800 Watt Hours A Day! The Most Efficient Modern House?

[IChing]

This house has the conveniences of a modern house, but consumes only 800Whr on average per day. Compare this to a typical U.S. suburban house that uses 45 kilowatt hours (kWh) per day. How is this reduction possible? It's through the strategic use of ultra-efficient appliances, daylighting, and green design principles for temperature control and ventilation.

But what's the secret of the house's amazingly low power consumption? Using solar power, the house generates 120V AC, but it's also wired for 12V. The living room has three 7W 12V compact fluorescent lamps, a 12V Widescreen LCD TV, a DVD player, and an efficient surround sound stereo system. The office has a Mac laptop acting has a desktop, and all other computer peripherals are switched off automatically when not in use. When not lit by daylight, the office uses compact fluorescents lamps, and 12V LED desk lamps.

>>>snip

The ultra-aefficient house is on display at the National Building Museum's Green House Exhibit until June 2007.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/300whr_a_day_th_2.php?a=0

[benburch]

1. Very cool!

And even without solar, it would be more efficient than a standard home.

And such a home could also use wind or low-head hydro in places where solar is not a good option, like much of the pacific NW.

[IChing]

2. The energy footprint of Americans can be reduced

This is just one example of what could be.

I do wonder what the cost are per square foot,
however the pay back would be obviously fast and worth it financially and morally.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Einstein

[NNadir]

3. Let's demolish all of our existing homes and build these.

I especially like the stereo.

[Gregorian]

10. I can't comment on threads like this without sounding evil.

It's nice to see people looking for answers. But answers to symptoms aren't real solutions. And how does a 12V DC washer improve on the already 85% efficient 120V AC motor in existing washers? And three dim lights in the living room? Not to mention the pickup truck sized pile of lead acid batteries they didn't mention.

Sorry. Now pile on and call me negative and a party pooper. I'm used to it.

[HeardOnTheHill]

12. I actually agree-

All of these advances are great, and it all looks amazing when implemented into a built-from-scratch prototype home, but the practical implications for the vast majority of Americans are limited. For numerous reasons ranging from high cost to difficulty in retrofitting these technologies into pre-existing housing, these types of solutions aren't going to make a real difference anytime soon.

[Reckon]

15. I think the design is for new homes.

It's all about the future.

[HeardOnTheHill]

19. Understandable

No, you're right that technology is great for new homes. I just have no idea how many new homes are built everyday, and if that number is high enough to actually make a dent in our energy consumption anytime in the remotely near future. If anyone knows, as can't even guess, I love to find out.

[Reckon]

14. What are you suggesting the batteries are needed for?

"pickup truck sized pile of lead acid batteries they didn't mention"??

[WalrusSlayer]

20. Solar requires batteries

Anytime you have a "solar powered home", you also need rechargable batteries to store the charge for when it's needed later (i.e., nighttime, cloudy days, etc).

[Reckon]

27. Ok, you're probably saying a

truck load of batteries over a life time.

I'm pretty sure batteries are being recycled now.

[stubertmcfly]

29. Incorrect...

Solar can actually be tied to the grid without the need for batteries. You back-fill to the existing electric grid during the day and pull at night. They may be using an off-grid system in this case which does require batteries and/or a back-up generator but that is not necessary for a solar home.

[unblock]

21. regarding the dim lighting, 7w compact fluorescent = 25w incandescent

which is hardly a major glare, but perhaps not as dim as one might guess.

also, even when it's overcast, there's still some light coming in. it's not like the light bulbs is all you get (except at night).

finally, part of energy efficiency is simply not overusing. the equivalent of a 75w incandescent bulb may not sound like much, but it's enough to see. plus there are additional desk lamps. again, you use light only when and where you need it.


ok, one more point. this is just one vision of an "ideal" energy-efficient house. that doesn't mean it's YOUR idea of an energy-efficient house, and it might include several dumb ideas, just as EVERY house has at least a few flaws. obviously, they went to the extreme to lower energy usage, and that's not going to be where most people (these days, at least) would put the trade-off.

take what you like, discard the rest, and think about when energy-efficiency can do when you design your own home :)

[Gregorian]

28. I seriously doubt that house uses passive solar.

No Trombe walls. No overhang/fenstration design to incorporate solar. But that's a guess.

