[Strawbale] sunspaces

[Rob Tom]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:54:36 -0400, <SArjuna at aol.com> wrote:
[snipped]

> [opinions re:] attached greenhouse/sunspace ?

> one famous SB writer/speaker saying they are horrid.
>      We'd be building this in SE Wisconsin


Shiv;

I'd be interested in seeing the famous SB writer speaker explain to this  
List why (s)he feels attached greenhouses/sunspaces (AG/SS) are "horrid".

I live in a somewhat similar climate to the one you will be building in  
(~8750 HDD/yr)
and I wouldn't even think about building a house without one.

I suppose that one's opinion of AG/SS would depend upon what one's  
expectations were from the space.

If one had intended on using it as a living space in which to hang out for  
most of one's non-sleeping time, then "yes" it would be horrid simply  
because such an expectation would be ill-informed and hence, unrealistic.

Extensive areas of glass fully exposed to sun in the day and cold at night  
? Hello-o-o-o ???

If one had intended to use it as a thermal buffer zone, a transitional  
space, a solar furnace for the rest of the house, a place for  
starting/growing plants and extending the growing season, then one would  
be delighted ... as I am with mine.

Given the minimal cost of including such a space on one's home and the  
rapid payback via reduced space-heating energy load for the rest of the  
house, not to mention the other non-monetary benefits that such a space  
bestows to the dwelling, I do have to wonder why there is even a question  
in anyone's mind as to whether or not to include one in our climate.




===* ===
Rob Tom
Kanata, Ontario, Canada
<archilogic at chaffyahoo dot ca>
winnow the chaff from my edress in your reply