I wasn't defending the idea over any objection - in fact, more than once I expressed my own concerns about the cost/benefit trade-off. I was simply offering possible solutions to the problem you posted concerning birds, spiders and dampness. Because I contradicted some of your objections, you incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that I am blindly in favor of this project. I am not. And I said repeatedly that it's a neat idea, but I have reservations about the cost/benefit trade-offs. There are ways to get around the problems you mentioned, but solutions cost money. Are those costs more, or less than the cost of the energy that will be saved? It's impossible to tell from the article. No, I am not in commercial real estate. I am an engineer. None of the issues you mentioned are technically insurmountable. In fact, they may have already been addressed by the designers (one would hope). The article provides no real details on the design. So, it's impossible to assess its feasability. Designing something like this isn't all that difficult. Designing something that is cost effective is where the challenge comes - something that meets the original goal of significant energy savings, but does not cost more to build and maintain than the cost benefit of the reduced energy costs. Assuming it can't be done, is no more valid than assuming it can be. There simply aren't enough details in the article (not even close) to reach a conclusion either way. BNM
