|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:46 am Post subject: Conventional Wisdom About Energy Efficient Construction |
    |
|
I attended a town meeting last week where the construction for 20 + new homes was being discussed for eventual approval. When the topic of "green" construction was raised by a resident, the developer's attorney countered that "green" costs a lot of money and we're not required to do it. This scenario is probaby repeated thousands of times a year across the country/world with very similar results: millions of new homes constructed each year with minimal energy standards. I'm not against well conceived development, but it seems that not enough is being done to educate and encourage builders, architects and homeowners to construct homes that are truly energy efficient. Part of the problem is certainly the perceived added costs, but there seems to be a lack of easily comprehensible information to assist end users who want to pursue serious energy conserving construction. Every area of the country has a different set of criteria which complicates the task, heating degree days, humidity, solar intensity, cost of energy, building codes, etc. etc. etc.
To use an extreme example, in the Northeast U.S. , there are many existing new and used homes that have monthly energy bills exceeding $1000 and yet there is a conventional wisdom that solar PV panels, solar flat panels, heat pumps and the like are too expensive, the pay back is too long, and the energy production not competitive with grid produced power. If we think about cutting that $1000/ month by 50%, which should not be an unreasonable goal, the payback of a $40,000 net investment of a system and other energy detailing, could be as little as 7 years, (savings of $500/mo. x 12 x 7 years = $42,000) with the added bonus of reducing green house gases and future energy price increases.
Another factor complicating the task of encouraging more investment in energy saving and producing systems is a huge disparity of opinion as to the best way to achieve it. Could uniform construction models be developed for each climate region with documented systems to show dollar savings versus dollar expenditure, payback period for a particular house style, size, basement or slab configuration, building materials. Maybe someone has a better idea...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a lot in your post to discuss. I will only hit on a few items.
| birgco wrote: | | I attended a town meeting last week where the construction for 20 + new homes was being discussed for eventual approval. When the topic of "green" construction was raised by a resident, the developer's attorney countered that "green" costs a lot of money and we're not required to do it. This scenario is probaby repeated thousands of times a year across the country/world with very similar results: millions of new homes constructed each year with minimal energy standards. |
There is more to "green" construction then energy efficiency. The two are not neccesarily linked. You can only insulate a house so much before its just ridiculous.
There is a Model Energy Code that is fairly strict. Basically to make the work we do comply with the energy code, we are specifiing R-19 in the walls and R-39 in the ceiling. The R-19 is a special product for 2 x 4 walls and cost more than the standard R-14. R-39 is 13 inches of insulation. Then there is the whole issue of insulating the foundation systems. We specify a board insulation with an R-5 per inch, which is about as high as you can get without going to polyisocyanurate, which is costly and difficult to obtain at the present moment. In the end, our work is typical 25-45% over minimum code requirements.
Also, code only allows us to install 90% efficient furnace systems now and the A/C unit has to have a SEER rating of 13. The old norm was 10 SEER. So a lot is being done to push minimum standards higher. The manufacturers are not manufacturing anything less. If you want 100% effieciency, you have to go all electric. Being that natural gas, propane, and heating oil are commodities and their prices vary upon the market, while electricity just continues to rise, we will continue to see people "invest" in fossil fuels.
As an individual homeowner, you are certainly allowed to go beyond the code minimum
"Green" construction can entail many things. Selecting materials that are renewable or recycable or have high recycled content. Selecting materials with less embeded energy in their manufacture or shipping to the project site. It can include daylight harvesting, water reduction or collection systems. It can include active and passive solar as you suggested. It can include reducing the construction waste that is introduced into the waste stream. Some solid waste departments have taken an active role in this issue.
I identify and specify which products being removed from a project should be salvaged and delivered to places like McMrf or the local Habitat Restore.
I take issue with your statement that | birgco wrote: | | ......it seems that not enough is being done to educate and encourage builders, architects and homeowners to construct homes that are truly energy efficient. |
I realize its just a blank general statement, but to say that architects need to be educated in these matters is a statement of ignorance. During their formal education, architects take at least 2 courses in systems, if not more. Most architects don't design mechanical systems, mechanical engineers do. Most architects are required to maintain continue education credits. The most popular topics are related to "Green" design. One local MPE hosts their own Green Building seminar.
