Reading the article p.102 FHB#177 I’m struck by the fact that there are no economics associated with the technologies employed in this house. The use of various technologies is justified with reference to health benefits and assertions of environmental benefits – and these are important – but a more careful analysis of these technologies is needed before we can argue for large scale aplication in the general homebuilding market.
For example, it’s not clear whether the $29,000 quoted for the pv system is before or after the 55% savings under Oregon tax and financial incentives. But in either case it’s hard to make an economic case for this expenditure. Of course there are customers who can afford to pay for ICF R25 walls and combine them with walls of R3 glass – but for most of us who need to make the economics attractive these technologies are still too expensive. PV is still a questionable technology under a life cycle analysis as it takes more energy to manufacture the panels than they will ever produce in return.
The vegetative roof is interesting, but the cost of the roof should include the additional rafter sizing required to bear the load. And it seems a far fetch to anticipate that the roof will have anything but a marginal benefit to “run off” in an area where there is 80-90 inches of rain annually – is this a real benefit?
FHB would be serving its readers and the home buying public by taking a more skeptical and analytical view of the benefits of these “green” technologies. The article on the Future of Home Building p. 112 includes many assertions that are unsubstantiated – as an example “compared with other commonly used siding materials, (wood) requires the least energy to produce and involves the least total embodied energy over its lifetime.” [p. 114] This is a dubious assertion, made with no reference to a source. Consider vinyl and aluminum – both of which have life expectancies of between 20 and more than 50 years. No maintenance, no solvents, paints, stains, no critter infestations.
If these technologies were cost effective – or even if they were only marginally cost effective but the debit could be offset by a “cachet” the large home builders would be incorporating the technologies – but they’re not. Why not??
It’s not politically correct to accept that builders are using “synthetic” materials and there is an elitist bias against oil based paints and pvc and 2x4s – but it is not based on a rational analysis of the costs and benefits. FHB has the stature and influence to be a leader in promoting intensive and rigorous analysis of the economics of new technologies – and thereby helping to promote the good and dismiss the bad. But presenting cutting edge technology without noting that the economic benefits are questionable or even clearly negative is to miss an important issue involved in the use of these techniques and technologies.
Replies
I agree that new technologies should be considered rationally and economically, but I think that FHB is doing exactly it's job when it addresses new ways of building that are more sustainable and still high quality. No, FHB doesn't use many footnotes or bibliographies in it's articles, but saying that wood is a more energy efficient material than vinyl or aluminum is not in the least unsubstantiated- Think of all the houses that are framed and sided and trimmed in wood that have lasted ten times that twenty year life span you talk about. The energy it takes to manufacture a wood part is a fraction of that used for metal or plastic.
Solar panels will produce the amount of energy that it took to make them in 15 years or so, and their usable life far exceeds that.
I think that you need to define "a rational analysis of the costs and benefits" to discuss this- to me, a house should be built with an eye towards a long life, at least 100 years. If the analysis is done for only a 15 year lifespan, solar panels are irrational showpieces of pcness.
Of course, I don't in any way think that this house is the be-all end-all of ecological design. After all, 2300 square feet for a 2 bedroom is more than necessary.
So this home is probably a showpiece/status symbol for someone who actually cares about the environment but won't sacrifice any comfort. I'm still happy that FHB writes articles about houses that may someday be normal, rather than profiling another starter castle. I usually read these articles as a source of ideas, a place to start researching the real value of things, not the end.
zak
zak, mjncad,
I appreciate your comments. FHB's job is two fold (imho), one, to provide "inspiration" and two, to provide "know-how". The frustration I have is that there is very little rigour brought to analyzing the economics of new building practices - and most especially "green" building practices. This was brought home to me in dramatic fashion when I attended a solar home event on the Washington D.C. Mall - ten teams from the best engineering programs in the country showing off zero net energy houses - even designed to charge the electric cars in the garages. The houses were judged and ranked on numerous criteria, but without any reference to cost! On asking, they informed me that the budget for power equipment for these 1,500 sq ft homes was between $50,000 and $100,000. I'm not criticizing the effort to develop new technologies. I'm encouraging additional analysis be done to find ways to commercialize the technology in economically efficient ways. Yes, sources, peer review, a certain skepticism are all appropriate for FHB. Note that the article was written by the architect...As an example, PV solar doesn't meet the economic test yet - which is why it needs government subsidies (transfers of wealth from the tax payer to the recipient of the subsidy). There are situations where it is economic if a transmission line expense can be avoided. There is a fair amount of research on solar panels that supports the assertion that they don't generate more energy than that used in their manufacture - and a fifteen year life for PV panels is the extreme end in my experience. I'll search for some of the research and post urls here. Our friend at NREL may have some data at hand. Again, it's an effort to find real data to confirm or refute the assertions made by vested interests (PV manufacturers etc). If PV were economic then Pulte and Toll Brothers and NVR and all the rest would be selling it to the public - they're not.I'm interested in any analysis you have seen or done showing the relative merits of wood siding vs. vinyl or aluminum (or brick, stone, stucco etc). At your suggestion I've thought of all the houses that I've framed and sided and trimmed in wood that have required painting and repair for rot and mildew and