Off-Grid Home Ecocapsule To Hit the Market This Year 164
Kristine Lofgren writes: If you dream of living totally off-the-grid anywhere in the world, you need to get your hands on this home. Nice Architects just unveiled their incredible egg-shaped Ecocapsule, and announced that the tiny solar and wind-powered dwelling will be available for sale later this year, with units shipping in spring 2016. From the website: "Despite its small form each Ecocapsule is fitted with all essentials necessary for a comfortable prolonged stay without a need to recharge or re-supply. Ecocapsule is powered by a built-in wind turbine complemented with an array of solar cells. Dual power system and a high-capacity battery ensures that you will have enough power during periods of reduced solar or wind activity. Spherical shape is optimized for the collection of rainwater and dew and the built-in water filters allow you to utilize any water source.
Well that's my dream of the future (Score:2)
No not really
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cjbuildsllc.com/wp-... [cjbuildsllc.com]
Airstream 1947 Buckminster fuller
It even has wheels,
Re: (Score:2)
LOL Yes a few solar panels and a windmill
But hell if you realized how little it was you might make sense.
Why no wheels? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The picture on the website shows it can be put on a transport platform and drawn around by a car. So it can be adapted as a caravan if you want to.
Just convert a shipping container (Score:5, Insightful)
The picture on the website shows it can be put on a transport platform and drawn around by a car.
Or I could just buy a camper that is already "on a transport platform" and get a more practical design while I'm at it. Seriously, this is the sort of stupid concept "designers" are getting WAY too much money to come up with. The clearly started with the external appearance and a checklist of features and worked from there rather than actually spending time considering any functional considerations.
How do you propose to get this thing "on a transport platform"? It's clearly not meant to be dragged. There is no obvious hookup for a hoist. It apparently fits in a shipping container but that raises the question of why not just convert the shipping container to living space? It's more practical, modular, goes right on a truck and almost certainly is cheaper to make and convert. Plus probably more durable and recyclable. The transportation infrastructure is already available and it's not exactly a challenge to put solar cells and a wind turbine on the roof.
Re:Just convert a shipping container (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed.
I had done something similar with a 30' camping trailer years ago. It began as a rescue project - I paid $1 (literally) for the thing and dragged it home. After stripping it to the shell, I rebuilt it from the inside out - extra-thick insulation, salvaged RV appliances and cabinets, solar panels on the roof, a pair of Group 4D 12v batteries (the size used on fire trucks), a 150 gallon water tank (to replace the puny 25-gallon one), two massive (80#) propane tanks up front, a *real* queen-sized bed, extra weatherproofing and a new coat of paint, etc. Even kept a computer + LCD monitor in it, which consumed less power than a tube TV.
By the time I was done, that $1 investment cost me an additional $3.5k or so, but it was already road-worthy, and it allowed me to spend a literal month in it to bracket two hunting seasons (in Utah - first Elk, then Mule Deer) without having to replenish supplies from in-town. The windmill would have been nice, but I already had the panels, a generator and plenty of gasoline stored in the truck bed...
I barely used the generator or the propane until it began snowing, though... Speaking of which, I wonder how this little egg thingy would do at 10k' ASL in a snowstorm, with the temperatures well below freezing... seems like it would be pretty cramped and cold considering no visible heating source.
To your point, though: when I was ready to go home, I just stowed the stabilizing jacks, hooked it up to the truck, and drove off. No muss, no fuss.
Re: (Score:2)
It apparently fits in a shipping container but that raises the question of why not just convert the shipping container to living space?
Tempohousing [tempohousing.com] does this.
There was an article about the Danish branch planning to sell a full stackable student-sized apartment with shower and kitchen. I think the price tag was around 40-50k USD for one. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the name of the company
Re: (Score:2)
Structural integrity and boredome (Score:2)
Shipping containers are not structurally sound once you drill a hole in one and need to be framed like a regular house if you don't want to die of suffocation.
Both problems are trivially solved with a bit of reinforcing metal and a welding torch. This has been done countless times already. Twenty seconds on Google would have established that this is not a problem. At all.
Or of boredom of being inside a black box.
You mean black boxes like these [thrillist.com]? Or these [architecturendesign.net]? Or these [popularmechanics.com]? Yeah, those are terribly boring places to be be... [/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Running the engine for 20 minutes charged up the batteries more than sitting in he sun all day.
