I'm thinking of using these when I build my house. Anybody have opinions or better options? http://www.solatube.com/residential/index.php

not everybody at once now... :-)

I have been looking at them myself to provide light in the bathroom of my small house design. It is located in the north-west corner and I decided NOT to place any windows. The biggest problem I see with the solar-tube type skylights is that they do not seem to be designed around maximum insulation value. You will basically be opening a hole in the insulation envelope of your house. Still, for rooms that would not have any natural sunlight they are worth it (my opinion, others will have their own).

I agree, maybe not efficient, but the amount of light they let in is worth the hoel in your insulation envelope....

I have a pair of 10" tubular skylights in my house, one in the bathroom and one in the stairwell. They let in an amazing amount of light. The attic in question was abut R50 before I began tossing up trim pieces of insulation (from the 4 inches of xps between the ceiling joists and the polyiso under the rubber on a flat garage roof.) I truly doubt that two 10 inch holes will significantly degrade surrounding insulation as deep as 20 inches. Even if it did, a 10" skylight is better than a north facing window, which was the alternative.

My inlaws have one in the bath and one in the kitchen - we love the light they provide. The two rooms were dark and really kind of sad, now filled with daylight. (No I don't work for Solatube - just love it

I think you have to do as you like for your home because after your own decision whole will remain satisfied.

I had a client of mine use one upstairs in an area that did not get very much light (I tried to tell him about this during the design phase). It is crazy how much light those things bring in. I agree the lighting benefit outweighs the envelope factor.

I agree the lighting benefit outweighs the envelope factor.

Has anyone done some rough and dirty calculations to see whether this is actually the case? I guess it would be cost of solatube and installation plus ongoing cost of heat loss versus cost of efficient light installation and ongoing energy use.

I have a guest unit with limited windows in the main living area, but it does have three large skylights on a high vaulted roof. Without the skylights, you would probably have to use supplemental lighting during the day in there. The only issue I have with them is that for about one hour a day, there is an uninhabitable zone under where the sun shines through the skylights. Not a good place to locate a computer monitor or workspace, for example. I can see that there was some thought put into the conformation of the ceiling "well" under the skylights, but they should have gone for less direct light and more reflection off the sides of the well. Little things like that, roof facing, and even whether the room is normally occupied during the daytime might make a difference in whether you would choose solatube or a light.

The architect nixed solatubes in a walk-in master closet with no outside windows, opting instead for some interior glazing to collect light from an atrium. It was convenient that there is no additional heat loss for the single-pane glazing, but we will see if it is enough light in there. If we have to revisit this, I am hoping the initial solatube resistance was due to heat loss considerations and not to aesthetic issues with the roof or something......

With any skylight I worry about the localized heat-leak creating ice-damming problems in climates where 12"+ snowpacks can be expected.

The aesthetics of natural light is very good, but I too am doubtful that there's an economic rationale for it compared to high-efficiency lighting, particularly on low duty-cycle intermittent use rooms like bathrooms & walk-in closets. An LED fixture operated on an occupancy sensor switch has a lower installed cost. It could take a century of intermittent use to add up to the cost difference. Skylight aesthetics are nice- just don't think of it as "energy savings".

In high duty cycle rooms where other natural daylighting isn't available/possible it may be better than break-even economics over some long period of time.

What about the sola tubes that incorporate a bathroom exhaust fan? We are thinking of using this in a bathroom without much natural light.

Here is my tubular skylight on ebay for $99: http://www.ebay.com/itm/VELUX-10-Single-Glazed-Acrylic-Rigid-Sun-Tunnel-Tubular-Skylight-TSR-010-/200669698657?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eb8d89a61 Let's see a good deal on your led light with motion sensor.

Simple diy, or I would guess, barely a blip on a roofing estimate for new construction.

Mine is a house in the woods, granted, but the two areas with tubular skylights were brighter this summer than anywhere else in the house, including the room with 240 sf of glass.

icfhybrid, the tubular skylights have diffusers. You could put a monitor right under them.

cfhybrid, the tubular skylights have diffusers. You could put a monitor right under them.

Yeah, that walk-in closet is framed and roofed now and it's clear we're gonna have to have some solatubes in there.

Oddly enough, the framer keeps lobbying for skylights instead. Doesn't say why - maybe he is looking to stack some change orders.....

Elsewhere, I've got some skylights that straddle a wall and are part of the venting strategy, so they are gonna have to stay as skylights.

The aesthetics of natural light is very good, but I too am doubtful that there's an economic rationale for it compared to high-efficiency lighting

Well, it sort of depends on how (much) value you place on the natural lighting, doesn't it? ;-)

That guest unit with the vaulted roof and skylights I have is an energy pig otherwise, but people simply love the natural lighting. Everyone wants to be in there. It's interesting, because on most days, you have to turn on a light for a detailed task, but the ambient light is really, really pleasant.

I've done the same thing with this new passive solar - lots of natural light. People remark over and over about how "good" it feels in there and it's still a cold (not dark, though) wet and windy shell.

I have one by Natural Light in my bathroom. Mine also has the vent kit and light kit with it. So far, we love it. I had a few problems with it at first but it had to do with easily fixable issues. The diffuser is not a one piece design and water can get inside there if you don't caulk the diffuser to trim ring. Once I sealed it with a bead of caulk, I haven't had any problems since.

My energy bills are pretty low. I have three people in my 800-ish square foot house and my gas & electric bills combined are about $75 a month. If the skylight is a weak area in the thermal envelope I don't see it or feel it. The install job was pretty good and all of the penetrations were foamed and extra care was made to foam around the edges.

Also, mine is a north-facing tubular skylight.

I'm very happy with mine. If anyone has questions, feel free to ask.

I installed the Velux version in what used to be a dark upstairs hallway. Wow, what a big difference!

As far as an energy penalty, that can be minmized by effective sealing and also insulating the tube section. In fact the Postgreen folks in Philly installed a solar tube in the upstaris bathroom of their Passivhaus.

My 88 year old Mom has one in her hall bath. When guests use that bath, she sits across the hall in her office and just waits for them to come out. She loves to laugh at everyone when they try to 'turn the lights off'. It's so light, you just automatically reach for the off switch.