backtop

Print 40 comment(s) - last by wobBuilding.. on Oct 12 at 5:29 PM

NIST's newest laboratory, the Net Zero Energy Residential Test Facility  (Source: NIST)
Researchers will conduct a year-long experiment to see how well energy-efficient technologies work in a suburban home

A new laboratory will study and show how a normal suburban home can be capable of producing as much energy as it uses in a year.

The U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) were the creators of the new energy-efficient lab. They will use it to perform a year-long experiment on how certain energy-efficient designs can be implemented in the home in a cost-effective way. 

The "house" was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for green technology. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also played a big role, offering the architectural design and training for the house. 

The Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility looks like a real house for a family of four. It is two stories tall and has four bedrooms and three bathrooms. It was built almost entirely from U.S.-based materials, and has energy-efficient technologies such as solar photovoltaic systems and solar water heating. 

Here's how it works: the house will be treated as a regular, suburban home for one year (except no humans will be allowed to live there so that the house can be monitored correctly). However, lights will be timed to turn on and off at certain points in the day and water, appliances, etc. will run regularly. 

Using the solar photovoltaic systems and solar water heating technologies, electricity will be generated to power the lights and appliances. Any excess energy is sent back to the local utility grid through a smart electric meter, and on days when the house cannot draw enough energy to power utilities (ie, on a cloudy day), the house will draw this energy from the grid. 

According to NIST researchers, the house will utilize net-zero energy usage over the course of a year (in other words, it will generate as much as it uses). 

"Results from this lab will show if net-zero home design and technologies are ready for a neighborhood near you," said Patrick Gallagher, NIST director. "It will also allow development of new design standards and test methods for emerging energy-efficient technologies and, we hope, speed their adoption."

Such a system could help families save on their monthly energy bills and help make the grid more stable through reduced energy consumption. NIST conducted a ribbon-cutting ceremony of the house just two days ago. 

Source: Eurekalert


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Wave of the future
By Denigrate on 9/14/2012 3:43:57 PM , Rating: 3
It would be a good thing for all homes to be built in an energy efficient manner. The extra cost isn't much when building a new home. The energy creation portion of the home above isn't cheap, but put in as part of a new home probably would reduce the cost. Having a home completely off the grid would be very cool.




RE: Wave of the future
By MozeeToby on 9/14/2012 4:00:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The extra cost isn't much when building a new home.
Well that's the question isn't it? One who's answer is conspicuously absent from the article (not faulting the writer, I'm betting it was absent in the press release as well). And besides that, installation is only one piece, there's also maintenance, repairs, and inspections to think about.

Still, it'd be pretty cool. It would hardly be the first home in the world to be energy neutral, but it does seem to be doing so with a mainstream look and mainstream appliances, which is still a step forward.


RE: Wave of the future
By XZerg on 9/14/2012 4:25:31 PM , Rating: 1
My thoughts exactly - the technology hasn't matured enough for it to be a simple maintenance chore and whenever you have to call in a repair guy he will charge you a good sum of money, parts extra.

Either way before any at home energy generation can take off, the government needs to push the hydro companies to make it easier for people to put the extra energy into the system at no charge or for credits gain.


RE: Wave of the future
By Mint on 9/16/2012 12:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that simple. Solar and wind production have geographically large correlation, with periods of low production lasting days (even weeks for wind). It then requires backup energy, and a very fast ramping one at that (otherwise you're spinning power generation wastefully).

What this means is that while solar/wind capacity can reduce fossil fuel energy need, it does not subtract from FF capacity needed. A small city could get by on 1GW of natural gas running at 90% capacity factor, but if it built 1GW of solar/wind, it would still need almost 1GW of natural gas, except it would be ramping up and down a lot more and run at maybe 60% avg CF.

The fossil fuel generators still have the same construction cost, higher maintenance cost (from more cycling, less steady state production), and only save on fuel cost. Due to the lower energy demand and capacity factor, average cost per kWh will go up, and the consumer will then pay more for FF electricity.

