energy saving strategies new constr.
Hello everyone:
Well, I am going to ask one of those maddenning general questions.
We are looking at building a new home in the Georgian Bay area of Ontario, Canada.
This is roughly the same as upper Michingan state.
We are going to build in the next 3 or 4 years on a 50 acre property. We can site any direction but a South West site seems to work best for a lot of reasons. We have clear wind lanes off of Lake Huron and there is an abundant water source. Although we don’t have a burning desire to be offgrid completely, there would be real satisfaction in minimizing our need for grid energy.
We realize that it is easier to save a watt than to spend one and we are committed to building smart, greeen, low maintenance, and energy efficent.
My partner is a writer . . . has needs for only a few lights. I on the other hand will need more energy . . . I will run a woodworking shop and have energy needs in the garage.
So my questions are these:
1. What would you suggest for building strategies that will minimize energy needs – we will entertain any and alll suggestions but we won’t building underground (but maybe bermed in) and we want the house to still have real design appeal.
2. What energy generation strategies would make the best sense . . . particularly in terms of cost for install and maintenance.
3. What HVAC options are the most energy efficient generally and still effective.
I suspect that alot of this work has been done already . . . hence my question . If there are web sites or associations I can be information from, great. Introductory books, great. Recommended architects . . .great.
So, thanks for letting me post. This is a big job for us and a bit of a wild fantastic dream. Tempered with a big dose of my pragmatic reality.
Cheers
Mark MacLeod
Replies
We've worked on a few houses off the grid and only one has worked well. It was a conbination of a super-insulated shell, passive solar for most heating with propane/hydronic heat backup, photo cells/inverter for lighting, and a backup generator that kicks in for larger electrical loads--mostly from his cabinet shop.
The key, at least in the higher-elevation areas of Wyoming and other sunny/cold climates, is the combination of passive solar and a super-insulated shell.
:-)
If you haven't already, you might want to check out the web site of Home Power Magazine. Lots of do-it-yourself stuff. I haven't looked at them for a while, but they used to have their back issues available on-line as well as an extensive list of suppliers for off grid stuff.
http://www.homepower.com/
earthship.org
Mike Reynolds is amazing.
Your project sounds really interesting!
Good luck.
SP
Don't go off-grid with a backup generator unless the cost to bring in grid power to serve your site is high enough to pay for some of the off-grid power equipment AND the back-up generator. Instead, get a smart meter and ensure that your inverter can back-feed the grid so you can use the grid to "store" your over-produced energy when you're not using it. In Ontario I believe the grid is obligated to only bill you for the net of what you use from it. This is not only more cost-effective than a generator, it's also better for the planet. Small gas or diesel generators are neither energy efficient nor low in emissions, and with a wood shop it's likely your peak demand will have to come from somewhere else than your own generation system.
Others here might advise you about primary generation sources, though it sounds like wind is a natural one for your locale. Supplement with wood comfort heat or a lake- or groundwater-sourced heat pump for heat and A/C perhaps? All the more reason to put in a BIG wind turbine...
As to energy efficiency: if you're building above grade, find a way to minimize thermal bridging between the interior and exterior. There are lots of ways: ICFs are an easy one, the Mooney wall is another, 2x4 studs on staggered centres on 2x6 plates is another. No sense in building thick walls and a tight shell if you're going to waste half that benefit via conduction through the studs. EIFS (external insulating foam + polymer-modified stucco?) is another but I personally wouldn't recommend it- there have been enough reports from reputable sources (like CMHC) of serious problems with a significant percentage of EIFS installations that I'd steer clear unless you know a really good sub in that business personally. It's just like any technique: bad if done badly- except it's worse because the problems caused by leaks etc. may not show up until serious damage has already been done.
I guess the minimization of north- and east-facing windows would be good too. Skylights also suck heat. Dunno if this suits your site orientation and design or not.
Another is tight construction coupled with a good heat recovery ventilator. Sprayed foam insulation or ICFs are good ways to minimize air infiltration which is one of the biggest heat losses when you run the calcs.
Excellent post.
What can I say- I learned from the best!
OK I'm going to ask a question that will make some of you weep - what are ICF's? I'm assuming insulated poured concrete foundations/wall but I could be out too lunch. Sorry for asking such a greenhorn question.One of my colleages has been in a house for 2 years with complete walls and foundations of preassembled insulated "blocks" with concrete centre pour. It seems extremely confortable and very quiet. Heated with rad. floor water. They are very happy.Any real drawbacks to the contruction method? I know it is not like putting up Lego and would have someone else do it. Additionally, it seems to go against our desire to build green . . . However, are there real pitfalls apart from the problems associated with construction?Lastly, thanks for writing such a thoughtful post. Mark
Mark,
Yes, ICF's are insulated concrete forms. As for being considered green, my research shows that they areconsidered a green building technology by most guidelines, {LEEDs, NAHB,} because even tho they use a petroleum based foam product, that is offset by the lifetime of energy savings realized by the system. And actually they do stack very much like leggo blocks. We've had great luck with them and are currently working on approvals for a project using them along with many other green practices.
"I know it is not like putting up Lego..."Actually, Insulated Concrete Forms are a LOT like putting up lego and not much harder.
The most common approach we use for dealing with thermal bridging is interior 2x3 horizontal strapping. It is really an easy, slick system with lots of perks. Basically, a normal 2x6 stud wall c/w FG insulation and vapour barer. The, nail 2x3s horizontally on edge @ 16" o.c, and insulate that cavity with FG. The real bonus comes with the electrical: see the electrician runs all the electrical along the top of the strapping, no drilling studs, and best of all NO HOLES IN THE VAPOUR BARRIER associated with the electrical boxes. Very quick, easy way to deal with thermal bridging AND have a tight house.
Back here in NB, we called that the "wrap & strap" technique. It was very popular in my area in the 1980's. Coupled today with a rigid foam sheathing (Cheaper!!) rather than wood based sheathing, this system will be awesome for colder climers such as yours. Might actually be a bit of overkill for most of southern Canada. Will have to do an analysis after the winter when we see what happens to all fuel prices-oil & gas should come down a bit but electricity should be going up.
The R2000 system is not that prescriptive but is based on performance levels- meet this level of performance (that's what you want in the end anyways) and the house passes. The initial requirements were (1) meet an energy budget, (2) pass an airtightness test and (3) have an air system capable of providing a certain level of air exchange with distribution of fresh air to all major rooms. You get the house as yight as you wanted as long as you understood building science principles....if you wanted to weld sheet metal as the interior air/vapour barrier then it would pass. If you didn't want to use an HRV, you didn't have to as long as the energy budget wasn't surpassed.
There have been many systems and principles copied or emerged from the R2000 system:
-Many items are now in the national building code
-The Health House progam first brought out by the Minnesota chapter of the American Lung Association was copied from Manitoba.
