|
|
You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
 Prev Next
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
cmkavala
Registered Users
Posts:807
 |
| 05/14/2008 7:26 AM |
|
A new study by BASF showing all types of SIPs .... EPS, PU / OSB, STEEL, CEMENT,
shows a 55% labor savings and also shows overall life cycle costs for SIP vs conventional 2x4 and 2x6 construction.
This 14page PDF file is too big to LINK to GBT, but I would be happy to e mail to anyone that wants it ....please send request to e-mail below |
|
Chris Kavala
chris@southernsips.com
1-877-321-SIPS |
|
|
|
|
vhehn
Registered Users
Posts:104
|
| 05/14/2008 11:51 AM |
|
| the problem for most is they will never see the labor saving unless they do the work themselves. i have yet to see a sip bid for framing that was much less than stick framing. |
|
|
|
|
bpickartz
Registered Users
Posts:5
|
| 05/14/2008 2:36 PM |
|
I agree that you never see a sip bid less than a stick framed bid. I think that most try to use a framing number instead of a framing, insulation, electrician-savings number. It is difficult to get apples to apples. The BASF study took these things into consideration. I'd love to see the background data.
|
|
|
|
|
cmkavala
Registered Users
Posts:807
|
| 05/14/2008 4:32 PM |
|
vhehn and bpickartz;
I see conventional framers always overprice their bids for fear of the unknown, it is best to get a SIP builder or framer that has their own employees rather than subs |
|
Chris Kavala
chris@southernsips.com
1-877-321-SIPS |
|
|
Gsfrey
Registered Users
Posts:60
|
| 05/14/2008 5:14 PM |
|
Chris is absolutely right. In the past folks have tried to line item compare the SIP's installed. It is the reason, I think, that it is better to go the distance when building. Either build the house yourself or hire someone to build the house completely is the way to go. Otherwise you will not realize the cost savings. SIP's are more expensive. In order to capture the true savings, and building with SIP's can be cheaper, you have to do it all.
We bid the framing portion less than traditional methods, but it only offsets the cost of the panels. We use less mechanical and insulation, but the savings goes to the cost of the panels.
We have yet to find anyone who will send us a check monthly for their energy savings. We have got to get better at that. |
|
Greg Freyermuth
915-256-7563, Phone
GregFreyermuth@elp.rr.com, E-Mail |
|
|
ReadyToRetire
Registered Users
Posts:195
|
| 05/16/2008 3:46 PM |
|
Arrrrrgh! I hate booklets that make me feel stupid!!!
Chris, THANK YOU for providing the BASF material, but I find it somewhat difficult to understand:
The "Affordability" section asserts that the average US household spent $4,443 on energy, and that SIPs construction could reduce that "by as much as $2,665," which seems to equate to a near zero energy building if you back off the hot water, lighting, etc. ("Up to" . . . BASF must have hired a used car executive.) $222 a month savings, while optimistic, seems within reason.
BUT, go back to the "are SIPs sustainable" section and look at the bar chart on the second page, which is reported to represent the **60-year** life cycle costs for a SIP construction. No difference in the first costs for the HVAC. (OK, not aggressive, but maybe not uncommon.) Now look at the cost for utilities -- the SIPs building saves about $15,500 over 60 years, or about $250 a year, which is $21 A MONTH savings in utilities over a 2x4 stick built house in New England ("the northestern U.S.")! I went to the BASF site, but could not find any further information.
Can anyone here explain the contrast between an possible (up to) $222 a month savings and a forcast, nominal average of $22 a month?
(The construction cost section assumed a 2-story, 1175 sf house; the
life cycle cost section assumed an 1100 sf ranch on slab. But, surely, even if the
"average" reflected a 2-story house, the efficiency penalty for the
ranch can't be THAT great.)
Still in the sustainable section, the diagram in the second col. on the first page shows SIPs as having less risk, but BASF does not explain what went into their risk assessment. Can anyone explain why a SIP house would have less risk than a stick build house? Is there more construction risk with SIPs (contractors have less experience with the construction)?
Side note question: "In the do SIPs contribute to building performance" section, the 3rd page shows a picture of a small house over garage -- I know that I've seen that before, but cannot place it. Did anyone recognize it?
Thanks in advance for any comments you can offer.
Very respectfully,
Larry
|
|
|
|
|
cmkavala
Registered Users
Posts:807
|
| 05/16/2008 4:14 PM |
|
Larry;
DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER ! I went back and looked at that again, I am not sure what they are trying to convey on the bar chart? But it is not the energy consumption (it is marked utilities)
The average utility bill sounds OK.
But I don't know what the author is trying to show in the "cradle to cradle" analysis
Sips houses have less insurance risk because they are 3 times stronger than frame, which enables them to better withstand earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados and if they are steel they are termite resistive and less likely to get struck by lightning. |
|
Chris Kavala
chris@southernsips.com
1-877-321-SIPS |
|
|
ReadyToRetire
Registered Users
Posts:195
|
| 05/16/2008 4:27 PM |
|
On no Chris, I was serious -- I SINCERELY appreciate your taking the time and effort to make the booklet available (you're an asset to the forum). It's the technical writer at BASF that needs to be kicked.
Your point is interesting. I'd *assumed* that the chart used "utility" cost as an equivilent for "energy" cost, which was used in the table above; but the technical writer's work does not really justify assumptions in the writer's favor. But why should we have to guess?
Oh well, it's Friday; time to crash and relax until Saturday.
VERY respectfully,
Larry
|
|
|
|
|
Barney Lowe
Registered Users
Posts:13
|
| 06/21/2008 9:01 AM |
|
Posted By cmkavala on 05/14/2008 7:26 AM
A new study by BASF showing all types of SIPs .... EPS, PU / OSB, STEEL, CEMENT,
shows a 55% labor savings and also shows overall life cycle costs for SIP vs conventional 2x4 and 2x6 construction.
This 14page PDF file is too big to LINK to GBT, but I would be happy to e mail to anyone that wants it ....please send request to e-mail below .
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
Professionals Serving
Your Location:
GBT Project Albums:
|