insects in the past twenty years and the vinyl siding that has been hosed down once or twice. I'm being a bit facetious to make the point that I'm not at all sure that wood is a better siding material than vinyl or aluminum. Leaving aside aesthetic considerations (which are significant) it seems unlikely that vinyl and aluminum would have achieved such a large percentage of the market if there were not large advantages - including economic. I'm trying to move beyond simple assertions and find empirical support for one versus the other. I agree with the need to define "a rational analysis of costs and benefits". And it should take account of the expected life of the house. It's a very complicated thing to do in great detail. For example, I currently live in Northern VA. Houses built in the 60s and 70s are being scraped and replaced with new build. Should the original houses have been built with a thirty or forty year life span or a hundred? We can use discount rates to assess the return of technology investments and this reduces the importance of the benefits that might accrue after thrity or forty years. Most technology (including solar panels) will not last anywhere near thirty or forty years. And what we find is that design (overhangs, site orientation, fenestration placement, good drainage) and simple practices, caulking, running plumbing in interior walls, avoiding light cans, attic ventilation and insulation. are by far the most important and highest pay back "investments" that can be made in the long run efficiency and durability of the house.I agree with your final points as well - this is clearly a "jewel box" - an unnecessarily complex, high tech showpiece. See MJNCAD's post for a government sponsored example of the same ilk. The more I thought about investing all that time and effort to build R25+ walls and tie them into walls of R3 glass (and very expensive glass at that)...?!? And the ideas and technologies need to be investigated, attempted and the information that is obtained needs to be disseminated broadly. That is my objective. And I strongly encourage FHB to ask the questions, get the data, analyze it and report it. btw, FHB should write the article - not the architect.Regards, John
If PV were economic then Pulte and Toll Brothers and NVR and all the rest would be selling it to the public - they're not.
I doubt this would be true even if PV were economic. Installing PV essentially means that you are paying your electric bill for the next 10-20 years up front. Very few people are willing to take that whack on the cost of a new house. However, us engineer types can see that it may make sense.
BTW, California just announced that the subsidy for PV is going to $2.80/W. They are also going to rebate solar HW and heat. Now maybe I can get back some of the outrageous taxes that I've been paying.
Erich
Edited 1/23/2006 11:04 pm by Agatized
You raise a good point on the upfront cost of paying for utilities - but consdier that you can leverage/borrow the funds to pay your electric bill and get a tax deduction for the interest expense...! That should attract some interest. But even with that incentive I don't see the economics as attractive. Very large subsidies are needed to entice people into solar - and all that really does is make the taxpayers pay more than they should for electricity. Power from a large scale plant is as much as half the cost as solar - so what rationale is there for a homeowner or a taxpayer (through subsidies to a homeowner) to pay 2x for power???Now geothermal is a different story. And site orientation, careful fenestration, overhang engineering etc "pay upfront for power" (i.e. reduce required power demand) without any significant expenditure.btw, I was comparing the infiltration measures for double hung vs. casements - casements are much tighter than even the best (or at least highest priced) double hungs. What kind of energy savings could be achieved just with the substitution of casement for double hung?I'm arguing for a cold hard assessment of the economics of many of the so-called energy saving technologies - cause the case for many of them has been asserted but not substantiated.
From all that I've read about PV panels, in the last 15 years or so, I think your figures are very out of date--or myth. Most panels 'replace' the energy it took to make them, fairly quickly, and then produce far, far more--essentially free, non-polluting energy over their lifetime. A 15 year life span may have been true for very early panels but is not even close to what later and current models have and are achieving. As others have mentioned, solar doesn't (yet) meet an economic test, but it's NOT a fair playing field, and there's a HUGE vested interest in keeping it that way. There are plenty of studies that show that if alternative energy got the subsidies that oil, coal, gas, and nuclear got, it would be VERY competitive, if not cheaper.And, there's a very good reason an oil company like BP now makes PV panels! <G>
tab1 - I forgot to post my last note to you - you may be interested in the article cited there.
Regards, John
Like you, I was disappointed that a total cost of the net-zero energy usage house was not provided, as I wanted to compare it to a project that I worked on as a mechanical designer in the Facilities group at the National Renewable Energy Lab.
Unlike the Oregon house, the project I was part of was a small guard shack for the lab's wind research campus north of the old Rocky Flats weapons plant. What started out as a good idea to provide a point of control for entry into the site became secondary once certain researchers bent the ear of executive management to turn it into a net-zero energy usage research project.
At the time I was working on this shack, which was about 4-years ago, the plan was for it to be manned 24/7 by preferably 2 guards. This shack has an external footprint of 16' x 10', and due to the thickness of the precast concrete walls with extruded polystyrene foam insulation and synthetic stucco finish, the net usable inside space amounted to less than two of NREL's standard 9' x 8' cubicles. There are more Pella triple pane wood windows in this shack than my Mother's 850 square foot house. Electrical power is primarily provided by PV panels on the roof, along with the ability to easily add a small wind turbine if power demands require it. The shack has three thermostats inside, along with the storage battery and inverter equipment. Our team wanted to put the battery and inverter equipment outside in a weather proof enclosure to give the guards more space inside; but we were over ruled by the researchers. Heat is provided by a trombe wall on the south side and an electric resistance heater as backup.
