Better photos e.g. here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236995/The-worlds-...
I'm sure it needs plenty of energy, but I'd also bet the glass dome plays its role.
Found it online when was again thinking about how to live through the northern winter.
So much that it has its own power plant, as far as I know.
Environmental issues aside, pretty cool to stand there in swimming trunks when it's -10 outside and there's half a metre of snow against the glass walls though.
Some other favorites:
Baubotanik shapes living tree branches into building facades - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQdcfiLfgUY
Boeing retiree finds meaning inventing micro homes & high speed trikes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdyR2zzjGWw
Extreme transformer home in Hong Kong: Gary Chang's 24 rooms in 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB2-2j9e4co
Earth-cooled, shipping container underground CA home for 30K - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0oFJ2jbkDI
Yokohama narrow tiny house "breathes" & attracts local nature - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mzj63TJYn4
In her videos, you can actually appreciate and immerse yourself in the spaces and the various details. The videos are usually between 10 and 20 minutes and she's not afraid to push it further if there's enough content.
One of my favorite Kirsten Dirksen videos is about Russ Finch using geothermal energy to grow citrus in a greenhouse located near Alliance, NE.
Make it draped with solars which can be pushed out as A-frame or other configs.
And all of this can be done for <$100k
This is my goal.
Check out this crazy transforming mobile tiny house
That was awesome. Thank you for sharing that.
Her popularity in the area probably means that people inform her of relevant things. I believe that's true for a lot of youtubers.
(Edited are to can be for the pedantic people.)
I'm guessing the greenhouse has its own air regulation set up.
We have a MHRV system, but it doesn't account for humidity, so will happily replace all the air inside with dry air from outside (I'm trying to automate it with HASS). Our bathroom fan has a humidity sensor, so doesn't run so much in the winter, but even so the humidity often gets down to 25% rh inside.
So we end up using an aerosol humidifier in the winter, and AC plus a dehumidifier in the summer.
On the other hand, the article talks about their use of composting toilets, recycling water, etc. So they may well not be engaging in the same high levels of water consumption as typical modern families in developed countries.
So I remain unconvinced that a warmer environment automatically and without exception translates to high humidity and mold. (I will confess to being born and raised in the state of Georgia. So my idea of hot and humid is perhaps more extreme than average.)
Edit: If you've never lived in dramatically different living arrangements, you may not realize how much lifestyle choices impact details like heat and humidity.
While getting divorced, my sons and I spent a year sharing a single bedroom at a relative's home. We eventually found that removing all cardboard from all food products not only dropped the temperature by 5 degrees Fahrenheit, it put a stop to roaches being attracted to our room.
Prior to that discovery, our room was frequently too hot and humid. Afterwards, it was vastly more comfortable.
We were shocked by the difference. We initially wondered if we were imagining things, but the room had a thermometer in the window. It consistently made a 5 degree difference.
I was born and raised in Florida. In Miami I lived in a 1950s house designed w/o A/C and with effectively no insulation. In Tallahassee I lived in a 1970s house designed for A/C. But we didn't have money, so we didn't run the A/C unless it was nasty hot.
The differences were remarkable. For the same temperature and humidity, the Miami house was much more comfortable. The vernacular architecture of high ceilings, open crawlspace, and massive amounts of windows meant there was still cooling with any sort of breeze.
With the Tallahassee home, the building was designed to insulate, to keep the A/C power bills low. The windows were small, there wasn't much cross-breeze even with all the windows open.
A/C systems include dehumidifiers, and the building has a vapor barrier to prevent the high outside humidity from coming in.
But w/o the A/C's dehumidifier, standard household activity like breathing, cooking, and showering raise the inside humidity more than the outside, with a slow rate of equilibriation.
We finally kicked on the A/C when, among other things, yes, mold started to form.
Of course 'lifestyle choices impact details like heat and humidity'. So does architecture, as I just pointed out. But btbuildem said 'standard' and 'usually'.
I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. It doesn't matter how I phrase it, people will have a problem with my real point and will have a problem with me giving first-hand testimony from my life.
So I tried to avoid that. It didn't help.
I slept in a tent for nearly six years. I'm back in housing, but I still don't live conventionally. I'm in a hundred year old building with no AC. But I have no upholstered furniture, no mattress, a minimum of bedding.
When other residents are desperately trying to create a cross breeze to cool off their too hot room in summer, I'm usually fine. With no cardboard and no upholstered furniture, my room is not too hot.
So I tried to use specifics from the article itself, like the composting toilet. Toilets are one of the ways modern families go through a lot of water each and every day.
I know my lifestyle generates less heat and humidity in my home compared to other people in the same building as me. I also know most people act like my first-hand experience doesn't count.