Actually my post was implicit. I dare not speak of the major part of this "equation". It's unspeakable. It's taboo. So we never address the real problem.

If we improve our energy useage efficiency by 100% (and that ignores all kinds of things. Like how many forests can be stripped to maintain the lumber demand, steel mining for appliances, petroleum for all of the plastics involved, etc.), and double in population, then we are in the same position we are in now. But if we halve the population, then we can sustain the lifestyle we currently enjoy (well, not really. But we wouldn't sustain the global damage rate we currently do.)

It's the number of users that is the problem. Most people look at the obvious thing. They look at engineering. They think we can engineer our way out of this. But it's not a single variable problem . It's effiency AND users. And the reality is, it's users, and not efficiency. Why people don't get that is beyond me. Take it to extremes, and then it becomes obvious.

But talking about population is taboo. It's sex, and it's greed. People want their kids. They think it's a god given right. Which it is. Like I always say- Be fruitful and multiply, but give it a break already!

In about a half century, we could totally solve the energy problem by simply halving the world population. Unless we do that, no amount of engineering will solve the problem.

And to think Skinner won't let me have a population forum. I'm just blown away.

[unblock]

30. population is only part of the equation

but you're certainly correct in that energy efficiency at the home is not the entire equation. i don't know, but i'm guessing that a compact fluorescent bulb requires more resources to produce than a comparable incandescent. over the life of the bulb, it's probably still and net improvement, but they do ignore the rest of the equation when they focus solely on consumption in the home.

our population layout and distribution is also a huge factor. set up communities and economies so that people don't need to travel large distances in single-person vehicles to work and presto, major energy savings.

but just as cheap, abundant oil drove (groan!) us to lay out our communities in the form of suburban sprawl, so too will scarce, expensive oil drive us to rethink our community layouts.

the 21st century, particularly the second half, will likely be a painful transition time.

oh, and that population thing? that's what wars and epidemics are for, and that, too, will come along with scarce, expensive oil. oh, wait, we already HAVE oil wars. my bad....

[dcfirefighter]

34. Halved population won't equal halved consumption

While the process of halving the world population would undoubtedly leave a horrible plague of poverty, which WOULD reduce consumption, once an equilibrium was met, the haves would merely consume more. Demand would be relatively lower, Supply would be relatively higher, and Prices would be low. So the Haves would drive 6 ton - 600hp SUVs, and fly between their multiple homes.

[SlipperySlope]

35. 95% population reduction > 50% consumption reduction

At some point, if population is reduced enough, consumption can fall to or below any specified level.

[Gregorian]

36. That is some convoluted thinking.

The number of users is the driving force behind all energy use. I'm just talking about one number. Nothing else.

I don't know anything about plagues or poverty or haves and have nots. Totally separate discussion. The way in which we bring population back to a reasonable level can be achieved through a multiplicity of ways. And an array of timeframes. I can safely say it won't happen at all. But it's the smart way to answer all of the problems we face.

Simply put, we stay at 7 billion and watch the globe melt.

People really don't understand nor want to discuss this most important subject. And it's understandable. Everyone has kids. They don't want to talk about it. I'm looking forward. Forget about today and who has done what. It's tomorrow that all of this discussion revolves around.

Even if we think we can engineer our way out of this situation, where are the materials going to come from? Lumber? Petroleum? Food? Water? These all factor into the equation. Study the population mathematics and you will see just how insane a situation we are in right now. The exponential curve has gone from horizontal to vertical. It's alarming. Granted, Dr. Paul Ehrlich writes that things are not as bad as he feared in his early studies. But as an engineer, I have to ask how we could ever engineer our way out of this. Try spanning a cantilever beam made out of rammed earth. It isn't going to happen. So what is it- steel, wood? These are highly energy intensive materials. No "green" house is going to help enough to meet an energy payoff.

I only bring it up because I care. I have no kids, and as far as my future is concerned the planet can fill itself up with human beings.

[unblock]

37. you can't engineer yourself to an equilibrium

you can only engineer to a higher level.

perhaps, with better engineering, we might be able to comfortably support 7 billion, or just for grins, let's say 10, 15, or 20 billion. whatever that number is, we won't stay there. i'd say it's human nature, but it's just plain nature.

the nature of an equilibrium point is that at times we will exceed it, and then pay the price with starvation, disease, etc., until the population goes below the equilibrium point. then we will find that nature can support most of us, and population will grow again. up and down, up and down, this is the way of all nature and humans are not immune to this.