-Joe Lstiburek (a Canadian) was involved in its inception years,1980-84 or so. He brought what he learned there and in school to the US and you now have what is the Building and Rebuilding America programs. Joe is co-chair of the Lung Association Health House technical commitee. Another ex R2000 engineer is with one of the other Building America partners.
-Two of the largest Canadian HRV companies have been bought out by large multionationals since we did it right here first. Broan owns Venmar/Van Ee- the largest company.
Anyways, R2000 is one of the leaders in inovation. Japan licensed it from us in 1992. The premier builders in the program are quite progressive and lead the industry with new concepts and tips/tricks.....some of the best which came out of a miilion $ research project in the 80's in Manitoba. Imagine developing techniques that make a house tighter with better seals (read: higher quality) with less labour and materials cost.....sounds to good to be true but they evolved out of R2000.
Look into SIP's. Lots of design flexibility and fast construction. Very energy efficient if nobody cuts corners in terms of foaming window inserts, corners, and seams between panels.
what do they mean by building green.
Hey, thanks for the question, it's a good one, "what did I mean by building green"Ultimately, I think, to use materials that have the least environmental cost both in procurement and in disposal/deterioration . . . and still maximize performance. However, does the idea of building green mean or have to mean that the ultimate objective of ultrahigh energy efficiecy can't be met because even with better/innovative construction methods, the end product is compromised? Thanks for asking, it's easy to throw out a word or two and not really think about what I have meant by all of this.The posts have been outstanding. You all hold a wealth of building knowledge and ideas. Better, you're happy to pass it on.RegardsMark
Edited 10/7/2005 7:43 pm ET by MarkMacLeod
We do lot's of ICF...worth thinking about.
Hello SquarePeg. I have done several ICF's and thought highly of their ease of construction and other qualities. I worked for Habitat for Humanity and have pushed at times for them to consider using this type of foundation construction. I recently learned that the Charlottesville Habitat has recieved a grant to use ICF's and was wondering if you knew of a site where information could be found about them. I hope to work for them again and would love to have more information to present to the board in favor of ICF's for future projects. Thanks. Steve
Here's a couple!
http://www.forms.org/
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/homeandwork/homes/construction/forms.html
http://www.reddiform.com/
The C'ville HH did a whole house ICF near Esmont about 3 yrs ago. Even managed to get a discount steel roof structure out of Roanoke. Unfortunately, the woman in charge claimed R50 walls. Other than that, far as I know it was a successful house.
You here? PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Hello Va.tom. I'am not sure which house you are talking about since I worked on most of the houses in Esmont. I was gone for a short time with Omaha Habitat, but have not heard of any ICF's in this area with Habitat. I'd be interested in knowing which house that was. I just recently talked with Construction supervisor who said they were going to try ICF's for the first time. There was a discussion about doing them several years ago and I got a bunch of info and a rep. from Allied concrete to come by and give a llittle talk, but they didn't go for it due to cost. Now with a grant it will be happening. Are you from Ch'ville area? If so I's like to met and talk if your interested in Habitat projects. Maybe you already work on them. Thanks for the info. Steve
Hi neighbor.
We're out toward Batesville on Israel Mtn, near the county fair site. That house was on the corner of 627 and faced a small not-state-maintained road just N. of 6. A buddy had been resurrecting an old farmhouse just down the way. I haven't spoken with the folks who moved into the ICF. Don't remember the name of the road, but it was just N of the ball field that didn't quite border 6, behind the country store.
You're making me wonder if I'm mistaken and it was an AHIP project, but I didn't think they were building new houses. Either way, you probably want to look into it.
Probably best if we quit boring the rest of the folks here with our local minutiae. Shoot me an email here. I haven't Habitated. Do have strong ideas about concrete houses as I live in one you might find interesting. I'm tractor mechanicing today, which sometimes seems to be the story of my life.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
was wondering if you knew of a site where information could be found about them
Don't know if this site is any good, but here it is:
http://www.icfweb.com/
Or if you want SIP's:
http://www.sipweb.com
Which has a hit & miss forum, but has some good articles.jt8
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -- Ronald Reagan
Thanks John for the info. I'm sure it will be helpful with upcoming Habitat jobs. Steve
Another dumbass question . . . . SIP's? I've got a lot to learn.Cheersmark
SIP's- structural insulated panels, basically a layer of styrofoam sandwiched by two shhets of osb, generally. They come in 4 ft widths, and lengths up to 18 or 20 ft. They serve as framing, sheathing and insulation all at once. They are stronger and stiffer than conventional framing and much more energy efficient. Do a google search and you will find tons of info.
If you go with frame walls, I really like these insulated headers:http://www.swi-joist.com/
T-shirt: Proud Owner Totally Unused Exercise Bike
Obviously good insulation in the walls and ceiling is the key, and much is available to read about that.
Some less commonly discussed technique would be these:
You should familiarize yourself with the R2000 program.
In your climate wind power may be a better deal than solar.
Not related to energy conservation, in your exposed, weatherbeaten climate fibercement siding would be worth considering.
"3. What HVAC options are the most energy efficient generally and still effective."
Where you are building, mechanical cooling is an option, not a "necessity". So, heating will be your primary HVAC expense. The most energy efficient, effective means to heat is radiant floor heating (RFH) with a condensing boiler. It requires less energy to transport heat around the house using hot water than hot air and the most efficient boilers on the market are more thermally efficient than the most efficient furnaces. Ease of zoning and capacity modulation, including the ability to change the heat rate based on outside air temperatures is another feature of a good hyrdronic system not available in most forced air systems. The primary limitation with a hyrdonic system is that is does not address ventilation or cooling. Effective cooling requires moving air across a cold coil. There are some radiant cooling schemes out there, but with the exception of the desert areas, sensible only cooling (which is what radiant cooling is) is not a realistic option in an area where dehumidification is of any importance.
"Where you are building, mechanical cooling is an option, not a "necessity". "
My thought, too. Design your window overhangs carefully, you want the low winter sun but NOT the high summer sun to come directly in. Maybe even vertical exterior shades on the west side to keep out the late west and NW sun in the summer. we get a ton of that and after a long sunny day, we don't need any more (plus it is time to SLEEP!).
Consider a large fan that can suck from the highest point in the house and discharge the hottest air in the summer (maybe through the attic). Operate it on a thermostat. Leave a north window open to bring in cool air. Button it up again in the winter.
Not having and not needing A/C will save you a lot of operating and installation costs.
Put in enough operatable windows to get cross-ventilation in every area. But no more than that (unless needed for egress requirements). A fixed window is much more air tight.