But it is sitting in the sun all day anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
If your goal is to be off-grid and not on-propane, you want to run as much as possible off renewable power. You can fit almost 2kW of PV on a roof now, and at 5h average annual production that is 10kWh/day. To store it you would need 6-8 8D batteries.
Using a gas generator you would need about 15 gallons of gas a week; propane you would need about 50# per week.
If your power needs are much lower then it isn't an issue either way. If you can get by on less than 1kWh/day then who really cares...
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm Frida Waterfall, leader of the Greenorita Eco-Feminist Collective, and we will not let you man-doze this beautiful gyno-desert."
Yeah it's awesome... (Score:3)
This would make an awesome camper.
You mean except for the idiotic layout, the lack of wheels or towing equipment, the impractical shape, the lack of substantial water or battery space, the inflexible interior design, the ugly appearance and the expensive round shape?
Yeah other than that it's great...
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it doesn't have wheels doesn't mean you can't tow it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Epic fail (Score:2)
Well it looks like it will fit nicely into a standard 20 foot container with room to spare.
How are you going to get it in there? This egg thing clearly isn't designed to be handled by common material handling equipment like forklifts or cranes.
Besides if you are going to put it in a shipping container, you might as well just convert the shipping container itself and use that instead. It'll be more practical, cheaper, more durable, easier to modify, easier to fix, more recyclable, recyclable, easier to transport, have a more sensible layout, easier to insulate, have more room for solar cells and
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why no wheels? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh (Score:2)
"filters allow you to utilize any water source" (Score:2)
Really? Any water source? So the egg also replaces the need for a sewer/septic tank for urine?
I want to see the idiot that used "any" in the summary instead of "many" or "some" drinking the "filtered" output of one of these eggs after I piss in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because composting toilets don't really work. Not if they're used with any regularity. It does have one, and that's the only big flaw I can see in this design.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could work if all the water sticks to the sides and makes it to the bottom of the egg - water could be collected there. I'm sure at least some of the water will fall off the sides and hit the ground though. I'm thinking a more traditional camper-trailer shape with a sloped roof might've been better for collecting water, and of course would've given more interior space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about if you're constipated?
(I'll be here all week!)
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, at least in this instance. I didn't say flushing using "recycled" urine from the egg, I said that the person who wrote that should drink "recycled" urine.
A small efficient black box that could efficiently recycle urine and other polluted sources into drinkable water would truly be a revolution. Instead what we have here is clearly massively over hyped and that idiot deserves to drink piss as an object lesson on just what recycling "all" water sources means.
Do no
Re: (Score:3)
Conventional filtration does not remove salts, which is the main reason that drinking one's own urine isn't a recipe for wilderness survival in the real world (contrary to whatever a fake TV survivalist may have told you) and why you can't survive off of seawater. It takes reverse osmosis or electrodialysis or similar to do that - that is, power-hungry processes. Filters that involve pushing water through fine pores, like ceramic filters wouldn't even remove a significant amount of the urea (the body's way
Re: (Score:2)
With what power output? The claim that one is going to get 750W from that tiny wind turbine is nonsense. Also, the smaller you make a RO system, the less efficient it gets - quoting industrial-scale figures is not applicable. It'd need something more like a marine watermaker for small boats, which usually use twice as much power. And they cost $5-10k.
Small wind does not work! (Score:5, Informative)
The energy output of a wind turbine is proportional to the cross-sectional area, and to the cube of the wind speed*. This means that to provide a useful amount of energy they need to be big, and they need a lot of wind - that means a high mounting point. These little pinwheels on short poles are just a gimmick - you'd be lucky to get 20W from them on a very good windy day.
*Think about it. (m*v^2)/2 will get you half-way there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Small wind does not work! (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of boats like yachts and cruisers have wind turbines and even small ones can get 25W and peak to 60W. Combine with solar and it's probably sufficient to run a small fridge continuously and lights and small power draw devices at night.
Those yachts and cruisers get most of their power from their engine, and many also have an onboard generator. The wind turbines are a way to get an extra boost while having a fallback solution (ALWAYS crucial for long-distance sailing) in the event that another system fails. The turbines in no way provide enough power to sustain normal life on a prolonged basis in the absence of any other power source. And this is in a living space without things that pull a lot of power like microwave ovens, large refrigerators, washing machines/dryers, desktop computers, etc. A home needs WAY more power than any yacht I've ever been on...which is why at docks you'll see people hooking up to 30W power feeds and being all set. According to current NFPW code, that entire dockside feed would be the equivalent of what you would require for a single large household appliance.
