold cloudy day when you need this heating.
Very well said Jeff. Only BIG problem: the resources for solar panels and batteries and all the crap you need to be net-zero is higher than just frakking for clean-burning natural gas. And when those panels and batteries get used up, the toxic mess left behind can't just go into a regular landfill. It probably gets dumped into the ocean, to be honest.
At least with frakking, the geologists who work for those companies usually look for places to do the least amount of damage. Even in places like Alaska, you don't even have to frak. The fissures are already there and it comes out of people's kitchen taps! Natural gas is and will be the best way to go. If someone has the money and can do the net-zero lifestyle, more power to them. I like the comfort and affordability of natural gas.
I appreciate hearing your views on the subject. That cooktop looks amazing by the way.
100% false statement.
@@gemada99 Such a compelling argument. I've changed my mind on the facts I posted. You're a great debater. Thanks for offering nothing to the conversation.
@@timcotrell9753 solar panels pay back their full carbon life cycle in under a year and are recycled, and batteries are also recycled. Fossil gas on the other hand, just spews methane into the atmosphere forever (Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is a strong greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame), and fracking contaminates drinking water.Thanks for playing though.
@@gemada99 Recycled? Ha! Is that why we were in Afghanistan for 20 years? Lithium recycling? My batteries say wrap in newspaper and discard them in the trash. I haven't found anywhere that recycles toxic waste. Wake up. All this green energy nonsense is just that. Nonsense. Quit drinking the kool aid with your paper straw that sticks to your lips and uses more energy to make than a plastic straw. Green energy is A LIE. Read about it from an independent news source. Open your eyes. Your being deceived.
@@timcotrell9753 NREL, Lazard LCOE, IEA, RMI, the list of unbiased sources goes on and on. We've been recycling $150 car batteries for 40 years, so why wouldn't we be recycling much more expensive lithium batteries (not that we'll need to recycle lithium car batteries for at least 20 years since they are new on the market and will easily last that long in a car and then repurposed as stationary storage). Solar panels also last 30 years or, but recycling facilities are already available in most civilized countries for both solar panels and lithium ion batteries. How's that gasoline/diesel/methane recycling project going? Oh that's right, I forgot that fossil fuel recycling is called "melting the ice caps". You can tilt at windmills all you want, but renewables are now winning out on economics alone. Dino-juice days are numbered.
You are absolutely right. "Net Zero" technology is years away. Good concept, but it's a future mindset. Something we can all think about. In the mean time, we can build smarter with the technology we have now, and add on technologies as they become available (and hopefully affordable).
My power company does a free audit once every year to every 5 years to let u know where ur spending the most and how u can improve it...I told these guys I'm working toward an electric tankless water heater and a rocket mass heater to completely remove natural gas from my home and they flat out told me that it was a bad idea
I'm working toward buying a piece of property and living as off grid as possible
Interested to see how the electric tankless works out. we only have gas tankless here.
Net zero and passive house designs are very realistic for thoughtful new builds. The challenge is moving the existing stock of housing in that direction through retrofitting. PV, energy storage and increasingly efficient appliances and devices will likely lead the way. And in truth, even if retrofits don't get to net zero, moves in that direction in the retrofit/rehab market can only be for the good.
Solar Voltaic Paint - it has 1.33w per 25cm2 of painted space. Can face light, not just south facing. Entire house, roof, garages, out buildings can be painted. 💥🌝
I have multi ideas read. Collect all rain for water with affordable filters. Also no more grass systhethic grass only. Only newest materials. Solar heater for energy along with wind or geothermal. Hemp can be used for everything. Wireless appliances think new cell chargers or car chargers.
Tesla will also help out alot battery storage n solar roofs
Hey Jeff, love all your videos. You are the go to for our 6 months of remodeling so far! I'm about to wall paper and make custom closet thanks to your video. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW TO WALLPAPER OUTSIDE CORNERS? DO YOU JUST LINE UP?
@ hone renovision diy
The best way to net zero is to build with passive house standards, PHIUS in the US and PHI everywhere else. Reduce the biggest loads in the house, heating and cooling, and your mechanicals are all efficient electric. Which means your PV array is much smaller. The cost to build that way is about 5-10% more than code, but I've seen some projects come in with no extra cost.