I'm routinely downvoted for making such observations, no matter how I try to phrase it. I'm routinely told I'm making stuff up, that's anecdotal, it doesn't count, I need a study or something.
I've seen men here on the leader board give similar personal anecdotes and get treated like they're brilliant. Tokenadult used to tell stories of opening the shades on his windows when he was a young man living in China to use solar power to heat his room and giggling about management accusing him hiding a forbidden heater.
But my first-hand observations are not similarly respected and oohed and aahed over for their insight. Instead, I'm routinely attacked and dismissed.
After a decade, I'm pretty damn sure it isn't my phrasing. It's my gender and general lack of credibility for reasons wholly unrelated to my intelligence, veracity, etc.
It's open contempt for me as a person. And I'm quite fed up with it and even more fed up with being told it's somehow my fault that I'm subjected to this double standard.
Was it a non-sequitur?
I then made a personal observation that architecture was also important, using a similar anecdotal construction that you did. So clearly I don't have a problem with anecdotal evidence. I present a similar anecdotal observation at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14876398#14878461 .
I then ended up with the comment that I don't disagree with your comment, because it's clearly true, just like how other factors are also involved.
If you look through my history you'll see I have a long history of making similar observations for other posters. I see four such on the first page of my comments history.
And although I guess they probably could, people aren't generally maintaining desert ecosystems in their greenhouses.
Most polar deserts are covered in ice sheets, ice fields, or ice caps.
(I'm getting a chuckle out of the multiple layers of pedantry here.)
Desert plants are adapted to low rainfall. That doesn't mean all deserts are just barren rock and sand.
I guess if they plan to eat agave and saguaro they'll have less humidity issues?
The hotter air is, the higher its capacity to hold water vapor.
Part of this is a misunderstanding of building techniques that block airflow, ive seen numerous houses with all the roof vents plugged up to "save heat", walls with plastic sheeting on the inside wall creating air/moisture traps, or people replacing air-permeable house wrap with solid sheet plastic, foam and glue on every board and seam with a sealed up and moist crawl space underneath, ect. It is fairly easy to get mold in a humid place with a sealed home and no forced air, and nearly impossible to kill it all without tearing out all the drywall in the house. If everything was done right, shouldn't be a problem, but people are far more likely to pay for size and speed over quality materials or careful quality labor.
I’ve seen this turn into a problem with big renovation of old residential structures twice. My personal takeaway was make sure your envelope and HVAC are of roughly equivalent quality and era.
It's sometimes hard to imagine how hard and unprecitable lives of past generations were. For most of history people's indoor firepits didn't have chimneys, for example, and the health effects were less of a concern than wars, infectious diseases, getting hurt in physical labour, or famine.
Also, most old houses were well ventilated and built of mildew resistant materials (= poor insulation and wood).
In the 80s people started insulating them in the wrong way (on the inside), creating a condensation point between the insulation and concrete => mold.
These days we have learned that cellars must be insulated on the outside (by digging up the garden) or somehow make sure humid indoor air dont make contact with concrete behind insulation.
If you basically don't have plastic and insulation then mold is less of a problem, but you also need to spend a ton of energy keeping the house warm...
Controlling humidity and air freshness is done through vents, usually combined with a heat exchange to not let out all the warm air you just heated up.
Condensation accumulating larger drops might be a bigger issue with glass though, but only if it's already humid on the inside.
So as long as the inside and outside of the house has the same temperature, condensation in random spots should not happen?..
Condensation will be on the glass panels, where mould cannot grow.
Still a cool house though, I like their water treatment
according to what crazy-ass definition?
3.5 months is a common length of winter for Stockholm, according to the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute.
The amount of months that Johannesburg would require heating I would say is probably 3—4 or 4—5 if you take into account only minimal heating at the edge cases.
> the daily average temperature is at most 0 degrees Celsius at least 5 days in a row
This doesn't work for the international reader, in many countries the temperatures in the winter never goes below zero
Conversely, it's quite difficult to grow them in the City of San Francisco, especially the Western half, in the summer.
Some people have success with a special variety called a fog tomato, but in general, the northern California coastal fog zone ain't no place for a tomato growing, only tomato eating.
Molds are a problem and there is another, for rodents, mosquitos and cockroaches this is a dream made true. Spiders can take mosquitos easily, but the other two will need a plan
Plants can be net CO2 consumers, but they burn O2 to CO2 just like you. Tropical forests are net CO2 producers for most of the day, except for a few hours around noon, but that's enough to become net consumers averaged over the day. Occasionally someone fills their room with plants, and then puzzles over having high CO2 levels.
Mine would love that environment I’m sure though.
My mother has a decent sized greenhouse. Her cats spend most of the winter in there by choice - they love it.
The greenhouse effect makes the air inside a lot warmer than outside. This reduces its density, and it becomes buoyant and spills out the roof vent.
