If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by ta on December 16, 2008, 11:12 pm
<snip>
> > > House1: solar-assisted hot water, isocyanurate insulation,
Ooops, they gave me some wrong information. Turns out it's open cell
foam in the roof and fiberglass in the walls.
> > > "sustainable" oak flooring, low E windows, dual-flush toilets, hardi-
> > > board exterior and (surprisingly) a basement.
> > > House2: solar-assisted hot water, blown cellulose insulation (which i=
s
> > > touted as coming from recycled newspaper), stained concrete (radiant
> > > heated) and bamboo floors, dual-flush toilets, and hardi-board
> > > exterior. Basement is an optional upgrade.
> > > House 2 is more expensive.
> > > Yes, still doing research.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by spec---are they built? If so, you can
> > hardly have an optional basement ;-).
> It's optional on the ones that haven't been built yet. It's a
> neighborhood project.
> > My inclination is to think about what would be an ideal---that is, go
> > ahead and design a 'green dream house'---as a way to learn about the
> > various factors and their relative merits and value to you. Builders
> > are going to mix in 'features' just the way auto companies have
> > options in packages, and it usually isn't worth the money.
> > I have researched blown-in cellulose as a retrofit, and the underlying
> > problem is in the application---works fine as long as it is done very
> > well, but you're not going to know up front. =A0Since you are in a
> > future tropical zone if AGW goes on, you should think about AC more
> > than heating. =A0That's why heat pump may be your best choice. =A0
> House1 is heat pump and House2 has mini-split a/c (this house is
> actually ductless).
> > Also
> > what is R-value claimed and how do they justify it? =A0
> From House2 specs:
> "All exterior walls, and interior walls to unheated spaces, will be
> insulated with blown cellulose R19. The ceiling/roof assembly will
> have 12=94 cellulose insulation R38. All wood-constructed first floors
> will have R19. All internal partitions around bathrooms, powder
> room, and Master Bedroom shall have R11 high-density batt sound
> insulation. All windows and door jambs will be sealed. The exterior
> walls are 7/16=94 ZIP System Panel with STORMEXTM water-resistive
> barrier."
> Don't have the specs on House1.
> > Solar hot water
> > is a great idea---wish I had it.
> Yeah, I'm trying to find out about reliability and maintenance costs
> etc. These systems have natgas backup.
> > Stuff like bamboo floors doesn't sound like it matters that much
> > really---is it supposed to be greener than oak or southern pine?
> Generally, I believe bamboo is considered to be more "sustainable"
> since it can be replenished more easily and more quickly, and it's
> easier to harvest, and the oak in this case is FSC-certified.
> I agree, it's not one of the more critical considerations, although I
> currently have bamboo flooring and, irrespective of any environmental
> benefit, I simply like the appearance better than oak.
> > -tg
|
|
Posted by tg on December 17, 2008, 9:04 am
> > > > House1: solar-assisted hot water, isocyanurate insulation,
> Ooops, they gave me some wrong information. Turns out it's open cell
> foam in the roof and fiberglass in the walls.
> > > > "sustainable" oak flooring, low E windows, dual-flush toilets, hard=
i-
> > > > board exterior and (surprisingly) a basement.
> > > > House2: solar-assisted hot water, blown cellulose insulation (which=
is
> > > > touted as coming from recycled newspaper), stained concrete (radian=
t
> > > > heated) and bamboo floors, dual-flush toilets, and hardi-board
> > > > exterior. Basement is an optional upgrade.
> > > > House 2 is more expensive.
> > > > Yes, still doing research.
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by spec---are they built? If so, you can
> > > hardly have an optional basement ;-).
> > It's optional on the ones that haven't been built yet. It's a
> > neighborhood project.
> > > My inclination is to think about what would be an ideal---that is, go
> > > ahead and design a 'green dream house'---as a way to learn about the
> > > various factors and their relative merits and value to you. Builders
> > > are going to mix in 'features' just the way auto companies have
> > > options in packages, and it usually isn't worth the money.
> > > I have researched blown-in cellulose as a retrofit, and the underlyin=
g
> > > problem is in the application---works fine as long as it is done very
> > > well, but you're not going to know up front. =A0Since you are in a
> > > future tropical zone if AGW goes on, you should think about AC more
> > > than heating. =A0That's why heat pump may be your best choice. =A0
> > House1 is heat pump and House2 has mini-split a/c (this house is
> > actually ductless).
> > > Also
> > > what is R-value claimed and how do they justify it? =A0
> > From House2 specs:
> > "All exterior walls, and interior walls to unheated spaces, will be
> > insulated with blown cellulose R19. The ceiling/roof assembly will
> > have 12=94 cellulose insulation R38. All wood-constructed first floors
> > will have R19. All internal partitions around bathrooms, powder
> > room, and Master Bedroom shall have R11 high-density batt sound
> > insulation. All windows and door jambs will be sealed. The exterior
> > walls are 7/16=94 ZIP System Panel with STORMEXTM water-resistive
> > barrier."
> > Don't have the specs on House1.
> > > Solar hot water
> > > is a great idea---wish I had it.
> > Yeah, I'm trying to find out about reliability and maintenance costs
> > etc. These systems have natgas backup.
> > > Stuff like bamboo floors doesn't sound like it matters that much
> > > really---is it supposed to be greener than oak or southern pine?
> > Generally, I believe bamboo is considered to be more "sustainable"
> > since it can be replenished more easily and more quickly, and it's
> > easier to harvest, and the oak in this case is FSC-certified.
> > I agree, it's not one of the more critical considerations, although I
> > currently have bamboo flooring and, irrespective of any environmental
> > benefit, I simply like the appearance better than oak.
I don't want to get into one of those philosophical definition things
with you ta,;-) but I don't think R19, which is the legal
requirement, can justifiably be called 'green'. Seriously, you should
refine the question somewhat.
If the goal is to reduce energy consumption and associated
consequences, then the thermal balance of the structure is the big
deal. R30 walls and R50 roof will keep you cool in the summer and
warm in (what you guys call) winter. Thermal mass, orientation of the
structure, shading and working shutters, and so on, will also make a
real difference. The *type* of insulation is irrelevant, as long as it
functions properly over the (long) life of a well constructed
building.
There is such a thing as a 'really' green house, but it's not likely
to be found in one of those developments---although maybe the
construction and environmental group people can give some
counterexamples.
-tg
|
|
Posted by ta on December 17, 2008, 10:48 am
> > > > > House1: solar-assisted hot water, isocyanurate insulation,
> > Ooops, they gave me some wrong information. Turns out it's open cell
> > foam in the roof and fiberglass in the walls.
> > > > > "sustainable" oak flooring, low E windows, dual-flush toilets, ha=
rdi-
> > > > > board exterior and (surprisingly) a basement.
> > > > > House2: solar-assisted hot water, blown cellulose insulation (whi=
ch is
> > > > > touted as coming from recycled newspaper), stained concrete (radi=
ant
> > > > > heated) and bamboo floors, dual-flush toilets, and hardi-board
> > > > > exterior. Basement is an optional upgrade.
> > > > > House 2 is more expensive.
> > > > > Yes, still doing research.
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by spec---are they built? If so, you can
> > > > hardly have an optional basement ;-).
> > > It's optional on the ones that haven't been built yet. It's a
> > > neighborhood project.
> > > > My inclination is to think about what would be an ideal---that is, =
go
> > > > ahead and design a 'green dream house'---as a way to learn about th=
e
> > > > various factors and their relative merits and value to you. Builder=
s
> > > > are going to mix in 'features' just the way auto companies have
> > > > options in packages, and it usually isn't worth the money.
> > > > I have researched blown-in cellulose as a retrofit, and the underly=
ing
> > > > problem is in the application---works fine as long as it is done ve=
ry
> > > > well, but you're not going to know up front. =A0Since you are in a
> > > > future tropical zone if AGW goes on, you should think about AC more
> > > > than heating. =A0That's why heat pump may be your best choice. =A0
> > > House1 is heat pump and House2 has mini-split a/c (this house is
> > > actually ductless).
> > > > Also
> > > > what is R-value claimed and how do they justify it? =A0
> > > From House2 specs:
> > > "All exterior walls, and interior walls to unheated spaces, will be
> > > insulated with blown cellulose R19. The ceiling/roof assembly will
> > > have 12=94 cellulose insulation R38. All wood-constructed first floor=
s
> > > will have R19. All internal partitions around bathrooms, powder
> > > room, and Master Bedroom shall have R11 high-density batt sound
> > > insulation. All windows and door jambs will be sealed. The exterior
> > > walls are 7/16=94 ZIP System Panel with STORMEXTM water-resistive
> > > barrier."
> > > Don't have the specs on House1.
> > > > Solar hot water
> > > > is a great idea---wish I had it.
> > > Yeah, I'm trying to find out about reliability and maintenance costs
> > > etc. These systems have natgas backup.
> > > > Stuff like bamboo floors doesn't sound like it matters that much
> > > > really---is it supposed to be greener than oak or southern pine?
> > > Generally, I believe bamboo is considered to be more "sustainable"
> > > since it can be replenished more easily and more quickly, and it's
> > > easier to harvest, and the oak in this case is FSC-certified.
> > > I agree, it's not one of the more critical considerations, although I
> > > currently have bamboo flooring and, irrespective of any environmental
> > > benefit, I simply like the appearance better than oak.
> I don't want to get into one of those philosophical definition things
> with you ta,;-) =A0but I don't think R19, which is the legal
> requirement, can justifiably be called 'green'. =A0Seriously, you should
> refine the question somewhat.
Well, as I hinted at earlier, I wouldn't know an R19 or R50 from a B52
or an F18, so I'm just going by the "Healthy Home Built" standards
that exist in NC. These are the standards that are used to define what
is minimally "green".
> If the goal is to reduce energy consumption and associated
> consequences, then the thermal balance of the structure is the big
> deal. =A0R30 walls and R50 roof will keep you cool in the summer and
> warm in (what you guys call) winter. =A0
Hey, we have "skiing" in NC and everything.
http://www.skinorthcarolina.com/
> Thermal mass, orientation of the
> structure, shading and working shutters, and so on, will also make a
> real difference. The *type* of insulation is irrelevant, as long as it
> functions properly over the (long) life of a well constructed
> building.
> There is such a thing as a 'really' green house, but it's not likely
> to be found in =A0one of those developments---although maybe the
> construction and environmental group people can give some
> counterexamples.
Well, the NC Healthy Built Home standard is probably just a minimum
requirement for marketing purposes, but there is still some merit to
the standards. At minimum, these standards ensure the homes are
"greener" than your average home, if not ideally "greenest", by
whatever standards those might be.
Obviously price is a major consideration too. If I was going to build
a custom home that was maximally "green", then I presumably could
afford to do all kinds of things.
I realize these "green" developments don't represent the ideal, and
that there is probably some marketing fluff in there, but that's kinda
what I'm trying to sort out . . . whether the "green" features are
actually worth the premium.
You apparently believe that the features I listed are not enough to
make it "really greann". So then what would you consider to be a
"really green house"?
> -tg
|
|
Posted by tg on December 17, 2008, 11:26 am
> > > > > > House1: solar-assisted hot water, isocyanurate insulation,
> > > Ooops, they gave me some wrong information. Turns out it's open cell
> > > foam in the roof and fiberglass in the walls.
> > > > > > "sustainable" oak flooring, low E windows, dual-flush toilets, =
hardi-
> > > > > > board exterior and (surprisingly) a basement.
> > > > > > House2: solar-assisted hot water, blown cellulose insulation (w=
hich is
> > > > > > touted as coming from recycled newspaper), stained concrete (ra=
diant
> > > > > > heated) and bamboo floors, dual-flush toilets, and hardi-board
> > > > > > exterior. Basement is an optional upgrade.
> > > > > > House 2 is more expensive.
> > > > > > Yes, still doing research.
> > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by spec---are they built? If so, you c=
an
> > > > > hardly have an optional basement ;-).
> > > > It's optional on the ones that haven't been built yet. It's a
> > > > neighborhood project.