If the gird is available - do it. They you can cherry-pick the best "free" energy which will certainly mostly be wind. Maybe a bit of solar. And let the utility carry your peak load.
Use fluorescents as much as you can. Much better efficiency than incandescents so I use them more in the winter, which is better for one's mental health at high lattitudes.David Thomas Overlooking Cook Inlet in Kenai, Alaska
Mark,
For heating I would consider designing your house with a Masonry Heater. I'm sure you'll have acces to plenty of trees, so the firewood could be free. One or two fires a day and you could be set.
Check out the Masonry Heater Assoc : http://www.mha-net.org
Also Masonry Stove Builders in your backyard (Ontario) : http://www.mha-net.org/msb/index.htm
Good luck.
Tim
Mark,
These guys have given you a lot of great info so far. I think the ICF's are a great system for superior insulation, radiant heat w/condensing boiler, carefull design of glazing location and size, heat recovery ventilation is a must for this tight of a house, especially in your colder climate. As for the green aspect in the interior, look for carpets available now made from recycled plastic soda bottles, we just installed some. Also, cork is considered a good renewable floor covering, some tiles, bamboo floorings, etc. Cabinet manufacturers now offer cabinetry with certified green components, tile or stone countertops, low water consumption plumbing fixtures and faucets, low-voc paints and finishes. The NAHB is currently working on finalizing a green building practices guidlines that should be available online @ NAHB.org . I also would look into the potential for wind power tied into the grid system, Does Canada offer any incentives or rebates?
Gawd, what a heap of great advice. I can add only these two things: in the design stage, strive to minimize the exposed area of the shell in relation to the volume enclosed for obvious reasons and use a light colour surface on the roof, especially, to minimize solar gain in the summer and radiant losses in the winter.
Black roofs have only one advantage over other roofs - scuff marks from roofers boots don't show.
Ron
MarkMacLeod,
Build with SIPs.. Build a timber frame for thermal mass & use SIPs.. as exterior panels. SIPs work well since they don't have the weakness of thermal conduction that traditonal stick framing does..
Every 16 inches there is a thermal bridge made by the 2x4 or 2x6 . you can detect that bridge easily if you use one of the lazer thermometers.. On a cold day the stud will be many degrees colder than a properly insulated wall right next to it..
The reason to build a timber frame is for the thermal mass offered by those big timbers.. during the day solar power warms up the timbers and at night they slowly release heat back into the room..
Your foundation should be made with ICF's since the ground will be a consistant 55 degrees below the frost line and you want it at 70 or so, a regular foundation will try hard to suck all your heat out but a ICF is pretty good at preventing that conduction..
Money?
well a ICF basement might add 2% to cost but you could save a fortune and do it yourself.. it's not terribly hard or tricky.
SIPs should be less expensive than traditional stick building.. The fact that bids will be higer is either because the contractor is unsure or because he knows the market well enough to command a premium.. I'm building my own SIP home. and several others here have done so as well. You too can do it if you want.. as for the timberframe portion, heck you can do it yourself or buy a kit that is already done..
Ditto - ICF's are considered "green" in the long run. I believe that the figure is about after 5 or so years the "dirtyness" of the method is offset.
Concrete in itself is not considered green (by those outside the industry). Concrete creates a lot of pollution (improving, though) during its manufacture and is also very energy-expensive (can't do too much about that).
The foam blocks are made in a two step process. First, the (polystyrene) beads are a petroleum product and are first made by the (big) plastic company and shipped to the block manufacturer as tiny beads. Second, the beads are placed in a mould and heated with steam, which makes them expand. The amount of beads placed in the mould is what affects the quality of the material of the final block. More makes a denser, stronger block, but costs more. The blocks are aged for a week or two (or three) during which time the blocks off-gas and stabilize in dimension. This is done at the factory before the block is shipped. The substances released during this off-gassing are very benign to the environment and miniscule in quantity, and mostly occurr in the factory, not at your house.
I believe ICF's are more commonly used in your area than other areas in Ontario. There are quite a few ICF builders in the Toronto area who routinely go "up north" with their crews to build ICF houses. ICF's will conform quickly, easily and perfectly to rock outcroppings if you have them on your property.
IIRC - there are 40-50+ manufacturers of ICF block in North America. You'll find tons of info on ICF's on the internet. When you actually come down to getting a quote - you'll find in the end that ICF costs more than anyone will tell you beforehand.
IMHO - if you go with ICF - don't go with just the foundation. The crew is already there - go with the walls of the house as well.
Regards - Brian.
here a question that I have problem understanding. "Why would I care if its green? I want a house to withstand a hurricane."
Hmmm . . . well fortunately we don't have much of a hurricane problem. If I lived in such an area it would be a valid consideration.As far as why green? Well, I can't think of a reason why not to. There are unfortunately 6.5 billion of us two legged monsters doing our best to destroy this planet that we and those to come later have to live on. Building green is part of my ethic and responsibility to this planet and those around me. Simple.mark
Mark: all building materials have some impact on the environment. Whether something is "green" or not depends on your perspective and values and how you run the calculations. Just one thing: just because something is synthetic or man-made doesn't make it automatically "bad for the planet", and just because something is "natural" doesn't make it automatically green or renewable. A poorly designed and constructed structure made from 100% renewable materials is not only junk and a poor place to live, it's also very likely to have more environmental impact over its lifetime than a well designed structure made without any regard to whether the materials used are renewable or not.
Obviously you're building new, so you are willing to have some impact on the planet. You just want to do it in an environmentally responsible manner, and you're willing to spend some effort and bucks at the front end to do it right. Bravo to you- we need everybody to have this mindset if we're going to survive! But if this is really important to you, then I suggest that you buy existing construction and renovate it for energy efficiency because it will probably have less environmental impact than developing a greenfield site for yourself. Then again, the fact that you're building green may reduce the likelihood that a less-green structure is built for someone else, so who is to know for sure?
If you do choose to build new, don't over-build. Regardless what construction method you use, smaller means less energy consumption and environmental impact in both fabrication and use.
The upside of ICF construction is that it is very energy-efficient to operate, it's extremely durable, and it offers low construction cost relative to alternatives because it involves so little labour. The downside is that it uses concrete, which uses portland cement- a material which has a high "embodied energy" because you need to heat limestone in a cement kiln to enormous temperatures to make it. Unfortunately, NIMBY attitudes have prevented us from using cement kilns to burn hazardous waste and used tires as a partial fuel source like they do in Europe, so most of that energy right now comes from raw material fossil fuel consumption.
But what you really care about is energy content per cubic foot of finished structure AND some accounting for the life-cycle cost of energy to make the structure habitable, and it's not so simple a calculation to do, and inherently one's values enter into the calculations.
