Why do we continue to build homes that waste energy?

Question

The most energy efficient shape is a sphere. Geodesic domes provide the largest volume (living space) with the smallest surface area (surface area is what loses energy). Why do people continue to build square or rectangular homes which are the worst shape for emitting energy - most wasteful?

Answer 1

One must change the industry slowly-I keep wondering why the idiots continue to munch in home next to home when we'd all be willing to pay for a bit more LAND too. In California, we have our bad things, but the industry rules on insulation, appliances and lighting etc are far far higher than say-North and South Carolina or Georgia- at least a few years ago when I worked in the industry. I think we need to start there-with the building materials, and work out-

Answer 2

Because we wastefully and stupidly cling on to tradition.

Answer 3

I found domes attractive since they were popular in the 70's, but now lean more toward earth sheltered. I like the idea of gardening my roof. It may be cost for most of us answering here, but that is not valid since many have plenty of money and won't stop wasting energy.

It is a societal phenomena. We copy each other like lemmings and wastefully leap off the cliff. Those who have money are the most wasteful of resources like hogging land and huge mansions for one or two persons. The future is irrelevant to most people, only surviving the day or flaunting wealth, not conserving.

Answer 4

We build homes that waste energy because even though the buildings are designed with temperature, it couldn't be verified. It is hard to comprehend with today's technology that buildings are signed off as compliant and insured. Architects design with the greatest of accuracy except it is completed in a calculator. Those design temperatures calculated determine the amount of energy consumption, mold, fire integrity, emissions, etc.

The process has the best of intent but when you think of the entire process being bidded, the end result can be horrible for home owners.

The sphere or any building is going to use energy depending on the design of the heating system, the placement of the heating system, thermostat location, wall insulation and solar gain.

The best example is a highrise apartment building, brand new, lakeshore, geo thermal energy and energy concern so significant an engineer has asked me for a quote to show a visual of how and where they are losing energy.

These very expensive apartments have a heating design problem off the start. The geo thermal cheaper energy has heating ducts in the ceiling  with the heat registers in the ceiling. Heat rises so the apartments are heated from the top down. The owners are cold because they are standing on a cold concrete mass while they try to heat the apartment from the roof down. This whole design is a disgusting representation of geo thermal energy where if they had put the heating in the floor, it would be comfortable immediately.

I visited an old house yesterday where the owner put heating in the floor, used ceiling fans and the comfort was incredible and energy efficient. Amazing to fail the highrise and pass the house.

Buildings are built square and rectangular for simplicity. All material is shaped and sized to accomodate that design. I know someone that did a dome home and it was great, they needed to satisfy the municipality that the dome design meets the climate criteria locally.

You are right about the waste in woodframe construction. People need to understand the exterior of your building is a big umbrella, that's it. Why spend wealth on the outside of the building when in fact it just makes your construction design more complex for energy consumption.

FYI, the company at the links provided is taking forward 17,000 hours of research that will allow municipalities and home owners to see whether a building is functioning as designed.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h... to see the heat loss function of the building. Go to Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h... to see the other function of a building in the summer.

Answer 5

my friend just built a $160000 home (in my area the avg cost for a "decent" hosue is $140000).  To make it green it would have cost another $80000.  Thats a 50% cost increase.  

Green is good, no doubt, but even the money he will waste on energy in his house wont total 80000 while he is living there.  Just like hybrid cars, for many people, they will never recoup the extra cost of the hybride in their gas sales.  The cost of the technology/supplies needs to go down to make green affordable.

Answer 6

Because it's the law. Bureaucracies can shut down just about anything they want to if the people don't rise up and telll them where to go. Also, contractors are more familar with standard construction methods. Then there's the initial cost of most green technologies. It's simply going to take time and commitment. But the biggest hurdle is govermnent regulation.

Answer 7

The cost. The cost of design. The cost of offering something unconventional to a market that is built on selling traditional styles. It all comes down to money and the fear of not making enough of it when the home is sold

Answer 8

I'm sure you know the answer to your question already.

- because they are ugly by contemporary standards

- because they do not lend themselves to adaptation to current design standards, processes, and materials

- because furniture doesn't fit well against a round wall

Answer 9

Geodesic has been tried many times.

1. People simply don't like the way they look

2. They waste a lot of outer wall, wall space.

3. They are very hard to prevent roof leaks.

4. Conventional building materials must be custom cut and assembled.

5.  Windows and doors are hard to fit and seal from leaking

Answer 10

hi too; well i life in  north of england; the uk if we did not build some homes; i do think that most fock,s would be home-les yes i do under-stand wot you are saying; we do not have the son in the uk; you do; so i do not under-stand; mack the son part of the house heating; hot water; i do think we are going back=woulds; in time; in a100 years time. i would not wont to me on this plant; come back and give me your end; mike

Answer 11

Mind your own business!  I'm a Silicon Valley venture capitalist and I paid Dr. Zaius $18,450/sq. ft. to construct this mess of a home.....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969319@N03...

None of the walls are plumb, the windows are drafty, and I can't buy one piece of furniture at IKEA to match the decor!  The radiant floor heating leaks worse than those found in an Eichler house.  Nothing is built to code and the only room large enough for my plasma TV is the garage.  He used Play Doh to construct one of the load bearing walls.

If you see Dr. Zaius, turn him in!

http://www.ticketassassin.com/images/zai...

Answer 12

In my state we really don't care about the environment :( .