I love passive houses. They always make them and forget 1 important thing. They never make them smaller. Who decided that we need 2000 sq ft in order to maintain sanity?
@@HomeRenoVisionDIY totally agree. The problem is the huge majority of people who even look into building to passive house are upper middle class and richer and they still need to keep up appearances.
There are advantages of being off the grid. However it should be understood everything has a cost and nothing is free. What do you think will happen if Canadians are told they can no longer burn wood. Did people realize the hazardous materials produced in making solar cells and lithium ion batteries? Again there is a cost. You have a point.
I'm hoping to eventually renovate my 1929 farm house in the city to be close to NetZero, it's going to be a bear of a project... I expect that to achieve it the house will have to be stripped back to the studs, resheathed to eliminate thermal bridging and have the roof line reoreinted from an E/W gable to a South facing ramp for max solar. Fun stuff 😄
That's going to be a challenge; might not be economically feasible to hit net zero right now but I'm sure you can make a major change and still get good value. I've found that the toughest part of planning upgrades on older homes is dealing with the foundation; it either needs to be upgraded to the same standard as the floors above or isolated from the rest of the house (difficult if there's infrastructure down there, eg: hot water tanks & pipes)
Totally doable NOW. This is here NOW. 4 season climate makes it more difficult but possible as of NOW. Kinda spendy, as a generational investment something your family keeps after you pass It's it's a value. As of now but even in Alaska and here in the Northern Rockey Mt we have people living off grid/ producing as much energy as they consume.
Haha yeah check out the Marisk House which is in Alaska somewhere, built in 2011 and I think still holds a record for air tightness. This design definitely makes some sacrifices... but it's an older example that was trying to prove a point.
The technology is already here. I'm a passive certified builder in Ontario and I can tell you it's on the designers and builders. They are building to such a low quality and have no clue about "passive or netzero" homes when the topic comes up. And as for designers, they allow owners to design what ever fancy home they like without educating them on the repercussions intricate detailing. Like I said, it's not a technology problem, it's an education problem. If you're ever near Cornwall, Ontario, you're more than welcome on site and I can walk you through the details of what a standard should be in this climate!
You are correct with the industry wanting to get paid. What is the cost of that stove. Which I love the stove by the way. I also priced out the most efficient shower system to conserve water as I am using rain water - $500.00. These are all great produces, but the fact is I can not afford a $500.00 shower head. I do what I can and accept what I can not change on my level.
The way to move to net zero in my opinion is as follows
a. Insulate your home to a lot better than code requirements
b.The envelope of the home should be as air tight as possible
c. Use heat exchange air filtration to get fresh clean but warm air into the home
d. Make use of solar gain orientate the home to face south with large windows and a concrete slab floor to store the free energy from the sun.
d1. Create Shading overhangs to protect the home in the night of summer.
d2. Find a high efficiency heat and cooling source (air source /ground source heat pump)
e. Reduce the usage of electricity by using energy efficient appliances.
f. Fit a solar array and battery storage that is bigger than your needs
g. Use excess energy production to heat hot water (alsoreuse wasted heat energy)
h. Drive an electric vehicle (in the future there will be vehicle to grid connections so you can power your house with your car)
i. Plan ahead technology is changing all the time.
When you talked about government funding of of scientific research I was like, "yes go Jeff!! ". This is so important on so many different levels. Not just climate science.
yea, government funding of research... no problem there.
I like light tubes and geothermal tricks, too! Thanks, Jeff! This is always a welcome topic!
Light tubes are not a sustainable solution. Sure, you don't need to turn on those 13 Watt light bulbs... but now you have a tube that goes straight through your insulation to the outdoors
@@MacGyverCanada Yes, agreed, similar to the effect of glass windows. And the best 'filler' for light tubes, fiber optic cable (not DIY), is still expensive. I do like the way that light levels mimic the outdoors when they're not covered in snow. And basements, when the power is out, could benefit. At least they're not as bad as some fireplace chimneys if there aren't too many tubes placed. Most of my thinking is stuck in power outage situation avoidance, perhaps not an issue with a self-powered home.
It's totally 100% possible to build a net zero home and it actually saves you money in the medium to long term, it makes sense not just for the environment, but for your pocket also
If we get to where people like us install our own solar systems, it is very affordable and pay off in only a few years. I had solar panels installed and mine will pay for themselves in 15 years or so. I did get a 30% tax credit. Most of the expense was labor of course. Without the labor cost it would payoff in more like 5 years.
When I had it installed I had never even seen a solar system on a house up close. After seeing it and watching it get installed, I see it is really an easy project.
What is the best insulation to get. I think this is where you should start!
If you have access to free wood and you can improve your envelop to current standards, it fairly easy to heat with a wood stove. I am still waiting for a solar roof product that will replace some of the asphalt shingles. The induction stove, heat-pump water heater / air conditioner / clothes driers are all promising technologies. I think that many current houses have too many issues and it may be more cost effective to move.
Lets be honest, the only reason people want net-zero homes is to save money.
Yep, thats the only way I would do it....climate change pppfffffttttt!!!!!!!!
I think w e have recently witnessed the effect of lower emissions globally. To deny that we are not enjoying the clean air would be ostrich like. I also feel like a real solution has to be affordable so what we are being offered now just isn't the trick.
Taxing carbon emissions is likely to prompt a very rapid consensus on and interest in the most effective and least expensive ways to save energy. Right now "What happens if fuel becomes scarce/costly" is just a distant possibility in most homeowners' heads.
I see it as a spectrum where Net-Zero is in the middle. We've been deeply net-negative throughout history (using coal, oil, natural gas, wood) and need to move towards Net-Zero or Net-positive eventually over time. I think the awareness is now there, but it's still will take time to make it affordable to actually do it widespread.
I have to disagree. You can build a family sized net zero ready house today with existing technology. For a reasonable cost. We are currently doing it right now. It just takes contractors with an understanding of building science, planning, investing in the building envelope and systems for the house and a willingness to pay attention to the air leakage details. 1800 sq ft home with an air tightness of 0.6 ACH50 is easily possible. How much power do you need? Again with planning, not very much.
Holy Cow, thank you for the honest answer!
You bet!
Thanks for the interesting topic. I agree, todays homeowners (me included) are heavily invested in a comfortable lifestyle. Small steps to improve efficiencies are the best way to go, bite size chunks. Remember how well the trades embraced metric in Canada....?
This is a great question. It is really expensive to build a net zero house. And once you move you rarely get compensated for your costs.
Don't move... Build a life in ONE place, build multi-generational homes. Build your home to last 300 years or more.
That is a concept that the Europeans have us beat at for sure. Cheers!
Always love your videos sir...
But one technology you havent mentioned here to help with heating in Canada is geothermal... That works like a charm. Ive litterally split my electric bill in half since i got it installed and that is with my entire family being inside the house for a full year thanks to Covid. Granted, its not cheap but it does work and makes financial sense in the long run
Many net-zero building methods can improve building efficiency and quality with out the goal of achieving net-zero. So an all or nothing mindset can be limiting. Let's talk about opportunities to implement net-zero concepts during renovations. Most content on net-zero is for new construction.
ALL new construction should be built for 100-500 year structures with design prioritized toward ease of tech upgrades in renovation.
totally agree. that is why wood is a great option.
@@ClayAutery Sounds like a great idea. The problem is affordability. Where I am at - Vancouver, BC - there is already a great shortage of affordable living. New construction of the type you are thinking of, would increase the cost; and not by an insignificant percentage. Add to that the SEVERE shortage of qualified techs to build these new houses ... not gonna happen for a while.
So I've read about new construction, low demand equals few crews with experience building first time success achieving passive rating.
Net zero in my opinion is that you produce as much as you consume on average over the course of a year for example.
Yes in Canada winter you will use more energy, but if you can produce enough in the summer to offset, you could still be considered net zero.
I just want to add something for the viewers. This video is from the perspective of someone in Canada. In places like California, where there is lots of sun, net zero energy homes are extremely doable. Starting in 2020, all new residential builds (in California) must be net zero energy by law and, by 2030, all commercial builds must be net zero energy.
wind turbines, there is a local manufacturer that supplies 90% of its energy use using wind turbines. just a suggestion but take a look at something called an earth ship house. there is one in Canada. part of zero net is in construction materials. a straw bale house has r 19 insulation can be built any size.. 350 sq. feet to 2000 sq feet they are labor intensive to build however. sort of a trade off energy saving/ higher cost to build in-less you have friends and family willing to help coat it in mud/ stucco. take a look at rocket mass heaters as well it operates on a small amount of wood. fired once usually in the coldest weather every other day. while not in Canada as far as i am aware but i know of several used in the states of Oregon, and Montana
Yes! So glad this is future content. Another reason to follow the channel.
