Some ICF companies now include a chemical (not borates) in their blocks that is supposed to kill termites.  I believe the company is LOGIX ICF.

Jay are you working with Travis?  We moved up here about a year ago from NSB.  We are in the final stages of getting our plans done.  We are still planning on doing ICF.    David

Yes, I'm working with Travis. He has been just great so far, letting me do what I can on my own, and bringing in a crew when I need extra muscle. Where else can you get a contractor like that? He's also very concerned about the environment and trying to save trees. Time will tell if my trees are going to tolerate the unavoidable traffic around them.

If just a little more money were available, ICF would be a no-brainer. I still feel like I want a solid house first; the niceties can come later, if at all.

I spoke to him just after we moved up here and he was very open to working with you at whatever level of service you needed.  Hopefully we will be able to get our plans to him soon.

First post! Had to sign up to comment on this thread. I am 65 and am thinking of a similar idea of getting an ICF house built in Canada and doing as much as possible myself to keep the cost down. There is one comment I want to add that has not been mentioned yet in the advantages of an ICF house. Think about further in the future. You are building a home to retire in, but there usually comes a time in your life when you have to sell because of age and infirmity. Not sure in SC, but what would fetch you more money in future, and sell faster (more desirable), a decades old stick-frame house or an ICF house?

Right now, I'm not sure it would make much difference. The old real estate maxim of 'Location, location, and location' still rings true. Everyone has different priorities when buying an existing house, and I think energy efficiency and other structural considerations are fairly low on the list. People want good schools, or the 'right' subdivision, or convenience to shopping or whatever their locational priorities are. I find very few people who even know what ICF is. As the price of utilities goes up, you might get a buyer's attention with low utility bills. Most people look at the outside of a house; the inside of a house, and are blissfully ignorant about what's in between. Obviously, in the Great White North heating bills are much more of a factor than a mild climate like SC.

I already know that the house I'm building could be a tough sell. We're well out in the country, far from shopping and schools. The house will be small, with only one bedroom on the main floor. There's plenty of room in the basement for more bedrooms, but that's a turn-off for many people, even though the basement will be even easier to heat and cool due to the stabilizing ground temperature. In short, I'm designing an empty nest for our current and future needs.

Make sure that future bedrooms meet code for egress (properly designed and sized windows). If they don't your house will be listed with legal number of bedrooms and traffic will fall accordingly.

ICF is not a guarantee against termites, though. Painters and Decorators in Fulham Painters and Decorators in London

Short of using steel framing, metal SIP's, ICF, and synthetic surfaces throughout (including furniture), I don't think anything is termite proof. I will be vigilant about creating the best termite shields I can. I once bought an antique trumpet at an auction that had active termites in the wooden case!

Good point about egress windows, toddm. There will be two that meet that spec in the basement, on the walk-out wall. Obviously, that's where the bedrooms would go.

Backfilling the foundation with compacted sand is a pretty-good termite deterrent, and can be protective of the exterior EPS on an ICF. Metal flashing at the top of ICF foam that penetrates under any foundation sill or roof connections also forces the termites to daylight to reach the susceptible wood.

jdebree,

You should not be trying to justify one particular part of the home. You should look at the home holistically and try to get inspiration from the natural systems that deliver thermal performance without additional cost.

An example of a natural system is the use of crushed gravel 3/4 minus with diatimatious earth and borax mixed in as a solution to stop termites. They do not like the sharp edges of the gravel, the borax is a taste they dislike and the diatimatious earth gets on their skin and abrades between their skin and exoskeleton binding their joints and killing them. These are all natural materials that stop termites.

The least expensive answer to heat dominated environments in the United States is not SIPs or SCIPs or ICFs it is annualized thermal mass loading. In Greenville SC the deep earth temperature averages 63 degrees F over the year. Two foot thick earthen based walls will eliminate the need for air conditioning completely. The internal temperature will never exceed 77 degrees without insulation. Adding insulation and appropriate design of the home leads a passive home that does not need to have any premium cost in your climate.

