Scott Adams On the Difficulty of Building a 'Green' Home

An anonymous reader writes "Scott Adams built himself a new house with the goal of making it as 'green' as possible, and detailed his experience for those interested in following in his missteps. Quoting: '... So the architect — and later your building engineer, too — each asks you to sign a document saying you won't sue them when beavers eat a load-bearing wall and your entire family is crushed by forest debris. You make the mistake of mentioning this arrangement to your family, and they leave you. But you are not deterred because you're saving the planet, damn it. You'll get a new family. A greener one. Your next hurdle is the local planning commission. They like to approve things that are similar to things they've approved before. To do otherwise is to risk unemployment. And the neighbors don't want to live next to a house that looks like a compost pile. But let's say, for the sake of this fascinating story, that everyone in the planning commission is heavily medicated with medical marijuana and they approve your project over the objections of all of your neighbors, except for the beavers, who are suspiciously flexible. Now you need a contractor who is willing to risk his career to build this cutting-edge structure. Good luck with that.'"

Comments

It's an old quote...

[alexschmidt]

"Pioneers usually end up with arrows in their backs" I wish you all the best.

Re:It's an old quote...

[nacturation]

"Pioneers usually end up with arrows in their backs"

That was pretty much his conclusion too. Among other amusing quotes:

In my defense, the price of your future photovoltaic system will never come down unless idiots like me pay too much today. You're welcome.

Re:It's an old quote...

[richlv]

it also sounds like you really, really don't have any unemployment problems in usa. at least none serious enough to solve.

if you can't find people willing to do a job, you have the opposite problem of unemployment.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

christian louboutin

Re:It's an old quote...

[delinear]

Of course, when he says that he's failing to account for the likelihood that if the system ever takes off in a big way, it will have the effect of pushing up fuel prices from energy companies (due to lower demand), while driving down the price for which you can sell energy back (due to higher supply). Whether that is offset by the falling cost of the installation we'll have to wait and see.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

it also sounds like you really, really don't have any unemployment problems in usa. at least none serious enough to solve.

if you can't find people willing to do a job, you have the opposite problem of unemployment.

You're clueless.

You can start to make yourself less clueless by reading about *deflation* and note that the labor market is similar to other markets (like the one's for consumer goods).

I am not saying that the US has gone into a deflationary spiral, but it has been hinted at here.

Regardless, it is a very well known phenomenon, and is certainly one case where unemployment can coexist with a failure for labor markets to form or operate.

There are other scenarios where unemployment rates are high and yet the labor market fails.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

In my defense, the price of your future photovoltaic system will never come down unless unthinkably wealthy people who can afford it like me pay too much today. You're welcome.

Fixed, Mr. Adams. You're welcome.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Attila Dimedici]

Can you explain to me how reducing demand wil drive up prices?

Re:It's an old quote...

[Red Flayer]

While you were at it, you should have asked him how a decrease in demand would increase supply. Typically a decrease in demand leads to a decrease in supply.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking short term, before the production side can react.

Long-term, the more demand you have the higher the production rate. The higher the production rate, the more economies of scale act to make the product cheaper. Also, higher production leads to more manufacturing interest which leads to more competition which leads to cheaper prices.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

Because people like OPEC, who control the supply, will just lower supply until the price gets to a level they like?

Re:It's an old quote...

[Captain Centropyge]

It may seem strange, but think about it... The oil companies are all about making record profits, and don't really seem to function by standard economics principles. So, if people begin buying fewer petroleum products or less gasoline, they'll probably start reducing production and jacking up prices to keep making a ton of money. It's just what they do.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Red Flayer]

Troll? Really? For posting a true statement without any kind of vitriol, name-calling, or other malarkey? Where I implicitly agreed with the parent poster, and then added on to his statement?

In the long run, decrease in demand leads to decrease in supply. This is because producers reduce production in response to the lower prices dictated by lower demand.

This is microeconomics 101 stuff. No idea how it's trolling...

And now to diverge even further... WTF is up with metamoderation? Now that Pudge is gone, maybe we can get a decent developer to re-implement a metamod system that works.

Re:It's an old quote...

[commodore64_love]

Mr. Adams could have just built a German PassivHaus.

They use standard building materials, just with better engineering (using corners to block air from leaking through window cracks) and thicker walls.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Citizen of Earth]

"Pioneers usually end up with arrows in their backs"

I prefer "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Re:It's an old quote...

[Attila Dimedici]

That is a reduction in supply that you are suggesting will follow the dropping in price that will follow the reduction in demand. Historically, OPEC has rarely been effective at limiting supply when prices drop. Several countries have tended to cheat on their quotas when prices start to drop causing prices to drop further. The only thing that has kept that in line is that when the cheating gets above a certain level, the Saudis would start to increase their production in such a way that would cause prices to fall such that any country that had exceeded its quota would make no more money (and often less) than if they had stuck by their quota.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Attila Dimedici]

That works out really well, especially for the oil company that doesn't cut its production.

Re:It's an old quote...

[Captain Centropyge]

Why's that..? People still buy the gas, they jack up prices (claiming short supply), and reduced production means they don't need to pay their workers as much. Of course, on the other hand, if they jack up prices and sell MORE gas, well... that helps their cause, too. Greedy bastards...

Re:It's an old quote...

[Attila Dimedici]

That all sounds wonderful, except that if company A follows your philosophy, but company B doesn't, company B sells a lot more gas, while company A sells less (and quite possibly goes out of business).
You don't seem to understand that the oil business is a narrow margin business from top to bottom. The big oil companies make a lot of money, but they also spend a lot of money. There are very few businesses that do not make more money per dollar invested than oil companies. The reason people invest in oil companies is because it is relatively low risk. Oil companies don't make a lot of money for each dollar invested, but on the other hand they rarely lose money.

Re:who cares

[Fluffeh]

Aren't there better articles that aren't written by a litigious, unfunny cocksmack who fags up the comics world...

Apparently not. I found it quite humorous. It's nice to see some insight into a process like this from someone with a sense of humor and the ability to laugh at things that make him angry.

Now, go get a nice cup of cocoa, take off those grumpy pants and have a nap. Looks like someone needs a little downtime.

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be Scott Adams to NOT realize that the world is filled with actual, living human beings who really act like Ratbert and PHBs.

Who needs mortar?

[AMHB]

Use Vegemite instead!

Re:Who needs mortar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you don't only need to worry about the beavers, but also those Australian immigrants the next street over.

Re:Who needs mortar?

[MDillenbeck]

Sorry, I'm in the Nutella camp. ;) (Mmmmmm... tasty sticks...)

George W Bush did

[dazedNconfuzed]

Seems the much maligned president owned, with little fanfare, a rather "green" home. Passive solar heating, natural cooling, geothermal energy, modest size, rainwater collection, nature preserve, all made for a model environmentalist domicile. (This in contrast to the fast talking "green" showman whose mansion burned 20x the national average.)

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems the much maligned president owned, with little fanfare, a rather "green" home. Passive solar heating, natural cooling, geothermal energy, modest size, rainwater collection, nature preserve, all made for a model environmentalist domicile. (This in contrast to the fast talking "green" showman whose mansion burned 20x the national average.)

The natural conclusion being that we need to stop listening to the showman and start listening to the guy with the green home and the environmentally unsound public policy?

Re:George W Bush did

[k8to]

Must everything be partisan?

Re:George W Bush did

[Stargoat]

I'd like to know more about geothermal heating and cooling. This technology seems relatively affordable, durable, and best of all - simple. Why don't more people use it?

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

all made for a model environmentalist domicile. (This in contrast to the fast talking "green" showman whose mansion burned 20x the national average.)

That's great. Now how many centuries do you think you could run Al Gore's home on the fuel GWB used to regularly commute to his green ranch in his 747?

Re:George W Bush did

[spike2131]

Geothermal has a minor issue with causing earthquakes.

Re:George W Bush did

[Calroth]

(This in contrast to the fast talking "green" showman whose mansion burned 20x the national average.)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

This in contrast to the fast talking "green" showman whose mansion burned 20x the national average

Keep spreading those lies:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200703010008
From The Tennessean:
Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.
That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.
The weblog Think Progress also reported that Gore's office said "Gore's family ... sign[ed] up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch" and "purchas[ed] carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint."

Additionally, a February 27 Associated Press article, questioned TCPR's assertion that the Gores used more than 220,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2006. The AP reported that "according to bills [it] reviewed," "[t]he Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006," while TCPR "said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours." The AP reported that TCPR president Jason "Drew" Johnson "said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never received a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

Bolding added.

Re:George W Bush did

[mprinkey]

I've had a geothermal heatpump for almost 10 years. My parents for even longer. They are great, especially in harsh heating climates. We live near Pittsburgh, and they have proved quite affordable. Local contractors have really just started installing them...I had to really look around to find an installer. Most HVAC guys don't want to have to mess with a well-drilling sub and a maybe a backhoe sub to trench from the wells to the house. It is a lot more work, compared to an air-source unit...and far messier! Install an air-source unit, you will get a few holes in your foundation for coolant lines and power to the compressor unit...and then the normal ductwork, air handler inside and the air-source unit sitting outside on a drop-down concrete pad. If the ductwork is in place, it is a 1-2 day job.

With geothermal, (if it is done right) you will have a dozen or more holes in your foundation for the in/out of the loops from each well into a manifold in the basement. You WANT that manifold in case one of the wells dies. You will have trenches from the foundation to the wells...and the wells need to be 10-15 feet apart, so some significant part of your yard will look like hell. Mine took about two weeks to complete because the well driller broke down on the fourth well. And the backhoe operator came *this* close to putting the bucket through my foundation wall. It is a monstrous headache to do a retrofit install, but for new construction, it would be a bit easier. In any case, the cost for the loop install can be a back-breaker. The geothermal units themselves are IMO overpriced too, due to lower production volumes.

Re:George W Bush did

[ColdWetDog]

Probably because cheap is relative. We specced a system for our house which is actually sited well for a geothermal loop - on volcanic clay with a lot of water flow (not sited well for many other things including structural stability, but that's not germane here).

Close to 50,000 grand to heat a 2200 sq. foot home. A lot of that cost was due to retrofitting and if I was building a house I might think about using that system (as well as shooting myself). Considering we heat with wood for a cost of about $400 a year, the payback time doesn't make sense.

That's a nice little brochure they have there but of course, YMMV. Savings not guaranteed. That's much of what Adams was saying - lots of suggestions and ideas from whole bunches of people, but each building is unique and the engineering required to make a good estimate of your thermal (and financial) budget seems to be beyond everyone in the residential building sector.

I imagine that for larger buildings you can afford to hire better engineers and get more data, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to spend $50,000 on thermal engineering for a $500,000 house (on top of the architect, structural engineer and your cousin the drywall guy).

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon offsets are a joke. How about just not producing the extra carbon in the first place?

Re:George W Bush did

[zippthorne]

I love the "mitigating factors" such as "the gore home is four times the size of an average home." As if... To be greener, we should all get bigger homes? Brilliant!

Re:George W Bush did

[postbigbang]

The real travesty here is not recapturing all the hot air in Wash DC and heating much of the Eastern Seaboard with it.

Re:George W Bush did

[Reverberant]

I love the "mitigating factors" such as "the gore home is four times the size of an average home." As if... To be greener, we should all get bigger homes? Brilliant!

How about quoting the rest of that sentence: "it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home." And by business office, that means an office with staff. They could get a smaller home and outside office spaces, but that would use more energy (plus the energy required to get to/from work).

Re:George W Bush did

[TooMuchToDo]

On industrial power generation scales. Smaller residential and commercial geothermal HVAC installations have no earthquake effect.

Re:George W Bush did

[TooMuchToDo]

Do you take into account the 33% tax credit for geothermal installations?

Re:George W Bush did

[Again]

I'd like to know more about geothermal heating and cooling. This technology seems relatively affordable, durable, and best of all - simple. Why don't more people use it?

My parents have it in their home and it has a pretty high upfront cost. Because my parents live in a rural area, the cost of piping was a lot less as the pipes didn't have to straight down but rather approximately 700 meters of pipes that are only a couple of meters underground. The local energy company (Manitoba Hydro) had / has? a financing plan they use for pushing this kind of thing forward and made it possible for my parents to have it (they really like selling excess power south of the border).

According to my experience there are a few downsides to geothermal heating / cooling. In the middle of winter, the geothermal heating unit can't keep up and the electric furnace which is kept as backup kicks in to keep the house warm (albeit only in -40 type weather). The whole unit takes a fair amount of space in piping and equipment. Space in large cities is much more valuable resource which raises the upfront cost.

But even given these few downsides, I see geothermal as the future way of heating and cooling our homes.

Re:George W Bush did

[microbox]

To believe 0.5% of the alarmist anti-Gore propaganda, you'd have to have zero education in the sciences, or be so completely partisan as to turn a blind eye to the most blatant Machiavellian politics.

Which are you?

Re:George W Bush did

[oliverthered]

also heat pumps are the best

Re:George W Bush did

[Nutria]

The natural conclusion being that we need to stop listening to the showman and start listening to the guy with the green home and the environmentally unsound public policy?

Or stop the cognitive dissonance by looking at reality: AAG (Albert Arnold Gore, Jr) preaches pie-in-the-sky impracticality but builds an energy-sucking mansion. OTOH, GWB has the money to build an eco-friendly house yet knows that a large, industrialized society needs a continuous flow of "industrial-sized" energy.

My problem with W is that he didn't stand up to Big Oil and insist that they "play nice" by using some of their jillions in profits to spill less and have better safety equipment.

Re:George W Bush did

[andyring]

Yep!

Re:George W Bush did

[GiveBenADollar]

From my research geothermal heating is wonderful, cooling not so much. If you live in a cold climate then it's very efficient and cheaper than other heating methods. If you live in a hot climate it is slightly more efficient than a conventional heat pump, but at a cost difference that will NEVER pay for itself. I figure in a few years both geothermal heat pumps and evacuated tube solar collectors will take up most of the heating in the north. Maybe when the technology becomes more commonplace (cheaper) it will also be beneficial to use it in hot climates.

Re:George W Bush did

[sjames]

I imagine that for larger buildings you can afford to hire better engineers and get more data,

That would be primarily a matter of cost rather than ability.There's only so much effort they can afford to put in before you sign a contract. They certainly can't afford to drill a test well for free. At the same time they don't offer to do the advanced engineering as a separate contract because it wouldn't be practical for you.

Re:George W Bush did

[nonguru]

It is not geothermal - it's a ground-source heat pump. If everbody in a crowded neighbourhood used such heat pumps, the benefits per household would become marginal. There is so much heat energy transfer that is physically possible within a bounded body of earth. The energy is not completely free from that perspective - there would need to be an ACTIVE (e.g. electrically-driven) transfer of heat energy back into the ground if the entire neighbourhood fulfilled its heating requirements during winter. It is an elegant mechanism for relatively isolated and freestanding dwellings that don't have to compete for "heat" from their neighbours.

Re:George W Bush did

[apoc.famine]

Not sure where you are, but that's at least 50% more expensive than the quotes I heard in the North East US. I worked drilling water wells for a summer, and when our #1 competitor gave a talk at a green summit on geothermal, I went and listened in. His quotes were about twice what my company was charging for wells. Which made sense, since they were larger diameter wells that were going much deeper. But a retrofit came in well under $30k, which included the heat exchanger. The quote for a new home was in the high tens of thousands.

Re:George W Bush did

[SuperKendall]

Essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home." And by business office, that means an office with staff.

So what? You can easily fit a "staff" (which I note you leave undefined, and could easily be one person, part time) in an average sized family home while still living there.

Gore is rich, so he bought and lives in a giant house. I don't see anything wrong with that but it obviously means the environment is not as important to him as Bush, who also has staff but a much smaller home that is far more efficient.

Re:George W Bush did

[TheKidWho]

(on top of the architect, structural engineer and your cousin the drywall guy).

Oh how true.

Re:George W Bush did

[HeronBlademaster]

Now how many centuries do you think you could run Al Gore's home on the fuel GWB used to regularly commute to his green ranch in his 747?

You act like Gore doesn't fly around in a private jet.

Oh, wait. He buys imaginary "carbon credits", so it's ok, right?

Re:George W Bush did

[Reverberant]

I don't see anything wrong with that but it obviously means the environment is not as important to him as Bush, who also has staff but a much smaller home that is far more efficient.

Bush just bought an 8500 sqft Dallas mansion within a two hour drive from the Crawford ranch. Methinks he has plenty of room now.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

If you truly believe that "An Inconvenient Truth" was anything other than subversion of science for means to a political end, you are a fucking tool and should vote yourself out of the gene pool.

I doubt that Gore was any more about green living than Bush was.

Re:George W Bush did

[ColdWetDog]

Well, I'm in Alaska so about 50% above everywhere else is about right. Even with the geothermal credits, it still had quite a long payback period and with the usual retrofit issues we decided to just cut some more wood. Still would consider it for a new structure in the right environment.

Re:George W Bush did

[SuperKendall]

Bush just bought an 8500 sqft Dallas mansion

"Just Bought"?

Well Mr. 2008, here in 2010 Bush is actually living in a pretty eco-friendly place.

Pretty humorous that in your haste to attack someone with a house that's STILL smaller than Gore's main house (you don't think he has others as well?), you totally forgot to check the posting date...

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an inescapable consequence of an 18th century voting system.

Upgrade to preferential/STV/IRO today!

Re:George W Bush did

[jumpfroggy]

No!

Re:George W Bush did

[Wyatt Earp]

Well, anything beyond about 75 miles, Secret Service mandates the President use Air Force One (747-400, 757, Gulfstream 500) and say he goes to Texas, he has to take the 747 for NCA purposes.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

You betcha!

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

To believe 0.5% of the alarmist anti-Gore propaganda, you'd have to have zero education in the sciences, or be so completely partisan as to turn a blind eye to the most blatant Machiavellian politics.

Which are you?

Oh, I just believe the other 99.5% of it. What does that make me?

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the "mitigating factors" such as "the gore home is four times the size of an average home." As if... To be greener, we should all get bigger homes? Brilliant!

How about quoting the rest of that sentence:

How about you try doing the same?

From snopes

but the basic gist of the claim — that the Gores' Nashville residence consumed a larger proportion of energy than the average American home — was true.

Yes, Gore is an alarmist. And frequently not accurate. But that doesn't mean everything he says is incorrect, or that his ideas should be dismissed outright.

Re:George W Bush did

[osu-neko]

It would be helpful if you learned what "cognitive dissonance" means before using the term. It would also be helpful if you pointed out what you find impractical, or where you get the misimpression that only one of the two men has a grasp of the industrial-sized energy needs of this nation (and oddly, seem to attribute this to the man who doesn't seem to grasp it quite as well as the other).

Re:George W Bush did

[Hognoxious]

anything beyond about 75 miles, Secret Service mandates the President use Air Force One

He's the President, for fuck's sake. Can't he just tell them to piss off?

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, but it worked. Climate has not realy left the political arena since then.
maybe he knows how to get a point across and you don't?
And maybe sound and honest scientific facts play a different role in that than you hope /want...

Re:George W Bush did

[True Vox]

I love how Snopes makes it challenging to copy & paste. Anyway, another relevant quote in reference to Gores home:

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably did that to be independent from the outside world once World War III finally came about. He worked hard enough to achieve that goal.

Re:George W Bush did

[crossmr]

They are great, especially in harsh heating climates. We live near Pittsburgh, and they have proved quite affordable.

Come again?
There is nothing harsh about Pittsburgh's climate.
the lowest average low is in January at a whopping -6.72 C.
with a record low of only -24.
I've spent over a week at -49 with wind, and not just in a single year.
Pittsburgh is t-shirt weather.

Geothermals actually don't do that well in "harsh" climates.
my neighbour growing up, and a good friend of the family, installed geothermal a few years ago. it's not bad, but his place isn't exactly comfortable in the winter. Used in conjunction with his other heating, I believe it helps reduce the cost there, but on its own it can't stand up.

Re:George W Bush did

[jonbryce]

Once you consider the inefficiencies of generating the electricity used to power it, it doesn't compare that favourably with the most efficient gas or wood boilers.

Re:George W Bush did

[zippthorne]

I dunno, it still feels like we're calling a GMC Yukon and "eco" car because it gets an unheard of (for an SUV, apparently) 20mpg!

Meanwhile most people are driving around in Honda Civics (non-hybrid) and similar-sized cars getting high 20s - low 30s, but the Yukon is greener because it's nearly 2x the size of those Civics, Camrys, etc.

Plus, you can use your yukon for your business of driving all over the country selling an intangeable product that may not exist, and also speaches about how you're just better than normal people.

Except the Gores don't travel around in a GMC Yukon Hybrid. They're tooling around in things like the ever more efficient Gulfstream IIB, which gets a whopping 1 mpg, but it flies in a straight line...

Re:George W Bush did

[GooberToo]

That's geothermal power generation, not heating and cooling. The technologies are completely different, aside from using a hole in the ground.

Re:George W Bush did

[shakuni]

so you have had your parents for longer than your heat pump. what is your point ?

Re:George W Bush did

[Carik]

Installation costs. The system itself is pretty cheap, yes. And operating it costs very little. But installation requires either tearing up a large area, or digging a really deep well. Neither one is easy anywhere, and both are impossible in a lot of places (just try installing one in the middle of Boston, for instance...).

They're best in places where the weather never quite drops below freezing, and never gets TOO hot, though they help just about everywhere.

Re:George W Bush did

[queazocotal]

Geothermal heating is not magic.

In most cases, it uses significant energy.

The _most_ important thing when determining what to do 'green' wise is to start out with a spreadsheet that lists how much heat is going out of (or into) the structure.

Now, you work out how much it'd cost you to heat/cool.

If this is more than you like, you can take several approaches.

A) Geothermal heat pump.

For perhaps $10000 or so, you can get a heat pump that may, if you're lucky, last a decade before needing replacement. Admittedly the replacement will be cheaper, as probably only the pump will need replaced.

It will use from 1/3 to 1/4 of your 'normal' heating system.

B) Insulate the fuck out of the structure.

This provides 'free' energy, by reducing the expenditure of energy to heat or cool it.

C) Lifestyle changes. Wear more clothes.

In short - anyone who does 'energy efficiency' upgrades to their home, without actually enumerating cost/benefit is insane.

My home is a 1700s cottage, with 100m^2 of wall surface, and around 10m^2 of windows, and 100m^2 of ceiling and floor area.
The roof was insulated in the 1970s.

The majority of the heat is going out of the walls, very - comparatively - little - out the windows - and a large slice of the remaining out the floor.

I have a heating demand of around 10Kw in winter to maintain the property at 20C.

For around the same cost as the heatpump - I can insulate the structure to a level where it will use significantly less power than the heatpump, and these improvements largely do not age. They will be mostly as energy efficient in 70 years, at which time, I shall likely be dead.
(Or ruler of the known universe - depending on how things go.)

Indeed, the heating is reduced to the point that 'passive' gains from cooking or refrigeration or ... contribute along with solar to most of the heating demand.

When it's finished, I expect only to heat slightly - a couple of kilowatts - when the external temperature drops much below 0.

Geothermal can be better than this in some cases.
If you need cooling, and you're in an area with an average temperature year-round that's under your desired air-temperature, there are solutions that involve no heat pumps at all - simply pumped transfer of coolant to underground.

PV is almost always insane.
Spending the price of the panels on extra insulation significantly exceeds the benefit.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

You can easily fit a "staff" (which I note you leave undefined, and could easily be one person, part time) in an average sized family home while still living there.

Gore is rich, so he bought and lives in a giant house.

If you actually think that Al Gore has a staff of one person, part time...then I'm sorry, there's no point in discussing anything with you.

Re:George W Bush did

[sorak]

The truth obviously lies somewhere between those two extremes. I'm thinking "nep!"

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

Nature preserve? Do you mean squirrel chutney?

Re:George W Bush did

[stewbacca]

Define "modest". My house is 2500 sq. ft...quite large by many standards in the world, but quite modest for Texas.

Re:George W Bush did

[stewbacca]

Even more helpful would be if you defined the term you accuse him of misusing.

Re:George W Bush did

[stewbacca]

I live in Texas. Please explain what this "basement" thing is. It sounds great.

Re:George W Bush did

[stewbacca]

You do realize that your snopes link corroborates the claim that Gore's home uses 12-20x more energy than average homes, right?

Re:George W Bush did

[b0bby]

One reason more people don't use them is that they are hard (I was told that in my area, impossible) to add to existing homes. It's something I'd do if I ever built a house, but I guess that the slightly higher upfront cost puts a lot of people off.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay! False Dichotomy!

Re:George W Bush did

[apoc.famine]

Yep. That'd totally explain it. Plus you'd need much larger capacity than at lower latitudes. Down here, we can get away with a single well if it's deep enough. I'd imagine that you'd be looking at more than one to be sure you didn't run out of heat capacity in the winter. The biggest issue with geothermal is that you freeze your well solid if you suck out heat faster than the earth can put it back in.

And if you're heating with wood for $400 a year? That's damn cheap. Around here, a cord is in the $150 range split and delivered. An average size house will run through about 6-8 cords in a winter, giving you a $900-$1200 heating bill. In that case, a retrofit has less than a 30 year payback, and a new install is under 20 years. Financially, not a super-great investment, but from a maintenance standpoint, a hell of a lot less work than wood is.

Having grown up in a wood burning house, if I were building new I'd definitely go geothermal. At the worst, it'd add a lot of resale value, while taking all the work out of heating. At the best, I'd live there long enough that it'd save me a lot of money.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll believe a scientist who puts out the next "An Inconvenient Truth". When a career politician makes a movie about one of their causes, follow the money.

Re:George W Bush did

[b0bby]

In the middle of winter, the geothermal heating unit can't keep up and the electric furnace which is kept as backup kicks in to keep the house warm (albeit only in -40 type weather).

That's a lot better than a conventional heat pump; mine will kick on backup heat when it's not much below freezing. Fortunately we have relatively mild winters compared to you guys, and can supplement with gas when it's really cold, so overall the heat pump is ok for us.

Re:George W Bush did

[tibman]

Just because i live in a forest doesn't mean i should run my A/C all day long. I mean that guy probably spent more on electricity than the average American makes each year. But honestly, i don't really care.. if he has the money and the means to support that kind of life, i can be happy for him. But paying extra money to the power company to get green energy (over the same lines as the dirty energy) and buying "carbon offsets".. doesn't give him the title "green". Green is minimal impact, not mitigating a large impact into a smaller one.

Re:George W Bush did

[ColdWetDog]

Should have mentioned that I'm in SE Alaska - relatively mild temperature, gradient mostly from groundwater temp. We do need bigger wells than standard and drilling through recent volcanic muck is a bit harder than usual, plus getting the rig here, plus everything else that goes wrong....

Basically we pay for part of a barge to offload some wood onto and have it towed back to town, plus chainsaw maintenance and my ibuprofen. Probably can do this for another couple of years before my back gives out - this year I think we're going to borrow a small front loader to work with the logs. It is a significant amount of my generic exercise so although it's time consuming and annoying it has other benefits. But if I had to just buy the wood that would hurt.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I read that is that the last guy in the White house was so cynical that though he would go to the effort to make his own home fuel efficient and fairly sustainable in the uncertain energy future, in his public role he sold the nation out to the energy interests. He was willing to protect his interests and give up the nation's interests to his energy industry hangers on.

Re:George W Bush did

[taltimus]

What contractor did you use to install the Geothermal Heat Pump? I'm getting ready to build a house in the Pittsburgh area and will be using Geothermal heating/cooling. I'm interested in hearing more about your experience with it. ~Tim

Re:George W Bush did

[kilfarsnar]

This is one of the two things I liked about George W. Bush. The other was his emphasis on fitness. He was a good role model for those two things, and only those two.

Re:George W Bush did

[IndustrialComplex]

Come again?
There is nothing harsh about Pittsburgh's climate.
the lowest average low is in January at a whopping -6.72 C.
with a record low of only -24.
I've spent over a week at -49 with wind, and not just in a single year.
Pittsburgh is t-shirt weather.

Geothermals actually don't do that well in "harsh" climates.
my neighbour growing up, and a good friend of the family, installed geothermal a few years ago. it's not bad, but his place isn't exactly comfortable in the winter. Used in conjunction with his other heating, I believe it helps reduce the cost there, but on its own it can't stand up.

Look, he isn't just talking about MAX/MIN temperatures. Pennsylvania, as an example is the exception to most weather 'trends. Pennsylvania has extreme weather in the sense that in a given year we will see some pretty bad (not the worst) cases of all weather conditions.