Also... and more importantly, 90% of the housing stock built in this country is designed and constructed without the benefit of an architect. You are not required to be a registered architect to design houses in most states. Probably why so much of what you see is ill-conceived and lacks any "Green" initiative. As long as local government (who enforces and regulates residential construction) does not take a stand or make it worthwhile (tax credits and so on), contractors/developers will not seriously move to "green" construciton. There are some local govenments that are taking a stand for green building. From what I can tell, participation is more owner driven than builder driven. I am not sure where you got the $1,000 per month heating bill. My heating bill has never been over $300 (including electrical) and I own a 1955 ranch, but I have installed new windows, doors, and insulated the exterior wall of the house (attic was already insulated). Our heating fuel is natural gas.
Concerning active solar systems, we lost nearly 30 years of research time because it lost its importance after the enery crisis of the 1970's. We have lots of research to do until active solar is affordable on a larger scale than heating your water. Our MPE just completed the design of a solar house for a local institution. Payback is extremely long .... not 7 years as you suggest.... think 30 to 40. This particular MPE has been on the cutting edge for decades and installed the one of the first large scale solar systems on a public building around 1977-78. The system was a failure due to owner operation.
My better idea.... you need to lobby your local government and energy provider to create a "Green" Building programs where tax credits and rebates are given to builders and homeowners who are willing to build "green". (Think about the tax credits given in the 70's by the Carter Administration for people to add insulation to their homes.... Think Austin Texas). This is what it takes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1859
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Also... and more importantly, 90% of the housing stock built in this country is designed and constructed without the benefit of an architect. You are not required to be a registered architect to design houses in most states. Probably why so much of what you see is ill-conceived and lacks any "Green" initiative."
geez Louise
Other than that I agree with phansford, the average new house is much more efficient than one built thirty years ago (even without more architect input). We already have energy codes and standard local building practices, it is just a matter of how far we want to take them.
I also suspect your figures are not correct birgco. (Sorry, I don't intend to be harsh) But I do agree with you in that trying to get good information on costs of new technology or unusual building systems is very difficult.
Universities used to have budgets to research this stuff but then government spending (other than the military) became an issue.
I believe if we as a nation decide that energy efficiency is important than we could certainly achieve a 50% reduction. I don't think tax credits are the way to go though (at least in new construction).
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | | phansford wrote: | | "Also... and more importantly, 90% of the housing stock built in this country is designed and constructed without the benefit of an architect. You are not required to be a registered architect to design houses in most states. Probably why so much of what you see is ill-conceived and lacks any "Green" initiative." |
geez Louise |
The point being that you can't say that architects are to blame for the present condition when we aren't a major force in the residential market. It's not a personal slam, its just fact.
| csintexas wrote: | | Other than that I agree with phansford, the average new house is much more efficient than one built thirty years ago (even without more architect input). We already have energy codes and standard local building practices, it is just a matter of how far we want to take them. |
As I always say, "They don't build them like they use to....... thank God." 
Chris makes a good point here. The advent of the model residential building codes over the last 25 years has improved the minimum standards for construction and design. Not only in energy usage, but also structural issues. When my house was built, a lot of "rules of thumb" governed how the house was built.... and not necessarily for the better.
However, I would contend that many older houses were designed and built in a sustainable manner, but it wasn't called that in 1930. Houses were designed for cross-ventilation, materials were typically locally procured, lumber was locally milled, most materials used were natural and would be considered recyclable..... (think linoleum).
I would also contend that we are making houses too tight and causing indoor air quality issues. There is little or no infiltration and therefore fresh air has to be added to create air changes needed for the house to function properly. These tight houses cause all sorts of moisture problems. (raising the quesition, is indoor air quality more important that total energy efficiency?)
As a closer, I think the original poster needs to know that there is a lot going on in the "Green" movment and lots of education occuring. I was listening to "Talk of the Nation" today and their topic was "Eco-Chic: How Green is Green.... Check it out |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1859
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
In my area the problem isn't designing a more efficient house but getting consumers who care about efficiency more than size or style.