As far as insulating materials go, aside from earth sheltering, the "greenest" option you have is probably cellulose. All the wide-use foam materials including the ones used in SIPs and ICFs are petrochemical products, fibreglass is a combination of a high embodied energy material (glass fibres) plus a petrochemical resin product, and mineral fibre is also high embodied energy though it does make use of a waste material (steelmaking slag). But again, considering the density of the foam materials and the amount of energy they save relative to batt-type insulations, the impact of the manufacture of the foam in the first place is definitely dwarfed by the fossil fuel consumption required for thirty-plus years of heating and cooling.
Wood frame construction with dense-packed cellulose insulation can be very energy efficient if you do it right. It can also be relatively inexpensive. Like the foam materials, densepack cellulose minimizes air migration which dramatically reduces heatloss. As a bonus, the wood and cellulose fibre in your house is basically permanently sequestered atmospheric CO2 when you think about it. On the downside, it's not a popular method here in Ontario based on a survey of the local insulators.
I think that I could have said instead of building green to to say building responsibly. Smaller house, better designed with material choices that are informed by energy/resource costs of manufacture and performance/energy consumption of the future and ultimate cost for disposal/degradation.We are thinking of all of these things . . . and it's alot to think about. We have an advantage in that we don't have to do this tomorrow so we have alot of time to do the homework.As an added question to you and others, what do you think of the metal cladding used in the dogrun house in FHB this issue? We have been looking at this cladding on buildings in the area and we really like it . . . it seems durable, low maintenance, and we like the aesthetic. I acknowledge the cost of producing the metal and the use of resources to do so . . . . but protecting wood with some paint/stain or using a cementitious product seem to have thier own costs.Thanks againMark
Edited 10/11/2005 4:34 pm ET by MarkMacLeod
Stay focused if your really committed to Green building and forget about metal siding. Lower maintainance, ie. less of your energy to mainain doesn't come close to balancing out the extremely high embodied energy costs/lifecycle costs of metal. First look at all the possible treatments and protection of wood siding. Sorry don't have time to go into that more at the moment.try checking out these websites:http://www.r2000.org will let you search for an r2ooo certified builder in your area and tell you about the program generallyhttp://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/popup/hhtoronto/works.htm will tell you all about the Toronto Healthy House, including all the systems, suppliers, designers, engineers, etc. This house is in downtown Toronto but doesn't use municipal services and actually feeds the grid. If this link doesn't work for some reason just Google "Healthy House Toronto"Google "Martin Liefhebber architect" architect of the Healthy House, they specialize in Green building far beyond the R2000 and also "Rolf Paloheimo developer" developer and owner of the Healthy Househttp://www.bullfrogpower.com (or .ca maybe ?) new provider of all Green power in Ontario just up and running in the last few weeks, just in case you don't go off the grid entirely.Live light enough to see the humour and long enough to see change.
-Ani DiFranco
Mark,
Actually read up to post 27 and it got me thinking. I am going through a renovation of an older home at the shore in NJ. A house mover suggested I save a house that would end up as landfill and he move it to my lot. Homeowners wanting to tear down a house will often sell it for a dollar, saves them the cost of demolition, and you can move it relatively cheaply if there are not alot of powerlines in the way. Obviously you would be doing the greenest move of all, recycling an entire house. Food for thought!
Brownbagg,
You don't care if it's green?
That's like saying you don't care if a company pollutes by flushing waste down the river..
Everyplace is down river from every other place and if more energy is spent making something then there is less energy left for all of us.. That means the price of energy will rise and then you will need to spend more to fill your gas tank.
But I'm only wasting a little bit, look at everybody else,..
Well multiply your feelings times the 280 million Americans or 6 trillion people in the world. A billion here a billion there and pretty soon it will all add up..
If you build to survive a hurricane then your house will be considered green ,in your area. If your house is not smashed and hualed to the dump every time abig one hits that is a savings of material and labor and energy. It must be a regonal thing.
Mark:
Have the house built to at least R2000 standards.
With today's high energy prices, install R50-60 blown cellulose in the flat attics (depending on the heat source and style), R25-32 in walls/sloped ceilings (cellulose if possible), and R20 in the basement depending on how much is exposed (or better yet true slab-on-grade with R15-20 foam board) The tested artificial air change rate should be 1.5 -2.0 changes per hr at a 50 pascal pressure difference.
Be careful of the claims of ICF systems. They do not give the R50's claimed in the cold northern climates where heat moves in one direction outward from mid Oct. til mid May. This "apparent" value was found in a simulation of the wall in Phoenix, AZ where much of the year is spent cooling. The center concrete stores the heat from the 100+ deg F days and releases it outward at night when temps fall below the concrete wall temps. So you get an apparent R value gain due to heat storage and release that saves on air conditioning. The gain for cold climates is small to nil although the wall is quite airtight with no thermal bridges. They usually cost 10-20% more than wood walls above grade. If you use them, make sure you get every thing done right because if you have to change anything afterwards, its a pain!
Windows available in your area would be R8 center glass (double low E with krypton gas fill) with warm edge spacers. Try having a passive solar aspect to your design with smaller/no windows on the north and slightly oversized/more windows on the se/s/sw. The sun can easily give you 20-40% of your heat needs. If you want to have large windows and a lot of solar gain, use materials that can store heat in south rooms (insulated slab-on-grade) or build an open interior design so that the solar gain moves to rear areas. If you don't, you can create "solar cookers" of s/sw facing rooms
Buy a heat recovery ventilator (HRV) with a good centrally located multi-option control panel that includes timed periods of air exchange/recirculation + filtration/at rest or a programable timer (like thermostats). The vast majority of homes with HRV's are overventilated. The air volumes used in codes are based on the earlier part of the R2000 system when houses were way overventilated (erred on the side of safety). See Note below
Note: I used to be a site advisor/ inspector/troubleshooter/researcher for the New Brunswick R2000 program. Some of the problems I have seen from overventilation include winter shrinkage of hardwood flooring that was installed in the summer, summer cupping from expansion of hardwood flooring installed in Jan/Feb, nosebleeds and static shocks. Another forum I used to contribute to had people putting humidifiers on their furnace/heat pump systems (rather than reducing air exchange rates). By the way, two of my customers whom I helped train in Moncton were named as Canadian "R2000 Builder of the Year" in 1989 and 1993
ex... we've been energy building since '75.. and have developed lots of strategies for construction.. both new and remodeling.
one area i'm very deficient in is HRV's..
i do note that one prevailing problem i see again and again is homes that do not have enough moisture during the closed home heating season..
we get calls about inspecting homes for "shoddy " construction and go in and look at the complaints about shrinking flooring... stairs pulling away from the walls..
trim with large gaps.. doors moving.. and drywall/ plaster skim-coat cracking..