It's a fun convo to have but realistically in Canada its a huge challenge.....If you combine "super" insulation, Geothermal (heating) and solar you can come close to a net zero home but solar alone usually wont cut it and in some provinces like Quebec your limited to a maximum amount of power you can actually legally produce and power is so cheap @0.05c kw/h it doesn't even make sense to buy solar power it would take 20yrs just to recup the cost (and panels are "efficient" for about 20yrs....) even if you get overstock panels from places like Wholesalesolar. I am an electrician by trade and im starting to look into building my own house with solar, UPS and a backup generator but more for my personal fun then actual necessity or making a difference...
In Quebec the electricity is already cheap & renewable (hydroelectric) so I wouldn't push anyone in that province toward solar PV. Emissions reduction makes more sense there. Cheap power does make electric vehicles look quite attractive!
I haven't read all of the comments, but I didn't see anything related to smart technology and feedback loops. As home tech becomes smarter and learns or is programmed with our routines the less that it needs to use in a full 24-hour cycle. There's already a lot of technology that does this, but it's not quite ubiquitous.
Additionally, as technology progresses to a point to provide us feedback on our usage we, as a society, will become more aware of our usage and our waste. Seeing that you used 1000kWh last month is much different than seeing it broken down and realizing that TV that stays on all day is using 250 of those kWh (exaggeration, but you get my point).
And lastly, battery technology was barely mentioned but I think that will be the crux of our net zero (as it was defined in the video) home. If you can store all of the energy that you'll need for 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month(?!) then you truly don't need the grid (unless you live in Norway during the Winter).
I also think a lot could be said for technologies that are already on the market though probably not as widely used in North America. Things such as hydronic (radiant) floor heating, heat exchangers/heat pumps. Automatic blinds, automatic lights, tankless water heaters... the list goes on. Each of these may not mean much in terms of savings on their own but combined they provide a significant reduction in our ecological footprint.
Now only if the barrier for entry for most of these wasn't so high.
Saw an ad for a "tree" that used cupped "leaves" to harness wind power for personal property. It was about 5k. Forget where I saw it but looked so cool, lol
interesting!
I looked up the tech again to refresh my memory. Turns out the product was just hype, and the output was actually much less than advertised. One would need 22 of them to net zero a house. 🤣
I wonder if the biggest barrier for net-zero or passive house to be widely adopted is just to get people collectively to think about a longer time scale. If people are moving on average every 7 years or so, it doesn't make sense to pay a premium for efficiency that pays back in 10 years or 15 or 20. But if we look at the life of a well built house being 100-300+ years, that 10-20 year initial payback period is miniscule in comparison. So how to incentivize builders/buyers to make that investment, even if the payoff will only be spread out through successive generations?
I face a similar issue as a renter right now -- I'd love to get solar, but I won't be living here long enough for it to pay back in time before I move away.
I don't understand the 500 sqft limitation Jeff mentioned. Matt Risinger and some guest builders he has on his channel make much bigger homes than that to passive house standards. If anything, shouldn't efficiency go up with the volume of the building, as internal volume to external surface area ratio goes up?
I also would encourage more talk about the benefits to quality of life with things like HRV systems and a well sealed, well insulated home. It is not a compromise, it is a big boost in comfort, especially for allergy sufferers. An air tight house with constant hepa filtered fresh air circulating in is a dream come true... A house that is a perfect comfortable temp no matter what corner you're in or if you're near a big window, no matter the time of year... lovely!
For those of us starting a family and wanting to buy our first home, what is the best option to obtaining an energy efficient house? We are moving to northern Ontario where homes are cheaper, should we renovate or build ?
if efficiency is your top priority then build . old houses were not designed for efficiency.