So when people build solar rooftops to reduce their bill, using their own energy when they can, putting surplus back into the system when they can, and using FF energy when the sun isn't there, they are indirectly increasing the energy bills of those around them.

Only cheap energy storage systems can fix this problem, and they aren't here yet. There are some promising ideas in the works, but who knows if they'll pan out and be cheaper than our current dynamic generation solution.


RE: Wave of the future
By Sylvia Else on 9/17/2012 1:30:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
they are indirectly increasing the energy bills of those around them


Indeed, the fact that wind and solar displace other generation at times changes the economics of the generation displaced, favouring plant that is less capital intensive, but also less fuel efficient. Since that plant will produce more CO2 per unit energy generated when it's running, it is far from clear that photovoltaics and wind actually reduce total CO2 output in the long run. So not only are people who install photovoltaics raising the bills for other people, they may not even be achieving anything useful.


RE: Wave of the future
By Denigrate on 9/14/2012 4:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
Currently, just making your home energy efficient while building isn't much of a premium, but most builders are looking to maximize profit, so don't go to the extra cost.

Of course the energy generation costs from solar/wind are higher by quite a bit, then the maint costs are added on there.

Still, would love to have a home completely independent of the grid.


RE: Wave of the future
By Solandri on 9/14/2012 8:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Currently, just making your home energy efficient while building isn't much of a premium, but most builders are looking to maximize profit, so don't go to the extra cost.

Profit is maximized when you give buyers what they want. The features aren't left out because builders are trying to maximize profit. Builders make profit off of each feature they add to a home (you have to be colossally stupid to sell a feature for less than it costs you to install it). So more features means more profit.

The features are left out because buyers suck at math and don't want to pay up-front for a much larger savings long-term. That's the reason cars have EPA estimated mileage ratings and refrigerators have EnergyStar estimated annual operating cost labels on them. The government does the hard math, and puts the results on a label so the average buyer can easily factor it into the purchase decision.


RE: Wave of the future
By Spuke on 9/15/2012 2:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
Odd, but you can buy/build a net-zero home right now. Not sure what this study is all about. Anyways, to build a home like this DOES cost more but like Solandri says people only look at the pricetag not operating costs. For example, if I would've known that it would cost us $1200-$1400 per winter JUST on heating (propane), I would've swapped to an electric furnace and a wind generator back then


RE: Wave of the future
By hellokeith on 9/15/2012 5:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The features aren't left out because builders are trying to maximize profit.


On the contrary, the speed of construction is absolutely a matter of profit. Labor cost is a function of time. The more standardized is a build, the less cost goes to labor.


RE: Wave of the future
By danjw1 on 9/14/2012 8:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
There is a company, Solar City, that is offering Solar Energy production as a service. They pay for the installation and maintenance and you pay a monthly fee.


RE: Wave of the future
By Ghost42 on 9/15/2012 2:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
These services and companies like these usually require the home owner to have a monthly power bill above a certain amount (The amount here in California's Central Valley is about $150). Then what they do is install a system that is designed to supply enough electricity to keep you within the lower base rate of your main utility company while supplying you the excess.

You still pay your normal bill plus their bill on top of that.


RE: Wave of the future
By knutjb on 9/14/2012 11:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The extra cost isn't much when building a new home.

Contract Award Dollar Amount:
$2,590,110.00

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&...

I am all for a more efficient home. I am not for government telling me how I must do it. Drilling the well for the thermal pump is expensive and cannot be done in small lot, cookie cutter neighborhoods. Drilling costs vary with soil types, my neighborhood is a granite farm and is very expensive.

I would have rather seen a number of colleges/universities competing for a meager $500,000 prize. We usually see great innovation with private companies helping the schools out. Just like when we saw DARPA had a $100,000 prize for a self navigating vehicle. Pissed politicians off who didn't like the idea of a prize handed out by government but it was incredibly cheap considering the tens of millions companies threw at the colleges/universities.


RE: Wave of the future
By talikarni on 9/15/2012 12:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The extra cost isn't much when building a new home.


Have you seen the costs of this setup?

