Why the “Green” industry shoots themselves in the foot.

www.ctgreenhomes.com

I thought I would throw out some figures for you.  This is a development in a fairly rural area advertizing themselves as a green development.  Lets look a bit deeper.  Minimum house cost 415,000$ for a 1 acre lot 1600 ft^2 house.   No mention of HRV or ERV.

From their print add and website.  Average heating and cooling costs  = 68$ month  Electricity here is 18.6 cents /kwh this is 68*12= 816$ year sounds great huh?)  divide by 0.186  = 4387 kwh heating and cooling load  they claim a COP of 4 so that is 17548 kwh energy used * 3413btu/kwh = 59.9 million BTU/year.  This is for a 1600 ft house in a 6600 HDD area.  Divide 60 million by 1600 ft = 37,434 btu/ft year  The passive house standard 4746 btu/ft^2 so this house uses 8 times more energy then a house built to passive house standards for heating and cooling.   Sounds green to me.(not) 

 

Well it must be less expensive then oil heat right?

OK oil is 2.80 gallon,  60 million btu year/(130,000 btu/gal*0.85efficiency)=522 gallons oil *2.80= 1464$ year – 816$year for geo = 648$ year best case /12 months = 54 $ month  but your upfront costs are ~15000$ higher  23 year payoff.  Kind of hard to justify. In this area natural gas would be 19$ mbtu or 60*19/0.95=1200$ year for nat gas- 816 or 385$ year  more to heat the house  39 year payback no way is this worth while

 

OK so is it greener then oil?  Well ct is about 50% fossil fuel burning for electrical generation (50% nuke) and about 30% of the energy is delivered to the home,  0.3/0.5*4(COP) = 2.4 times less carbon emitted.  OK now we are getting somewhere, except we burn coal to make the 50% electricity and coal has227 lbs carbon per m BTU vs 170 for oil so now we are down to  1.8 times less carbon.   If we used Natural gas for heat  117 lbs carbon/mBTU it would be  only 1.2 times better then nat gas.

 

Not looking so good.  What if we built it to passive house standards and just used electric resistance heat?   Probably save at least 30K in heating system costs over geothermal.   OK so 4746 btu/ft^2 *1600 = 7.6 M btu   now we are  saving 408$ year on the heating costs vs this house with geothermal, ½ the carbon emission.  How about a minisplit heat pump + electric resistance for the heat source.  Now you are really saving money.  Would it really add 30000$ to the cost of the house to raise it to passive house standards?  (I don’t know).

 

Everytime I see this crap it makes me crazy.  Look at the lots.  Houses are not situated for solar gain, not insulated very well, have  inefficient fireplaces, not masonry heaters or woodstoves, no solar hot water or solar air heater but because someone uses geothermal and solar panels on the roof it is a “green” community.  This is nuts stuff.  You are paying a 50-100,000$ premium for this house right now in this area compared to “standard construction”.  Anybody that understands basic math, knows this is a bad idea.   I think the problem is people are getting suckered into the high tech and ignoring the easy smart things that have good payback. 

 

 Mayby I am the one that is nuts.

Eric 

 

 

No you're not nuts. But you didn't expect the industry to actually go green did you?

Where are the Attorneys General for every state????? I looked at the web site - they claim "that's equivalent to 400% efficiency" in regard to their geothermal systems. Not being as astute as others on this site, I have no idea if that is true, but I would do........

DUE DILIGENCE!

But, unfortunately, I do not see that very often. If that place (or others like it in other communities) is successful it is because they have salespeople who can sell ideas to unknowing customers. When I was a youngster in the early 1950's, I remember my parents saying "there's a sucker for every thing'!

Richm

I was reading a brochure for a builder in Calgary doing green homes. They use double pane windows and 6" Roxul batts as well as energy star appliances. I thought it was a joke. Sean

"Green" won't go anywhere with the general public until it COSTS LESS to go green. If I were building to Passive House Standards, I'd have to ask this question: "How long will I be living in this house?" Then ask: "How much $ will I save in heating cost over conventional building in that time?" Then ask if I'll make back the extra money spent on building to Passive House Standards. Then ask if you'll be able to sell the house for more than a similar sized conventionally built house.

Most people are not willing to pay more to live with a smaller carbon footprint. My interest in "green" is strictly economical. If I can have the sun heat my house rather than buy oil or gas to do so, great. But if it's going to cost me more to build such a house and I'm not going to make back my investment in green technology in the time I own the house, it makes no sense.

That's exactly why the enviroment is in the condition it is, why build smarter when you can just turn up the heat. Why buy a hybrid when I can just put more gas in for cheaper. It's not going to last forever-if you don't care, think about the world your kids will live in. I'm not directing this at you specifically, but the majority of the population. Sean

Got tired of contractors who knew less about "green building" than I did doing my own research. Because of this, I GC'd my own house. It cost $200k less to build than a similarly sized house next door (built using a GC). They got stick and batt, I got R47 SIP walls, spray foam, geo, and SHW - only thing missing is the PV.

My energy bills for the past 12 months are close to $3,000 less than theirs. Since we only completed the install of SHW in November, next year will be an even greater difference.

Nobody cares as much about your energy bills as you do! If they can't build a green house at a reasonable price, build it yourself!

Good luck,
Ed

After looking at what Ed did with his house, 'Green" does not need to cost an arm and a leg.

The energy savings with a SIPS building envelope probably get the biggest bang for the buck - especially using modular construction techniques

I'm looking to build before the end of this year and want to do a modular with SIPS, given the quality of site-built residential construction.
The industry, however, is entrenched in doing it with stick framing - save for Penn Lyon (though, after visiting their plant, one would probably need a baseball bat to persuade them to open up their eyes fully).

Since this will be the house that I will probably retire in, I want it my way. If I have to be the GC...Oh well.

Barvista Homes in Colorado at least builds the gables of their modular homes out of sips panels and there is a company in Alberta, Canada that builds sips modulars, but depending upon where you are, the transportation cost could be prohibitive. Also www.strataus.com has done studies on buillding 'manufactured' homes using their system, but I don't think that they have ever built one.

I do agree with your premise however, that modular sips should be a 'no-brainer'!

Green should be cheaper than "traditional building," at least after you consider energy costs over a reasonable time period. You can't expect people to pay more for a house they won't be able to sell for more, just to "save the environment" for your kids. Now it does bother me that so-called "green homes" are being built that are not really energy efficient, if only because the efficient technologies will only get cheaper as they become commonplace– and I'd like to build an efficient house. But if builder slap a solar panel on the roof and call it a "green home" and people don't see any real gains from "going green" then the green revolution will fizzle.

I guess my point is there are alot of inexpensive things you can do to make a building more energy efficient.    There are also alot of expensive things.  It never makes sense to only do the expensive things.

Eric

One important thing to remember, conservation is the best investment.  if you limit your heat loss/gain with insulation and good windows, heating and A/C costs less to install AND operate.  Install all CFLs (and maybe LEDs as they mature) and your electric bill will be less AND make it less expensive for you to cover the load with PV or wind should that time come.

When we did the performance testing for Energy Star certification, the rater was telling me stories about "green" builders.  They were building Energy Star rated homes with R11 walls and PV on the roof.  Sad.

If you read some of the blogs on my website, my intent was never really to be "green".  It was to build a comfortable house I could afford to live in.  I have vinyl siding (that's not a "green" product, but it lasts a REALLY long time with little maintenance).  Also, the size of my house is not in the spirit of being "green" - it's large.  However, I also had a goal to build a very energy efficient house that most people would actually want to live in.  Lastly, I wanted to build in a way that would be easily repeatable.  I think I have accomplished each of these goals.   

My house makes hot water and heats itself on sunny winter days (it is 24F outside and the heat just went on for the first time in 9 hours).  When the interior begins to cool down, we extract heat from our domestic water well and keep the house quite comfy.  An ERV constantly exhausts stale air and odors while bringing in pre-heated and MERV12 filtered fresh air.  Humidity levels outside are under 20%.  Inside it is a very comfortable 50% without the need to a humidifier.

Just do it.  You'll be glad you did.

Ed