Which is the right direction?
The recession has served one good purpose. Our plans to build a new home, roughly to Passivehaus standards has been pushed off, and that additional time has enabled a revisiting to a lot of preexisting ideas about how to build this new home.
It is true that our desire is to reach some goals that may be self-excusionary. Our goal is to build a on one floor; to be as completely free of any fossil fuel consumption as possible; to be completely off grid.
Naturally, there are many issues and problems. The house is being designed from the inside out as my wife, the interior designer is designing the house to meet our needs as we age. I am unconcerned with the interior design, so long as the outside of the house fits the site and my archaic ideas of a proper New England style home. Total size of the house is to be limited to around 1700 square feet.
Current in vogue methods of construction are to build a 2100 square foot home that will provide around 1700 square feet of true living (heated)space. Double studded walls, TGI framed walls filled with borate suffused old blue jeans, or great thick lumps of foam encased in OSB to make high R-value walls, makes me feel claustrophbic from the wall thickness and hyperventillate when thinking of the overall cost overrun of concrete, additional roof and roofing materials of that added and unwanted, unusable square footage.
At one point I was enthusiastic about closed cell foam as basic insulator and sealer, but the issue of thermal bridging wasn’t addressed. I am uncomfortable about great thicknesses of rigid insulation on the exterior because once again, the wall becomes considerably thicker.
It seems to me that there needs to be an entirely new approach to the whole issue of efficiently making an efficient high performance wall.
When considering the added cost of square footage of a thick walled building, there is a point where the added materials and labor cost will cross with more expensive insulating materials like vacuum insulated panels.
At this point I am not sure where that might be, but it might be found somewhere between 1700 square feet and 2100 square feet, of all other leading edge insulation issues can be resolved.
I wonder if anyone else reading this has similar thoughts?
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Roger,
How are you going to make electricity from November to February? Have you got a good site for a wind turbine?
Roger,
Are you in New England?
What is your design heat temperature (lowest temperature used to size heating equip)?
Fast responses! Thank you! Sorry I forgot to provide some important information. We are located in eastern Maine and the site is in the center of an 18 acre parcel with outstanding solar orientation across an exposed granite head, 120 feet above sea level, but not directly on the water.
While we have a good site for a wind turbine and there are no limitations to errecting a tower, we have decided not to attempt that. We will rely on solar panels for electricity and are planning on as much as five days' storage, plus generator.
Our intent is to use the HRV/ERV system for heat to the greatest extent possible, and there will be heat in the bathroom slab and kitchen hydronically. The actual building site is on a granite slab, and my plan at this point is to use a 1 foot insulated perimeter on top of contour following footing, and 6-8" of insulation below a 4" reinforced slab,
I have not as yet attempted the Passive Houe Planning Program, although it is sitting on my book shelf awaiting this winter.
Roger,
If you're using a generator to make winter electricity -- that's what I do -- you won't be fossil-fuel free.
Unless, of course, you distill alcohol from Maine apples, or grow sunflowers and press your own sunflower oil. Then you still need to find a generator that runs on alcohol or biodiesel. (I think the biodiesel generator will be easier to find, but you'll need to grow a lot of sunflowers. It's cheating if you use a tractor.)
Let me clarify: We cannot ever be "fossil fuel" free and live in rural Maine. Maine's electricity is premarily generated by natural gas, and oil is used in Maine primarily to heat buildings and for transportation.
We plan to cook and dry clothes using propane (which is the only gas available outside of the major metro regions of the state), and we will use gasoline for automobiles. However we wish to eliminate burning fossil fuels for heating the inside of the house, and to as great an extent as possible, for electricity generation.
The house site is far enough off the main road and powerline, AND involves enough granite formation issues to make installation of power poles a challenge, and underground installation is similarly questionable.
Solar panels aren't prohibitively expensive, and not impossible to build.
It's a low bar. Install a wood stove and you're done.
I thought you had a more ambitious goal.
-Superinsulate
-Passive and active solar
-Masonry heater
-Double 5/8 drywall, bury scraps in walls
-Use water heater heat pump to remove excess interior heat during sunny days and warmest hours of wood burn. Run your tiled bath and kitchen floor radiant heat off water heater via heat exchanger.
-Solar panels hook to grid with smallest allowed service entrance, that may make a in ground plastic conduit run affordable.
-Riversong truss walls or my double foam walls framed in PT wood. My wall needs Martin to post and make sure it is moisture safe which I think it is. Riversong cellulose wall is by far your "greenest".
Roger you have a great start... keep us posted right thru to completion and more.
Roger,
No one is addressing your primary issue: the "wasted" square footage of a super-insulated house.
Rather than try (probably in vain) to find that perfect crossing point between wall thickness and high tech insulation, I would suggest something far easier: change the way you think about shelter.
First of all, there is not a person on the planet who authentically NEEDS more than a few hundred square feet of indoor shelter space, and Americans believe they "need" twice as much as Europeans for the same standard of living. It was not long ago that a 1200 SF 3-bedroom home was the dream of most Americans. So, first, take an honest inventory - both personally and ecologically - and re-evaluate how much space your family really needs.
Second, it's always been patently absurd to value a home in dollars per square foot. This is premised on the ridiculous assumption that a square foot of space has a value which is equal to every other square foot of interior space. It's not the space which is valuable to us, but the life functions that the space allows. A small, well-designed space is often more functional than a large rambling space.
Third, it's also nonsensical to compare one house to another on the basis of $/SF since there are far too many variables in design, materials, efficiency, functionality, fit & finish, aesthetics, durability, location, site costs, etc. to compare any house to any other. A small house will always cost more per square foot than a larger house, all things being equal, because of the need for the same basic elements and mechanical systems. And a finely-built small house can have much more qualitative value than a poorly-built McMansion.
In any case, if a primary goal of the design is to maximize energy efficiency - and especially doing so with optimum ecological consideration - then worrying about loss of usable floor area when so much more of value is gained, only undermines the creative freedom and pleasure in the process and puts a negative value on what may be the most valuable asset of the home.
If this is a house to grow old in, forget "market value", forget square foot costs, and work within a budget to get the most enjoyable and functional living space on the smallest possible ecological (as well as geological) footprint .
And, as for your concern about "claustrophobia", I've been building foot-thick house envelopes for 30 years and every homeowner has been thrilled with the feeling of security and warmth that such a "castle-like" house offers. It's proper fenestration, daylighting, views and natural ventilation which makes a house feel open and airy, not the thickness of the walls.
Well, not quite. No wood stove and no chimney...or at least a real one. The reasons are several, mostly revolving around the assorted "issues" of heating with wood, all of which I am very familiar since I have heated entirely by wood.
The whole idea of truss walls of any sort is what I am trying to avoid, as are any sort of thick walls, and being on grid makes no sense in Maine if it is to be avoided since the the Maine PUC screwing of grid tied private power producers is such that if you generate one tenth of a KW over your needs, you get zero compensation for it. Our desire is to be untied from the grid entirely. Under the Maine PUC regulations (and therefore that of our utility, Bangor Hydro), the "smallest" service entrance is the same as the largest non-commercial variety).
Heating of the slab areas that need to be heated...bathroom and kitchen...will hopefully be from solar thermal storage, as we intend to heat water that way...we have the southern exposure to use, and by not having a gas fired water heater, we eliminate one more hole in the envelope and have one less consumption point of propane.
And of course cellulose insulation is not on my top ten list.
Now with VIPs the simple arithmetic is R30/inch. How about using 2X4" studding, with 1-2" of closed cell foam between the studs. Then 1" Vacuum Insulated panels 24" on center with the polycarbonate flanges for mounting, that also provide the surface for exterior cladding to be fastened? The polycarbonate fastening surfaces...essentially an I-shaped flange that would fasten to the sheathing anywhere except over a stud, are not expensive to have made. The overall R-value of the wall could be as high as R35 or so, and the entire wall assemby would be about the thickness of a conventional 2X6 wall.
Two limitations to date with VIPs. One is the fragile nature of the VIPs...pin prick destroys the effectiveness of the panel, but the industry is working on new cladding forms for them and there are some producers who now claim that they have exterior cladding for the VIPs that will make them more user friendly on the job site.
And then there is cost. Perhaps $8-10 per square foot, semi-educated guess based on research now over a year old. My guess...and it is just a guess...is that VIPs will be less expensive later than earlier. The VIPs will have to be built to order based on the design of the exterior walls and window/door opening.
so, the question is, if a house that is 1700 square feet more or less, is designed around a "standard" 2/6" wall structure, what is the cost difference between THAT house and one that is 1700 square feet but is built to achieve, say R35 walls using TGI trusses, double studding, or whatever, and result in a foot print that is basically around 2100sq ft?
If you have no propane water heater, no wood stove, and you are off grid, then solar won't get you through the winter. You'll be taking a lot of cold showers from November to Februrary or March.
I suppose you can always heat water up on the kitchen range and use it to fill a galvanized tub.
Roger, you are asking for what even your question's facts answers.
Totally impossible without fraud to make a hundred dollar bill from a one dollar bill.
Tell us how to solve that and we can help.
Riversong's post is worth you researching by visiting such a home before you try to go down a road that does not exist.
I was glad to get some comment from Robert Riversong.
Robert, I think we have addressed the obvious concerns of how this house is to be used, its various purposes and how large it is to be. I agree with you concerning the "need" of most, and if this was a house for me alone, it would be considerably smaller than we are planning. But there are two of us, one of which is a woman. Worse still, she is an interior designer with both architectural and building contractor experience, and while some might argue that the two cancel each other out, I would counsel that it is unwise to instruct my wife in the best way to live in her home. :-). I will add here that she was also a contractor involved with the Gene Leger projects in Massachusetts, along about the dawn of time.
While I am concerned about square foot costs, I am at least equally concerned about whether it makes good building sense to build something that is four hundred square feet larger than it needs to be, if there is an equally effective way to achieve the building goals on a smaller footprint, if the overall cost is the same?