But Montana gets colder you say. Yes, it very well does. However it also tends to stay cold. In PA you will have it freeze at night, thaw during the day. Maybe it will freeze and thaw several dozen times in the span where a colder climate will see a single deep freeze, or a warmer climate will generally remain cool, but above freezing. I'm just dealing with the cold side here, but there is a reason why PA's roads are almost universally understood to be the worst in the country, and it isn't due to lack of maintenance.

The climate itself is not even close to the most extreme, but it IS one of the most harsh.

I've conducted HALT (highly accelerated life testing) and survivability/reliability tests on systems, and it isn't the 90C or the -100C temperatures that worry me. It's when my system is subjected to rapid fluctuations of temperature within its operational band. It's even possible to use similar tests to weed out infant mortality in production runs. Temperature fluctuations stress solder joints, chips, as well as mechanical links, hoses, etc.

Again, you 'win'. Your climate is very extreme. But in general, if something can operate in Pennsylvania and do so reliably then it's probably a fairly robust system. Such a system won't always be the best for other climates, but there is a high probability that it would 'work' if you added a few precautions (high temp protection for Tucson, low temp considerations for Fargo).

And don't even get me started on the road treatments in PA and NY which devour cars. I'm in the process of using power tools to remove rust damage from my 2005 vehicle.

Re:George W Bush did

[networkBoy]

you sir are a waffler. I demand you get off the fence and pick a side!

Re:George W Bush did

[Coren22]

I believe what he meant was harsh as in hot, but even then, CA or TX has him beat there, so not really sure. I think Geo would be great in MD, but I unfortunately have a 20ft by 24ft back yard so not enough space.

Re:George W Bush did

[Coren22]

50,000 grand

Huh? I usually parse grand to mean X 1000, as in 2 grand = $2000, are you saying the install would be $50 million? What kind of house do you live in?

Re:George W Bush did

[Coren22]

In short no.

Re:George W Bush did

[networkBoy]

Actually, I don't think he can...
Congress might be able to, but I don't think the Commander in Cheif is allowed to tell the paranoid pros to go away.

Re:George W Bush did

[networkBoy]

I had no problem copying and pasting...

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh - more than 20 times the national average.

random snip.

Re:George W Bush did

[crossmr]

But Montana gets colder you say.

Who said anything about Montana?
There is a whole big world out there.

My point wasn't about whether it would stand up to the weather, the problem was that the system didn't really provide sufficient heat to create a truly comfortable living space, compared to other heating methods. Fluctuation is irrelevant. We're talking about at those constant low temperatures geo thermal doesn't adequately keep up with it.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

except the staff that has to commute into the fancy suburb the gore house is in, as it's unlikely the staff could afford that neighborhood.

I love the "mitigating factors" such as "the gore home is four times the size of an average home." As if... To be greener, we should all get bigger homes? Brilliant!

How about quoting the rest of that sentence: "it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home." And by business office, that means an office with staff. They could get a smaller home and outside office spaces, but that would use more energy (plus the energy required to get to/from work).

Re:George W Bush did

[Coren22]

I would even add, the GMC and Gulfstream would cause more environmental damage with the materials alone then a Civic; Steal, Iron, Aluminum are not very good for the environment on a good day.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

They could get a smaller home and outside office spaces, but that would use more energy (plus the energy required to get to/from work).

Doesn't this energy savings depend on the number of staff that have to drive to Gore's home/office? Unless, of course, the staff have living quarters on the premises.

Re:George W Bush did

[IndustrialComplex]

Who said anything about Montana?

Fargo, Ottawa, the freaking north pole. Substitute wherever the hell you intended.

My point wasn't about whether it would stand up to the weather, the problem was that the system didn't really provide sufficient heat to create a truly comfortable living space, compared to other heating methods. Fluctuation is irrelevant. We're talking about at those constant low temperatures geo thermal doesn't adequately keep up with it.

There is a wide range for what is comfortable, and a lot of different systems of geothermal heating. I'm sure it works quite well in Iceland for creating a comfortable home.

It could be that an extreme temperature location might not work because in that specific location geothermal isn't an option due to the composition of the earth. Or it might be even easier in an extreme location (Near Yellowstone?) than in a more mild climate.

You would have to admit that if you lived in a geo-active area like Yellowstone, even if your surface temperature was -50F, that you would have little trouble pumping heat up from a geothermal source. And I would admit that if you lived in a non-geoactive region somewhere in Virginia(not sure if that's a good example, but you get the point) it might not be enough even with the milder temperatures.

Pittsburgh however, is a good example of a harsh climate, with generally low temperatures (When compared to the majority of regions where people live). I agree that the temperatures are not extreme, but I disagree that fluctuations don't matter (any heating system will have better performance depending on the rate/amplitude of fluctuations)

A direct heating system (Natural gas, forced air) will be much more 'comfortable' than an indirect heating system (Hot water Radiant) if temperatures fluctuate quickly. Depending on the design, Geothermal could behave quite differently.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

And, for what it's worth, this is exactly the same excuse Cheney gave for the phenomenal power consumption of his DC residence, which had a monthly power bill of about $9,000, compared to the Gores' bill of about $2,500 (which includes both gas and electric).

Re:George W Bush did

[vtcodger]

***Seems the much maligned president owned, with little fanfare, a rather "green" home. Passive solar heating, natural cooling, geothermal energy, modest size, rainwater collection, nature preserve, all made for a model environmentalist domicile. (This in contrast to the fast talking "green" showman whose mansion burned 20x the national average.)***

Let's don't get carried away with this. The ranch in Texas is basically a 4000 square foot vacation home on a multimillion dollar property. Bush actually lives in an 8000 square foot house (energy efficiency not reported that I can find) near Dallas. Before that, his primary residences were rather luxurious and not especially energy efficient public housing in Austin and Washington DC.

But the Crawford home certainly is nowhere near the monument to excess that the abomination Gore lives in is. In fairness to Gore, as nearly as I can tell, he didn't build the place and he did do some efficiency upgrades ... but still ... 10000 square feet with gaslighted driveway and heated swimming pool?

Re:George W Bush did

[Nethead]

That's the price range I'm seeing for wood. Got a great deal this year of 10 cords of split & delivered maple for $160/cord. I think that the 10 cords will last for the winter if it doesn't have too long of a cold spell. I'm up in Western Washington State.

The best investment we made to this 40 year old house was to replace all the windows with modern ones.

Re:George W Bush did

[russotto]

but there is a reason why PA's roads are almost universally understood to be the worst in the country, and it isn't due to lack of maintenance.

Actually, it is. Also poor construction; I've seen roads "widened" in PA by dumping a layer of asphalt over the existing narrow road and the dirt/shoulder. Naturally both sides outside the old road base quickly collapsed. Maryland is also in an area of the country with many freeze-thaw cycles, and the roads are much better.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes!

Re:George W Bush did

[mattack2]

"green" showman whose mansion burned 20x the national average

[citation needed]

You should check your facts, especially about what has changed since the original brouhaha.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/

Re:George W Bush did

[im_thatoneguy]

I can't decide. I'm a swing voter and the deadline to make a decision hasn't come and gone yet.

Re:George W Bush did

[zippthorne]

Well, since he lived at the USNO, maybe it was all the clocks and telescopes that were driving that cost up..

Seriously though, Cheney's not running around the country telling everyone how evil it is for ordinary peons such as yourself to use even $250 a month in energy. We're not criticizing Gore's use of energy, we're criticizing his alleged commitment to environmentalism.

If Gore's going to be the poster child of environmentalism, then he's implicitly suggesting that his lifestyle would be appropriate for anybody, or everybody, environmentally speaking.

Which is great for me. I can keep my consumption well below Gore's without making much effort at all! ..

Also, his business sell speeches and indulgences. Just how much energy does he need to produce that.

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'm the British High Court. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

Re:George W Bush did

[Anonymous Coward]

a large, industrialized society needs a continuous flow of "industrial-sized" energy

Let's expand on that a bit..

A heroin addict needs a continuous flow of heroin.

A nineteenth-century Easter Islander needs large trees to build a seafaring canoe.

And I need a pony!

If the needs can't be slaked, you either evolve to a new situation where that particular need is absent, or you go extinct.

"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

        Kenneth Boulding, economist "

Re:George W Bush did

[Hognoxious]

I can just imagine a guy in a baggy suit and dark glasses going "Mr President, if you don't get in that chopper right now I will be obliged to give you the mother of all wedgies". Not.

For all his complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single one of them would be just as much a problem if he were building a regular home. Or even buying one.

It is stressful. Unless you have enough money to just throw out a check and not worry, you're going to have problems.

From the roof to the foundation, and even in the ground. You won't know what's going to go wrong, but something will.

Re:For all his complaints

[iamhassi]

"Every single one of them would be just as much a problem if he were building a regular home."

But isn't building any home not "green".

By building a new home they're creating all new materials and you're using up more land while real estate prices are the lowest they've been in 30 years.

Isn't buying an existing home sort of like recycling? You're taking something that already existed and reusing it, isn't that what recycling is?

And after you have your existing home you don't just rip everything out of it to replace it with "green" materials, you only replace what *needs* to be replaced with green products because by throwing away perfectly good drywall and toilets you're wasting and filling landfills. Sure the existing toilet might flush 3 gallons instead of 1, but what is worse, using an extra 2 gallons of water or a toilet sitting in a landfill?

Is this thinking wrong?

Re:For all his complaints

[mellon]

The frustrating thing about reading Scott Adams' article, though, is just how many mistakes he made. Siting his house without planning for solar gain. Not hiring an experienced energy consultant. Not hiring people who knew what they were doing, basically. Building a green house is difficult--you have to do a lot of research. Unfortunately, very few builders know how to build one. But there are builders who do it for a living. So if you want a green house, and you don't want to build it yourself, hire one of *them*, not some builder who doesn't know anything about it and thinks it's a bad idea.

The whole sad saga of the attic fan was the worst of it. Has he never heard of a vented roof? A cupola to draw wind up, or a peak vent that does the same? Most green building techniques are just what everybody did before air conditioning was invented. Back when you couldn't cool a house with refrigeration, you *had* to make it energy-efficient, because the only thing cooling the house was going to be whatever passive environmental system you were able to come up with.

Re:For all his complaints

[Hi_2k]

It depends. Just like with any issue, this is far from black and white. New homes need to be built: Houses have a half-life, a wear and tear limit. Further, the population is constantly increasing. Just to house everybody, we've got to be constantly building new homes. Certainly, there are plenty of unoccupied residences. But over the 30-100 years that the average new, energy efficient residence will last, it may well pay off it's energy cost as compared to continuing to power and heat the old, leaky houses.

Re:For all his complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

By building a new home they're creating all new materials and you're using up more land

No, the materials already exist, they aren't being created. They are being manufactured or otherwise processed, they don't just pop into existence. And in many cases the materials may be recycled, reclaimed, or classified as "renewable".
And the land isn't being "Used Up", it's being occupied. The former word indicates that it will be consumed- it won't, it'll just have a house sitting on it.

Isn't buying an existing home sort of like recycling?

No, not at all. Tearing down an old home and re-using the materials in a new one is like recycling. Buying a home is like having someone give you something, as opposed to destroying it and re-manufacturing the product.

You're taking something that already existed and reusing it, isn't that what recycling is?

No, that's called reusing. Recycling is the process of breaking down or otherwise reprocessing or re-manufacturing a product.

And after you have your existing home you don't just rip everything out of it to replace it with "green" materials, you only replace what *needs* to be replaced with green products because by throwing away perfectly good drywall and toilets you're wasting and filling landfills.

Again, that depends. Most people (who care) would just remove the toilet and it can be reused elsewhere. You could also recycle the porcelin in various applications. The drywall can, in some cases, be reused or recycled as well. The point being, they don't necessarily end up in landfills.

Sure the existing toilet might flush 3 gallons instead of 1, but what is worse, using an extra 2 gallons of water or a toilet sitting in a landfill?

Since the only thing that an old toilet will do in a landfill is sit there, it would be "worse" to continue to waste the extra 2 gallons of fresh water per flush. It's not a chemical which leaks, and the porcelin really doesn't "break down"... it can break up into smaller bits of porcelin, but it doesn't pose any kind of hazard to anything, at least not in any more of a fashion than gravel would.

Is this thinking wrong?

Yup. But at least you're thinking, which is more than what most people do.

Re:For all his complaints

[RichiH]

It's easy to calculate this. The people I know who built/renovated houses did calculate it. It comes out as a net gain, both for the environment and the wallet. Yay for science.

Re:For all his complaints

[Xacid]

This pretty much nails it. Why use people unfamiliar and uncomfortable with what you're requesting? It's like asking a small engine mechanic to do his best on your ferrari.

Re:For all his complaints

[networkBoy]

We acquired a house built in the 50's.
Wonderful sub floor construction, very sturdy.
So far we've added tile to one bathroom and painted all the walls.
Why re-paint? Because some of the paint tested positive for lead. We have two choices:
Tear out all the sheetrock and pay for hazmat disposal...
Paint over the lead and disclose to future buyers.

Do you have any idea how much a house's worth of sheetrock as hazmat costs to dispose of? It's cheaper to pay the energy bill for poor insulation.

Re:For all his complaints

[CAIMLAS]

+1, pretty much smack-on-the-nose with the "use old techniques".

Even without electric attic fans, there is a lot that can be done for cooling with things like the outdoor trees, good ventilation, and thermal mass. Throw in an attic fan, and heating and cooling an older house is usually not a problem. (I lived in one built in 1918 in NY; it was rarely hot in the summer due to the design.)

Many old farm houses are a perfect example of this: stone walls with faulted ceilings and a couple large windows in the kitchen.

Same thing for winter time: adding thermal mass goes a long way, and things like threshed hay on the roof is significant. Tour a historic US site sometime: the buildings may be smaller, but the walls are freakishly thick! That all adds up to a warm place in the winter and a cool place in the summer.

Re:For all his complaints

[iamhassi]

I don't know why I'm bothering to argue with a AC Troll, but here it goes, just in case someone else has the same wrong-thinking.

"No, the materials already exist, they aren't being created. They are being manufactured or otherwise processed, they don't just pop into existence. "

From where, the drywall fairy? If you and 10,000 of your friends build new houses, that's 10,000 orders of drywall for an entire house some manufacture is going to get. Along with 10,000 toilets, 10,000 garage doors, 10,000... you get the idea.

"And the land isn't being "Used Up", it's being occupied. The former word indicates that it will be consumed- it won't, it'll just have a house sitting on it."

LOL that's too stupid to argue... yes, it's being "used up", the 100 acre park is now a subdivision, it's used up, while existing homes sit vacant. Maybe not in the "used up" sense in that energy is only converted, but that forest no longer exists, same as if I drank all the beer my girlfriend would say "You used up all the beer" (not really, this is /., girlfriends are a myth)

"No, not at all. Tearing down an old home and re-using the materials in a new one is like recycling. Buying a home is like having someone give you something, as opposed to destroying it and re-manufacturing the product."

Tear down and re-use what, the roof? The drywall? The floors? You just tore all that down, it's not being reused, it goes in a 30 yard dumpster and is hauled away to a landfill.

"Since the only thing that an old toilet will do in a landfill is sit there, it would be "worse" to continue to waste the extra 2 gallons of fresh water per flush."

Didn't you just contradict yourself? Yes, the toilet is sitting in a landfill, yours and the other 10,000 that people tossed because the new one uses 2 gallons less of water, water that can be completely reclaimed and turned into drinking water. That toilet just sits there forever.

Re:For all his complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting, those links and references really got the point across. Thank you, I hate it when people say "I'm right because I say so". So annoying.

Re:For all his complaints

[cekander]

Yeah, the author struck me as an idiot too.

His logic against green roofs was non-existent. Green roofs are a good idea, and not necessarily a maintenance nightmare. You don't need to grow a lush garden with many species, as the author implies in his joking ignorance. There are specific grasses known to minimize problems, and my guess is we'll engineer even better species to make green roofs even more attractive and longer lasting than their asphalt counterparts.

And fewer windows aren't necessarily better. You need to strategically place windows. Try a pergola with vines for green cover in the summer. Also use shade trees to prevent some sun beating down on your roof, and to aid microclimate control in the areas near the house. Further, with proper wind-blocks in the winter, you can change the wind patterns resulting in a more favorable pressure envelope that reduces leakage.

A house isn't just a single structure, but should be designed around it's location. Estimating energy and resource cost is a realistic goal, and if you can't, then don't assume noone can.

Re:For all his complaints

[Overzeetop]

You read the words, and didn't understand the article.

The whole point was that there is no easy way to get a "green" house. There are numerous ways to do it, and around every corner is a huckster who will try and sell you on exactly what they stock. The engineers are not much better, since most of them don't deal with the high-efficiency stuff, half of those who do are just plain wrong, and the itty-bitty fraction who can get it right require a fully integrated team (architect, builder, engineers, site planners) to make their correct designs usable.

I deal with this shit all the time, being a structural engineer. I see people throwing gobs of cash to pretend to be green, when in reality most of them end up wasting their money and getting inefficient "green" buildings that lose all their energy savings through fancy architectural glass. The rest are in grave danger of winding up with a building right out of the 70s. The real go-getters drop 6 figures for a plaque they get to hang in the hall (and, of greatest importance, show in the Architect's next proposal) which "certifies" their building as "Silver" "Gold" or "Platinum."

Scott Adams actually "gets it," he just did so humorously. He even pointed out the biggest truth of all - the greenest building is the one you don't build.

Re:For all his complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ted.com/talks/catherine_mohr_builds_green.html

Modular

[istartedi]

They should build green modular homes and deliver them all over the country. A modular home is not a trailer. You can afix it to a permanent foundation, although in many parts of the country you shouldn't do that either.

Much of California, for example, in its infinite government insanity, will not allow you to live in a trailer even in a rural area. Why would I want to live in a trailer, praytell? Well, it'd be nice to think that the next time a nearby hill caught on fire, you could, you know... maybe at least have a fair chance of MOVING THE HOUSE OUT OF THE WAY. Instead, the county insists that you 1. Build a really expensive house and then 2. Permanently cement it to something that will eventually blowtorch it down, wash it away, or shake it apart.

Invariably, when fires occur they strip away trees and reveal more "illegal substandard housing" than anybody ever realized existed. These would be "people who had the right idea". It makes a helluva lot more sense to build a *shack* up there than anything more expensive. If you try to do that, the county will FINE YOU. IMHO, it's the county government that should be fined. If only we had a government by the people, for the people...

Re:Modular

[Anonymous Coward]

While I respect the value modular homes, and even trailers, they aren't portable enough to move during a wildfire. Or even during any disaster.

After maybe, but not during. It takes hours to get one ready to move. And a while to move it.

I suppose you could build ones for rapid movement, but it's not likely to be popular. People with that kind of home want them cheap. More rapid portability will cost more.

Re:Modular

[PsychoSlashDot]

For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"

Intents and.

Re:Modular

[nmb3000]

Much of California, for example, in its infinite government insanity, will not allow you to live in a trailer even in a rural area.

Pretty simple, I think. California has enough problems on their plate with earthquakes and wildfires. They don't need additional natural disasters to worry about -- and everyone knows that trailer parks attract tornadoes.

Re:Modular

[OutLawSuit]

I think you'd have a different perspective on trailers if you lived in the South. They're all over the place due to how cheap they are. They're meant to used on a more temporary basis but people continue to use them as their permanent homes. As a result most trailers are in poor condition and would literally fall apart if you attempted to move them. At that point they're just an eyesore and detract from everything around them (including property values)... That's the real reason they're not allowed in most cities.

Modular Homes are completely different and are meant to be used as permanent structures, hence they have no axles. Due to how controlled the factory environment is, you'll often times get a better quality modular house than you would a conventionally built one.

Re:Modular

[lawpoop]

They should build green modular homes and deliver them all over the country.

I think this was the idea behind Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion house

Re:Modular

[mprinkey]

Everyone packing up and moving their mobile homes. Yeah, that would be an interesting traffic jam a few hours ahead of the wildfire.

Re:Modular

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:Modular

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we had a government by the people, for the people...

I somehow got the impression that part of California's fiscal troubles stem (in part) from it being excessively "by the people": that the ability of the general public to vote directly on legislation tends to result in a lot of decisions prompted more by the emotions of a mob than by the comparatively cooler calculations of a professional legislator (and his/her staff).

Re:Modular

[dgatwood]

They're all over the place in California, too. By my estimation, there are probably 4-5,000 units in Sunnyvale alone (assuming those parks on the other side of Lawrence are on this side of the city limit... not sure. If I'm right about that, then if the average household is 4.3 people then that's something like 10-15% of the city living in mobile home parks....

The difference is that in California, the mobile homes are built much better than the ones you see in the South. Instead of 2x4 walls on the outside, they use 2x6 studs. Instead of 2x2 for interior walls, they use proper 2x4 studs. They often have raised ceilings, inset porches on the ends, etc. In short, they are pretty much regular stick-built house quality, except that they have a sturdier frame under them and are brought onto the property in two pieces instead of a thousand. That's the difference between a $25,000-$50,000 mobile home and a $125,000-$150,000 mobile home.

Re:Modular

[sumdumass]

The problems with trailers are that they generally decrease in value as they age as moving them becomes more difficult and expensive.

The reasons government refuse to allow their use by regular people (yes, the government is allowed to install them in most areas) is because it reduces property values and decreases the tax base. I was front line when our township banned mobile home trailers and that was the main reasoning- property taxes couldn't be relied on with them. They eventually slipped in some some minimum building requirements (like square footage and types of roofs that will inflate the footage) too in order to maintain the tax base. It really is about greed by the government. Insanity is just a given.

Re:Modular

[kd5zex]

They are actually quite popular, especially amongst the "snowbird" crowd. Modular homes equipped for rapid movement are commonly referred to as Recreational Vehicles, or RVs for short.

Re:Modular

[khallow]

Well, it'd be nice to think that the next time a nearby hill caught on fire, you could, you know... maybe at least have a fair chance of MOVING THE HOUSE OUT OF THE WAY.

I strongly doubt that due to two obstacles. First, it's hard to get the proper moving equipment. I imagine if this became popular, then you'd have to compete with everyone else to get yours moved first. Second, who's going to risk their lives moving your home?

There's two alternatives. First, a recreational vehicle. It has the advantage of being inherently mobile and some of them are pretty posh. The key drawbacks are that they're high maintenance, the manufacturers often go in and out of business, and they have little resale value. The second alternative really isn't an alternative, but rather a different strategy for the modular home. Rather than make it mobile, you make it expendable. Put the important stuff off-site or, if you're cheap and something of a gambler, in a fire-proof safe or in something you can grab fast. The rest? Let it burn, just make sure it's insured first. A new home will spring up like a mushroom after the rain.

Re:Modular

[GiveBenADollar]

Nobody wants to live in a trailer. They are cheap and provide a roof and four walls. Would you rather that people who cannot afford to buy a house go homeless? Or is it better to finance everyone so that even people who cannot afford a house can get one? We all know what California's answer was.

Re:Modular

[Greyfox]

Or you could, you know, not live someplace that burns to the ground every other year. There are many such places in the country, and many of them are also not demolished in hurricanes, tornadoes or earthquakes every other year, either. Many of those places have much more reasonable regulations, too. Hell, in many of those places you can even live in a shack if you want to!

Re:Modular

[Anonymous Coward]

you can attach a trailer to a foundation doesnt make it any less shitty

Re:Modular

[istartedi]

Yes, there would be difficulties in moving on a tight deadline. If you're lucky you have 24 hours before the evacuation notice on a fire. The more aestheticly pleasing modular homes might require too much setup time for a move. Something like a 5th wheel, OTOH, you haul that out all the time anyway.

If it were a legal market, we'd probably see some really interesting developments in making the homes aestheticly pleasing *and* mobile without special setup or equipment (other than a V8 pickup). Since it's not a legal market, there's no reason to invest.

The "expendable" option is also something that common sense mountain folk do all the time, when the government isn't looking. A very nice yurt can be had for $10,000 or so. It'd go up like paper in a fire. In a quake, I bet they just wiggle. Where do people end up living right after a quake? In tents! Why not just cut out the middle man and go straight to living in a very nice tent, which is essentially what a yurt is?

And just to reiterate, this is for rural zones only. It might be silly in a city. Then again, my ideal city would only have nuisance laws (noise, smell, excessive light, etc.) and no zoning. $10,000 yurts should be built right next to tract homes.

Now cue the usual argument about property values. This is why most people shouldn't own. From an investment perspective, owning your own home is like purchasing a Berkshire Hathaway class A share on Margin as the majority of your investment.

Any investment advisor would scoff at such a strategy, yet home ownership is regarded as perfectly sane. OTOH, if you don't own you can't chose what to build.

IMHO, we need to rethink the whole idea of owning vs. renting, and find a way to provide more rights to renters while distributing the risk more equitably. If your house were owned by a REIT, you could hedge your rent with shares in said REIT. If the REIT were non-leveraged, margin would be a choice for ownerships as opposed to the requirement that it is now for most people...

...end rant.

Re:Modular

[andyring]

Agreed. Try Nebraska! Sure, we have the occasional tornado, but it's nice here!

Re:Modular

[toadlife]

Correct. In CA, the populace can vote initiatives (which can include huge bonds) with 50% + 1 vote while the legislature needs a 2/3 vote to raise taxes or even pass a budget.

Re:Modular

[istartedi]

They have parks like that in San Jose too. The way I see it, the only real difference between living in those parks and living in a regular home is that you don't own the land. On the one hand, it makes entry easier into what is still an overpriced housing market. On the other hand, they probably hold value somewhat less than a regular home. They probably don't depreciate anything like the typical trailer though. As you say, they look very nice. The only giveaway is that the houses are a bit closer together and there tends to be a brick wall around the community.

There are Southern style trailer parks in the bay area too, with trailers that get trashed badly just like in the South. With land being so constrained here though, I imagine that the "lost cause" rust buckets get pulled out of the parks and scrapped more frequently.

Cheap land in the South is a blessing and a curse in that regard--it probably makes it cheaper to just let the eyesores sit there.

Re:Modular

[istartedi]

Everyone packing up and moving their mobile homes. Yeah, that would be an interesting traffic jam a few hours ahead of the wildfire

What happened when Yellowstone was closed due to wildfire a number of years ago? I seem to recall pictures of the fire burning very close to the main park HQ there. I'm sure all the mobiles were long gone.

Re:Modular

[sjames]

No no no. "whom" is still a word for relaxed porpoises, it's just the ones who drink too much coffee that stopped using it.

Re:Modular

[sjames]

Exactly. People who complain about other people living in trailers need to either cough up to buy them a house or shut up.

Re:Modular

[StingrayOZ]

This has always puzzled me. In the US most homes scream flamability.Using timber and more recently plastic for exterior finishing. Massive single glazed windows (usually with no shutters), heck even timber shingled roofing. In Australia most homes are brick (even in cities and suburbs). Those that build in fire prone areas (ie the whole of Australia) do seem to take atleast minimal efforts to minimise fire damage. Lots of water outlets, compulsory water storage for fire fighting, low famability in materials etc. Cinder/besser blocks, core filled and usually cladded in some sort of armour like fibrocement or cut sandstone, corregated steel roofing (in various colours as colour bond) with fibrocement sheeting underneath to stop cinders getting in. Shutters go over windows (they can roll up into wall cavities or being european style shutters) further enhancing fire resistance. Then people mention ecofriendly and all of a sudden the whole thing is built out of timber... Termites and fires will love that. All this is just fire resistance. There is no such thing as fire proof. Even an underground bunker isn't "fire proof" (people still die getting to them and in them). In Australia in rural areas most people shed it while they are building their dream fortress. Extremely energy efficent. Slab (usually) 100mm thick, 10x10m tin shed uses almost no metal (you can fit the material for 10 sheds on a truck) and very little fuel to get it to the location. * 3 x 120w solar cells and 12v 250A/hr batteries can run a home. Flatscreen LED, laptops, desktops, stereo, water pumps, fridges, lighting etc. More if your closer to the polar regions sure, but thats the level you need to aim at. *Instantainous LPG is an excellent way to heat water. 45kg cylinder runs my house hold for about 12 months (2 people, shower everyday). Solar boost it and it would last 5 years! * Even in the 2nd driest continent Australia 100m^2 of roofing is enough to collect all the water 2 people will need. * Heating comes from firewood that would normally rot releasing Co2 anyway. (I live on acres but LPG would also be pretty effective) Mobile homes suck, small, stinky, expensive, etc. We looked at mobile homes and shipping containers but crossed it off. Build a shed. If it burns down you can build another one off your credit card in 2 weeks.