How about the combination of an ICF built home and geothermal/solar/heat stove
Old Carepntry teacher in school used ICF a lot. Him and his dad built homes in Alberta for themselves. They use one of the ultra efficient wood stoves that was connected to his infloor heating and he only used a few dollars a year in extra heating costs since ICF has such great insulation value and pretty easy to do. I have looked more into geothermal( with ICF) as it seems viable in much of Canada especially in the West. Add solar for power usage. Just some thoughts.
Looking forward to the series.
net zero in the great white north is next to impossible. I live in the middle of Arizona and am net zero (by your definition) my solar panels generate more than we use. the big myth about it all is that you pay for the power, you then sell power to the utility company for less than they charge so 1 kw from them is 50% more than 1 kw we make. this takes our monthly bill from 250 to 100 but not to zero. If I bought a 15000 buck battery system every 5 to 10 years and went off grid (first I would be living in a home that is not up to par for my county building department) and then I would have hundreds of lbs of toxic heavy metal to dispose of.
Financial incentives will need to be in place... increased power rates for no solar or wind power equipped homes, and then net metering (equal price regardless of which way the meter spins). Natural gas use would have to be offset by electric generation. The building codes would need to change to increase the insulation and decrease the air leakage in our homes.
Bottom line for me is that until countries that want this standards are willing to pay 2000% of their GDP to pay for this stuff (particularly in cold climates) to retrofit.
Can not agree more and have been saying the same thing here in Australia. Keep these videos going and see in the next video.
I'd love to be able to go net zero, but the execution of that for most people is beyond our pocket books for even a lot of the smaller technologies. I am renovating to all LED lighting. I use a Nest thermostat to heat during the winter so I can schedule out how and when the furnace comes on. As I am renovating I am adding insulation and updating the drywall. To be able to improve my water supply I am looking at a full repipe to better plumbing materials or Pex and that is a good couple of thousand with the age of the house and the addition of some pieces required by code that I am not comfortable adding in at this point (plumbing is not a strong area for me). This includes updating my water heater. In order to be able to ensure that I can run some of these technologies I need to upgrade my electrical supply, but in our area any new or upgraded electrical drops have to be buried and so I am looking at $7k to $10k to run from the pole, underneath a county road and up to the house, replace the meter back and run a line to the breaker panel. Four of my windows need to be replaced but its an older house so replacements are not a normal size and will need to be custom. I have excellent exposure to the sun with the roof at a southern slant, but unless I can buy the panels outright, I am locked into a contract with a solar panel company and I am not sure if ANY of them are above board after doing a lot of research. Plus the fact that the current technology doesn't allow maintaining decent electrical generation if even a small portion of the panels are blocked by clouds or shade (it's amazing the percentage of drop in generation that occurs when even 5% of the cells are blocked or in shade.) But I am ranting in hopes that some of these things change and become usable...
I think a lot of the fear around renovating for energy savings is that we are unsure if the tech will hold its value or need to be replaced in 5 years. That is a huge cost !
Solar thermal should be a part of the equation when considering net zero in cold climates.
Exciting! Nice to see you talking about this. I would love to live off grid.
You and me both!
ThisOldHouse did a whole series a few years back where they built a net zero house in Rhode Island. It was expensive but definitely doable even in a cold climate. As time goes on, the technologies will become cheaper enabling more and more people to afford it.
My problem is primarily with our housing market making it unafordable as it is.
Induction technology isn't going to help heat our homes more efficiently. Electric heat is already 100% efficient: for every one kilowatt of heat you put into your electric furnace or electric baseboards or electric water heater, you pay for one kilowatt of electricity. However, it's not a cheap way to heat your house. Plus, induction energy (which is essentially radio waves) needs metal to couple to and get hot. It doesn't heat up things like air or granite. As for net-zero homes, you can have as large a house as you want, as long as it is insulated enough, and you have some way to replace the heat it loses, either with solar thermal or solar electricity or wood or geothermal or, more likely, a combination of those things. And you don't need ten acres of solar cells to power a normal-sized house. But what you DO need is enough batteries for when the sun isn't shining, and that is where the real issue lies. Batteries are still too expensive and don't last long enough to be practical for everyone to go out and buy a room full of them. But that is changing, and sometime in the next ten or twenty years, battery technology should catch up to solar electric technology to provide a viable path for affordable net-zero homes. Finally, solar cells are not going to be four times more efficient in the near future. Yearly gains in efficiency are more like 0.5 to 1%. Certainly, there are ways to make 60% efficient solar cells (20% is common today), but they are very, very, very expensive, and not anywhere ready for prime time.
