A better response to jonr :
What you suggest is that we should build houses - which will last 100-200 years +, as disposable goods, to benefit only our short term goals. Aren't we already doing too much of that? It's impossible to repair a microwave oven now; we just toss it and buy new. Should we do that with houses, too? Houses are long term assets and should be built to last. Built that way the resale value goes up and the house retains it's value. The question of cost is critical, but should be discussed in relation to smart building practices, not outdated, incorrect old wives's tales.

There is a lot of current, valid data indicating that resale values don't go up enough to cover the increased costs of various improvements. Should the world be different? Sure, in numerous ways.

I agree with both sides.

Yes, building a house to last longer than me is something I have done and will do as I build more. I have already decided to change this place from my permanent home to potentially going on the market in 2017. The amount of extra detail and time I took to put in this house was probably up to 100% more than most builders do. Why? Because I thought *I* would be here for a VERY long time. Consequently, now when I go to sell, I have screwed myself in terms of finances. I will not receive reimbursement for the better quality materials such as insulation, house wrap, window flashing, rigid foam in basement & rim joists, siding type, plumbing fixtures, carpet and better padding, premium paints, premium lighting, and the list goes on! I went for the best materials I could possibly afford. And just by listing them I realize nearly 90% of them will go un-noticed to the average home buyer. Especially in the case of materials that are not even visible! And that does not even count the little things like caulking to create an air barrier or using expanding foam at every single attic vent baffle to make sure they were sealed 100%.

To get the ROI of materials I used, I would have to live here for 10+ years.


On the other hand, I can guarantee my work. I know more than I did before. I'm proud of it. It's all chalked up as experience, and going to be one hell of a catch for a future owner if I sell.

I'm in the same boat, Nic. The difference is that this is my LAST home (Lord willing), so resale isn't a consideration. Not only did I overbuild the neighborhood (quality, not size) but with only one main floor bedroom, this house would have to be added on to for most families.

There's an interesting flip side to building it 'forever'. Consider houses built 100 or more years ago. They certainly aren't energy efficient, and the room layout isn't popular with current trends in homes. You can pour money into it, or build a new, energy efficient home, likely for less money. I can't imagine what This Old House spends on some of those renovations. So if we build for 100 or 200 years, will anyone want such a dated house in the future? I'm a fine one to talk; I often joke about the poor guy that decides to tear down our house in the future. All that concrete and rebar is gonna put up a fight!

Look at the bright side- If utility costs spiral out of control, us folks with energy efficient homes are suddenly going to look like geniuses, and resale will become significant. Ever try to sell a gas hog when gas is $4 a gallon?

CTSNIC: I for one never buy your house the way you have it designed. too many of your matting materials are controversial. I fail to see how you think you "screwed yourself" when you don]t even understand your utility bill and ALOT more. Putting alot of DIY time into designing a one-off house and expensive materials you don't understand does not make one a highly experience designer. In most cases, ppl be better of hiring an errors and omissions insured pro that has the proper experience and knowledge of software tools since if your buyer gets sick from the home you designed they come after you for non-disclosures. The best part is you won't be able to point to anyone on this site or any green site that is protected in the fine print......why else would design advice be free? Rather, people think they are saving money by not hiring qualified pros until the law suites arrives at their front door.

As a result of cost optimizing with tools like BEOPT/WUFI I'm building 2015+ IECC passive certified high performance homes at $3 SF higher than 2009 IECC mainstream same finish. When that cost is annualized over a PITI mortgage term it is only 30% of the utility bill savings (eg> $900/yr) . I'm being conservative since Passive homes can see as high as 90% reductions like my specs and the client based custom design I demo'd has not been optimized for energy. The pay back starts in year 1. If the bank uses cash flow to qualify the buyer and lowers the down/interest rate and increases the appraisal the cash flow is even better, and better than rent.

If I add $10-$15 k PV the initial cash flow is still positive but not as good. When PV is paid at net zero cash flow is very high. Most of that depends on optimizing the electrical design. It's just not as easy as throwing some high r-vales in the envelope like ppl think.

The biggest obstacle high performance homes face today is a lack of proper appraisals. If you don't know how to market and sell one most agents don't you should not build one unless you plan to stay there or don't care if you loose money.