Re:Modular

[mrchaotica]

You know, you could just make the house durable enough to survive the natural disasters instead.

Re:Modular

[pspahn]

Mod parent insane.

Re:Modular

[Anonymous Coward]

They should build green modular homes and deliver them all over the country.
A modular home is not a trailer. You can afix it to a permanent foundation, although
in many parts of the country you shouldn't do that either.

Much of California, for example, in its infinite government insanity, will not
allow you to live in a trailer even in a rural area. Why would I want to live in
a trailer, praytell? Well, it'd be nice to think that the next time a nearby hill
caught on fire, you could, you know... maybe at least have a fair chance of MOVING
THE HOUSE OUT OF THE WAY. Instead, the county insists that you 1. Build a really
expensive house and then 2. Permanently cement it to something that will eventually
blowtorch it down, wash it away, or shake it apart.

Invariably, when fires occur they strip away trees and reveal more "illegal
substandard housing" than anybody ever realized existed. These would be "people who had the right
idea". It makes a helluva lot more sense to build a *shack* up there than anything more
expensive. If you try to do that, the county will FINE YOU. IMHO, it's the county government
that should be fined. If only we had a government by the people, for the people...

Eh? About 3-6 years ago my mom lived in a mobile home in California while she and her husband were working on the plans to build a permanent home. They ended up moving to Arizona, but still, they stayed there for several years. And this was just a few hours out of LA.

Re:Modular

[SvnLyrBrto]

> It'd go up like paper in a fire. In a quake, I bet they just wiggle.
> Where do people end up living right after a quake? In tents! Why
> not just cut out the middle man and go straight to living in a
> very nice tent, which is essentially what a yurt is?

You answered your own question. Because... What happens pretty much immediately after an earthquake? The fires start. And, unless you live on fill that undergoes liquefaction, the fires tend to be significantly more destructive than the earthquake itself. The fact that there's so much wood construction, instead of concrete or stone masonry, is bad enough. Your hypothetical yurt would, as you say, probably just shake around a bit during the quake itself. But when it goes up like paper in the fire; not only do you lose your own home, it act as kindling for your neighbors' homes as well.

Re:Modular

[Wyatt Earp]

An RV is not a mobile home.

There aren't many mobile homes in National Parks.

Re:Modular

[shmlco]

Uh, you call 90 degrees with 98% humidity nice???????

Re:Modular

[Anonymous Coward]

Fires, floods, and earthquakes. It sounds like the bad parts of the bible. Maybe someone is trying to send a message about living there.

Re:Modular

[N3Bruce]

I live in a modular home here in Maryland, and for all intents and purposes, it is the same as a stick built home as far as the county and the mortgage company are concerned, and as far as quality of construction, it is better than most stick built homes. There is a distinction between types of modular homes though. One type very common in the South is the Double Wide, which is built up onto a chassis and uses construction techniques similar to those of an RV or office trailer. They typically have relatively thin walls, a low pitch roof, and look like an obviously manufactured building.

The other type is a modular building is one that is built in a factory using techniques similar to a stick built house, and is delivered in modules to the building site on special trailers. The house is set onto a previously built slab or foundation, the same as a conventional house, and is about 90 percent complete once the modules are set. In the case of my house, it features 2x6 walls with R19 insulation in the walls, R30 in the attic (yes it has a 9/12 pitch roof), and a full basement. In order to survive the stresses of the move from the factory to the building site, these houses have more solid flooring, walls that are glued and screwed, and are built to tighter tolerances than the typical stick built home. Construction costs on a per square foot basis are about 10 to 20 percent less than a conventional home, but certain features (such as masonry and stonework) that don't travel well in modular construction that must be added later can drive up the cost.

Compared to the 20 percent smaller 1940s era house I used to live in nearby, my energy bills are less than half of the old house, which leaked cold air in like a sieve.

Re:Modular

[cowscows]

Houses should be built differently depending on what part of the country and climate they're in. In the northeast, dealing with the winters is your biggest priority. In the south, you've got lots of heat and humidity. In the southwest, you've got a lot less humidity, and bigger temperature swings at night. Depending on your latitude, the best angle for your solar panels change, The best orientation of your building changes. The best place for windows changes.

Modular has its benefits, as does mass production. They can both bring down costs as well as substantially reduce construction waste. But there's not some ideal super sustainable design out there that is appropriate for all climates.

Re:Modular

[drinkypoo]

California is seriously fucked up in many regards. My county (Lake) will not let you camp on your own land unless you have a plan and a permit for a permanent structure. It's my land, assholes. Is that even constitutional? It's certainly discriminatory on an economic basis. 52 counties and every one has a different way of doing business.

I think your best bet is to build and bury, perhaps based on shipping containers. If I get a fifth wheel I ought to be able to drag 20' containers well out into the boonies with my diesel 4x4... but only if I pull the bed

Re:Modular

[drinkypoo]

The difference is that in California, the mobile homes are built much better than the ones you see in the South. Instead of 2x4 walls on the outside, they use 2x6 studs. Instead of 2x2 for interior walls, they use proper 2x4 studs.

You're talking about manufactured homes again. I grew up in a mobile home and spent a couple years in another later, a friend of mine owns one in Clearlake (ugh) right now. They all have 2x2 for exterior walls, and 2x1s for interior walls. Two out of three of them have aluminum wiring. Mobile homes were built for low weight and on the premise that they might be moved, although nearly none of them ever are.

Re:Modular

[Anonymous Coward]

another sonova bitch that hates the poor.

Re:Modular

[Anonymous Coward]

You should take a look at the houses built for the solar decathalon. I remember seeing multiple modular homes. The part of the house that made use of water and electricity was built separately from the part of the home that could serve as bedrooms. In theory, you could link up multiple bedrooms to the one module with power and water.

The ultimate irony about the solar decathalon is the purpose of building an energy efficient home. One might think that you would build the home to save money presumably. The winning home from Germany in the last competition cost something like $450,000 for 600 ft^2 of space. Obviously I could buy a double wide for 50k and spend much less than 400k on heating and cooling over its lifecycle. Probably the majority of the homes produced around the world that are considered "green" are on average, worse for the environment.

Re:Modular

[couchslug]

The South (I live there too) is too poor and too cheap to afford trailer construction codes that are worth a damn. It's trivially cheap to haul them off though, so it works out.

Mobile homes based on ISO shipping containers could look no worse than conventional mobile homes, and sustain over 100 MPH winds. I use them for my shop buildings because they are tough, waterproof, don't burn (wood is for furniture and campfires) and can be easily moved without twisting or breaking up. When they are no longer wanted, the metal is easily recycled.

"Trailers"/container housing/modular housing can be as tough as the container structures used in construction and by the military. It can also be cheap shit designed for maximum square footage. To be kind, customers don't know shit so they'll go for "cheap and large". Building codes rightly keep trailers out of cities, but IMO they are fine for rural areas.

Re:Modular

[couchslug]

"Even an underground bunker isn't "fire proof" (people still die getting to them and in them)."

A GOOD one is fireproof. Bunkers can be made to take a direct hit with a napalm canister. Hesco bastion can also be used to build standoff walls around property (dirt and sand don't burn).

While the weather in Oz obviously favors sheds, an ISO container potted in concrete would make a fine bunker (the metal serving as a spall liner). It would follow the principles of Hardened Aircraft Shelters, and the concrete roof would make a nice deck.

Re:Modular

[sorak]

Trailers are not as easy to move as you might think. Granted, if you have a couple of hours warning, you might be able to grab your home and leave, but if you're willing to base one of the larger decisions of your life on fear of natural disaster, then why live in an area prone to wildfires and earthquakes?

Secondly, mobile homes do not last the way real houses do. I'm sure you can come up with some examples of substandard homes that collapse faster than a typical mobile home, but, that is the exception, rather than the rule. By buying a mobile home, you are choosing a home that is guaranteed to fall apart in 10 to 20 years, over one that has the possibility of burning down someday.

Re:Modular

[stewbacca]

Wow, I can't believe I just read a post on slashdot that argues for the benefits of trailer-living.

Places like California don't allow trailers because they are a blight and people don't move them when they are in harms way. Instead, they stay in them because they don't have the financial means to go anywhere, and then are entombed in their tin-can house.

Re:Modular

[CAIMLAS]

A modular might be better built than a conventionally built one due to controls, but it's going to be ultimately worse because:

* It's been built on a standardized basis. This basis is based on cutting costs, so there are corners cut for the sake of manufacturing cost efficiency. Undersized floor beams/trusses, or low R factor insulation, for instance.
* Moving these modulars is expensive, much more expensive than moving the unassembled components of a house. They're much more economical if you live near the manufacturing facility.
* Moving these modulars is difficult, and there are often a substantial number of repairs necessary before they can be considered "habitable".Joints get twisted, and the frame as a whole will get torqued and bounced about on the truck. Insulation comes loose, and square frames become slightly off. The same happens as they place the building. This all adds up, and more often than not you'll end up with a house which is neither square nor particularly sturdy, doors and windows which don't open and shut properly and a floor, walls, and roof which will creak under load.

Re:Modular

[rahvin112]

You don't actually think that you could move a house during an evacuation do you? If it's a double wide the house has to be sawed in half, packed up, a crane has to lift each half onto the trailer, then two trailers and two pilot cars drive the thing to it's destination at a rough top speed of 30mph.

You think that's going to happen during an emergency?

Re:Modular

[house5150]

Since i have not heard anyone mention what i consider the biggest downside to owing a modular home is that they are virtually impossible for a bank to lend on them, the are not that much cheaper than a stick house and most of them are built to the same standards as medium quality track home which i dont call great. that being said my house is great, i just would have been sol with out private financing.... or cash to buy it outright....

Re:Modular

[mrchaotica]

[A modular house is] going to be ultimately worse because [i]t's been built on a standardized basis. This basis is based on cutting costs, so there are corners cut for the sake of manufacturing cost efficiency. Undersized floor beams/trusses, or low R factor insulation, for instance.

Standardization efficiency isn't based on cutting corners, it's based on economies of scale and the ability to use assembly-line manufacturing techniques. There's no inherent reason why a modular home would be low-quality; modular homes come in low-end and high-end varieties just like site-built ones do. What you can probably expect is for the standardization to cause the modular home to be somewhat less expensive than a site-built house of equal quality. Do these modular homes look low-quality to you (excepting the tiny shed-like M Finity ones)?

Also, modular homes aren't necessarily as standardized as you might think, since you can often customize the arrangement of the modules (not to mention the finishes, etc.).

Moving these modulars is difficult, and there are often a substantial number of repairs necessary before they can be considered "habitable".Joints get twisted, and the frame as a whole will get torqued and bounced about on the truck. Insulation comes loose, and square frames become slightly off.

These things are designed to be shipped to the installation site! You think the designers are so stupid they'll make the individual modules too big to move relatively easily? You think the frames aren't designed stronger to prevent damage from shipping loads (again, assuming high-quality)?

Re:Modular

[mrchaotica]

My county (Lake) will not let you camp on your own land unless you have a plan and a permit for a permanent structure. It's my land, assholes. Is that even constitutional? It's certainly discriminatory on an economic basis.

Zoning's constitutionality has been challenged before. I suppose if you have a facial challenge based on something other than the due process clause (i.e., the 14th Amendment), or an as-applied challenge that hasn't been covered yet, you could try to argue it.

52 counties and every one has a different way of doing business.

That's Federalism... it's like that on purpose.

Wealth

[gmhowell]

I'm guessing he's not as wealthy as I suspected. If he had real money, he would speak with some manservant and say "take care of this". A few months later he would enter his new green space. I guess being able to say "I'm Al Gore bitches!" carries a bit more sway than being the inventor of Dogbert.

Re:Wealth

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame too. Dogbert has done much more for the world than al gore ever will.

Damm thats fucking sad... beat by a badly drawn cartoon dog.

LEED certification and Sick Building Syndrome

[Gazoogleheimer]

This reminds me of an interesting problem LEED buildings often have with humidity and gas concentrations--and, in general, what is loosely described as sick building syndrome. Sealing a building to that point of efficiency might be green, but it isn't healthy for its occupants.

Re:LEED certification and Sick Building Syndrome

[bored_engineer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation They're becoming increasingly common, particularly in colder climates. In Alaska, many newer homes are so well-sealed that a full air exchange in the house can take days. Properly sized, an HRV can provide just the right level of fresh air, and has the side benefit of recovering some of the heat. (Recovering some of the heat is important! Many areas of Alaska rely primarily on oil for heating. The Anchorage area has an extensive natural gas distribution system, but it's limited in other cities and villages, where it exists at all.)

Re:LEED certification and Sick Building Syndrome

[MDillenbeck]

Which is why you use an air exchanger. In and out ducts are overlapped, allowing for passive heat exchange to occur (hot air vented in the winter warms the incoming air, cold air in the summer warms the incoming hot air). This actually improves air quality as you are turning over more CFM in from your house than in a traditional construction, all while recouping some of that energy you spent in heating and cooling.

Re:LEED certification and Sick Building Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

HRV (heat recovery ventilation) is the answer to efficient tight buildings. Just a heat exchanger between the incoming and outgoing air to reduce the amount of unwanted heating or cooling of the interior air.

Re:LEED certification and Sick Building Syndrome

[Lehk228]

with some clever hacks you can save energy on other things too. tear apart the back of your fridge and add a duct that taps the outside portion of the exchange in winter and spend almost nothing to keep your food cold all winter, if you really want to go nuts you can pre-preheat your oven with outside air on a hot day, but that's a lot less useful (but not so bad in reverse, cool the oven with outside air in the summer so less heat radiates into the house.

Re:LEED certification and Sick Building Syndrome

[richlv]

that. proper ventilation will (should) solve problems with humidity and non-fresh air.

i recall watching about a homeowner in finland who had built extremely heat conserving house. very thick & packed walls & doors, 3 or more pane windows and lots of other stuff. he claimed that a few people + a few candles could keep the house in a comfortable temperature even at quite low temperatures.
my google-fu fails me to find more information on that, but it was something i considered interesting to do if i had lots of spare initial money :)

Re:LEED certification and Sick Building Syndrome

[bored_engineer]

Anecdotes are fun. I have a friend in Fairbanks (a poet) who built a cabin, quite literally, with his own two hands. The doors, triple-pane windows, everything are hand-built. His two-story cabin (probably 600 sf total) warms in about 30 minutes once his wood stove is started. He collects 4 cords or wood each summer, and every third or fourth year he has enough left over that he doesn't need to collect that one year. It's an amazingly tight place. (He once bragged that his 6-candle candelabra keeps the place comfortable at -30F.)

Like your Finnish homeowner, my friend has very thick doors, with tight wool gaskets to match. The roof is about R-60 in the summer, and because the snow doesn't melt on top, gets much more insulating in the winter. No water and an outhouse make the cabin somewhat too rugged for more conventional folks to raise kids in, though.

. . . I don't think that I know anybody with a "greener" house than his, though.

The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[assertation]

You don't need a perfect high tech green house.

We could get a lot of bang......for very FEW bucks just using power strips, replacing incandescent light bulbs, drinking tap water and shopping with resuable backs.

Those things aren't enough, but if you could get large numbers of people doing them......and these things are cheap enough to get people to do them, it would be a huge impact

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not that it's hard to build the *perfect* green house, it's that it's unreasonably difficult to build *any* sort of house other a concrete foundation + above-ground sticks & the same utility connections that we've had for 100 years. Any non-cosmetic variation from that building method will get you resistance from contractors, regulators, and neighbors, as Mr. Adams notes. In the last 100 years the only things we've done to improve the "greenness" of home construction is add some insulation to walls and roofs and use double-pane windows; even really simple, effective things like steel supports, sod roofs (or even steel roofs, as opposed to tar shingles), buried walls/thermal ground coupling, oversized overhangs, passive solar heating -- things that we know work and aren't even terribly expensive or new -- are very difficult to get built unless you live in the middle of nowhere and are willing to pay through the nose. And don't even consider "new" technologies like alternative energy sources or other non-standard utilities unless your neighborhood is already full of them, because the HOA will never grant you a permit for the extra equipment on your roof/lawn/etc.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[hercubus]

... drinking tap water and shopping with resuable backs...

I wish my back was re-usable, re-suable, or what have you. I use my back once and it's out for a week, and it makes me want to re-sue somebody.

But tap water? Really? Dude, they put fluoride and chlorine in that - drinking the stuff is just crazy.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[assertation]

Buy a Brita water pitcher. $20. You don't need to be Dilbert to afford that :)

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[Jarik C-Bol]

totally, i cant stand the municipal water, the taste is vile, 1 pass through my brita (who's filters last far longer than the little timer indicates) and it tastes better than most bottled.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[Adaeniel]

Dude, they put fluoride and chlorine in that - drinking the stuff is just crazy.

"A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."

It had to be said.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[GiveBenADollar]

If you really want to save then throw up some radiant barrier in your attic along with some blown insulation. It's quick, cheap, and easy to do yourself. After that the next step is to get a high efficiency AC unit. Of course before you even do all this it's worthwhile to close every draft in your house. Conserving energy and conserving money can go hand in hand.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[Anonymous Coward]

... and shopping with resuable bags.

The cheap plastic variety cost about $0.01. The reusable bags I see typically cost $0.99 but the capacity is larger. I would have to use it about 50 times to break even. What about the true cost of those cheap plastic bags? Well I should be paying more for them given that I also use the surplus of them to haul food to work, toiletries (I don't care for those little cases to carry shit that inevitably is leaky), dirty laundry, and finally as a free trash liner for the end of its life. That some people just discard them or stuff them down a pelican's throat is not my problem. They are damn useful and damn cheap.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[kronosopher]

drinking tap water

We'd have a much lower carbon footprint without so many people on the planet.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[Anonymous Coward]

reusable backs?

You mean your back is one time use only? I know America is a throw-away society but that is ridiculous. No wonder your medical system is so expensive.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[Elky Elk]

It's also good for turning low-grade vodka into high purity stuff.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[dkleinsc]

But tap water? Really? Dude, they put fluoride and chlorine in that - drinking the stuff is just crazy.

Actually, tap water is generally safer to drink than bottled water, because municipal water systems are held to much higher safety standards. And many municipal system's waters have held up well against bottled water in blind taste tests as well.

Now, it's true there haven't been any studies on whether this flouridated water saps and impurifies all of our precious bodily fluids, but in general tap water is cheaper, safer, and more convenient than its bottled counterpart assuming you're in a First World country.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[assertation]

Another cheap green thing to do that makes a big difference is observing the "Meatless Monday" trend.

I don't remember where, but I read an article stating that going vegetarian just one day a week did more to reduce pollution (and was far cheaper) than being a "locovore" ( eating only locally produced food) all of the time.

Enjoy your burgers, it is just one day a week.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[assertation]

It is better to the things that make the most difference rather than doing just more things.

The Union Of Concerned Scientists published this book for consumers, on the top 11 things they could do....all within their reach. The nice thing about this book is that it simplifies things. You can go through that list of 11 things and forget the rest, knowing you are doing the best things.

http://www.amazon.com/Consumers-Guide-Effective-Environmental-Choices/dp/060980281X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282653393&sr=8-1

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[Anonymous Coward]

totally, i cant stand the municipal water, the taste is vile, 1 pass through my brita (who's filters last far longer than the little timer indicates) and it tastes better than most bottled.

For the record, who's is a contraction of who is. The word you were searching for is the pronoun whose. You probably want to move that incorrect apostrophe elsewhere. There's a cant over there that needs some tough love.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[sorak]

You don't need a perfect high tech green house.

We could get a lot of bang......for very FEW bucks just using power strips, replacing incandescent light bulbs, drinking tap water and shopping with resuable backs.

Those things aren't enough, but if you could get large numbers of people doing them......and these things are cheap enough to get people to do them, it would be a huge impact

Not only that, but every small improvement made now buys a little more time. I hate the environmental timeline. It goes something like this:

1970: lolwut? Global warming? What will they think of next.

1980: Not a problem. Who needs electric cars?

1990: Not a problem. I'm gonna buy me a big old SUV.

2000: Not a problem. I'm gonna buy me a bigger SUV, so that if I hit someone else's big old SUV, I will run over them, bigfoot style, and be declared the winner.

2010: Holy crap! You mean I gotta change my light bulbs, drive a wuss-mobile, and start paying more for electricity? No! We're screwed! Royally screwed and there's nothing any of us can do about it. If only there were a way to fix the problem without inconveniencing me in any way. I don't like to be inconvenienced, and this is inconvenient. Oh the irony!

2020: Sucks how Obama screwed up the environment. You know Bush 43 had a very efficient house, and Bush 41 and Reagan must have been doing something right because everyone says global warming wasn't a problem back then.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[Jarik C-Bol]

Yes, but on the other hand, piss off you pedantic bastard.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Absolutely genius... I am going to have to try that.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Another fantastic idea is to go around to all the sinks, reach under to the supply valve, and crank them back to about 20%. For those family members who run water while brushing (and I wont say wives) it is perfect. No one needs to run gallons down the drain to wash hands, brush teeth and most things. Plus its FREE! No fancy-schmancy flow regulator faucets needed. No one even noticed when I did it.

Re:The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good

[brentrad]

Brita Pitcher FTW! The water coming out of my kitchen tap is pretty nasty - old galvanized steel pipes, the water is a little yellow from the rust if you don't let it run for a minute. But put it through a Brita pitcher and it tastes great. I'm pretty picky about the taste of water, and I drink a lot of it, but cold filtered tap water from the pitcher in the fridge tastes just as good as bottled water to me. You just need to replace the filter every 2-3 months when it starts tasting funny.

But more importantly - read the label on a bottle of water next time. A lot of them say "from a municipal water source" which means: filtered tap water. Only it was bottled in a distant city, and shipped to you, wasting energy and causing pollution. And it's many, many times more expensive than tap water. And the plastic bottles are made from oil.

Where is the control experiment?

[afabbro]

Every single problem he mentions would be the same problem if he was building a "non-green" house. Lack of controls convinces him that he's suffering something out of the ordinary.

Lack of controls also tells me that after an eclipse, the reason the sun returns is that we beat tom-toms.

Re:Where is the control experiment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think what you want Brainboy, just as long as you keep beatin. You wouldn't want this to escalate to human sacrifice now would you?

- I make a lot of money off this gig,

Re:Where is the control experiment?

[Deadstick]

Only primitives beat tom-toms to make the sun return. The rest of us sound horns to clear traffic jams.

rj

Re:Where is the control experiment?

[The_mad_linguist]

That doesn't make any sense.

Primitives wouldn't beat tom-toms. They'd still be using maps.

Re:Where is the control experiment?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he just has a very expensive house to finance. He doesn't write this crap for nothing.

It's all about Living Well with Fewer Resources

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is off his rocker and mixes up "Sustainable Housing" with "Natural Building Materials" and overuse of PV panels.

Sustainable housing provides a way to live well without requiring lots of expensive resource use.

There are many styles of housing with many different construction methods to achieve the goal of Good Living with (Considerably) Less Reliance on Resources.

Resources are things like land, energy, water, construction materials, time, money. Good living means different things to different people - maybe a small modest house with no mortgage, maybe having time for family and friends, maybe living in an architectural masterpiece, maybe fitting in, or standing out.

For me good living always has a party now and then, when I have a big fire, leave the lights on, and rock out.

But most of the time, when I am not thinking, a sustainable house helps me live without need for extra heating or cooling energy, has less need for ongoing maintenance, and doesn't cost me that much.

The easiest way to use less resources is to have a beautiful small house that lasts a long time:
http://tinyhouseblog.com/
http://smalllivingjournal.com/

Beauty can come from use of recycled or natural materials.
Straw: http://www.thelaststrawblog.org/2009/08/bit-bale-walls/
Earth: http://www.shac.org.nz/group/whareuku

And may have wavy lines, and be built slowly and experimentally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship

Or may be slick and modern:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/07/tiny-home-lives-large/1

Or might be built offsite
http://www.fabprefab.com/fabfiles/fablisthome.htm

And in most cases, sustainable living will mean remodeling existing buildings, and encouraging higher density living - next to friends and culture.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/08/03/clip-on-plant-room-adds-green-space-to-apartment-buildings/

Living more sustainably gives me freedom to innovate, and has nothing to do with forcing me to live in a log, as the author seems to think - at least until that idea strikes my fancy.

-Tim
timbAtclaire.org

Re:who cares

[jhol13]

I'd say it is as humorous as recent Dilberts. That is, very boring.

Besides, his assumptions are utterly idiotic. For example windows are not that bad energy losers (U < 0.8 are available easily). If you have photovoltaics the colour of the roof hardly matters. Insulation costs next to nothing, unless you want to use more expensive ones (to keep it thin). Etc, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-energy_house

Going white?

[Prostate of Grace]

Remember to skip the water-wasting lawn. White pebbles are the way to go if you want to save the Earth.

The irony. Caring for vegitation is a waste, and not 'green?'

Re:Going white?

[twidarkling]

Most people waste inordinate amounts of water, which takes resources to purify both before and after it's used, since any that isn't absorbed goes to run-off to the sewers, which needs to be treated in most areas. Then you get pesticide use, herbicide use, chemical fertilizers, gas-powered lawnmowers, etc. How the hell can you possibly think a conventional lawn is good for the environment? A properly cared-for garden? Kick-ass. Your average suburban lawn? Fucks up the environment.

Re:Going white?

[IICV]

The absolute worst part here in Southern California is all of this lawn we've got. They use some Norman Rockwell grade grass that looks exactly like what you expect grass to look like, but is a bitchass to maintain. It has to be watered literally every day, and if the Santa Ana winds (dry and hot and fast) blow in unexpectedly, whole swathes of that stuff just go brown overnight and die. They replace it within a week most times, but the waste! Oh my God, the waste! And nobody ever walks on it, so all of that is useless.

What they really should do is plant those gorgeous native grasses everywhere - hillocks of green, literally shining (for some reason parts of it are silver from certain angles), doesn't need much watering (because it's native grass, it's used to how often it rains down here), doesn't die off if the weather changes unexpectedly, and grows in uneven little hills so people won't walk on it as much.

Basically, if companies didn't insist on having Norman Rockwell style lawns, we could use a shitload less water and things would look a lot nicer too.

Re:Going white?

[Rude Turnip]

My house sat unoccupied for about three years before I bought it. There are some hastas, rhododendrons, lilies and other misc. flowering plants around the outside of the house. And a lawn (that gets mowed). The way I see it, any plants around my house that had to make it on their own for a few years outlived the weak ones and don't need my help. I have never watered my lawn or any plants. I don't do weeding, I don't do thinning, I don't do squat, except mow the lawn every other week (and that is outsourced). I will not waste resources on outdoor vegetation that I don't eat.

Re:Going white?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see more wastewater systems or at least a list of what general stuff will be left in the soil afterwards. If I could use shower/sink/laundry runoff or at least the rinse water without poisoning the yard, I'd definitely be interested in a system that would collect it.

Re:Going white?

[mgblst]

That is only irony if you are mentally retarded.

Re:Going white?

[DrXym]

Lawns need to be watered and cut, neither of which is particularly green. There are grass varieties that require less water & cutting, so perhaps by law all new lawns should be required to use these.

Re:Going white?

[twidarkling]

That Norman Rockwell grass is probably Kentucky Bluegrass, I always hear that touted as the ultimate lawn grass if you want that kind of look.

I like your native grasses idea. Usually native plants deal best not only with local weather conditions, but local pests, too. Personally though, I'm just going to keep living in places without lawns. I'm lucky to have that option, though.

Re:A bit of an old article...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your fucking point? You really sound like a whiney BITCH on the rag.

Missouri

[retech]

... where the hippies and lawless build homes. Or something like that. Seriously, the entire state is almost without building codes of any kind. Buy at your own risk, certainly, but build however you feel like it. Lacking his ability to move, why not just build a "green" mobile home. As long as it's not permanent, you can camp on your land and have little to worry about.

What does "green" mean?

[dominion]

There was a TED talk that outlined recently why building from scratch is rarely "green". Especially when you're talking about building a big, opulent "green" mansion out in the middle of a posh suburb with a huge acreage.

People (especially the wealthy) may not want to hear it, but the greenest option is to renovate an existing structure in an urban center. Just like buying a used 1992 Honda is more "green" than buying a brand new Prius.

Building new may make you feel better about yourself, but it's definitely not the best option for the environment, by far.

