The link will show progress photos for this 7,000 sq. ft. custom home that will feature a curved 35 ft tall tower housing an elevator , wrapped with a circular staircase; I will update link periodically http://www.myspace.com/468602158#!/steelsips/photos/albums/odessa-job/1607193

Anyone else getting the below?
404 - File or directory not found.

The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

You may have missed the last part of the link: http://www.myspace.com/468602158#!/steelsips/photos/albums/odessa-job/1607193 I'm curious how you do the round wall of the tower. I assume from the base track this is a SIP wall. Are you doing curved metal SIPs?

Torben; good observation; yes it is a Steel SIP Wall, keeping the front skin intact we will "V" cut the back side every 12" , remove the foam and re-use the steel skin to stitch joint back together. Even more challenging is the 19 ft. diameter cone shaped roof that sits on top with no center support.

A 7000 sq. ft. green home... Is this an oxymoron?!

Posted By Lee Dodge on 12 Sep 2011 10:52 AM
A 7000 sq. ft. green home... Is this an oxymoron?!

Would you rather see a 7,000 sq. ft. using 60% more energy than an energy efficient home?

Lee Dodge; just as not everyone will drive a smart car, not everyone will live in a 1,000 sq. ft. house. But if we can reduce the impact by 50-70% then yes it is still green compared to a conventional home

Torben, You figured out my problem. I appreciate that. Somehow I missed the end of the URL under the picture. Thanks, Bruce

Posted By cmkavala on 12 Sep 2011 06:17 AM
Torben; good observation; yes it is a Steel SIP Wall, keeping the front skin intact we will "V" cut the back side every 12" , remove the foam and re-use the steel skin to stitch joint back together. Even more challenging is the 19 ft. diameter cone shaped roof that sits on top with no center support.

Congratulations Chris, it looks like a real showcase project. I was nervous enough lifting cut roof panels. I wouldn't want to try placing such large panels with all those modifications. Are you still placing all your panels with just scissor lifts? I look forward to seeing more photos of this project (especially the tower).

Posted By cmkavala on 12 Sep 2011 11:21 AM

Posted By Lee Dodge on 12 Sep 2011 10:52 AM
A 7000 sq. ft. green home... Is this an oxymoron?!

Would you rather see a 7,000 sq. ft. using 60% more energy than an energy efficient home?

One aspect of higher efficiency building envelopes and mechanical systems (and low energy pricing) is that the once un-affordable to operate larger home is now affordable to operate, and those who can afford it will often tend to spread out for more elbow room.  The average US home for a family in 1950 was  <1500', with one bathroom, and siblings often shared bedrooms.  The home I live in was ~1800 when originally built in 1923, and the family who built it raised three girls there (a family of 5) , but it at least had a second bathroom.   We've boosted that to ~2200' with additions, and don't feel not too cramped, as a family of 3 (although I occaisionally get an earful about needing more space. )

IIRC Lee lives alone (in a home bigger than 1200', I suspect.)  On a square feet per person basis is that really any greener than a family of 5 in a 7000' home?  In general (although the actual shape makes a huge difference) the larger a home is the smaller the exterior surface to floor area ratio, resulting in lower heating/cooling loads per square foot too.  If it's walkable to stores/schools/public-transportation, does that make a difference?

OTOH I've seen retired couples building 8000' dream homes in the mountains with huge windows to take in the sweeping views, and it takes 20+ minutes of driving to get to any retail or entertainment venue. A bit much? Maybe...

Part of the PassivHaus spec includes min & max living space per occupant, with a target size of ~ 500' per occupant. Mind you they measure living space as internal floor area, discounting for stairwells, & basements too, so it's a smaller number for the same house than the outer-edge-of-the-paint area numbers used by the US real estate industry.  (Depending on floor plan and wall thicknesses a 1500' PassiveHouse might be listed as big 2000' using US real estate measurement methods)  While nobody likes being told what to do, their guidelines turn out to be reasonable- far roomier than the US 1950s average, but not expansive.  It's also roomier than the average Manhattan apartment dwelling per-person.

More food for thought: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...Id=5525283

Bottom line, the relative verdancy of a 7000' home can't be assessed by a single number, even if that number is ~ 3x that of the "average" new home in the US.