BEOPT realizes other future value sustainables like lower maintenance cost from less cycling mechanicals that normally don't last 25 years more less 200. Most houses today especially in wet climates will see microbials and as people blindly air seal them in without using the proper design tools like PHIUS/WUFI-BIO it will get worse. Law suits are well underway. I get plenty of business fixing the mold issues. This will be a growing business for future pros and WUFI-BIO is a great tool for it.

I can guarantee you'll never get there with that calculator you used. Using TMY3/2 climate flles within 50 miles of job site are more accurate than HDD/CDD to begin with. More than 50 miles interpolate or get a micro climate file from NREL or PHIUS. I see drastic difference based on climates between towers, orientation, terrain, neighbors, etc...

I think I read somewhere the 30% fed tax credit has been extended. Regardless, the case for PV vs utility we can only hope gets better in part depending on Trump.....now they are going to make them out of carbon nanotubes that drastically increases performance. We'll see what happens to cost: This tech would serve well in envelope designs too.

"The World Economic Forum (WEF) has determined that in many parts of the world, solar energy is now the same price or even cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time."

the future is here.

Posted By Bob I on 30 Dec 2016 07:28 AM
"The World Economic Forum (WEF) has determined that in many parts of the world, solar energy is now the same price or even cheaper than fossil fuels for the first time."

the future is here.

Hmmm, I wonder how much it costs at night:)

Para, how are my "matting materials controversial"? What materials do I have that I "do not understand"? And please explain how I don't understand my utility bill? If anything, I understand it more. It's too subjective on the area. If I spend $100 less on energy but spend $300 more on taxes which one makes more financial sense? Especially if the ROI of added insulation is 20+ years when I may not be there for that time duration?

My point is that I will not gain what I have put into my first build. I don't know how I can simplify my explanation anymore. Materials that are expensive (i.e. Mineral Wool) instead of cheaper (i.e. Fiberglass) for insulation will not change resale value here. Extra time involved in going over things with a fine tooth comb instead of just slapping materials together will not be lucrative because those details are not seen by most folks.

That's how I goofed by building a quality house versus building one with cheaper materials and much less time to sell at the same price due to an assessment that does not cover those details.

An example: My house is one of the only ones using mineral wool instead of fiberglass, and I one of the few people to consider thicker walls *AT ALL*. The norm here is 2x6 construction, FG batts, and get her done. You have severely mistaken my emphasis on older builders with older methods. It's not a big city. It's not a green community. Those are two things I doubt you can see eye to eye with me on.

Look, I appreciate your help but you're misunderstanding the scope of this topic. And what's a person to do if their local power utilities do not offer grid tie back? You really want me to go buy a $15,000-$25,000 solar system with $4500 batteries that I must replace in a time frame that dictates they do not pay for themselves? That really doesn't make sense for me while if grid tie back or sell back was offered, it would make more sense for solar.

roar: "Hmmm, I wonder how much it costs at night" I would imagine that the costs to gather wind do not change too much over the day or night.

CTSNic: costs are a real problem. Not everyone can afford to pay cash solar panels, but they are available for lease or time payments where the cost for the loan are less than what you are paying now, so in many cases you will save money from day 1. The key is to build smart so that your house can easily convert to renewably sourced fuels. And the first key to building smart is to build a very tight, draft free house house. Doing that adds minor cost, but does take time and care. And the more insulation the better, to a point. Years ago I ran into a client I had built for years earlier, who had a house with 2x6 walls and fiberglass batts; in other words, nothing special. They were going on (and on and on) about how much more comfortable and easier to heat their house was than their neighbors, who had houses that were built similarly but with probably no attention to tightness or installation methods. These things matter than the type or amount of insulation. Do the very best you can and you'll be rewarded with a comfortable house. And batteries are at least a few years away from making off-grid houses ubiquitous.