Re:What does "green" mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dilbert -- er, I mean, Scott Adams -- pointed that out in his article, where he noted that the greenest thing to do was not to build at all.

Re:What does "green" mean?

[GiveBenADollar]

But buying a Prius doesn't tell everyone I'm green. If the point of being green was truly to conserve then we would see much different fads. The point of being green, to the masses at least, is to sooth your own conscience while at the same time showing everyone else how 'good' you are.

Re:What does "green" mean?

[benjamindees]

Is this it? Catherine Mohr builds green

Obviously this type of analysis is interesting and useful to consider. But I wonder if ultimately it is pointless.

The issue basically boils down to cost. Her towel analogy holds if she produces all of her own water and electricity and grows trees to make paper towels. But she doesn't. She buys water (that's probably subsidized) and electricity (that's probably taxed) and paper towels (that are significantly marked-up). Any analysis that ignores her costs borders on completely pointless.

If I build using special "green" materials at 20% higher cost, which goes to some middle-man who uses the profit to buy a gas-guzzling SUV, I haven't actually saved any energy at all.

If I buy an overpriced house in the city center to renovate, and the former owner takes the proceeds and builds a suburban mcmansion, what energy has been saved?

Let's take it even further, though. If everyone who believes in saving the planet and energy efficiency spends her disposable income purchasing only "green" products, those people will be replaced within a few short generations by people who instead spend their disposable incomes having four kids and consuming the cheapest, most ecologically destructive products possible.

Re:What does "green" mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an effort at least. Not many wealthy people are going to opt to drive around in a second-hand 1992 Honda Civic, although hopefully they're conscientious enough to at least not swap out their cars for the latest model every few years like some people do.

Likewise if they're going to build a mansion anyways, might as well try to cut down on the heating/cooling costs. Done the wrong way it could be a massive energy sink.

Re:What does "green" mean?

[mrchaotica]

This kind of issue is what carbon trading is (read: "should be") for. Carbon trading is designed to account for the externalities of the ecologically destructive products by increasing their cost to reflect their destructiveness. Once that happens, the eco-friendly products become cheaper in comparison. Or in other words, the destructive products cease being subsidized by the environment.

Re:What does "green" mean?

[kf6auf]

Consider that buying a 1992 Honda means someone else can't...Honda can't decide to make more 1992 Hondas. Whereas buying a new Prius means Toyota makes one more Prius (approximately). Even if you sell your Prius every year to buy a new one, your old one isn't getting crushed -- someone else is buying it who instead might be buying a less fuel efficient car. Right now, you have to choose between fuel efficient (low energy upkeep) and reliable (initial energy cost being amortized over a longer time). But in 20 years, people will be choosing between a reliable Camry and a reliable Camry Hybrid.

Re:What does "green" mean?

[just fiddling around]

I have seen 1992 Honda's that spewed blue and green smoke, but I don't know of any that are green anymore. More like reddish brown.

Of course, that may be because after passing the 15-year mark a car is mostly shot.

Re:What does "green" mean?

[bziman]

Building new may make you feel better about yourself, but it's definitely not the best option for the environment, by far.

I think you may be confused here. I'm going to build a new house, and that is a foregone conclusion. The two choices are build it conventionally, or built it using modern, less environmentally-abominable techniques. Obviously, the second choice is greener than the first choice. That is what green means.

Besides, if I can build my home entirely off the grid, and have enough land to raise my own food, I think I'm doing the world a much bigger favor than if I live in one of those "urban centers" that packs a population into an area that is incapable of supporting it. The biggest green thing you can do, is massively reduce population density.

You urban center requires electricity to be shipped in, since you don't have enough surface area to support wind or solar on site. It requires water to be treated remotely and shipped in, but then also to have waste shipped out, and expensive (and often futile) methods of controlling run-off when that system is overwhelmed. It requires food and all other goods to be trucked in, because urban centers have no means of food production, and no one wants to live in an area with heavy manufacturing. Your urban centers have to have an abundance of jobs to be useful, except that the big employers in food production and manufacturing have to be somewhere else. That means only the high paying information jobs and low paying service jobs are located in your urban center. That generally leads to the people with low paying service jobs (including teachers) not being able to afford to actually live there, and end up commuting in from the suburbs or less sophisticated un-renovated urban centers anyway.

Yeah, I'll pass on the urban centers.

Re:What does "green" mean?

[Red Flayer]

But in 20 years, people will be choosing between a reliable Camry and a reliable Camry Hybrid.

Not sure if you've seen Toyota's reliability ratings over the past couple years... even prior to the unintended acceleration fiasco.

The "reliable Camry" is becoming a myth AFAIK, for any Camry produced after 2006, especially the V6 ones. Consumer Reports even stopped giving Toyota models the automatic five-star rating for reliability.

Not sure if they've made real improvements over the last two model years.

Re:who cares

[toastar]

Scott Adams has never been Dave Berry

Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[MDillenbeck]

You want to go extreme green but not buy an existing house? Try a truly modular home! I know it is extreme (styrofoam housing?!?), but imaging using a traditional home down payment to buy a small country plot and plop down a bachelor(ette) pad. No mortgage to pay, only property taxes - and then save up until you can build something as your needs grow. If I could do it here in the US, I'd seriously consider it (and if I didn't have a wife who wants a big house, of course).

Re:Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know it is extreme (styrofoam housing?!?)"

Having gone through several major hurricane evacuations (including Katrina) and wondering if there'd be a house to come back to, I long ago promised myself that, if I were ever in a position to build my own house, it would be concrete and steel from foundation to rooftop.

I note that the website advertises its "gale resistance." No mention of wind-blown trees. Or flood-borne cars, for that matter.

Re:Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[butlerdi]

Or even better ..... CalEarth

Re:Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

imaging using a traditional home down payment

WTF does this mean?

Re:Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[b0bby]

My favorite modular homes are the L-Vs from http://www.rocioromero.com/ - unlike most of the designs you see out there (including, as far as I can tell, that domehouse) you can actually order one, and a decent number have been built. I've been in one, and it's a nice design. Maybe someday I'll get to build one...

Re:Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[MDillenbeck]

You can purchase the dome homes I mentioned... if you live in Japan. There have been quite a few built there. However, thanks for the link. I'll check it out, but I recall one blog post saying the dome houses are around $30k (with the calearth ones obviously being cheaper, but I question their use in a northern climate - I'll be looking into that option also) and the L-Vs are listed at $120 to $195 per square foot. However, the L-Vs do list a 2nd story option, so that might be nice for more traditional homes in the US. (Obviously a dome home is not going to get past most home owners associations, but the L-Vs might).

Re:Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[tibman]

I'm with you on the concrete home thing.

Re:Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[b0bby]

I didn't see a way to purchase the domes, so I assumed... They are cool.

The L-Vs are a little pricey, but I think they're not unreasonable for what you end up with, and you could keep costs down by doing a lot of stuff yourself. I think a realistic range would be $175-200k, with nice finishes. I like the idea of the calearth domes too, but that's a much harder sell for the wife. Maybe if we end up in the boonies one day.

Re:Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[radtea]

to buy a small country plot

So this is a "green" home for people who hate the environment? I don't get it.

It is well-known and uncontroversial that urban living is far more environmentally friendly than country living. If you live in downtown NYC you are using less of everything than if you live in rural Vermont.

Re:Styrofoam as the greener alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be looking into that option also

So, you'll be imaging using that option too?

Its about Resource Use, not Style

[virga]

This guy is off his rocker and mixes up "Sustainable Housing" with "Natural Building Materials" and overuse of PV panels.

Sustainable housing provides a way to live well without requiring lots of expensive resource use.

There are many styles of housing with many different construction methods to achieve the goal of Good Living with (Considerably) Less Reliance on Resources.

Resources are things like land, energy, water, construction materials, time, money. Good living means different things to different people - maybe a small modest house with no mortgage, maybe having time for family and friends, maybe living in an architectural masterpiece, maybe fitting in, or standing out.

For me good living always has a party now and then, when I have a big fire, leave the lights on, and rock out.

But most of the time, when I am not thinking, a sustainable house helps me live with need for extra heating or cooling energy, has less need for ongoing maintenance, and doesn't cost me that much.

The easiest way to use less resources is to have a beautiful small house that lasts a long time:
http://goldenbayhideaway.co.nz/abodes/little_greenie
http://tinyhouseblog.com/
http://smalllivingjournal.com/

Beauty can come from use of recycled or natural materials.
Straw: http://www.thelaststrawblog.org/2009/08/bit-bale-walls/
Earth: http://www.shac.org.nz/group/whareuku

And may have wavy lines, and be built slowly and experimentally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship

Or may be slick and modern:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/07/tiny-home-lives-large/1

Or might be built offsite
http://www.fabprefab.com/fabfiles/fablisthome.htm

And in most cases, sustainable living will mean remodeling existing buildings, and encouraging higher density living - next to friends and culture.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/08/03/clip-on-plant-room-adds-green-space-to-apartment-buildings/

Living more sustainably gives me freedom to innovate, and has nothing to do with forcing me to live in a log, as the author seems to think - at least until that idea strikes my fancy.

-Tim

I recently met the guy who heads the BAC's online Sustainable Design course. It seems good. http://www.the-bac.edu/x350.xml

Re:Its about Resource Use, not Style

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you actually even read the summary?

His point was all that stuff is wonderful and cool. HOWEVER, good luck finding anyone to design it. THEN find someone who in your local area would actually build it. THEN get that past your local building commission to give you the permits. The previous three groups are used to and know how their current materials work. What to expect out of them. What sort of load they can take in 2 ft of snow. What is the flash point (important in some areas such as Chicago). They have a good idea what does what. You show up and say you want to use coral for your foundation because you found out it is 10x stronger than cement (I made that up) you would NEVER find anyone who would build it other than yourself, if you could get your local building commission to approve it. In some places you get another group to deal with. Your neighbors. They are worried about what your house is worth because it affects them. So if you end up in a home owners association you can be really screwed.

All of the materials you quote and talk about are good materials. But if you want to build a house with them its going to cost you anywhere from 25-50% more. Just in labor costs and insurance you will need to get as no one will want to be 'first'.

You may be thinking 'oh just hire the dudes who came up with this' or 'there are tons of dudes who will work on this sort of thing'. Guess what they probably do not live where you are or want your house so you will need to pay for them to live nearby (if they are willing to do that).

BTW the dude you think is off his rocker is Scott Adams creator of Dilbert. His background is engineering. So he is being practical which isnt surprising. His other point is things are changing. But it will take 20-30 years before everyone even allows/wants these sorts of buildings.

Wanna Build green?

[jameskojiro]

Build the whole damn house underground so that you need no AC or heating and grow native grasses over it. Problem solved.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[zippthorne]

But... what about the radon?

Re:Wanna Build green?

[twidarkling]

Er, unless you're burying it *deep,* you'd still need heating and cooling. And since you're talking about grasses, I'm assuming you're not talking about burying it that deep. Maybe about six feet under?

Re:Wanna Build green?

[Jarik C-Bol]

don't think i've not considered it. I'm still working out the math to see how deep you could bury a quanset hut before the weight began to threaten its structural integrity. I figure the easiest way is to bury a quonset, (a BIG one) and then install living inside one end, and complete the illusion with an astroturf lawn in the other half. double pane reflected angle argon filled skylight tubes to the surface (we want light, not heat). Sure, its like, a 2 million dollar project, but hey, *i can dream*.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just hold your breath you silly goose.
You won't inhale any radon and you won't be exhaling carbon dioxide.
Both you and Mother Earth will benefit.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[adamofgreyskull]

I'm planning on doing exactly that in 40-50 years time. Sure I'll be living in a regular non-green abode until then, but in the grand scheme of things, 40 or 50 years is nothing considering I'll be living underground until the planet goes cold after that.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[Greyfox]

Every so often you see an old missile silo on the real estate sites. Other than accessibility to work, that'd be perfect! You get a couple miles of underground tunnels capable of withstanding a nuclear blast (Which is good, because a lot of those missiles are probably still programmed to point at your house) and they've usually removed all the nasty crap (Asbestos, et al) so you don't have to worry about it anymore.

One of those old silos with a pebble bed reactor in it wouldn't need a whole lot more for the next 30 years. Just sayin'! And you'd be able to supply a good bit of the power for a surrounding community with no greenhouse gasses. How cool is that?

Re:Wanna Build green?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Simple. Use it for nuclear power. :-p.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[sjames]

Don't carve your home out of granite.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[sjames]

While you might not completely escape the need for heating and cooling, even burying the home shallow can help considerably.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[dkleinsc]

But we were evicted from our hole in the ground. We had to go live in a lake!

Re:Wanna Build green?

[Psmylie]

You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in a shoebox in the middle of the road.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[couchslug]

"Build the whole damn house underground so that you need no AC or heating and grow native grasses over it. Problem solved."

Not with my water table. :)

Re:Wanna Build green?

[couchslug]

Fuck the Quonset except possibly for an entrance. Consider metal culvert or other material DESIGNED to support a pour.

I'd use High Cube ISO shipping containers after coating them (ALL the way round) with marine paint.

"Sure, its like, a 2 million dollar project, but hey, *i can dream*."

Two million for a palace perhaps, but not much for a smallish, cozy bunker, and you needn't build it all at once.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[Anonymous Coward]

A hobbit hole is a nice thought, but evidently you haven't thought this through.

First, the radon issue. That's a big one throughout most of the inhabited parts of the country. While it is a problem, it's relatively easily sequestered... provided you've got suitable airflow in and out.

Second, retaining walls. If the building is fully underground, the walls will need to not only be vertically load bearing but also able to support very substantial laterial loads. Doing so is very expensive.

Again, the under ground thing. Even in dry parts of the country, you will need to contend with ground water and general soil moisture. Seal it on the outside, or seal it on the inside? How about the roof and floor? You'll need a dehumidifier and air circulation system at minimum.

With something which is, for all intents and purposes, hermetically sealed under ground, you will also have "air quality" issues: CO2, moisture, molds, and again, radon.

Lighting: are you going to somehow use light tubes or are you planning on running everything off electricity? If you're going to use light tubes, that is an additional ingress point for moisture which will need to be maintained.

Honestly, underground structures are expensive to make habitable by people and reach a level of safety and health that anyone would approve for resale. Why do you think the government costs on maintaining old bunkers is so expensive, and why they sell for (relatively) nothing - in the $10k range, sometimes?

Now, if you could build something which would be designed to accommodate all these shortcomings, go ahead. Something like a monolithic dome springs to mind. But your costs are still going to be somewhat expensive, and you'll still have to deal with environmental factors. Oh, and you'll need (some) heating.

Re:Wanna Build green?

[Jarik C-Bol]

the reason I went with the quonset is the arch shape, i figure if i'm going to be putting that kind of weight on it, arches are the way to go, not flat roofs (like shipping containers) The marine paint is a good idea though.

PHB

[fermion]

This seems like PHB logic. PHB hears of a hot product, reads a few articles on it, then demands a similar product from a team that has no experience in it.

I also can believe there are people out there that know how to build this stuff. The trick is to let the experts help meet your needs, not spec the finish product in the design brief. This is another PHB mistake.

For example, roof gardens are not huge deal. One I have seen is to use a shed roof with a low grade, possibly with a partially finished flat roof underneath. There is some erosion of the roof garden, and it needs to be redone occasionally, but it is effective as it will convert the heat into growth rather than transmit.

Also windows are not the enemy. In fact they can be used to make a house more green. Properly place windows can mean that lights need not be used during the day. Roof overhangs can prevent sun from entering in the hottest time, while allowing the sun to warm the house in cooler months. Deciduous Trees can also be shard in the summer, while allowing sun in the winter. In addition, in the winter elements in the house can be allowed to heat during the day and radiate at night.

What I see is that many people want everything to stay the same and be magically green at the same time. We want to use the clothes dryer, even though we have been given a perfectly good sun. We want to have our manicured monoculture lawn, even though common sense tells us that makes not sense. We want use the solutions that in front of our noses because then people would not know how rich we were.

Re:PHB

[jlehtira]

Also windows are not the enemy. In fact they can be used to make a house more green. Properly place windows can mean that lights need not be used during the day. Roof overhangs can prevent sun from entering in the hottest time, while allowing the sun to warm the house in cooler months. Deciduous Trees can also be shard in the summer, while allowing sun in the winter. In addition, in the winter elements in the house can be allowed to heat during the day and radiate at night.

That's what I thought. Heck, build large triple windows and use curtains on hot summer days?

Another thing of wonder was heating by gas. Why not use a heat pump to turn their own solar electricity into hot water to circulate under their floors? Burning a fossil fuel for heat is not green (although I guess it could be bio-gas, but that stuff has so many other uses that it's better to save it).

Clothes dryers make no sense. Clothes dry very well on their own when hanged on a string. Also most of the time vacuum cleaners don't make sense, a good broom does the same job just as easily (with some exceptions).

Re:PHB

[Jaime2]

Calling Scott Adams a PHB is the most ironic thing I've heard in a while.

Re:PHB

[badkarmadayaccount]

A good dust filter/dehumidifier for the air should make pulling out the broom a once a year phenomenon. Solar electricity? Pointless, use vacum thermo collectors, and route the heat to a thermoacoustic couple - a thermopump powered by heat differtial - you can't get more efficient than that.

Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

I did some work on my home - added a second story etc. while living in it - an adventure for sure! I learned some things. For one my contractor was a good ole boy who was so honest it wasn't funny. He did it ALL without a signed contract and he stuck to his original price despite having to wait a YEAR to begin! It took a year to get permits and to get the damned architect to properly do the plans, we waited on weather some too. Jackass architect drew in 2X4 walls and not 2X6, not noticed by me till they were banging nails - grr. The first few sets of plans were a joke and the very first time my contractor caught a GLARING error before he even got out of their office. The architect hated my contractor but my contractor knew how to build and was catching all sorts of errors. Thankfully he worked around the ones in the final plans just fine.

So, I wanted to do some odd things my guy hadn't seen before. For starters I had a specific toilet in mind. You know, a low flow toilet that WORKS! Toto Drake for those wondering - just wish it had more water in the bowl so keep a brush handy. He thought it was silly to want a specific toilet and darn it the thing cost MORE. Wow, it works he finds out. Guess who now has two in HIS home :-) I wanted "solar tubes". What in the world are those he wonders. Well the guy puts them in and wow, lots of LIGHT from outside. My contractor thinks this is pretty cool - don't think he's bought any yet. I wanted a tin roof. Now he's seen these and he's had them done. I had a good quote from a guy but when the guy came out to look over the job he made the cardinal sin of ignoring my contractor - this pissed him off. My contractor got his buddy on the phone and shaved multiple thousands of dollars off the price just to spite this jerk - likely burned a favor. Took the guys maybe two hours to put up that roof too. Rolls off the reel through an extruder and up go the panels onto the roof. I wanted spray foam insulation too. Why would I want that? Well the downstairs leaked like a sieve and I wanted it quiet. Research I found said to spray it under the roof decking and make the attic a controlled space. Contractor and roofing guy not happy, insulation guy not so sure. Govt. studies say this saves money bigtime but if the roof decking gets too hot and fries I'm out big bux. Never mind that Govt study was partially conducted in Florida. I relent but I still have the stuff in my walls and attic - it rocks! My contractor also does Tyvek wrap, rigid foam with foil, and the insulator guys sealed every nook with caulk too. End result is awesome but pricey. Insulator says they never do this in homes but in businesses all the time. A/C and heating guy nearly passed out when I told him what we had for insulation - my heat pump doesn't have to work at all but is sized for efficiency. Tankless hot water heater and softener system. Why would I do that? Well endless hot water for the big tub I had installed and the efficiency is off the chart compared to the previous somewhat new water heater. Literally - the two charts don't overlap the new one is so good! I wanted good windows - Pella is what I chose. All sorts of coatings and stuff. I had gotten a ballpark at a homeshow on price. Pella only sells through regional dealers if you buy their good stuff - price is sky high. My contractor is NOT happy and talks them down a couple hundred per window. Love this guy! I get a seriously good attic trap door with insulation and gasketed seals - everyone thinks I'm nuts till that sucker goes up and seals like a drum. I wanted good temp compensating shower fixtures - I buy them online for way less than local. Plumber freaks at the puzzle he has to build to plumb it. I use a local tile and granite guy instead of a big box store or boutique bath place. I save TONS and the guy is very happy to have my business - I've been back for more stuff twice.

So in the end I saved a bunch and obviously went over budget. Every single time I wanted to do something "odd" I got questioned and quizzed. If you aren't

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[zippthorne]

my heat pump doesn't have to work at all but is sized for efficiency.

Erm.. It's one or the other, usually. Are you sure you've got the right size heat pump for your situation?

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Funny, I see Scott preaching about radiant barriers. that's different in some aspects to what I wanted to do with spray foam but not so different in the possible issue of cooking the roofing surface and plywood. I may still do this myself with some rigid foil backed foam tacked up under the roof. It wouldn't be super expensive but hot as hell to install! This is one area I really want to investigate in the future. That and spray foaming my damned crawlspace but if I do that access to much of anything under there like wiring, plumbing, and running CAT5 will plummet

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[Jarik C-Bol]

where do you live, and is your contractor hiring, this is the kind of person i *want* to work for. (seeing as we're talking my industry here, construction)

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[GiveBenADollar]

Hmm... Those are quite some improvements! One question: What brand of tubular skylights, and how happy are you with the ammount of light and color?

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[Anonymous Coward]

We put solartubes in a hall and small bathroom about 15 years ago, and it's great in the summer. Our winters can be foggy and it's more than enough light to see but not to comfortably read by. Useful light ends maybe an hour before sunset.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[pspahn]

Please tell me you put as much thought into your landscaping as you did your home itself. It would be a shame to see such a well-thought out house be undermined by planting deciduous trees on the north and evergreens on the south (or some other equally moronic scenario).

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[mrchaotica]

Funny, I see Scott preaching about radiant barriers.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure your tin roof is a radiant barrier.

spray foaming my damned crawlspace

Have you considered insulating the crawlspace walls instead of the floor (i.e., making the crawlspace conditioned space, like you did with your attic)?

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[SuperKendall]

I liked the idea of tankless heaters but the more I looked into them, the less i liked them. They are as you say great in your case where you need a huge supply of hot water to fill a tub (though I have to say I questioned the green aspect of a giant hot tub... :-) ), but for the average home a tankless heater isn't going to really save any money and brings in a new set of problems including the need for some new infrastructure to handle either the electric or gas load the thing produces.

In the end I'm just replacing the old heater with a very high efficiency tank, happy knowing that even if the power goes have I have a good supply of hot water on tap for a while.

The main green thing I plan to do next to my own house is to put solar shingles on the roof, when it next needs replacing. That may not be the most cost efficient thing to do anytime soon but I like the degree of self reliance it gives you in a lot of ways.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting; been done similar things myself but in a much smaller chunks. Pulled out the siding on the top floor and re-did the insulation and put a ton of Reflectix around insuring that it was nicely sealed. I got that idea from my brothers-in-law who have several Yurts which they rent out. They all have been insulated with Reflectix and they swear by it; when I saw it first-hand how warm it was in the middle of December (merely heated by a smallish wood stove), I was sold. They're in BC and I live in SW Ontario.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[argStyopa]

The sad thing is that you mentioned just about every other detail except...the name of the contractor.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

I worked with the A/C guy. He did the calcs and found that the size recommended was so small that it would be pretty inefficient so he bumped it up one size to a unit that would be more efficient. I can tell you that my bills have been pretty low and that I've not had moisture issues. It doesn't often run especially when I keep that zone blocked off. Unfortunately, and as Scott seems to indicate, actually knowing\measuring just how efficient it really is can be tough!

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Northern VA. He's a pretty small outfit and times are tough so I don't know if he's hiring but I'm sending people his way as often as they tell me they are looking for a good contractor! B&R Contracting was the company name as I recall. Ronnie is the owner and his wife is the one who answers the phone - very pleasant to work with as well.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Solartubes just like the AC below. I have a light kit in one of them too, not sure how you change the bulb in that sucker! lol

These are rigid tubes which are better than the flexible kind. The light output is damned good even with my domes being on the backside of the house. Be aware they work both ways so lights on in the house make little lights show on the roof like a spaceship. The light output is so good that a full moon is enough light for me to see in my bathroom, stairs, or closet just fine. Do NOT put these in your bedroom unless you get a cover for the diffuser. You also do NOT NOT NOT want one of these anywhere near a ceiling fan unless you want a disco strobe effect. Great for large closets and bathrooms, my stairs are also well lit with one of these. I'd use more if there were places they made sense. They cost me like $500 apiece and were VERY well worth the investment.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

This wasn't new construction so what was existing remains. The back of the house is heavily shaded by a gigantic Oak tree that stands a good 4+ stories tall. That's on the North side. South side has nothing shading it except some incidental shade from neighbor's giant Oaks to the SouthWest, West side is pretty well shaded. I have a 4 story tall Holly tree too but it's not providing shade. Most windows face South with only the upper story getting sunlight in them. Were it not for the partial shading I get from neighbor trees I'd likely have a couple of solar racks up there and will try in the future.

Perhaps not the best engineered setup but the rear of the house is cooled in Summer by the Oak and in Summer the sun isn't heating things up too much thanks to coatings and insulation. Original home was built circa 1940 BTW and it's no mansion but I enjoy it.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Attic isn't a conditioned space sadly, too much concern about the roof decking. I may yet do a radiant barrier though!

Your idea is a good one. I've considered it some yes but not done it. I think you're probably onto something though and that might be a good way to go. Perhaps heavy ply plastic down to keep moisture out, rigid foam board on the walls, then maybe spray foam the walls? It's a dirt crawlspace now and yucky to crawl around in but I'd love to make it more friendly and easier to work in. Thoughts? It's maybe 3-4foot high in the main part of the house. Walls are block, there are some vents along two sides. Moisture would be a concern I think but not insurmountable maybe. Hrm, I'm all ears to suggestions...

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

I'm not sure I follow you - I only produce heated water when I need it. It runs on gas which I already had plumbed. Ignition is a spark which on some units is produced via a water wheel spun by water flow (not on mine though). My gas bills went DOWN from my previous tank water heater so I know it works. The tub is only used occasionally and while not being uber green it is comfortable which was my primary concern ;-)

Solar shingles are interesting but fairly low efficiency right now. I have a tin roof so mounting racks to it is pretty attractive if ugly. Shading is my major problem for solar. Solar hot water returns money VERY quickly supposedly but in my case with no tank makes little sense. In your case with a tank it might work well.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

True so let me correct that:

B & R Contracting & Fencing

12750 Old Church Road
Nokesville, VA 20181-1618
(703) 361-6232

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[b0bby]

+1 for the Toto Drake!

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[Attila Dimedici]

Every single time I wanted to do something "odd" I got questioned and quizzed. If you aren't doing it standard eyebrows go up.

If that doesn't happen, you have the wrong contractors on the job. There is a reason that "standard" is standard. There are two possible reasons why somebody isn't doing it standard: one, they don't know what they are doing, or two, they have done a lot of research and do know what they are doing. The real problem for the contractors are the pepole who have done a lot of research and still don't know what they are doing.
To go back to my original point, if you are doing something as big as the project you described, you want your contractors to question everything oddball you want to do, because they know a lot more about building then you do. There might be something in their knowledge base that did not turn up in your research that indicates that what you wanted to do is not the best way to accomplish what you have in mind. If you respect their knowledge (which you appear to have done) and show that you have already researched their objection, or go back and do further research on the basis of what they bring up, they will have a lot of respect for you and will work harder to make the job come out for the best.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[Anonymous Coward]

wow! who was your contractor? I run a plumbing supply warehouse and would love to know the name of the products you used

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[atamido]

My parents had tubes put in also, and everyone loves them. As BLKBGK mentions, don't put them in bedrooms or anywhere else you want to be able to darken during the day for sleep.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[mrchaotica]

Attic isn't a conditioned space sadly, too much concern about the roof decking.

Oh, I misread your post: you relented to your builder and didn't put the insulation on the rafters. Too bad.

You know, it's kind of silly that everybody objected: what you wanted was no different then how they have to build cathedral-style ceilings (where there is no attic and the finished ceiling is attached to the rafters) anyway! It's really not that weird...

I may yet do a radiant barrier though!

Again, since you missed it the first time: your tin roofing is metallic to begin with. Are you sure it isn't already a radiant barrier?

Perhaps heavy ply plastic down to keep moisture out

Wait, you went to all that trouble to use new, better building techniques and didn't get a vapor barrier in the crawlspace? That's a basic thing that even not-particularly-green houses have nowadays!

