This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I posted a big red flag in the hopes someone will pickup on this quick. While I find the artical quite good there are many serious errors. Suggesting N. Dakota is in permafrost is just one example.
Another is the idea that the average western citizen consumes only about 1000 kwh per year. At 5 cents that is $50 bux and while I know I am certainly not your average wikipedian I consume about 2x that per month. But then I run several servers which offset the space heat for my office.
This is a good artical but it needs some real engineering! Then it will be a great artical.
. Fabric water tanks can be purchased that fit the bed of a pick-up truck and which convey more than four thousand liters (a thousand gallons)- enough for three person-years of water.
This is an advocacy article. I seriously doubt that any careful analysis would show that it is cheaper for everyone to provide their own sewage service, water, etc. I have a cabin in the woods and it is delightful, but it is not more efficient than my suburban home. Ortolan88 15:23 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
Or, to put it another way, cities are the most efficient way of living for large numbers of people. I see someone toned down the dubious statement, btw. Thanks. Ortolan88
I respectfully disagree about efficiencies, and I encourage you to run the numbers with real prices in your area. Most utilities have prices almost exactly 5% below the amortized price of the mass-produced rural systems that provide private utility service (e.g., electricity will be just below the fuel costs and amortization of a natural gas generator). Many people pay for central utility networks from after-tax income, so the home-based utilities are 15-45% more efficient just because they create untaxed value. (I know that utilities are often price-controlled monopolies. I think it's interesting that the prices are just low enough to suppress obvious competition.)
Unless the area has local nuclear or hydroelectric power, new construction could probably afford to make its own heat and light. In the coldest areas of the U.S. passive solar heat costs only 15% more than normal construction. In milder areas, it costs nothing. It usually commands a 15-20% price premium.
In Southern California, new solar roofs already provide cheaper electricity than the utilities, because they keep the rain out, and the amortized untaxed marginal value of such electricity is cheaper than the power prices. In most great plains areas, a 10-meter wind turbine on a hundred-foot tower will run an all-electric house, for about 10% of a new house's cost.
Sewage and water are harder, not least because of local health regulations. In my area, (water is horrendously expensive) they would break even, or make a tiny profit. However, they are more secure everywhere. Many areas have groundwater depletion and poisoning. In all rural and most suburban areas buying land for swales instead of digging storm-drains is cheaper and more pleasant.
I also respectfully disagree with the "lo-tech" comment. For example, a modern switching inverter is cheaper than a rotary inverter, and should last longer because it has no moving parts. As it happens, high tech windmills, solar cells, water and composting toilets are less expensive, too. Solar heating is substantialy easier with high-tech windows, and advanced aerodynamic design of the ducting.
Personally, I think the big reasons why people don't do this are an unwillingness to pay the capital costs, and a belief that it's a hassle to keep the systems running. Solar-electric roofs and passive solar heat have no moving parts, and are therefore nearly hassle-free. Cisterns, greywater systems and septic tanks have pumps and require life-style changes.
In a smaller detail, the article says that in rome the sewage system was the street. This is a bit funny even while it may have been correct at the intended time, wasn't Rome one of the first cities to have a real sewer system? -- blades 23:15, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
"Fabric water tanks can be purchased that fit the bed of a pick up truck."
Perhaps a more useful heading would be communication? - Birkett 01:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Obviously the author has a bias in rec. these sorts of systems without an objective basis in reality. Instead of explaining these systems they provide details on implementing and using such networks, which is not the point of wikipedia in any regard ~ using implemented examples for comparisons sake is fine, but suggesting and pulling down numbers for possible use is contrary to how articles should be written ~ This is not Home and Garden!
Point of View of article is also skewed, as stated above, it makes the assumption that you are looking to implement such systems while providing no equal ground for informing instead of advocating the use and theory behind such a system.
Would someone be kind enough to mark this article for editing and clean up?
These words were posted by User:66.18.218.43 in the Heating section, beneath the sentence Wind breaks reduce the amount of heat carried away from a building.