90% of the time ( my estimate ) i pull out my slng psychrometer and measure RH in the 10% range.. or take out my moisture meter and measure wood below 10% or even below 6%
then i go down in the basement and measure their joists... 2x10's measuring 8 5/8 to 8 3/4 ( almost 3/4" shrinkage
most of the time i recommend cabinet humidifiers or add system humidifiers to their hot-air furnace..
but i would imagine some of this can be aided by HRV's... tell me more, please
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
How many of the home owners tell you that you don't know what you are talking about when you tell them that a humidifyer will fix their problem? I can see it now , abummed out homeowner ready with a law suit and no leg to stand on , dreams of dollar signs and sugarplums all come smashing down .
most of them are pretty grateful.. instead of costly repairs , they solve their house problems and a lot of health problems with a $200 humidifier
i know one of my contractor friends brought me in.. the situation was ready for court..
i showed the homeowner what his woodstove was doing to his house ( and his family's respiratory systems ) and everyone went away smilingMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
If you really want to go "green" you need to think of the inflow stream of your building materials and not just their performance after installed. For instance, most ICF's use some of the most evironmentally unfriendly substances on the planet. You might consider alternate building methods to save energy and not just stick-frame which is inherently ineffecient (hence the huge effort to then insulate) With your proximity to the lake I would consider heat-pumps, wind, and thermal-difference equipment. Solar is still viable at your lattitudes. We use them around here very successfully (Puget Sound, Vancouver B.C.)
If you have the time and patience, you can get off the grid. I have some friends that live quite comfortably in a w/e retreat on Orcas Island complete with woodworking shop.
Good luck on your project and remember to keep us posted!
Terence
Your hyperbolic statement about ICFs using "some of the most environmentally unfriendly substances on the planet" is neither accurate nor helpful. ICFs are made from polystyrene solid plastic and polystyrene foam. Take it from someone who knows chemicals: styrene monomer is a toxic substance but is very, very far from being amongst the most environmentally unfriendly substance on the planet. Polystyrene, solid or foamed, is physically bulky and environmentally persistent but otherwise a very benign construction material. The blowing agent used for EPS is generally pentane, which is chemically about as inoccuous as you can get. Compare the properties of these materials with the isocyanates used in the manufacture of urethane foams, the materials used in most construction adhesives, or with any number of other materials normally used in widely-used construction materials and polystyrene comes out looking pretty good in comparison.
When most people are using hydrocarbon-derived energy in their homes, the amount of hydrocarbon materials used in making foam insulation is tiny in comparison to the vast amounts of this resource used to keep the home heated for thirty or more years.
ICFs, like all other construction methods, have advantages and disadvantages. As an above-grade construction method I personally feel that the 5" of EPS is inadequate and I think that the thermal mass argument with respect to ICFs is overblown. The high embodied energy of the concrete is also a concern. But I'd much rather see someone with an ICF home than with what's normal around here: 2x6x16" construction with fibreglass batts.
I'm all for green construction, but let's keep the hyperbole out of it. All materials used in construction cause environmental harm to some degree, and consume some quantity of energy in their fabrication and distribution which also causes some environmental harm. All effort used in construction similarly has environmental costs. But from an energy balance perspective, it's easy to demonstrate that a home's largest single environmental impact is in the form of the energy used to heat, cool and light it. I'd argue that a home designed to be energy efficient in operation without ANY regard for the "green-ness" of its construction materials will have LESS environmental impact over its lifetime than one which is designed or constructed poorly using so-called sustainable materials. Of course, a home built with BOTH these considerations taken fully into account will be best of all. But the determination of what constitutes green construction and green materials must be made rationally without ideology coming into it or the concept is worthless.
Not sure what "hyperbolic" means ( I think I slept through that part of math ) but I stand by my statement. No ideology intended or implied (I hope).
Your statement that all building impacts the enviroment in some way is well taken. I was just trying to extend the original posters concept of "green" out a ways. I agree that some of the caulks and foams used are more unfriendly than some of the ICFs but that doesn't mean they are benign to the environment overall. Not being unhealthey to humans and being good for the environment are two different issues. Some products can be of great use in saving energy but impact the environment in other ways. Not that this is neccessarly bad but might want to be considered. Ways that someone might not be aware of at first. Look at this nonsense over hydrogen fueled cars. Once you factor in the huge amount of infrastructure that needs to be built, the amount of energy required to get the hydrogen out in the first place and its a wash. Same with corn-based ethanol for fuel. Takes more oil to get the ethanol than the gas it replaces. The EPA has some usefull information on these issues on their website. Not that it is the last word at all but at least is room for thought.
I would never preach to someone elses choices of building materials. That is their decision to make and if I came off "preachy" that wasn't the intent. I was just trying to point out that many products we think of as more effecient in some ways might have a larger impact that just what we see after we purchase it for our own use. Since the original poster used language that implied that they would like to consider these issues then I put them out for consideration. They are free to use them or reject them as they see fit. I promise not to be offended.
I myself, have been known to actually drive a truck to jobs that wasn't a diesel or hybrid. <g>
Terence
I alway thought being green was using material that was free of formdahyde or lead paint, but now people are complaining about wood because the chainsaw used gasoline. I dont care if the fish hook hurt the fish, wait till he hit the frying pan.
Edited 10/17/2005 1:56 pm by brownbagg
TDRucker: your explanation is perfectly fine to me. I was just reacting to the hyperbole (absurd exaggeration to make a point) when you compared ICF foam to the most dangerous substances on the planet.
Considering the analysis you've made of hydrogen and corn-based ethanol as fuels, it sounds like we have no argument whatsoever. If it takes a gallon equivalent of diesel and natural gas to produce a gallon of corn ethanol gasoline additive, what have we really gained? But if the answer is "a bucket of cattle feed left over from the fermentation", then maybe we've got something. Clearly the lifecycle cost has to be carefully evaluated or the wrong conclusions will be drawn.
You can convert a gallon of ethylbenzene into about 0.9 gallons of styrene monomer rather than burning the ethylbenzene in your car. You can then use the resulting 60 "gallons" of EPS foam to save thousands of gallons of heating fuel over 30 years on a house. Now THERE'S an environmental payback!
Lifecycle cost is tough to measure and it always involves personal values. To some people, a tree is only worth the profit you can squeeze from the wood in it, whereas others have a spiritual or aesthetic connection to a living tree and absolutely none to a beautiful piece of wood. These two people won't agree about the "cost" of lumber used in a house, ever, and it's pointless to even try.
Yeah, I probably got a little carried away with my description of ICFs. Your reply has started me to thinking a bit more about what it means to be "green" My training as an enviromental scientist (my other career) tends to color my thinking sometimes. We tend to think in longer time-spans than the average person who usually has a generational, or maybe 2-generation, "window" that they see the world through. It also can skew your thinking about what needs to be preserved, used, shunned, etc.
