ZERO ENERGY HOUSE
by Jill Fehrenbacher
There are green houses and then there green houses. Zoka Zola’s Zero Energy House which is currently being designed for a space on Adams street in Chicago, is as green as it gets. When it is completed, the 3 story, single-family home will be completely self-sufficient: consuming zero energy except for that which is generated on-site with solar panels and wind turbines.
For most run-of-the-mills homes, solar and wind energy would not be enough to power a single-family house. The Zero Energy house, however, has been specifically designed to maximize light, heat and energy intake in the way it is positioned in relation to the sun, wind and landscaped elements like trees. Architect Zoka Zola has specifically mapped out the location of the sun (and corresponding shade) at various points during the year to ensure that the Zero Energy House is always energy efficient, wind rain, or shine.
In summer, the operable windows allow cross ventilation. The tree in the south garden shades the house from the sun. In winter, warm sunlight floods the shallow rooms through large south-facing windows, heating the exposed concrete interior walls, creating a thermal mass which will warm the building throughout the night.
The building is surrounded by plants to help insulate it from the heat and cold. The building’s exterior is draped with ivy, while mosses, herbs and grasses covers the building’s roofs. The accessible green roof encourages bio-diversity and will absorb water runoff, while insulating the interior and protecting the roof from thermal shock and ultra violet deterioration.
The architect says “We would like this building to be an inspiration to other homeowners and developers in urban environments.”
Count me inspired.
+0
Get Inhabitat Email
As much as I appreciate and applaude this sort of effort, I can’t help but think there’s a flaw in Zoka’s logic when she says, “…cities with higher urban densities consume less oil. Therefore urban sustainable buildings are the most effective way to decrease the consumption of oil.” To me, if we take the first part as fact, the conclusion would actually be for suburban sustainable buildings over urban sustainable buildings, because the latter will have less of an impact than the former. Right? The amount of energy decreased by having this house in the city will be less than if it were in the ‘burbs.
I do understand where she’s coming from, and agree that dense urban settlements are better for energy consumption (and general living) than suburban ones, but by citing the above she’s actually pointing out that this house would be more beneficial in the ‘burbs. Sure it won’t stop people from driving to the store and such, but it will offset that oil and gas used, while if somebody walks/bikes/takes public transportation, there’s less to offset.
Logic argument aside, I think it’s great and hope she can pull it off (it seems most zero-energy endeavors can’t fully achieve that goal) but maybe she should undertake a suburban version at some point. Lord knows we need it.