This is really beautiful. The stunning beauty aside, the practical side of my brain has to wonder:
1) What do these folks do for work that they can live up in the Arctic in this fashion?
2) How do they keep the dome's light from being completely obliterated. In the second to the last picture from the bottom you can see the dome almost completely covered in snow, which would make it very dark inside. Unlike in majority of photos where there is no snow covering the glass.
> What do these folks do for work that they can live up in the Arctic in this fashion?
The name of the island in the article is a link to its Wikipedia page, from which another link takes you to the page for Nordland, the county it belongs to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordland#Economy
> How do they keep the dome's light from being completely obliterated.
As another poster noted, the dome is not very well isolated. As a wild guess, this might mean that thin layers of snow could melt off if it's not too cold outside.
Also, during the three winter months when it doesn't get light outside at all, you might as well live under a layer of snow. Its reflection of the house's lights should give an overall brighter feeling than if the light just goes off into the arctic night.
In addition to the excellent replies below, note that Nordland is actually pretty far south, if your goal is to live above the polar circle - you might want to also cast your eyes to Tromsø: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troms%C3%B8
Has a bit more infrastructure and job opportunities, if that's something that is relevant to you - and plenty of "alpine" mountains in the surrounding area.
That said, the Lofoten area is famous for its spectacular beauty - many graphical artists and painters have lived moved there over the years because of the unique landscape and light.
Further north than Tromsø, things get a bit flat as you move up towards Finnmark - and more remote. And then there's of course Svalbard, if you want to live in an area that's more like northern parts of Alaska...
The second question bothers me as well. In addition, partially melted and refrozen snow can cause really large loads to the dome if not removed on time. Must be annoying to climb up there.
The link to SolarDome explains the dome uses single glass, so the dome has virtually no isolation. In other words, it freezes inside unless they have external energy sources for heating.
There is a fully functional house inside the dome. The dome itself has no insulation, but the massive 'dead' air space between the dome and the house provides a huge amount of insulation.
The dome by itself isn't that interesting. It's the dome/house system that provides the benefits. It means they can spend a lot less on heating fuel.
>In other words, it freezes inside unless they have external energy sources for heating.
Such as... the sun.
Greenhouses are actually quite effective at night (or through a long arctic winter), since they're designed to keep in infrared radiation. This one also acts as a windbreak. So any sources of heat (eg a clean burning rocket stove, or even just your metabolic heat) will be more effective inside the greenhouse.
With that much glass, for most of the year they should need no heating, and in the dark winter they should need a lot less.
Bear in mind that snow is a pretty good insulator. After all, igloos are viable housing for some people and many animals hibernate in burrows under the snow. This means that in the winter the snow should stay on the roof. Assuming the weight isn't an issue and the house is sufficiently insulating that it doesn't melt it, then you would actually prefer this. Above the arctic circle this isn't much of a problem for illumination because it's dark all day anyway (typically you get a brief twilight period).
Fun stuff, and I wonder if the architecture of the future (where the climate is much less predictable than it has been) is houses, and perhaps communities, like this. A "two layer" architecture where there is an isolation layer between the wind/rain/snow aspects of the climate and the garden + living quarters. The folks over at earthship (http://earthship.org/) are of that opinion.
This would seem to be a perfect home for the West Coast of the U.S. - When I first moved to California, I had no idea the Pacific would be so damn cold! There are homes all along the coast already, obviously, but this would allow living by the ocean, enjoying an "outside" deck with a gorgeous view, yet not being blasted by daily wind and fog.
Geodesic domes are notoriously leaky because they have so many seams and joints and odd angles. But when you have a whole 'nother house inside the dome, then you're probably OK. :)
I thought the growing awareness of the risk from cosmic radiation meant most settlements would be built below ground. (So no awesome geodesic dome front porch patios on Mars.)
Another family build a greenhouse around what they call a "summer home" in Stockholm. There is a YouTube video at the bottom of the article for those who want more info.