We build new homes cause that's just what the "Middle Class -SUV driving women want Lil McMantions to show off to there friends and family . They get those homes cause thy will brow beat there husbands into co-signing 700, thousand dollar homes on a salary of 126,000 combined. The sad fact is we are destroying our environment with this stupid azz growth instead of smart growth. In the city there are miles and miles of abandoned property that could easily be mixed-use business and residential.....there are a few developers out there really trying to use solar panels, green (literally)roof tops, and spheres but folks that are buying just want the same ugly azz Colonial in the County like Susan.....

Answer 13

It's far cheaper to build right angled homes.  Designing the interior of a dome without wasting a lot of the "additional" space is a real problem.  And most people are reluctant to live in something that different.  

There are better ways to improve building efficiency than building expensive and quirky domes.  Better windows, insulation, etc.  Much cheaper and more generally acceptable.

Put a good solar system on a well designed right angled house and you've achieved the same thing, at far less cost.

Answer 14

Probably for the same reason we continue to run motor vehicles on gasoline instead of putting a small device under one hundred dollars in our vehicles to run them on vegt oil or something else other than oil. THE OIL COMPANIES , this country is way too dependent on oil in any form.

Answer 15

it's partly the consumer fault, if there was a demand then builders would of course provide it....  also home builders look at the rewards such as profit,  the geodesic domes would save the buyer more money but the builders would have a smaller profit margin as i'm sure the geodesic domes cost more to construct than a regular house.  In the end it all comes down the mighty dollar.   The builders construct rectangular home because they'll make more money out of it.

Answer 16

Because we still have a capitalistic free market economy is why, and people don't want to be forced into buying something they think is aesthetically inferior.

Actually you are technically correct though, and I'll go one step further: the most efficient would be a massive geodesic dome apartment complex, all of the internal cubicles would be insulated by the ones on the outside.

Answer 17

yes, and while they are at it they need to incorporate passive solar features.   Passive solar is free energy!

Answer 18

Because it costs a lot of money to build a home like that and most of us make descent livings but don't have that kind of money to throw around.   It isn't affordable, no more affordable fo the average family than a McMansion.

Answer 19

I'm a straw bale builder in Colorado... my only limitations are the ones I impose; nothing bigger than 2,000 sq . ft and single story. I use a load bearing system, and short of 20" thick walls I can build any style with your choice of interior or exterior, although I prefer natural clay plasters and timber...

I  use all the best technology; PV/active & passive solar, in floor radiant heat,  solar tubes, thermal mass  rammed earth floors on and on...

The average cost is $120.00 per sq. ft. if you pay to have it built, $80.00  sq. ft. if you build it yourself after a couple of extensive work shops.

The more natural local products you can use the cheaper and greener!

Straw bale can be high tech and beatiful, the only thing most people notice is the thickness of the walls (R45 + !!!)

Although many homes you will see in a search are southwest style, they can be designed to look like just about any style.

Answer 20

Here in the UK the Government regulates every housing plans and perhaps those fat farts knows nothing about those geodesic domes.

But geodesic domes have problems too building materials normally come in rectangular shapes; there can be considerably more scrap, left from cutting rectangles down to triangles, than with a conventional building approach, thus driving costs up. Fire escapes are problematic, Air stratification and moisture distribution within a dome are unusual, and these conditions tend to quickly degrade wooden framing or interior paneling. Privacy is difficult to guarantee because a dome is difficult to partition satisfactorily. Sounds, smells, and even reflected light tend to be conveyed through the entire structure. As with any sloping shape, the dome produces wall areas that can be difficult to use and leaves some peripheral floor area with restricted use due to lack of headroom. So my friend it is not good to condemn that you think is wrong for what you believe is right may be the greater wrong.

Answer 21

uh because maybe people dont thin k much anout energy and maybe thats the only shape a house would look decent we cant have a circular house nor a triangle sooo uh yea.....

Answer 22

because status quo takes precedent over conserving energy

as a whole our society has a standard by which they live and geodesic domes are outside of the norm

Answer 23

Have you ever lived in a geodome home?  Those are fine for a couple, who enjoy a VERY open floor plan.  

However for a family with a few children, and those who want defined rooms, to define the space, geohomes are not for them.

Most geohomes I know of are covered with shingles, tope to bottom.  Expensive to replace, and a very serrious fire hazzard in many parts of the country (California & Idaho to name two which had the biggest fires this year).

Geodomes are really hard to sell...people are more comfortable in "convential" spaces.  Geodomes are hard to get mortgages on.  Geodomes are difficult to get lender financing to build.  Again, because they are not conventional.

There are other alternatives, besides geodomes for energy efficient homes.  

My husband and I will be building our own home.  It will be straw bale construction, with a huge sunroom run one side of the house for solar gain.  

We concidered rammed earth, but for speed of construction we have decided on straw bale.

There are also bermed houses, or underground houses.  Most people think of them as terribly dark and dank, but if done correctly, they can be simply lovely, and allow tons of natural light in.   I cannot immagine living in tornado alley and NOT living in a heavely bermed, or underground house.

Geodomes do have one REALLY good advantage...they withstand hurricanes very, very well.  With the house being round, there in nothing for the wind to "grab onto" and they tend to weather hurricanes quiet well.

My Mom sell realestate.  I've been in some really amazing energy efficient, or ultra green homes.  There are tons of other ways to be green, and have energy effficient homes, besides geodomes.  

~Garnet

Homesteading/Farming over 20 years

Answer 24

Actually a sphere or hemisphere will provide the smallest surface area for a given volume.  The surface area to volume ratio will be slightly higher for a geodesic dome.  The geodesic dome gives the lowest mass for a given area.  This is because most of the surface is not structural and can be made very thin.  Thus, the geodesic dome requires less material than a hemisphere, but it will have a higher surface area.