We are looking at $300,000+ for a house of this kind that would ordinarily cost $40,000 to build. Now granted regular people could probably go with just the solar shingles in many areas for around $15-20K and almost entirely go off the grid. This would be an easy transition for people with plenty of equity in their house, refinance with the cash out option.

The real problem is that it would take around 50-80 months to recover the cost ($20,000 at $300 per month power bill would be 66 months, or 5.5 years). But once you figure in maintenance per year, equipment failures, etc you will be paying to fix or replace parts and pieces which pretty much makes this an unsustainable system.

Solar shingles: average cost $35,000 (including roofers, electrician, power convertor, equipment, etc) compared to $5-10,000 for regular shingle job.

Water heater: average $10,000 for full solar system, versus $200-300 for a normal electric/gas water heater.

$300-500 PER PV converter, each handles 300-500W (typical house would need at least 3-4.)

LED and CF lighting: $200-300 worth of bulbs (more if they are LED), compared to maybe $20 at most for incandescent bulbs.

Then the appliances, you can expect an EXTRA ~$5,000 worth for the high efficiency versions over the normal energy star products.

For a new build, theres also at least double the cost to incorporate advanced framing, cross ventilation in every room, sprinklers, heat recovery, properly designed overhangs over windows, a ton of insulation. Then the extra cost of the tech items like advanced controls, photovoltaics, solar thermal, ground source heat pumps with three different kinds of heat exchangers and more.


RE: Wave of the future
By jdietz on 9/17/2012 11:13:35 AM , Rating: 1
Evidence for extra cost amount?


Cost Cost Cost
By bbcdude on 9/15/2012 10:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
The costs are not minor when compared to the cost of building a new home. I work as an architect, and every single time someone wants to build a new super efficient house or building, it always gets mostly dropped after the costs are worked out.

Examples:(based on an average 1200 s.f single family home in Canada)
-upgrade windows from double panned to triple paned reflective $20,000
-Install hot water heat recovery on drains. $4,000
-Use closed cell foam instead of batt insul. $15,000
-grid tied solar system 2350 watts (10 panels). $6,000

As a basic calculation, the house they are talking about would double in cost with all the features installed to make it energy neutral. There is no way the energy savings would ever pay for itself in your lifetime.Look at your power, water and heat bills.....how long would it take to add them up to the additional $250,000+ you are gonna spend to even roughly attempt this?

As a rule of thumb, most of the costs of products we buy is actually paying for energy required to make it and transport it. The reason most of these products are so expensive is because they require so much energy to create. Which means what you are really doing is using the energy to make these products in a factory, instead of using the energy in your house. There are no free lunches. The energy savings will be almost zero.




RE: Cost Cost Cost
By bbcdude on 9/15/2012 10:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
At a simple cost analysis, based on my own 1600 sf renovated farm house, of $200 a month gas and power. It would take 100 years to save back my estimated costs of $250,000 to make my home completely energy neutral as per this test house.

Also the 2350 watt solar power system will not come close to covering the power for the house, its just my experience that you cant get many panels on most roofs oriented efficiently into the sun.


RE: Cost Cost Cost
By Azethoth on 9/15/2012 7:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
Your explanation is too simplistic. What if someone only uses the cost effective techniques? Or by wider adoption the expensive specialty products become cheap commodity products?

Or perhaps by trying this every 5-10 years, the state of the art advances until it is possible?

Rule of thumb that that the energy savings of a product are expended up front in the factory?

Uhm, I am an ignorant person on the internet but that sounds wrong on the face of it. Solar panels alone disprove that. Their costs are plummeting because they get better and cheaper to build with R&D. You don't have to spend their energy production costs during manufacturing.

In your country of Canada the climate is the big problem, but you could use rammed earth construction which is created on site, not in a factory to insulate part of the first floor and the unfinished basement which will be finished, badly, later and rented out illegally without paying taxes on the income.


RE: Cost Cost Cost
By bbcdude on 9/16/2012 10:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
Using cost effective products already happens. If it makes sense financially, we already do it. This is fine as a theoretical exercise, but it is not even possible on a large scale. We don't have the raw materials or available energy to start large scale changes of this nature.