Recently there has been a considerable amount of discussion on this website about using OSB with the apparent concensus not to use the stuff in a super insulated house. I wonder if that is really accurate, considering that OSB from at least one manufacturer carries a fifty year warranty, and I have not been told by the manufacturer that a dwelling insulated to any particular standard voids the warranty. So is the prohibition against OSB more against the average skill and execution of the builder/building process or are some OSB's more equal than others?
Our plan is for a relatively small house. The house we are in now is a conventional cape-style house with a second floor. We have two bedrooms and a full bath on the second floor that is largely unused, and our entire living is on the first floor. Total area around 1700 square feet. It would be a perfect house space wise if we had all the area on one floor, hence the proposed size. My work and my wife's work requires the area if we are going to build to suit.
I built this house in 1995 and did much of the work myself. It is a conventionally framed, 2X6 home with much southwest facing glazing and the oversized 4 car garage protects the north wall. The house is of "open" floor plan, using Andersen windows and doors with (gasp!) fibreglass batt insulation which I put in myself. The house was designed around and is heated with three K1 fired wall furnaces, a total of 88,000 BTUs and consumes just about 400 gallons of Kerosene annually if the wind is extremely bad. No wood stove.
Now, if we assume that the new house can be built to, and meet Passivehaus standard, and if we assume that any additional heat can come from solar thermal collectors, where is the crossing point at which time super thick walls equals the cost of thinner walls, with more expensive insulation methods?
Martin, we are concerned about hot water generation, but my wife has experience with solar thermal systems and it appears that we will generate sufficient hot water on the site during the weak solar months....but the actual decision about water heating remains open. I have used an on-demand propane water heater in this house since it was built, and it has worked extremely well. The ony issue that I have with it going forward is the for air tightness and how to manage the exhaust for the water heater, along with whatever means for "make up" air can be invented.
Roger,
My solar collectors are snow-covered from November to the middle or end of March. Of course, you may be able to mount your collectors somewhere where you can clear the snow off of them.
I remember several Novembers with only one day that had any sun. December is about the same. I have no idea how your wife is going to keep a tankful of water warm from October to February with the amount of sun we have in northern New England.
In theory, you can build a 2,000 gallon tank and try to get it up to temperature in July, August, and September. Everyone I know who has done this has spent a lot of money and concluded it didn't work very well.
Sorry....just had a power bump and lost what I was saying.
AJBuilder, what did your comment about $100 and $1 dollar bills mean? Try speaking directly and leave the analogies to people who write for a living. Communication and information sharing works much better that way.
I have read Robert Riversong's post through carefully as well as many of his other posts. I have never suggested that my concern is for dollars per square foot, and we are not concerned about market value now or in the future: anyone who IS worried about market value should revisit what the real estate market value of housing has done over the past two years.
My main interest in this post is to ask if the ONLY way to build a high performance house is by building a much bigger structure than the interior heated space demands, or if there is a point where the cost of the added size of the structure can intersect with higher performing (supposedly), more modern insulation materials. I have the area to use, but to use "x" cubic yards of concrete, "x" more sheets of plywood and 50% more studs, shingles and assorted stuff just because it is the "way it's always been done" makes little real sense cost issue or no cost issue.
Martin, I have never understood why so many people in the cold areas stick their solar arrays up on a roof which they are unable to reach to clear snow. Unless there is a lack of available land to use, it makes little sense to me to use a perfectly good roof for anything other than keeping out the snow and rain. I plan to mount all solar arrays on grade level mounts so that in a worst case, I can at least clear them off with a broom, if the snow doesn't melt and fall off by itself. Solar panels are black, and with the passage of the typical Nor'easter here, follows several days of extreme sunshing, and I think that most of the time solar panels will be self clearing. Naturally, this is a concern, as are those occasional periods of days and days with little to no sunshine at all. That's the purpose of a generator, and I expect to use a generator to keep the battery pack at about 80%.
I am very much interested in knowing what other ideas exist for insulation of the envelope. To my knowledge there are no off grid, Passivehaus certified structures in North America. The "off grid" part is a killer because so much of Passivehaus and for that matter, houses that are truly minimal energy houses all use electricity plugged in to the grid somewhere, to power virtually everything in the house. In Europe, electricity is used more often than not to cook and even to heat with, which is not possible here.
First things first, and my concern is to build the most efficient envelope that I can which includes not only the end performance, but the amount of stuff that I just consume for consuming sake.
Robert, I need to address the issue of claustrophobia. It is a very real occurrence, and particularly so in winter for many people. Low ceilings simply don't work well for me, and neither do thick walls with windows, either inzie or outie, hung inside those thick walls. I don't "like" the idea, but that is not the only issue, and in the end, if living with a super thick wall is the only way to obtain the overall performance of the house, then that may have to be a compromise that we will be forced into.
The biggest issue to resolve with Passivehaus standards is whether or not we will be able to use roof windows at all in the house. I haven't mentioned the concept of raised or cathedralled ceilings or roof windows because those issues aren't really germain to the main question about insulation systems, overall square footage and the relative crossing point of cost between the two.
Roger,
People in New England put PV modules and solar collectors on roofs, because New England has trees.
The sun in winter is very low in the sky; at my site it barely skims the treetops at noon. If my collectors and modules weren't near the peak of my roof, they wouldn't get sun in December. Cutting trees doesn't work, because I'm on a north slope. I know: who buys land that slopes north? Poor hippies, that's who.
I would have to clear cut trees for half a mile before logging would solve my problem. And then I'd be brush-hogging all summer.
Here's something for you to consider: even when the sun comes out in winter, which it rarely does, it is near the horizon and weak. It's not like the sun in April.
Roger, you want something most here can not help you with. Do your research, design, spec, price,and write up your schedule.
Please share this with us. Am interested in following your progress.
My dollar analogy was to do with your want for thin Superinsulated assembles for a low cost. Many a customer asks me for miracles. I am not the right person for that.
Roger, In the 2010 to 2015 time-frame I'm not sure that it will be possible to meet Passivhaus standards with anything other than thick walls, thick roof and tick sub-slab insulation. Personally, I would not get too excited about un-ripe technologies like VIPs and areogel.
Your approach to "off-grid" living will be expensive and maintenance intensive as it requires elaborate overlapping solutions, propane, solar thermal, generators etc...
Another (less popular) approach to "off-grid" living is to first scale down the base-load power requirement by trimming things on the lifestyle side end.
Being "off-the-grid" in the technical sense of simply not having a hookup is one thing but if you aren't careful you could easily find yourself increasing your reliance on fossil fuels.
Also, even if you are "off-the-grid" don't forget that you're still dependant on "the system" if you rely on propane deliveries.
Rodger,
I agree with Lucas, forget about the space age technologies.
And if you want a "thinner" wall, use a conventional insulation materials with the highest R-value (foil faced polyisocyanurate foam board and closed cell spray foam).
With your claustrophobia issues, however, I don't know why you want to use these materials. A plastic-incapsulated, picnic cooler-ish structure seems more claustrophobic than home built with breathable 12" double walls filled with cellulose.
Interesting responses from all.
AJ. I think you have misunderstood me. It is not thin super insulating systems that I seek. Rather the question is, if a super insulating system can be installed that results in a conventional wall thickness (conventional = 2X6"), what is the cost of doing that, versus using a 12" or 14" wall system and its required additional costs of materials and labor, if the overall performance of the structure is roughly the same. For example, let's say a high performance 1700 sq foot living area house, that meets Passivhaus standard costs $200 per squre foot. (Let's be clear: I am not suggesting that to be the cost, but merely a figure to use in this exercise.) The walls of the house will add so much to the foundation, framing materials and labor cost of the house ABOVE what a traditionally framed (2X6) house will cost. Let's say 12" of wall width the entire perimeter of the house. What is the dollar cost of that 1 additional foot of perimeter? Is it enough to pay for a more advanced type of insulation that would enable the wall to be thinner for whatever reason that the builder/developer/owner wished it to be?
My last visit to Home Depot and Lowes to gauge the price of rigid insulation told me that four or six inches of rigid insulation in material cost alone, isn't cheap. Is there another way to accomplish the same insulation value end, without the need to build a much bigger structure to enclose a relatively small living space? This is not an exercise in cost saving. It is an exercise in exploring the relative values of space and material savings in the interest of a higher level of efficiency in the building envelope than traditional building methods and materials provide. We CAN make a super insulated house by making very thick walls and roofs. Is this still the BEST way to do it?
Lucas, I appreciate your comments. I would have to question whether or not VIPs as currently developed are "unripe" technologies. They are most commonly used in ship borne and road borne transportation where very high refrigeration values are necessary for space and operational cost concerns. They are also most commonly installed in pretty carefully controlled environments. They were used in the construction of the Passivehaus certified Biohaus in Minnesota some time ago, and there were many issues with their installation due to handling on site. Most mainstream manufacturers of VIPs are working on developing a tougher outter "skin" that will make them more suitable to regular construction. How the Passive House Planning Program will react to them, I have no idea at this point, but I am less concerned about receiving certification than I am in having a house that will perform to that standard.
My interest in being off grid lies in several areas. Our land is located at the end of a 50foot wide strip of land that runs from the main town road up the hill, which is about a 100 foot rise over nearly 1000 feet. I have a sort of allergic reaction to the idea of installing poles along this roadway, even if the ground would support the poles, and much below two or three feet is pretty solid Maine granite. Bangor Hydro will want a right of way of at least 75 feet to maintain the power line, and it will be extremely difficult to get them to accept a power line without that much right of way. I don't want to create a swarth like that.
Secondly, I have "issues" with Maine's power picture in general. As a net energy exporter, Maine's power to residents and to businesses here should be about one half the cost per kilowatt hour that it is. I won't go into the political issues involved here except to say that with no chance of seeing anything except increasing power costs, and since being off grid and generating my own power is within reach financially now, I would prefer to be off grid in this rural location.