Look at the chart of temperatures with earthen depth. Two foot line for your climate is all you need to eliminate AC needs.

There are additional design issues that need to be addressed to complete the homes ability to maintain the internal comfort year around. But this is the direction you should go for low cost self-heated and cooled designs that do not cost more than a standard home. I can show you several ways to accomplish this at no additional cost.

You are missing out if you pay a premium for any system and still have to pay heating and cooling utilities. You need to work with people that understand how to accomplish the goal of having a self-heated and cooled home at no additional cost of construction. Require it of any contractor you work with or you will be forever poorer. Average utilities are $100,000 / 1000 square feet of home for each 30 years. Do not waste all those future financial resources on wasted energy.

Brian

I think that energy will have to get MUCH more expensive before the thought of living under two feet of dirt will have any more than limited appeal.

ICFHybrid,
You are welcome to suggest solutions or ask questions. Comments showing your bias and lack of understanding are not providing value.
What solution do you have that eliminated heating and cooling costs at no additional cost to construct? Have you built any self-heated and cooled homes? Have you built a passive home? Have you built a home that did not require a separate heating system? It is not unusual to have 20+ inches of cellulose and or fiberglass in many new homes. How is that any different?

Internal thermal mass does not require living under 2 feet of earth. Though it is an option to have a live roof etc. In many of the high insulation models pushing R-60 plus have similar thicknesses. The trick is understanding the integration of the building envelope, insulation, thermal mass, glazing and ventilation to take advantage of the interactions. You can build a building that looks like any style of building you like.

Two feet is the amount of earth if you have no insulation. There is a relationship to the internal thermal mass and the insulation in each membrane. There are several methods to accomplish this that cost no more than a standard home in construction. They are also more sustainable and environmentally responsible.
I await you solution to low cost zero energy housing.

Brian

Comments showing your bias and lack of understanding are not providing value.

Of course they do. I share this bias with a lot of people. There are going to have be some very extenuating circumstances before we feel that living under two feet of dirt is worthwhile.

Unless you are a Hobbit, of course.

You have to face real life factors in your pursuit of energy efficiency. I'm sorry I have to be the one to point them out to you.

It is not unusual to have 20+ inches of cellulose and or fiberglass in many new homes. How is that any different?

First of all, 20" of insulation is fairly unusual, but if you don't know the difference between that and two feet of earth, then this is going to be a long row to hoe, indeed.

What solution do you have that eliminated heating and cooling costs at no additional cost to construct?

I think it is great that you feel driven to that goal, but the fact is that most people will happily accept some heating and cooling cost in exchange for what might be called a little normalcy or some control over their comfort. I think it would be nice to get the more basic principles of passive solar building to widespread acceptance before pushing zero energy housing.

Eagerly awaiting your book in order to find out how many "zero energy" homes you have actually added to the landscape.

I have a friend who built on similar property only 1-1/2 miles from our place. He monitored the (uninsulated) basement temperatures, and averaged 55 degrees F. in the winter, and 75 degrees F. in the summer. I can live comfortably in that temperature range without any heating or cooling, although humidity is a problem in the summer. Knowing that, we can always move to the basement to avoid high energy costs. We are pretty flexible, not running heat or A/C between about 50 degrees up to 85 or so (outdoors). Here in FL, we've been in the mid 80's, but haven't had the A/C on yet.

Our house here in FL is CMU, with NO wall insulation, and maybe R-19 in the attic. Windows are single pane, and leaky. We almost never run our heat, even when temps drop into the 30's due to the thermal mass of the house. It has to stay cold for days before it gets uncomfortable inside. I suspect that ICF should have a 'good' thermal mass property in SC. The concrete is connected to the footing, which in turn is embedded in that very even temperature soil zehboss spoke of. From 63 degrees, the house should nearly self-heat just from appliances and habitation. In the warmer months, the windows will be open much of the time except in high heat and humidity. I observed that there is a cooling breeze every evening coming from the mountains, and many evenings went without A/C. My contractor lives in an all-ICF house about a mile away, and it's remarkable how comfortable his house is, even with a lot of large windows.

