It’s curious that a product derived from crude oil is considered green. Set the thing on fire and breath the fumes then tell me if you feel organic. A tree will always grow. It seems like in an atempt to save energy on the residitial level, we use more commercialy. Perhaps stepping a few hundred years into the past would be the best green movement.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
From plumbing failures to environmental near disasters, OHJ staffers dish on our worst and best moments.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
builderhayes,
Look beyond the immediate and into the future..
SIP's (and ICF's) offer dramatically reduced energy bills. ignore the finical aspect of it and if every home in America were instantly converted to that construction our increase import of oil wouldn't fill a tanker but future decrease of oil used to heat those homes would save more than a hundred tankers*..
* those are all SWAG numbers so don't jump on me, I know this. My home which had been stick framed and extremely well insulated and about 2500 sq.ft used to cost me a thousand dollars a winter more to heat than now.. It's more than doubled in size, (5500sqft) twice as many windows (same brand same double paned low E glass) more doors, and I recycled the old (high efficiency ) furnace
the differance is SIP's and ICF's
Your comment about fire and SIP's indicates that you haven't really studied them..
First SIP's make it far more unlikely to burn than stick built. IF you want I'll be glad to explain the principles involved and where you can get verifing data. ICF's have a 2 hour fire rating and would take an extemely unsual set of circumstances to burn at all.
The average age of a stick built home in America is 56 years. yet the trees that produced those houses were often as much as 2000 years old.. (newer homes have more plantation grown lumber which really isn't "green" ) Step back a couple of hundred years and you either have log cabins or timberframed homes.. neither of them insulated.
Insulation uses very little oil for the energy saved.. the most efficent insulation is foam and while the foam is based on an oil byproduct the amount used per panel is nominal compared to the oil it will save over it's normal life..
Frenchy,
You bring up some very interesting points. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that my opinion is only that. I have no hard facts to fall back on. But it seems to me that in some ways we’re simple trading one evil for another. Yes, all the LEED studies I’ve read have confirmed what you and many others have said, but it feels like we’re only putting a band aid on the gushing wound. I’m just as much to blame as the guy next door. I’ve grown quit comfortable with my energy consumption giving little thought to it’s origin.
To me the future of green building is in engineered lumber such as TGI’s, OSB, LVL’s and such. It seems we are able to get a lot more meat off the bone (so to speak), then use the bone in some functional way. I’ll admit some of the building products used today are absolutely fascinating, but are they truly renewable?
I believe the answer also lies at us taking a close look at our life styles. Let me tell you about a house I worked on about a year ago. About a 800 sq. ft. cottage, wood stove / heat and 150 years old. This house didn’t have one drop of petroleum product used in it. No flashing, no vapor barrier, no tar underlayment, all wood , and not a single leak, no rott - really needed no work. It’s occupants lived in it quit comfortable (and stylishly). And I imagine that it used about as much lumber to build as that which was cleared to make way for. To me that’s green. Just good old fashioned ingenuity and craftsmanship.
Anyhow, I do enjoy this topic for debate. I appreciate your thoughts.
Builderhayes
I think you're right there. It seems to me that alot of folks have been latching on to maintain there current lifestyles when what is really in order (if we want to save the planet) is we need to just plain cut back on our consumption.
The whole issue is so complex it is probably impossible to analyze accurately. One could, for instance, use soy based foam for insulation but is that greener? How much oil is used to plant, grow, harvest, ship and transform the soy into insulation? What is the effect of soy production on the land? Is there erosion, fertilizer spilling into the surroundings or pesticide problems? What is the impact of genetically modified soy? I guess time will tell? Frenchy makes a good point about the value of building efficient houses and I share your concern about what materials to use. My current place is way too big for me and if I moved into a smaller place my environmental footprint would be so much smaller. Since I have little interest in heating my house by filling it with sheep or whatever, I think if I built for myself the house would be built with high quality conventional materials and relatively small.
