Posted By ICFHybrid on 01 Jul 2012 11:58 PM

The builder of that house really only puts in solar and wind as a token gesture.

I don't see it as token. Any amount of solar and wind that they put in represents fossil fuels that don't have to be burned. The project description seems to imply that they are going for near self-sufficiency which is a whole lot more than most people are willing to do. In any case, there are all kinds of people, some of whom produce more than others and as a consequence, they might consume more.

Whether it is a token install or not depends on how much they put in. I am quite sure that to run the pool pumps and everything else they have in the house, they will need at least a 15kw PV system and more than 3k wind turbine. The embodied energy in that house is quite high and anyone who goes there is not taking public transit so add in the automobile use as well. Where is the bike rack, LOL.

I have no problem with self made people who give back a lot to society having a bigger house but I see this place as one that will take a lot to be sustainable on an ongoing basis. If they have enough surplus energy to start to turn the embodied energy meter backwards, I will give them that.

That said,.......the pool will be nice to watch the sunset from.

 

Posted By Lbear on 01 Jul 2012 05:21 PM

Posted By arkie6 on 01 Jul 2012 12:39 PM
I didn't see any vibrator in use in that short video clip where they were topping off the round wall.

I observed the same. I believe that was a 8" concrete core ICF but there are always air pockets in the concrete so you would think they would vibrate it to get the air out. I believe the guy running the vibrator was taken out of the shot during filming. There is no way that they would not vibrate that wall and that project. They went overkill on everything and to cut this corner (not vibrating) would not make sense.

I seriously doubt that there was any vibrating going on, at least on that top pour.  The guy in back was pulling a screed board behind the guy pouring.  You can't go back and vibrate behind the guy striking off the level of the concrete.  They even mention "plasticizer" being used to help the concrete flow.

The embodied energy in that house

Maybe you didn't know that concrete and, in particular, ICF is considered a green building material.

I see this place as one that will take a lot to be sustainable on an ongoing basis

Wait a minute, didn't we just address that? Aren't the project designers shooting for energy production to balance usage? What percentage of the residences out there do that?

If they have enough surplus energy to start to turn the embodied energy meter backwards

Is this a new standard that we are applying now? How many peoples' homes would meet this standard?

What US housing needs is a 1800 SF house with the look and feel of a McMansion. Energy efficiency is frosting on the cake but not essential. At half the size, the house is already twice as green. What Briana Allhadeff is building is a monument to her ego.

Maybe she has to entertain a lot.

She makes her living as an interior designer on similar monuments so it is good for business presumably. But it is a sideshow and a waste of her talent.

You people are unbelievable. You sound like a bunch of opinionated, gossipy old hens.

She makes her living as an interior designer on similar monuments

She's the owner, isn't she?

Guess you haven't heard, Ray. Irrational exuberance is dead.

Live and let live, Todd-baby. If everyone would quit trying to impose their values on everyone else, we'd live in a much happier world. Maybe if we had a carbon tax we could all choose waste as much energy as we like and are willing to pay for. That way the arrogant affluent could be as wasteful as they like and the self-righteous environmentalists could rest easy knowing the affluent really are paying their own way.

Would be nice, unfortunately, the working middle-class is as addicted to fossil fuel as anyone else and they don't want to pay any more for energy.

Posted By ICFHybrid on 02 Jul 2012 08:07 AM

The embodied energy in that house

Maybe you didn't know that concrete and, in particular, ICF is considered a green building material.

I see this place as one that will take a lot to be sustainable on an ongoing basis

Wait a minute, didn't we just address that? Aren't the project designers shooting for energy production to balance usage? What percentage of the residences out there do that?

If they have enough surplus energy to start to turn the embodied energy meter backwards

Is this a new standard that we are applying now? How many peoples' homes would meet this standard?

By whom is ICF considered to be a green building material. the best green building technique is to live in a cave but few will do that so everything we do is on a sliding scale. She said in her blog that it is built to last 1000 years .......doubtful, but if it lasted 500 years, AND the resources to keep it running were found locally (food, work, education, community etc) then I could believe it but this building and location does not have that resource.