As a builder, my interest is usually economic and I see things in terms of time/energy/material effinciency.
A few pounds of foam v a couple of thousand barrels of oil seem like a pretty sensible trade-off for any one but the most hardend "greenie"
I guess my aversion to putting any styrofoam in landfills got the best of my thinking on this issue which is only marginally related.
As an aside. What supports the concrete grid that is created inside the ICF? Does the foam support laterally? I have never worked with one directly but have seen them used.
Anyway, more thinking in order...
Terence
TD,
In most newer ICF systems, the concrete inside the form is actually a solid wall not a grid, with vertical and horizontal rebar running thru it. The systems I have used most, ARRX and Nudura. would normally be a 11 1/4" thick form with about a 6 1/2" thick concrete wall thickness for a basement wall or house ext. wall. I would use 1/2" rebar 16" or 18" o.c. horizontally depending on which brand{ they are 16 or 18" high blocks} and 3' o.c. vertically. A structural advantage to this system is it's superior strength. 3,500 lb concrete mix achieves a higher strength when poured in these insulated forms as it cures more evenly than a conventional poured wall that has forms stripped within 2 days. There's no comparison to wood frame, sips, etc for strength.
In some earlier ICF's the concrete was more of a grid pattern, Polysteel comes to mind. I was never thrilled with their system as it seemed too easy to not get good consistant flow thru the forms, and I was concerned about overall strength. One other issue raised here was as to wether the concrete itself was a good choice for green building. I haven't used it yet, but research is telling me that when fly ash is used as an alternative ingredient in the concrete mix this improves it's green "rating" as the fly ash is a waste byproduct.
Bish
There's no comparison to wood frame, sips, etc for strength.
Bish:
Are you insinuating that wood framed homes that have stood up for 200-250 years in some areas are not strong enough. These homes were overframed and then stripped down to current practices, which are still overframed. See "Smart Framing" in the current issue of FHB. This was formerly called the "OVE" (optimum value engineering) system and has been around since at least 1990.
Makes a lot of sense and uses a recyclable product (wood) produced by free sunlight and very little oil/gas. Use a re-cycled product (cellulose- again from wood) for wall and ceilings as much as possible.
We seem to think that we need new "high tech" products to beat the energy crunch. Some of the most efficient homes built in the Canadian Advanced House Program of the early 90's had cellulose in the walls. This product may well be one of the insulations of the future as the price of fossil fuels rise. It'll be much cheaper to use the re-cycled yesterday's newspaper than an oil based product.
Cellulose is a great insulation option, provided it's dense packed to prevent shrinkage.
But can I find a dense-pack cellulose installation contractor in Toronto? Nope. Lots of people will blow loose cells into an attic space, but nobody who advertises is doing dense-packed. And without a local supplier to rent the blower from, there's no way I could DIY it even if I wanted to- and I don't. Insulating is a job I'll gladly pay someone else to do for me.
If anybody out there knows of somebody in Southern Ontario who is doing this, please let me know or get them to contact me directly through my profile.
molten.. anybody blowing cells is a candidate for blowing dens-pak... call them until you find one willing to do it, who sounds like they have the right attitude
between this site and Regal Industries, we have all the info any insulator would need.. and they get to go to school on your dimeMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Do you mean dense packed for airsealing or just to prevent settlement?
I have measured 2 -2 storey retrofit houses before and after with a blower door (had 1 in 1981) to check what happens to air leakage just by blowing the walls at regular density to prevent settling. The densities were around 2.8-3 lbs per cu ft.; dense pack speciifcally to provide more airsealing is usually 3.5-4 lbs but this can bow or blow out weaker wallboard/plaster. Regular flat attic densities are 1.6-1.8 lbs.
The houses measured had air leakage reductions of 34 and 39% at regular anti-settling densities!!! No caulking or foam was used.
Home Depot in Halifax will lend you a blower for up to one day if you buy a minimum # of bags. It was 15 last year and I hear it's 20 now. 20 bags will cost you about $300 (taxes in including delivery) and do approximately 600+ net sq ft of wall. The retail cost of doing that wall here is about $1380 taxes in (if you can get anyone before Jan-Feb)- DIY is a great saving!!!!
OK: here's the plan. I get my FIL to drive across the bridge from Dartmouth to Home Depot Friday night, pick up the blower, load the truck with bags, and then drive to Toronto! He can hang out with his grandkids while I blow the walls and cathedral ceilings!
Seriously, what I found around here was people scratching their heads and saying 'huh? when you ask them about blowing dense-packed cellulose into wall cavities. It just isn't done that often. Certainly not available at the local Despot, nor at any of the real yards I've talked to either.
Without access to somebody's blower, properly kitted out for blowing into wall cavities, I'm not going to go near this. Then again, with the difference in price between doing cells myself and paying for icynene, I could probably buy my own freakin' blower!
Before I spring for that big icynene bill, I'd better do a bit more searching.
Seriously: if you're in the Toronto area and know somebody who can do this for me, or at least rent me the gear, contact me through my profile!
It is odd that HD doesn't offer the same deal across its chain. There has to be some rental firm that will have a unit in your area.
Found this from Sept 7 on a Google search (is this your message?):
"Where can I rent an Insulation Blower in the Burlington or HamiltonOntario Canada area? I'd like to fill the cavities of my 100 year oldhouse with insulation (loose fill insultation or injection foam), toimprove the energy efficiency. The Home Depot renovation book saysthat a homeowner can rent an insulation blower and do it himself"
See: http://www.weatherization.com/densepack.html
molten... that site that experienced linked to was a great explanation..
http://www.weatherization.com/densepack.html
the practicalities are not that difficult.. existing wall systems .. i like a 3 hole blow...
for new wall systems i like insulmesh and a hole about every 16" in every stud bayMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Ex,
I'm not insinuating anything at all. I'm stating a fact that an ICF wall system is stronger than the other mentioned systems. Now is that strength needed everywhere? No, but it is a consideration for many people. Look, there are a lot of different building systems out there that can perform very good, including conventional wood framed 2x6 walls, which is most of what we still do by the way, because that's what most people are spec'ing out in our market. All I'm saying is I think, from my personal experience, the ICF system is a great energy efficient wall system with minimal thermal bridging, good r-value, and ease of construction, while giving higher strength also. As to claims of R-50 walls, I agree that seems a tad high to believe, but I do believe the wall performs as a system better than just the rating of R-20, while the 2x6 wall performs worse than the rating of the cavity insulation, wether it is R-19 or R-21 fiberglass or cellulose. ICF's=little to none thermal bridging and some thermal mass inside of outer layer of insulation vs 2x6 wall= lots and lots of thermal bridging and no thermal mass. Also, less worries about moisture issues, vapor barriers, etc. I agree it's not for eveybody tho.