Wide adoption of products, such as foam insulation, has not made many products cheaper. Due to the fact that they are tied to energy use in manufacturing and they will only get more expensive as the price of energy increases. Products such as heat recovery, use large amounts of metals such as copper, and higher demand only make it more expensive due to limited supply and higher demand.

In most cases the cost savings of solar panels are coming from shipping manufacturing or partial manufacturing to china. They just are able to produce their energy and materials cheaper because they don't care about the environment.

Rammed earth is thermal mass better for heat storage, not insulation. Just building with rammed earth will not give you a high efficiency envelope. Castles with 5-10 foot thick walls are not cheap to heat.


Fail.
By idiot77 on 9/14/2012 3:52:33 PM , Rating: 1
Why hypothetically have a house turn itself on and off when you can get a bunch of fat, lazy, Americans to put the house to a real challenge.




RE: Fail.
By JKflipflop98 on 9/14/2012 7:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well, at least you got your username mostly correct.


RE: Fail.
By Azethoth on 9/15/2012 7:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, 77 seems like too low a number.


RE: Fail.
By RedemptionAD on 9/17/2012 2:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
His IQ maybe?


Waiting
By btc909 on 9/14/2012 4:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still waiting for a low cost residential wind generator & yet I see prices of solar panels have gone up. I've started to convert to LED cans. My attic is still an oven due to poor air movement. So i'll have to consider more soffits & a ridge vent or a front & rear gabel fans.




RE: Waiting
By Ammohunt on 9/14/2012 4:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
Thats the kind of thing i am doing to my ancient hovel of a house. I finally replaced the single pain windows with energy efficient triple pane windows this spring in hopes to save on gas this winter. Soon i plan on installing a wood burning stove so that i can heat my house for pennies and not have to rely on gas services to keep my house heated in the winter. I still need to redo my attic with a fresh blanket of insulation.


RE: Waiting
By CaedenV on 9/14/2012 9:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
I just installed a radiant barrier in my attic and the temps dropped dramatically in the attic space. I did not have a thermometer with me, but once it was all sealed and done the temps went from extremely hot to where I could not work on the project for long periods of time, down to just warm but bearable (maybe in the low-mid 90's?).
Sadly I finished the project just as temps here started cooling off, so I will not know the end result until next year, but when the ceiling use to get warm just on a sunny day (not even a hot day), it now stays nice and cool, so hopefully that is a sign that it will work well.
Super easy to install. It is just glorified tin foil that you staple up, and then tape at the seams. Installing that was perhaps the easiest part of the whole project (remodeled a room), and it wan't expensive so I'm not going to kick myself too hard if it doesn't work.


My own goals...
By CaedenV on 9/14/2012 10:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
This is an interesting article, and I really hope there is a follow-up when the year is done.
I own an older 1952 house, and am working at becoming energy neutral, which is a real challenge in an older home. It all started the first winter we lived in it and we were like... it's so friggin cold and the heater never turns off! We have to do something! So we came up with a plan, which kinda snowballed a little:

Step 1: Insulate. Finishing this now. Went from 1" rockwool to R57 up top, R30 under unheated floors, foam injection in the walls, and a radiant barrier. Just need to finish the radiant barrier and a little more insulation and the itchy/annoying part will be done!

Step 2: Appliances. Our house has appliances from the late 70s, most of which are on their last legs so they need to be replaced anyways. I wonder what life will be like with a fridge that turns off...

Step 3: Windows. We have double pained windows... sadly they leak terribly. We use plastic in the winter to seal them, which helps, but looks terrible.

Step 4: Roof. In ~5-7 years we will need a new roof, so the plan is to go with metal if we can afford it. Either way we will be getting soffit and ridge vents which will help a lot.

Step 5: Solar and batteries. During, or shortly after the roof replacement we should be ready (and solar tech should be ready) to 'go solar' for everything but heating. Install a battery system for backup power and reduce grid usage in the evening. As the bulk of solar installation is the electrical retrofit and roof mounting, the replacement cost of the panels with much better panels should be much cheaper 25-30 years later which is where the real savings come in.