Sometime's the best solution is the simplest one.
Edited 10/1/2007 7:37 am ET by builderhayes
builderhayes,
It's not always that simple is it? I built my home much larger because I want to save energy.
Sounds contradictory doesn't it?
here's the deal.. The average home is quickly approaching 2500 sq.ft. However the occupation of theat homes is 3.1 people and going down..
I had two children (girls) and I expect in the normal course of events them to have their own children.
Traditional life styles means that they will buy their own homes. That means heating three homes.. (7500 sq.ft.) with it's energy costs and consumption. I chose to do what most families do in the rest of the world which is to make a multigenerational home. parents grandparents and grandchildren all living together.
In a smaller house that would not work due to privacy issues. However by making the house larger children can have needed space for privacy while still using community facilities such as laundry, kitchen, & recreational space..
It has the added benefit that no other care givers such as day care is required. It gives the grandparents a role in raising children while busy parents go off and earn a living, children are better supervised and family values are easier passed on..
In addition the experiance and wisdom of the grandparents is available as needed and the support of a younger back and arms is available for the household chores..
This will enable the seniors to remain in their home long after they would have to go into a nursing home and all of those costs will be saved. The home will become a family legacy to be passed on to the next generation as they grow up..
So smaller isn't always the answer..
As to engineered lumber there are several issues with that..
first most such wood is plantation grown.. that is not a forest, it's a monoculture with all the shortcomings of that. It's not a good echo system.
Second creation of all such wood is a high user of energy..
third while removing only the bole from the forest and leaving about 50% of the wood fibers etc. to decay back into the soil in traditional logging seems to be a waste, it does not deplete the soil as quickly as harvesting most of the tree does..
Finally you mentioned heating with wood. It's a good thing that's not universally done.. Wood heat tends to be extremely inefficent. While cheap it's also a major pollution source.
I do like one thing about the home you mentioned.. it's made from local material, another words no energy was used hauling plywood from the pacific northwest, or insulation from a southern factory.
I built with local hardwood because it turned out I saved dramatically by doing so.. If I lived in the arid southwest I'd have built with adobe etc..
No sad to say staying green or attempting to be green is extremely complex and there are no simple answers..
I too enjoy these debates.. I hope they can continue without the usual political rankor..
Having several generations sharing the same house makes a lot of sense. I often thought that people should consider buying a duplex and then they could expand or contract their space as necessary and get rent when the space was not needed. I guess the big problem is getting along with the tenants or relatives.
sisyphus,
Absolutely! if you have strained relations with your children they will not want to remain under your roof and under your control no matter how attractive it is economically. It's tough for a parent to yield control to their children but possible if there is sufficent space for a degree of independence to occur..
The strain part comes as the kids turn into their teen years and seek independence.. (a leave the nest syndrom) that can best be dealt with via sending them off to college.. on their own they can find out the joys and penalties of that independence they sought under some measure of control by the college or university.
Those 4 years give them a chance to reassess their need for independence and the value of the home their parents offered..
As retirement approaches and your children mature you can gradually turn over responsiblity for the house to them. freeing you up to travel or otherwise develop your own independence.
The multi-generational household is the tradional arrangement in much of the world. It makes so much sense in social terms. Passing family values and knowledge from grandparents to grandchildren etc. Family members looking out for each other instead of relying on the state to do so, which is a role the state performs impersonally and poorly. I would guess that labour mobility, affluence, and the relative demise of the family farm have made such a practical arrangement much less common than it once was. If people are living together not out of economic necessity but primarily because they want to be together it's hard to think of a better system. That is the sort of scale where the Marxist ideal "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" becomes practical. What could be better?