TD:
Don't hold back too much on your environmentalism. That's what got us to where we are today- not believing there's a problem. I don't know if it will happen in my remaining 20-50 years or not, but what will they be saying if we have to start building dykes around Boston, Manhatten and other sea level cities. The Artic sea ice was at its lowest coverage in our history this summer!!! I can't safely swim in many of the locations that I did in the 1950's!! Is this progress??? I remember discussing/fighting with my father in the early 70's about composting and re-cycling; he thought I had lost it at university (I must be on drugs). It is now law in Nova Scotia to separate our waste streams for recycling, etc or they will not take your garbage (or maybe someday start fining people)
ICF's are 10-20% more expensive to build than frame construction for an R20-22 real R value in northern climates. The concrete clinkers have to be heated up to 3000 Deg F before being ground into cement. (lots of oil use)
Naturally occurring aggregates are being shipped from Alaska to California and Japan (lots of oil use); there is shortage occurring in natural aggregates!! We now will have to start blasting mountains and crushing stone for concrete (lots of oil use) (it's happening pretty big time in rural picturesque Nova Scotia with a big fight on to stop another new development for aggregate destined to NY)
Advbertisements for ICF's here were claiming R50 walls!!!....... And to be real green stated: ICF houses save trees (which can be grown with free sun energy!!)
As we dismantle the ICF's at some future date, how easy will it be to re-use the concrete?? Presently I see concrete being dumped into marshes and other landfills to make more expansive developments, no true re-cycling. Tidal marshes and estuaries are some of the most biologically productive areas on earth and are still being filled in at some locations. No wonder some of our seafoods are in decline....not just overfishing but taking some of the bottom rungs of the food ladder out of production.
But I rant........used to work in wildlife conservation......changed to energy conservation during 1972-77 period (been burning some wood since 1972.)
Yeah, but are you experienced..? Bum Bum Baaah! Bum Bum Baaaaa....
Its late...
T.
Not too far away there is a small concrete recycling facility. Used concrete is surprisingly easy to crush into gravel using a mill designed for the purpose. This small facility is located on site at a concrete mixing plant so it quickly goes into the mix. I have been told that because of the chemical makeup and clean sharp shape it makes a very strong concrete with good wear qualities.Landfill space, even construction materials dumps, are too expensive. Largely because they need monitoring virtually forever and, if built upon, make reliable and cost effective foundation design difficult. It was, not too many years ago thought a construction fill site would be ideal for building. Broken concrete, masonry and such making a solid base. Problem was found that it was likely to shift unevenly, suddenly giving way, and sometimes provided too much support in small areas. Makes the unlucky building look like a ship that hit the rocks. If not sure of the relative economies but crushing and reusing concrete sounds like a good idea.
In terms of the economies and the size of the crusher, they are definitely getting smaller and more easily transported. I've seen a couple where they towed crushers right to the jobsites. One of the courthouses on Long Island is being rebuilt and there was an old jail in back plus a chitload of concrete parking lot. When they started demo, everything went right into the crusher, and I believe most of it was used on site. It's one of the better ideas I've seen in a while.
Good to hear that it's starting somewhere. Haven't seen or heard of it in my area yet.
Hey, Experienced,
I remember reading some of those ICF brochures saying R50 or some such and scoffing, just like you. And, just like you, I still scoff at BS claims like that. Five or six inches of polystyrene foam does not add up to R50, no matter what.
ICF houses still save energy in our climate.
In the first place, there is a hel of a lot of energy in wood framing installed in a house. It takes a lot to cut it, haul it and saw it. There are still some kilns burning oil. And on and on. The energy cost of wood is not trivial.
Another energy cost is what I predict to be the limited lifespan of houses framed in the modern style with bits of bent sheet metal substituting for sheathing and the drywall as a structural component. Modern framed houses can not be compared to old style wooden houses. They are different species. I've heard people talking about some of the early R2000's being rotten to the windowsills, especially in climates that are rougher than ours here, such as eastern Newfoundland.
The advantage of ICF construction in our climate is that it extends the no-heating season at both ends. The insulated thermal mass moderates the indoor temperature so the house temp doesn't respond to outdoor temp swings very fast.
In my present wooden house (in Prospect Bay) I'm now heating at night while the windows are wide open during the day. In my ICF house which I will soon move in to, the temperature stays much the same with no heat on.
An architect I know who lives near me in an ICF house says that he doesn't turn on his furnace until December and he turns it off agian in March.
I'll be able to tell you more in the spring about operational energy use.
In the meantime, I'm going to continue to promote and build ICF structures partly for their energy advantages over wood.
I also like them because it's such a pleasure to build something strong.
Ron
If I were to build something new, I'd go high-mass with 3+" of insulation outside. As you report, there are significant advantages to homes that can take advantage of the thermal battery storage effect during the shoulder seasons. Does any ICF manufacturer offer uneven insulation packages yet (i.e. blocks with 3+" of polystyrene on one side and maybe 1" on the other side?
Constantin,
I don't know of any manufacurers who do that, but that doesn't mean there are none. I do think that the 2 1/2" of foam used in most of the ICFs I've seen is minimal. You can often see slight bulges between the webs which are usually every 8 inches, especially if you stick a vibrator into the core.
The best results I've had have been with Logix, which has 2 3/4" foam walls each side. The extra 1/4 seems to make just enough of a difference that the walls are flatter.
There would be more waste on the job with an asymetrical system compared to one which is symmetrical. You couldn't pick up your offcuts and use them anywhere at all.
Ron
Far as I know, the only way to get the mass on the inside of the insulation is to avoid ICFs. Clearly my using XPS on the outside (only) of my concrete is a large factor in our heating/cooling success. We have over 1400 sq ft of exposed walls. The mass counterbalances our large windows, our major heat loss.
Cloud once dug out the gov't lab's findings on the subject. ICFs are better than most foundations, but don't compare favorably to the best.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
VaTom,
You are right about the relative performance of ICF compared to some other configurations.
Last year, I read a lot of stuff from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee about thermal performance of some different configurations. I think the best turned out to be a sandwich of concrete/foam/concrete but how do you form that?
Ease of construction counts for something, too.
Ron
ron....
<<<<I think the best turned out to be a sandwich of concrete/foam/concrete but how do you form that? >>>
well , this isn't formed... and i see lots of thermal breaks.. but here was some typical construction in SW Ireland...
View Image
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Edited 10/23/2005 7:07 am ET by MikeSmith
Mike,
My GF was telling me about house construction like this but she didn't really notice the details. She did the Dublin Marathon a couple of years ago and then took a trip to Dingle.
I have a book for you. Send me you mailing address again, please.
Ron
Ease of construction counts for something, too.