Walls are block, there are some vents along two sides. Moisture would be a concern I think but not insurmountable maybe. Hrm, I'm all ears to suggestions...

Vapor barrier, insulate walls... you may want to block off those vents, depending on where you live, what season it is, and whose theories you believe (there is disagreement about when/if you should ventilate when insulation enters the picture).

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[Jaime2]

General rule is that they run more efficient closer to their maximum capacity. Lots of stuff works this way -- computer battery backups work best at 80% utilization, cars get better gas mileage if the engine is sized so that it runs near max capacity (this is the basis of a Prius, it is either full on motivating the car and charging the battery or full off).

The smaller size may have been too small, but it's highly unlikely that it would have been less efficient.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Yeah, you're correct. My point though is that if you want to do things that aren't bog standard you will get pushback. Standard isn't alway best and code doesn't always keep up. It was interesting to find out that people will cut corners on things like insulation just to save some bux up front when in the long run the good stuff REALLY makes a difference! How I wish I could build a place from scratch right now, I learned so much just doing this addition. I am glad that my contractor was knowledgeable and VERY happy with his work. I did even spot one thing that looked "off" but when I questioned him he had a perfectly good explanation. It was still "off" but only because it had to be or I might not pass inspection. Crazy but true, common sense and code inspections don't always work together it seems.

The funniest part was when he asked two inspectors how best to do one thing and they disagreed - and proceeded to argue in front of him! So, he walked away, got us through inspection by leaving that thing alone (electrical to the garage) and then after inspection had his electrician come in and do it the way he felt was right. Problem solved. Some of the stories he told were scary - professional framers that gave up contracting and went to work as inspectors. The one guy was doing electrical inspection his 2nd day on the job - alone - on something that was NOT his specialty. My guy just shook his head and made sure the folks he used were good and the job was safe.

Anyway, I can see where Scott was coming from. Things seem to change very slowly in the building industry even as newer and better materials are found\made. Unless code specifies it you may not see it done very quickly. I'm still pissed my architect got away with 2x4 vs 2x6 studs via a loophole in the new code acceptance!

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Funny thing is how I found out about it.... I was at a home show and knew I needed a toilet along with a dozen other things for the new addition. the bathroom was a HUGE thing for me having only had little tiny closets before this. So i walked up to a plumbing company display, pulled a plumber aside, and asked him what he recommended. Now he wasn't selling this at the show but he was a pro and had worked on lots of toilets. He told me get a Toto Drake. He said they WORKED and that when repairs were needed it was simple. That toilet is now over 3 years old and has yet to need a single part! If I were doing it again I'd get the taller model and the slow close lid but change nothing else. I'll be upgrading my other toilets soon :-)

BTW - by sourcing my own contractors\fixtures for the bathroom over a specialty boutique place I paid less than $12K for my big bathroom including a heated tile floor (do this!) and granite counters. One place had estimates starting in the $30K range and the lowest anyone would talk was close to $20K. At the time my contractor had no tile guy but has since gotten one back under his wing. I WILL be calling him for work in my other bathrooms soon!

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

I don't think the metal roof is reflecting IR like a radiant barrier would. The objection to doing what I wanted was concern over the roof decking. Both my contractor and the roofing guy said not to do it - I was overruled. It felt like a risk and this job was expensive enough I didn't wish to have to redo it in 5 years! Depending on what you read and whom you believe this issue isn't a problem.

As for the crawlspace - this was a second story addition. The crawlspace was untouched other than to add some supports for the second story support beams. It's presently dirt with crappy insulation batts shoved between floor joists - by ME. It had NO insulation when I moved in and was over 60 years old at the time. I was stunned!

Figuring out what to do in the crawlspace has vexed me for YEARS. I hate drafts and I have them right now. Vapor barrier on all the walls, some rigid foam, maybe spray foam? If I leave vents open then cold air comes right in - haven't I defeated the purpose? Very frustrating to try and figure out and sure not much room to work under there either - especially alone :-(

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Well, he had looked at the SEER rating for the smaller model and it was a good bit lower than the larger model I got and prices were close enough to not matter apparently. The guy was a pro, he actually sat down an did the calcs having measured the space etc. instead of just eye balling it. Actually had them work on a friend's home - same guy - and again I was impressed. Don't think he was selling me a bill of goods and thus far it's been both reliable and appears efficient. The lower rated model would have run more, hopefully this one runs enough to hit it's rating. I did question him on it and he assured me so like on other things I went with what the pro was telling me. Sometimes you just have to let the guy you're paying be the boss.

As for cars - engines run best at peak torque not max HP or RPM. We may be saying the same thing but having tuned the EFI in more than a few cars I know BSFC is best at peak torque. :-)

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[Attila Dimedici]

Yeah, I was trying to amplify something I thought I saw in your post that a lot of people seem to miss. You didn't expressly say that you listened (not necessarily agreed to do it his way, but actually listened) to your contractor when he disagreed with you. A lot of the group who do things the non-standard way because they don't know what they are doing would have taken your post as supporting them not listening to what the experts have to say. You, on the other hand, clearly paid attention to what the experts said, even when you didn't do things that way.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Yes, I did absolutely listen. There were times when he followed what I wanted and there were times when I was politely overruled. When I wanted things that were more expensive than budgeted he told me so and explained what others had done and why - I was usually willing to spend the extra and he helped me save money. I was probably a PITA but he was a good guy about it and patient. We got along well and he was there most every single day before I was ready to leave the house just sitting in his truck waiting. Very impressed with his work ethic and he oversaw his workers well too. Sometimes you really should listen to the guy who's the expert else why hire them?

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[Jaime2]

That was an apples to oranges comparison -- he didn't size it for efficiency, he simply recommended a more efficient model that happened to be larger. As you said, let's hope you can run it in it's sweet spot and that you don't have problems bumping into the minimum duty cycle. One of the biggest problems with an oversized HVAC unit is that sometimes the minimum on time takes you way past your target temperature and you get a lot of hot and cold variation instead of a constant temperature.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[mrchaotica]

I don't think the metal roof is reflecting IR like a radiant barrier would.

Why not? Is it painted black or something? Could you tell me more details about the roof (color, material -- I assume its galvinized aluminum or something, not literally tin -- etc.)?

As for the crawlspace - this was a second story addition. The crawlspace was untouched other than to add some supports for the second story support beams. It's presently dirt with crappy insulation batts shoved between floor joists - by ME. It had NO insulation when I moved in and was over 60 years old at the time. I was stunned!

Half of my house is 62 years old with an uninsulated basement. The other half is 9 years old with an uninsulated crawlspace -- yes, completely uninsulated and without vapor barrier, despite being built to relatively modern codes! (A vapor barrier was added about a year ago as part of the work required for it to qualify for an FHA loan so I could buy it.) It's still vented and without insulation, which isn't an incredibly big deal because I'm in Atlanta. (I had reasonable heating bills last winter) I still plan to fix it eventually though, of course.

Figuring out what to do in the crawlspace has vexed me for YEARS. I hate drafts and I have them right now. Vapor barrier on all the walls, some rigid foam, maybe spray foam? If I leave vents open then cold air comes right in - haven't I defeated the purpose? Very frustrating to try and figure out...

Treating it like a crawlspace, it depends greatly on what sort of climate you're in. (Where are you, anyway?)

I just had an idea, though: what's the difference between a crawlspace and a basement? Pretty much just the dirt floor and the headroom, right? So, why not treat it the same way you'd treat a basement? Install a vapor barrier against the ground (making the floor more-or-less similar to a concrete one), close up the vents, and insulate the walls. (A tip even though you probably already know: if you use closed-cell spray foam on the walls, it makes its own vapor barrier.)

... and sure not much room to work under there either - especially alone :-(

Hire it out: paying somebody to install the vapor barrier is cheap and spray foam isn't DIY-friendly anyway (although I did recently run across a company that sells kits in an ad in Fine Homebuilding magazine).

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[Jaime2]

As for cars - engines run best at peak torque not max HP or RPM. We may be saying the same thing but having tuned the EFI in more than a few cars I know BSFC is best at peak torque. :-)

It's not important what RPM BSFC comes at, it's important that it comes only at large throttle openings. Think about how small an engine a typical car would need so that it would be cruising on the highway at 2500rpm and full throttle.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Right, that allows you to avoid pumping losses. I think that's why some cars run really lean, or part of it, so that you have to have the throttle opened up pretty good to get any power. Honda did this awhile back and was one of the first to use W/B O2. This is part of the reason why diesel get better MPG - no pumping loses from a throttle plate. More BTU per gallon helps too as does the compression ratio. With direct injection car makers are starting to look into compression ignition this for cars running gas too but I don't think anyone has gone to it full time yet. Lots of ways to bump up efficiency. Pretty sure I wouldn't want an engine so small it was WOT at cruise though, passing would suck! Maybe with a really steep geared CVT?

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[mrchaotica]

[F]or the average home a tankless heater isn't going to really save any money and brings in a new set of problems including the need for some new infrastructure to handle either the electric or gas load the thing produces.

I'm not sure I follow you - I only produce heated water when I need it. It runs on gas which I already had plumbed. ... My gas bills went DOWN from my previous tank water heater so I know it works.

A tankless heater only produces heated water when you need it, true, but it has to do it instantly. That takes a lot more BTUs, which could require a bigger gas line. It could also mean that the burner is less efficient, analogous to the way it's less efficient to accelerate in a car quickly than it is to do so gently.

What it really boils down to is how peaky your hot water demand is. If you tend to take a shower, wash dishes, and wash clothes all at once and then use no hot water for the rest of the day then a tankless water heater is going to work better. On the other hand, if you use hot water on and off throughout the day (with intervals long enough for the tank temperature to recover after it gets drained, but short enough that unit doesn't have to keep re-heating the same water) then a high efficiency tank unit (especially one of the new heat-pump ones) is better. It's analogous to how a hybrid car is better for stop-and-go traffic, while a diesel car is better for constant-speed highway trips.

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

The roof isn't tin, it's a coated metal and I am pretty sure it's ferrous. Not really checked though to be honest. It's what the roofing guy specc'ed and it's rated at something akin to 50 years. I doubt I'll be changing it anytime soon. It's a fairly dark color though, hindsight says I should have gone lighter but it contrasted well with the siding.

House is located in Virginia West of DC. When I bought the place the crawlspace for both the main section of the home and the addition from the previous owner had ZERO insulation. The walls are plaster and someone blew in some insulation at one point. I swear I'd give my right arm for a FLiR camera to look the place over! When I did siding I had rigid foam placed under it, sadly I hadn't done Tyvek back then as I didn't know better. the second story addition though is done WELL.

As for the crawlspace. I have considered sealing block with the paint on sealant, covering the walls and dirt floor with plastic, covering the walls with rigid foam, and blocking all the vents. This would be tough as there's support posts I'd have to work around but if done right this would probably make for a much warmer home! I've considered DIY foaming it too. Tiger isn't the only ones making kits but frankly from all I've read I think it's best to have a pro do it. I may yet get an estimate on having this done, it sure would make the place more livable downstairs in the Winter. Thankfully I have gas heat that works great! :-)

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

Well, this thing heats the water instantly yes. So quickly that in areas of hard water like mine a softener is required or the boiler will scale quickly! The gas line wasn't resized that I know of. The water heater was moved from the center of the home venting up so a side wall venting sideways anyway.

I have been hearing about the new heat pump water heaters. I don't think they existed when I did mine. for me to have had one large enough to fill a good sized tub though would have cost a fortune. Others I know who had big tubs done ended up with HUGE tanks, I'm happy to get along with a heater the size of a carry-on piece of luggage! My usage is showering, laundry, cooking, an occasional bath.

Bottom line is I'm seeing a savings on gas usage in the Summer when the only thing using it is the water heater. It runs for just long enough for meto use whatever water I need and then is completely off the rest of the day. No complaints at all from me :-)

Oh and naturally I own a diesel and ended up with a short commute! That will be changing soon to a longer one but in the Winter it wasn't even warming up -( Filling just once a month was nice though...

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[mrchaotica]

I swear I'd give my right arm for a FLiR camera to look the place over!

Have you done an energy audit? Not only do those people tend to have infrared cameras, they'll tell you how best to insulate your crawlspace too!

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[BLKMGK]

No I haven't and had hoped to try and do it myself but sans camera and other bits not much chance of that. I will be looking for an auditor soon though. Is it better to do this in the colder months or warmer months? I know I have lots of simple things I can do to further improve things around the house but it would be interesting to see what a good audit would find too!

Re:Frankly taking ANY risk is hard!

[mrchaotica]

It's best to do energy audits when the difference between inside and outside temperatures is biggest, either summer or winter (but not spring or fall). The leaks show up better that way.

Re:The Wall Street Journal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the Wall Street Journal featuring this? I mean they're a bunch of peace-nic hippies. I have a lot of trouble buying something that exacerbates green-tech coming from them.

It's because all of their golf courses are drying up this year.

there already is an engineered design. plans too.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tumbleweed houses are green because they're small (footprint included) and use many green materials. http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/ there are blogs too on it, like Tinyhouseblog that reference it often.

Re:A bit of an old article...

[Anonymous Coward]

/. used to be the all inclusive tech site I'd depend on for my bleeding edge fix for years but now I only come here for the fine comments, I've RTFA elsewhere in one form or another days ago in most cases.

Re:who cares

[Jarik C-Bol]

actually, with well designed argon filled double pane windows, your windows will transmit less heat *than the surrounding walls* white roofs make a huge difference (just ask anyone who has to run ethernet cable through attics in the summer in the southwest, dark roof = miserable, light roof = not so bad). insulation is not as cheep as you think.

Pebbles

[Anonymous Coward]

He did preface his experiences with the warning that they were California centric. When you live in a desert, growing grass is not an environmentally sane thing to do. White pebbles aren't really the best thing to replace your desert lawn with, the guy was trying to be funny. There are a number of desert plants that can make for a beautiful landscape, and in Southern California many of them are also native plants. Unfortunately, in my experience, if you plant native flora, you may also get native fauna visiting your garden; birds outside your window can be rather annoying at daybreak.

Photovoltaic question

[Anonymous Coward]

What sort of system did he install, and how large? I ask because I installed a 1.5kW system at the start of the year and after finally getting the paperwork sorted (now *that* was a marathon effort) I'm receiving power bills in the negative: in other words the power company is now giving me money. In mid-winder, in southern Australia. All it takes is a little care: simple, easy things like turning things off appliances at the power point when you're not using them (or unplugging if you're in a country which inexplicably doesn't have switches at the plug), choosing energy efficient appliances and lighting, being aware of open doors that might let heat out in winter or in in summer, using natural light when available, air-drying your clothes in front of the heater when you're watching TV in the evening rather than using the dryer... pretty basic stuff really. By my conservative estimate based on generation figures for the middle of winter we can expect to receive $400/year effective revenue - the old quarterly bill was typically around $80, new bills are typically around -$20, net saving $100/quarter - on our original investment of $5000. That's a conservatively estimated 8% per anum return, which is enough to repay the original investment in just under 12 years. Sure this will become even more inviting when the price comes down but even in current conditions that's a pretty good rate of return (and I'm not even including the benefits in reduced carbon footprint)!

Other than that: highly entertaining. article.

Re:who cares

[pnewhook]

For example windows are not that bad energy losers

I beg to differ. If you are looking for enery loss guidelines, the rule of thumb is the best window is the same as the worst wall.

Insulation costs next to nothing

Really? Ever try and make an R40 roof or R20 wall? Not ridiculous, but not nothing either.

Having helped build a couple

[codepunk]

Having helped build a couple of straw bale constructed homes are the way to go in my opinion. Both of the houses I assisted with take nearly nothing to heat and cool. One of them has been standing for over 18 years now and totally off the grid the entire time. It is not a shoe box house either it is greater than 2000 square feet. In fact the only thing we used in that house that was not recycled was the stucco finish and the slab it sits on everthing else was salvaged. These two homes however where constructed in a rural setting and the building inspector happened to be my first cousin so we did not run into any regulatory crap that would make this sort of construction nearly impossible.

Re:Having helped build a couple

[SoundGuyNoise]

Is is big bad wolf resistant?

Re:Having helped build a couple

[Lehk228]

that is what the shotgun if for

as expected

[shentino]

Sounds like the submitter is suggesting that actually building green is something politics is hostile to.

I would imagine that all the lobbyists from polluting industries don't like green tech either. Big Oil for example would throw a fit if renewable energy got any sort of foothold in the economy...at least until they got patents on it.

Re:as expected

[ErikZ]

How do you think your government is going to react when the easy energy taxes start to dwindle?

Solar specialist

[Falconhell]

Scott would have been better off to have talked to an expert. like this guy;

http://www.emilis.sa.on.net/

Whilst he is a bit of a loony (: he certainly knows his stuff when it comes to low energy homes.

Re:who cares

[morari]

The summary seems to point out that the major misteps were getting the government involved (through inspectors, planners, commissioners, etc) and having neighbors to complain about what you do with your home on your property. Both are easily avoided with a little forethought as to location and distance from main roads.

Re:who cares

[Jeremi]

Both are easily avoided with a little forethought as to location and distance from main roads

Of course, if you build your green house out in the boonies, and then have to commute 50 miles to get to work every day, you probably haven't done the environment any favors.

Clearly the trick is to be a cartoonist, so you can work at home and send in your work product by email each day.

Green Dream

[skrimp]

A staff photographer at Popular Science is building a green home. http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/green-dream

Re:who cares

[Ironhandx]

Your average 1200 sq ft bungalow needs 6880 square feet of r20 insulation (a little less since you can take stud width out, but you usually leave that in and just come up a few bags over)

That means properly insulated, r40 roof, r40 floor and r20 walls. Average bag of insulation should be around $35 CAD or $30 USD and does about 50 square feet on the average(usually a bit less, and the reason you leave in the stud widths if using regular lumber). So in total you need about 138 bags of insulation to do it right. Grand total cost is around 5k CAD or a bit less USD and you'll save enough in AC/Heat in the first 3 years in most places to be in money from doing it, so any argument about up front capital cost is moot as average time spent in a purchased home before selling is well over 3 years, at least in Canada. Especially when you consider average house cost is over 100k(a lot over 100k in some cases), even for that modest bungalow. 5k isn't much to tack on when theres already 100k going into the place.

Thats not including your basement if it exists but a good vapour barrier and 2 layers of R7 1.5 inch styro around all of the interior cement, a good water barrier on the outside and a good sealer and sub floor on the cement floor will remove the r40 floor as a necessity(probably still want to do r20 just for sound reasons, at least, I know I would) and cover the insulation needs the same. Shit, an uninsulated basement is probably the #1 cause of overpaying on heat bills, again, in canada, but I can't imagine its much different south of the border. I've had people cut their heat bills in half with just the double styro insulation around the cement.

Re:who cares

[jhol13]

Sure, best window is about same as worst wall. Which means you can have as big windows as you like (within a reason).

Insulation cost difference comparing "normal" and "low energy" house is minimal (~3%).

Mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod parent up.
Things should be mentioned in proper context.

Re:who cares

[JustOK]

or Dave Barry

It doesn't have to be wacky or expensive

[fru1tcake]

A friend of mine built a sustainable, passive-solar-design house for her family a few years ago which uses no active heating and cooling yet stays within the comfortable temperature zone year round, with the exception of a handful of days in the middle of a 45-degree-celsius heat wave (she has the graphs to prove it). Its cost was at the lower end of the scale - low enough to fit into the 'affordable' category here in temperate South Australia - even on a per-square-metre basis, in spite of the need for high retaining walls (it is on a sloping block). It is a very small house by local suburban standards (90m^2) but clever use of space means it feels spacious and has plenty of room for a young family of four. It uses standard building techniques, constructed mostly of ColorBond (coated corrugated iron - quite common here), with beautiful polished-concrete flooring (which they polished themselves) for thermal mass. As far as I know one of the main hurdles was getting approval for a grey water system, which is very difficult here.

On another note, my wife is now doing her thesis on how to encourage builders to incorporate basic sustainability principles like passive solar - which don't have to cost any more than what they currently build - into the design of the homes they build. It seems that for many it's just a matter of knowing how to do it, and seeing that it's possible - and that it doesn't need to be more difficult or expensive.

Sorry to those of you who are still stuck in the imperial measurement system :)

Environmentally friendly homes, available here...

[LongearedBat]

Why reinvent the wheel... or rather, the environmentally conscious home?

http://www.perrinepod.com/
http://www.perrinepod.com/eco/default.aspx
http://www.perrinepod.com/photogallery/default.aspx

Re:who cares

[morari]

It all depends on what exactly you're doing your commuting in.

architect

[gedw99]

i am an architect and i think this guy is partly to blame but also pulling everyones leg a bit.

But the case rests with the architect. Its his job to show the cleint WHY it makes sense to NOT use natural gas etc.
Its his job to make sure the right net metering meter is installed by the elec company BEFORE the end of the build.

building green these dasy is VERY easy in reality IF you know what your doing.
In many way it is cheaper. For example.

1. walls. use a high thermal insulation monolithic wall. This lowers cost by having little labour. This also automatically air seals the building.
Hemp is good and very cheap.
you now dont need an exterior cladding or interior gypsum . thats allot of labour and material saved.
you just skim coat the exterior and interior walls with a lime wash and it looks great and will last forever.
you also saved yourself a fortune in paint. Paint is expensive BTW.
2. Use a Substructure like a portal frame construction. this takes 2 days to erect for a house, and allows you to place wall where ever you want.
you only need a post every 4 meters on the outer wall.
now you can use pad footing under these post and the rest of the floor can be raised timber. you just saved yourself a fortune in concrete and earthworks.
3. ensure you have a dedicated electrical and plumbing riser and hvac riser. This makes running all pipes and cabling dead easy. It mean the plumber and elec get in and out of their fast and so saves alot of money.
4. a properly insulated house does NOT need much heating. The active ventilation system just needs a fan coil exchangers on the supply side and that the heating for the whole house. You just saved yourself about 10,000 euros by not putting in floor heating everywhere.
5. Windows to the sunny side, and few windows everywhere else. I know this is a major design restriction, but it saves you a fortune in energy bills.
If its a hot climate make sure you have bigger eaves than normal so in summer you don't get too much. The active ventilation will dump heat outside if its required.

Shipping Containers

[Anonymous Coward]

I built a roughly 10,000 sq ft addition to my house, which was under 3000 sq ft to begin with, using shipping containers. The local county was not exactly pleased. They fought it tooth and nail - over a month passed before they would review an permit application and then deny it for what I felt like were arbitrary reasons. This happened more than once. A lawsuit was involved. It wasn't pretty. I guess that's the price you pay for $40 - $50 a square foot, finished. Insulated with R-42 insulation, 7 zone HVAC, lights, full three phase power, fully built to my specifications. Solid concrete floors (should have put in hydronic heating) and truly energy efficient - and highly recycled! I had to have everything engineered to satisfy building inspectors and I spent a lot of time rooting around for bargains to put to good reuse but the final result I feel is worth it. Took about two years in total.

Essentially, going the "building without nails and wood" route makes a lot of people go "uhhhhhh???". Fortunately, if you document what you are doing to the building inspectors and can back it up with calculations (and don't live in a suburb with aesthetic standards) then you can make something amazing work out. It sure isn't pretty (it is painted bright white and has no windows) but man is it green, inexpensive, durable and highly functional.

Different Experience with Photovoltaic in NY

[modestmelody]

On Long Island, we were able to install a full 10,000kW system of photovoltaics for about 16k. Should make the money back in 6-7 years. Meter stops running forward the day the solar setup is installed-- starts to run backwards within a month. Now we get paid by our power company most billing cycles, and immediately saw our first bill drop to 44.

Re:Different Experience with Photovoltaic in NY

[b0bby]

How much did subsidies kick in for that? It seems like here in MD a 4,000kW system would be about $12k after subsidies; at prices like you're talking about it might make sense.

Re:Different Experience with Photovoltaic in NY

[Voyager529]

Wait, LIPA pays YOU? This isn't Soviet Russia.

Re:Different Experience with Photovoltaic in NY

[modestmelody]

Subsidies covered, if I recall, about 40% of the cost of the system. Recently they changed the subsidies in the area but the system would still have come in under 20k.

The other thing to remember is that in NY we need more panels to produce the same power.

Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[SuperKendall]

The Republicans spent way too much money but I don't really remember many unsound environmental policies.

It was under Obama's watch that oversight of oil wells was allowed to diminish to the point of catastrophe. GW would have been sucking every drop of oil from the ocean with a straw if he had to, but he would not have let the whole regulatory and review structure become so shoddy and corrupt in the first place. And Obama took far more money from BP (who has by far a worse safety record than any other oil company) than any Republican...

And even if it did reach that point Bush would have let foreign oil skimmers come to help right away instead of being a stickler for federal regulation for months on end.

So I wouldn't be casting stones from your oily platform sir.

Furthermore, the current government policies that are keeping the recession in full bloom are also damaging the environment - because people who are poorer take less care of the environment. I've travelled all over the world and without except, a poor populace means real environmental issues will abound.

The truth is that in the end the only really long term environmental platform is one that supports strong economic growth in the private industry, and encouragement of alternative energy development (like nuclear and solar). A happy prosperous people are easy to talk into funding important long-term research.

Solution for Windows losing heat/coolness

[eepok]

It's a brilliant modern invention. They're called shutters! Specifically, in-door shutters with an air-tight seal with the sill and a light, semi-reflected face pointing to the window. The less space between the shutter and the window, the better. It's also great for "blacking out" a room.

Oh, you want to let light in, but not heat? Sorry, that's a physics issue.

Also, in regards to the "house fan" to suck in the nightly cool air, deal with the noise. Seriously. How hoity-toity do you have to be to not use such a great utility because you hear a slight hum? That's a personal issue... one you should really get used to if you want to save a buck.

Homeless People Are Most Efficient

[NicknamesAreStupid]

Their carbon footprint is the size of their feet. They recycle things, like food, that are not considered recyclable. They are the model of future green. They are also the fastest growing segment of the population.

Re:Homeless People Are Most Efficient

[HeckRuler]

Ok, so I had an insightful chat with my wife the other day. She's "green conscious". A recycling nazi, buys CFLs, wants an electric or hybrid car, buys organic*, even bought me an electric mower (thanks honey), but still bought a biggish house, wants a big TV, and is getting fancy furniture. Kinda the stereotypical greenie. She had a hard believing this thing she read where the slums of Bangladesh are the greenest urban environment. So I explained that it's all about absolute consumption. I got her to kinda understand that having kids isn't green. She had a real hard time accepting that mass murder is very green. And it is, if you kill off a swath of people, then the absolute consumption, CO2 generated, energy used, resources destroyed, and all that jazz will be significantly reduced. The greenest thing is absence. And that's why Scott Adams points out that not having a house is the greenest.

But that's moot. It's not really important. The quest shouldn't be to "be green", but rather to help society in some way PER "green unit". Whatever the hell a "green unit" would be. So building a house helps society, it gives someone a place to live. But building a house that doesn't need gallons of exotic water shipped from out of state every week is better, because it provides the same benefit while being greener. Likewise, if you can feed a bunch of orphans, but you have to tear down pristine rain forest to do it, then that's arguably a bad thing.

So I want to redirect the quest to be green. That one doesn't lead anywhere nice. People should try to be green when it's an option, but still try to do something good for the world.

Re:Homeless People Are Most Efficient

[mrchaotica]

Ok, so I had an insightful chat with my wife the other day. She's "green conscious". A recycling nazi, buys CFLs, wants an electric or hybrid car, buys organic*, even bought me an electric mower (thanks honey), but still bought a biggish house, wants a big TV, and is getting fancy furniture.

• Regarding cars: She should consider used conventional economy cars. In particular, she should consider (in order of increasing "greenness") the '96-2000 Honda Civic HX coupe, '92-'95 Civic VX hatchback, '88-'91 Honda CRX HF or '89-'94 Geo Metro LFi. The latter two got over 50 MPG 20 years ago, and didn't need any fancy batteries to do it!
• Or, if she's bent on a new (or late-model) car, she should consider VW diesels (Jetta or Golf) if her driving patters tend more towards highway than stop-and-go city trips.
• Regarding TVs: The most efficient big TVs right now are LED-backlit LCDs. Not only do they use less energy than CCFL-backlit LCDs (and much less than plasma screens), but they won't wear out (i.e., get dim) nearly as fast.
• Regarding furniture: antique furniture is often considered fancy and desirable, and is green because it's long since been built -- especially if you refurbish something that would have otherwise been thrown away. Also, some new furniture features stuff like FSC-certified wood, no-formaldehyde glue, etc. these days.