I know that I will have to be "connected". The road is in, and supply of propane and emergency services isn't excluded from this project, merely our dependence of "traditional" power methods, and our desire is to maintain the pristine nature of the site to the greatest extent possible. Our downscaling of electrical consumption will be accomplished (hopefully) by relying on the ERV/HRV system, which hopefully will be highly efficient in terms of electric demand. Most ERV/HRVs produced in this country are not, so we may have to source in Europe. And yes, I know about generators: we have one now that I have to turn on about four or five times a year...actually, since the event of deregulation of electricity in Maine, the occurrence of power outages is greater. In the new house the neat generator that I have here will likely be insufficient to top of the batteries, and something on the order of 15kw will need to be sourced...perhaps propane fired, although I like the idea of using Lister engine powered perhaps by Kerosene...a detail to be sorted later.
This discussion has morphed a lot of different ways. Originally I was interested in proposing that we might be looking in the wrong direction in terms of just building thick walls in creating super insulated structures.
Why do you ask for advise?
You have dismissed basically every suggestion in this thread.
Brett: I'm not asking for advice.
So far it appears that the concept of thin walls with a high performance insulation system is somehow threatening Am I reading the responses correctly?
Now, having said that, it may be that the PHPP will not give good results unless the wall systems reach a certain thermal mass that has nothing to do with, nor anticipates using high performance thin insulation products. That seems less than likely since the Biohaus which was very large in area, came close to meeting Passivehaus standard and used VIPs as a part of its wall system.
Brett: I respectfully suggest that you learn a bit more about claustrophia and SAD before you dismiss questions about structural and materials variations out of hand.
Roger,
If best value is what you are interested in, I will go out on a limb and say that a 12" Riversong truss wall system with dense pack cellulose is your best bet. If you have health concerns that relate to living in a house with thick walls - build thinner walls.
I don't think what you're reading is a reaction to threatening ideas.
I think what you are reading is skeptisism concerning some of your design ideas and sometimes contradictory design goals.
Roger,
You’re not asking for advise?
What the #$@% would you call asking countless questions about fastening, construction costs, insulation materials, insulation methods, ventilation, etc.?
Though your question is somewhat hypothetical, you seem to already have some potential solutions to the thin super-insulated wall section, so you should be able to do the cost comparison quite easily.
But I think you're basing your comparison on some false assumptions - and those assumptions are based on the "way it's always been done".
I spent 30 years researching and experimenting to find an answer to the question of how to create the most efficient thermal envelope to enclose the healthiest space at the lowest cost with the fewest resources. I believe the solution I developed meets those goals, not perfectly, but better than any other option I've seen or heard of (with the possible exception of straw bale). And little that I do is limited by "the way things have always been done".
Like for your site plan, I minimize the use of concrete (as well as excavation and fill) by using a shallow frost-protected grade beam. My 12" thick wall system uses no more forest resources than a conventional 2x6 plywood/OSB house (and locally-sourced roughsawn makes it even less expensive and more ecological). And there is no insulation on the market that is both more effective (in myriad ways) and more benign than cellulose, which you seem to have written off from the start. And my wall system is extremely easy to build. The only disadvantage to is is that it requires a higher level of expertise to properly densepack because of the open cavity structure (and I'm still not crazy about having to use Tremco for air-sealing, but I find it easier than EPDM gaskets).
I, like the other responders on this thread, believe you are chasing a phantom, and doing so because you have a priori dismissed the best solutions that others have come up with. If you can find the Grail, more power to you (off-grid, of course).
The Waldsee Biohaus, a german language school building in Northern Minnesota that is Passivhaus certified, uses VIPs in some of its wall assemblies. The architect for that project now represents the Vacupor VIP product through his business Peak Building Products - http://www.peakbp.net/index.html.
Roger
Thick walls don't have to be short, or devoid of windows, though you will want to use very good windows if you have a lot of them. take a look at this house with 14" thick walls (scroll down) and tell me if it feels claustrophobic to you. you'll note that the demand water heater in in an air-tight insulated closet on the second floor, it's direct vent. the house could as easily been sided with vertical reverse board and batten siding as stucco, client was afraid her husband would light the yard on fire with his experiments in the garage. (the guys a genius, she's completely safe in my opinion) http://chandlerdesignbuild.com/indexFull.php?id=bryantResidenceImages&t=The%20Bryant%20Residence
You ask a lot of tough questions but your research is just beginning. don't jump to any conclusions just yet.
God knows we need an edit feature.
if you look at the GAB article about that house you'll see that the added framing and insulation cost to increase the walls from 2x6 to double-wall with 2x12 top plate was $4,200 for the 2,500 sf house not counting the deeper window sills (sheetrock returns cost no more for 12" than 6") enjoy the journey.
Roger,
This sentence makes no sense: "Our downscaling of electrical consumption will be accomplished (hopefully) by relying on the ERV/HRV system, which hopefully will be highly efficient in terms of electric demand."
You need to visit some off-grid homes. I have never yet found an off-grid home equipped with an ERV or an HRV, for one simple reason: none of us -- meaning those of us who live off-grid -- have enough electricity for a mechanical ventilation system that runs 24 hours a day. Fuggedabout it. And LOTS of my friends live off the grid, so I know what I'm talking about.
If you need ventilation, open a window.
You won't have much electricity! That's what living off the grid is all about. Unless you intend to run your gasoline-powered generator all winter long -- and if you do, I hope you enjoy noise.
Lucas Durand is right: going off grid can easily result in using more fossil fuel than people who live in a city -- especially if you don't think through the details.
Thank you Michael: Interesting information. Then for this two story house the framing and insulation differential was $4200 plus whatever the differential was for "X" fewer yards of concrete necessary of the foundation was that much smaller to accomodate the smaller footprint.
That is one piece of the puzzle.
And thanks also to Mr. Chesnut. I have exchanged emails with Stephan Tanner and am familiar with Peak Building Products. In addition there are five other suppliers/manufacturers of VIPs domestically with whom I have communicated to test my theories. The Biohaus suffered around a 30% initial failure rate for the panels due to issues of handling on the job site. VERY expensive errors, and render the VIPs not "ready for prime time" unless the handling and mounting issues can be overcome.
I think the real cost benefit computation will likely be between a VIP wall made with 2X4's that meets R-value targets and a thicker wall structure that meets the same goals.
Martin: Are you saying that the Passivehaus standard cannot be met in an off grid house?
Roger,
Q. "Are you saying that the Passivhaus standard cannot be met in an off grid house?"
A. I'm saying that no one has done it yet, so if you succeed, you'll be the first, as far as I know.
Off grid homes are inefficient. Battery storage of electricity is VERY inefficient. You waste energy putting it into the battery and you waste energy taking it out of the battery. Nothing beats the grid for efficiency.
And a gas-powered generator? It's lousy.
Howver, you can certainly live a low-energy lifestyle in the woods. You just won't have a Passivhaus certificate to show your friends.
In an early post, you said that a fossil-fuel-free lifestyle is impossible in Maine. But you can certainly do it. Your great-grandparents did.
This does not sound like a well ripened technology to me.
An anecdote:
It was the late 1990s and a doctor friend of my family was bragging about how he spent $10000 on a new 36" plasma TV...
Ouch.
My mother purchased one of the first IBM PCs with 8088 4.77 MHz processor and 640 KB RAM and a monochrome monitor when she was working on her doctoral dissertation (while I was in high school and she was teaching full time). She got it through my father's university discount for nearly $5,000. It had less processing power than a wrist watch today.
I'm ashamed to admit that I stole a digital hand calculator in the early 70's from a local radio station which retailed for a whopping $100, but it could do addition, subtraction, multiplication AND division and had a cool red LED readout (I actually returned it later).
Yup, some technologies need time to mature.
Michael Chandler,
Thanks for sharing a sampling of the great looking work that you do. I really love the open~free feeling accomplished with 12" walls.
Just curious, If tasked with the opportunity to create the best possible home on earth, from every aspect of home building for people before money, what would you build?
I have spent most of my career doing projects for clients that seem to have all of the financial resources necessary for very creative, high end stuff. Looking back at these wonderful projects that I was blessed to be a part of, I now realize that it was all just a matter of money.
Great things can be created with lots of money.
Is it possible, based on your expertise, to provide homes of equal greatness at half the price tag?
Vast numbers of human beings could really use your help. This is a project that I am committed to.
I have been following all of your posts and contributions to this site for some time now, and would really appreciate your thoughts on homes for less.
Thank You,
Roy Harmon
Michael,
God knows we need an edit feature~ meant to say 14" thick walls, not 12".
Sorry about that.
Roy
Roger
I think you are very much overestimating the additional concrete involved. we have a 10 x 24 footing 1' longer north-south and one foot longer east-west so that's 3.3 cu ft and you have a 6" additional of 5" slab around the perimeter so that's 6x5x200= 4.16 cu ft a total of 1 2/3 yards assume $150 / yard in place cost differential $250 to increase the footprint 6" on all sides maybe a little more for the extra ICFs but really pretty minimal esp when compared to vacuum panels I think.
Roger, Martin is telling you first hand about off grid living via solar panels. To do so with no batteries, you could live powerless when the sun is down or blocked out.
Or....... you could...
Run power underground to your home. Put in smallest amp allowed. No need to cut anything, you can run it in conduit right with your driveway. I have done so for my customers for 3 decades now. Then you can collect your solar electric efficiently in the summer and use it in the winter.
And magic!! No batteries, no generator running all winter. And you definitely will use MUCH LESS FOSSIL FUEL!
You can help yourself by getting over your attitude toward your electric utility. (I despise them too)
You are your problem, become the solution. Yes??
Roy
there is really a lot of expertise here at this site and the lesson I get hit with over and over is that there is not one perfect way, we have so many different levels of knowledge and skill in our co-workers and each site and family brings something different to the game.