I know that there are many ways to save energy, and living underground is one of the most effective (notice I didn't say 'best'). I love fresh air and sunlight. We will have a lot of windows, as we have a 360 view and complete privacy. I don't have that many years left, and I want what I want. The house needs to look traditional as well. I'm going to build a reasonably efficient home, burn a little wood in the winter, sweat a little in the summer, and be prepared to hole up in the basement if the **** ever hits the fan.

Two foot thick earthen based walls will eliminate the need for air conditioning completely. The internal temperature will never exceed 77 degrees without insulation.

It's very important to understand that those graphs of soil temperature vs depth are only for undisturbed soil. As soon as you start adding or subtracting heat (say by burying a house or geothermal loops in it), the temperature starts changing. So no, 2' of soil is not anywhere close to an infinite heat sink. Dehumidification is also an issue.

Posted By jonr on 05 Apr 2012 09:28 AM

Two foot thick earthen based walls will eliminate the need for air conditioning completely. The internal temperature will never exceed 77 degrees without insulation.

It's very important to understand that those graphs of soil temperature vs depth are only for undisturbed soil. As soon as you start adding or subtracting heat (say by burying a house or geothermal loops in it), the temperature starts changing. So no, 2' of soil is not anywhere close to an infinite heat sink. Dehumidification is also an issue.

No- kidding- outdoor air dew points in SC in July hover around a fungal growth inducing 68F, which is a relative humidity of ~74% at Brian's estimated 77F.  With extensive earth-tube passive ventilation/cooling the dew point of the ventilation might be reduced to 65F or so, but even that is far from healthy.

These are all high mass self heated and cooled homes. Simple natural solutions exist. Seeing them requires being open to different ways of looking at things. 2/3rds of what we perceive are based on our bias. You only have control over your own bias. You can choose to seek and be open to the solutions that exist. You will never progress if you only look for reasons not to change. If you are uncomfortable with change to the point you need to attack without taking the time to understand I feel for your state of existence.

ICFHYBIRD, I have communicated to you previously that I am not talking about building underground. Your reaction again shows you are not listening to what I am communicating. Feel free to engage in solutions but attacks are not welcome or appropriate. I do not wish to participate in your curmudgeon like behavior. I am happy to listen, discuss, explain, and participate in solutions. I am interested in growing and developing my understanding. Feckless interlude does not promote advancement of answers.

Dana, I have never indicated that humidity does not need to be addressed. Humidity has to be controlled to achieve health and comfort. It can be controlled by several methods. Properly drained cooling tubes are for moderate situations. Solar dried desiccant based systems can work efficiently in most cases that are more severe. A standard dehumidification system can be used if you do not wish to rely on either of the above and for stark situations. A dehumidification system dealing with air that is already cooled is far more efficient.
When I said the whole system has to be designed and engineered to make it work, that means that humidity control is dealt with for human comfort.

Thermal massing, proper insulation, appropriate ventilation, natural lighting and dehumidification makes a comfortable environment for humans. All of these factors have to be worked with.

Understanding and proper design and engineering of the systems eliminates the issues you are complaining about. Looking for reasons not to change is typical. Most people are comfortable with the status quo. The status quo is wasting energy, capital, and human resources. The status quo is harming the quality of life of our clients. We should strive to do better.

Brian

ICFHYBIRD, I have communicated to you previously that I am not talking about building underground. Your reaction again shows you are not listening to what I am communicating.

I don't think you are building underground, nor do I ever recall saying you are building underground.

I'm afraid when you are doing something so offbeat, you need to consider all the criticism, whether you like it or not.

As has been said many times before, above ground passive thermal mass is useful only when the short term (day or maybe a few days) temperature varies above and below comfortable.