It all pales in comparison to living in a Bangladeshi slum, of course, (not to mention offing yourself...!) but every little bit helps...

Re:who cares

[BrianRoach]

Yes, A guy who actually has DONE it is probably far less informed than random people on the internet quoting numbers.

PS. Ever own a house? Sure, my double-pane windows rock ... the casings, on the other hand, leak like a sieve.

Scott Adams: Has Been

[Doc Ruby]

I bought a house in the NYC suburbs last year, gutted it, and renovated it to conserve energy. I basically sprayfoamed the walls, floors and roof really thick, use all CFLs, install some really cool smart ventilation devices, and did some other stuff that was a lot more minor like buy the most efficient appliances. I cut my energy use down to something like 1/6th the average in the area per square foot, even though I left the ceilings open into the attic (which lets heat rise away from the lower level where we can feel it). I didn't need any permits or any "experimental beaver" tech. It took some imagination, analysis and choosing between different ways of doing things, but like any engineering project I just had to be careful thinking of how the individual consequences added up to system performance. Ultimately it was a big investment, but it'll pay back in under 5 years. Even at current energy prices, which since they're going to go up will probably be closer to 3 years; after that we'll be netting income equal to what we'd have paid the utility monopolies instead.

I don't know what Scott Adams' problem is, especially in California where there's little weather and the climate is so mild, and green construction industries are everywhere, along with referrals and reviews of them, and plenty of state funding. Maybe he's only as good at actual engineering as he is at being funny, which he hasn't been since a decade ago, when he was a better cartoonist than an engineer.

Rammed Earth

[jjohnson]

Many old construction techniques hold up surprisingly well in modern terms for both comfort, durability and cost. Rammed earth is a technique going back millennia, and rammed earth structures still exist today. The Great Wall of China is one example (rammed earth core, faced with brick), but there are others.

Briefly, you dump properly pulverized soil into the same sort of mold into which you'd pour concrete. Soak it with water and use a pneumatic tamper to compress it 50%, then repeat in layers 5-10 inches thick. Like concrete, it cures over time, and has about 25% the structural strength--more than sufficient for small and medium sized structures. If you're in a wet climate, you apply a sealing coat, and you're done.

Like concrete, you can reinforce it with rebar to make it earthquake-resistant. The material itself can come directly from the site where you're building. It's fireproof, soundproof, insect-resistant, and has similar thermal properties to brick or concrete. There's basically no waste. As a building material, it's an environmentalist's wet dream.

Re:Rammed Earth

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually there is a recent (last 30 years) development that is an improvement over rammed earth and only marginally more expensive. That is cement-mud bricks. Using a little bit of cement mixture in mud allows the development of bricks suitable for building a small structure that will withstand the elements very well and does not require the sealing coat to protect against water in a wet climate. Sorry, I do not have the details anymore, but it is a building process used by some aid agencies when working with some of the very poorest in third world countries.

Re:Rammed Earth

[mrchaotica]

Portland cement is very energy-intensive to make. Even using only "a little bit" of it, I'm not sure it's actually greener than the traditional method. Also, what about using alternative Pozzolanous materials, such as fly ash, instead?

Or, you know, you could just

[The Hatchet]

Maybe use the waste materials in compost. Add some extra insulation to the walls. Maybe a better window or two. Perhaps even thing gauge steel framing. Maybe add a solar panel or two. Maybe even a small little wind turbine. Or you know, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE MORON THAT WROTE THIS RIDICULOUS ARTICLE!?!?!?!?! So is this the part where jump to ridiculous conclusions about everything? Like should I start screaming about how the world will end because a magical fairy in the sky did something quier? Like seriously, calm the fuck down and use some damn sense, at least a tiny bit.

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[mellon]

Where do you guys get this stuff? We aren't even to the mid-term elections yet, and you're claiming that Obama set up the regulatory structure that lead to (I presume) the disaster in the Gulf? How exactly did he accomplish this? What regulations did he dismantle that were in place when Bush was in office? Do you have one iota of documentation for this claim? Why am I hearing about this for the first time on /.?

In any case, we weren't even talking about this--we were talking about green building!

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[Cheech Wizard]

You must have been asleep for the last 20 years or so (or you have severe, advanced Alzheimer's disease) if you really believe it was under Obama's watch that oversight of oil wells were allowed to "...diminish to the point of catastrophe...". He's been in office less than 2 years. BP has a history of safety violations going back years. Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan are all complicit in reducing and/or eliminating the regulatory structure in the oil business (and other businesses as well, considering Enron, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980's, the stock market meltdown, the housing bubble, etc.).

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[SuperKendall]

you're claiming that Obama set up the regulatory structure that lead to (I presume) the disaster in the Gulf?

No. I'm saying that he let the regulatory structure that was there wither, and coincidentally happened to take in a huge amount of money in donations from an oil company that has had far more safety issues than any other.

What regulations did he dismantle that were in place when Bush was in office?

It's as much about what you don't do as what you do. Which is really the story of the oil spill, on so many levels...

In any case, we weren't even talking about this--we were talking about green building!

Well take it up with the person I was responding to, since he was the one that started talking about unsound policy. You do realize that on the internet every discussion invariably veers off course, right?

he builds homes also?

[Nyder]

Man, I grew up on his text adventures.

wonder what his house is like.

You see a wood door, with a doorbell next to it. Behind you is a path to the south.
>

Re:who cares

[RobertM1968]

Yes, A guy who actually has DONE it is probably far less informed than random people on the internet quoting numbers.

PS. Ever own a house? Sure, my double-pane windows rock ... the casings, on the other hand, leak like a sieve.

Actually, he was less informed. Take that from someone who has done all sorts of construction. The fact that he has missteps and made bad choices does not mean it's not doable, nor does it mean it's not economically feasible. As some for instances, there are various utility companies who will not pay money for power generated. You still get a bill for what you use though. Oh, wait, that's not legal. Yep! Ask BGE why, they tell you that though it is the law that they have to buy power from you, that there is no law yet that tells them how they are supposed to do it. Until then, they aren't paying anyone (at least not as of the last time I checked - by now, enough people may have made a stink to force them to follow the law). Our friend just had an installation done that cost him $6000 after rebates (because it was done right), and we've started on ours. Much of the time, he's selling back to the electric company (which our current one, fortunately, does properly buy power back and credit you for it).

Take the insulation... there are tons of new insulation, lab tested, R value and all, all eco-friendly - oops, guess he simply made a bad choice there too. Take the solar. Oddly, most people who install them get enough rebates that the system can be paid for in 5 years... not 15. Of course, if one does it wrong, there are a lot less rebates (or none). The system has to be able to generate a certain amount of electricity during each season - if not (because you stuck it under trees, in the shade, or facing the wrong direction), then you aren't eligible for a lot of (or any) rebates. Take his other suggestions (stone walls... btw, they work great on the outside too... no reason to have a living room with a stone wall), thick slab foundation, and so on... duh! Sounds like he forgot those and realized them as an "ooops, here's what you should consider which would have made things better for us had we considered it"

Should I go on? Also, green homes do not need to be ugly. Wanna know how you can cut costs? Get good appliances. And no, I dont mean the top of the line "crap" sold at your local appliance store (Sears, Home Depot, Lowes, wherever). They make full size refrigerators that use 200W - NOT 1200W. Similar (electricity) savings can be found on other appliances as well. Ensure you have entirely LED or CFL lighting. Once you are done, during spring and summer, how much electricity is it to run a house? Let's see... 200-300W for the fridge, 20 lights at 3W is another 60W, plus the incidentals. During summer, use cooling from a heat/cooling pump (pumps coolant into a ground chamber, comes out at 55 degrees or so... inotherwords, ideal to drop the house temperature to something nice - or to something cool with AC using a LOT less electricity). In the winter, the same can be done to "warm" the water before it's used to heat the house. Things like floor heating, when not needed, can simply be a flow valve away from being removed from the loop - and since the lines are filled with "antifreeze" (a chemical like it), no worries about it freezing and busting a pipe (c'mon, this flow valve idea is common sense - people use stuff like that all the time for lawn sprinklers that have multi-zones, for ponds and fish pools and more). As for the lawn, one can use runoff, if one builds a cistern or some other containment. People are already doing that, and collecting enough in most areas like his, to water a full lawn, and have water extra for toilets, and an overflow for when it gets too full.

Well, I could keep going on and on. Honestly, he made mistakes (BIG ones), read the wrong magazines/websites, and is complaining (whining?) about it now.

no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is greener.

[spage]

Just like buying a used 1992 Honda is more "green" than buying a brand new Prius.

You're so confident you're right, but you aren't. fueleconomy.gov says the 1992 Honda Accord Wagon manual gets 19 city, 25 hwy. Let's take the best and say it gets 25 mpg. Meanwhile the Prius gets 50 mpg. Half as much gasoline. But the allegedly smug Prius buyer has bought 3,042 pounds of evil raw-materials-turned-manufactured-goods into our disposable consumption-based modern world, and obviously that's terrible and he should wise up and hang his head in shame. Let's kick him in the nads for his stupidity, right?

No. Over 120,000 miles that 1992 Accord will use 4800 gallons of gasoline, which at 6.125 lbs each weigh 14.8 tons. Burning that gasoline will emit 46 tons of CO2. Driving a Prius instead halves those numbers.

And that doesn't take into account the pollution from producing, spilling, refining and distributing those TONS of unrecyclable gasoline. The onus is on you and others spouting this nonsense to prove that 1.5 tons of mostly recyclable car is more pollution than 7 additional tons of gasoline going up in smoke. It simply isn't. My basic math lesson here is a gross simplification of why all reputable studies conclude 75-90% of the lifecycle pollution of a car occurs in its operation, not in its manufacture.

The next nail in the coffin of this bullshit meme is your car use doesn't occur in a vacuum. If you're already driving and you get a different car, what happens to your old one? If it's a gas guzzler, it's a win to junk it for the math above. If it isn't, someone else will probably take it and junk their gas guzzler. Another way to consider the problem is even simpler: the primary way to improve the overall efficiency of the car fleet is for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.

None of this is to say that owning a car is "green". Scott Adams is right to point out it's a loaded term, but not because of this stupid American obsession to find hypocrisy in unrelated actions ("You think you're green with your bicycle, but you wear leather shoes, ya hypocrite!"). Green is just a relative term. A Prius is greener than a 1992 Accord if you drive the distances most Americans do. Driving less is always greener. Not buying a car at all and bicycling is greener still. etc.

You mean like these scientists?

[SuperKendall]

To believe 0.5% of the alarmist anti-Gore propaganda, you'd have to have zero education in the sciences, or be so completely partisan as to turn a blind eye to the most blatant Machiavellian politics.

The sad thing is, your cult has to constantly be corrected at every turn. It's not enough to simply fabricate data about global warming, but your vapid cult insists that all against them must be ignorant because, well, they are against what he Group thinks!

The truth is there are Many Scientists who are outspoken about the religion of global warming. Far too many issues these days are attempted to being advanced through fear, intimidation, and as we see in your case outright dismissal of facts that do not fit a particular world-view you are trying to impose.

The earth may indeed be warming, but we simply lack the understanding to say it's us responsible if so - and the really sad thing is that in your haste to prove something you "know" is true without solid science to back it up, you and people like you horribly trod on the reputation of science with the general public just like the boy that cried wolf. If there is a wolf we may never know because who would believe you now?

Re:You mean like these scientists?

[microbox]

The truth is there are Many Scientists

My friend, on page 45 of said book, Soloman states quite clearly that human beings are causing climate change.

So... what's your point again?

PS: There is a difference between science and propaganda. Epistemology is the philosophy of how you know something for certain. A person with 60 IQ points could work out that the nile is a river in egypt.

Re:You mean like these scientists?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have trouble reading this, that would be because you are avoiding something you know is true

Re:You mean like these scientists?

[radtea]

Epistemology is the philosophy of how you know something for certain.

Nope. Epistemology is the study of how we know. Certainty is almost completely irrelevant, unless you're a Cartesian Rationalist or insane (but I repeat myself...)

Hardly anything is certain and yet we somehow manage to get along just fine. I'm certain of a trivially small number of things, yet have no difficulty whatsoever answering a vast array of practical questions like, "How do I build a killer robot?" and "Where are my socks?"

Why anyone thinks that certainty is a remotely interesting aspect of knowledge is beyond me. I guess a few mathmaticians might care about it, but no physicist or other scientist does, nor does any engineer nor anyone else. It is only a few sophomoronic philosophers who really keep harping on about it, who are apparently too stupid to realize how uninteresting and irrelevant it is.

Re:You mean like these scientists?

[microbox]

Why anyone thinks that certainty is a remotely interesting aspect of knowledge is beyond me

You have two claims, and want to know which is more certain to be correct.

Re:who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, with well designed argon filled double pane windows, your windows will transmit less heat *than the surrounding walls* white roofs make a huge difference (just ask anyone who has to run ethernet cable through attics in the summer in the southwest, dark roof = miserable, light roof = not so bad). insulation is not as cheep as you think.

Do you have a reference? Even a vendor supplied reference? Also what do you mean by "transmit"? Heat conduction, convection, radiation? Are you talking about keeping heat outside or inside? I am seriously beside myself wondering what the hell do you mean. A double-paned window is nothing special and adding argon is nice but not a killer stroke.

Ugly? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"For example, the greenest sort of roof in a warm climate would be white to reflect the sun. If you want a beautiful home, a white roof won't get you there." ...
"Second, the greenest sort of home would have few windows because windows bleed heat." ...
"Remember to skip the water-wasting lawn. White pebbles are the way to go if you want to save the Earth."

All of this you can have, with an old and time-tested design. Houses in the mediterranean shore have been built this way since the dawn of civilization: http://www.ibiza-hotels.com/casa/index_esp.php

"As a rule, the greener the home, the uglier it will be."

I beg do disagree: http://www.google.es/images?q=casa+ibicenca&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:ca:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=mWRzTN_GGMyQjAeir7DmDw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQsAQwAA&biw=1280&bih=860

Re: how did George W Bush get in this

[Dr Max]

It doesn’t always provide the desired amount of heat; it doesn’t suit all areas; its expensive to install, and incredibly expensive to install on existing homes. and if you get one hole in one pipe you have to dig up your back yard and pull up your floor boards. In 10 years we will be pretty good at it. To be honest it’s not geothermal (that would be if your taking heat from an old volcano or something) it’s actually closer to solar power.

Re:who cares

[toastar]

or Will Smith

Scott Adams != Green Engineer

[Khyber]

If you're taking this seriously, you're a fool. Plain and simple.

How about you talk to me, where I'm a professional in the green industry, as opposed to a writer?

Shit, I could expose the nonsense in this man's entire setup. I want to, but I'd rather not because I'm too busy showing Microsoft how much they hate being raped through their marketplace so that free copies of halo reach are in everyone's hands.

Re:who cares

[spidkit]

The author spends quite a bit of time making good natured jokes of his personal experience and unfortunately (well meaning as he appears to be) drops in some rather misleading information. The German Passivhaus standard is a type of house he could have considered. The standard was implemented in 1996 (predicated on some work done on project houses in Saskatchewan Canada in 1977, as well as in Massachusetts, and also by the University of Illinois) is readilly achievable, even in very cold climates (like colder parts of Germany, Austria and Alberta Canada. Windows do not have to be some energy leaking sieves at all. Good windows require thermal breaks and should be triple glazed. South facing windows are large for heat gain in winter months and canopied for blocking high summer rays.

These houses basically - and readilly (with installed solar systems including Photovoltaic and Solar Hot Water, achieve a "Net Zero" energy requirement: In the span of one year on average, and all within their property envelope (urban settings too) they produce an amount of energy equal to, or more than ("Net Positive"), the energy they consume. That also requires choosing energy efficent appliances (fridges can be power hogs otherwise) that consume low Killowat hours of energy. LED lights are excellent. induction cookers as well. The key thing on Passivhaus design is that the house has a very high R-value all round (walls can be a foot thick of insulation and roofs are R 80) and the house must be air-sealed to a specific blower door pressure test stardard.

Passivhauses do not have to look like bunkers or lunar outposts by necessity. The Mill Creek Net Zero home in Alberta is one pleasing example, or this example in Salem, Oregon. Because the houses are so well sealed (in contrast to regular built houses that leak air badly), air exchangers are a necessity and key to having fresh air. One of the benefits of a passivhaus is that the air is extremely fresh. To save conserve space heating energy heat recovery ventillators are used. Some heat recovery ventillators can be anywhere from 95 to 99% efficient. In some cases - even in cold climates, the passivhaus standard built house actually doesn't need an auxilliary heating system, but the City officials can get a little freaked out and demand one anyway. Germany has many of these houses. Passivhauses can also work in hot climates as well.

Two words

[dragisha]

Stone walls.

Greenies sure have a sense of humour!

[syousef]

Apparently not. I found it quite humorous. It's nice to see some insight into a process like this from someone with a sense of humor and the ability to laugh at things that make him angry.

Well if you want funny you should come to Martin Place, Sydney, Australia. Today I couldn't help but laugh when I saw the giant plastic inflatable whale and baby (I'm talking 2 storey at least, and the length of a large bus) some "green" charity had set up, which had a pump running on a diesel or petrol generator. I was amused enough that I stopped and took crappy mobile phone pictures. Do these jokers even understand the irony?

The point

[SuperKendall]

My friend, on page 45 of said book, Soloman states quite clearly that human beings are causing climate change.

So... what's your point again?

And his opinion is just one.

My point is that there are in fact other SCIENTISTS, that disagree that it is certain humans are causing the change. The book is about them you know.

The original poster said there were no other scientists that disagreed, using the common tactic of dismissal of all contrary viewpoints or even people just unsure, as being against the Holy Cause and therefore subhuman.

Re:The point

[microbox]

My point is that there are in fact other SCIENTISTS

Who?

I'm sure you could find a list on a denialist site somewhere - but that's just hear-say.

I *dare* you to find a list of other SCIENTISTS, and contact 10 random names on the list - should be a rather enlightening experience for you.

To the people modding me down - why hide?

[SuperKendall]

You know, if someone thought my arguments were really wrong, made no sense - they would in fact upvote my post, so that everyone could see just how "wrong" I was.

Instead though, you do not try to argue with what I say - you try to hide it.

So that means that either the people modding me down are either not intelligent enough to vote up my post for ridicule, or they are intelligent and realize I am correct - and must therefore have my points hidden since they are irrefutable.

Therefore, either people modding me down are thick in the head or I am a genius. Pick one.

Pretty sure it's the latter based on the soundness of my last sentence. Do you really not think the key to protecting the environment is to improve the economy? We'll never know because you cannot seem to debate.

Re:To the people modding me down - why hide?

[NekSnappa]

If I had mod points right now. I wouldn't know whether to mark you as funny, or troll.

Re:To the people modding me down - why hide?

[True Vox]

What, when did slashdot get a "+1 - Get a load of this guy" mod option?

Re:To the people modding me down - why hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? So, the most insightful posts are those modded down to -1?

We're downmodding you cos you're so completely full of shit, not because we're scared of your genius :D

Fuck me. You trolls get better every day.

Re:To the people modding me down - why hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

The third, and most likely, possibility is the mods assuming that you really are trolling or flamebaiting. Because lots of people find it hard to accept the fact that you actually believe the crazy things you say.

Re:To the people modding me down - why hide?

[HeckRuler]

Yeah, it's when you think you should be modded up when you're full of shit that you know you're a wingbat.

"I'm right, so you should mod me up"
"I'm wrong, so you should mod me up"
Ladies and Gentlemen, you need this level of doublethink to blame the gulf oil ecopocalypse on Obama. Now, if you want to blame his reaction, handleing, or future planned response, then go for it.

Re:To the people modding me down - why hide?

[Burpmaster]

You know, if someone thought my arguments were really wrong, made no sense - they would in fact upvote my post, so that everyone could see just how "wrong" I was.

Who does that? Do you do that?

I'd say other people are downmodding you for the same reason I'd downmod you right now if I had modpoints: you just want the party you serve to be in power, but you don't care what they do with that power. And you make stuff up to support whatever you want to claim. The quoted text is a perfect example.

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[SuperKendall]

BP has a history of safety violations going back years.

Yes they do. But Obama took a great deal of money from them, and the rig that exploded got a passing grade just a few weeks prior.

I'm not saying the other presidents were great at this either. But Obama being much more in favor of regulation as a solution to problems should have been more on top of better regulation. As it was, it destroyed the concept that regulation was of much use, and actions after the explosion further eroded the notion that the federal government does much more than get in the way during a real crisis - just just turning back oil skimmers initially, but stupid things like holding other oil skimming boats in port for days at a time that had been out working, simply because the head of the coast guard couldn't get someone to sign a paper that the boats had the proper number of life vests aboard!

Much of the later damage that was caused and is still being caused is due to inaction along those lines, and none of that whatsoever is due to any other president than Obama.

Re:who cares

[NitWit005]

Thanks for the ego trip. The guy obviously talked to a lot of people, some of them surely more knowledgeable than you are. The problem , as me mentions, is that people don't agree on what is a good idea. You seem to be giving questionable advice just like he was given. Don't use the wattage of refrigerator to determine the energy use . That's the power consumed when its on. The 200W fridges are unlikely to be energy efficient because they have to run constantly to keep up (if they do keep up). Insulation matters too. Look at rated kWh per year. The rates are published.

The only thing that matters

[ledow]

The only thing that ever matters in these kinds of projects, the only thing WORTH measuring, is how long until it starts to pay for itself. Not the electrical system, or the "money saved" on your normal use, but the time until you're actually in profit on the venture as a whole.

It's a crass and crude measure but the money invested into getting something like photovoltaics, underfloor heating, etc. is directly related to the difficulty of manipulating the raw materials, the cost of extraction, the rarity, the difficulty of transporting them, installing them, the environmental impact they have (via taxes, subsidies, etc.). Marble floors, stone walls, etc. have wonderful properties but require you to move tons of stone cross-country (and even across continents). Photovoltaics contain some rare minerals, require lots of energy to manipulate, produce, dispose of and maintain, etc.

If we're talking houses then if you can't have the systems pay themselves off in less than 25 years, you're wasting your time. In 25 years, you could have bought and paid for any house you could afford, that would almost certainly sell for more than you bought it once your mortgage term is up (and thus provide overall profit even with your monthly mortgage expenditure), even despite interest accrued, ongoing maintenance and everything else - the house would "pay for itself" and any environmental damage that you incurred that wasn't directly related to its construction (i.e. I assume you bought a house that already existed, not have one constructed especially). Also, you could live in it and not have to worry about maintaining a roof garden unless you wanted to, or finding specialist contractors when your one-off heating/cooling system goes wrong.

If your super-duper green house, or your super-duper energy production system, doesn't start turning an *overall* profit in less than 25 years, you're wasting your time and actually COSTING more energy than you're saving - in planning, analysis, trips to the city to find an engineer / consultant / whatever, maintenance, replacement, time-wasting, application-lodging, construction etc.etc.etc. Although theoretically perfect solar systems can turn profits in certain parts of the world relatively quickly, this isn't true of a VAST proportion of other things that are necessary. The energy used to BUILD a new house? Hell, that's not small - and if you paid for that and then hope to get that money back by later selling the house, or on savings on unnecessary utilities, all you've done is sold your green credentials for cash on the first step anyway.

In the end, the places and people that are the greenest are NOT those putting HVAC systems in their houses at all, or even understand how a photovoltaic works. It's the people living in countries where the problems of heating, cooling, water supply, etc. were solved MILLENNIA ago and they still retain elements of that culture. Most of them are farmers. Most of them live in white-covered buildings constructed from local stone. Most of them have shutters on their windows. Most of them have land on which they can grow their own food and not have to transport food in little metal tins from foreign countries to survive. Most of them have simple solutions like wells, wood-burning stoves, their own animals and crops, houses constructed in such a way that the roof-patio is about 40 degrees C hotter than the wine cellar for most of the year. Most of them live in houses that have almost literally been maintenance-free for the last 2-3 hundred years and are likely to last at least that again.

They have electricity and televisions and, yes, they probably could generate their own but they know it's unlikely to produce any return on their investment unless they get it absolutely, perfectly correct and even then that it's "cheating" and not really being green. Hell, some of them might even have water mills on a local water source and still the investment in copper cabling, electronic safety systems, generators and electric lighting/h

Re:The only thing that matters

[b0bby]

The only thing that ever matters in these kinds of projects, the only thing WORTH measuring, is how long until it starts to pay for itself. Not the electrical system, or the "money saved" on your normal use, but the time until you're actually in profit on the venture as a whole.

It's a crass and crude measure but the money invested into getting something like photovoltaics, underfloor heating, etc. is directly related to the difficulty of manipulating the raw materials, the cost of extraction, the rarity, the difficulty of transporting them, installing them, the environmental impact they have (via taxes, subsidies, etc.).

I agree that you should try to make a profit on your green projects - it's the most straightforward way we have of measuring impact. It seems to me that the raw material costs should reflect their environmental impact fairly closely; if something requires a lot of energy to extract & produce, that will be reflected in its cost. I wouldn't include the costs of installation, however; paying a skilled worker a good chunk of cash doesn't represent a direct environmental impact. You might still debate whether it's worth doing, but if you're looking at just the environmental payback I don't think you should include the labor costs.

Re:The only thing that matters

[ledow]

That labourer had to get to your project somehow. They had to transport necessary tools that you probably don't have but they would need to use to build your project. They would have to represent some hours of effort that *wouldn't* need to be done if you weren't building your project. They also represent the environmental savings which arise due to the use of mass produced tools, supplies and equipment and local skill rather than some expert who lives on the other side of the country.

I don't think it's perfect but it's as damn close as you can ever get from something measurable. And a "green" house is not a green house if the maintenance people have to constantly come back and check the damn thing every week, or it takes huge, specialised tools to install the thing which, in the end, probably have more environmental impact that the thing you're installing. That's fine for a generic tool, say a spanner, because it's mass produced and therefore *probably* better, but not if that tool is *only* ever used for, say, calibrating a photovoltaic setup.

Re:The only thing that matters

[b0bby]

I agree that there is some impact from the laborer, but it's not nearly so linear as it is with the raw materials. If I get a $1000 load of concrete, the cost is a fair approximation of the energy put into it. If I get a carpenter to make me a $1000 bookshelf, the energy input is not nearly as great, and if I hire a painter to do a $1000 faux marble finish on a wall it's even less.

Re:The only thing that matters

[mrchaotica]

I completely agree with you that the "greenest" option is the cheapest option... if you account for all the externalities.

But the basic problems of heating, cooling, etc. have been basically solved even in the hottest of climates.

I also completely agree that building in traditional climate-specific ways is often better than using some of the new complicated technologies (of course, quite a few "new" green technologies are really just old ideas with different terminology: "passive solar," "stack-effect cooling," "thermal mass," etc.

One problem, though: we've solved living in hot dry climates, but what about hot humid ones (such as the Deep South)? Cooling techniques designed for the desert (e.g. thermal mass, evaporative cooling) don't work there and there aren't any clever native solutions to learn from -- before air conditioning, everyone up to and including the indians just had to resign themselves to being constantly hot and sweaty 6 months of the year.

Better Alternative to Thermal Mass of Stones

[sulimma]

There is a new Material Micronal® PCM by BASF that contains something that melts at the desired room temeperature. Melting takes a lot of heat.
Using a certain amount of this material results in a house that behaves like a light building at low temperatures, so it can be heated up quickly using small amounts of energy.
However, when the temperature reaches a certain point the walls start to absorb lots of energy like a heavy stone building.

Re:who cares

[blackest_k]

I had a typical tall fridge freezer , runs for about 5 minutes an hour consumes 100 watts while its running with the lamp inside consuming an extra 10 watts when the door was open cost me about £85 second hand new it was double that a Becko A rated fridge freezer. I metered it myself just for my own interest.

Granted this was in the UK but i'm sure there must be similar standards and fridge freezers in the USA.

here is a typical cheap example

http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/4857730/Trail/searchtext%3EBECKO+FRIDGE+FREEZER.htm
        * Energy consumption: 283kWh per year based on standard test results for 24 hours.

thats 0.775 Kw a day (/365) or rounded up 33 watts an hour.

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[wrook]

According to this Wired article, it takes 113 million BTUs to make a Prius: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_09usedcars

They claim that is about 1000 gallons of gasoline (not really willing to do the math myself, I'll accept it). They also argue that the smelting of the 30 lbs of nickel used for the batteries is very bad for the environment. Also, don't know one way or another, but it wouldn't surprise me.