Absolutely. If it ain't gonna get built, what's the point? While I'll stick to my forming and insulating, I freely recommend ICFs to anybody who needs that ease, especially DIYers.
My small point was addressing Constantin's. The reason I use plywood forms is that I can form virtually anything I want. But easier it's not.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Anyone on the thread ever build a permanent wood foundation (PWF)?
I think that if you want a cost effective, efficient foundation that's easy to finish the interior in, this is the way to go. Done properly they don't even require perimeter drain tile by code.....just some to take water away to light or a storm sewer. Can easily be built year round in colder climates (as can ICF's). easier to finish interior with all wiring, etc. And later, if you want to change a window for a larger one or put in a basement door and stair/doorwell, just take out the skilsaw an begin.
The Projects in Alternate Technology (PATH) section of the US National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) had these listed a few years ago saying in their intro "this makes so much sense we don't know why more people are using the system"
These are my favourite foundations. Have worked on about 20 of them. Last one was in summer 2000. Took an 1882 house (owned by a former employee) with 17-18 corners and a 2 flue masonry chimney, supported it in place (done by a house mover), dug the floor deeper and built the new foundation under the suspended house. Owner is very happy with result.
On day 3 or 4, owner decided on change for the door/stairwell to basement. had a look at what he wanted and found out that we could save on the wood costs by using some regular graded wood!!
Major resale problem here. The very few I'm aware of sold substantially below their competition.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
same thing here...
there are lots of 100 year old concrete foundations but only a handful of 20 year old All-Wood foundationsMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
You want mass on the inside of ICF's? simple! the floor is mass if a window shines on a dark floor and it's made of a dense material like concrete, stone etc. it will absorb energy during the sunny periods and relise it during the dark periods..
You could aLSO TIMBERFRAME INSIDE AN icf IF YOU WANTED TOO.
Yup, and if you do it right, more mass is better. We have a concrete floor thermally tied to the ground under it. Same for our buried walls and roof. We could actually use more mass, but not enough for me to bother with. Next house...
Your short term heat storage works. Annual storage works better. Pretty sure we're the last around here to think about adding any supplemental heat, and that's only because around Dec. our stable minimum temp reaches 65º, which we find chilly.
Heating season arrived here a couple of weeks ago. I've hauled 4 truckloads (1 cord ea) of firewood for a buddy here to get him set up. He grimmaces when he thinks about our similar houses and differing performance. I keep telling him about For Sale signs. Depending on land cost, likely could replace what he has for the same, or less, money. And end his heating/cooling woes.
Not exactly timberframe, but I got a job today razing a hewn chestnut log house. Unclear who's going to reassemble it as a guest house near the residence, but it's a nice project. Something tells me this is gonna be another of those times where "as long as you have the machinery here" I'll be awhile. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
This is the only "thermally smart" ICF:
http://www.rbsdirect.com/build.htm
On the down side, it uses PVC...
Thanks for the link! I will take a closer look at it when I have more time... Cheers!
TDrucker
You commented about the inflow stream how the foam they make ICF's isn't exactly green..
Well there are two ways of looking at that.. What the material is made of and the resultant eviornmental effects..
For example you could build a basement many ways, yet the ways that are eviornmentally green like boulders, stone etc. will result in a tremendous waste of energy to heat the building.. A basement (where I use ICF's)is a big energy user.. The ground is 55 degrees year around and that makes it seem cold and damp.. heat is used to keep it warm. When the ground is frozen then even more heat is sucked out of that same basement.. tell me about an eviornmentaly green productthat does as good a job with energy useage and I would have used it.. I looked and never found it..
The pollution in making those foam ICF's is a short duration the energy savings should be a long time.. decades/centuries.. Build with concrete/ stone etc. and spend decades/centuries using more energy heating the house.. or make a short duration amount of pollution and remain much greener for decades/centuries..
Ever considered a preserved wood foundation (PWF)? Wood is one of the most enviromentally friendly products going. It's made with mostly free sun energy. A PWF is easy and cheap to insulate, wire, plumb and finish.
There seem to be as many ideas floating around in this field; I'd be wanting to find an expert who can figure out what works best in combination.
Here are a few ideas that I've heard claims about:
- SIPS, and then foam between the studs as well.
- in our climate, EFIS is better over a SIP.
- insulate the attic space with foam (i.e. under the roof) and/or use SIP panels for the roof.
- big over-hangs on the eves.
- ground-source or water-source heat pumps using a separate air-exchange system as a delivery system
- solar water heating c/w large insulated storage system
- use 2 small FAG high-efficiency furnaces instead of one; small units appear to be more efficient, and, for spring/fall will deliver all you need in the way of heat and will provide more opportunity for A/C (including using smaller units as dehumidifiers). Go this route even if you have the heat-pumps (heat-pumps don't like weather extremes).
- make sure if you have auxillary power generation, that it can be switched to run a furnace or a heat-pump/air-exchanger
- insulate your basement walls from the outside and provide insulation/conduction break under the basement floor.
- having a wood-stove is an additional source of heat
- vestibules front and back.
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
If you are serious and you have time, you really should come up here to the Yukon....we have TONNES of practical experience in this area. There are about a zillion small tricks and things you can do that make a huge difference. And it is always a balance between going to overboard with insulation, and energy saving things and keeping it practical. I think the "payback" principal should never be forgot, I have seen a lot of homes built with either super insulation, or expensive energy saving options that will never pay for themselves.
We have been lucky in the Yukon to develop a lot of experience due to relatively harsh climate, high heating costs (no gas up here), a talented culture of trades who are willing to focus on quality, a relatively well educated population (clients who know the value and will pay for it and trades are keen to do the best) and lastly good government R&D and incentive programs to do things right and energy efficient. For example, the largest R2000 building was built here, and the first C2000 building too. Furthermore, the new Energuide for Homes program was based on a Yukon model. I think the Energuide program is a bit more reasonable than the R2000 which gets a bit extreme/prescriptive at times (although the new R2000 is much better than the old.)
When ever I look at the “energy saving” articles in FHB, I am always disappointed because there is nothing in there new or that we don’t already do. I am a fan of modifying and working with existing well proven building techniques to tweak up their energy efficiency rather than going to wildly different building techniques that may invite a host of unforeseen problems down the road or that contractors aren’t proficient with. With respect to heating systems, I think the jury is very much still out on that one: there are so many pros and cons of your various options, I don’t think there is a perfect solution or a solution yet that will fit every customer.
With respect to energy generation, in 99.99% of time I have seen it, it has been done NOT for economic purposes. It is impossible to beat the cost effectiveness of either grid tie-in or on-site generation. People to green energy for ethical reasons, not for $$$$, and that is cool, but you should be aware of that when you make the decision.
-Forest