Cross ventilation was a good thing when people actually had no air conditioning and had to open windows but now days excessive and poorly planed window area just decreases efficiency (in my climate zone).
Most city lots are not oriented well so that designing a solar passive efficient house that looks like the "popular" style is usually impossible.
It is expensive to make a poorly designed house efficient by adding insulation.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: Conventional Wisdom About Energy Efficient Construction |
|
|
....... some folks seem more interested in nit-picking an opening post than discussing the real issue/question. ...... current energy codes and construction methods aren't cuttin it.
News flash..... the U.S. consumes well over 25% of the world's energy but oddly enough, we comprise less than 5% of world's population.
If you think our energy codes are "fairly strict", you need to look at that assumption a little closer. Sure houses are more efficient than they used to be, but so is my Aunt Louise (remember her). The fact remains that if I took an infrared picture of the average newly constructed home, it would most likely light up like a christmas tree .....(sorry....holiday tree). One study estimates a typically insulated R-19-21 wall cavity had an actual R rated value of less than R-10 as temperatures approached 10 degress F.
No one is laying blame on architects ( I'm trying to figure where that came from) but if we look at the problem objectively, everyone could do more to promote and improve the construction of energy efficient homes. And it is true that "green" education has increased, but all you have to do is look at the "Green Building" Forum on this site to see there isn't as much interest, excitement, or knowledge as there might be. Adding extra insulation to an energy plan is just part of an integrated design approach, but one that shouldn't be ignored. It may have been "just riduculous" when oil was $35 a barrel, but as that same barrel approaches $75, we need to reexamine some past assumptions and practices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1859
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought I was addressing the issues you raised. My point was that we already have the structure in place to do better, what we lack is consumer interest.
When people decide that efficiency is important I'm sure we will see more independent government sponsored research and information on cost effectiveness like we did in the early 70's. Until then we have to rely on businesses providing there own information and as we can see they don't like to do that because there is no profit in that.
I personally do a lot to promote energy efficiency, I suppose a person could always do more though. Energy cost are going to have to go up more before people start being concerned about them (except for people in the lower income range and they don't have the money to spend on new houses)
We did some HUD houses many years ago and they required HVAC ducting to be placed in the air conditioned space. If we just made that small change (in my area) it would make a fairly big difference. Or if we required high efficiency florescent lighting and got rid of pot lights. Or just made small changes in framing techniques. None of these things would cost much more money.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: Conventional Wisdom About Energy Efficient Construction |
|
|
chris, good point about consumer interest. I believe if there were more active home models with publicity and good documentation of hard energy savings, more folks would be getting on board. There was a news story earlier in the year about a woman on Long Island, N.Y. who had a monthly electric bill in excess of $1000 (all electric house). She spent (invested) $60,000 net on a PV system and other energy saving details and cut her electric bill to plus minus $10 per month depending on solar output. Again, cost for such is system is high but the payback period is relatively fast. Homeowners can usually get low interest rate loans from participating banks.
The way to get developers to offer serious energy efficient homes is a different nut. They have very little incentive to do so.
Maybe accelerating the approval process (sometimes 2-3 years) would help for large scale developments..... a trade off for "green" construction details...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1859
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We have very little regulation here in Texas with no long waits for house plan approval (site development is a different story).
This company is supposedly renting solar panels so there is no great upfront cost: http://www.citizenre.com/web/index.php?p=home
I don't know the specific case of the woman you mention but it doesn't sound like she used any unusual products or building systems if it was just a retrofit.
My house is 3250 sq. ft. and we spend about $7.5 per day on energy and I would guess that is more typical of a new American home though.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: Conventional Wisdom About Energy Efficient Construction |
|
|
good lead on the website, I will check it out monday, thanks.
I don't know all the details on the women's PV system but it had to be a heck of a lot a panels to reduce her electric bill to zero or sub-zero. Utility costs in parts of the northeast are astronomical. I think it brings a bit more urgency to the problem when the utility companys are knockin on the door currently looking for 10 - 17% increases..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1859
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
My guess would be that it was a very unusual case. Electric strip heaters leaky windows no attic insulation etc..
She probably spent 25k on that stuff and took the bill from 1000 to 200 then spent the other 35k on the PV system.