For some reason you chose to compare a 1992 Honda wagon to a Prius. Well, when I say "for some reason" I meant, because it makes your argument look good. Since the parent just said 1992 Honda, I'll go with the Civic hatchback with manual transmission that gets 33/42 mpg for similar reasons.

So now the Honda is using 2790 gallons of fuel and the Prius (taking into consideration production costs) is using 3800.

Buying a used car (and not being stupid about it) *is* more energy efficient than buying a new car.

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like buying a used 1992 Honda is more "green" than buying a brand new Prius.

You're so confident you're right, but you aren't. fueleconomy.gov says the 1992 Honda Accord Wagon manual gets 19 city, 25 hwy. Let's take the best and say it gets 25 mpg. Meanwhile the Prius gets 50 mpg. Half as much gasoline. But the allegedly smug Prius buyer has bought 3,042 pounds of evil raw-materials-turned-manufactured-goods into our disposable consumption-based modern world, and obviously that's terrible and he should wise up and hang his head in shame. Let's kick him in the nads for his stupidity, right?

No. Over 120,000 miles that 1992 Accord will use 4800 gallons of gasoline, which at 6.125 lbs each weigh 14.8 tons. Burning that gasoline will emit 46 tons of CO2. Driving a Prius instead halves those numbers.

And that doesn't take into account the pollution from producing, spilling, refining and distributing those TONS of unrecyclable gasoline. The onus is on you and others spouting this nonsense to prove that 1.5 tons of mostly recyclable car is more pollution than 7 additional tons of gasoline going up in smoke. It simply isn't. My basic math lesson here is a gross simplification of why all reputable studies conclude 75-90% of the lifecycle pollution of a car occurs in its operation, not in its manufacture.

The next nail in the coffin of this bullshit meme is your car use doesn't occur in a vacuum. If you're already driving and you get a different car, what happens to your old one? If it's a gas guzzler, it's a win to junk it for the math above. If it isn't, someone else will probably take it and junk their gas guzzler. Another way to consider the problem is even simpler: the primary way to improve the overall efficiency of the car fleet is for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.

None of this is to say that owning a car is "green". Scott Adams is right to point out it's a loaded term, but not because of this stupid American obsession to find hypocrisy in unrelated actions ("You think you're green with your bicycle, but you wear leather shoes, ya hypocrite!"). Green is just a relative term. A Prius is greener than a 1992 Accord if you drive the distances most Americans do. Driving less is always greener. Not buying a car at all and bicycling is greener still. etc.

Bzzzzzt falsehood.
If you go read the DEFINITE study that everyone quotes "Oeko-bilanz eines autolebens. Umwelt-und Prognose-
Institut Heidelberg. Landstrasse 118a, D69121, Heidelberg,
Germany. " instead of the john whitehead's selective quoting released under the name "From the cradle to the grave, a whole lifecycle analysis of the autmotive vehicle" that seems to have found its way into the green agenda circuit, it says clearly in their conclusion that more energy and waste is produced during production than will ever be consumed by the vehicle in its entire lifetime.
Please dont forget the parts which will require replacement and recycling, and the drop off in economy of the prius as it ages in your blinkered assessment either.

The older honda *really* is the green option. And its being pushed out as a option by false reporting and science by people with a agenda to be promoted by well meaning but clueless people like you. In europe they actually had a car scrappage scheme to get old cars off the road, where they took 10+ year old cars (and some of these were already economic 30+ mpg cars) and gave the owners a cheque to part pay to replaced them with shiny new (normal, not hybrid) cars. Way to go europe, pump out a shedload more pollution and line some car manufacturers pockets by misquoting green research.

If you had used a 7mpg land yacht chevy as your example, then it might have been closer. Then people might be less bothered to correct the falsehoods. But they'd still be false.

Beavers?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like my walls are made out of limecrete.
Yeah, eat that you little buck-toothed furry creatures!

HEY... HEY, STOP IT, NO, LIMECRETE?! LIIIIIMECRETE!

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[The Master Control P]

Obama failed because he couldn't reverse, in his first year, the effects of 30 years of foolish deregulation and the deregulation itself... and when the effects of that came home to roost at Deepwater Horizon, it proved that regulation is of no use? That's like buying a car, systematically removing its safety systems, then saying safety systems are useless because you were horribly injured in a crash: The mind boggles.

mistake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying that the decay rate dropped during the flare would mean that more particles mean less decay.
However, the text says that during winter the decay rate was faster that during summer.
Earth is closer to sun during winter which contradicts the first measurement.
Also, one can not use the 33 day period as evidence for sun's influence, since the hypothesis of a
slower rotating core already assumes an influence.

It's irritating why stanford puts this on its website..

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[Gadget_Guy]

you're claiming that Obama set up the regulatory structure that lead to (I presume) the disaster in the Gulf?

I'm saying that he let the regulatory structure that was there wither

How? What did he do to reduce the quality of the regulation covering offshore drilling? Perhaps you believe that by not improving the regulation that this constitutes a whithering effect.

It's as much about what you don't do as what you do.

Are yes, you do. In that case, why make this a partisan argument against Barack Obama? Surely then you should attribute eight times more blame to the previous administration, given that they had eight years compared to Obama's one.

Actually George W Bush was more responsible for the incident because his administration had the opportunity to avert this problem and actively decided against implementing additional safety features. In 2003 the Minerals Management Service considered requiring remote controlled shut-off switches for drilling rigs. They decided against forcing them to install the devices because they cost too much.

Perhaps if they had gone the other way (against the wishes of big business) then this would have been just a workplace accident rather than a major environmental catastrophe.

As for Obama, he didn't have much time to think much about offshore drilling operations because he came into the presidency in the middle of the GFC. Or do you think he somehow caused that too?

Re:who cares

[HungryHobo]

Not really, if you live in the middle of a city and can walk to the tube station and walk from the other tube station to work then to compete with that with a 50 mile journey you'd need a car powered by unicorn farts and star dust.

Zero-energy buildings

[fluch]

I think the technology is out there, it's called zero-energy buildings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building

Re:who cares

[polar red]

You have very badly insulated walls. the best windows on the market are triple pane with about U=0.5, the best double-panes are 0.8 or 0.9. a badly insulated wall starts at max U=0.6 (I think the building-standard(in Belgium) calls for U=0.35 walls) [LOWER is BETTER]
[I think U = the # watts lost per hour per degree difference in Kelvin]

This reminds me of Slashdotters making stuff up

[stomv]

Sick building syndrome was a problem in the 70s when architects and builders knew little about sick building syndrome. LEED -- not so much. There are points for indoor air quality. LEED rewards operable windows. LEED rewards low VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions from products. Increased ventilation and control of systems is part of LEED. CO_2 monitoring is part of LEED.

I'm not guaranteeing that every LEED certified building has high quality indoor air, but I'm asking you -- got three examples of a LEED building with indoor air quality problems, or are you just conflating 40 years of general commentary in a field you have no expertise because you wanted to write something smart on slashdot?

Those things are good to do

[stomv]

but they're nibbling around the edges. The key is energy consumption. Light bulbs are a part of it, but here are some others.

One time ideas:
  * Refrigerators. When you get a new one, get a really efficient one. Then, get rid of the old one -- or old few in your basement or garage. The old ones use an incredible amount of electricity, both because they were less efficient to begin with and because as they age they often fail in such a way that they don't cycle properly, resulting in even higher energy use.
  * AC. Don't replace your AC unit... yet. First, get your attic air sealed and insulated... and as much of the rest of your house as possible. Then, ask to have the size of your AC re-evaluated. It's likely that your AC is oversized, and not only will you save with a new one because it's more efficient, you'll also save because it's smaller. Plus, there are plenty of gov't programs to subsidize all of this.
  * Heating. Same story as AC.
  * Switch to gas. If you're a New Englander with oil heat, switch to natural gas if you can. That's a 1/3 reduction in CO_2 per therm right off the bat. Again, gov't programs subsidize.
  * Move closer to work/shopping/transit. Maybe not today, but the next time it's time to move.
  * Move to a smaller home. Maybe not today, but the next time it's time to move.

All-the-time opportunities:
  * Adjust the thermostat to require a sweater in the winter, or a cold drink in the summer. Programmable thermostats are a nice feature for many users too.
  * Wash your clothes on cold. Hang your clothes to dry -- they'll last longer, and it'll save energy. Switch to a gas dryer if possible.

Those are some big opportunities, and that doesn't include driving (for which there are many ways to save). The things you mention help, but these are the ones which have a major impact. Not everybody can do all of them, but picking off one or two of these will save major... for example, washing on cold or hanging to dry saves about 2.5 kWh per use. You'd need to keep your CFL on for 100 hours to make up for the electricity of one time using your electric dryer.

Re:Those things are good to do

[drinkypoo]

Here's some things you can do without compromising your lifestyle:

1) If you must drive, as your next car, buy a turbo-diesel. They get better mileage and diesel takes 60% as much energy to produce as gasoline.
2) In the summer, add mylar to windows to reflect sunlight and trap cool air. In the winter, add clear plastic to windows to permit sunlight and trap warm air.
3) Get a canister water filter instead of drinking bottled water. Suggesting that people drink tap water is suggesting that they poison themselves, in most areas. Chlorine, chloramines... But you can buy an undersink mount filter with a carbon-impregnated cartridge for about $30, maybe $40 with all the fittings you'll need to install it, teed off the cold water line. Another $10 gets you a cute little faucet. You can make your own with aquarium charcoal, pipe, pipe fittings, and nylon mesh, but you won't save all that much.
4) Always-on electrical loads? You can buy a plug-in grid-tie solar panel very cheaply these days. Just plug it in where you have your PC plugged in, or whatever.
5) Close off rooms you're not using. You don't have to buy a smaller home to gain greater energy efficiency.

An advanced form: you can deliver heat/cold only to rooms that need them by installing a thermostat which has been hacked to control a servo (PIC will do, Arduino for the lazy and rich) into each room, and having the room registers open themselves only when demanding air. In most homes, delivering both heat and cold at the same time is not practical.

Re:Those things are good to do

[b0bby]

4) Always-on electrical loads? You can buy a plug-in grid-tie solar panel very cheaply these days. Just plug it in where you have your PC plugged in, or whatever.

The first one I could find was $1800 for a 250w system; that's going to make 1 kWh per day (ie, $0.15 per day, tops). Every time I do the numbers, PV systems are the last possible thing you want to do. Almost every passive measure you take is going to have greater results, for way less cost.

Re:Those things are good to do

[drinkypoo]

The first one I could find was $1800 for a 250w system; that's going to make 1 kWh per day (ie, $0.15 per day, tops). Every time I do the numbers, PV systems are the last possible thing you want to do. Almost every passive measure you take is going to have greater results, for way less cost.

The first car I can find if I search for car costs $110,000, but I wouldn't assume it's what someone suggested for commuting.

Re:Those things are good to do

[tibman]

Some great ideas. First time i've heard about plug-in grid-tie.. very cool stuff.

Re:Those things are good to do

[b0bby]

I picked that one because the numbers were easy (250w x 4hours/day = 1 kWh) - my point is that "plug-in grid-tie solar panels" can't be found "very cheaply these days". The implication was that it would be along the lines of shutting doors and filtering water, easy and low cost. I have looked for these things before - they're not easy to find, and they're expensive. Just a plain 175w solar panel is going to run you $750 or so, and that's without the plug in grid tie.

Re:Those things are good to do

[drinkypoo]

If you pay more than $4/watt for solar panels you're a moron. If you pay more than $2.50/watt for a gently used panel, or $3.25 for new, you're not looking hard enough. The inverter for 400w grid-tie with no overload protection (that is, its overload protection is to shut off when the grid is down) is practically free when you get it with a chinese panel. Keep looking.

Joke about family

[paxcoder]

You make the mistake of mentioning this arrangement to your family, and they leave you. But you are not deterred because you're saving the planet, damn it. You'll get a new family. A greener one.

I can see how someone would leave a person who can make that joke.

How much to make an accord?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much to make an accord? Remember: you're trading your old car in, so someone else won't be buying another car, they'll be buying your old one.

Or you can just get rid of your car and not buy another one: as the GP said, this is the greenest option.

PS a lot of the refined materials are reusable and so a recycled prius at the end of its life is pretty cheap.

And how much does it cost to dig, transport and refine 7 tons of fuel?

That's unimportant.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's unimportant. The important thing is whether the money spent gives you a home you like.

You don't ask what the payback time is of your Bahamas holiday, do you? Or the payback time of your tennis lessons. Or anything you spend money on because you like it.

We Need Slums

[b4upoo]

With deflation and more and more people going homeless and pay checks shrinking we actually need slums. Crude shacks can act to lower the cost of better housing.
                      Also the humanity of the situation is clear. A bum in a cardboard box develops more disease and costs far more money to tax payers than a bum allowed to build a tarp and scrap shack. Keep in mind that children are often involved as well. We need to stop local law enforcement from running off the unfortunate or destroying their make shift shacks.
                      The other joy of slums is that they do not eat up natural resources. Usually they don't even have electricity. And the recycle everything endlessly. A beer can, stomped flat becomes another roof shingle or even a mini oven for heating a scrap of food.
                      A society that can not or will not support the unfortunate has no moral right to deprive them of any efforts they make to help themselves.

Re:who cares

[captainpanic]

Unless it's a window on the south that can catch some sun. That will actually (partially) heat your house. Windows on other directions are indeed quite wasteful.

In Scandinavia, triple glass windows (standard double glass with an additional window against it) are quite standard. Just curious how that is in other places around the world.

Pardon my Grammar Nazi

[Dystopian Rebel]

I've had a geothermal heatpump for almost 10 years. My parents for even longer.

If my skill in solving those word-problems from elementary-school math has not diminished, you are at least 11 years old.

Re:Pardon my Grammar Nazi

[CrimsonAvenger]

I've had a geothermal heatpump for almost 10 years. My parents for even longer.

If my skill in solving those word-problems from elementary-school math has not diminished, you are at least 11 years old.

Your skill at solving word-problems from elementary-school math has diminished. The conclusion you should have reached is that he is less than ten years old.

Close, but no cigar

[Shivetya]

People who tend to tell others how to live rarely live as such. Those who live right tend to not brag about it. You have the cynical conclusion. The natural conclusion is to live like the guy with the green home and ignore the guy in the mansion.

I would love to see a President with a sound environmental policy, however what one person declares as sound another dismisses as not enough. Bush did fine considering the history of our past Presidents. Some areas are flash points for one group or another and both will use such to disclaim any leader.

No, given what we know about the two men in question, I would invite the guy from Crawford over to dinner, more than likely the other guy wouldn't even deem to acknowledge the request.

Re:Close, but no cigar

[Red Flayer]

No, given what we know about the two men in question, I would invite the guy from Crawford over to dinner,

And after all, that's what our national leaders should be -- people we'd like to have dinner or a beer with, people we'd like to go to a ball game with.

WTF? Who cares if Gore is more of a self-righteous prick than Bush -- it's the issues that matter.

Fucking "conservative" charismatics -- they're why this nation is going to hell in a handbasket. They get the masses to vote for them on bogus wedge issues, then proceed to destroy our economy, our land, and our people via overspending on their buddies' contracting companies, allowing regulatory capture in every industry, cutting their buddies' taxes, and passing the buck to future administrations and generations.

Fuck them.

Sorry for the rant. I'll go get my coffee now.

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[tbannist]

I think Obama might have busy dealing with a few other issues. You know, I think there might have been something about health care and financial regulations.... I've heard it's hard to simultaneously fix everything.

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[Anonymous Coward]

buying a used car means utilizing an existing resource. it also means the person is consciencely living within a smaller footprint. it's also a sign of people cutting back on their consumption. Why build a new 2500SF green home, when you should be considering buying an existing 800SF 2bedroom 1bath, and setting your thermostat to a very conservative level.

buying a new car means borrowing more money.

buying a new car means employing more bankers.

buying a new car means employing more auto workers.

buying a new car means inevitably means traveling more "because you can".

Everyone buying Prius' would mean an aggressive and expanding economy.

An economy based on an aggressive expansion of credit, so everyone can buy a Prius.

More people, more materialism, more ipod loving fools driving their Prius'.

The number of tons of fuel burned, and emissions?

Incalculable.

Re:who cares

[delinear]

I haven't read Scott Adams' blog for at least a couple of years now since it became bleedingly obvious that he was just click-baiting with deliberately provocative articles (which, in itself, I could have lived with if they weren't all so repetitive), but I seem to remember him talking about the house project back then. He had some pretty weird requirements, like a laundry room as a central hub, with a chute to the next floor and all the bedrooms running off that so laundry could be dropped straight down (and never mind that when the washer is running at night the noise via the chute would be atrocious and keep everyone awake). I don't know if he rained the weirdness in at all as the realities set in, I haven't been following the development, but that probably accounts for why he couldn't order a COTS style affair.

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[sorak]

And part of it was regulatory agencies not doing their job. It's funny how, if you spend eight years working for a boss who doesn't want you to do anything, you get lazy.

Houses aren't green nor profitable.

[CitizenPlusPlus]

The 5 easy steps to being green, creating local jobs, and mitigate the worst effects of climate change and peak oil.

1) Stop SprawL!!!
2) R.R.Recycle!
3) VeganLife!! / ReForest / FoodForest! / VirginForest!!
4) Wind! / GeoThermal Exchange!! / Solar
5) Electric &OpenSource: Trains!! / Cars / Media! / ...

www.350.org/about/science
www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1989
www.storyofstuff.com
www.peta.org/vsk

Re:Houses aren't green nor profitable.

[mrchaotica]

First of all, I'm glad to see that "stop sprawl" is at the top of your list. Most people are hypocritical about that, though (even me: I choose to live in a single-family house, albeit a small one on a compact urban lot, instead of a more-efficient townhouse or condo).

2) R.R.Recycle!

You're emphasizing the wrong "R." "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" is always listed in that particular order for a reason: reducing is better than reusing, which is in turn better than recycling. You should only move to the next option in the list after exhausting all the possibilities of the previous one.

4) Wind! / GeoThermal Exchange!! / Solar

What about "Insulation! / Passive heating & cooling! / Site-appropriate design! / Minimizing living space! / Simply turning unused shit off!!!" -- you know, all the relatively cheap & easy stuff that you ought to have done already by the time you start thinking about wind, geothermal, and solar?

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[mdarksbane]

One thing I wish people would pay more attention to regarding our recent governmental messes is the difference between "Deregulation" and "Regulatory Capture." Deregulation is when you actually reduce the scope of government oversight, giving corporations more room to work but also more room to screw up. Regulatory capture is when the foxes start running the hen house. It doesn't matter how many additional rules you make, because they are either going to write loopholes in them to begin with or simply ignore them later.

Regulatory capture is a more difficult problem to fix than deregulation because it is actually helped by increased regulations! More regulations give corporations even more incentive to spend money getting people friendly to in the regulator's chair, and once they are there, more ability to influence their industry. Right now government lobbying is one of the highest-return investments a company can make - often resulting in business worth 10x the lobbying cost itself.

Bush did very little deregulation, of the oil or the financial industries. Similarly, in the BP oil spill, there have been numerous reports that the well was not up to current inspections or code and that BP workers systematically lied on safety reports. Even under Bush's law, that would be significantly illegal if they had been audited and caught.

The solution to most of the issues is not to pass more red tape for companies to wade through to get work done, while their real environmental problems will just be ignored by the next president they put into office. You're just increasing their incentive to block what little good the regulations were intended to do.

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[misexistentialist]

With Obama in charge BP was given exceptions to complying with regulations, like assessing the damage that a spill could cause, which is pretty key to determining what preventative measures are necessary. If Obama was incompetent or malfeasant, being less so than the other guy is irrelevent. You might as well give every future president a free pass because GW Bush was in the chain of causation.

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[renoX]

Frankly both your arguments and the GPs one are ridiculous:
- say you buy your car and just after there is a new one which is 0.00001% more efficient, should you dump your car and buy the new one immediately? No!
- say there's a new car which use only 1% of the normal car, should you keep using your old car, due to the energy cost of building this new car? No!

So there is a curve (X, Y)(X is the improvement of fuel consumption and Y is the energy needed to build the car) where it becomes more interesting to switch or not,
it would be interesting to know these figures for realistic cases..
I don't know how to compute them, unfortunately!

Re:who cares

[b0bby]

LED lights are excellent. induction cookers as well.

I agree that induction cooktops are the way to go - we just got one and it's great. All the power & control of gas, with ~90% efficiency. LED lights, however, I don't think are there yet. I try them every so often just to see if they are improving, but I have yet to find one that has a decent spectrum. Modern CFLs are almost as efficient and their light has a good WAF, so that's what I'm sticking to for now.

Location Location Location....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing California is just the wrong place to try and do something like that. Climate and locally available materials/fuels make all the difference when considering what you can build that will be both green in the long term and a pleasant place to live. Guy in Sussex (England) called Ben Law hand-built a fantastically green house, but it was only so green because it fit into his lifestyle so perfectly. It used building materials and fuels that just grow around him naturally. After all, he's a copice manager and woodworker who lives in his wood near farms that produce straw. Can't see a cartoonist and his american family being willing to make that much of a lifestyle change in the name of California-style fashionable (ineffective) environmentalism.

Re:who cares

[pnewhook]

Agreed. So insulating a full 200sq ft house would be abut $10k or so. Again not nothing but not ridiculous and more than worth it.

The greenest way to buy a house...

[stewbacca]

...is to buy one that is already built.

Re:The greenest way to buy a house...

[CAIMLAS]

Good luck with this comment. I say the same thing in threads about these so-called energy efficient vehicles and invariably I get modded flaimbait or troll.

Though, fortunately for you, there don't appear to be nearly as many green home nazis as there are green car nazis.

Re:who cares

[pnewhook]

Sure, best window is about same as worst wall. Which means you can have as big windows as you like (within a reason).

What are you talking about? That statement doesn't make sense. The worst wall would be an uninsulated sheet of drywall. The best window will only ever get you to about R3 (and cost $500 to $1000 each) and typical windows are less than R1. A good wall would easily be R20 or more and not cost nearly that much. I don't understand how you can say you can have windows as big as you want. It would be impossible to keep heat in your house.

Insulation cost difference comparing "normal" and "low energy" house is minimal (~3%).

that's right for insulation in a wall. It's cheap to increase your walls and ceiling R value. But windows cannot go past R1 to R3 no matter what you do.

Re:who cares

[pnewhook]

Unless it's a window on the south that can catch some sun. That will actually (partially) heat your house. Windows on other directions are indeed quite wasteful.

Yes, that's great and highly energy efficient (until the sun goes down).

In Scandinavia, triple glass windows (standard double glass with an additional window against it) are quite standard. Just curious how that is in other places around the world.

Triple pane is standard in Canada. Even better is double low-E but filled with Argon.

The RIGHT way to build green...

[CAIMLAS]

From what I've observed, it is not only quicker but it is also less expensive long-term to avoid the zoning and planning commission. Make sure your ducks are mostly in a line first yourself (drainage fields, wetlands, etc.) and build.

As my dad always says, it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.

Of course, if you live in a fine-happy place like California or New York, you better get permission first.

Might be the doings of Laura Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you are too fast in giving the credit to "W"? Laura seemed to be more open minded about all things and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it was her idea.

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument would have infinitely more weight if he'd come out months before the disaster and said "the lack of regulation will lead to a massive oil disaster". He didn't, so your argument holds as little water as the people arguing the polar opposite. The truth is that there were many failures on many levels, and you can probably attribute that to most of the people who've held office over the last few decades, you can certainly say that nobody who has held office in that period has entirely clean hands (unless they spent the vast majority of their time fighting these issues).

yeah right

[douglasunderhill]

I actually own a 92 civic (no an accord, but a defiantly a 92 honda). I average 36mpg.
Also, i tried a prius. in the two weeks i had it(returned to dealer) averaged 42 mpg, not exactly worlds better. If i switch of the motor when coasting in the civic i can match it. both my 82 VW diesel, and 95 saturn(if i coast w/o idling) can beat it.

The hybrid only makes sense if you do a lot of city driving. In which case you should probably take the bus. If you live rural and avoid lights, a mid 90's 4cyc 5 speed can match them. Add a Hydraulic Launch Assist system to a simple >2L 5 speed, and it would soundly beat a prius, w/o ANY nasty battery chemicals.

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

Re:yeah right

[spage]

Good for you (I loved my 1984 Civic). Your smaller car is ahead over 120,000 miles, except that if your Civic is in good shape you could buy a Prius and your Civic will displace someone else's gas guzzler.

North Americans are still waiting for a small new car that gets 50mpg, let alone a practical mid-size car. No car maker is contemplating hydraulic energy storage for passenger cars. Besides the diesel option, much fuel-efficiency effort is on the spectrum of stop-start -> micro hybrid (brake regen helps to power starter motor and accessories) -> mild hybrid (electric motor assists engine) -> full hybrid (car can travel part-time on electric motor) -> plug-in (cheapest and most efficient way to power that motor for the first X miles). Each step involves more battery, and those efforts are likely to result in battery density and cost improvements that improve the efficiency of electrically-assisted cars faster than alternative solutions.

Unlike conventional lead-acid batteries, NiMH and Li-on batteries aren't particularly "nasty chemicals". (Do you realize there's nickel in the chrome and steel of every car?)

Other crazy ideas

[MDillenbeck]

Let see, you could get a heat pump water heater and put your fridge/freezer in the basement (yeah, I'm in a more northern climate) - your fridge will cool the interior and dump the waste heat into the basement, then your heat pump water heater will pull out that waste heat out and use it to heat the water (and act as a dehumidifier).

There is always solar water heaters to reduce the load on the heat pump - or even using dual tanks so one "warms up" with the ambient air temperature first.

Passive solar heating, rain barrels, green roofs (where your roof is actual green vegetation that helps soak up rain water and insulates your house), and so much more

However, when you talk about using outside air, I've always wondered why no one hasn't invented a method for doing this with data center servers. After all, the current method is to air condition the room while dumping CPU waste heat into that same room - surely if you co-located a hot house or hydroponics facility that could use all that waste heat it would be more efficient use of the energy input into the system.

Really, there are lots of good ideas out there - but it varies based on what individuals are willing to sacrifice.

Re:Other crazy ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Check this out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/20/helsinki-data-centre-heat-homes

Move your house???

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, it'd be nice to think that the next time a nearby hill caught on fire, you could, you know... maybe at least have a fair chance of MOVING THE HOUSE OUT OF THE WAY."

Are you crazy???

Moving a modular home is no easy affair! We're not talking about something like a RV. Moving a modular home takes time and more importantly, CLEAR AND OPEN ROADS. If the hillside was on fire, there would be all sorts of emergency vehicles. Even if you could move it in time, the priority of moving your home would be very far down on the priority list. They would stop you from blocking the street with your damn house!

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[networkBoy]

Health care isn't broken... yet.

How is using artificial grass "green"??????

[Shompol]

Remember to skip the water-wasting lawn. White pebbles are the way to go if you want to save the Earth. I was born with almost no sense of style whatsoever, and even I hate looking at pebble lawns, although I do respect the choice........ We used artificial grass in the side and back of the house, which is great for playing, while leaving a small patch of natural grass in the front for appearance.

That sounds like the opposite of "green", by definition.

In re: "A person with 60 IQ points"

[Anonymous Coward]

A person with 60 IQ points could work out that the nile is a river in egypt.

Actually, IQ 60 is about two Caucasian-American standard deviations below where you would need to be [IQ 90] for basic literacy [e.g., reading Archie & Veronica comic books].

I'd say that it's an open question whether folks in the general vicinity of IQ 90, if left to their own devices, could ever "work out that the nile is a river in egypt".

And at IQ 60, you'd be lucky if a person could reliably distinguish between "river" and "mud puddle".

Or even "wet" -versus- "dry".

You need to get out of the ivory tower and spend some time around normal [& especially sub-normal] people.

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[Czaruno]

Also, a Toyota Yaris is also $12K new, which helps people not get into further debt, which is a greater problem than the prius is going to help with. If people really cared, everyone would drive something like a Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit or Ford Fiesta.