I get a lot of inspiration and fun out of the alchemy of building beautiful high performance homes that thrill my clients for an affordable price (part of why we choose not to build homes over 3,000 square feet)
The last time I tinkered with an affordable green project I wrote about it on my own site at
http://www.chandlerdesignbuild.com/indexFull.php?id=affordableGreen&t=Affordable%20Green
Since then I've built a version of it for a family of five with a home schooled autistic 12 year old so it got modified and the bank made us insulate the screen porch, heat and cool it and put a powder room in there to "increase re-sale value" before they would allow the project to go forward. I haven't put the photos together on my site yet but did post a few to my facebook page. (Ouch)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520814832&v=photos#!/album.php?aid=233895&id=520814832 we just got the e-monitor hooked up 8 am this morning so should have some good data coming out of it over the coming months.
I must admit that I have received a lot of responses that are quite different than I expected. It is little surprise to me that some responses are not concerned with the discussion, but merely asserting a particular dogma.
AJ Builder, I am fully aware that I CAN drag a power line to the building site and use the net metering regulation in Maine. I am also aware that the powerline can be installed underground in conduit as I have done that in all of my projects since 1990...not that there are a lot of them because I am not a builder for hire, but a GC for my own projects. The issue with underground power to this site and use of a net metering system is that in order to connect to the utility, it will be necessary to engineer two systems, and as a practical matter, install two power lines from the house site to the utility pole. Because of the distance involved, there will have to be a transformer and pad installed at some point not far from the house. The reason for the duplex line is that the utility will not accept the net metering agreement for this particular installation and location, and will therefore will not accept or give a maintenance agreement for the power line if the meter is remotely located from the utility pole...this as of early in 2009 when I posed the question. So, as of this discussion, it appears that the cost of the utility line is sufficient to completely explore other alternatives, considering that the net metering regulation in Maine favors ONLY the utility and never the power provider. Since I own no stock in Bangor Hydro Electric Company, I have no interest in improving its bottom line.
To this point it appears that in order to provide power to the building site will require enough capital outlay to at least warrant a complete analysis of alternative energy generation methods. I have abandonned the concept of a wind turbine for several reasons, not the least of which is a beginning groundswell of pushback aimed at such installations throughout Maine, and although there are no limitations in the town that I will be building in yet, combined with other issues of maintenance and the system efficiency as a whole and the front end cost argues against a wind turbine.
That has led down the road to solar panels and batteries, and it is interesting that the manner of controlling battery charging and discharging has changed and grown remarkably in the five years that we have been pushing the subject around. The entire management system for battery/solar power systems has become far more simple than was the case five years ago. So also the learning curve for the care and maintenance of such systems. In southern Maine there is a remarkable solar house that was built about twenty years ago. One half the roof is a solar thermal system and one half is a PV array. The site is perfect for solar harvesting, and the house was built, cost no object, to maximize its energy efficiency. It is a very large house, with more than 3000 square feet, and by 2010 standards is not particularly energy efficient. The house does require quite a lot of propane for hot water and perhaps for heat...the owner is mum on that subject...but the amount of electricity pulled from the grid is near nil, the only electrical expense for most of the year being the cost ofhanging a meter on the side of the house. That particular house has limited battery storage, as it is not intended to be "off grid".
We have a reasonably good solar site. It appears that the site will allow sufficient solar harvesting in December, January and February to maintain the battery bank so long as we don't have more than five days of cloud cover, which actually happens seldom in the winter months here on the coast. Two to three days is common, especially when there are storms, but more than five is seldom except in the summer when along the coast we have much higher humidity and accompanying cloud and fog issues. The building site is 120 feet above sea level, and hopefully will be a bit less impacted by fog in the warm months. The vagaries of the North Atlantic and the Gulf of Maine being what they are, I am more concerned about solar harvesting in July and August than in the shorter solar hour days of January and February.
I had to laugh at the comment about the "efficiency" of the grid. We have become accustomed to having instantaneous electric power by plugging into a wall, but I think there is little "efficiency" in a system that takes power from one locale, feeds it into a big spaghetti strand of very expensive copper, hauls it thousands of miles and then delivers it back to its starting point all the while more than doubling its cost. Maine is a net energy producer. Approximately 40% of Maine's electricity is generated by the combustion of natural gas. The cost of a kilowatt hour of electricity in Maine is a bit lower than seven cents, yet the amount paid by the consumer is around sixteen cents. The cost differential is driven by two things: the cost of delivery, and the added amount that must be added because we have to "compete" for energy use with Hartford and Boston and other places like that in places that don't produce their own electricity. I have NO issue with Bangor Hydro: I have enormous issues with a political system that doesn't provide electricity to the end user in the generating state FIRST, and then the grid last. The cost of power in Maine has been one of the leading causes for the decline in the economy overall. If it was a more equitable system, I would at sixty seven years of age, never even fantasize going "off grid". But it is what it is and my purpose is to completely wring out all of the options.
I could really resent the implication that I am looking for a Passivehaus certificate to hang on the wall. I really thought that I had made it reasonably clear that my interest was driven by the idea of a highly efficient, low energy building and Passivehaus certainly is that. In point of fact I really don't care if the house achieves .5 ACH at 50p or not, so long as it performs...consumes resources and provides sufficient comfort level for the two of us who intend to live there for the next twenty-odd years.
The whole issue of "bragging rights" that has grown to surround the entire "green building" movement only detracts from the real need to ecoomize on how we use the earth's resources. We need to develop a generational strategy for natural resource consumption that needs to be filtered down to the elementary school level. Here in Maine we have no end of trees and the number of forested acres has actually grown over the past fifty years. But it is not likely to continue that way, so in every building project and structure not only are there concerns about the amount of fossil fuels that the structure will consume over its life span, but I believe that it is important to carefully examine and plan the consumption of every facet of the construction process, down to the first and last stud. Clearly a super insulated house can be built using TGI trusses, or double studding and so forth NOW, but is it the BEST and only way to achieve the same results, using less or fewer yards or feet of this or that?
Michael's wonderful 2500 square foot house cost more than $4500 to frame as it is OVER and above a conventional 2X6 framing. Believe it or not, I consider $4500 to be REAL money...not a deal breaker, but real dollars and as a line item in a building project, one that needs to be looked at very carefully. Might there be a better way to provide the same insulation value for fewer dollars? I dunno: maybe. OR maybe the inside living environment as good as it is, might be even better if the walls were NOT twelve inches thick at the same cost.
Right now, I have no construction start date. We did install the basic road this summer as a part of the sustainable forrestry harvest that the woodlot needed. Saturday the broker is showing this house, which is amazing as the hot selling season ended more than a month ago, so I am optimistic that we might be able to start building the place as early as next summer. In the interim, I will continue to ask as many questions as I can. It would be great to be able to be highly efficient and off grid. In the end, it may not be possible to accomplish all of the goals on this site at all, and that may lead to an entirely new kind of search and questioning.
Roger,
I admire your determination and hope you succeed. To meet the specs you list, however, will be extraordinarily expensive.
1. The "remarkable solar house" you mention sounds like the house of Bill and Debbi Lord. I'm familiar with the house specs and have interviewed Bill Lord by phone. It's a remarkable house, but since it is grid-connected, it provides little guidance to off-grid builders.
2. If you can get some sun every five days at your site, that's great. Here's the thing, though: when the sun comes out, you've only going to get useful charging at that time of year from perhaps from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., if you are lucky -- and how will you fill a fully depleted battery bank -- one that was huge enough to float your house for five days -- in just four hours? Do the math -- it won't happen without an absolutely huge array. Big, big, bucks.
3. You may laugh at the efficiency of the grid, but for those with net metering -- and I'm not sure whether you have net metering -- you get tremendous benefit from the credit for your unused PV production in July. If you size your solar array to charge your batteries in December, you'll have excess capacity in the summer -- and all of that generation goes to waste if you are off the grid.
4. I'm sorry if I gave the mistaken impression that you only want a Passivhaus certificate to hang on the wall. It's great that you don't. The Passivhaus standard was designed for grid-connected houses, and it is highly unlikely that the standard will be a useful goal if you are off-grid. First of all, I don't think PHPP software will help you figure out how many gallons of gasoline you will use to charge your batteries in winter. That's a complicated algorithm, with a lot of variables: the size of your generator, the fuel burned per hour at low charging amps, the fuel burned per hour at high charging amps, the percentage discharge of your batteries when you choose to start your generator, whether you continue running the generator for the float charge, and whether or not you are running any large loads at the same time you are charging your battery. The math is very complicated, but I know one fact: you will burn more gasoline than you think.
One of the reasons that I am so "determined" to use your word, is to find out exactly how "expensive" expensive really is. I sincerely doubt that one out of five is the ratio of sunny to cloudy/foggy days. But it can be. When I was servicing my insurance agency clients I flew across most of Maine and into Massachusetts. The simple statistic was that there were as many visibility unlimited days in northern New England as there were in Texas annually. The difference being that they were not strung together nose to tail here as they were there. As a VFR pilot I had to be careful of the vagaries of the weather according to the dictates of the Gulf of Maine, of course, and so also with solar energy installations.
The net metering scheme in Maine works fine so long as the energy generated in the home system meets the needs of the home in question. At year end any overage just get forfeitted to the utility. In the case of the Lord house, they don't care: Bill Lord's website has always scoffed at the utility because his total montly cost of electricity is about ten dollars...the minimum charge for hanging a meter on the house. If he generates more electricity in any one year than he uses, it just gets fed into the grid free of charge.
I am sure that charging the battery bank will take more fuel than theoretically predictable now. I doubt that I would use a gasoline generator anyway, although that is what I have here because it is large enough for the temporary needs that we have from time to time. Off grid I think I would prefer to use some other type of engine than gasoline...Lister engine, diesel or propane since we will have propane on site anyway. The real question is how much will we electricity will we use and how large will the array be. Right now I know that a six kw array with all controllers ready for installation is around twenty five grand. I do not intend to need a 6kw array, but those are some numbers from one supplier: ground mounted array.