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6432171.html
| Quote: | | In 2006, the production of solar electricity from a typical 4 kilowatt (kW) rooftop system in Germany cost 30 cents per kWh, in Spain it was 19 cents, and in California it was 22 cents. By 2010, Photon Consulting estimates that solar electricity will be produced for 18 cents in Southern Germany, 12 cents per (kWh) in Spain, and 13 cents in California. |
Generally these types of estimates are based on the life cycle cost of the system (maybe not including financing)
Certainly in the future as equipment cost come down and coal produced electricity goes up (faster than inflation because of regulation on pollution etc.) we will see much more solar energy being used.
Back to the topic, I think there are just to many variables to make (very) simple cost analysis of building products. Generally when they develop energy codes they consider cost vs. performance I would guess.
The internet has made information extremely easier to find than it used to be and it is getting better all the time.
I don't think the hold up in household energy consumption is due to a lack of information.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:19 am Post subject: Re: Conventional Wisdom About Energy Efficient Construction |
|
|
| birgco wrote: | | ....... some folks seem more interested in nit-picking an opening post than discussing the real issue/question. ...... current energy codes and construction methods aren't cuttin it. |
Ahhh... a testy one...... It is only your opinion that current codes and construction methods aren't cutting it. The truth is that there has been lots of product development over the recent years. R-19 wall batts for 2 x 4 construction is relatively new and greatly reduced the cost of construction to obtain this R-value.
You need to read the DOE link I provided to see what is happening on the Federal level. I know I get emails constantly from them looking for feedback. They hold public meetings and seminars all over the country looking to improve energy efficiency. I personally do not rail against people who are making a concerted effort to improve things.
| birgco wrote: | | News flash..... the U.S. consumes well over 25% of the world's energy but oddly enough, we comprise less than 5% of world's population. |
These types of statics, while startling are bull#$%# statements. You live in a country that actually knows how to make a light bulb. Of course we use more energy, we are a developed country. We also don't build out of mud or straw. In relationship to the rest of the world, our building codes are the best..... well because.... we actually have building codes.... and we enforce them.
Do you know why there was so much devastation by Katrina in the Gulf States. Because prior to that event, those states did not have a residential building code. So how the hell are they suppose to even build energy efficient houses.
For some truth about the US within the overall realm of many of these types of issues, I recommend you read Robert Bruegmann's book Sprawl: A Concise History.
| birgco wrote: | | If you think our energy codes are "fairly strict", you need to look at that assumption a little closer. Sure houses are more efficient than they used to be, but so is my Aunt Louise (remember her). The fact remains that if I took an infrared picture of the average newly constructed home, it would most likely light up like a christmas tree .....(sorry....holiday tree). One study estimates a typically insulated R-19-21 wall cavity had an actual R rated value of less than R-10 as temperatures approached 10 degress F. |
Again, other bull#$# study. ASTM is the standard for all materials testing in this country. The testing standard for determining thermal resistance is based on an average temperature change of 40 or 50 deg. F. The material will perform differently at different tempertures. It is designed and manufactured to have its optium performance for the periods of time when we have average temperatures... not the worst case senerios. You need to see what ASHRE has to say about solar heating days and so on. Professionals understand that fact. Hence, I might use a dfferent material in SW Ohio then I will use in the UP of Michigan.
Furthermore, the issue is not really the heating/cooling of our buildings. In fact, 75% of energy costs in commerical buildings is related to lighting, not heat gain/heat loss. The IES has been on this matter for several years and the building code now reflects the need to control energy usage by lighting. (Well at least those states that are aware enough to adopt the ICC model codes).
The code now requires lighting controls that help to control energy costs related to lighting. Dual switching, occupancy sensors, daylight harvesting, and so on.
You need to use caution when reading/hearing about all of these studies. Many are postulated to enforce the single-mindedness of certain lobby groups who are NOT involved in finding solutions.