[dcfirefighter]

39. Japan's population is declining

and, last I checked, they weren't suffering starvation, disease, etc.

Without immigration, the US's population would be stabilizing.

[Gregorian]

41. France's population is declining too.

I imagine people are tired of living this way, and not breeding. Unfortunately it's a minority.

[dcfirefighter]

48. Most of the population decrease is due to two things

People limiting themselves to 1 or 2 children, and people having children later in life. Neither one of these limits are particularly burdensome.

[Gregorian]

40. You've almost made my point for me.

We can achieve an equilibrium with or without suffering.

Equilibrium just doesn't seem like the right word. It's true. But it is a natural phenomenon. We have found a way to force-sustain our numbers way outside of any equilibrium. Ultimately you are absolutely right. But some of us are suffering while nature works it's magic. It sucks. And furthermore, the further we get out of equilibrium, the worse the damage to earth and it's life forms will be. But hell, who cares about earth. Is it really my responsibility? Maybe. Maybe not. And I have to wonder sometimes. But being conservative, I tend to assume the responsible stature.

[dcfirefighter]

38. Say for example

That the world becomes much more effective at converting the environment into useful and distributed wealth.

The Swiss generate $9415 per ton of CO2, and have a per capita GDP of $32,571.
The Swedes generate $7395 per ton of CO2, and have a per capita GDP of $29,898.
The Icelanders generate $6947 per ton of CO2, and have a per capita GDP $35,586.
The French generate $5859 per ton of CO2, and have a per capita GDP $29,316.

The World generates $1831 per ton of CO2, and has a per capita GWP of $7,200.

I would suggest that GDP isn't the most appropriate measure of human utility: certainly in the US, a very large portioinof GDP is enjoyed by a very small percentage of the population. Were wealth distribution more equal, a lower GDP could result in a better standard of living. Couple that with a more efficient conversion of ecology into economy, and the world's standard of living AND population could increase while humanity's footprint on earth would be smaller.

[Gregorian]

42. Yes. Why not twenty billion?

Is that what you want? I'm not sure where you're coming from. There are some of us who don't want to live in a world without dignity, privacy, beauty, etc.

But I some people don't care about that stuff.

Of course, societies with higher levels of education, health care, modernization, have lower infant mortality rates and smaller families.

I don't know where this is going...

[dcfirefighter]

47. I'm fairly antisocial, but I recoginize

ZPG as fairly antisocial as well. The thought of standing on a continent with only 100 million inhabitants would be nice.

But it's not necessary, nor sufficient, to insist on a reduction of population to achieve a semblance of ecological harmony.

We humans were causing global climate change in 1960, when the world's population was half what it is today. We were also causing global climate change in 1900, when the world's population was one quarter of what it is today.

And yes, civilizations that have opportunity, education, women's rights, reproductive freedom, and economic stability tend to have stable or declining native populations.

Do the Britons and their isles have dignity, privacy, and beauty? Their population density is more than 350 people per square km. At that density, the United States would have 10 times the population it does have. The World (except Antarctica) would have about 50 Billion people.

Current predictions for world population level out around 10-12 Billion.

Where I'm going, is to refer back to my second sentence. It's not the physical limits of this world, nor is it technology. It's politics. And economics. It IS possible to live well on 1 Ton of carbon dioxide emissions a year - IF our politicoeconomic systems recognize costs to the Commons. If we're all living well, our population will stabilize.

[dcfirefighter]

33. Passive solar is great in rural and suburban areas

but in urban areas, which are generally better ecologically, economically, and socially, you're often shaded by your neighbor.

[rman]

49. Certain segments of the global population use disproportionately more

resources than others. What are the numbers for the US again - it's like 5% of the global population using like 50% of energy and resources.
And within the US it's something like 1% of the population having 90% of the wealth.

And then it's primarily the rich and the well-of who say the population should be reduced; for some there's no such thing as enough.

I'd say distribution of wealth/resources is more of a problem than the quantity of people.

[Gregorian]

50. When a billion Chinese and a billion Indian people turn on their hot water

It will make America's consumption disappear in the background noise.

