Tim McNabb March 22, 2013 11:36 AM I believe this is the architect for this project here in Missouri:http://jeffdayllc.com/active-house-usa-webster-groves-mo/ Jaroslaw Filiochowski March 22, 2013 12:06 PM "Net zero"... does that include construction, or just operation? I mean, it's a step in the right direction, but if you still need tons of fossil fuels to build it I wouldn't call it "net zero". Arahant March 22, 2013 01:02 PM Pretty sure its including construction, i could be wrong. If it was just operation you could just load any house with a ton of solar panels and a wind turbine.That being said i'm not sure HOW they get to net zero but its probably explained elsewhere on the net. I think they recycle materials which is a way of offsetting the carbon that they do use or something like that.Anyways interesting house, looks nice inside when its sunny, but im worried about when its overcast and at night time, as i did not see any light bulbs anywhere. Spike Elex March 22, 2013 01:12 PM Why is it the reporter on stories like these never list the actual cost? I mean it's one thing to get the word that a net-zero home in traditional suburban style is one thing but how about a little price knowledge to pair with it. Bruce Ward March 22, 2013 04:08 PM am i missing something; is there some benefit toward sustainability gained from having a miraculously "ugly" circa 1970's copy of a capeCoddish beach house "look" for your "zero Active House"? Buellrider March 22, 2013 07:04 PM I really like the look of this house. In fact, it looks so much nicer than most houses being put up these days. I want a house with 1 foot thick walls full of foam. I hate the way my old 1958 home seems to heat the outside because of the substandard insulation in 2x4 walls. Lumen March 23, 2013 05:38 PM Where's the fridge? Perhaps the camera angles just don't show one. Daishi March 24, 2013 04:04 AM I like the look of the natural lighting but like a lot of things I think there are some tradeoffs. Sometimes when the sun hits surfaces (like a TV) there is a glare and it can be hard to see. Even driven towards the sun in your car? That can be experienced in a house with a lot of windows as well. The other point is that unnatural lighting technologies have come a long way recently between CFL and now LED. Depending on what area of the world you live in heating and cooling the house is probably much more expensive than lighting using modern technologies. Skylights are typically higher maintenance and cost than standard roofing and while it may have held true that they offered some cost savings in the past when incandescent lighting was the norm I'm skeptic that this is still the case.The rooms with all the huge floor to ceiling windows are also sources of heat/cooling loss that party offset some of the work that the upgraded insulation is doing.@Buellrider, is what kind of siding is on your 1958 home? They make better insulation these days but if you don't want to replace it you can put a layer of insulation/foam board down underneath new vinyl siding. It doesn't need to be a foot thick to be effective. Newer windows are a lot more efficient too. If you have older single pane windows still this is probably your bigger source of heat loss. Noel Frothingham March 24, 2013 04:40 AM Spike, the construction price isn't listed because it isn't relevant to future units. The economies of scale will inevitably lower the cost of materials and labor of future units. christopher March 25, 2013 07:07 AM That's not an electric car in the garage, and even if it was - there's no excess juice to charge it. "Net Zero" already exists, and it's hippies enjoying their countryside farms, not suit-wielding commuters.