Personally, I would love to live off "the gird", but the cost is greater than you might think. I am also interested in low tech methods as the average homeowner will not purchase items that have high maintanence costs or require special knowledge to work...... remember the public consists of "Flashing 12's" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: conventional wisdom |
|
|
phansford, ok........you got me on this one. I am making the argument (just for the heck of it) that current methods and practices for building energy efficient homes in the U.S. need improvement. I can't figure out exactly what you are so negatively reacting to ....my polyester suit??. Are you trying to say that this is as good as it gets or that it's just not practical to expect improvement because of economics? You seem to think I am only interested in insulating as the solution to the problem. I have previously stated that extra insulation is a part (but a critical part) of an integrated design process which, when combined with passive solar, active solar, "green" construction, or feng shui, can seriously impact our wasteful ways. Adding a "riduculous" amount of insulation isn't the solution, but it's the start to ending our addiction to fossil fuels. To say that because we are a "developed" country, we should be using a lot of energy is one ridiculous statement. I would think that just the opposite would be true
( are you sure you don't work for the oil companies?  ). We should be setting an example for the entire world to admire and envy. Unfortunately we seem to be doing just the opposite. I will submit this to you, with our techological know-how, we should be consuming less than 5% of the world's energy, not 25% plus.
and p.s. of course this is just my opinion............. what else would it be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:07 am Post subject: Re: conventional wisdom |
|
|
| birgco wrote: | | phansford, ok........you got me on this one. I am making the argument (just for the heck of it) that current methods and practices for building energy efficient homes in the U.S. need improvement. I can't figure out exactly what you are so negatively reacting to ....my polyester suit??. Are you trying to say that this is as good as it gets or that it's just not practical to expect improvement because of economics? |
I certainly am not stating that this is as good as it gets.  Go back and read my posts and think about the information (and links) I provided you. There are numerous organizations, public and private, researching methods to reduce energy usage. Thats my point..... there has been a lot of progress and there are people who are seriously addressing the issues. Then there are people who go on TV and make statements like "we use to much energy and we have to stop or the whole world will die......" and could not identify one of the organizations I have mentioned who have actually made an impact on how we build.
Maybe my issue is that with over 20 years as an practicing architect, I know where we have been, where we are at, and where we want to go. I know the advances that have been made and the absolute disasters.
| birgco wrote: | | You seem to think I am only interested in insulating as the solution to the problem. I have previously stated that extra insulation is a part (but a critical part) of an integrated design process which, when combined with passive solar, active solar, "green" construction, or feng shui, can seriously impact our wasteful ways. Adding a "riduculous" amount of insulation isn't the solution, but it's the start to ending our addiction to fossil fuels. |
Okay first..... feng shui.... please..... you should be embarrased to have even mentioned feng shui along side the other scholarly pursuits.
Second..... you might enjoy reading Sim Van der Ryn's Sustainable Communities and Peter Calthrope's Next American Metropolis . They are probably considered some of the better books on sustainable design/development and the two men are conisdered leaders in sustainable design/development.
| birgco wrote: | | To say that because we are a "developed" country, we should be using a lot of energy is one ridiculous statement. |
I did not say we SHOULD be using more energy, but the fact they we actually know how to construct a power plant and distribute energy and there is a whole lot of the world that does not know how....... of course, we use more energy. And I don't expect any developed country to start riding camels and donkeys to work.
| birgco wrote: | | I will submit this to you, with our techological know-how, we should be consuming less than 5% of the world's energy, not 25% plus. |
Couldn't agree more.......Again, go read my first post..... we lost 30 years of research (by not funding it and not encouraging alternate sources). By the time I started college (Fall 1979) to the time I got out of grad school (Spring 1986) research into solar energy died a quick and silent death.... thank you Mr. Reagan. And unless the Federal Government starts to take alternate energy research seriously, we will loss another 30 years. I had a professor at Miami (the real one in Ohio) who was a leading authority on Solar Energy, but eventually, due to a lack of funding, moved his research into daylighting (which is still a form of solar energy)
Nothing against your polyester suit, but I am wondering what its carbon footprint is  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1859
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that "feng shui" part was just a joke.
We consume more energy per capita than other developed countries also.
Wow, I had not realized all those states haven't started using national building codes yet. Did they have there own state or local codes? Anyway I don't think that was the main cause.
Yeah, I would guess most people in the US would still not agree that energy consumption is a big problem. That means progress towards reducing consumption will be slow.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