There may also be fans, but you can get some ventilation for free (energy-wise).
Dont know if they have one set up, but they could. But possibly the sun already warms it enough even in winter that it is not needed even with natural ventilation.
Heat exchanger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_exchanger#HVAC_air_coils
To be clear I did not mean HVAC, which requires (some) energy in itself.
At home I do not have HVAC. However, the outbound air passes through a rotating metal structure that sucks up the heat from outbound air and releases it into the colder inbound air. Just using the temperature gradient that is there naturally. Passive energy transfer.
Same principle can be used with hot water (e.g. from showers).
Then one can put HVAC on top of this for active warming.
At least in Finland, newish office houses typically don't even have windows that can be opened; this seems to be a surprise to any foreign visitors.
That's because the costs for heating of the building during winter are way cheaper than a better thermal isolation of windows and a good ventilation system combined.
I live 55°N in Russia so I know that from practice, but we don't lock the windows throughout the summer because the cooling would cost around the same as heating in winter, just one or two opened windows in the night for convection and curtains in the daylight are enough to keep the temperature.
These sentences contradict with each other. The cost is not only payments for service, it's a sum of resources, time and work needed to make and maintain. You can't make a thermal system cool itself passively due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The difference between Helsinki and the place I live is that they don't have temperatures above 30°C while here I have those at least 2 weeks straight each year. Passive ventilation stops in those temperatures because there are no wind outdoors besides the hot columns of air from heated surfaces, HVAC costs are the same as winter's heating while it's PITA to clean them from ice each spring, a window ventilation during the night refreshes the air good enough.
So the "passive" houses are not at all passive in terms of technology (to the contrary, they are quite dependent on technical solutions enforcing airflows and exchanging heat up or down, to the point of being vulnerable; the point is just that this is not done through windows because humans intuitively don't do it so well or optimize for the whole building).
Some years ago, there was an electricity outage in the area where my office was. The basement floor had our server room with plenty of blade and rackmount servers, and some 30 kW of UPS capacity - which had been unused for years because electricity outages are extremely rare here. UPS is all very well to keep servers running, but this happened in the summer and the server room cooling system was not behind the UPS like the servers were. Thus, we suddenly have a 30 kW unbalanced heat load to the basement floor... Result was some frantic running up and down. None of the windows could be opened. We could open garage doors in the basement floor, open all the doors to stairways and halls, and run the the top floor which has the usual sauna compartment with doors to a balcony - opening all these, we could create a chimney effect to get airflow through the premises and prevent our servers from melting on the spot while we were shutting them down gracefully in priority order.
They sold the house and it was torn down, but it was An interesting structure.
Greenhouses don't stay unused in the summer, and heating up to unlivable temperatures would also kill the plantations. Therefore "permanent" greenhouses (as opposed to the plastic tarps on struts you build up and take down at appropriate times) can be down-regulated to an extent (to not too high above ambient temperature).
How would this fare in the summer months?
I.E. How would this work in the US Midwest where summers are very hot and winters are pretty cold?
In Britain I have seen that their glass conservatories are quite popular (and many are much older), but they are typically only one room.
Could it also be that the greenhouse effect was not fully appreciated until later in human history? I would also guess that glass would have been much more expensive in ancient times.
A great book on the subject is "A Paradise Built in Hell."
Rainforest houses in Australia (yes.. it’s a thing) are built out of wood and last like realistically only about 15 or 20 years before they’re practically falling apart from rot.
They're about halfway to a workable Mars habitat.
Another problem with this is humidity. I wonder how they deal with possible mould and dampness?
Humidity - the greenhouse opens up so they can easily let out excess moisture.
My parents owned a flat roof home briefly and had to shovel it.
Both very cool!
Cycling through the city feels like the deck of the Titanic.
It’s not just about building higher dikes.
It’s about the ethical soundless of pissing tons of CO2 in the wind just because you can’t be bothered to wear a sweater. (What does that inscription next to Leidseplein say?)
Edit: it’s also not just about higher dikes in NL, the effects of that CO2 goes well beyond the Dutch border. It’s Global Warming after all... global.
The cognitive dissonance of this attitude, compared to the Swedes building greenhouse homes to save on energy, is what makes it feel like we’re swingin’ on the Titanic.
No, I agree it's irresponsible to heat outdoor terraces so much during winter. Go sit inside if you want to be warm.
I wonder how it does in windstorms, though.
I remember this when I saw it in 2015. The whole project is dumb. It's extremely expensive, they will never break even on the heating costs. It's completely unprotected from hail. The ventilation is horrible. Humidity is high.
Sure, it's creative and fun, but let's not paint it as groundbreaking.
Such green, much modern, wow!
Edit: Hm, others in the thread have pointed out one could use a gasification burner