The real issue is not electricity, at least not right now. The real issue is maximizing the efficiency of the dwelling envelope and doing to with the highest level of indoor air quality. It seems reasonable to evaluate all kinds of materials and insulation methods in the period leading up to actual construction start, and despite the amount of heat that they generate, asking questions through the medium of the Internet is pretty easy.
Roger, buy a modular and set it on a slab. That will meet all your criteria.
Your shell ideas so far are the most expensive of any I have even heard of yet you go on and on about the high cost of grid electric.
If you can pull off this idea of low cost off grid perfection you will be the first.
Are you GCing this project yourself?
http://www.google.com/search?q=earthship&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=K8C&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&q=alternative+building+methods+earthship+rammed+earth+strawbale&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=8bc48c66f0d3c525
If you want to do a lot of the labor yourself, plan the project in stages. Friends built a 700sq ft earthship in north Montana for a solar-greenhouse/workshop which they lived in while building the main house. With its earthen roof, left empty for the winter, the low temp therm registered a season low temp of 45 deg F. of course there was no opening/closing of doors or exhaust venting. But still its pretty cool
AJ Builder: Such negativity! I haven't even begun to discuss the shell yet. Modular? Ah, no: not really insurable in the premium insurance policy market and never ever even begin to meet Passivhaus standards. But a kit? Maybe. If there the roof lines can meet the design goals.
And yes, I will be the GC, the painter, the plumber and for the most part, the electrician.
Oh, and the roof! You really need to hear the plan for the roof.....nah: you don't like new ideas at all.
Really. You do see a very rigid sort.
So far, you have a solar package installed without batteries or generator or fuel tanks at $30,000 plus. Total eventually is $40-50k?
Your vacuum panel walls will cost $50,000?
The not yet talked of roof $25k?
And all the rest like granite counters and custom all wood cabinets...$_______?
Hardwood floors, radiant heat, hrv, Viking, Subzero or Sears best... full tile showers, jacuzzi, hot tub, solarium, walk in pantry, walk in California closet set UPS his and hers...$150,000?
1000sqft multilevel deck......$________? Full native landscape/hardscape $__________?
Would love to have you post your tentative specs with cost estimates.
Not negative.... lead me to the promise land bro.
Smart money today is buying pre-existing homes for 25-50% of what a new project costs even with doing list of labor yourself.
Post some numbers my friend. What's your budget?
I'm not sure who among us you believe is "merely asserting a particular dogma", but you seem to have come to this discussion with some pretty fixed and narrow ideas about the optimum building envelope and energy systems, having apparently ruled out many approaches that have been demonstrated to work..
I respect the amount of research you've done in preparation for your next, and last, home building project. But the more open you are to the variety of approaches that have been proven to meet your goals, the more likely you'll find the approach that is ideal for you.
For instance, I get the impression that your "allergy" to 8' ceilings and thick walls has far less to do with psychological or physical requisites than to your preconceived sense of aesthetic. And I find that those who begin a design process with a preconceived aesthetic end up by compromising most of their other, functional, goals.
Perhaps, as someone who as GCed his previous houses, you are aware that most material and method decisions are best made at the start of the design process.
Design and construction is, ideally, an integrated process in which every component and building methodology fits with each other into a holistic approach to creating functional and efficient shelter. I do not begin the design process without knowing the envelope strategy, because structural requirements, resource choices and thermal and solar efficiency will, in part, determine the relationship of interior spaces and the geometry of the building.
And I do not begin the construction process without knowing every fixture and trim detail, because they effect the type, size and location of framing elements.
Well, no, no, no, yes, maybe, and I dunno are the answers to the questions, which is one reason that I initiated this discussion. Before I nail one nail through one piece of wood, I look at the wood from as many different angles as I can possibly conceive. Here is an example, and I ask that you bear in mind that I was a history major, and most of the basis for my carpentry lies in seventh grade shop way back around the dawn of time.
When I built this house it was designed by my best friend who was an architectural draftsman who had the "feel" for traditional New England architecture, old and new. I was on a very, very tight budget, but I had two carpenters who had just been the force in getting a restoration and recreation of an antique barn that I had bought as a part of an old sea captain's house that was semi-derelict.
I knew the "crew" that I had to work with and trusted them completely. When it came time to think about roofing, I wanted a particular traditional profile instead of same old, same 235lb asphalt. What I really wanted was old fashioned shingles, but that was labor cost prohibitive, time cost prohibitive, and unless pressure treated, would probably get me hung by the insurance underwriter.
Then I found a product called Woodruf, by....wait for it.....Masonite Corporation. It looked perfect for what I had in mind, but there was NO WAY that my local lumber yard could (or would) get me a price since Masonite Corporation was the sum of all evils because of a disasterous run of siding they produced leaving out the preservative stuff necessary to keep the siding from getting wet through.
Nevertheless, as has been observed, I am persistent and perhaps stubborn, and I ended up hunting down the Masonite factory rep who lived in Massachusetts. I presented my project to him and asked him to quote the Woodruf product. He called me back in a few days and informed me that Masonite had just reconfigured the pigmentation of Woodruf and was interested in having a test house on the coast. If I would agree to inspections of the product, they would GIVE me the 48 square needed for my roof. I hesitated a nanosecond. I figured that if the roof fell off in five years, I would have had a five year roof for the cost of putting the stuff on, which was going to be paid anyway.
I have thirteen roof windows in this house. The Woodruf product required a LOT of ice and water shield, and 30 pound felt. George and John slapped the shingles on, being very careful of ALL of the instructions, and the house was tight.
Then I got a contract in the mail from Masonite stating the terms of inspection, which was as had been advertised. Then the letter that came with the contract advised me to send Masonite the contractor's bill for installation and they would pay it.
The roof is now in its thirteenth year. Doesn' t leak, hasn't fallen off, and looks like...well....a very interesting old fashioned shake roof. I cleaned roof windows in September and I can say that the roof looks weathered, but it also looks as though it will be there shedding snow and rain for another twenty years.
The key was making VERY sure that the installation instructions were followed to the nit. I would use the product again in an instant and even pay for it this time. But all of that was because I worked waaaaaaaaay outside of the box, asked a lot of questions and asked them again. Someday I will tell you about the Jennaire gas/electric convection range that I bought new for $200, but that isn't germain to this discussion. Just call me a bottom feeder as I like to use stuff that gets lost of discarded in the shuffle.
But to right the boat of skepticism, no granite counter tops. I own a grante quarry and have enough experience working with the stuff to know that they are vastly overrated for counter tops, regardless of what Martha says. We'll probably use...gasp!....formica: works real well, lasts a long time, and doesn't require refinancing to replace.
Cabinets? Custom? Probably, but simpler than you can imagine. My wife has specified all low cabinets below counters for the most part and a lot of drawers. Probably will end up being made locally or not....it's a simple kitchen.
Subzero refrigerator? Hardly: energy hog and not at all worth the dough. If you need exact temp maintenance to within an erg, fine. Otherwise there are a LOT of refrigerators, and the new Panasonic's that are made with....gasp again!...vacuum insulated panels might be energy efficient enough when they are available.
No tile showers. I am a fairly good tile man, but my wife has decreed one piece fibreglass only for cleaning convenience. Pantry, probably, California closets, Puhleeeeeeeez!, and all the rest of the fou fou jazz....nope. Landscaping is what we;ve got which is a near perfect Alpine meadow. We need nothing more.
The off grid electrics will likely be in the 25 grand range because of the size needed...the VIP walls, if they appear, I dunno, but I am working on a deal that....well, it is way too early to forecast that.
So, the bottom line here is TRUST ME: the house is a simple New England cape....big house, little house barn...all on one floor with a total area of living space not to exceed 1700 square feet, and it may end up being less if I can convince my wife that a bathroom as big as Boston Garden is really not necessary. (That's a joke!).
But the main question for me right now, is what the relative cost of VIPs will be compared with a similar wall system that will achieve the same insulation value and isn't it likely that striving to achieve a new, higher level of dwelling performance is at least assisted by using entirely new materials to reach that goal. It is at least possible that while conventional wisdom is valuable, it may not reflect the simple fact that time and technology never remains stationary.
I get it... you are trying to get your VIPs for free or some reduced price via... "I will let you test on my house"
Have at it... get a set for me too.
Hey, AJ: That's a tasty thought. Probably can't be done, but a tasty thought nonetheless.
Which is the right direction?
Most often, the road less traveled.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3642/3405969374_0f8bd09560.jpg
Saving money... That should be the name of this thread Roger.
Big boxes and most building stores have left over material areas. Easily could build an entire home with half price materials in one year of wheeling and dealing my way with just three stores. Get some warehouse space or tarps and have at it.
I have actually bartered down the price of a monster thousands of dollars of cut lam. beams to "take it out of the yard" once.
AJ,
I think you should build Roger's house. You two would get along so well ;-)
P.S. I'm glad you found someone else to pester for a while.
hey.... was just looking for a place to propose a wall for you to critique.
I know you don't like foam... but if you did like it.... Bruce uses 2 2" layers taped external to frame. IF that foam was on advanced framing with no sheathing, just metal angle bracing and then on the inside foil backed drywall was used or say a layer of 1/2" foil foam then drywall.... the question is....
Do opposing foil faces across a 3.5" or 5.5" gap have more insulative value than one face of foil? And if so like I assume they do... what might be the added R benefit?
Back before we had big boxes here, the local lumber yards used to make mistakes. They would have an ooopsie with a fork lift and ding the bottom two or three pieces of a flat of oak 3/4" plywood, misorder windows or assorted hardware, and then just put them in an area of the yard waiting for someone like me to come along.
