Best way to build new/green and save $

[Billy123]

Had a good chat with some friends about going green and saving money.

I was thinking the best way to go would be a super-insulated home utilizing Geo-thermal heating/cooling with solar panels on the roof. The only problem is, the cost is still quite high, and it take a long time to break even.

If we had one standard, it could be mass produced, lowering cost.

 

[Exmasonite]

I think the difficulty in setting up a "standard" would be that no two lots are the same. Example... my house is build on a bedrock slab. I don't think geo thermal is an option unless you were a billionaire.

The varied geography will make setting a "standard" rather difficult.

 

[benjamin]

Without a doubt, superinsulating (airsealing) is the most cost effective investment in a new house. Anything else depends on the situation. I guess I'm assuming a northern climate on the superinsulating also!

Geothermal IS standardized, you can get whatever size or option you want in stock, just like a gas furnace. The difference is the level of complexity, that's what makes the installation cost a fortune. I can tell you where to get a nearly new unit for well under $1,000. That's a lot of money for a used unit, but it's cheap compared to the cost of central air. Then you decide if you want trenches, boreholes, open loop...

Beyond geothermal, you could argue in favor of passive solar, active solar, heat storage, biomass etc. Just look at how many options there are for stoves and boilers. Take into consideration how long it takes for technology to spread into established industries, and the changing economics, there will never be one standard in "green building".

 

[btuser]

Build small. That's the way to go. Lots of built-ins.

x2 on the lot considerations. The lot should tell you what's really going to happen. Geothermal doesn't make sense when electricity is expensive. If you're saving money by insulating the building you don't need a massive investment in HVAC. There gets to be a point when diminishing returns start to pay back huge when you reach a tipping point.

I'd like a masonry furnace in the center of a 1200-1600 sqft house. No pumps no electric, just good old fashion mass. Only 1/2 the home would have a basement, really just enough for root cellar storage, mechanical and maybe a man cave. The rest would be on a heated slab. With a heat load of 20k max I could keep it cozy with the wood, but the in-floor would be my backup in case of freezing. I wouldn't mind some solar on the roof, but I'd probably keep to passive solar for hot water and solar gain. PV is still too much money unless you're building on a mountain. Keeping the house small is the thing that pays the most. Its a fact of life that we Americans figure a way to do it cheaper we just waste it on MORE and SUPERSIZING! Small house=green house.

Of course the garage/shop would be over 4000ft......

 

[Billy123]

I was thinking about the solar electric panels. We need one set standard for these. This would help with mass production, lowering the price.

 

[begreen]

I'm not sure we're ready for a set standard for solar panels. There is a need for diversity and development. Different applications need different form factors. If we have a standard it should be metric, but how does that fit with our eccentric English system? The best price reducers are going to come from refinement of current technologies or newer, disruptive solar technology which may be completely outside of current standards.

 

[Highbeam]

Depending on your definition of green, the best way to build green is to noto build at all. There is a glut of existing housing on the market ready to be resold and possibly retrofitted with efficient heating, insulation, etc. instead of allowing some yahoo to buy the home and continue to waste fuel leaving the building alone.

If you really want to be green do the above.

If you like new stuff and just want to do your best with that then you can build new using the same high efficiency stuff plus a few more goodies like passive solar or building partially underground that you can't really do with retrofit.

 

[dougstove]

Alot can be done with sensible orientation and exposures, putting windows in sensible places.
Keep the house small and well oriented.
But I agree with Highbeam. I think North America is hugely overbuilt.
We could go along way spending skilled labour upgrading what we already have, rather than expending new materials & energy on wonderful new construction.

 

[benjamin]

Depending on your definition of Green, the best thing to do is shut up and drink your Kool Aid.

I disagree that renovating existing housing is generally greener than new construction. It seems like I'm always ripping on PV and priuses, but even I have to admit they have their place. The same goes for cutting edge housing, like the German/Alaskan builder that was linked recently. The extreme houses don't make sense, but there ARE houses that incorporate the same ideas that make very good economic sense, and of course you can only get that performance and economy in a new house, or an essentially free shell of an old house.

Even I don't complain about the cost of PV panels, the prices are very reasonable for what they do. The real complexity and cost comes in the installation. It's a lot easier to plop down acre after acre of panels in a desert, or turbines in a prairie, than to mount them on a roof, run the conduit, etc. I still contend that many systems mounted on shingled roofs will meet the same fate as the white house solar panels-removed by the roofers and not worth putting back up.

 

[dvellone]

Alot can be done with sensible orientation and exposures, putting windows in sensible places.
Keep the house small and well oriented.
But I agree with Highbeam. I think North America is hugely overbuilt.
We could go along way spending skilled labour upgrading what we already have, rather than expending new materials & energy on wonderful new construction.

I agree with sensible orientation. Drive through most neighborhoods and observe the homes all oriented toward the road with little to no thought given to the sun.
I'm building a new home here on my property and the most common question I get is which way the house will face. I respond by saying that the house will have four sides - four faces each being equally appealing, but the majority of glazing on the Southern exposure and the entrance on the North.

I'm not a particularly staunch advocate of building codes, but taking advantage of the sun's warmth would seem to be a no-brainer as far as a sensible requirement.

 

[dougstove]

There is a rural road near my house with world-class vistas of the Bay of Fundy, in a southerly orientation.
But most of the houses have picture windows facing the road, in a north-east orientation....
My own 1968 house has huge picture windows looking at my neighbour to the northwest, and had no window exposure to a good southerly view.
People should wake up that having a fishbowl oriented towards the street makes no sense.

 

[Dune]

Alot can be done with sensible orientation and exposures, putting windows in sensible places.
Keep the house small and well oriented.
But I agree with Highbeam. I think North America is hugely overbuilt.
We could go along way spending skilled labour upgrading what we already have, rather than expending new materials & energy on wonderful new construction.

Exactly. Superinsulate, air seal, and design for passive solar.