Oh, and I'm not sure where you're seeing wind turbines on yachts that can put out 60W; yachts that I've seen that were big enough to have electrical systems that could even handle that wattage didn't have turbines at all...they were all huge power cruisers for whom engine fuel consumption was so obscene that running a generator sufficient to power the whole yacht was an inconsequential expense in comparison to simply cruising for an hour at 5 knots. If it exists, I've never seen one on a boat.
I've lived on a yacht for a prolonged period of time...and while I loved it, I wouldn't even give a moment's consideration to a house where I had to live like that. The "small fridge" and "small power draw devices at night" combination isn't a realistic way to live one's life on land.
And I know what you may be thinking..."but a lot of yachts have solar panels too!" Yes, they do...but even the wind/solar combination, together, only helps. It's not enough on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
And I said 25W
Re: (Score:2)
"Even a small turbine is still enough to deliver ~600W in a day" ...
Not even wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
FAIL. Dimensional analysis. LEARN IT. A watt is not a watt hour.
25W * 24h = 600 Wh or 0.6 kWh
And that ain't much, BTW. 10 cents worth or less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are getting your units wrong. Very wrong.
You should be getting a result in watt-hours or joules. Depending on purpose - joules are used in engineering, watt-hours are a unit of convenience in usage calculations and billing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have all been very gentle, but it's time for a clue stick. W is a unit of power, an instantaneous quantity. Wh is a unit of energy, an integrated quantity.
If you push with 10 lb of force, do you really think you've pushed with 100 lb of force after 10 seconds, or 10 hours?
Think. We know it's not easy, but try.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived on a yacht for a prolonged period of time...and while I loved it, I wouldn't even give a moment's consideration to a house where I had to live like that. The "small fridge" and "small power draw devices at night" combination isn't a realistic way to live one's life on land.
You know solar has come down a whole lot, right? And there's lots of low-power equipment these days? And you can have a decent-sized fridge, if you can find space to dedicate to a chest fridge. You can put a counter over the top of it, and integrate it that way, or use the pull-out drawer style. Most fridges are woefully underinsulated for the job they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Not to mention that low turbines are more subject to turbulence, which shortens their lifespan - and in a "home" like this, would impart this force into shaking the occupants around. So you really have to limit yourself to a small, very low power turbine. This "750 watts" thing isn't going to be even close to the mark - maybe 750 watt-hours per day.
That said... fine, if all you're running is low power devices like LED lights, maybe a laptop, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Personal space heater, small air conditioner, mini-fridge, electric range or oven.... yeah, forget about it. Let's face it, this isn't a home, it's a hard-to-transport glamping shelter.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article: Its 9744Wh battery is powered by a 750W silent wind turbine
Re: (Score:2)
They lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That still doesn't help when the wind isn't blowing sufficiently to generate enough power. They should add a treadmill backup. And they could put it in front of the wind turbine so it can keep you cool while you're jogging!
Re: (Score:2)
'Greenwashing' refers to companies that make a big public show of being pro-environment, but without actually achieving this aim - instead focusing on publicity because the appearance of green can be a lot cheaper than being actually green.
A 'toy wind' turbine alone isn't greenwashing. It becomes greenwashing when you put it on your roof to show all your neighbors how much you care about the earth, then sit back and set the heating to maximum because you couldn't be bothered to insulate your walls properly,
Yawn (Score:1, Informative)
Pretty looking caravan (with optional wheels?) but not very efficient on the space, not particularly comfortable looking and not really practical as a permanent home as they try to suggest. In pretty much every use case you'd be better off with a larger caravan and a couple of solar panels and some batteries that you can set up when you get wherever you're going.
Stupid shape is stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure it wouldn't look so showy if the "world's first ecocapsule" (which is totally not a caravan without wheels) had a more conventional shape but it would have been a lot more practical, and doubtless cheaper to build too.
Re: (Score:2)
The oval shape of this thing wastes so much volume that could have been used for storage, shelves, cupboards etc. And the gull wing door is just begging to be ripped off its hinges or even risk tipping the house over in strong wind.
I'm sure it wouldn't look so showy if the "world's first ecocapsule" (which is totally not a caravan without wheels) had a more conventional shape but it would have been a lot more practical, and doubtless cheaper to build too.
I was wondering the same thing... Make it rectangular and give it more living/storage space. The oval shape is likely more energy effecient, so just add a bit more insulation to the rectangular one.