So in less than 140 square feet of space, the following items were jammed in there: 2 guards, desk space, aisle space for a visitor or two to get badges, battery & inverter equipment, small refrigerator and microwave. Am I missing something? Yep, there is no permanent bathroom for the guards. The guards get a port-a-potty as the nearest restroom is literally 1/2 mile away at the main office building on the campus.
An electrical engineer I was working with at the time calculated the payback on this shack was about 300-years. When I left NREL, the cost of this shack was approaching $1,000 to $1,200 a square foot. Granted, NREL is always happy to pay way more than the going rate for certain construction services, and I have no doubt this factored in to the high dollar cost of this shack that suffered serious mission creep.
Your guess is as good as mine as to what or how the guard is being used for now, or what changes have been done to it since I left NREL.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for renewable and sustainable energy research and development; but as this shack and I suspect the Oregon house proves is that although these technologies are available, their cost effectiveness is still subject to scrutiny. I'm glad the Oregon house owner has the money to construct such a showpiece of net-zero energy usage to live in and enjoy. Unfortunately the average homebuyer does not have the finances to embrace such technologies.
I read the article with a great deal of interest to see what is available out there and is there anything I could hope to use now or in the near future. I too was disappointed that there was not a better cost breakdown as it makes that type of evaluation difficult if not impossible to a homeowner never mind someone in this business.
While I agree with almost all your assessments regarding cost vs. benefits today and the need for a more analytical view of going green I question some of the assumptions made as well. Everything is evaluated on present pricing and availability. I know it is with a bit of doomsday mentality I ask, but what happens to all those assertions as fossil fuel prices continue to rise. Do the solar panels built and installed today suddenly become a much better alternative or more forward thinking? "PV is still a questionable technology under a life cycle analysis as it takes more energy to manufacture the panels than they will ever produce in return" yes but that is based on todays costs which are not likely to be the same in 15 years.
And what about subsidies, how much government subsidy is provided to big oil and gas that does not go into renewable energy sources like solar wind and geothermal? Is that ever figured into cost analysis you mention? I ask these questions with a great deal of both skepticism and cynicism believing there has to be better ways to build than what is presently being done. I don't think it is within the area of expertise of FHB to do detailed analysis of present day vs. future cost benefits. In a direct cost analysis and to the present consumer some of the practices seem outrageously expensive but without forward thinking do we just stop their development completely.
Now I'm really going to go for a stretch. Let's figure in some other indirect costs, say you throw global warming into the mix. Hypothetically, is it causing the increased hurricane activity? How about paying for the mess and destruction from those? Is that figured in to the conventional way of thinking when you figure in today's energy costs? Would going totally green (I mean in completely changing the way structures are built and powered) help alleviate the effect of global warming on a world scale (yeah I know I'm reaching) but when you truly think green it is always more than a simple cost comparison, which few people realize or want to consider, it has to do with long range effects as well). Should this all be figured in when as you put it a little more rigour be brought into analyzing the economics of new building practices - and most especially "green" building practices. Yeah I'm sure I'll take some flack for this :-)
The trouble with trying to do a good cost analysis of "Green" technology is that there are too many variables involved, especially when trying to predict the future based on past trends. When in doubt on inflation, I pick an arbitrary average of 5% per year for inflation, which generally serves me well for guestimating future costs.
Unlike computer chips which have generally followed "Moore's Law" of doubling in speed and power every 18 months; PV panels have had slow increases in efficiency. If PV were able to follow "Moore's Law", then PV panels would have been 100% efficient years ago. BTW, Moore was head of Intel for many years.
The other factor is that the majority of homebuyers look at the bottom line on an option and don't do an analysis of long term benefits of an option. I don't blame the homebuyer as they have so much going on with the purchase of a house that they generally don't want another thing to give them brain overload. I remember an ad on TV many years ago from a local brick manufacturer touting the long term benefits of brick over conventional (read cheap) clapboard siding in an effort to get people to ask for more brick on the homes they buy. As far as I'm concerned, the brick manufacturer was dead on with their assertions on brick being the champ over the long haul; but most homebuyers saw the cost of brick and balked. Another factor is our society's throw away mentality. After all, the average American moves every 7 years. With that kind of statistic, a homebuyer looks at a house as a commodity instead of an investment. Why invest $20k on PV when they'll move to a newer and bigger McMansion with granite counter tops in five years?
Most homebuyers don't look at the big picture of Gummint subsidies, global warming, fossil fuel depletion, environmental impact, etc because I suspect they feel that they are just one little voice in a crowd and no one will hear them. In order to make "Green" building more palatable to the average homebuyer; then the positive aspects of greed needs to be tapped into. In other words, what will "Green" do for me?
Although there are home builders out there who embrace "Green" technology, and are fortunate to have clients who are both environmentally conscious and well heeled; those buyers and builders are in the minority I'm afraid. Most home builders have to look at the bottom line in a fickle industry in which the majority of their clients are the average Joe's and Jane's I discuss above.
If I had the answer to the problem, I would have waved a magic wand years ago.
You're making good points. I agree it's very difficult to do exhaustive cost-benefit analyses of these technologies. The difficulty of forecasting future oil and gas prices is only one of many. Having said that - oil and gas prices are lower now (in inflation adjusted, so called "real" dollars) than they were in the 70s - remember five years ago when gas was $1.00/gallon. Having spent 15 years working in the energy sector all I can say is prices will fluctuate up and down.Many energy efficient technologies have robust economics even at low energy prices - and I'm a strong advocate of incorporating these technologies and of marketing them as a way to distinguish the "product". These are generally the simple, but important, design and construction features I refered to in earlier posts.There is a role for government in catalyzing demand for new technologies (like PV). But PV doesn't really make sense for anyone yet. It's analagous to hydrogen cars - a fancy technology to achieve an objective that hybrids are about 80% of the way to achieving. The KISS principle is a powerful one.I've tried to develop a marketing plan that would entice homebuyers to pony up for energy saving technology. My favorite is a geothermal heat pump. Banks can probably be convinced to lend the additional capital. One thought was to contract with the homebuyer to provide utilities (i.e. heat and AC) and bill at some "index" of the utilities cost for a comparable house and location. The builder could retain ownership of the geothermal system and pocket the difference between the "index" payment received from the howmeowner and the financing cost of the capital for the geothermal install - or perhaps sell the "index" payment to the bank/utility. Another tack is to try and market these technologies to landlords - they have a very different mentality about investing and may be willing to invest to reduce operating costs as rents often include these costs so any reduction is a direct savings to the landlord.This discussion has covered some interesting issues surrounding the use of "green" technologies. FHB could help advance this discussion but publishing articles by architects on houses that are clearly not subject to any meaningful economic restraints doesn't help much.Anybody out there installing geothermal heat pumps??
Interesting ideas concerning a marketing plan. I suspect the only builders who would be interested in retaining ownership of the geothermal system would be the Richmond's, KB's, Lennar's, etc. The small builders who tend to come and go with the economic seasons would probably not be interested in getting into being a utility. However, if a small to medium builder was interested in the concept of being a geothermal utility; then it could be another revenue stream for them. However, I think it will be a tough sell for builders of all sizes to get into geothermal heating/cooling as a utility as they are more concerned with product churn. Once Richmond for example is done with a neighborhood, they could care less about it as they made their money off of it. I wish you well in it.
Xcel Energy has a central chiller plant in downtown Denver that they use to sell chilled water for cooling to nearby buildings. The building owners like it from what I've heard because they don't have to devote space for a mechanical room to house chillers and their related equipment. This way they get more rentable space from the same footprint. I think the Xcel plant provides hot water for winter heating; but I don't recall for sure, nor am I sure how many buildings are served by their chiller plant.
I don't remember which FHB issue it was in; but they did have an article on geothermal energy sources for heating and cooling. The article covered both the deep vertical shaft design as illustrated in the Oregon house, and for those with acreage, a shallow horizontal system that required a decent chunk of space to install.
With the vast bulk of new home neighborhoods being of the postage stamp lot variety (e.g. Highlands Ranch, Colorado), a vertical deep shaft design is the only option. I still wonder if its feasible in such neighborhoods because of the tiny lots. Obviously the drill rig would have to do its work before the foundation work is done since the geothermal well would have to go in the back yard. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on geothermal systems regarding all the nuances of their operation.
FHB had another article of interest to me a while back concerning stormwater collection and storage for potable water usage in a house. My wife and I have been thinking about getting a piece of rural property; but that requires a well. I have nothing against a well; but in the Denver metro area, wells are served by a number of aquifers making up the Denver Basin. Of course the property we're interested in taps into the deepest and last aquifer. My research is showing that wells running 750' to 1,200' are common, and other parts of the same aquifer on the other side of the city are hitting 2,000'. One well drilling and installation company told me to expect a well in the 750' to 1,200' range to cost at least $20k to $25k installed. That's a big number, and if the well runs dry...you're screwed.
I haven't done research on a cistern and filtration system; but I suspect a 10,000 gallon cistern and filtration system would be at least as expensive. However, a cistern could be recharged with trucked in potable water if required during dry weather spells, which are common along the Front Range. I'm basing the 10,000 gallons on our current usage, which averages a paltry 3,000 gallons a month; so we would have a 3-month supply in the tank. NREL's wind site where the overpriced guard shack is located has been using trucked in potable water for at least 20-years. I asked the maintenance engineering manager about this, and he told me it was cheaper for them to truck in water than deal with a well(s) to serve about 150 employees as I recall. Also a factor in NREL's case is the potential for contaminated water (e.g. radioactive & other pollutants) from the defunct Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, as the wind site is on the north side of the Rocky Flats site.
The idea of geothermal sounds good, but I was wondering if it would be better applied to whole neighborhoods and get "economy of scale" involved. Since it involves drilling and some other expensive up front costs, maybe one well for many houses would be more efficient? Same as with waste treatment--rather than each house having a septic system on site, sometimes it makes more sense to at least have a hybrid system that pumps the effluent to a central location for treatment (sometimes in lagoons with living plants cleaning the water).
My grandparents lived in Lansing, MI and had a huge Itallianate Villa style house (three stories with 10-12 foot ceilings on first floor, two living rooms, bay windows, etc.). I was telling my dad the other day how I really liked that house, but it must have been very expensive to heat. He said that it was cheap to heat because they got steam from the city's department of power and light. I'm not sure whether they piped steam as a biproduct of electrical generation, or had a separate plant, but the city did supply steam for heating for anyone downtown who wanted it (for a nominal price).
You make a good point that I overlooked in that a community geothermal system may get the costs down to where homeowners would be accepting of the "new fangled" way to get heating and cooling in their homes.
Where we live, our community is served by a community water system for potable and non-potable irrigation water. Sewage treatment is handled by individual septic systems. In our case, the community water system is far from cost effective in the opinions of a number of my neighbors and me, as we have the highest if not the highest per gallon costs for water in the Denver metro area.
So for geothermal to be accepting to potential buyers, they will need to see that the heating/cooling costs are comparable to or less than traditional utilities. The other advantage I see to a community geothermal system is that it would hopefully be professionally operated and maintained. Given the propensity of the average homeowner not to change their furnace filter on a regular basis; the potential operations & maintenance of an individual geothermal system may not be marketable to the average homebuyer.
Your grandparents had a sweet deal with their home. We all should be so lucky.
My grandparents had a sweet deal is right--house was bought and torn down in the 70's for "urban renewal". Where it stood is now a place where no one would probably want to live now--too crime ridden.
In another life (back in the late 70s and early 80s) I built passive solar adobe homes in Parker CO (when it was a long way away from Denver) and Monumnet Hill was still clean and no development existed further south but for a small village called Castle Rock!) and then moved down to Albuquerque to build the same designs. Very efficient homes and relatively cheap to build (for a custom home). We built cisterns for a few of them which I remember as being very simple concrete boxes - I wonder if you couldn't adapt storm drain boxes. Now concrete is significantly more expensive than in the 80s but it might be less expensive than $12-14/foot drilling costs. We used tar and gravel roofs (and metal roofs on porches) linked by guttering to the cistern. No fancy filtration except at the sink/laundry. That might not work with the air pollution you have now - back then the sediments just settled out in the tank.
Someone else commented here about how your consumption changes when the house is off the grid. We have a boat and its the same thing. Twenty minutes showers would be out. But maybe a composting toilet, a front load washer and you could reduce water consumption far below your 3,000/mo current use. We use about 2 gal/day per person when on the boat and don't lack for much (although we don't wash too many clothes...).
John
Like you, I remember when Parker, Castle Rock & Monument were sleepy little towns. Now they are bedroom communities of Denver and Colorado Springs.
What you describe for the cisterns was similar to my thoughts, and the FHB article I recall reading. With our dry climate here, I was thinking of adding additional storm water collection devices to supply the cistern. Essentially it would be a frame built low to the ground and roofed with inexpensive materials to direct the water to the gutters and finally the cistern. Of course where I would build is not under the control of a HOASS and their covenant cops.
I'm not sure how the air pollution here would affect collected storm water; but like anything...given enough time, money and effort that issue can be overcome on a small scale.
I always find it ironic that a boat has to utilize its onboard water supplies extremely efficiently considering that it operates on lakes and oceans with essentially an endless supply of water just inches away. Of course, lake and sea water needs to be purified, and sea water needs desalination before it can be safely used. All expensive processes.
I'm a HO building in a small development (10 lots). The developer wanted to encourage people to use geothermal, so he didn't bring the natural gas lines down the private road. When we got the information packet for the lot, it included some info from him about why he thought everyone should have geothermal. I already wanted to do it, so it was just an added bonus for me.He has also done developments where they are required to have geothermal. I think about 60% of the houses have put in geothermal in my neighborhood. One couple looked into bringing the natural gas lines out to their lot--it was 60K. As long as the cost of geothermal beats out the traditionally cheaper alternative, people will consider it. The neighbor next to us who chose propane had no idea what it cost-if someone had sat down with him and told him that he'd be paying somewhere around $500/month (last year), he might have changed his mind.After talking to some of the people who chose geothermal, none of them had heard of it before. It helped that the developer was willing to talk about the benefits of geothermal, and even offered to have people come to his house to discuss his unit. It's too scary for most people to go out on a limb--especially when building a house.We've tried to use as many energy efficient & green technologies as possible. SIP walls, Superior Walls in the basement, fiberglass windows, mostly south-facing windows shaded by trees in the summer. Let me tell you, it has been exhausting. Using newer technologies that most tradespeople and inspectors are not familiar with makes it difficult (read, more expensive) to get things done. And because our sq footage is small for what it's costing, it didn't appraise for as much as we needed it to (for the construction loan). The bank understood what we're trying to do, but we don't know what's going to happen when we finish and need a mortgage. And that's with us doing a lot of work ourselves (our rough estimate is $70K worth of labor). A builder who had a network of banks and tradespeople familiar with green building would make it a lot easier--not that we could afford one!Jo
And because our sq footage is small for what it's costing, it didn't appraise for as much as we needed it to (for the construction loan). The bank understood what we're trying to do, but we don't know what's going to happen when we finish and need a mortgage.
Very good point. One we addressed on my last house, concrete underground with passive heating/cooling.
I loaned the client the majority of the construction money, that he'd paid me for the lot. Eliminated one major headache. When it came time for permanent financing, we were sweating the appraisal. No real comparables. Came in 50% over construction cost. Big grins everywhere. The appraiser (correctly) ignored the energy features, concentrating on the sq ft (2k) and details.
You can make it work, but you have to be very careful if you're spending more on energy features than a similar conventional house. A large part of our success was the low-cost shell, even with copper sheathing on the exposed walls. After that, you look carefully at the details and what they cost. This house got a whirlpool, cherry and granite kitchen, unusually tall and numerous windows (up to 10'), over-sized interior walls and doors.
Understanding the appraisal process is critical. A 1k ft house probably wouldn't have worked. But that would also be the case for conventional construction.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Great info and ideas -
Geode - I'm very interested in your developer's idea to "encourage" installation of geothermal - could we exchange ideas off-line? I'd especially appreciate a copy of the marketing materials you received. My email is [email protected]. Have you considered forming a "cooperative" with other homeowners to gain scale efficiencies?
Danno - you have read my mind (or I yours). One of my goals has been to encourage development of a shared geothermal facility - specifically in the cul de sacs that are so popular here in Northern VA. It further complicates the projects as additional permitting is required and the legal framework can be a nightmare. Other options are for adjoining property owners to form a cooperative and yield easements to each other and the cooperative. I don't have any experience with how this might impact resale values.
Mjncad - I worked in a building in Dallas that used a chiller - the rationale was that lower priced power (at night) was used to make ice which in turn provided cooling to the building during the day. There may have been tax breaks in addition. The impact of a stable demand for the utility is a large benefit. I worked on a similar but much larger scale project in China - we married a nuclear power plant to a project that pumped water up to a reservoir and then let it flow down again through a turbine. The nuclear power plant can't be "cycled" easily - it puts out power or it's shut off - so when demand was low the nuclear plant pumped water up the hill, and when power demand was high the water flowed back down through a turbine and generated incremental power.An information on established marketing plans or multiple user geothermal installations would be most welcome. I agree that most developers are not interested in this but if we could offer a management service and then retain or sell the business (of managing the geothermal financing) I think the developers would "bite". Especially if combined with tax incentives and "good" publicity.Your thoughts?
Regards, John
Have you looked into the HERS (Home Energy Rating System) part of the Energy Star program.I believe that there are "advantaged loans" for those houses. I am not sure if it covers the additional capital cost or if they allow a higher percentage of income going towards the loan due to the fact that utility cost will be low.
> Anybody out there installing geothermal heat pumps??
Very very few. There are some in Hawai'i. The huge limitation on geothermal is that you need a fairly stable volcano nearby. Without a magma chamber close enough to the surface, there ain't no such thing as geothermal.
It appears that the word "geothermal" is being used -- incorrectly, almost fraudulently -- to mean just using the dirt as a heat sink
-- J.S.
John - my terminology may be incorrect. The system I'm contemplating is installing pex tubing more than 6 feet below the surface into a zone where the temperature is constant - in our area that's about 60 degrees - year round (no volcanoes in our neighborhood). With sufficient contact area and thermal transmission this core heat can be utilized to pre-heat or cool a fluid that can then transfer heat into or out of the conditioned living area. What is this called? Do you know anyone commercializing this process with any success?
For those of us with roots in environmental and energy issues of the '70s and 80's, the preferred term for using a heat pump to raise or lower the temperature of air or water for space heating by drawing on or dumping thermal energy from the ground is "ground source heat pump". Much of the recent and current scientific literature still seems to use the term geothermal to mean an area of the ground from which thermal energy can be extracted at or above the temperature that it will be used in heating or for various types of processing. However, many heat pump suppliers and installers seem to have commandeered the term "geothermal" to mean any installation which uses the ground for a thermal sink or energy source.
Probably the reason the term "ground source heat pump" isn't used much is because it tends to be clumsy.
I see nothing wrong with using the term geothermal as the technology uses geology to manage thermal energy as it relates to the Oregon hose and others like it.
However, maybe the following adjectives would better describe geothermal technologies; "Passive Geothermal" to describe technologies used in the Oregon house. And "Active Geothermal" where volcanism is involved.
I would see the heat pump based heating as being much more active than that based on extracting energy at higher temperatures given that the temperature must be raised by mechanical conversion. I would guess that given the current "corrupting" usage, that geothermal will continue to be used widely for the common process and the high temperature geothermal folks will have to give a more complete description for their more rare type of heating source.
A couple of weeks ago, someone commented in at least two threads that solar cells took more energy to produce than they provide over their useful lifetime. Apparently the claim was based on early energy studies that were later refuted. (Sort of like the old tale that "scientists calculated that bumble bees cannot fly...") Just came accross a refuting article which indicates that with thin film solar collectors, the ENERGY payback would occur from 0.75 years to 1.2 years under the assumption of the study.
http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/thin_film/docs/cdte_ghg_energy_fthenakis_mrs_11-21.pdf
Thanks for the posting. Although the article is based on a type of PV device not currently in wide use for rooftop electrical generation, it is enlightening. Looking at the figures they used in calculating the energy input per square metre produced, though, it looks more than a little optimistic. The more common crystalline silicon PV devices are much more energy intensive to produce, and in their case the urban myth about taking more energy to produce than they replace/displace over their lifetime is more believable.
http://www.springerlink.com/(rc34kn553zicwyyd3f1vpy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,11;journal,6,6;linkingpublicationresults,1:112849,1
You must register to read the entire article but it's free.The url above ties to an article in the International Journal of life Cycle Assessment that looked at twelve different PV installations in Switzerland and used the ecoinvent data base to model the input and outputs. The conclusion is that PV is not an economic technology at this point. Even with assumptions of future technological improvements the energy and emissions of producing PV panels do not result in "payback" in an assumed lifetime of 30 years. If one discounts the emissions the payback is at year 25 - and maybe that puts the comparison with oil and gas on equal footing as we don't generally account for the emissions cost of using these technologies (although it is huge).I'm not really against PV - I just don't see that it makes sense (economic sense) yet. And there are so many other simpler, and economically efficient practices and technologies - and theat gets back to geothermal or ground source whatever...I appreciate all the comments and have learned something. Does anyone know a geothermal/ground source installer?Thanks again, John
You make a number of good points about indirect costs associated with energy production. What portion of our countries' annual defense expenditure of $500 billion (about $6,500 per family of four!) can be attributed to our need to maintain some semblance of stability in oil markets?
A neighbor of ours in Maine built a house off the grid about 8 or 9 years ago. The numbers worked out because they would have paid 15-20k to bring in power a considerable distance. They spent about 25k for PV panels, batteries, more efficient appliances, etc. They never have an electric bill and spend very little on propane because the house is well insulated, has good windows, etc. They have a stand-by generator but never use it. Several years ago we had a big ice storm in the Northeast and their neigbors were without power for three weeks. They were fine.
One issue not mentioned is that if you generate your own power with PV, you need to change the way you use energy. You don't leave lights on or use always-on TVs, and you need to be careful when you use an iron or hair dryer. Some of these problems are reduced where excess power is sold back to the utility, but that may not work on a large scale.
One other benefit to large scale employment of small scale energy production is that we may not need to build as many power plants.
One other benefit to large scale employment of small scale energy production is that we may not need to build as many power plants.
Prior to working for renewable energy lab, I worked for a large industrial engineering company that designed power plants, refineries and mining facilities. When the market and climate was drying up for large coal and gas fired power plants in the 80's and 90's; our company got into designing cogen (cogeneration) plants for our customers. The cogen plant concept is that a company making widgets needs reliable power and steam to produce widgets. As part of their new plant, they have a small turbine generator plant constructed that supplies electricity and steam if need be for the plant. Excess power and/or steam is then sold back to the utility or other entity needing electricity, etc. The theory is that it's easier and faster to get 50mw of power online and doing useful things than it is to get 750mw or more online. The other advantage to cogen plants as I recall the marketing guys spinning it; if a single cogen plant goes down, its impact on the grid is far less than if a single large plant suffers a catastrophic failure.
During my stint at the energy lab, I learned of a gadget called a micro-turbine that is powered by natural gas to generate electricity or heat. These micro-turbines as I recall are relatively efficient and cost effective. The one I saw in a test cell at the lab would easily fit in a single car garage, and looked like an overgrown tower case PC.
Harvard University is currently building a power plant that will produce electricity and chilled water (I don't know if it will produce steam as well). It will run both natural gas and oil, so when the price per btu of one is too high, they can switch fuels.
In the long term, I hope some combination of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, etc. will allow for individual homeowners, particularly in rural areas where transmission/transportation can be expensive, unsightly and undependable, to produce their own, clean energy at a reasonable price. I'd certainly pay a premium to be able to tell the Saudis, Iranians, Venezualans, Texans, etc. that we don't need them anymore.
The cost at this point are in the future, who is going to pay for the costs of hesting these mic mansions with there low r values and high builder profits. I am not political but there are cost to be payed in human blood. i have to say that i am no longer an optomist. I completely agree with you that fhb should do true costs comparisons about the real cost of building. the next 2 houses in my building are heading towards green and o energy. my apologies about the human blood.
As a newbie, I hesitate to jump into such an in-depth discussion, but I agree that the cost of "green" building has to considered before it will be anything but the latest fad for the wealthy. In that spirit, I offer a link to the Rocky Mountain Institute, where Armory Lovins has been calculating how to save natural resources and posts some fascinating data: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid191.php
Here is a quote from that article:
Resource-Efficient New Home ConstructionIf you're building a new home, you have the chance to do it right from the start. This makes it easier and cheaper to achieve really big savings—but only if you plan ahead. If you do it right, an efficient home won't cost any more to build than an ordinary inefficient one, and it may even cost less, because it won't need as much (if any) equipment for space cooling and heating. By downsizing or eliminating air conditioners, furnaces, and the associated ductwork, you can reduce construction costs, often enough to pay any extra costs to improve the energy efficiency of your home.One recommended technique is to heat and cool a building naturally using passive solar design, high-performance windows, thermal mass, insulation, and air-tight construction. Simply orienting a building to use passive solar gain can save 10–20 percent of heating energy. A whole-system design can save more than 75 percent of heating energy with integrated solar gain, thermal storage, and well-insulated shell components.
(end quote)
Anyway, you probably have the idea already.
Amory Lovins: If you do it right, an efficient home won't cost any more to build than an ordinary inefficient one, and it may even cost less
He's correct. And a very interesting guy. Who else would construct a north-facing window that actually gave heat gain? Just to show it could be done.
I followed the advice of one his co-conspirators, John Hait, to build my passive annual heat storage (PAHS) house, built with (almost) normal commercial construction. Later, had an opportunity to build one for a client (who knew our performance). His financing appraisal came in 50% over construction cost while still "needing" no heat or ac. Instant equity! With no moving parts to maintain or replace, ever, payback period was substantially better than zero for the PAHS part.
Not unlike my measuring the current draw of our old refrigerator. Whoops! A new efficient one will pay for itself in less than 4 yrs (closer to 3 if I sell our old one). After that, "free" refrigeration. Doesn't take a lot of effort to determine cost effectiveness. Even to throw in embodied costs if one's inclined.
Tightwad, jump on in wherever. Another perspective is always good, helps to offset agendas. And keep bugging your friends about wood consumption. Hope y'all are using clean-burning stoves at least. There's always somebody downwind.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Yeah, Armory Lovins is a genius... glad to hear someone is building sensibly. I've been renovating houses to be more energy efficient, doing my thing one house at a time. And learning as I go! Unfortunately, buyers don't seem to care if the house is cheap to run - I sold the last house in Spokane WA and the realtor asked me what I thought was the best feature of the house to highlight on the MLS. I said that my energy bills were $64/mo for a 3 br 1952 ranch house. Not one prospective buyer cared - they liked the planter boxes that were drip irrigated. Maybe there's new awareness now that energy bills have gone up.
As for the wood stove - yes, it has a catalytic converter. Makes it a lot more efficient. But my real issue here is the building envelope. I'm going to try to talk my husband into spraying PUF in the walls, replacing fiberglass batts. This house has charming wood paneling (blue and buggy, popular around here) and cedar siding but no housewrap. So the fiiberglass batts in the walls are just a filter. The blower door test showed over one air change per hour, I can feel it since the floors are cold and the second story is warm. The previous owner used it as a vacation home and still had a January heating bill of $250 (electric furnace) even though our rates are 6 cents per kwh. So we use wood and wear a lot of fleece.
I would love a truly efficient house. It would be soooo much more comfortable. I've made this one about 10 degrees warmer but still have a long way to go.
I really hope the efficient (green, whatever) idea takes hold and that we quit worrying about light bulbs and do some real air sealing and insulating.
None of what you wrote surprises me in the least. Our 2,100 square foot ranch home built in 1999 has no house wrap <GRRRRR>, and is drafty as hell. The vinyl windows are so cheap that on a windy day I can watch the drawstrings move in the breeze, and our expensive Hunter-Douglas shades are ruined because of all the dust that infiltrated those windows and embedded itself in the shade fabric.
The Front Range of Colorado has had a mild winter, yet our last two natural gas bills were $226 and $198, and our electric bills were around $70 for those two months.
This home has many other issues, that I won't go into here as they are not relevant to the conversation.
Generally; but not always, it has been my experience that the materials to do the job right are a small fraction of the cost compared to doing it wrong. Labor is the biggest factor in the cost equation. Yet in a lot of cases the cost to the job right is comparable to doing the job wrong.
I just wish we could afford to move.
mjncad,
Just to get the benefit of your experience (I thought new homes would be tighter), what would you do differently? How would you check the efficiency or lack thereof if you bought again? The only thing I can think of would be to have a blower door test.
What would I do differently is a good question. First and foremost, I would have investigated the builder of our so called semi-custom home in greater detail. If we knew then what we know about the builder, we never would have bought this place. Second, I would have designed the house and specified the components myself. Third, I'd have my designs reviewed by a third party engineer to validate what I have in mind. Fourth, keep an eagle eye (yourself or a qualified General Contractor you trust) on the work the trades are doing in constructing the house.
Unfortunately, when we were buying a home, a number of factors prevented us from allowing me to do the design and construction oversight of our home; so we had to settle for what we currently own.
I know this is not really answering your question per se; but I felt it was a valid point I had to make. Anyway, a blower door test is going to confirm that your design was on the money, or find problems after the home is essentially shelled in. I've never had one done; but if I were building again, I would do the test after after the home is shelled in; but before all the finish work is complete when it's easier to fix. Granted, items like finished floor coverings and trim work is going to affect air flow, and one needs to account for that. I suspect that there are companies out there doing thermal imaging that will detect heat transfer that a blower test won't.
Just because a home is new doesn't mean its tight; because when all is said and done, it still comes down to quality assembly of quality components.
I hope other readers will chime in with suggestions and/or corrections to what I've wrote.
thank you . I will get back to you with resorce questions after I have finished rocky mtn readings
Regarding the quote from the Rocky Mountain Institute Article;
Resource-Efficient New Home ConstructionIf you're building a new home, you have the chance to do it right from the start. This makes it easier and cheaper to achieve really big savings—but only if you plan ahead.
As far as I'm concerned, this applies to all of a home's system's. I'm so sick and tired of having to go back and fix what the builder should have done right in the first place.
Granted, most people who read Fine Homebuilding are interested in doing innovative quality work, which means the readers of FHB need little convincing when presented with the facts; but the real task is convincing the average production builder to do the job right the first time instead of doing it cheap the first time. The other task is to convince buyers that a job done right the first time actually saves them money over the long haul.