Step 6: Heat Pump. We are currently on gas, and may stay on it if it is more cost effective, but I would like to look into a heat pump/water heater solution to go entirely on solar and have a real off-grid option. I understand that solar + electric heat simply does not work well, where as a heat pump, or geothermal heat pump solution should be possible.

I'm not sure if we will accomplish the whole plan, but just finishing step 1 has made the house a much quieter and more comfortable place to live. If everyone just invested in the first 3 steps I think they would be quite happy with the result.




RE: My own goals...
By bbcdude on 9/15/2012 10:40:40 AM , Rating: 2
Figure out the energy required to make all your materials and products. Add that into your energy neutral figures. You could heat your home for several years on the energy required to make your open cell expanding foam your injecting into the walls.

If you are doing it for comfort and convienience, then you are making good choices. But if you are doing it to save energy, you failed before the start. You can't use massive amounts of energy today to produce foam, metal, windows, appliances and claim your saving energy. Your just paying for the energy of years to come upfront, but it is still using energy.


RE: My own goals...
By djc208 on 9/17/2012 12:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
I understand where you're coming from, but by that sentiment there is no reason to do anything ever.

Replacing an appliance/vehicle/item strictly to save energy is usually bass-ackwards for the resons you cite. But there are too many variables to simply decree that every expenditure on energy savings is wasted.

Insulation put into a house has almost no fixed lifetime. 100 years from now, assuming the house is still standing (and there is a good chance it will be), that insulation will still be saving energy. The windows, probably not, and the appliances or any renewable energy source will be long gone. So to lump it all together is as narrow minded as calling it all useless in the first place.

You also tend to forget the ability to recycle and re-use. Discarded appliances, windows, and HVAC equipment can all be recycled, reducing the energy required to produce its replacement.


Location?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/14/2012 8:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
Neither the source nor this article says where this house is located. That would play a large role in which energy production systems are being used, although passive energy savings techniques are pretty universal. The test should include opening the doors several times a day, too.




RE: Location?
By vailr on 9/15/2012 1:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility (NZERTF) is a unique laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in Gaithersburg, Md

http://www.nist.gov/el/nzertf/

A linked local area TV newscast video:
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/09/nist-s-new-ne...


Simple solution
By macca007 on 9/14/2012 8:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
Change the laws!
Make it compulsory to be 5 star rating 6 star or whatever the average is up to now. People have no problem upgrading their cars after ony a few years when there is nothing wrong with old one yet they won't invest in their house which at least gets their money back, Same as phones and tv's they are happy to blow thousands without a thought on these yet can't afford a few thousand for a solar setup, Or several thousand to replace old windows with double glazing, Or insulate walls. It cost less than half of a new car to make my 25 year old house energy efficient. I couldn't care if we go into an ice age, My place is a constant 22 degrees celsius without any heating or cooling. ;)
The extra cost is a myth, My house resale value now far exceeds the investment I put into it,More energy efficient it is the more it's worth compared to your neighbours house.
Only thing is people prefer to buy the new toys first and wonder where their money has all gone.
Seriously if you live in a poorly insulated house, Do yourself a favour and go look around and feel the comfort level of a properly insulated house,Maybe you will see the light. Not just temperature but also noise control, Neighbourhood noise is cut down by more than half,Less stress more sleep or quietness to enjoy your own leisure.
Some of the new houses I see being built now are quite a joke,Paper thin walls,Cold solid floors,Cheap aluminium windows that INCREASE noise,Thinner glass to reduce costs etc etc
Wonder what difference it would make just by changing policy if all new houses just had 1 change say like double glazing,Off topic but wouldn't greenhouse emmisions be cut just from something simple instead of trying to reinvent the wheel such as fusion or another complex solution. Go back to basics first!




RE: Simple solution
By MadMan007 on 9/15/2012 12:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
People can't stroke their ego as easily by having a well-insulated house. There's your answer to why they don't do it as much as the other things.


In a year
By Jeremy87 on 9/15/2012 5:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
Why does the article mention the energy consumption of a single year so many times?

If it continously produces more than it consumes, then just say so, otherwise we don't know how long it takes to produce the energy it consumes in a year. Is it an instantaneous one-time thing, or does it take 5 years to cover the 1 year consumption?




RE: In a year
By Fritzr on 9/16/2012 2:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
Reduction of usage. Pretty straightforward that. If you plan to use it for one hour, then never again, you can treat it as a one time instant benefit. Most people though plan to use utility services 24/7 over the entire period they occupy the property.

Maintenance cost. Also straightforward. Unless there is an explanation, this will be the estimated annual cost of maintenance over a stated lifetime. It is assumed that the installation cost will be repeated at lifetime intervals.

Installation cost. Pretty straightforward again. Installation is almost always a 1 time upfront cost. It can be an ongoing cost for a period of years if you pay on the installment plan, but do you really expect the researchers to know what terms the bank will give you?

1 year makes a nice arbitrary unit.
If you want 5 year numbers then multiply by 5.
If you want monthly numbers then divide by 12.
If you want the monthly payments for the loan to pay for the upfront costs consult your friendly loan officer.


Useless Simulation!
By Orac4prez on 9/14/2012 8:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
A family of 4 will produce massive amounts of body heat when they live in it. They will use an airconditioner, they will use the fridge (open the door a lot and put hot things like food from the shops in it to be cooled) and they will open windows and doors. Even turning on appliances like the TV will effect all the results. I've seen tests like this and invariably they dont reflect the real world very well. Ayone can build something energy neutral if noone lives in it!




Zero energy homes are nothing new
By Gungel on 9/15/2012 8:42:45 AM , Rating: 2
I looked at a zero energy home about 10 years ago in Oakland Township MI. The house was built with ICF forms and the home owner even had a heated indoor pool and everything was powered by either hot water which was a roof circulation system and solar power with battery backup. A wind turbine was also present but he said that it is not really needed. On a sunny and windy summer day he can even supply power back into the grid.




Oh good
By FITCamaro on 9/15/2012 8:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
More crap I'm sure they plan to try and subsidize.




By DockScience on 9/16/2012 1:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
This house cost $2.5 MILLION.

Let's say you instead buy a conventional $500,000 home and put that extra $2 million into dividend stocks yielding 4%.

That's $80,000 per year with only 15% taxes. EVERY YEAR.
Plus capital gains on the investment itself.

Forget free electricity, this permanent income stream would be more than enough to pay for all utilities, food, transportation, insurance, vacations.




lol
By Stuka on 9/17/2012 12:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the house will be treated as a regular, suburban home for one year (except no humans will be allowed to live there so that the house can be monitored correctly).

Ahhhh... home... be it ever so humble.

Seems to me, the test is irrelevant if no one is living there. Synthetic benchmarks don't mean squat. Didn't we figure this one out years ago when Pentium4 came out?




By wobBuilding on 10/12/2012 5:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
I was watching a lecture series on structural engineering at Stanford when one of the lectures mentions a zero energy home he build in the rocky mountains in 1984: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/civil-environ... (look under Advanced Energy Efficiency: Buildings to view the lecture) He goes on to talk about how these zero energy buildings are cheaper to build because you don't need an air condition or air heating system.
The picture chosen for this article has both and it makes me suspicious of how well designed the house is, if a house could be built in the rocky mountains with 1984 technology without them. The picture also shows large sets of windows on two opposite sides of the house, which even in the case of them being an East/West facing are far too numerous for ideal passive solar heat gains and if North/South orientation terrible for passive solar.
This house looks more like a conventional house with some "Green" products being tested and maybe with enough "Green" products it can be zero energy, but it won't be inexpensive or well designed. We really have to be able to step away from the conventional thin walled, ever expanding square footage, windows just for the view, mini-McMansion design of house building if we are going to make significant progress in making sustainable and affordable housing.




"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki