Anyone have recent direct experience in building smaller, greener, more efficient? We're considering a major change here with a new strategy for covering the years we will be retiring (not too far off). Getting out of our current leaky old boat into something with an ultra modern strategy of very low energy use, very low maintenance, and very low overall footprint literally and figuratively. Since we live rural, almost anything is "possible" in terms of building techniques. We're just two adults and two dogs - no kids. I know a wee bit about SIPs, ICFs, Strawbale. What else is new?

You currently live in a boat in the woods?

My brother is moving from Denver into a green community in the Mountains. He plans to build a straw bale house and utilize multiple energy efficient strategies. They are going to look at lots this weekend. Can't wait till I can go visit. He reads mother earth news and similar sources. 

I don't know what's available in your area Mark, but here in the Midwest Geo-Thermal heating and cooling is worth looking into.

 

Jeremy

 The Expert on Energy Efficient housing is right on this Form.  Greg Roberts from Maine...............Great Web Site.

 

  http://www.dcchomes.com/

Bill H.:

 The Expert on Energy Efficient housing is right on this Form.  Greg Roberts from Maine...............Great Web Site.

 

  http://www.dcchomes.com/

 

Well, how 'bout that. I didn't know. I'll check the web site out. Although I am on the opposite side of the country, there might be some ideas that work here too.

As for geothermal heat - (assuming you mean ground loop heat pumps) there are not many here. A few in the whole county and wow are they ever expensive to put in! But, there is nothing that comes close to that efficiency as far as I know, so it is on the list.  

Yeah, friends of mine have built an extremely energy-efficient house in W Va, where it gets awfully cold in the winter, and installed a heat pump with 500' of underground flexible (rubber?) tubing to pick up heat in the winter and cooling in the summer.  I was very impressed with what all went into it, probably could get more info if you want.

Edit:  Never mind, Greg Roberts is way ahead of those folks, amazing!!

I have friends in Wisc. who built their own home, a two story, totally passively heated structure. They raised eight kids in it, and grew most of their own food on the two acres they bought. The land and house was about $40-50k by the time they were done. Try that these days.

They learned a lot from the building, and would have done a few things differently if they did it again, but they never moved.

Bruce 

There is a lot to learn, and a lot to consider.

Rammed Earth construction is fairly interesting.

"Green" is a difficult concept these days, as it seems to be more of a buzzword than a product description. It can also be misleading. I can remember when Hollywood was proud of their new "green" red carpet. In order to utilize the new "green" carpet, they threw away a lot of perfectly usable carpet. More waste than benefit. Same thing happened with christmas tree lights. It's the long term benefit (return) that needs to be understood when interpreting the "start-up" pricing.

Finding a contractor that is well versed in green construction is key. Sustainable can be better than green. Solar considerations are important, both for heating and cooling. Gray water systems are wonderful, if you can flush your toilet with water from the shower you took yesterday. Storage is a factor, for rain water, solar energy, etc.

Good luck, and good thinking!

 

I think the end result was relatively normal but I had an instructor for a couple of classes for the company I work for whose house had sand filled walls.  I with I would've found out more information but this was several years ago and living in Wisconsin (around Janesville?) their utility bill was some thing like $80 a month in the winter for 4200 square feet and they had a neighbor with more traditional construction was several hundred for the same time period.  

Depending on where you live in CA, you'll probably have different requirements but mass is a wonderful thing.  The more you have the longer it takes for the cold / heat to get in or out.  You may want to check with your local college of architecture as I'm sure they study such things.  In Indiana, Ball State University's College of Architecture and Planning for example, has a division called CERES, Center for Energy Research and Environmental Studies or something to that effect.  Maybe you could get a design studio or senior architecture student turned loose on a potential design.  

I've always thought a tube amp would make add a nice bit of extra warmth to one's room on a cool fall evening.... Not to mention a really cool glow.  And I've been told that tube equipment has the added benefit of sounding really good.   

mungkiman:

There is a lot to learn, and a lot to consider.

Rammed Earth construction is fairly interesting.

"Green" is a difficult concept these days, as it seems to be more of a buzzword than a product description. It can also be misleading. I can remember when Hollywood was proud of their new "green" red carpet. In order to utilize the new "green" carpet, they threw away a lot of perfectly usable carpet. More waste than benefit. Same thing happened with christmas tree lights. It's the long term benefit (return) that needs to be understood when interpreting the "start-up" pricing.

Finding a contractor that is well versed in green construction is key. Sustainable can be better than green. Solar considerations are important, both for heating and cooling. Gray water systems are wonderful, if you can flush your toilet with water from the shower you took yesterday. Storage is a factor, for rain water, solar energy, etc.

Good luck, and good thinking!

 

This is right on the money. 

Greg

 

 We live in a temperate climate summer average of 68F and winter of 35F, no snow, about 50" rain - not terribly demanding on heat and certainly no AC needed. Our solar opportunities are less than ideal, but still useable. I've yet to see a house being built around here with ICF, or SIPs, or actually anything other than the usual stick-building frames. There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with new building technology: builders don't learn it because there is "no demand for it" and there is no demand because the builders don't know how to use it. Something like strawbale comes up, but although it probably yields good results, it is woefully labor intensive and costs considerably more than regular building. Hard to see that making sense.

Another thing I noticed is that no matter what the cost of current energy is, the payback for more efficicent systems always remains fixed at a very long time. For example solar. 10 years ago the payback on solar panels was 20 years, and it is still 20 years even though the cost of oil os 5X as high. Something is fishy there!  

"I have friends in Wisc. who built their own home, a two story, totally passively heated structure. They raised eight kids in it, and grew most of their own food on the two acres they bought. The land and house was about $40-50k by the time they were done. Try that these days."

Are you thinking of Earl?

I believe he built a varient of this:

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Do-It-Yourself/1979-03-01/The-Thermal-Envelope-Home.aspx

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Homes/1982-03-01/The-Double-Envelope-House.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_envelope_house

Envelope homes are wrought with moisture problems, rodent problems, high cost, air quality issues, difficulties in remodeling, etc... 

The key to building green is to hire a builder who uses "Building Science" as their guiding principle when building.  www.buildingscience.com 

Avoid the new "green" building products and alternative energy systems until you have a good basic understanding of how to build a building envelope that adheres to sound building science principles.  The envelope is basically the foundation, walls, roof.  It doesn't have to be complicated, and it is often just plain common sense that makes the most sustainable homes.  Once you have figured out how you are going to build a functional, durable envelope, then take a look at adding solar or geothermal.  Get the basics down first.  I've seen dozens of homes that had $20K geothermal or solar systems and at the same time had so much moisture moving in and out of their leaky home that the alternative energy system might actually outlast the envelope of the home! 

If you build a home with ICF blocks, and install wood siding on it without using a good drainage plane or a rain-screen, and you end up having to replace siding in 10 or 20 years, how sustainable is that? 

If you build a home airtight, without a strategy for ventilating the interior, and you start to grow plant life on walls, that's not good. 

If you build a super-insulated home on a foundation that leaks a gallon or two of water vapor through the concrete walls every day, how long do you think it will be before that moisture finds its way into the frame of the house and starts doing damage? 

I could go on and on with these examples that I've seen over and over again here in Maine. 

Building homes that are durable, energy efficient, and healthy requires a good understanding of Building Science, but it also takes a commitment on the part of the builder to the DETAILS and a no-compromise approach, where building science principles are adhered to over all other considerations.  It is exactly this attitude and approach to building that has made it very difficult over the years for me to get customers.  I can't tell you how many times I've had customers walk out of a 3 hour meeting scratching their heads and mumbling under their breath "that guy's nuts"!  Over the 20 years I've been in this business, it would have been much easier if I'd have chosen to build more standard types of construction.  But when I look back over the body of our work, roughly 70 custom homes, I can say with confidence that they would compare to some of the best ever built, from a building science perspective, and that makes me happy. 

Greg

 

 

 

djk:

"I have friends in Wisc. who built their own home, a two story, totally passively heated structure. They raised eight kids in it, and grew most of their own food on the two acres they bought. The land and house was about $40-50k by the time they were done. Try that these days."

Are you thinking of Earl?

I wasn't thinking of Earl. A much younger couple, who built a home in Middleton, on the west side of Madison. From the front it looked like a pretty normal two story house with a gambrel roof. I think it had ten inch exterior walls. Although there was a basement under the front half, the back half had a thick slab covered with slate. Triple glazing across the whole back wall on the first floor only, and it heated the slab quite nicely.

Vents to the upstairs. On days when it was -10, the house was a nice 70 plus degrees, no fans, no pumps. They were still on the grid, though, and had a nice wood stove to use for the times it stayed cloudy for three days running. Thier heating bill worked out to around $80 a winter. It was about 1800 sq. ft.. They later added another 1000+ sq. ft and used water columns as thermal mass.

I need to go visit. I know they are still there, but I haven't seen them for almost 20 years.

Haven't seen Earl in a long time, or the rest of the family.

Bruce