Wow Frenchy, that is COOL.Have you actually worked this out with your family already? Or are you just prepared, and that's a bridge to cross later?Naturally the question is primarily do your children WANT to live at home... if so, that's great!I'd love to hear more about how you're doing this. It's a great idea, and if planned for ahead of time could result in a structure a heck of a lot nicer than a regular house with an in law apartment tacked on.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
NRTRob,
Yes, it's long been a plan of mine. I guess I first started thinking along these lines when I had my second daughter.. I knew I would never earn enough money to give them the life style I wish I could. They both seemed so brite and I worried that I wouldn't be able to afford the better colleges should they ever be accepted.
My youngest has a dream of being a doctor and since my brother is a doctor I understood just how expensive it would be to get thru medical school and the residency. My brother was absolutely brillant, he not only got into harvard interned at Johns Hopkins he got a Rhoads scolarship.. In spite of living an extremely modest lifestyle his wife working as a nurse and all the grants and scholarships he got, when he first was hired at the Mayo clinic he had a more than $250,000 student loan debt.. That was nearly two decades ago! He tells me to budget between $400,000 and $500,000 if I want my daughter to become a doctor..
That's simply not possible, especially now! I've recently been laid off and we're quickly burning up my savings trying to meet the shortfall between our reduced income and the expenses. The only thing I really can pass on to my children is this place. That's why it's built as strong and durable as it is.. I honestly intend it to remain in the family for a very long time..
The biggest expense most familys incur is the cost of shelter, if that has been provided by someone in the past they have choices most don't,, they can save money instead of living from paycheck to paycheck.. those savings may be for education, travel, or investment.
that's really phenomenal frenchy. I'm going to have to talk to my wife about that. Thanks for the inspiration!-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I agree with you in certain ways. If you go to the trouble and expense of building with sips then make sure the building is sited well and built well. That way the expense and resources are worth it. but if you just want to build a big house because, well you want a BIG house. Then no, you are just glorifying your lifstyle and so called success at the expense of others.
My neighbor is building one and I don't see the sense in it. The climate isn't that severe here and I'm afraid he is just wasting his money. He's never had a house built and the contractor he's hiring has never built a sips house. It sounds like a recipe for disaster. Oh well, it's not my money at least.
popawheelie,
Given the information you gave me (and I haven't checked out where "here" is) I can understand why he still might want to build with SIP's
I assume that you use air conditioning at least and energy is energy.. keep things warm inside or cool inside good insulation is still good insulation..
There are other advantages of SIP's over stick building as well. Strength and sound deadening are two reasons. Fire safety as well. plus durability..
As for a novice contractor,, who knows? Maybe the contractor is willing to assume some risks in order to get experiance building with a system that offers a real future compared to stick building..
In most of the rest of the world stick building is nonexistant..
I agree that sips is a better system. But I don't think he is doing it for that reason. When he gets into the project I hope he and the builder keep their cool and do it right. I've seen so many dream homes end up in disaster. They go over budget and start cutting corners so the house isn't detailed correctly.
He can't even build this house in town because the city has a limit on lot size. Which I think is a really good thing. So he is moving to the north end of town and building a big house on a big lot. He's allready shot the energy he's going to use by doing that. I talked to him about it briefly and he doesn't have a clue. I don't mean to be hard on him. I just don't think he knows what he's getting in to.
popawheelie,
Expense of buildingwith SIP's? I found it was cheaper than buying the lumber and insulation. I don't want to go through my records so I'm going to guess, it's a reasonably close guess but it's a guess never-the-less.
My wall panels were about $3.00 a sq.ft. while buying studs, plywood and insulation for that same area was around $3.50 per sq.ft. (and that assumed I'd use inefficent fiberglas insulation and install it myself. Spray foam lifted the costs to insane levels as far as I was concerned))..
As a novice first time builder I was amased at how fast the panels went up.. Remember I've spent 17 years watching builders put up stick framed walls so I had a pretty good idea of the speed a good crew could erect a wall. But I could put up a wall that was already insulated in minutes and cut openings for windows & doors in a very short time as well.. Put my fat old out of shape butt up against the very best young stick framing crews and I'd wipe the floor with them.. (I'm sure they'd really outdo me if they were erecting the SIP's)