> > > > > My inclination is to think about what would be an ideal---that is=
, go
> > > > > ahead and design a 'green dream house'---as a way to learn about =
the
> > > > > various factors and their relative merits and value to you. Build=
ers
> > > > > are going to mix in 'features' just the way auto companies have
> > > > > options in packages, and it usually isn't worth the money.
> > > > > I have researched blown-in cellulose as a retrofit, and the under=
lying
> > > > > problem is in the application---works fine as long as it is done =
very
> > > > > well, but you're not going to know up front. =A0Since you are in =
a
> > > > > future tropical zone if AGW goes on, you should think about AC mo=
re
> > > > > than heating. =A0That's why heat pump may be your best choice. =
=A0
> > > > House1 is heat pump and House2 has mini-split a/c (this house is
> > > > actually ductless).
> > > > > Also
> > > > > what is R-value claimed and how do they justify it? =A0
> > > > From House2 specs:
> > > > "All exterior walls, and interior walls to unheated spaces, will be
> > > > insulated with blown cellulose R19. The ceiling/roof assembly will
> > > > have 12=94 cellulose insulation R38. All wood-constructed first flo=
ors
> > > > will have R19. All internal partitions around bathrooms, powder
> > > > room, and Master Bedroom shall have R11 high-density batt sound
> > > > insulation. All windows and door jambs will be sealed. The exterior
> > > > walls are 7/16=94 ZIP System Panel with STORMEXTM water-resistive
> > > > barrier."
> > > > Don't have the specs on House1.
> > > > > Solar hot water
> > > > > is a great idea---wish I had it.
> > > > Yeah, I'm trying to find out about reliability and maintenance cost=
s
> > > > etc. These systems have natgas backup.
> > > > > Stuff like bamboo floors doesn't sound like it matters that much
> > > > > really---is it supposed to be greener than oak or southern pine?
> > > > Generally, I believe bamboo is considered to be more "sustainable"
> > > > since it can be replenished more easily and more quickly, and it's
> > > > easier to harvest, and the oak in this case is FSC-certified.
> > > > I agree, it's not one of the more critical considerations, although=
I
> > > > currently have bamboo flooring and, irrespective of any environment=
al
> > > > benefit, I simply like the appearance better than oak.
> > I don't want to get into one of those philosophical definition things
> > with you ta,;-) =A0but I don't think R19, which is the legal
> > requirement, can justifiably be called 'green'. =A0Seriously, you shoul=
d
> > refine the question somewhat.
> Well, as I hinted at earlier, I wouldn't know an R19 or R50 from a B52
> or an F18, so I'm just going by the "Healthy Home Built" standards
> that exist in NC. These are the standards that are used to define what
> is minimally "green".
> > If the goal is to reduce energy consumption and associated
> > consequences, then the thermal balance of the structure is the big
> > deal. =A0R30 walls and R50 roof will keep you cool in the summer and
> > warm in (what you guys call) winter. =A0
> Hey, we have "skiing" in NC and everything.
> http://www.skinorthcarolina.com/
> > Thermal mass, orientation of the
> > structure, shading and working shutters, and so on, will also make a
> > real difference. The *type* of insulation is irrelevant, as long as it
> > functions properly over the (long) life of a well constructed
> > building.
> > There is such a thing as a 'really' green house, but it's not likely
> > to be found in =A0one of those developments---although maybe the
> > construction and environmental group people can give some
> > counterexamples.
> Well, the NC Healthy Built Home standard is probably just a minimum
> requirement for marketing purposes, but there is still some merit to
> the standards. At minimum, these standards ensure the homes are
> "greener" than your average home, if not ideally "greenest", by
> whatever standards those might be.
> Obviously price is a major consideration too. If I was going to build
> a custom home that was maximally "green", then I presumably could
> afford to do all kinds of things.
> I realize these "green" developments don't represent the ideal, and
> that there is probably some marketing fluff in there, but that's kinda
> what I'm trying to sort out . . . whether the "green" features are
> actually worth the premium.
OK, I see the problem. Are you saying that these HHB standards are
*not* a requirement? I thought they were part of the state building
code. Your first step is to sort out what's what; I thought most
codes already specified R-value, for example, as a result of the last
energy crisis. So if someone is claiming that baseline as a marketing
feature, I would stay far away from that builder.