The biggest builder supply in this area before the advent of Home Depot used to have an entire floor of their main location where all this stuff would collect from all their half dozen or so location up and down the coast. One such item was a roll of copper flashing that had "mysteriously" appeared on a shelf. It had been opened and some removed, but the greater part of this 12" wide copper flashing was there looking forlornly at me as I walked past. I was almost done building the chimney at that point and made an offer for the roll....twenty-five bucks comes to mind...and got it. It is now sitting up on my roof flashing the chimney and also forming the "cricket" that joins the house and barn.
My carpenter has built kitchen cabinets for kitchens for my projects out of dinged 3/4 inch cabinet grade plywood, bought for about twenty cents on a dollar.
Alas, now that the Big Boxes have arrived, the local builiding supply makes NO mistakes EVER, and the big boxes seldome have any building materials of any consequence left over because neither Home Depot nor Lowes has been able (so far) to make much of a penetration into the professional building business because their dimension lumber is not the same grade as the local yards', and they do not deliver. Now with the deep recession, the big boxes haven't a chance at making a market penetration, so there aren't huge selections of left overs or damaged goods waiting for me.
Pretty tough times for a "bottom feeder"!
Now, AJ: don't tell me you still pay "contractor's discount" of retail less twenty percent, do you? Horrors!
This has been one of the more... entertaining ... threads in the last while, so thought I'd put my own amateur comments in. Certainly, it made me look at VIPs again after a couple of years.
The zeroth order of the analysis Mr. Woodbury seems to be looking for is to look at just the straight materials cost and putting aside installation and labour. To get to R30 with, say, rigid foam (eg, polyisocyanurate R-matte), that's just over 4.5" worth, about $2.60 - $3 per sq ft using Home Depot online prices. There are, of course, other costs involved in a wall using this material, including framing lumber, furring, etc.
Toolbase claims $3 to $5 per sq ft for VIP. I could not find anything online even remotely hinting at this, though I'll admit to not having seriously contacted any manufacturers as Mr. Woodbury has. If he could share any round figures he's gotten, that would probably do more to help answer his questions than anything else. The only supplier I was able to find was Glacier Bay, who seems to be aiming its product at the small-format (eg, boating refrigeration) market, with some claims to selling bigger panels. In any case, their listed price (http://www.glacierbay.com/barrier_price.asp) is astronomical by comparison, more like $20+ per sq ft. This is, however, for a panel with R50 for 1". So to more directly compare to the polyiso, we'd have to multiply the $3 to get $5 per sq ft at 7.5" - 8" thickness.
According to another thread I located (http://forums.sbo.sailboatowners.com/archive/index.php/t-115212.html) a more economical Dow product (Instill) is no longer manufactured. A brief Google for "Dow Instill" shows that most of the folks who used to deal in it now have turned to the more expensive aerogel-based products (eg, Glacier Bay).
I chose rigid foam as the comparison as the form factor of each (rigid foam vs. VIP) is most similar, though of course there are differences. The suggestion is that other surrounding handling (labour & materials) will be similar. (VIP is probably more expensive due to its current fragility, but let's spot it for this zeroth order analysis)
The most obvious differences beyond wall treatment are the concrete Mr. Woodbury was initially worried about, and possibly shipping. There's 8x volume of material, though one questions whether this ratio is accurate, as VIPs possibly require additional protection during shipping, whilst some VIP building products incorporate rubber sheets as part of the panel, which would lower the ratio.
In the most simple analysis, a 1-ft section of wall requires an additional 0.6 cu ft of concrete per foot thickness of foundation, assuming a slab-on-grade. Normally, slabs are nowhere near 1 ft thick afaik.
Consider a 2500 sq ft 1-story house, square plan, 50 ft by 50 ft, for a total perimeter of 200 ft. The additional concrete involved in the slab due to the thicker wall for a slab 1 ft thick would be a mere 120 cu ft, or just over 13 cu yds. At $65 per cu yd (first Google hit on price), that's about $850.
For this 1-story house, the wall area is about 1800 sq ft for a 9 ft wall, so the difference in insulation materials price is about $27000. (1800 * ($20 - $5)) The spread gets worse if we go to a 2-story design (more wall per linear foot of foundation). I think the picture is pretty clear here, given the fairly conservative inputs. Even if we use the Toolbase numbers, the concrete still doesn't come close to paying for the difference in insulation materials alone. In fact, unless there's a much closer spread in at least the raw materials price, I don't think there is a realistic crossover point as Mr. Woodbury alludes to in his first email, though I am willing to stand corrected if he can supply some more concrete (no pun intended) numbers for VIP cost, as I'm very curious what inputs he used to get to the 1700-2100 sq ft range.
Engineering-wise, the main issue with VIPs beyond installation and shipping fragility is lifetime -- low pressure interiors mean that VIPs will depend on barrier protection and/or adsorbtivity of internal structures (getters) to maintain their usefulness. A quick survey online of various sites and papers suggests lifetimes which look like anywhere from several months to 25 years. (presumably the extra engineering required to get to the 25 year mark is how Glacier Bay justifies their high prices) This is way less than other insulation products on the market.
VIPs are definitely attractive if the design weight is heavily towards requiring thin walls, as is the case in some applications such as marine and refrigeration. The economic tradeoff is between the utility factor of thin walls vs. the extra cost of purchasing/installing/handling the more advanced material. I think it's fair to say that the consensus design aesthetic of most folks on this thread is that for most house-building applications, thick walls are acceptable, can be lived with, or even designed for (eg, Michael Chandler's design). As has been stated at various points by folks such as Robert Riversong, if you simply can't live with thicker walls, and you want R30 - R50, then you'll have to live with significantly more expensive insulation and handling.
So it's not fair to say that the fine folks on this thread are skeptical because of dogma or preconceptions. To slightly paraphrase the inestimable Dr. Joe, those old guys in the trades actually know something.
What I know is that human beings did not evolve to live in plastic foam picnic coolers, and certainly did not evolve to live in thermos bottles. But perhaps these envelope technologies would be compatible with a 24/7 intravenous drip of formaldehyde or cryogenic sleep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_insulated_panel:
"VIPs offer very high R-value by thickness (30-50R value per inch compared with 5-8R/in for various foams and a lower 2-3.54R/in for common fiberglass batting), but by cost and lifespan it is less competitive. Compared to more conventional insulating materials VIPs have a high cost/r-value ratio. Unlike fiberglass (although foam insulation does age), VIPs age as it is impossible to completely keep air from filling the vacuum. As air leaks in and pressure of the panel normalizes with its surrounding air its R-value deteriorates."
http://www.glacierbaytechnology.com/category/insulation/ultra-r-thermal-insulation/:
"Remember, panels cannot be modified (ie. cut, drilled or punctured) once they have left the factory."
So much for repair or renovation.
No, wait... maybe we should use foil-faced bubble-wrap!
;P
Double bubble, foil and trouble, cauldron burn and cauldron bubble.
William Li's post is much to the point and very well thought out. It mirrors much of my thought when I first began to investigate the possibilites of using VIPs for residential or commercial space insulation. The obvious advantages are the thin profile, the economy of materials used in building an envelope of a certain size, and the light weight and single step to achieve extremely high R-values per square inch.
Then I began to get information from the folks who had tried to use them, beginning with the Biohaus project in Minnesota, which was an early use of VIPs in this country. Those VIPs were imported from Germany, which is arguably the leader in developing this technology for human habitational use. They suffered a tremendous loss of panels due to mishandling on site by construction personnel and other factors. As has been said here before, not a very "ripe" technology, which at the time that building was constructed, it was not at least in this country.
In the United States there are at least five manufacturers researching and building VIPs for various reasons, among which is the potential for VIPs in the construction industry. They have been used for truck and ship borne refrigeration for some time.
There are two major limitations to the use of VIPs in construction. The fragile nature of the exterior skins, and the potential for loss of vacuum through normal aging. These are development issues that are being addressed now and Dow Corning, for instance, has a fibreglass skin that can be applied over VIPs to protect the skin, although that is primarily for the direct use of VIPs in refrigerated containers of various types. There is also a manufacturer who has developed a fibreglass reinforced cloth sheathing that will do the same, with the added benefit that the edges are reinforced as a fastening point for the panels. This is actually two issues, one being the application of the panel to the exterior and the other the fastening of the cladding of the dwelling to the surface after that. Obviously just ordering up the VIPs won't do the job, because provision must be made for a mounting system that will also accept the final cladding without promoting the potential for VIPs getting punctured by pneumatic fasterns used in final cladding of the house. I have been devising a system to accomplish both goals, but it is very preliminary at the moment, although I have discussed it with a manufacturer who agrees that it is potentially a solution.
VIP's will need to be custom made to fit the building envelope. So the exterior walls will need to be carefully drawn and in the construction drawings the position of the VIPs will need to be shown, then the panels ordered to fit their respective spaces.
When the Biohaus was built, my understanding was that the VIPs were something north of $30 per square foot. They were custom ordered for this technological exercise so the relative cost is irrelevant: the object was to build the place a certain way and accomplish certain goals which was done.
When I began my research well more than a year and a half ago, I spoke with several manufacturers directly. They all expressed interest in using VIPs for residential purposes and all said that they were working on finding a way to make VIPs viable both in terms of handling and in terms of life expectancy. Today, most manufacturers are comfortable with warranties in the 30 plus year range for VIPs, and even the most pessimistic specification which I have seen lately forecasts a vacuum loss of less than 1.2% annually. I have been told that the actual life span of VIPs can be expected to be at least 50 years in the near future.
Now the question must become one of cost versus the life of the house. I know that any builder worth his salt is going to argue that HIS houses are being built for the millenium. Maybe that is so. Here in New England we have many houses still living and breathing that were built before the founding of this nation. Some were built that way, many were not. I wonder what the real expected time of use for the majority of houses is in this current time and economic environment? Perhaps...just perhaps....thirty to fifty years is a reasonable life expectancy for an insulation system, much as windows, roofing and siding needs replacement and maintenance over time. I might be thirty more years, but fifty will be a stretch, even though they live a long time on both branches of my family tree.
