Articles in the "Beyond Fossil Fuels" series in the NY Times examines innovative attempts to reduce the world's dependence on coal, oil and other carbon-intensive fuels, and the challenges faced. This particular article discusses the building of passive homes, which often use up to 90 percent less heating and cooling energy than similar homes built to local code. Although they are more expensive to build than regular homes, they later save homeowners an a lot of money with much lower energy and electric bills. They have no furnace but simply have great insulation, sometimes with people being the only source needed to heat the entire house and heated floors in the bathroom; they can be up to 80 percent more energy efficient than regular homes. Although there are only 13 in the United States to date, it is estimated that there will be about 300 by the end of this year. I think most people wouldn't want to build a passive home because of the extra cost, but in the end it would probably end up balancing out as energy bills would be dramatically lower, and it would be greatly benefiting our environment -- so if someone in the market for a new home has the means to do this, why wouldn't they? People seem so scared of change or too lazy to make the effort to simply try something new that they miss great opportunities like this one -- things that could be better in the long run for both the homeowners and the environment! This is the most I've really heard about homes being built like this and I think there should definitely be a bigger market for them. Little steps like this is will help to save and preserve the world we live in today.
(Published September 25, 2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment