Gov’t Built Solar House Falls Apart

[J. T. Toad]

This "maintenance problem" is like, to use the prior analogy, showing up to race @ LeMans with square tires, a Briggs and Straton power plant, and forgetting fuel.

I hate to say, but the application of present day technologies to prove an "everybody should be doing this" mentality is juvenile.

The energy storage (battery) wouldn't have been able to realistically sustain the house from the get go. Let alone the implied environmental concerns for the ENTIRE experiment.

I would hate to be on the space station, submarine, airplane, to find out failure would be written off as a "maintenance" issue.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

This "maintenance problem" is like, to use the prior analogy, showing up to race @ LeMans with square tires, a Briggs and Straton power plant, and forgetting fuel.

I hate to say, but the application of present day technologies to prove an "everybody should be doing this" mentality is juvenile.

The energy storage (battery) wouldn't have been able to realistically sustain the house from the get go. Let alone the implied environmental concerns for the ENTIRE experiment.

I would hate to be on the space station, submarine, airplane, to find out failure would be written off as a "maintenance" issue.

To imply that everyone should be building houses according to a student project is stupid. I don't think that was implied. I had mentioned in an earlier post that decades ago my college was involved with building solar powered cars for a competition. It's been a couple of decades and I don't see us driving solar powered cars, nor would I ever expect that one of the student built solar cars would ever be considered for mass production for everyone. It is just a student built prototype. A fully engineered car meant for production, like a Mustang, Accord, Caravan etc. will have 100's of millions spent on engineering, testing, tooling, documentation, service training, etc. And that is with evolutionary changes. Shifting to newer technologies like hybrids I'm sure costs more.

Likewise, we don't use student projects as actual nuclear submarines, space shuttles or commercial aircraft. And even with 10's of billions spent on engineering safety and redundant systems on nuclear submarines and space shuttles, we have seen nuclear subs sink on their maiden test voyages and lost a couple of shuttles as well. Those are dangerous environments and even the best minds don't devise the perfect foolproof designs to eliminate all risks of the danger.

[J. T. Toad]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

To imply that everyone should be building houses according to a student project is stupid. .

uh... okay, and state legislatures haven't imposed solar requirements on new construction and 'housing efficiency' mandates.

To think a project like this doesn't influence policy and public opinion is naive and beyond stupid.

Read the "purpose" on their own website?
http://www.solar.ltu.edu/3_purpose.php
Just like a U.N. mandate, one would have to be pretty ignorant to not see the agenda behind statements like,

"It is our team's purpose and mission is to demonstrate to the public how small changes in building and design practices can have a global impact."

Personally, I think a Michigan winter without adequate shelter defines a dangerous environment.

[VRM]

JT,
Perhaps you should post the second sentence of the purpose as well as the first:
By following the principles of reduction, sustainability, and energy conservation, our team will construct and display a solar home that benefits the surrounding environment without sacrificing aesthetics or comfort.

Personally, I would think that 'comfort' would include not freezing during Michigan winters.

Steve

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

uh... okay, and state legislatures haven't imposed solar requirements on new construction and 'housing efficiency' mandates.

To think a project like this doesn't influence policy and public opinion is naive and beyond stupid.

Read the "purpose" on their own website?
http://www.solar.ltu.edu/3_purpose.php
Just like a U.N. mandate, one would have to be pretty ignorant to not see the agenda behind statements like,

"It is our team's purpose and mission is to demonstrate to the public how small changes in building and design practices can have a global impact."

Personally, I think a Michigan winter without adequate shelter defines a dangerous environment.

The cost to equip a home for solar power is not really cost effective yet. I just google'd and found a site saying that $20k could buy a decent system for electric generation. Well if my electric bill averages $175 a month, it is going to take a long time to pay for that system assuming that system brings my grid cost of electricity effectively to zero. That looks like 9.5 years. The average length of home ownership is supposedly 7 years in this country. So for the average family installing a system, it would not pay off (unless they move to another solar powered house, which is unlikely).

Perhaps nano-technology applied to solar cells and batteries along with mass production could make this cost effective sometime in the future, but I don't see investing in this at the present time. I suspect that many people doing this now do it are treating it like a "green" status symbol as opposed to being practical.

I do recall that there is some place in Germany where politics insists on solar panels. So there is some danger in having government mandate this stuff.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

This "maintenance problem" is like, to use the prior analogy, showing up to race @ LeMans with square tires, a Briggs and Straton power plant, and forgetting fuel.

I hate to say, but the application of present day technologies to prove an "everybody should be doing this" mentality is juvenile.

The energy storage (battery) wouldn't have been able to realistically sustain the house from the get go. Let alone the implied environmental concerns for the ENTIRE experiment.

I would hate to be on the space station, submarine, airplane, to find out failure would be written off as a "maintenance" issue.

I did not see any comment made about 'everybody should be doing this'.

Ever hear of a pre-flight checklist, or race car scrutineering? And do you have a checklist for performing your house maintenance or going for a drive?
I bet you, like most of us, wing it when it comes to home repairs, driving down to the hardware store, or a variety of other things.

This maintenance failure did not happen during the competition which was in October of 2007. Oh, and somehow the thing survived during the winter of 2007-2008.

It is more appropriate to say that they showed up with proper engine, tyres, gas, and were able to compete. They were beaten by teams with more experience and better resources, though they did manage to get in some fast laps.
Later the new owner forgot to add oil and blew the motor.

Steve