Re: (Score:2)
The oval shape would be better if the thing actually had wheels and was designed to be driven around regularly (optimal shape for reducing wind resistance while maximizing useful interior volume = teardrop or truncated teardrop, depending on the situation). But it's supposed to just sit in one spot. So what the heck? They could still have rounded off the edges to give it a smooth, iPod-y feel without much impact on the space and while still maximizing structural strength and minimizing wind resistance (mor
Re: (Score:2)
My first love in life was architecture. I actually had intended to go to VT until I was accepted to MIT and study my true love - maths. Anyhow, I really am disappointed by this product - it really should be something rectangular. The biggest reason to use things with 90d angles is because, you know, shit is DESIGNED with that in mind.
I wanted to design my current home as a geodesic dome. I had great plans and then, loving math, I decided to look at how much usable space I would have. Instead I went with a e
You have demonstrated your own ignorance. (Score:2)
The only advantage from square architecture is that it maximizes volume ... WHEN FILLED WITH EASILY AVAILABLE RECTANGULAR furnishings. But those furnishings themselves waste the corners. No one uses the back left and right corners of a chair. No one can every make full use of the corner piece is a wall to wall bookshelves.
As this pod comes with it's own furnishi
Stupid design (Score:3)
Have you ever looked inside a kitchen cabinet? If you fill it with the normal, round plates and glasses, the corners are almost NEVER used.
I assure you I can fit more round glasses into a square cabinet with X length/width than I can a round cabinet of X diameter.
But that isn't why it's oval. The reason why the external shape is oval is because such a shape is far more storm resistant Wind and rain does not have a single surface to push against.
Unless you are planning to live in a hurricane, that's demonstrably not a meaningful problem. Most houses are square and you know what? They deal with the wind and rain just fine. Unless you are trying to make the habitat as light as possible (like for spaceflight) it is a far more sensible decision to simply built it adequately strong than to use fancy and hugely impractical round
Only sleeps one person (Score:2)
The website says "Ecocapsule comfortably houses two adults", but that's not a two person bed, even if you're sleeping with your SO.
If you're a 2 person research team who is not interested in cuddling while you sleep, you'll have to sleep in shifts
Re: (Score:2)
In the schematic there's something that slides out from the bed area. I guess it's the second bed.
Re: (Score:2)
What it resembles is a classic Airstream trailer but without the benefit of the wheels. And possibly reduced in size somewhat. Then kitted out with energy-generation and rain collection options.
I'm not sure that any reduction in size or mobility is sufficient to give this unit a true advantange over said Airstream, which would probably be at least as capable if one didn't demand climate control or full kitchen facilities. And speaking of which, what ARE you supposed to do for dinner with such limited energy
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't going off grid illegal? (Score:1)
At least in much of the United States?
NO! You must not demonstrate you don't have to have the government! You must not prove you don't need a plug back!
Also the ductility companies don't like threats to their monopoly [countercurrentnews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Provided you don't want to live in a larger city than there are generally no restrictions, just move out the city limits and most places are almost unrestricted and you can do almost anything. The
Re: (Score:2)
So, a wheel-less caravan ? (Score:2)
Airstreams version (Score:3, Informative)
The Jetson's want their camper back (Score:2)
Wow, an ugly impractical solution to a problem no one has by someone with no concept of the reality of living in a small space. This looks like an art school project from a fan of the Jetsons.
The article actually says "The architects also recommend it as an urban dwelling for singles in high-rent areas such as Silicon Valley or NYC" which is clear proof that they haven't even a vague clue what life is like in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
The architects also recommend
Ah, there's the problem. My dad was a high-end remodeler for many years. He never got a set of plans from an architect that was actually buildable as received. Generally he could sketch something on a note pad that would be far more practical and functional.
Design for assembly (Score:2)
Ah, there's the problem. My dad was a high-end remodeler for many years. He never got a set of plans from an architect that was actually buildable as received. Generally he could sketch something on a note pad that would be far more practical and functional.
That's not a phenomena unique to architects. I run a contract manufacturing company which means we build stuff that other people design. I can count on my fingers the number of drawings I've received that could be made without clarification or revision in the last 5 years. There invariable is some combination of missing specifications, incompatible parts, inaccurate dimensions, inappropriate materials, missing part numbers, (useless) customer internal part numbers, unrealistic tolerances, design flaws, o
Re: (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should go through with making them, if only for the reason that a judge could sentence Jeremy Clarkson to have to live in one as punishment for punching his producer. ;)
Novelty mailbox shat from factory anus (Score:2)
Humans build rectilinear structures because because we like to stock them with our own (rectilinear) furniture and appliances, walk around without stooping or bumping into one another. When we wish to get artsy or need to avoid snow pack accumulation we go with angled flat surfaces because you can tile and shingle them. When we want to be innovative and compact we put hinges on rectangles, as in a fold-out porch, solar array with a single seasonally adjustable angle. We round corners, not the whole thing.