Omphaloscope » talk 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The water section mentions something called a well-foot, but doesn't explain what it is. I checked the water well article, and couldn't find it in there either (nor could I find a definition via Google). That needs to be updated so people who've never used a well know what it means. - Juansmith 20:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove this or at least change the wording unless there's a good argument for keeping it as is: In 1854, Henry David Thoreau wrote Walden, a nonfictional account of his time in a self-built home designed for maximum independence from the neighboring town of Concord, MA, USA. It includes detailed descriptions of his home, garden, costs, time, and associated labor.
Clearly in Walden Thoreau is frugal and perhaps a bit interested in personal autonomy but his house wasn't exactly designed for it any differently than his neighbors' homes were. He had a wood stove, as did his neighbors in town; he went into the woods to cut his own fuel, as did his neighbors in town; and he used the outdoors as his bathroom, pretty much as his neighors in town did (except they put up a little room around the hole-in-the-ground for privacy(outhouse)).
Yes he had a garden but he exclusively grew beans in order to sell them. He specifically discusses what types of food he buys in town to nurish himself.
So yes, he built the house himself, he gardened, he didn't have utilities and he was a bit of a recluse. But his house was no more autonomous than any one elses house at the time, it was just smaller and far from town. If he had kept a balanced garden for nourishing himself or developed some kind of passive heating system or a clever indoor plumbing setup I'd agree his house was autonomous. But actually it wasn't autonomous, just small and otherwise run-of-the-mill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glippy00 ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
I tagged this article as unreferenced, as no sources are given. I found it well written and informative, and am surprised at how extensive it is without any sources cited. Unless the original author(s) return with sources, it would take a lot of research to verify and source everything in the existing article. - Agyle 01:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please include the pictures found at the gallery at the off-the-grid article.
Thanks. 81.245.167.85 ( talk) 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have only read small parts of the article but even so I want to sincerely congratulate all contributors for their hard work. I have no further words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems like the 'disadvantages' section is talking about the disadvantages of the pursuit of a fully autonomous lifestyle, not the disadvantages of a autonomous house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.173.64 ( talk) 23:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Autonomous building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Autonomous building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I posted a big red flag in the hopes someone will pickup on this quick. While I find the artical quite good there are many serious errors. Suggesting N. Dakota is in permafrost is just one example.
Another is the idea that the average western citizen consumes only about 1000 kwh per year. At 5 cents that is $50 bux and while I know I am certainly not your average wikipedian I consume about 2x that per month. But then I run several servers which offset the space heat for my office.
This is a good artical but it needs some real engineering! Then it will be a great artical.
. Fabric water tanks can be purchased that fit the bed of a pick-up truck and which convey more than four thousand liters (a thousand gallons)- enough for three person-years of water.
This is an advocacy article. I seriously doubt that any careful analysis would show that it is cheaper for everyone to provide their own sewage service, water, etc. I have a cabin in the woods and it is delightful, but it is not more efficient than my suburban home. Ortolan88 15:23 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
Or, to put it another way, cities are the most efficient way of living for large numbers of people. I see someone toned down the dubious statement, btw. Thanks. Ortolan88
I respectfully disagree about efficiencies, and I encourage you to run the numbers with real prices in your area. Most utilities have prices almost exactly 5% below the amortized price of the mass-produced rural systems that provide private utility service (e.g., electricity will be just below the fuel costs and amortization of a natural gas generator). Many people pay for central utility networks from after-tax income, so the home-based utilities are 15-45% more efficient just because they create untaxed value. (I know that utilities are often price-controlled monopolies. I think it's interesting that the prices are just low enough to suppress obvious competition.)
Unless the area has local nuclear or hydroelectric power, new construction could probably afford to make its own heat and light. In the coldest areas of the U.S. passive solar heat costs only 15% more than normal construction. In milder areas, it costs nothing. It usually commands a 15-20% price premium.
In Southern California, new solar roofs already provide cheaper electricity than the utilities, because they keep the rain out, and the amortized untaxed marginal value of such electricity is cheaper than the power prices. In most great plains areas, a 10-meter wind turbine on a hundred-foot tower will run an all-electric house, for about 10% of a new house's cost.