People already live there year round (in houses similar to the one inside the dome). The dome just provides better protection against the elements (preventing wind from hitting the house is a likely a _huge_ win in thermal efficiency).
It sounds like you're assuming that the solar greenhouse is the only source of heat in the system, but I also see a wood stove. If I lived above the arctic circle, I would want redundant sources of heat too!
One thing the article doesn't touch on is the 'why'. What's the motivation behind this?
There's a, I want to say similar but its sort of not, community/town in my state called Coober Pedy where a good number of the dwellings are located almost entirely underground. Even on a 45c day, it's quite nice inside without any AC although when the lights are out the pitch black is pretty unsettling...
[+] [-] bogomipz|9 years ago|reply
1) What do these folks do for work that they can live up in the Arctic in this fashion?
2) How do they keep the dome's light from being completely obliterated. In the second to the last picture from the bottom you can see the dome almost completely covered in snow, which would make it very dark inside. Unlike in majority of photos where there is no snow covering the glass.
[+] [-] tom_mellior|9 years ago|reply
The name of the island in the article is a link to its Wikipedia page, from which another link takes you to the page for Nordland, the county it belongs to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordland#Economy
> How do they keep the dome's light from being completely obliterated.
As another poster noted, the dome is not very well isolated. As a wild guess, this might mean that thin layers of snow could melt off if it's not too cold outside.
Also, during the three winter months when it doesn't get light outside at all, you might as well live under a layer of snow. Its reflection of the house's lights should give an overall brighter feeling than if the light just goes off into the arctic night.
[+] [-] e12e|9 years ago|reply
Has a bit more infrastructure and job opportunities, if that's something that is relevant to you - and plenty of "alpine" mountains in the surrounding area.
That said, the Lofoten area is famous for its spectacular beauty - many graphical artists and painters have lived moved there over the years because of the unique landscape and light.
Further north than Tromsø, things get a bit flat as you move up towards Finnmark - and more remote. And then there's of course Svalbard, if you want to live in an area that's more like northern parts of Alaska...
[+] [-] knlje|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MeteorMarc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JshWright|9 years ago|reply
The dome by itself isn't that interesting. It's the dome/house system that provides the benefits. It means they can spend a lot less on heating fuel.
[+] [-] schiffern|9 years ago|reply
Such as... the sun.
Greenhouses are actually quite effective at night (or through a long arctic winter), since they're designed to keep in infrared radiation. This one also acts as a windbreak. So any sources of heat (eg a clean burning rocket stove, or even just your metabolic heat) will be more effective inside the greenhouse.
With that much glass, for most of the year they should need no heating, and in the dark winter they should need a lot less.
[+] [-] joshvm|9 years ago|reply
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/snow/science/characteristics.ht...
Solardome can produce double glazed systems as well, but presumably single glazing is a lot cheaper.
http://www.solardome.co.uk/domestic/dome-uses/domestic-self-...
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russellbeattie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpeterso|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thekevan|9 years ago|reply
http://www.ecowatch.com/couple-builds-greenhouse-around-home...
[+] [-] peterburkimsher|9 years ago|reply
During the summer, I'm sure it's great there. The architecture is beautiful. But it just doesn't seem practical year-round.
[+] [-] JshWright|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kiiski|9 years ago|reply
For at least one day a year. Not the whole winter.
[+] [-] zokier|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schiffern|9 years ago|reply
It sounds like you're assuming that the solar greenhouse is the only source of heat in the system, but I also see a wood stove. If I lived above the arctic circle, I would want redundant sources of heat too!
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] synicalx|9 years ago|reply
There's a, I want to say similar but its sort of not, community/town in my state called Coober Pedy where a good number of the dwellings are located almost entirely underground. Even on a 45c day, it's quite nice inside without any AC although when the lights are out the pitch black is pretty unsettling...
[+] [-] Gravityloss|9 years ago|reply
To me, they don't seem like a good solution for cold and wet climates.
[+] [-] sliken|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foundmysandwich|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]