It's ok. These are just discussions. Not reality. Someone is further and someone is closer to that reality. And none of us know what is going to happen. It appears that billions of humans are just about to begin the pattern of consumption that Americans already have. And that is anything but sustainable.

I think it's more noble to care now, even though this problematic phenomenon will most likely not impact OUR lives. I'm saddened for those who will suffer the consequences. If any.

Like someone said about global warming- ignoring is like being on the edge of a cliff and closing your eyes and walking forward because you don't believe what you see. I like to play conservatively. But I'm one of very few. More people are having smaller families, but it's going to take much more dramatic changes in family planning in order to decrease population enough to allow the planet to stabilize at a level below with glaciers are melting. I think. I don't know. But it's better than going over the edge.

[rman]

51. Reality is that the wealthy nations have been exploiting

3rd world nations ever since the colonial age. None of the wealthy nations have made any efforts toward sustainability - rather the contrary, as is apparent from the economic paradigm of eternal growth - which is possible only because of the exploitation of 3rd world nations.
What might happen in the future does not change anything about those facts.
It should be apparent that there are other solutions besides reduction of the global population.

[jpak]

24. Solar DC systems don't require an inverter (saves $$$)

so DC appliances are a good choice.

800 watt hours per day could be produced by 3-4 100W PV modules (anywhere in the lower 48 states).

An off-the-shelf plug-and-play grid intertie system in that size range retails today for $4800 - before any federal tax credits or state rebates.

A DC PV system that size would require 2-3 deep-cycle lead acid batteries - not a pick up truck sized battery bank.

An 11 watt compact fluorescent light produced the same amount of light as a 60 watt incandescent bulb.

Three strategically placed 7 watt CF bulbs would produce more than enough lighting for a home office.

So think positive thoughts...

:)

[Strelnikov_]

44. What Is The Typical Loss Due To An Inverter?

In other words, what increase in efficiency can be obtained by keeping the entire system 12V DC versus DC->110 AC.

[Massacure]

52. about 90%. But DC appliances are usually more efficient than AC.

I bet that is where most of the savings are coming from. DC appliances are more expensive though as AC is the norm. AC only took off because DC cannot be effectively send large distances.

[Kolesar]

53. Probably because DC appliances were developed for islands & remote...

...sites where there is not an AC power distribution system. Sunspot refrigerators come to mind. People will pay more for the appliance just to save electricity from any source: PVs or a generator.

[jpak]

60. Inverter losses are minor - only 4 to 12%

converting from DC to AC...

[jpak]

26. They are demolishing existing homes to build energy-hog McMansions today

When energy costs render McMansions become too expensive to live in, they will be demolished and replaced with homes like this.

So why wait for the inevitable????

[AX10]

4. kick

[4dsc]

5. SO how much does it cost??

I like this design for sure but wonder what it would cost in today's $.. Is that house situated in the desert or northern climates as that will make a big difference too..

Remembering that cost of materials seem to be going up like gasoline these days.

[NickB79]

6. We could also start building smaller houses overall

After all, where I live there are 3000+ sq. ft. McMansions popping up all over the place to house families of 4. In contrast, my mother, father, brother, sister and I grew up in a house that was probably around 2000 sq. ft. We didn't have a "great room", and my brother and I shared one large bedroom upstairs, and there was only one bathroom, but we were never at any great loss for more space.

[formercia]

8. Pepole nedd room to put all of their 'stuff'

consumer society.

I see lots of oil based polymers in that house but the laminated beams are a good idea if not overkill.

[nashville_brook]

7. no dishwasher!

yikes.

love the lighting, tho.

[glitch]

9. Wow, beautiful. Improving our efficiency is what it's about.

Improved efficiency drastically reduces resources consumed. K & R

[robinlynne]

11. I want one!

[NNadir]

13. That's what Americans always say.

"I want one."

What do you think should be done with the place you live now?

[IChing]

16. Start by retro fitting what you have now and start building these

now for new homes.

Or we could use your visionary nuclear logic and build
a nuclear power plant next door to your house
and put the waste your basement.

[robinlynne]

18. Hang on now. I recycle. I am careful about not wasting water and elec-

tricity. and I don't have a house or a basement. I live in a small rented apartment, which I adore. I have a 6ft by 2 ft (tiny) organic garden in front of the building. so, watch it...