E
Inside a shipping container??? (Score:3)
I'm looking at all those rounded space-wasting contours. And once you try to fit it inside a (rectangular) shipping container to get it to your locale, there's even more space wasted between the pod and the box.
So how about some lateral thinking: instead of buying one of these and have them shipped from Slovakia, how about buying a discarded shipping container RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE and fixing it up for living quarters? There's some nice designs floating around on the internet... Which will cost you less, probably, than purchase and shipping on one of these eggs.
Could still be moved around with comparable ease locally, and when you want to go to another state or country, sell it and start over in the new locale. Although I'm thinking that 2 x 20ft/6m containers might be more livable for my claustrophobic slightly-oversized frame.
Re: (Score:3)
Could still be moved around with comparable ease locally,
Not so much, once you cut holes in a shipping container it's very hard to move it. And most of us like more windows than you can get into the ends of a container, especially given that you're likely to divide it into at least two rooms. If you plan to move your shipping container home, you'll also need to budget for a trailer to move it on. About the cheapest I've seen a container trailer is five grand, and I didn't go look at it so I don't know what kind of condition it was in. And I don't mean a lightweig
Eco-friendly and economical shipping containers (Score:4, Interesting)
Not so much, once you cut holes in a shipping container it's very hard to move it.
Not unless those holes are so large they affect structural integrity. It is almost trivial to put some windows or extra doors into a shipping container without affecting structural integrity. The entire thing is made of steel so you can weld whatever reinforcements you need permanently or temporarily and steel is pretty much 100% recyclable.
If you plan to move your shipping container home, you'll also need to budget for a trailer to move it on.
This pretty much falls into the "duh" category. You don't have to own said trailer however.
About the cheapest I've seen a container trailer is five grand, and I didn't go look at it so I don't know what kind of condition it was in.
Or you can just hire one for a relatively modest fee unless you plan to move it around constantly. One of the beautiful things about using standardized containers is that there is enormous existing infrastructure for hire to move them about. You can put them on a truck, a train, or a boat easily and economically take them almost anywhere you want. You can even have them lifted by helicopter or crane with no modifications or special equipment.
If you're going to have a home built into it, you're talking about some real weight there.
Real things have real weight. Unlike this stupid pod however it would actually be functional for something more than glamping [wikipedia.org].
All this wandering isn't all that eco, it takes energy to drag a house around.
Sure it does but if you are wandering there presumably is a reason you are doing it. A standardized container is FAR more economical and eco-friendly than this stupid egg pod thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not unless those holes are so large they affect structural integrity. It is almost trivial to put some windows or extra doors into a shipping container without affecting structural integrity.
Not according to the people who actually build the things. I've read interviews with them, and they disagree with you. I'm going to do with the voice of experience rather than the voice of Slashdot, thanks.
If you plan to move your shipping container home, you'll also need to budget for a trailer to move it on.
This pretty much falls into the "duh" category. You don't have to own said trailer however.
Once you put a bunch of holes and stuff in it, good luck getting it on the trailer without harming it.
Sure it does but if you are wandering there presumably is a reason you are doing it. A standardized container is FAR more economical and eco-friendly than this stupid egg pod thing.
You know what else is far more economical and eco-friendly than dragging houses around the planet? Moving just the people, and a little bit of stuff, and they change which house they live in.
Modifying a shipping container and still moving it (Score:2)
Not according to the people who actually build the things. I've read interviews with them, and they disagree with you. I'm going to do with the voice of experience rather than the voice of Slashdot, thanks.
Citation please. Twenty seconds on Google establishes that you are making crap up. While there are no doubt some corner cases where modifications are ill advised, there is no fundamental obstacle to modification while maintaining structural integrity. You may add weight but even an amateur like me could do it with little more than a welding torch and some scrap steel.
Once you put a bunch of holes and stuff in it, good luck getting it on the trailer without harming it.
That's just nonsense. We move entire conventional houses that were in no way designed to be moved without damaging anything routinely. Mo
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please. Twenty seconds on Google establishes that you are making crap up.
Ten seconds on Google establishes that I'm not, from people who have actually done it. You can search down for 'flex' http://www.jetsongreen.com/201... [jetsongreen.com] here's another one on container flex, not specifically on the holes http://www.prepper-resources.c... [prepper-resources.com] here's a link which has some content in the comments which speaks to it directly http://www.containerhomeplans.... [containerhomeplans.org]
etc etc etc. See, when I started researching container homes, I looked into this stuff then. Years ago, mind you. And when I did my google searc
Re: (Score:2)
None of those links proves your point. The argument that you can't modify them and then safely transport them afterwards is demonstrably nonsense. It has already been done countless times.
If you cut holes in a shipping container, and want to move it afterwards, you're going to have to reinforce it.
Duh. Any time you modify a structure you're probably going to have to reinforce part of it. Doesn't matter if it is mobile or not.
That can easily cost hundreds in materials alone, and if you don't know what you're doing, you can actually reduce the structural integrity of the container by welding it.
"Hundreds"? Wow, blows my budget... And if you don't know what you are doing then don't do it. Do I really have to point that out? Sure you can do welding badly, news at 11... Anything
Re: (Score:2)
None of those links proves your point. The argument that you can't modify them and then safely transport them afterwards is demonstrably nonsense. It has already been done countless times.
Oh, is that what you think my point was? Because what I said was that you can't just cut holes in them and then move them, and that it can easily cost you as much as the container itself to reinforce it so that you can move it once you cut holes in it. Why didn't you just speak to the fucking point instead of inventing things to be mad about?
No dice - Not living under a "screamer" again (Score:2)
I used to live on a boat that ran entirely on solar and wind.
I can tell you, nobody wants to live that close to, or in a dwelling attached to a wind generator like that. The 3 blade design either puts out little to no useful power (1A@13,8V on most light air days) while all the time it spins putting out a shrieking noise that makes the noise made by mega-wind gennies sound relaxing by comparison. Perhaps if you swapped it out for a multi-blade lower output unit, but for the most part the best place for thes
Everything about it is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
The amazing micro-dwelling is perfect for nature lovers, scientists, photographers, rangers and anyone who
...loves to waste space on shapes which are good for eggs but stupid for houses, and who wants to be kept up all night by their wind turbine.
If it's supposed to be eco-friendly, shouldn't it be made out of recycled materials? And there's absolutely nothing about the shape which makes it easy to collect water. In fact, it's much harder to deal with on a shape like that.
Here's how you get eco-friendly: You get a used shipping container for two grand, the energy cost of its production is already sunk. You get it delivered to your lot for 1-2 grand more, most likely. Then you start haunting demolitions and recycled construction material sales for materials. That's eco-friendly. You can't just go buy eco-friendly at a store with a big price tag on it. That stuff is never eco-friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having looked into this a nice 20' container can be had for about $1300 and shipping is only a few hundred more if you are close to port that has them (I do so that is good). Although I would prefer fold away beds, a wood stove, and could do without the shitter as my property has an outhouse already. Then again building things hasn't been a problem for me and I have been working with metal for a while so for me it would just be the material costs.
I'm not sure... (Score:2)
the designers need to be beaten (Score:2)
... or at least fired and not allowed to design ever again.
First off, on the floor plans the only window that opens is on the same side as the silly gullwing door. So no cross ventilation. I also see no obvious vents to compensate. It is going to get awfully stinky in there before you suffocate.
Oh, and the kitchenette? Is the range top electric? Good luck with that and that tiny solar array and batteries. On the other hand, if it is a propane range top you will suffocate much more quickly.
And that cut
just get a travel trailer (Score:2)
You can have that now: get a travel trailer and put some solar cells and a small wind turbine on it. I guarantee you it's cheaper and better designed. Get a four season one if you want to stay in it in the winter. And unlike this tiny "house" that violates code just about everywhere, you can actually find a place to put a travel trailer.
Something similar (Score:2)
I have but one thing to say... (Score:2)
egg-shaped ... 'cause you know MORE EXPENSIVE (Score:2)
Seriously? Complex curves for the windows, door, sides, interior ...
Why not repurpose a shipping container dumbasses?! Epic fail.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in a tent for a year - smaller than this thing. But only went in there to sleep or, er, commune with companions. All other activities, including cooking, bathing and so forth were conducted outside, and in beautiful surrounds too. I did six months of temperate zone summer and six of the dry season in the tropics. Wow, that was 20 years ago now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)