Sewage and water are harder, not least because of local health regulations. In my area, (water is horrendously expensive) they would break even, or make a tiny profit. However, they are more secure everywhere. Many areas have groundwater depletion and poisoning. In all rural and most suburban areas buying land for swales instead of digging storm-drains is cheaper and more pleasant.
I also respectfully disagree with the "lo-tech" comment. For example, a modern switching inverter is cheaper than a rotary inverter, and should last longer because it has no moving parts. As it happens, high tech windmills, solar cells, water and composting toilets are less expensive, too. Solar heating is substantialy easier with high-tech windows, and advanced aerodynamic design of the ducting.
Personally, I think the big reasons why people don't do this are an unwillingness to pay the capital costs, and a belief that it's a hassle to keep the systems running. Solar-electric roofs and passive solar heat have no moving parts, and are therefore nearly hassle-free. Cisterns, greywater systems and septic tanks have pumps and require life-style changes.
In a smaller detail, the article says that in rome the sewage system was the street. This is a bit funny even while it may have been correct at the intended time, wasn't Rome one of the first cities to have a real sewer system? -- blades 23:15, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
"Fabric water tanks can be purchased that fit the bed of a pick up truck."
Perhaps a more useful heading would be communication? - Birkett 01:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Obviously the author has a bias in rec. these sorts of systems without an objective basis in reality. Instead of explaining these systems they provide details on implementing and using such networks, which is not the point of wikipedia in any regard ~ using implemented examples for comparisons sake is fine, but suggesting and pulling down numbers for possible use is contrary to how articles should be written ~ This is not Home and Garden!
Point of View of article is also skewed, as stated above, it makes the assumption that you are looking to implement such systems while providing no equal ground for informing instead of advocating the use and theory behind such a system.
Would someone be kind enough to mark this article for editing and clean up?
These words were posted by User:66.18.218.43 in the Heating section, beneath the sentence Wind breaks reduce the amount of heat carried away from a building.
Omphaloscope » talk 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The water section mentions something called a well-foot, but doesn't explain what it is. I checked the water well article, and couldn't find it in there either (nor could I find a definition via Google). That needs to be updated so people who've never used a well know what it means. - Juansmith 20:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove this or at least change the wording unless there's a good argument for keeping it as is: In 1854, Henry David Thoreau wrote Walden, a nonfictional account of his time in a self-built home designed for maximum independence from the neighboring town of Concord, MA, USA. It includes detailed descriptions of his home, garden, costs, time, and associated labor.
Clearly in Walden Thoreau is frugal and perhaps a bit interested in personal autonomy but his house wasn't exactly designed for it any differently than his neighbors' homes were. He had a wood stove, as did his neighbors in town; he went into the woods to cut his own fuel, as did his neighbors in town; and he used the outdoors as his bathroom, pretty much as his neighors in town did (except they put up a little room around the hole-in-the-ground for privacy(outhouse)).
Yes he had a garden but he exclusively grew beans in order to sell them. He specifically discusses what types of food he buys in town to nurish himself.
So yes, he built the house himself, he gardened, he didn't have utilities and he was a bit of a recluse. But his house was no more autonomous than any one elses house at the time, it was just smaller and far from town. If he had kept a balanced garden for nourishing himself or developed some kind of passive heating system or a clever indoor plumbing setup I'd agree his house was autonomous. But actually it wasn't autonomous, just small and otherwise run-of-the-mill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glippy00 ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
I tagged this article as unreferenced, as no sources are given. I found it well written and informative, and am surprised at how extensive it is without any sources cited. Unless the original author(s) return with sources, it would take a lot of research to verify and source everything in the existing article. - Agyle 01:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please include the pictures found at the gallery at the off-the-grid article.
Thanks. 81.245.167.85 ( talk) 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have only read small parts of the article but even so I want to sincerely congratulate all contributors for their hard work. I have no further words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems like the 'disadvantages' section is talking about the disadvantages of the pursuit of a fully autonomous lifestyle, not the disadvantages of a autonomous house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.173.64 ( talk) 23:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Autonomous building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Autonomous building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)