If we use Michael Chandlers figures of $4500 more to frame and insulate his house design shown earlier on this thread, and a real figure of $80/yard of concrete (which is probably will be delivered to my site) then it might be that something in the neighborhood of $5-5300 might be the extra cost of very thick, superinsulated walls for a house with a certain interior living space.
If Mr. Li's figure of $5 per square foot, with even thicker walls is used, how does that compare with an actual cost of, say $8 per square foot for VIPs? Bear in mind that the VIPs will require a two step application, first the fastening of the framework holding them to the sheathing, and the actual application. How many steps and what process will hold, six or seven inches of polyiso to the exterior...it seems clear that that is something that might not even be used. I do n't have the ansers to these questions yet. I don't have the actual plan completed with window openings and so on that will enable me to speak directly to the whole process of pricing. When I do find out the answers, I will post here.
As far as concerns about lving in a "plastic thermousbottle" are concerned, I marvel that the "traditional" building industry would wave that around, in light of the amount of synthetics being used in all forms of construction, not the least of which is the ubiqutious vinyl siding, and fibreglass roofing materials. Inthe 1970's the Gene Leger super insulated housing project touted blown cellulose insulation that would never burn. It would never burn because early use of cellulose employed formaldehyde as a flame retardant.
Of course, formaldehyde is a carcinogen....who knew? There ia already endless chatter about outgassing of all the various forms of foams in use, and I am not thrilled about the benign nature of borate infused old blue jeans in wall cavities. Now, by comparison is the majority of the insulation factor was on the exterior of the building envelope, might, just might, that offer some potential health advantages in a smaller footprint?
It may be fifty years before we know for sure.
That leaves the real practical question
The point of the math in my post was that you can do a simple comparison analysis based on the cost of the raw materials per lineal foot of exterior wall. Assuming a 1-story wall of 9' high, you get a materials cost of about $27 - $45 / lin ft for polyiso rigid foam (depending on R30 to R50, respectively), vs. $72 - $120 / lin ft for VIP (assuming $8 per sq ft, and VIPs which seem to range from R30 to R50 per inch). That's a raw insulation-only materials cost difference of $45 - $75 per lineal foot of perimeter. The example I cited (square footprint) is the absolute best case when looking at extra footing costs, as you have the highest ratio of footing increase to wall length. If you have any more complicated or less optimal topology (rectangular, folded courtyards, etc), the ratio starts dropping and the comparison gets worse against VIP. It also gets worse against VIP if you have 2 stories rather than 1 (ratio of VIP cost to polyiso cost doubles).
I can get away with such hand-waving estimation analysis, as the reasonable expectation is that the real-world cost of installing VIP will likely actually be higher for VIP than rigid foam, balanced on VIP's side only (possibly) by cost of freight (higher -- 4x to 8x volume of materials for VIP vs. polyiso) and cost of framing materials (thinner wall for VIP), but casual back-of-envelope suggests that the difference is not that great, certainly not in the same order of magnitude as $45 - $75 per lin ft. In other words, I've glossed over some details by assuming in many facets of the analysis in favor of VIP, and even with that there is a significant cost difference. This is a typical technique used in business to make economic decisions. One must always be careful when doing such zeroth order estimation analysis for the purposes of replacement that one is always slanting the tables against whatever conclusion one gets to -- ie, if you make all of the assumptions so that they favor the position opposite the one final conclusion (whatever that ends up at), and you still end up with the same conclusion, then that position is fairly strong. Doing it the other way is what's known as "positive bias." This is why you have been having such a hard time trying to convince everyone on the thread of your position -- most of the experienced builders (of which I am not one; I'm just a homeowner) have not seen any evidence in their daily lives supporting the contention that VIPs are more or even close to being cheaper than the next best alternative. The zeroth-order replacement analysis I just laid out supports that.
The clear implication is that there is no crossover point at whatever size of house. Given current pricing and technology, VIPs are not to be chosen over conventional insulation on the merits of pure economics alone. Unfortunate, but the numbers are pretty clear. We could get more detailed in the analysis, looking at details of framing and so on, but if we can't even get within striking distance on the gross analysis, it's pretty dead in the water at this juncture, at least as far as the pure economics are concerned.
A technological breakthrough is required in the production of aerogels (currently via sintering) before the cost will go down. The limiting step keeping the cost of manufacture up at this point does not seem to be one of economies of scale, but rather the low yield of currently-known processes. In other words, don't hold your breath -- this might happen, it might not happen, but it won't be predictable when it happens. (kind of like solar, but that's a whole 'nother thread)
The question then switches to one of whether or not you as the builder/owner value the other benefits of VIPs (thinner walls, more finicky installation, handling, and design methods, etc.) at the cost of the difference in price, and are willing to live with the potential downsides (reduced lifetime over next technologically best alternative).
On the topic of outgassing, I would echo the comments made by others on the thread to date -- there are many things on this planet which are bad for us. Are you willing to live with whatever it is or pay for mitigation strategies (ventilation, etc)?
In any case, if you are able to get a VIP house built because it fits your personal aesthetic, and have the means and are willing to pay for it, more power to you. While this is probably not something you do not already know, you will likely have to work fairly closely with the VIP manufacturers to get a team of subs together to build the house. Given the fact that VIPs are not site-modifiable, the closest "conventional" building strategy is the one of factory-built SIPs, so perhaps that pool of talent used to working with factory-built SIPs is the one you'll need to go looking in.
If by "traditional" you mean "conventional", that's certainly not where this concern is coming from. Authentically traditional building does not rely on synthetic materials and is based on an intuitive and experiential understanding of the compatibility between natural materials and human shelter. This concern was expressed by one of the very few designer/builders of super-efficient homes who abjures the use of synthetic materials.
Cellulose insulation has never used formaldehyde as a fire retardant (I don't believe formaldehyde is a fire retardant). Borates are and have always been the most commonly used additives, though some brands use ammonium sulfate which is problematic. Borate-treated cellulose has a class I fire rating and is an approved firestop. Early recycled newsprint cellulose had some issues with the toxicity of the printing inks, but modern inks are vegetable-based.
Is it that you don't believe the overwhelming evidence of the benign nature of borates or that you are simply not thrilled about using a benign, recycled, low-embodied energy, low ecological footprint product?
Robert is correct. Formaldehyde was NOT used as a flame retardant. I was writiing something else which used formaldehyde in the text and crossed the wires....the flame retardant in the Leger house insulation was creosote.
The relative cost of polyiso versus VIPs is not terribly relevant. Per square foot the cost of polyiso is approximatley 1/3 the cost of VIPs to achieve the same R-value.
I have never tried to stack up three or more layers of 2" polyiso, so I can't really discuss from personal experience the comparative cost of installation, but the system that I have been trying to develop will make the installation of the VIPs pretty simple in theory, and a relatively quick process.
As I have said previously the house is to be a simple, New England Cape, all on one floor, with no odd sections or strange geographies involved. Since there will be no second floor at all, the ceiling will be cathedralled to some extent, with R50 or better in the roof, probably by blown cellulose with closed cell foam. Vented roof.
The real question is what the final cost of the mounting system is and panels are. I think the real competition is between a VIP insulated house, framed with 2X4's, versus anything else. If the house is stick built on site, we might try to source full size 2X4's from a local saw mill, but I'll bet that will be cost prohibitive compared with the good folks in the Big Box.
In this discussion, I am not at all thinking that the VIPs will prove to be CHEAPER than any other method of building and insulating. The desire at the outset is to have a thin walled house that will preform to Passivehaus standard. Thin walls meaning an economy of materials as my own aesthetic desire: if we don't have to build the building with thick walls, why should we?
Roger,
I'm curious how this issue changes if we think at the overall scale of new residential construction industry. I see no benefit to desiring a thin wall profile in and of itself.
Do VIPs - in their extraction, production, distribution, disposal - represent any benefits over current practices?
I'm not familiar with how they are made. Do they require alot of energy? What are the materials? As they are light there seems to be a benefit in shipping, but if they are so fragile that might not be the case.
>blockquote>the flame retardant in the Leger house insulation was creosote>/blockquote>
Creosote is not a flame retardant. It is highly flammable and the fuel for all chimney fires.
Are you just making this stuff up?
Third try is the charm.
Creosote is not a flame retardant. It is highly flammable and the fuel for all chimney fires.
Are you just making this stuff up?
Absolutely amazing thread kids
I was originally trying to answer the speculation posed in the original post about crossover. I am not a builder and polyiso is certainly not the only way to get to R50 (or R30 or whatever) if you survey the field. It is, however, among the more expensive of the conventionally-used alternatives, which is why it got trotted out for the zeroth-order analysis. In any case, one would not expect to build an R50 wall out of nothing but polyiso (eg, inside a SIP). If you're not scared off by the half an order of magnitude multiplier of the raw materials at first blush, then the next level of analysis is to look at, as you point out, things like labour differences and other associated costs. A couple of good models for comparative analysis would be to look at how proponents of SIP and ICF building compare those methodologies with stick built of various sorts. Explicitly, I'll state here that I'm not suggesting that you compare VIPs with SIP and/or ICF, just that if you read up on how those systems get compared with stick built framing, that's the level of detail you'll need to figure out to do the comparison.
Based on the zeroth order analysis from above, you need to make up a gulf of something like $45 to $75 per lin ft difference if you want a VIP-based wall (single story) to be cost-competitive with even the next-most expensive solution (living inside a picnic cooler). That's the equivalent of a full man-hour or three per foot of wall, plus the minor material expense of concrete and framing. Quite a wide gulf. Anything left over is the premium you are paying to meet your aesthetic and other requirements. Nothing wrong with that; in any engineering project, there's always some bedrock requirements one does not compromise on. For example, if you didn't have 18 acres to play with, and had very tight space constraints (as is the case for marine refrigeration, the field VIPs have currently found purchase in), then the choice would be clear and you'd pay the premium whether you'd like it or not.
