If we built homes (under ground) would it help energy crisis?

Question

I know this can't be done everywhere, but some places, I believe it could be done. Structurally, someone would have to make sure it was safe.

A great amount of energy goes for heating and cooling, why wouldn't it work?

Answer 1

Sure.  But it really isn't necessary.  The technology to build energy-conserving houses has been around for decades--just nfew people used it.

The reason is a bit complicated--and goes back to the housing shortage following WW2.  People started putting up a lot of inexpensive houses--and one way to do that was to skip the time and expense of what we now call energy-efficiency.  Energy was cheap and no one realized what the long-term effects could be.

Since then, most builders have tried to produce low-cost buildings because that played well in the market.  And people bought them for the same reason.  

But--now energy isn't cheap--and we have global warming and dependance on foreign oil to worry about.  We can--and should--go back to those earlier building designs and blend them with modern technology.  A huse built that way willl cost more--10-15%, maybe--but the enrgy savings will make up the difference--and then some.

Check out "Bulldozer in the Countryside" by Alan Rome--it gives a great history of this (and is readable, which some history isn't)

Answer 2

dog I think that is brilliant, especially where I live. We have terribly hot summers, and live in tornado alley. It would be cost effecient, energy efficient, and safer. Wonder why it is not done more often.

Answer 3

It has already been tried by cave dwellers in some areas, you could start it up anew.

Answer 4

i like to look out the windows and open them and feel the fresh air and sun..if i had no windows underground..i would hate it....plus i guess you would need more lights and some sort of ventilation system for fresh air....how about this...maybe build a house 50-60 % under ground..you could have windows up high on the wall like in a basement...and still be able to get sun and fresh air....

Answer 5

1. Well, underground, you would need more electricity because unlike above ground, you don't need lights in the daytime. You do underground though, probably more than regular too.

2. The resources that would have to be used to do that are incredible, especially seeing as America/People/builders are really used to that sort of thing.

3. There is no energy crisis. That is a tactic used by the government/people who hold oil to make people think that there IS actually a energy crisis, and that is the reason they get to bump up the price on gas/oil every year. Ask yourself why that happens every year, the same old thing. I would avise you to be informed and stay current in news, otherwise things you should be knowing about will pass right by you and you won't know until it's too late.

P.S. There is too little we know about it. For example, if your house caught on fire. What would fire fighters do? They couldn't do anything. I could give you millions of examples like that, but there isn't any point.

Answer 6

It would work.  A perfect example are the folks in Australia that live in "burrows" that have been hollowed out and mined for opals.  The heat outside is searing hot, but below ground are comfortable temps.  In other parts of the world this may require more excavating and concrete work, plus some sealing against water leaks.  Ultimately, the better the insulation, the less energy your home needs to use.  If you have 1 foot of fiberglass, you have good insulation.  If you have 4 feet of dirt and concrete between you and the outside temps...you have amazing insulation.  I've included one example website.

http://www.monolithic.com/plan-design/be...

Answer 7

My parent have a fr that built an underground home, it's HUGE and awesome.

There was an earthquake where they live, near Palm Springs, and the wife was in the house. She said that the noise was indescribable - and wouldn't go back in - slept outside.

It was very cool during the summer months. It was made from Styrofoam bricks and cement - support.

Answer 8

From what I have heard, yes it would be more energy efficient.  Cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter.  I suppose there might be some concerns about water seepage however.  But I'm sure there are ways to overcome this.

BTW, as far as the "lack of natural light" issue goes, I would think that, assuming that there would still be a "roof" at or above the ground, they could implement a sky light and perhaps even use fiber optics to disribute sunlight throughout the house.