-tg
> You apparently believe that the features I listed are not enough to
> make it "really greann". So then what would you consider to be a
> "really green house"?
> > -tg
|
|
Posted by ta on December 17, 2008, 12:09 pm
> > > > > > > House1: solar-assisted hot water, isocyanurate insulation,
> > > > Ooops, they gave me some wrong information. Turns out it's open cel=
l
> > > > foam in the roof and fiberglass in the walls.
> > > > > > > "sustainable" oak flooring, low E windows, dual-flush toilets=
, hardi-
> > > > > > > board exterior and (surprisingly) a basement.
> > > > > > > House2: solar-assisted hot water, blown cellulose insulation =
(which is
> > > > > > > touted as coming from recycled newspaper), stained concrete (=
radiant
> > > > > > > heated) and bamboo floors, dual-flush toilets, and hardi-boar=
d
> > > > > > > exterior. Basement is an optional upgrade.
> > > > > > > House 2 is more expensive.
> > > > > > > Yes, still doing research.
> > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by spec---are they built? If so, you=
can
> > > > > > hardly have an optional basement ;-).
> > > > > It's optional on the ones that haven't been built yet. It's a
> > > > > neighborhood project.
> > > > > > My inclination is to think about what would be an ideal---that =
is, go
> > > > > > ahead and design a 'green dream house'---as a way to learn abou=
t the
> > > > > > various factors and their relative merits and value to you. Bui=
lders
> > > > > > are going to mix in 'features' just the way auto companies have
> > > > > > options in packages, and it usually isn't worth the money.
> > > > > > I have researched blown-in cellulose as a retrofit, and the und=
erlying
> > > > > > problem is in the application---works fine as long as it is don=
e very
> > > > > > well, but you're not going to know up front. =A0Since you are i=
n a
> > > > > > future tropical zone if AGW goes on, you should think about AC =
more
> > > > > > than heating. =A0That's why heat pump may be your best choice. =
=A0
> > > > > House1 is heat pump and House2 has mini-split a/c (this house is
> > > > > actually ductless).
> > > > > > Also
> > > > > > what is R-value claimed and how do they justify it? =A0
> > > > > From House2 specs:
> > > > > "All exterior walls, and interior walls to unheated spaces, will =
be
> > > > > insulated with blown cellulose R19. The ceiling/roof assembly wil=
l
> > > > > have 12=94 cellulose insulation R38. All wood-constructed first f=
loors
> > > > > will have R19. All internal partitions around bathrooms, powder
> > > > > room, and Master Bedroom shall have R11 high-density batt sound
> > > > > insulation. All windows and door jambs will be sealed. The exteri=
or
> > > > > walls are 7/16=94 ZIP System Panel with STORMEXTM water-resistive
> > > > > barrier."
> > > > > Don't have the specs on House1.
> > > > > > Solar hot water
> > > > > > is a great idea---wish I had it.
> > > > > Yeah, I'm trying to find out about reliability and maintenance co=
sts
> > > > > etc. These systems have natgas backup.
> > > > > > Stuff like bamboo floors doesn't sound like it matters that muc=
h
> > > > > > really---is it supposed to be greener than oak or southern pine=
?
> > > > > Generally, I believe bamboo is considered to be more "sustainable=
"
> > > > > since it can be replenished more easily and more quickly, and it'=
s
> > > > > easier to harvest, and the oak in this case is FSC-certified.
> > > > > I agree, it's not one of the more critical considerations, althou=
gh I
> > > > > currently have bamboo flooring and, irrespective of any environme=
ntal
> > > > > benefit, I simply like the appearance better than oak.
> > > I don't want to get into one of those philosophical definition things
> > > with you ta,;-) =A0but I don't think R19, which is the legal
> > > requirement, can justifiably be called 'green'. =A0Seriously, you sho=
uld
> > > refine the question somewhat.
> > Well, as I hinted at earlier, I wouldn't know an R19 or R50 from a B52
> > or an F18, so I'm just going by the "Healthy Home Built" standards
> > that exist in NC. These are the standards that are used to define what
> > is minimally "green".