[NNadir]

23. OK, if you insist. You buy more stuff, dump the old stuff, and I'll...

lobby for a new nuclear power plant near here. I am on record for favoring nuclear power plants in my state, and my town, because I actually know something about energy and I am concerned with the future.

It happens that knowing something about energy involves something more than promoting cute museum pieces and waving one's hands, but appreciating something called data.

This house is very typical of the consumerist thinking - the Amory Lovins crap - that goes like this: All we need to do (to avoid personal responsibility and personal guilt) is to buy new stuff. Oh, yeah, and we'll recycle the old stuff. Somewhere in China, they have factories for that kind of recycling and well, out of sight, out of mind.

So let me ask you, since you're talking about building lots of new homes: Where is the building being planned? Farmland? Forest? Inner cities? The trucks for building all these new homes will be powered by what? Biodiesel? Ethanol? Giant windmills attached to their cabs? Do the features of these demonstration homes work as well in Alberta as well as they might in Alabama?

To return to your other off topic reference: I am not by the way very concerned about so called "dangerous nuclear waste." I would have no problem with it a quantity attributable to my own use being stored in my home. I estimate that if 100% of my electricity use for 50 years were provided by nuclear means, my total share of so called "dangerous nuclear waste" would amount to about 350 grams. Since the density of the solid material is very high, probably all of this so called "waste" could be contained in a single medicine cup. I'm sure this compares well with ton quantities of construction waste, not to mention your fossil fuel waste, which is my basement as well as my lungs and the lungs of every man, woman and child now living.

If you insist on my basement, there are some circumstances under which I would find such a circumstance desirable: If I have my choice of fission products, I would certainly approve of having a Sr-90 powered RTG in my basement, since it would far less dangerous than 95 billion tons of discarded refrigerators in nearby landfills. Over 1000 of these have operated in the former Soviet Union, where they have proved very reliable and long lived. Some of them, actually lasted so long that they were forgotten, causing lots of screams of "Dirty bomb! Dirty bomb!"

Here is the number of terrorist "dirty bomb" plots uncovered (unless you count John Ashcroft's assertions about that Padilla kid): Zero.

Here is the number of terrorist "dirty bomb" attacks that have been actually carried out: Zero.

In fact a Sr-90 RTG in my basement would be far less dangerous than, say, an underground oil tank, since it easy to render strontium insoluble, and therefore difficult to spread, something that is really not true for oil, which is known to extract into water supplies. Of course, I know this, since I have repeatedly asked for one of the "nuclear is dangerous" wonder children to produce a case of a single person ever injured by so called "dangerous nuclear waste." As always the number of people who have produced such a person is exactly the same as the number of such known people: Zero.

Here, by the way, is the number of 800W-hr homes under construction that are not demonstration homes: Zero.

Actually the crisis of global climate change doesn't really call for lots of new technology and lots of new stuff. It calls for using the best risk minimized technologies available right now. One brazillion new Amory Lovins approved refrigerators ain't gonna do it.

[Kolesar]

25. Build the new homes on Transit-Oriented Developments in the city

To replace the 100 year old homes we have now. That means denser housing and shopping development than the US has been building for half of a century.

The homes I'm talking about won't be like the 800 kW*hr dream home pictured. They will be smaller and have shared walls for efficiency, I would expect.

[jpak]

31. Sr-90 RTG = regulatory nightmare

Any homeowner possessing one of those things would have to be trained and licensed by NRC.

All installation and maintenance personal would have to be trained and licensed by the NRC.

The NRC would have to establish a cradle-to-grave custody chain for each unit.

Each home would have to be monitored weekly for leakage and exposure.

Everyone in that home would have to wear a NRC film badge 24/7/365 - by law - and submit urine samples on a weekly or monthly basis.

Placing large quantities of 90-Sr in American homes is the stupidest idea yet.

And, if there is no "dirty bomb" threat, maybe we can export these things to the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan.

I guarantee these people would export this stuff back to the US PDQ...

:nuke:

There are tens of thousands of energy efficient solar homes in the US and more are being built or retrofitted every day.

...and how many new nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978???

Zero

[robinlynne]

17. Well, I don't even own a home...nor will I in near future, so

I was just giving a childish reaction , a cheer if you will....
(We're just hoping the development company which bought up our entire block will wait a year or two before tearing our building down.)

