And, BTW, missed in this discussion is the very important DOE/NREL report defining 4 categories of Net Zero buildings/sites (http://netzerofoundation.org/docs/NREL%20-%20Net-Zero%20Energy%20Buildings%20-%202010.pdf) — from “A” Net Zero within the footprint to “D” Net Zero via purchased Clean Energy. This is a very important and root perspective on Net Zero that we should all be supporting.

Join the Net Zero Movement!!

BTW, if you get perfect zero results (no deficit or surplus) I’ll let you tell me which is correct 🙂

I also think that MOST of the people who buy a Prius care about more than just that it says “energy efficient”. But maybe I just know the very few “more sophisticated buyers” or something.

I guess that in my experience, buying an energy efficient home is not a sudden, on-the-spot purchasing choice like buying a candy bar. Thus applying those kinds of advertising “gimmicks” isn’t particularly helpful. The same for buying a hybrid car, in my experience. Everyone i know who bought a Prius was already interested in hi-tech approaches to auto efficiency before they ever made it to the showroom.

I also think that saying that “net” modifies “zero” makes no sense to me. You can have net profit and gross profit, and if you have no net profit you have either “net profit of zero” or “zero net profit”,

Personally I don’t find the concept of zero net energy to be confusing. It just means that over the course of a year, the house produces as much energy as it uses, it just may use it at different times than it produces it. Most people have no trouble understanding that a solar panel generates electricity during the day but not at night, but they’d still like to be able to turn on the lights at night. Same with it being reasonable that you will produce more electricity during long summer days than short winter days. I don’t think that most people should have difficulty understanding the goal that over the course of a year, everything nets out to zero.

OK, so I think “net” needs to stay, and I think that it clearly modifies “energy”, so I’d have a strong preference for “zero net energy” based on the rules of proper english.

Of course it seems like marketing folks, left to themselves, always want to START with a MISSPELLED word and then continue on to slaughter the rules of grammar…

I know my english isn’t always perfect, but I still TRY to get it right, and I’m open to feedback when I get it wrong. English would be worthless for communicating if there were no rules and structure. It behooves us to try to follow them if we want to make ourselves understandable to anyone else…

How about ZED — Zero Energy
How about ZED — Zero Energy Dwellings? It’s true the home will still use energy, but I think the “net” is mainly for us nerds.

Wow! That’s quite a response,
Wow! That’s quite a response, David.

“You may have a graduate degree in physics, but your education doesn’t seem to extend to English grammar.”

Ooooh! Snap!

Clearly, what I wrote was a typo. No one would consider that usage of the word “zero” to be a verb. What I meant — and I thank you for drawing my attention to the typo, which I’ve now corrected — was that adjectives come before nouns.

But wait. Is zero even used as a noun here? It certainly can be used as a noun, but in “net zero energy” or “zero net energy,” it’s less clear. Wikipedia doesn’t help a whole lot, but in the end, we can probably agree that zero in both cases is a modifier. Either adjective or adverb, it modifies “energy” or “net energy.”

So yes, David, I guess you’re right, at least partly. Not only was “verb” definitely the wrong word to use, “noun,” the word I intended to write, was probably wrong, too.

But my “misinformed grammatical analysis,” as you put it, wasn’t put forth as the answer. I was merely letting readers know how I thought about the issue. In the end, I put out a call for readers to tell me how they see it and which term they prefer:

“What say you, gentle reader? Tell me in the comments below which way you lean, please. My ivory-tower, fence-sitting, academic tendencies are getting the better of me right now.”

Apparently, though, my comments about grammar touched a nerve in you. Telling me that my “education doesn’t seem to extend to English grammar” isn’t an answer to my request. Would you like to try again?

Here is what Sam Rashkin has
Here is what Sam Rashkin has to say on the subject:
http://www.zerohomes.org/2015/08/02/speaking-of-zero-no-to-net-yes-to-ready/

You may have a graduate degree in physics, but your education doesn’t seem to extend to English grammar. What on earth makes you think that adjectives come before verbs in English? Did you perhaps mean adverbs rather than adjectives?

You seem to imply that “zero” is a verb. It certainly can be used as a verb (as in “zero the trip odometer”), but it’s not used that way here.

Really, there must be a better way to decide among the choices than misinformed grammatical analysis.

For me, I like the definition where a net zero energy building is one that produces as much energy as it uses over a 12 moth period. A net-positive energy builidng is one that produces more energy than it uses over a 12 month period.

We use at least 12 months of continuous energy bills to prove out net- zero or net-positive. And no wood burning allowed to use for produced energy – only renewable energy.
Now, for a potentially more “heated” discussion, let’s talk about net-zero carbon buildings.