Bob,

I understand that. It is something I will check into. Assuming I don't get into a build until late 17 or spring of 18, maybe there will be new incentives. I can understand where over building a house to accommodate solar energy would be productive and future proofing at a fraction of the cost if it were to be done later. May I ask on your FG Insulated build, what air sealing details did you follow? I've got a few ideas that I am looking into and researching. My smart membrain still has me a bit confused when it comes to hanging drywall. If it is screwed into I fear each screw is puncturing that important barrier. I realize that if I am to caulk the exterior edges of drywall to a wooden plate (and definitely not the membrane, unless it is actually sealed tight to the framing plates) along with the traditional drywall mud on all interior seams, and paint...I would probably have the truly air tight wall. The thing is, there would be hundreds of tiny holes in the membrane that I would presume over the years may expand with the different material temps and their expansion/contraction. I realize mud over the drywall screw is sealing off air, but I believe the metal screw would still be a point to consider.

Yes, a battery system here (the main option) is not very lucrative unless I had 0 debt on the purchases maybe.

I guess I am confused. Are you trying to sell an existing energy efficient 30’ x 40’ in NE you know the utility bill, have a comparable appraisal, since there is no mention of that in your OP. That is a subject for another thread.

Basically, the tool for that is AGREEA. https://www.appraisalinstitute.org/assets/1/7/AI_820_04-Residential_Green_and_Energy_Effecient_Addendum.pdf

In it you’ll find an analytical path vs comp since there probably are none for an appraiser to use, puts value on wall insulation and a lot more.

If you have PV, PV Value is the tool. Both are used to qualify your buyer and raise the appraisal. Ask your agent to attach it in the MLS along with your utility bill comparison to other comps same SF.

Looks like you have one qualified appraiser in the state you could talk to that has taken Sanda Adomitas classes: http://www.myappraisalinstitute.org/findappraiser/green_sustainability_residential.aspx

They may have no experience but worth a try. You can try and get local banks on board for your buyer, some may have their own methods. If not give Teresa @ GEM a call she uses a HERs you get from BEOPT or if existing a RESNET rater, actually EFI which includes air sealing better than Hers. She moves lots of green custom $$$ and gets it. http://www.greenenergy.money/

More info: https://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/homebuilders

“If I spend $100 less on energy but spend $300 more on taxes which one makes more financial sense?”

This is confusing. I already showed a 2180 good enough house has ~ $900/yr 2015 energy savings to your surround competition @ 2009 IECC…that is ~ $75/mo
If you go from 2x4 wall to 2x6 and increase exterior SF by 5 SF on a (eg: 30’ x 40”) building and IF you MLS @ $120/SF for example that is $600 increase of the assessed value of the home but, as I said there are other factors used to asses that could drop it. NE General property tax is @ 1.9% ($600 assessed value) = $11.40/yr.

Assuming $300 is per month = $3,600/yr like your utility bill comparison @ $1200 something is drastically wrong. Besides, I pointed out the “appraisal” also uses exterior SF since it reflects construction cost, like taxes, and IF you appreciation @ 3-10%/yr resale can easily wipe out the tax bill.

If you’re are being billed $300/yr more so $3,600 per 5 SF or even 25 sell and run for the hills. Ne is high but not that high.

Delete

I got no idea why HTML is showing using firefox

Back to your OP: "In my mind a new home that is carefully built has a very low air exchange rate. No leaks from windows and doors, and few leaks with framing. This would mean insulation is the next defense. It seems R-19 versus R-30 in a wall is about a 1,300 BTU Loss difference on a Delta of 70 degrees. 70 indoor, 0 outdoors. To me, that doesn't seem like a lot. Considering a Heat pump produces roughly 3,600 BTU / kWH this means every 3 hours 1 KW more is used/spent for the difference of R19 instead of R30. "


All of NE is Z5 & 4 Marine. Target 2015 EFI = 55

Base Design: 30’ x 40’, 8’ walls, 6/12 gable/truss-cants/vented attic @ r-49, r-12 slab, city lot w/neighbors 15’ L/R , south facing solar, asphalt shingles, 60% carpet, light fiber-cement siding, ½” drywall interior thermal mass, 15% window all sides @ u-27/.31 SHGC, 1 ACH @50, ERV, 12 kBTUh/unit -SEER 14.5, 8.2 HSPF minisplit, DHW-Electric-tankless/r-2 trunked-copper-demand, 60% LED/34% CFL plugin, electric appliance/ HP ventless dryer, 71F set points, b10 std appliance and occupancy schedules.