Re:who cares

[rrhal]

$10k of fiberglass insulation would completely fill an average 200 ft.^2 structure ;)

Lets say the dimensions of your structure are 16 x 12.5. Assuming 8 ft walls - thats 456 ft^2 or 5 bags of insulation(R19) at $38.75 each

http://www.homedepot.com/Building-Materials-Insulation-Fiberglass/h_d1/N-5yc1vZ1xh8Zbay7/R-100320353/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

and (assume 30 degree slope to roof) 230 ft^2 of R38 - so 4 bags of insulation at 62.08 - you're out of Home Depot for $450

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[DrgnDancer]

This has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's comparable in stupidity to the equally stupid far left commentators who blamed Bush for 9/11. I'm no fan of GWB, but blaming a man for a disaster than happened within a year or two of his taking office is just insane. It takes time to realign Federal bureaucracy. In the case of 9/11 the blame lies as much or more with Clinton, Bush Sr. and even Reagan as with GWB. More really, GWB *might* have improved the non-traditional intelligence community had he been given a chance (he probably wouldn't have, but it's moot since he wasn't given the opportunity). Same thing here. Obama inherited a broken regulatory system and hasn't had a chance to fix it (again, he may or may not have actually done so if the disaster hadn't happened, we'll never know now).

Presidents are responsible for the things that happen on their watch, certainly. In both cases the President took responsibility, and vowed to fix what was broken (success or failure not withstanding), but that doesn't mean it was the current President's fault. Being stuck with the bag doesn't make you a bank robber, though it makes you responsible for some of the consequences of the bank robbery.

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[CAIMLAS]

You can't reduce a problem beyond its core components and then ridicule it to make it go away.

The environmental impact of a Prius (or any other vehicle) has nothing to do with the weight of the vehicle, it has to do with the lifetime cost. A Prius or any other lithium battery vehicle.

Let's start with Lithium and ignore the quoting of fueleconomy.gov and its inaccuracies in many real-world scenarios (on ramp to off ramp, tank over tank driving; more than one passenger, etc.).

Frankly, a person has to throw logic completely out the window to accept vehicles powered by Lithium as superior to petroleum-only vehicles. What are the primary battle cries of anti-oil types? The oil supply is limited, we're funding dictatorships (only when a Republican is in power), we're polluting the world, production of petrolium/fossil fuels is destructive to the environment, and so on.

Guess what? Not only is Lithium much more rare than petroleum and in significantly shorter supply based on what's being used and in absolute terms, but it is much, much more harmful to the environment to both use and harvest. It's also massively expensive and time consuming to do so, only being made profitable by government subsidies for 'green' technology.

In terms of pounds of fuel burned, sure, the Prius is pretty awesome. Guess what? It only takes a couple (initially) split uranium atoms to power an explosion large enough to destroy cities. This may come as a surprise, but the energy density of materials, with regard to their availability, is different.

Unlike with radioactive isotopes, petroleum is very common. It outputs byproducts which are, compared to lithium, pretty damn benign: for fuck's sake, plants eat CO2. There are observable benefits to giving plants more of it, such as increased growth and higher produce yields, when appropriate.

Battery powered cars are stupid for the above reasons.

Guess what? (Warning, I'm going to use scare bolding.) If you're afraid of CO2 emissions, why don't you go and kill some people, or even.... yourself? You output around 356kg of CO2 a year, probably at least TWICE your body weight and possibly THREE to FOUR times as much. AND THAT's just from BREATHING! Gaia knows how many poor defenseless plants and/or animals had to die for you to survive the year.

Then you've got the manufacturing costs of a new vehicle, vs. using what you've already got. As money is at least a conservative representation of environmental impact, at what point do you hit break-even? That Prius (or any new vehicle, but specifically the Prius due to the world cost of lithium) is going to take a while before your gas guzzling, 25mpg Honda is surpassed.

Finally: "green" is not a "relative" term. It's a political term that gets loaded and shot at people who are in the "politically incorrect" minority, regardless of whether it fits - just like "racist", "sexist", and "bigot".

And no, driving less is not "always greener". You are forgetting to consider some very simple things, like degradation of assets. My computer is not just as cost efficient for me if I don't use it as if I were letting it sit here unused, because I'm not using it. It still costs (amortized) money, and over time the natural elements (in the case of cars, material weathering, rust, etc.) will take their toll on your assets, making them completely worthless. Like a computer which is used for its entire life vs. one which is never unboxed, a maintained vehicle driven 300k miles in its life is much more green than the same vehicle driven less due to the initial cost of said vehicle. (Granted, after maintenance and repairs, there's eventually going to be an energy and environmental impact break-even point.)

But then, I guess I'm thinking in absolutes, not relativistic terms where the "greenness" of something isn't measured on concrete, observable facts but on how it "feels" - eg. the observation that because I'm driving less, I'm being greener.

Re:who cares

[Pollardito]

he mistyped 1200 sq ft

Ventilation and sizing

[ChrisMaple]

Don't try to make your heating system "just big enough." I lived for several years in such a house, where the calculation was slightly in error. Until we made changes, the wintertime experience was frost on the inside of windows and heating bathwater in a teakettle, because the furnace couldn't make enough heat.

In hot, humid areas fans can be less than an ideal solution. There's no screen so fine that a gnat can't get through it.

Re:Ventilation and sizing

[mrchaotica]

Don't try to make your heating system "just big enough." I lived for several years in such a house, where the calculation was slightly in error.

Wouldn't it make more sense for your advice to be "don't screw up the calculations?"

'92 Civic hatch is *way* smaller than a Prius

[Chirs]

If you're going to compare against a Prius, you should be looking at something with equivalent interior space, hauling capacity, comfort, etc.

The Prius fits somewhere between the Matrix and the Camry. There isn't really any non-hybrid that is directly comparable.

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[jonored]

Priuses use NiMH batteries, not lithium. They're considering offering a high-performance version that does, but the stock prius has always been a NiMH battery pack.

Up-front costs

[mea37]

TFA mentions that building a home is less green than moving into a home, since a lot of energy goes into construction. All else being equal, that's true. Mr. Adams also demonstrates that this type of thinking becomes addictive to a fault, though, when he mentions the energy that goes into building a bicycle.

When you buy a bike (or anything, really) you're paying for all the energy that was ever spent building it, shipping it, etc. A good commuting bike can be had for $500. If every penny of that $500 bike paid for fuel/energy costs, then you might figure you need to put 7500 miles on the bike to offset up-front energy cost (I'd say a fair bit less). You may not do that in the first year, but if you commute on the bike, you'll get there within its lifetime. And don't forget, people like to make profits, so that full $500 price didn't go into energy.

On the one hand, maintenance costs along the way push the break-even point out. On the other hand, all this assuems you bought a new bike for the sole purpose of commuting and derive no other benefits from it. Apply those standards to buying a car and see how the picture looks. The point is, riding a bike may not be zero-impact, but it can be much lower impact than the alternatives.

This is not to say that cycling to work is a solution for everyone. I don't do it because I can't work out a safe route. Even if I could, my local climate would limit how often I'd ride. But to say that anyone who does ride and thinks he or she is "green" for doing so were a hypocrite is frankly dumb.

That said, it's good to think about up-front energy costs when doing your math, so back to the house: given the ratio of construction cost to annual energy cost for a typical house, it's a fair bet that in a vacuum, moving into an energy-inefficient house is still better than building an energy-efficient house, as measured over your lifetime.

Of course, your lifetime is not the house's lifetime. If the house is built to last, and if it doesn't get demolished early for some reason, it might eventually break even. That may be small economic comfort to the guy who built it, since he might well not extract a fair proportion of the investmet in efficiency at the time of sale. But if we're talking envrionmental impact, it's worth noting.

But maybe the biggest question - and I suppose this gets back to Adams's point about lifestyle - is whether the building of a new house is really balanced only against your option to move into an existing house.

Over time, new housing will have to be built. The population grows, old buildings deteriorate beyond repair or fall behind ever-more-strict local codes. Perhaps the most efficient housing to build would be apartment-style buildings, where the dedicated living space per individual is relatively small yet the collective economies of scale allow for effective use of technologies like geothermal heat pumps. But is everyone going to start moving into apartments? Is the demand for houses - even unnecessarily large houses - going to cap out at today's level?

If not - and I think not - then the lifecycle cost of building a green home should be weighed against the cost of eventually having another non-green home constructed in its place.

Re:who cares

[RobertM1968]

Thanks for the ego trip.

Sorry I gave you an ego trip. I surely dont have one.

The guy obviously talked to a lot of people, some of them surely more knowledgeable than you are.

Or apparently not. As I said, I've done this stuff... the people (err... and magazines) he talked to apparently dont have much experience.

The problem , as me mentions, is that people don't agree on what is a good idea.

They sure do in my part of the country. Thicker walls (very easy in a new installation) at least twice the thickness of standard ones, and, oh, I dunno... talking to the electric company to find out what the proper grid tie-in system should be, properly installing the solar assembly, ensuring it meets the rebate requirements... really, should I go on?

You seem to be giving questionable advice just like he was given.

Don't use the wattage of refrigerator to determine the energy use . That's the power consumed when its on. The 200W fridges are unlikely to be energy efficient because they have to run constantly to keep up (if they do keep up).

Ah... I love the use of the word "unlikely" - which simply means you are speculating on something you (unlike me) have no knowledge of.

Insulation matters too. Look at rated kWh per year. The rates are published.

Of course it does. We've done existing installations where we've doubled wall thickness (wow, a whopping 7" less room space), we've re-insulated existing installations in walls almost two feet thick (older ballon-construction style homes) with proper blown in insulation (eco friendly and otherwise) and it's made a massive difference.

Now, mistakes we have made... LEDs comes to mind. LEDs in and of themselves are great, BUT, they are a new technology. They do NOT play well with electronic dimmers. We bought 30 of them. The ones on any variety of electronic dimmer had a decreased output in a few months (down to about 50% and still dropping, albeit slower). The ones on switches, on the other hand, are just as bright now (over a year later) as the day they were installed.

But here's the thing... I dont blame that on anyone else. Getting and using them in such ways was rather a new thing when we first bought them over a year ago (or even when we first installed them a year ago). We should have waited perhaps. Now, we dont have that problem as we dont use them on new electronic dimmers. But the rest... insulation, truly energy efficient appliances, solar, grid-tie in systems, heating, cooling, zone control valves for heating and cooling, and so on... those are NOT new. Neither is blown in insulation (eco friendly or otherwise), neither is thicker walls - especially in NEW construction like his. Neither are pretty eco-friendly houses.

He's picked areas to complain about that anyone with a brain and construction experience knows how to do properly, eco friendly or otherwise.

THAT is my complaint.

Re:who cares

[RobertM1968]

Bingo! A similar "Energy Star" GE in this country uses 60kWh more per year.

Re:who cares

[jbengt]

I (regrettably) have a 50 mile journey. 2-1/4 miles by car (with no traffic congestion) from home to train station, 1 mile by walking from train station to office, and the rest by a diesel-electric powered train carrying about 500 to 1,000 other people. That competes with, but does not win against, living in the city and walking to and from the subway/'L' stations, which I used to do. But it does win against the majority of commuters who drive 5 to 20 miles each way in heavy traffic. And it does not involve unicorn farts or star dust.

Re:who cares

[Kyusaku Natsume]

I live in Mexico, when I was making my preparations for the rainy season I put white roof coating with a textile reinforcement membrane bought at my city's Home Depot. After that, the temperature dropped 3 - 4C inside the home. It actually made me cancel the purchase of an AC unit. Instead I use a set of timer-controlled fans that inject cold air from 3am up to 9 am that makes the average temp inside around 25C (77F) even when the outside temp is 34 C under shadow.

I would love to put double or triple pane windows but since the local construction code doesn't have a word about insulation those are prohibitively expensive. My next home improvement will be to put a solar water heater, that thanks to the high gas prices are becoming cheaper and popular here.

Re:who cares

[Jarik C-Bol]

heck, with where you are, you can make your own solar water heater. A black plastic 55 gallon drum mounted on your roof, and BAM, hot water 350 days out of the year. sure, you can get more complex than that, but it works.

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't you have to also factor in the initial "energy" required to build that Civic, just like you factored it into the Prius? Otherwise, you aren't really making a fair comparison. Or how about the 18 years of carbon-spewing it has already done? Or the amount of oil it has already burned and where the used oil went, etc?

Re:who cares

[Ironhandx]

If he did he just doubled the real estimate for some reason... I suspect he overshot on a 2000 sqft home and typoed that.

Re:who cares

[RobertM1968]

Thanks for the ego trip. The guy obviously talked to a lot of people, some of them surely more knowledgeable than you are. The problem , as me mentions, is that people don't agree on what is a good idea. You seem to be giving questionable advice just like he was given. Don't use the wattage of refrigerator to determine the energy use . That's the power consumed when its on. The 200W fridges are unlikely to be energy efficient because they have to run constantly to keep up (if they do keep up). Insulation matters too. Look at rated kWh per year. The rates are published.

Let's point out again just how unknowdlegable you are and how unwarranted your +1 mod is.

Fridges using dialectric units for part of their cooling (or temperature maintenance) use smaller compressors for the "hard cooling" - savings in money.

A fridge using 200W needs to be running 6 times as long as one using 1200W to use the same power. At an average of 6 hours a day, that means running nonstop all day - PLUS an impossible extra TWELVE hours a day, making a day 36 hours - at 200W. Even if one's fridge runs 4 hours compared to a 200W fridge running 24, you aren't factoring in a lot of other things. Surely you see the absurdity of that. If not, let me help you out. Much of the run time will be during peak hours. Of the 6 hours the standard fridge is running, 4 may be billed at peak rates. Do the math. Even at 24 hours a day, the 200W fridge is *cheaper* to run unless there is very little difference in power cost during peak and non-peak times.

Now, take that same 200W fridge in your new (as discussed in the article) installation, and vent off the heat elsewhere. Net heat gain, used however you want. Decrease in cooling needed, as the area the fridge is recessed into is no longer over 100 degrees.

Put all of those together, and a variety of other techniques used, and viola! The end result is... well... you're wrong! I'd go into more detail, but I dont see the reason. Obviously, one looks at the kWh/yr rating. I have. You on the other hand simply speculated, based on your presumption that you had to be right even without first hand experience or knowledge. But others have already pointed out better fridges sold elsewhere with lower ratings (kWh/Yr) than the inefficient ones sold in most stores here.

Re:who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing about currently available windows. I just purchased 9 double pane argon filled windows with U=.30 for less then $200 per window. And everyone is selling them now that there's a tax credit available for windows with U=.30. If you're willing to pay more, you can get even better insulated windows. These are about one step up from the lowest end windows they sell. If your walls are only .35, it's very easy to get windows better insulated than your walls.

Re:who cares

[TemporalBeing]

There are some double pane windows that are better than the triple pane windows. See Low-E for more information. Here's one provider of Low-E, Double-pane Windows Dixie Home Crafts (though their Window website seems screwed up at the moment).

buying new or buying old redux

[spage]

I agree if you define "not being stupid" as buying the most economical used car. I picked the Accord because it's a similar size to the Prius. Presumably some buyers get a Prius despite it being a midsize car, because if you buy a smaller new car such as a Mini or Smart, you can only get worse mpg (!). If size and refinement don't matter, definitely get a 40mpg 1992 Civic (35 city / 43 highway) or the stellar 1994 Geo Metro XFi shitbox that Wired mentions and you're ahead on energy efficiency. (Quite a bit worse on smog, but that's a different analysis.)

However, as I pointed out that doesn't work for the auto fleet as a whole. It's not full of 40mpg econocars! Average passenger car mpg was 22.1 mpg in 2001 and if you think many "light trucks" are just car substitutes, it may have gone down since then. If you assume buying a new fuel-efficient car puts a 22 mpg car off the road, you're back to it being more energy-efficient than buying used.

One other point. My comparison was strictly based on weight of car vs. weight of fuel it consumes, the point being a car consumes far more petrol than it weighs. When you change one side of the equation to 1000 gallons of energy to produce the car, you need to change the other side to add the energy it takes to produce the gasoline. Oil companies are notoriously secretive about their production costs and processes, but I've seen estimates of 0.23 gallons to get one gallon in your tank, and it's only getting worse as we burn up the easy oil and shift to boiling tar and drilling in deep water.

an interesting and easy to read blog on the subjec

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.301monroe.com/

Re:who cares

[pnewhook]

Sorry - mistyped. Should have been 2000sq ft.

Re:who cares

[jhol13]

You seem to be lost in the numbers.

The size of windows really does not matter as much as you think.

You see, the size of the windows will be more than order of magnitude smaller than walls, floors and ceilings put together. So they cannot lose as much heat as everything else, unless you use crap ones or really huge ones.

Besides "low energy" house uses (depending on definition of "low energy") about half of the energy on water (shower, washing, etc).

In Finland "low energy" house has walls with U ~0.17, windows ~1.0 (I am not sure how to convert U to R). Anyway U < 0.2 is in practice far from easy, e.g. there may not be any leaks in the humidity barrier.

So you really can have big windows if you want. Sure they will be much more expensive than wall insulation, but $2000 each in a 200'000-300'000 house that hardly matters (prices in Finland for "typical" L-E window and house).

The Garbage Warrior

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

If he wanted a green home he should have built and Earth Ship. He could have learn't quite a lot off Michael Reynolds and for those who have not seen this film http://www.garbagewarrior.com/about.html it is really quite interesting for those eco-warriors out there.

Re:who cares

[mrchaotica]

Unless it's a window on the south that can catch some sun. That will actually (partially) heat your house. Windows on other directions are indeed quite wasteful.

Unless you live in a climate with more cooling degree-days than heating ones.

Of course, what you really want is south-facing windows with awnings strategically designed according to your latitude so that they shade the windows in summer but let the light in in winter.

Re:who cares

[mrchaotica]

Also, green homes do not need to be ugly.

Exactly: there's no reason a super-green home can't look exactly like any traditional colonial or cape-cod style home. The only reason all the green homes you see look like spaceships is that they're trying to show off. Conversely, people just see the traditionally-styled homes and don't realize that they're green!

Get good appliances. And no, I dont mean the top of the line "crap" sold at your local appliance store (Sears, Home Depot, Lowes, wherever). They make full size refrigerators that use 200W - NOT 1200W. Similar (electricity) savings can be found on other appliances as well.

One important tip for buying appliances is to look at the actual number on the Energy Guide tag, not the relative position on the spectrum it shows you. That spectrum only shows "similar" models; you could very well find that some french door model that has the arrow on the tag all the way to the "uses least energy" side still absolutely sucks compared to some top-freezer model when you actually look at the yearly kWh/year number.

And of course, thinking anything with an EnergyStar sticker is good enough and not paying attention to the EnergyGuide tag at all is even worse!

Finally, for dishwashers and washing machines, water usage can be even more important than energy usage (especially if you live in an area with expensive water, such as Atlanta or Seattle). There's WaterSense certification you can look for, but AFAIK there's unfortunately no gallons/year comparison label yet.

Re:who cares

[polar red]

STOP! european and US norms are apparently different ... U-value (US) != U-value (EU) (and we also got Uw-value, K-value, ... )
my new argon double-pane-windows are rated 1.1. (that's 4mm-15mm-4mm )

Re:who cares

[mrchaotica]

Now, mistakes we have made... LEDs comes to mind. LEDs in and of themselves are great, BUT, they are a new technology. They do NOT play well with electronic dimmers. We bought 30 of them. The ones on any variety of electronic dimmer had a decreased output in a few months (down to about 50% and still dropping, albeit slower). The ones on switches, on the other hand, are just as bright now (over a year later) as the day they were installed.

I'm looking forward to when houses start getting designed for LEDs (and other low-voltage DC devices in general). Imagine LED fixture being cheaper because they stop needing to include rectifiers and instead hook up directly to a household 12V (or 5V?) DC circuit. Imagine plugging in all sorts of low-amperage electronic devices, from cellphone chargers to home networking equipment to clock radios, without a proliferation of wall-warts. Imagine new kinds of light fixtures: illuminated crown molding, planetarium-like ceilings with twinkling stars, entire walls that glow with diffused light, etc!

Building codes create the market

[minstrelmike]

Standardized building codes are what create the mortgage market. If I can't sell mortgages to other investors, then there is not mortgage market which makes it a lot harder to sell (and buy) homes.

I'm not saying it's good; I'm only saying it's how things work. I don't like the Second Law of Thermodynamics either.

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of a "False Flag Attack"?

Ingrediants for a greener home:

[ResidentSourcerer]

1. Buy the archive of the back issues of Mother Earth News. Not all the ideas are practical, but many are, and the rest can lead to further ideas.

2. Smaller is greener.

3. If you are innovating in construction technique, build so that it can be modified.

* Build in access to pipes.
* Wire in conduits.
* Extra conduits so you can network, or put in 12v DC, or whatever later.
* Attic access for later addition of fans.
* Power outlets in the attic.
* Steep pitched roof so that most of your attic access is not on your hands and knees.
* Use screws whereever you think you MIGHT want to change things.

4. Zone your heating/cooling system.

5. Do your best calculation for heating needs -- then put in a unit half that size. But leave room to add a second one later. This will give you redundancy, at some increase in expense.

HVAC people seem to overestimate heating and underestimate ventilation. Put in bigger exhaust fans than they tell you.

6. If you are in a net heating environment, design your house to have most of the windows on the south.

7. In our climate (10000 degree days, central Alberta) a dual glazed south facing window has better net performance than triple glazing.

8. Don't bother with argon/krypton. The gas is gone in 5 years.

9. In a well made window, a sizeable amount of the heat loss is on the edges. Use fewer but larger units.

10. If you are building a single floor house in a heating climate, considering building it partially underground. I've seen houses that were essentially walkout basements.

11. The most energy efficient shape for a two story house is a butter cube, oriented east west.

12. Conifers on side to the prevailing winter wind makes your house use a lot less heating, and makes your gardening less problematic.

no dichotomy

[dazedNconfuzed]

How about quoting the rest of that sentence: "it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home." And by business office, that means an office with staff.

So did W's ranch. He ran the whole country from that 4000 sq ft.

Re:who cares

[pnewhook]

R is simply 1/U

The side of windows matters a lot more than you think. Ask any energy expert. In fact do a thermal analysis of the heat loss in your house. If properly insulated, all heat loss will be through the windows.

U of 0.2 is R5. Even basic insulation on a 2x4 wall will give you R12 (U=0.08), and some new low-e houses use 6" walls on the exterior (staggered 2x4 so there is no direct path for heat from inside to outside) which will give you at least R22 (U=0.045). Windows are well over an order of magnitude less efficient than walls.

Still don't believe windows are a huge heat loss? Does your house heat up with the sun shining more with a wall, small window or big window? Clearly a big window lets in more heat from the sun. Heat goes both ways through a window so if it lets heat in it will let heat out too.

Re:who cares

[RobertM1968]

So am I. I'm hoping that the efforts in distributed DC power being used in some server farms will be the trials and stepping stones needed for such - that or the existing efforts being used for various low voltage halogen lighting and low voltage outdoor lighting. One can hope....

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[spage]

As @jonored already pointed out, Prius uses NiMH. But lithium is coming, so whatever. Your hyperbole repeats the error of the OP. The onus is entirely on you to demonstrate that producing and eventually recycling 40 pounds of lithium or nickel (the battery weighs hundreds of pounds, but it's not pure metal) is worse for the environment than producing then burning tons of gasoline. Apparently you don't understand concepts like "several orders of magnitude". Neither lithium or nickel is particularly toxic, unlike the LEAD ACID batteries in conventional cars.

There is no lithium shortage. Bolivia and Argentina each have salt flats full of the stuff. The American lithium mine in Kings Canyon shut down because prices were low. And if and when prices rise, it's in every gallon of seawater. The metal in the battery is not the most expensive part and there are no subsidies for lithium or nickel production. If batteries are "massively expensive" then so are the tons of gasoline a well-engineered hybrid or electric vehicle will save in operation.

You don't seem to understand that a battery is a storage medium, not a consumable. After production, there are no byproducts from lithium or nickel whatsoever, it just sits in a battery until recycled. And I proved it avoids the burning of tons of gasoline, which does pollute, even ignoring the CO2.

As money is at least a conservative representation of environmental impact.
  No, it's a pretty USELESS representation. You can buy a big truck for less than a Prius that took much more raw materials and pollution to make. You seem to be hoping that the economic analysis of break-even points somehow relates to environmental payback, but it doesn't. Same problem with your nonsensical sentence about cost efficiency, which is also nothing to do with pollution. Drive less and you pollute less, someone more talented than you can do the math to work out how much.

I provided facts and math backing up the comparative environmental benefits of a new Prius vs. a used Honda. You spouted an incoherent stew of false statements and unrelated topics.

Re:no, buying a really fuel-efficient car is green

[spage]

The OP specifically mentioned a Prius vs. some 1992 Honda. Taking 1000 gallons as the embodied energy to build a car, over 120,000 miles Prius cost = 1000 + 2400 gallons. So buying a new Prius and driving it for 120,000 miles is no better than keeping your old 35mpg car on the road for another 120,000 miles. But that a) ignores whether your old car can go that long and b) as I keep saying it ignores what happens to your old car. When your new fuel-efficient purchase doesn't result in someone junking a gas guzzler, think twice. It seems to be decades before the average fuel economy of the US car fleet, let alone its clunkers, reaches that level.

BTW, I don't drive a hybrid and am still driving my old car (as little as I can). But I don't fool myself that I'm doing something great for the environment by doing so, nor do I begrudge someone for buying a new fuel-efficient car because of non-rigorous notions of repair/reuse/recycle.

Re:Which unsound policies? Worse than now?

[seekertom]

I have a big problem with anyone who defends ob on the basis of 'it isn't his fault', or, 'he isn't responsible for it because it started before 'his watch'', or because someone before him was 'even worse'. In my book, if you are the man in charge, the responsibility is yours. Accept that responsibility or get out da kitchen! If you are in the position of power to change what is, and you don't, especially because you complain you din't 'have enough time to do it', then you are not only responsible, you are part of the cause. We hired that guy and pay him a substantial sum of money and a helluva benefits package to properly watch over the flock, and if he can't or won't do it, then out he goes! Wait until election time to see if others agree with me or not.

Urban life

[MDillenbeck]

True enough. If you want to analyze total energy inputs per square foot, nothing beats a good old fashioned high rise building in a dense urban area, especially when you consider you can create mixed residential and commercial zones ("walkable neighborhoods"). Additionally, there are also a whole slew of alternatives for retrofitting existing homes to "green" them (see http://www.cows.org/collab_projects_detail.asp?id=54 for alternatives).

Why do I consider this an extreme green solution? Each dome is just under 500 square feet, the insulating material is also the wall material, it is moving housing toward the realm of economically affordable for more people, it is designed to be resistant to damaging events like hurricanes and earthquakes (reducing material burdens on the globe with rebuilding expenses), and the lightweight panels (88 kg each) reduce the energy burden for transportation.

Myself, I dislike the current state of how they build most apartment complexes. (For example, poor design leads to sound transmission from one unit to the other.) I also have a bit of disdain for urban life due to sensitivities to automotive exhausts (in urban environments the fumes literally cause a burning sensation throughout my eyes and sinuses, which leads to migraine headaches and other health issues).

Of course, lifestyle also is important. A person living in a rural environment that is capable of telecommuting, uses off-grid power, produces on a small scale a diversified crop to supplement occasional trips to urban markets, and builds a small house that is minimally disruptive to the environment (at 88kg a panel, two people could easily haul the panels to a remote location rather than require a cut path for a truck to deliver it) will make much less of an impact than a person who constantly uses over-packaged consumer goods in large urban condo.

Basically, its why I try not to judge SUV owners. If a person has 6 kids they are constantly hauling around along with their gear, doing multiple trips in a Prius is a worse choice than the SUV.

Also, I question whether urbanization of the entire globe is both feasible and/or practical.

Re:who cares

[jhol13]

I am absolutely certain "basic walls" do not give U=0.08.
Typical value in Finland (2005) was 0.21 (for the wall).

Re:who cares

[pnewhook]

A 2x4 wall with insulation (vapour barrier and siding of course) will give you R12. This is a basic modern insulated wall.

Re:who cares

[jhol13]

20 cm thick glass wool gives U=0.15. This is minimum as required by law (from this year on). Until now often less was used.

Re:who cares

[pnewhook]

Ok, if you don't believe my numbers, fine. Maybe Canada has better insulation standards than where ever you are.

But you didn't answer my questions as to what heats up quicker - a room with a south facing window or south facing wall? If windows and walls are basically the same insulation value as you say then both rooms would heat identically, which clearly they do not. If windows let more heat in than walls then it follows that they let more heat out.

Re:who cares

[jhol13]

I do believe in your numbers, I was just wondering why our numbers do not match.

And I found out most likely reason: you use imperial units, I use metric. For me U = W/(K*m^2), i.e. Watts per (kelvin * square meter). I do not know what units you use for R.