[Dora]

22. Oh, my list is so long.

What should be done with the place I live now?

Solar panels for the roof
Tankless hot water heater
18-inch dishwasher, I wish
New windows & doors
Guttering and barrels for rainwater retention system
Removal of sod & planting of native perennials

[dcfirefighter]

32. I will go look at it this week. Any questions?

It's a step in the right direction. Also, the national building museum is one of the most underrated museums in DC.

[IChing]

43. Thanks, check out the battery storage unit and

cost per sq. foot.

Also if you could if they have any pamphlets would you be kind enough to pick them up and maybe scan it?
I know people that live on sailboats and rvs that have all the modern applications and am curious if they have use the latest 12volt technology for lights etc.

regards IChing.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Einstein

[Drifter]

45. Yeah, but what about the keg fridge ...

that's gotta suck some energy.

Cheers
Drifter

[IChing]

46. I home brew some of my own

so that is important to me LOL.

Also grow some of my own, so I want an atrium in the design.

[melnjones]

54. Very cool...

My only thought is that I hope that by society putting emphasis on stuff like this very cool house, we are not forgetting the needs of those who can't afford a new house...or sometimes even a very modern one. We really need to start a movement among the poor in our country to make small changes that will have a big impact, both for them and for society. Little things like switching light bulbs (many families won't buy the energy efficient ones because that money is needed in the short term for food), devices like the econo-heat panel heater or the wonder-wash, simply putting a brick in the tank of the toilet, etc. Often they don't even know this stuff exists b/c they don't have internet access (that's where I learn all this stuff...). The old, 100 yr old run-down houses are sometimes the only opportunity a family will ever have at actually owning their own home. The question is, how can we make environmentalism something that is both doable and profitable for the urban (and even rural) poor?

[Nihil]

55. Agreed

> Little things like switching light bulbs (many families won't buy the
> energy efficient ones because that money is needed in the short term
> for food)

In that case they need to be shown how much longer the energy efficient
ones last compared to the "cheap" filament bulbs.

Each energy saving bulb can reduce your electricity bill by up to £9 a year. They also last, on average up to 12 times longer than ordinary light bulbs. Even if people choose to ignore the energy saving side,
surely they can understand that they are buying one bulb instead of
twelve ...

> simply putting a brick in the tank of the toilet

Slightly harder as, unless they're on a water meter, they don't see
water consumption as a cost. Mind you, the other thing about this
particular tip is that once it's done, it's over with and forgotten
about - there is no need to repeat the process for any cistern.

> The old, 100 yr old run-down houses are sometimes the only opportunity
> a family will ever have at actually owning their own home. The question
> is, how can we make environmentalism something that is both doable and
> profitable for the urban (and even rural) poor?

For the poor (of every country), education about the state of the
world is really a luxury - something that will fascinate the kids
but be forgotten by the adults struggling to live.

Get the message across that conservation is saving *their* money.
* Every bit of heat lost to the street is money dropped outside the door.
* Every standard light bulb is a dollar bill burning.
* Every draught in the winter is costing you a loaf of bread.
* No insulation? Throw some more cash on the fire instead.

Keep the "for the sake of the Earth" messages for those with the
luxury of choice and focus on "for the sake of your pocket".

[melnjones]

56. If only energy-saving bulbs could be bought with foodstamps...

I think such a small change to our foodstamp system could make a huge difference.

[LeftyMom]

57. The public utility subsidizes them here

and nearly every store sells them for a dollar each. They figure it's cheaper and more responsible to encourage people to conserve than to build another plant.

[melnjones]

58. Wow! They're usually $6 a bulb here...

Makes it difficult for poor families to afford them.

[LeftyMom]

59. The most I've ever paid was about $3.50

and that was for a 3-way bulb to go in a floor lamp. Ever since they started doing that I've had them in every light fixture where they fit.

[gorbal]

61. I like cob houses myself

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/7148/cobpics.html

I had to share-aren't they cute?

[Kolesar]

62. Fun &economical, but how do you insulate them?

I am sure those walls have thermal mass, but do they resist the movement of heat like an R-13 exterior wall?

[dcfirefighter]

63. R value of ~ 0.3/inch for cob

mostly thermal mass though.
http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/QandA/cobQandA.htm#insulation