It's wonderful to read that story! I was especially impressed with the new laws:
"Carbon neutral or not, the Abramson home is the first to meet new Boulder County regulations that set a sliding scale of permitted energy use, based on size. At the top of the scale, all new homes of more than 5,000 square feet must be energy neutral, generating as much as they use. County officials credit Solar Harvest with drawing support for the new regulations."

That HAS to be done, it's critical. Those behemoth homes aren't exactly owned by everyone. Large homes are for wealthier folks, and so it makes sense that they may have the money to add on the necessary things to make a go of solar and wind. Especially since they have SO MUCH ROOF AREA!

I would like to see similar requirements for new condos and apartments and businesses. For housing, the generated electricity can be used to light common areas, such as halls, garages. Also for ventilation systems in those halls and any additional power needs.

One thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere, is a "sun right-of-way". And I wonder if anyone has thought of it (yet) besides me.

For instance, this showhouse cost "The $1.38 million project (including the land purchase)...Solar Harvest, which cost $987,000 to build."

What if down the road, someone buys adjacent land, and builds something much taller, that effectively blocks the sun from ever hitting that home?

It's NOT uncommon. Local homes that used to have a view of the sea and the sun setting, are now in the shadow of a HUGE parking/office complex. Their ONLY view is of another building. That's gotta suck.

Laws and permits will have to come into play in the future. People need to have security. If they are going to make an investment in solar, for the future, they need to know that such things will not happen.

And if those things DO happen, there needs to be a way of settling or mediating or having the new builder "buy" the sun right-of-way.

So that anyone adding on solar can be confident that the sun will always be there for them to use. And if it goes away, that the people who are responsible for making it go away, will be held responsible.

That could mean ordinances that prohibit structures from exceeding a certain height. That does give security and confidence, knowing that your one-story home in a one-story area will ALWAYS be a one-story area.

Then you can put up solar this week or in ten years, and nothing will have changed as far as height of buildings in the neighborhood.

I think this is critical.

First of all, it's commendable that Mr. Doub's built an energy neutral home.

But look at the SIZE of that thing. For a family of four it's a pretty large house. And a LOT of natural resources go into the construction of a home. So though the house is using less energy than most homes during the course of its use, it's using far more energy for its construction than is necessary.

More people need to take to heart what most people here on AT already have, and simply learn to live within a smaller footprint.

True Blue, you're spot-on with your thought-provoking commentary. Hopefully this will be one area of concern moving forward with socio-ecological architecture, since having the sun "taken away" would definitely effect solar-powered homes. Thank you.

hey ..
according to me its too nice that they are thinking about this .cause its very critical situation.Thanks for this nice story brother.
free auto insurance quotes online | free auto insurance quotes