My View
You can skip the passive solar
by Randy Jorgen
Apr 12, 2018 | 259 views | 0 0 comments | 13 13 recommendations | email to a friend | print


It’s time to say goodbye to the central premise of passive solar home design, which is using your windows as heaters.

Responding to Claire Spalding’s column in The Times-Independent from Feb. 1 (“Building Smarter”) in which she suggests limiting north windows, I ask, Claire, please let the people have their north windows — wherever they like, as large as they like (within reason), as appropriate to fulfill the real purposes of windows: views, light, and air.

The most even light and some of the best views are from north windows. Don’t require that windows contribute to your heat budget. And then let the people have only the south windows they actually enjoy; they needn’t have more.

Back story: Three years ago when my wife and I decided it was time to build an old-folks comfort home, I, wanting to do the right thing for the planet, and following the lead of several good friends, naturally assumed it must have a passive solar design. Mesmerized by the thought of working in concert with nature, harvesting “free” energy, I looked askance at homes that seemed to not take similar advantage. When attempts to get help from prominent solar experts failed, it became clear I would have to design it myself. All my many early designs featured large south windows and lots of thermal mass, and few north windows. I calculated ratios of south glass-to-floor area, included clerestory windows and Trombe walls, pondered moveable insulation panels, and planned for high heat gain windows on the south, all to absorb as much heat as possible while attempting to store that heat in thermal mass to prevent overheating.

Through it all I kept reading widely. The more I read the easier it became to separate real building science authorities from people repeating old truisms and politically correct assumptions. The wheels of my mind achingly ground round to the surprising, heretical conclusion that a passive solar design is not the best way to build a comfortable, environmentally responsible house. Building science has moved on; can Moab now do so too?

Yes, you can build a good house using passive solar design, and for some that will be the right choice. But it turns out that the better alternative for most is super-insulation (significantly higher than code-minimum levels), including high-R-value windows. If you lose very little heat in the winter (or gain very little in the summer), you don’t have to add much heat or cool much to be comfortable.

We now know how to do it, and it is cheaper than passive solar. Plus you will enjoy the advantages of thermostatically controllable heat instead of large temperature swings of a passive solar design. And ultimately your environmental impact will likely be smaller too.

People smarter than I have crunched the numbers and shown that the cost of buying and installing good windows beyond those desired for normal window purposes will not be recouped in energy, and the money could be better spent on insulation or solar panels. But the greater reasons for not following passive solar principles relate to occupant comfort: glare, chilly mornings, overheated afternoons even in the winter but especially in shoulder seasons.

Have you ever noticed that virtually no one sits on the south side of the Moab library or the Grand Center on a sunny winter day? Drive around on a sunny day even in the middle of winter and you will see that a large percentage of passive solar houses have the south blinds closed. It turns out that sun drenching, with its glare and high temperatures, is actually not so inviting in the long run for most people, and is not good task lighting.

Where do you go to get warm? Many people yearn for big south windows because they think they will need some warm place to sit on a cold winter day. But in a super-insulated house with really good windows, you’ll probably forget about that because everyplace is warm; you’ll just go about your business.


Copyright 2013 The Times-Independent. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

report abuse...

Express yourself:

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.