Once somebody invents a highly efficient Air Conditioning system the move to Net Zero will be much easier. AC uses the most energy in a home by far, but yes the move to Net Zero in both residential and commercial is crucial. I think legislation (if any) should gradually increase along with tech so maybe all new construction should be Net 30%, then maybe in 5-10 years Net 50%, and so on until all new commercial and residential structures are built to Net Zero standards.
If you build a really air tight and insulated house then you can really downscale your A/C system. It's amazing the difference in heating/cooling a house built today vs a house built in the 70's or older.
I think increased building codes could really help. Increase air tightness standards, increase effective insulation standards, etc. are a good way forward. Most builders just go with the cheapest options to meet requirements and raising those will help the average house be closer to being energy efficient.
My grandparents never had a/c. Not necessity
Canadian provinces will likely copy the BC Step Code:
energystepcode.ca/
I guess that comes back to what are we willing to do without to get there.
I think competition between several private companies is the only hope to get reasonable pricing... I am sure it will be many years of price gouging but eventually they may get there... counting on the government to do anything to expedite the process is probably futile
I appreciate that idea, however in Ontario we spent over 30 billion dollars on old solar and wind that is almost useless. I wonder where we would be if they funded private companies to do research??????
Net zero doesn't mean off grid. It just means that over the course of a year the home creates as much energy as it consumes. So you create excess in the summer and sell to grid, and import from grid in the winter when your solar is producing less. There are many net zero homes with no gas connections being built in Alberta and they cost about 7-10% more than a conventional home, and they aren't small either. So the technology is here and is affordable right now. Just ease up on the kitchen upgrades and you have it covered ;) No future tech is required.
Perhaps you could build a experimental basis model tiny house, monitoring it's performance throughout the years in different weather conditions? Having easy change different external insulation materials, heating, cooling, air exchange systems. Solar heated stone mass wall, and other ideas to add later on in the experiment.
We need to insulate like crazy, reduce thermal bridging as much as possible, and then we can select smaller hearing and cooling systems. We can already get off natural gas with heat pumps. Then make up the remainder with renewables (solar) and battery storage for when the sun's not shining.
The hole world already uses air conditioning too much. The habits are easier to change than the insulation.
@@HomeRenoVisionDIY Agreed, but in Canada, we are heating dominant. Insulation needs to increase to reduce heating load, which is the single largest end use of energy by far. By using heat pumps with high COP and heat recovery, we can really put a dent in this. Signed, a passionate engineer and energy manager.
I agree that these healthy for us and our planet technologies need push from us and our government! We need this sooner than later. Now with Canada considering green and net-zero technology is the time to ACT!
Realistic discussion! Good Job!
Most people in that new trend are actually forced into it because housing have gone so expensive in North America, particularly Canada. I mean, I have a decent salary and the idea of buying a home is more terrifying than COVID-19. I cannot imagine people who make 45K here in Canada, how are they going to pay for a home? Couples who make around 80K together are roasted, most of their income would be spent in a mortgage. That is why we see so many people trying to get out of rent and reducing because housing is freaking expensive not because people are shifting status quo. The thing is that we humans are awesome adapting and laying to ourselves.
Very good video, really appreciate the cost perspective. As we see house's that are "net zero" but they are either tiny or they are million dollar projects, not ideal for the way the average build goes.
Not true you can do it on the cheep! People near me have been living off grid for a long time out of necessity. The future is NOW. Yes you see big millionaire mcmansion places like this in magazines but where I live in Idaho there are people who live in 3 bedroom 2 bath houses that run off solar and and heat their homes with trees they grow. People who live off solar and augment power by LP only during the winter who would be able to sell surplus electricity during the summer if they were grid connected. Cost prohibits retrofitting old houses but for new constitution it's a thing.
Well said and explained.
Amazing video like usual
Thank you so much 😀
If more infrastructure (maintenance of water, sewer, gas, electric systems and supply lines) was owned and maintained by the government, this would be much more feasible to implement. By this, I'm talking about gov't sponsored public works in expanding wind turbine energy production (think how much space is unused in Hamilton, ON for ex) and solar energy production. I do hope this happens, though.