If you actually want to answer the question you pose in the previous post without a question mark (what the final cost of the mounting system is and panels are), I would suggest that you ought to be working with the VIP manufacturers who are attempting to develop methodologies to enter their product into the housing market.
Indeed, re-reading the original post, it seems like the literal answer to the original question is "no, not really, but good luck in your endeavor." Not being dismissive here, just, seriously, best of luck to you in the engineering of your house. You have many challenges in managing this which will need to be overcome, though the first step as has been mentioned by many is to get a good, ranked list of your requirements for the project -- some you can't live without, some you can compromise on, some which are nice to have. That gives you your design constraints, and everything else, including the real cost of design and construction, fall out from that.
I'm reminded of a funny story from my graduate electro-optics class, Dr. Klaus Riechoff. He was talking about having worked on electroluminescent displays back in the 60's while at IBM. Without getting too techno-jargon about it, one of the key components of such displays is having a material which will change its optical properties when applying an electric field. A higher coefficient meant greater effect for smaller field input, hence a more efficient display. When he and the team went to the handbooks looking for materials, one of the materials right at the top was a derivative of cocaine. Needless to say, no one on the team thought upper management would sign off on the acquisition of test materials for the experiment, let alone approve the expense. Eventually, of course, other materials were engineered into display systems, and indeed whole other classes of display technologies have been developed.
The lesson is that just because you have the technology to do something, that doesn't always mean it's the best engineering choice. As a colleague of mine is fond of saying: "Better. Cheaper. Faster. Pick two." It's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but mostly true statement. In order to improve all three simultaneously, one typically requires a game-changing technological break. In the case of VIPs, that'd be cheaper aerogel manufacture and more reliable sealing methodologies. IMHO, simple aerogel insulation without the vacuum is probably nearer to prime time, as it's at atmospheric pressure, so does not bear the additional burden of sealing and puncture proofness, at the expense of somewhat lower R-factor.
Cheaper and faster are usually easiest to quantify. "Better" is the one that most engineering projects get mired down in at the design stage. In this context, a whole raft of qualities -- buildability, sustainability, insulative factor, design aesthetic, etc, etc.
Anyways, this has been a fun discussion -- good warmup for getting my writing juices flowing for Real Life(TM). Or maybe I'm just procrastinating...
Roger, I'm not sure what is relevant to this thread anymore. I think you're just monologuing.
As a VFR pilot, I'm sure you recieved some training in human factors - specifically, pilot decision making. It never hurts to review:
http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/human/decisions.htm
If there's any monologuing to be done, there must be a cape.
In any case, polyiso is relevant. Assuming you're willing to live inside a picnic cooler and don't want to go some other route, it is actually possible to get a 7.5" polyiso SIP (normally used for roofs). Cost per sq ft is higher than just the insulation material cost, but so would the VIP per sq ft cost go up when you add the structural elements. Labour cost blows many other methods out of the water, at the expense of having to pay more attention to detailing (panel sealing, rain screen, etc) and the usual set of tradeoffs which I'm sure the folks on the thread who actually do this for a living would be able to set out. That set of tradeoffs is what one lists out when doing the cost/benefit analysis, and what you pay (or don't pay) a premium for.
Creosote? Don't make it up. I sleep with the person who owned the insulation company that was contracted to provide the insulation in that house.
Originally this thread began as a thread about the potential for using VIPs as insulation for a thin walled, modest Cape styled, off grid house that would meet Passivehaus specifications.
Actually, this is the worst way to approach a design project (though, perhaps the most common).
It's the recipe for the art (sic) of partisan politics, which (as we see today) results more often in either deadlock or compromises that don't effectively meet the objectives.
A skilled mediator attempts to get each participant to let go of preconceived certainties about the means to desired ends and works to unlock the elemental nature of the ends desired, separating the chaff of perception from the kernel of true need.
And a skilled designer guides a client through the abstraction process of outlining essential life functions that shelter is hoped to contain and then, step-by-step through increasing levels of materialization until a design emerges organically from the needs rather than being forced to fit preconceived images, aesthetics or specifics. Follows is a process of subtraction of the unessential or the overpriced until the most efficient (in every way) structure is left that fits the project budget.
" You know you have reached perfection of design not when you have nothing more to add,
but when you have nothing more to take away."
- Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Well, someone is making this up. People will say anything under torture.
Creosote is not a fire retardant, neither is formaldehyde. Neither was ever used in cellulose insulation. Formaldehyde, however, has long been used in fiberglass insulation. In 1977, Gene Leger's double stud wall house was most likely insulated with fiberglass, as almost all superinsulated houses of that era were.
While Martin and I have our differences, I whole-heartedly agree with his conclusion in this "Musing":
Forgotten Pioneers of Energy Efficiency
It’s Not Too Late To Implement Unheeded Lessons From 30 Years Ago
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/forgotten-pioneers-energy-efficiency
Scanning the Horizon for the Latest New Thing
Some U.S. builders look expectantly to research labs, hoping that technical breakthroughs will help get us through the next energy crisis. While such hopes are understandable, they show little understanding of history.
To design and build extremely energy-efficient houses, no new technical breakthroughs are required. We’ve hardly begun to deploy the simple lessons learned 30 years ago; so why are we still scanning the horizon for new whiz-bang inventions?
"Some U.S. builders look expectantly to research labs, hoping that technical breakthroughs will help get us through the next energy crisis."
Robert is correct, but not only do builders do this, so do other kinds of builders, and no more is this so than the automobile industry where the current "solution" to energy concerns and global warming is the "invention" of the hybrid automobile. Technological can come up with solutions to problems, but quite often the solution is really not the right one.
Because there has been little reason to do so to date, the building inudustry is still building houses that are designed around concepts of energy consumption and management that were defined sometime in the 1950's.
There is a new house that was built next door to us here last year. It is a custom designed two story house that took builder very near a full year to build for his clients who are from out of state...summer folks. It's essentially a 1950's design with the upgrade to 2X6 walls and some kind of foam insulation. Andersen Permashield windows stuck into the openings. Multizone hydronic heating system powered by a modern gassification boiler. The boiler is a cute little thing, hanging there on the wall. Very cute. Powered by gas, which must have been the heating juice du jour of the New Jersey based architect. Of course here gas means propane which will be the most expensive way to get heat for that house. As I said, a relatively small house about 1700 square feet intended for seasonal use. I have no idea if the house is actually under heat as we speak and it mayu be shut down for the winter entirely, but with the exception of the foam insulation between the studs...dunno what kind except that it is white....it was built exactly like they used to build houses in the 1950s.
While it can be argued that I may escape the next energy crisis entirely simply because I may die before it takes hold, it is my intention to not be concerned about the next energy crisis at all, to the greatest extent possible. For us that means build the most efficient envelope that we possibly can.
It is no surprise to me that when presented with the idea of using VIPs for exterior insulation the reaction varies to the extent it has here. The new house next door was designed by an architect who was not from here. The homeowner's wife was the driving force in the creation of "her" house, and she was far more concerned with her granite countertops than the energy performance of the home. When I spoke with the architect before ground had been broken he told me that he had begun to study energy issues, and had designed one small commercial building built with ICF' but had no idea what Passivehaus was, and asked me to email him the link. The owners of the house next door are nice folks with whom I have chatted some, although they were seldom here this summer. The husband is more concerned with his 28foot sail boat than the house, and the lady of the place is more concerned about her cabinets and countertops than whether the house will be one thing or another. The point that I am driving at here is that there was no push to build anything except same-old, same-old, and the end result is yet another energy hog that while more effiicient than its counterpart built in 1955, is still not close to having benefitted from those "lessons learned 30 years ago".
If the process of technological pioneering was retarded because everthing that was needed had already been invented, most of us on this forum would have died young in the first outbreak of influenza that occured after we were born.
For the most part, builders build what the market and buyers want. There is a very small % of people who want the kind of homes described here, I mean very, very small %. The majority of people give lip service to energy efficiency, some complain about high utility bills, but when they buy and build they don’t demand energy efficiency even when offered. I do believe as we move along the continuum, assuming energy costs escalate faster than the inflation rate of 3-1/2%, then people will pay more attention to operating costs.
If you are a builder and your buyers want very efficiently built homes, then you are a niche builder. Nothing wrong with that.
Alan, you are right. We need to tax fuel up in cost like we are done to alcohol and tobacco.
Then the economics will get us to where we should be.
This very long thread is a testament to the dedication of the GBA community to the cause of resource-efficient building, even to the extent of giving thorough and considered responses to even the most far-fetched and stubborn of approaches. It's also a testament to their patience, which far exceeds my own.
No, we're pioneers of a sustainable future. The rest are albatrosses around the necks of society, guaranteeing that we continue to wear the curse of our hubris until the inevitable calamity.
That's the technologist's excuse and rationale, but not the truth. The truth is that every technological "solution" brings its own set of unintended consequences - what science writer Edward Tenner called "revenge effects" - typically substituting chronic problems for acute ones.
Which would have been a good thing, since it is nature's way of thinning the herd when it grows beyond the environment's carrying capacity. And epidemics are an epiphenomenon of civilization and overpopulation. In "primitive" rural societies, people routinely live beyond 100 years in good health.
Modern medicine is the perfect example of technological blowback. While we have eliminated (at least for a time, they're coming back) some epidemic (i.e. civilizational) diseases and controlled many more, we've created so many new chronic, wasting diseases that we can no longer afford the cost of "health". And a recent mega-study demonstrated that the medical profession is the largest cause of death in the US today (approximately one million fatalities annually).
Those who are wise rather than clever understand that there are NO technological solutions to the problems that have been created by technological civilization. The only true solution is to eliminate civilization (which several past societies had done - returning to their hunter-gatherer ways when they realized the devastation that "high society" had wrought on the natural world).