Compare 2x4x16 oc FG vs 2x6x24 oc MW. Not much difference.

Try again..

Not sure if those pic will expand but here is whats going on....

1. @ Hers/ERI of 61 for 2x4 R-19, 58 for 2x6 R30, NE 2015 IECC target is 55. So this building is performing a little worse than 2015 IECC which has air seal requirements ( used 1 ACH@ 50, not good to go below unless using WUFI Passive).

2. Electric consumption difference of 440 kWh/yr between the two wall designs.

3. Utility bill difference of $44/yr. BEOPTs crashing today so I could not BTU/yr diff.

Now I know more about NE. Perhaps you should stick w/what they know best originator of "load bearing Walls" strawbales. :)

CTSNic
I don't remember the air sealing method I used; I do remember that the house was not tested and we typically used "standard practices". I did pay good attention to the way the FG was installed, so apparently that really matters, but I still think it's crummy insulation, and prefer rock wool or cellulose. I've found that the best, fastest and easiest way to air seal is to tape the joints of the plywood, and caulk the plywood onto the sill and rim joist, and caulk the top of the wall; the places that are not usually taped. And foam the sill & rim joist from the interior. And air seal the attic - there are different methods for this depending on how you are building..

Hopefully BEOPT comes back up tomorrow. I'll run some simulations in Omaha or if you want tell me county your in at different air seals ACHs passive too see what is does in Z5. That should indicate some bang for buck. Your Resnet rater should have a blower door test and infared & smoke so you can see the issues, usually big penetrations you avoid in the design, not pin hole fasteners. You have to use a rater to qualify for codes and tax incentives

FG will see drastic r-value knock down factors when it sees vapor compared to MW use it. That can be seen in WUFI passive you can learn along with your matl issues. BEOPT is heat transfer but does use limited global solar radiation and wind directionals based on wall/roof inclinations, dry/wet temps, snow loads.

Tape, sealants, muds, will fatigue over time your right thats why you limit their use in the design. It will be interesting to see what happens by more future blower door test. Depending on climate my guess 10-25 years max, no way 200. Those mfgs would need to publish hygrothermal hot box test, they won't or they would not sell as air seals w/long life cycles. You can also see this in warrantee. Best place to combat that is the interior boundry by controling heat/humidity/fungi foods as seen in WUFI.

"It's impossible to repair a microwave oven now; we just toss it and buy new. Should we do that with houses, too?"

Obsolescence is baked in in urban areas, Bob I. Googling "boarded up Victorian house" gets you historical handwringing in such hot housing markets as DC, SF, Dallas, Durham, Phoenix. "Inner ring suburban decline" gets you Minneapolis, Philly, Cincinnati, Saint Louis (rather infamously in the case one SL inner burb). Toss in the fact that Victorians and 1950s ranchers were solidly built while today's tract houses are not, even in upscale developments. In Bethesda, MD, people are tearing down CMU/brick veneer houses to replace them with stud wall/OSB hulks. We could call it progress on the green front at least if the replacements weren't 2 to 3 times bigger than the typical 1950s 1100 sf.

Agreed, and not just in urban areas. I see the same thing with the 200 year old "colonials" around here. I'm working on convincing one owner of a classic late 1700's center chimney cape, with myriad original features that it will be much less expensive to bring the house up to "net zero" status than to tear it down and build new. The houses have been so uncomfortable for so long that people have given up on them. And then I see and hear of people saying that any and all "green" or "high performance" techniques are too expensive so they'll just build the same crap that has plagued building for thirty years; so long that it's considered the "norm". Unfortunately they're right in that many better building techniques are confusing and/or expensive, or involve new expensive products. The important inexpensive work gets overlooked or ignored, and the basic concepts are misunderstood. The builder organizations like NAHB give lip service to better techniques rather than developing real, useful training to bring builders up to speed.

Renewable energy is now, officially, cheaper than fossil fuels according to the World Economic Forum. Perhaps that will be one of the drivers for builders and buyers to look into methods that will bring new and old housing into the 21st century.