Energy balance also mean having a realistic life cycle cost, the shorter the better. A solar water heating panel can generate as much energy in 2 years as it took to make it. Can this house and its energy systems generate enough in even 10 years to cover its construction and consumption........I don't think so.

I think we should start applying a standard that makes the mater run backward, and with an incentive to do so. The FIT that we have in Ontario does that.

A solar water heating panel can generate as much energy in 2 years as it took to make it. Can this house and its energy systems generate enough in even 10 years

I think you are getting confused over the relative function of things. The purpose of this building is housing. It's primary function is not to generate energy. If that is the standard you want to apply, however odd, this home comes closer than any of the others out there, so why the potshots?

Many solar buffs don't understand it but ICF actually makes solar more easily affordable. The "order of green" is crucial. Basic example of wrong order: Adding solar powered bilge pumps to a boat before fixing all the leaks. Envelope is first - means less geothermal - means less solar. Regards.

Posted By ICFHybrid on 02 Jul 2012 04:23 PM

A solar water heating panel can generate as much energy in 2 years as it took to make it. Can this house and its energy systems generate enough in even 10 years

I think you are getting confused over the relative function of things. The purpose of this building is housing. It's primary function is not to generate energy. If that is the standard you want to apply, however odd, this home comes closer than any of the others out there, so why the potshots?

There are all types of "green" agendas and world views out there. Some build green so that they don't have to pay high electric and gas bills. Some build green so that they reduce their carbon footprint. Some build green because they feel it is the good thing to do. While there is an element of the "green" movement that believes human beings don't deserve to live on this earth the way they do. That humans are the curse of this world and will destroy it and they (humans) must be forced into living a lifestyle that they believe limits their damage to this planet.

I've met them and the things they say and believe is quite shocking. ELF is just one branch of these green movements but there are many more, many not as organized. They even go so far as saying that humans should stop populating the earth and be subjected to live in mega-city skyscrapers were they don't own cars and ride mass transit to work. They believe people living in suburbia and sprawled out areas must be stopped as they only contribute to damaging & displacing nature and only leave a huge carbon footprint.

Some of the comments made against this home and the homeowner on this thread are very disturbing to me. That someone she does not have the right to build such a home. Comments that she is self righteous and an ego maniac. It's her money and her freedom to do so, she is not breaking any laws. This type of mentality is exactly the type of green agenda that describes the fringe movement I described in the above paragraph.

I hope that answers your question as to "why the potshots?" are being made by some on here... 

Posted By MikeSolar on 02 Jul 2012 03:40 PM

By whom is ICF considered to be a green building material. the best green building technique is to live in a cave but few will do that

Are you joking or being serious?

If you are joking, then I enjoyed the sarcastic joke.

If you are being serious then you should set the example and disconnect your internet connection and electricity and move into that cave.


As far as ICF, the building industry views ICF as being a green method because of its insulating values and longevity. When 1,000+ wood framed homes burned to the ground because of last months forest fires in the west, what is the embodied energy to replace all the materials lost in those homes (furniture, drywall, carpet, electronics, insulation, wood framing, plumbing, clothes, etc)??? Now what will the embodied energy be to REBUILD those 1,000+ wood homes AGAIN out of wood and AGAIN fill them with all those interior materials that were lost in the fire??

Some might argue that ICF is not green but some might argue that wood frame is not green either. In the end there is no absolute truth when it comes to this matter, its subjective in some areas and therefore each person must make his or her choice to decide on what route and building method they will chose.

Even the wood industry is now wanting to build 30 story skyscrapers out of wood because it is "greener" than steel or concrete.

And I ask you, who are YOU to set the "green standard" ?

I am partly being sarcastic and it is just for effect. I do see the benefit of ICF and concrete. What I am saying is really a difference between a philosopher and a pragmatist (and yes, I live in the real world and I do work on ICF houses).

From a strictly academic point of view a 2x4 is more green just as a stacked stone is more green in some areas. I just takes less energy to get the 2x4 to market and it will replace itself in 30-40 years. Clay brick are better in some areas than 2x4s. It is all relative.

Concrete is about 220 Gj of energy compared to about 40Gj for the equivalent structure in timber.(http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/concrete-can-it-be-green.html), Recycled components in concrete are great but when gravel is taken from pristine area and effects entire aquifers, it is not sustainable.

Leave the fires out of it because the foam would probablyl be gone from the exterior of the ICF house even if the structure was undamaged. There would still be a lot of work to do on the house which MIGHT cost as much as a new timber house, who knows.

I am by no means one of those ELF (first time I have heard of them actually) people and it would be hard to install gas boilers, floor heat, heat pump, etc if I was one. I am reminded that it is US as a group that caused all this stuff to happen in terms of pollution and global warming and even though I do believe that the appropriate population is somewhere around 1.5 billion (there was a UN report some years back that outlined why), I am as much a hypocrite as the next guy.
All I can do is lead by my own example which is all anyone can do. The problem is that we humans are not planners, we are crisis managers which mean we WILL wait till it is too late before we really do anything substantial. It is human nature and I accept that. In the end, the builder of the monster home will do what she wants, we will secretly wish we had the job as it is a nice contract and we will go on from there.

Posted By ICFHybrid on 02 Jul 2012 04:23 PM

A solar water heating panel can generate as much energy in 2 years as it took to make it. Can this house and its energy systems generate enough in even 10 years

I think you are getting confused over the relative function of things. The purpose of this building is housing. It's primary function is not to generate energy. If that is the standard you want to apply, however odd, this home comes closer than any of the others out there, so why the potshots?

I have done way to much work on testaments to the ego in my past and i just admire someone with a bit of humility. I never said she was totally off her rocker but she is trying to live in two worlds at the same time. the solar and wind are good and I applaud her inclusion of them.

http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/concrete-can-it-be-green.html

I hope you don't think that quoting a "Treehugger" blog represents any sort of scholarship whatsoever as regards the relative benefits of building with concrete and/or timber or other materials. All that blog has is some snarky comments about concrete. Nothing of any substance.

And, I think you might want to spend a bit more time with that graph again before you make false reports here. That is a common graph depicting embodied energy for materials used world wide. Concrete looms large because it is the most widely used building material on earth; in terms of WEIGHT. The fact is, that on a lb for lb basis, concrete has 10X LESS embodied energy than timber. The real questions have to do with building efficient structures using concrete and wood and how they compare both upfront and over a lifetime of using energy. Your graph does not support anything like that.

I do believe that the appropriate population is somewhere around 1.5 billion

While you are entitled to your opinions, I am wondering if this one is based on any real knowledge of biology. Maybe the UN authors have changed their mind since then because estimates now run all the way from 2 billion up to a trillion people, with a lot of studies centered around 8-16 billion.

And then there are those moments when the cynical part of me asks, "Why do we get so wrapped around the axle about these environmental issues anyway? After all, in the end Mother Nature is going to win, regardless!"

And then sometimes I wonder if all our environmental preservation efforts will ultimately lead to the eventual demise of human kind in maybe 20,000 years instead of only 19,000? There's a good likelihood by then I won't even care!!

Actually, it's kind of astounding how quickly nature reclaims the landscape after a town, building, mining site, etc., is abandoned. The regenerative power of nature is (to use an overused word) awesome!

And then there are examples of how time mocks man's sense of permanence. A building in downtown Hammond, LA has a stone copy of the Ford logo on the wall. I'm sure the original Ford dealer who built the building planned to be there forever. Well, he's been gone from there for decades. The Kaufman family donated to a conservatory Falling Water, which was built by Frank Lloyd Wright for the elder Kaufmans, because the "permanent" concrete house was deteriorating and required extensive and expensive repairs to keep it from succumbing to Mother Nature.

Some day, undoubtedly many, many, years from now, but some day, the Golden Gate bridge will come down, as will the Capitol in DC, Hoover Dam, and all other man made monuments. And the faces of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, will continue to gaze over the American landscape. They're man shaped, not man made.