> > > If the goal is to reduce energy consumption and associated
> > > consequences, then the thermal balance of the structure is the big
> > > deal. =A0R30 walls and R50 roof will keep you cool in the summer and
> > > warm in (what you guys call) winter. =A0
> > Hey, we have "skiing" in NC and everything.
> >http://www.skinorthcarolina.com/
> > > Thermal mass, orientation of the
> > > structure, shading and working shutters, and so on, will also make a
> > > real difference. The *type* of insulation is irrelevant, as long as i=
t
> > > functions properly over the (long) life of a well constructed
> > > building.
> > > There is such a thing as a 'really' green house, but it's not likely
> > > to be found in =A0one of those developments---although maybe the
> > > construction and environmental group people can give some
> > > counterexamples.
> > Well, the NC Healthy Built Home standard is probably just a minimum
> > requirement for marketing purposes, but there is still some merit to
> > the standards. At minimum, these standards ensure the homes are
> > "greener" than your average home, if not ideally "greenest", by
> > whatever standards those might be.
> > Obviously price is a major consideration too. If I was going to build
> > a custom home that was maximally "green", then I presumably could
> > afford to do all kinds of things.
> > I realize these "green" developments don't represent the ideal, and
> > that there is probably some marketing fluff in there, but that's kinda
> > what I'm trying to sort out . . . whether the "green" features are
> > actually worth the premium.
> OK, I see the problem. Are you saying that these HHB standards are
> *not* a requirement? =A0I thought they were part of the state building
> code. =A0Your first step is to sort out what's what; I thought most
> codes already specified R-value, for example, as a result of the last
> energy crisis. So if someone is claiming that baseline as a marketing
> feature, I would stay far away from that builder.
> -tg
NC has a green homebuilder certification program called "NC Healthy
Built Homes", which establishes "green" standards that, in many cases,
go beyond the normal state requirements, or have additional, more
stringent requirements (but again, not being a builder or engineer, I
really don't know what the differences are in some cases, such as
insulation):
"The NC HealthyBuilt Homes Program provides a certificate for homes
meeting "green home guidelines" built by residential builders who
practice sustainable, high performance building strategies making the
home a comfortable, healthy and affordable place that reduces energy
and water usage, promotes renewable energy use and helps protect the
land where the home is built.
In a HealthyBuilt Home, building materials and processes are selected
to reduce pollution and the waste of natural resources during the
manufacturing and construction phases and throughout the life of the
home. The builder is encouraged to provide homeowner education about
the high performance features of the home and provide local resources
for "green" living."
The standards list everything from insulation to water usage to
landscaping to indoor air quality and so on. The standards are listed
here:
http://healthybuilthomes.org/docs/HBH_Statewide_Checklist.pdf
So I am comparing two homes built by two different builders, both of
which are "NC Healthy Built Home" certified, but each has varying
implementations of the standards. In comparing the two, I'm trying to
discern which features provide the "most bang for your buck", as I
stated originally.
IOW, I'm trying to separate the fluff from the real "green" stuff.
You have pointed out that the R19 requirements are not really that
green at all. So I'm curious as to what other features you think are
required in order for something to be considered "green".
Thanks.
> > You apparently believe that the features I listed are not enough to
> > make it "really greann". So then what would you consider to be a
> > "really green house"?
> > > -tg
|
Page 3 of 15 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Little green airlines? | June 2, 2008, 1:46 am |
| Therma-Green Corporation | January 7, 2008, 4:32 pm |
| Dwyer Green Building | September 16, 2008, 1:58 am |
| green roofs in Mexico | April 20, 2009, 3:15 pm |
| Cost benefits of "going green" | November 5, 2009, 9:40 pm |
| Information On Any Subject FREE From the Green Machine | September 24, 2006, 3:52 pm |
| MEEF CyberShow Top Ten Green Products in 2006 | December 27, 2006, 12:36 pm |
| Green building products for home improvement | September 6, 2008, 1:50 am |
| Mint Green: a wild and wicked approach to roofing a cabin | August 11, 2007, 12:18 pm |
| construction | July 15, 2007, 7:04 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap