UK unveils zero-emission "Lighthouse" home design

The UK's now showing off what it claims to be the "first" zero-emission home design or, more specifically, the first to meet "level six requirements" of the Code for Sustainable Homes set to go in effect in the year 2016, according to the BBC. Designed by Kingspan Off-Site, the so-called "Lighthouse" design includes, among other things, solar panels on the roof and a biomass boiler on the inside that runs on various organic fuels, with a waste separation system also included to weed out trash that can be burned to provide additional power. The house also packs in additional insulation to cut down on heat loss, and boasts a "wind catcher" for ventilation in the summer. While those measures will apparently help to reduce the house's annual energy bill to just £31 ($61), the house itself will demand quite a premium over less efficient homes, costing about 40% more, although Kingspan says that'll come done if they're produced en masse.

[martintxo @ Jun 12th 2007 11:48PM]

yes, the prices will come down, but will take at least a decade for a common Charles Boddington to be able to buy parts for the old house that will save him some quid.

adapting the existent housing to the new technology, will be the challenge and where the money is.

[greg @ Jun 14th 2007 2:54AM]

Why cant the government subidise it? The cost of shooting and bombing people in Iraq could be changed to makign green houses.

[terry @ Jun 13th 2007 12:07AM]

yes its seems to me they always come up with these ideas to mankind and the planet but usually only the rich can afford it.what about the poor,the working poor,peoplr who work for a living and i mean phsycally.these ideas are great but think of it in terms of human beings not dollar signs,help all mankind and your precious profits will come.the rich can pay their bills,what about the rest of us?we are all one world one mankind.the world could be a much better place to live,if we could think in terms of people instead of profits.
share the life.

[terry @ Jun 13th 2007 12:10AM]

great idea but make it affordable to all,now,we need it,the planet needs it

[Big @ Jun 13th 2007 12:20AM]

The simple fact is that it is considerably easier to burn fossil fuels than it is to both develop alternate energy and to maintain alternate enrgy systems.

The simple fact is that the rich men who own Oil fields and special interest will fight all alternative energy sources to keep the world addicted to oil.

What America needs to do FIRST is to kick the special interest element out of Congress and sever ALL ties with Middle East oil. That will require revolution.

Then science needs to turn all its force and might into biomass/biodiesel and garbage recycling - alternate plastic development.

America WASTES too much and now with China, India and Russia rising, their growth will be unsustainable and lead to massive environmental decay within 100 years - which oddly enough is a shorter amount of time than you might believe.

Kick the fat congressmen out on their asses and put science in charge.

Kick the false believers out of Congress and put science in charge.

I bet you we'll have Hydrogen power, biomass heating for homes and all types of scientific breakthroughs for the good of mankind AFTER WE KILL THOSE FAT CONGRESS BASTARDS.

[John Doe @ Jun 13th 2007 12:33AM]

We don't need to kick anything out of congress. There will be a natural flow towards environmentalism as the storms get worse and worse. As weather patterns effect our way of life. (Say goodbye to those wonderful ski resorts.) We are already starting to see fallout in insurance realms as insurance and reinsurance companies are getting VERY twitchy about covering companies along the Southern costs.
Then you simply have the backlash of importing foreign oil. No matter which way you cut it America does NOT have oil reserves to meet our demand for it. Also we are fast approaching a showdown with China when it comes to oil. While we dick around in Iraq, China as been quietly building relations, infrastructures, and a Navy along the Southern Asian boarder into Africa.

All these things will eventually push America into adopting a more environmentally friendly position. That being said there is no reason not to nudge it down the road with legislation.

[Kyle @ Jun 13th 2007 1:00AM]

This reply is to John's reply. Shouldn't we take action before the storms become worse and kill people and ruin our lives? I know kicking congressmen out of office is far-fetched, but sitting and letting it "flow" seems like a pointless endeavor because by then it's too late.

That's just my opinion though, same as your comment. Opinion. So before anybody comes on here and flames like a crazy crazy...keep in mind it's all opinion.

[treetrunk @ Jun 13th 2007 4:42AM]

Nobody is "fighting" alternative energy sources apart from simple economics. Renewable energy options do exist, but most come at a substantial cost (and often convenience) premium. Until the oil starts running out and the prices go up, they're going to stay that way.

There is still a HUGE amount of work which needs to be done before we can stop using oil. Theoretically there are many renewable energy sources which could be used for domestic power and ground transport, such as solar, wind, water, bio-whatever. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source, it is merely a storage medium, because you have to produce the hydrogen using some other energy source. The main problem with most of these is the space they take up- you'd need a LOT of biomass/solar panels/wind turbines etc to produce even a tiny fraction of our energy needs. Other areas are still further behind- you can't power an aero engine on biodiesel.

You can't force the market to change and you can't force science to come up with the answers. Oil is a finite reserve and it will run out. Alternatives will be found, and will become increasingly viable. This will take time however.

[spil @ Jun 13th 2007 9:49AM]

"john doe": The thing about ski resorts all going out of business is only partially true. With rising temperatures, it only affects the start and end of the season, and in some cases, global warming even makes more snow. Because all the polar ice caps are melting, etc., There is not olnly more water in the oceans, but also more water/moisture in the air/clouds, causing more snow (take denver this winter for example). So global warming could actually help the ski industry. So I think that the ski industry is actually pretty safe. Besides, by the time it is so hot that it is not cold enough for snow to fall even in very northern and high altitude places, there will be more ugent things to worry about than recreation.

Any way, to get back on topic, I think the house is a great idea, and I would buy one if/when I am in the market for a house.

[John Doe @ Jun 13th 2007 12:24AM]

This is a general statement not centered at Terry. However I've always found it supremely amusing how people always say that the planet is in trouble. How we need to save mother earth. How we are destroying Earth.
When in actuality the planet, from an anthropomorphic standpoint, couldn't give less of a shit what we do to it. Radiate it, burn it, deforest it, overpopulate it, or just outright pollute it. The planet will keep on spinning and in a few hundred thousand years will be fine once again. No the planet isn't what needs saving. It’s the delicate ecosystems we live in that needs saving. In short its mankind’s current environment that needs saving, not the Earth.

As for this concept. Great idea but it better well have HDTV in it or back to the drawing boards. :-P

[Big @ Jun 13th 2007 12:33AM]

This is an argument targeting the semantics of the "Save the World" bumper sticker slogans which totaly ignores the spirit of the words.

WE KNOW ITS THE ECOSYSTEM THAT MUST BE PROTECTED.

Why bother making the argument against the wording?
This is not standup comedy!
You are not George Carlin!

[sm @ Jun 13th 2007 6:55AM]

Good point. And it's not just semantics. The "environmentalist ego" has this attitude of a higher calling to save the Earth, to save Gaia. This switches off the non-environmentalists--they stop listening, but it also causes a bigger problem; we stop looking at the situation in an objective and pragmatic way. If you believe that we have to save Earth by saving all the animal and plant species, then the only answer is to stop having kids, to reduce the human population, down to 250 million, and so throw our society back to barbaric times.
If you think though, that the planet is too big and too old to be affected by our presence, and that in a million years it will have evolved a new ecosystem, then the only question is that of our own survival. So would we survive better if we carried on using oil now, and increase industry and science and the economy, and promote 3rd world growth, to balance the world and reduce tensions? at least until we have a chance to find better technology? Or should we risk destabilising our world further by introducing artificial scarcity? That's just one aspect, but remember that issues of survival bring out the worst in people.

[cow @ Jun 13th 2007 1:14AM]

How is this house zero emissions when it uses a biomass boiler and runs on organic fuels? Burning organic anything will produce CO2.

[Mike @ Jun 13th 2007 3:00AM]

Biomass is 'carbon-neutral' as growing it removes as much, if not more CO2 from the atmosphere than burning it adds, thus zero net emissions.

[ssuk @ Jun 13th 2007 3:05AM]

That house looks terrible... I know people think "Ooh, look, it's the house of tomorrow" but... Come on, I'd like to live in a NORMAL house, not one that looks like it was crafted by a 5 year old... Then again our Olympic logo was produced by a 5 year old, so 'nuff said.

[Mono @ Jun 15th 2007 6:22AM]

I think the house design looks great. So much nicer than the bland 'toy town' houses thrown up on current building schemes.

The Olympic logo too is a cutting edge design. The shock of the new may be uncomfortable to some but it's a breath of fresh air to me.

[spil @ Jun 13th 2007 9:55AM]

Heh, your "house of tommorrow" part is pretty true, but the house isn't THAT bad, it just looks like it was meant to be built on a hill so it wouldn't stick out as much as if it were in the middle of a the suburbs.

Also that lime green piece is pretty ugly, but the rest isn't that bad.

[TheWakeUpCall @ Jun 13th 2007 8:36AM]

Alright, but isn't that house REALLY ugly though?

[Jon @ Jun 13th 2007 8:42AM]

I was there last week (I live in London) and the buildings were actually very nice and looks liveable. Unlike the Olympic logo, this was professional and will probably cost less than the logo once mass production begins.

[Charles B. @ Jun 13th 2007 9:55AM]

Is it just me or does this house look like a DLP television viewed from the back.

[David @ Jun 13th 2007 10:31AM]

I think the house looks terrific, smart and modern. Sure, its not a thatched cottage... does anyone live in those any more?

There is room for hi tech and traditional, but lets make them all energy efficient.

Yes, it is expensive though.

[Bill @ Jun 13th 2007 12:50PM]

Zero emissions? I wish the same could have been said of my former roommate...

Say no to breakfast burritos!!!

[Scooter @ Jun 13th 2007 5:45PM]

when something is expensive, how do you afford it? Is that extra income gained sustainably, or by creating more problems?

Part of the pressure we are placing on the planet is due to everyone wanting more - a better life, more gadgets, etc. (I know I do). China's rapid growth is a major environmental headache, and we have to find some solutions fast.

This looks interesting, but is the blank side of the house facing south (to catch the sun on the panels and presumably act as a heat sink?). That would be a triumph of design over liveability: who doesn't like to catch some rays while indoors?

[spil @ Jun 14th 2007 9:39AM]

I don't know if I am alone on this, but I personally don't like very many windows in my house. If its in the living room/den/media room, I don't want windows because they would put glare on the tv. I don't like sun in my bedroom, because I go there to sleep, so sun shouldn't matter there (plus I like it very dark when I sleep, so having light shining in from the stret lights or moon would also be bad). The only place I would like windows would be my kitchen or my bathroom.

[ccyew @ Jun 14th 2007 1:54AM]

隔熱材質不只冬天有用，夏天也可以避免冷氣跟外界過度交換而浪費能量喔。

另外屋頂那根煙囪應該也是排風，因為這樣高溫才會從高處流掉，從地面或是低樓層進冷空氣。

[sud @ Jun 19th 2007 1:49AM]

I definitely feel inspired, to try and have as many of the financially feasible ideas in this article, in my house(when I do get around to building/buying one).

I wish other's would do so too. Maybe it wouldn't really change the look or the feel of the house or dent the budget so much, to have some, if not all of these ideas in our houses. It would make a difference to the environment though.