At a time when we are fighting 2.1 wars (Libya probably counts for about 0.1 now), at least some of which is to maintain cheap oil prices, I think that we may need to rethink our requirements for home sizes. The U.S. has mostly "shot its wad" in terms of oil located within the country (even Alaska is starting to run dry), and is now dependent on getting "the rest of our oil that just happens to be located under other countries land." If you tell me the 7000 sq. ft. house is designed to operate at net-zero energy, and that most of the building materials are from sustainable sources, then it certainly qualifies as a green home.

In 200 years, folks will be able to look back at the long gone "Petroleum Age," and hopefully they will have developed some good technologies for comfortable homes. A good goal for us to work towards.

we all don't drive smart cars either

If it's for a family of 8 and uses less energy than a code-min 2500' home (probably does), I personally would judge it somewhere on the spectrum of green. If it's for only 2 people it might be a stretch.

Oil use is primarily a transportation sector issue, and somewhat of a red herring where building efficiency is concerned. With homes natural gas (primarily domestically source with half the carbon per BTU of oil) and electricity (also primarily domestic, but carbon-heavy and fairly dirty, where the grid power is primarily from coal). If the 7000' house is heated & cooled by heat pumps from a low-carb section of grid and using less total energy than the average 2500' home, it's a huge improvement over the average, and the location relative to it's transportation-grid and the travel/freight distances required to support living may be a bigger factor than site-use of energy.

Is it as deeply green as a PassiveHouse or Net Zero Energy home? Probably not, but if it's in town it might be pretty green relative to a Net-Zero home whose occupants are commuting a combined 200 miles/day. (Manhattan dwellers have a dramatically lower carbon footprint than the national average.)

"Oil use is primarily a transportation sector issue, and somewhat of a red herring where building efficiency is concerned. "
This is a generalization, and not entirely accurate. No. 2 heating oil (residential heating oil) and No. 2 diesel fuel (standard diesel fuel except for Alaska in the winter) are essentially the same quanitity, except that the diesel fuel has a spec for cetane, and some specs for handling like wax point.

Although heating oil is not the major fuel for home heating, it is not an insigificant source of heating energy. From http://www.heatingoil.com/articles/heating-oil-usage-average/2/ "In total, 1,509,900,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil were sold to U.S. end-users in February 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Association."

How fast are we creating fuel oil? Is there a sustainability problem here? Could we improve upon the depletion rate by using alternative energy sources, better insulated homes, and perhaps smaller homes?

There is some flexibility to pull fuels from a pot of potential sources depending on cost and availability. For dual-fuel power plants that can burn natural gas or fuel oil, this flexibility is almost immediate. For most other systems the time-constant for the system is much longer, and is often made only when combustion systems are replaced, or at least the fueling system. The conversion rate of heavy-duty diesel engines to heavy-duty natural gas engines (typically limited to local fleet operations) is very dependent on the relative prices of the two fuels, although environmental regulations are also a factor. Therefore, it is not a red herring to suggest that reducing energy consumption in homes would reduce our need for crude oil.

Price will mostly take care of heating with oil even though it will continue to be used massively by the transportation sector. even at current prices heating with mini-splits is cheaper, even with electricity prices north of 20cents/kwh. As worldwide demand for oil rises for it's premium-use (motor fuel) the cost delta for low-grade uses like space heating will rapidly become prohibitive relative to the alternatives. The slice of the US space-heating pie occupied by oil has monotonically trended downward since the mid-1970s (the first oil-shocks.) The post Y2K exploitation of coal seam & shale gas is putting yet another stake in the heart of heating oil use, but world demand for oil is likely to finish it off first.

When the cost of a year's worth of heating with oil becomes as expensive as the capital costs of ductless heat pumps, those ugly interior units start to look pretty seductive, and it's nearly there for many folks already. Replacing an ancient dying 50% AFUE pig of a boiler or oil furnace with a latest-greatest high efficiency oil burner is in most cases wasted capital, IMHO, even if it DOES reduce oil use by more than 35%. For a similar capital outlay an even greater fraction of heating COST goes away where best-efficiency heat pumps can be utilized.

But this is quite a digression, eh?

It may be heresy to say on this website but I think when the only thing you can say for some type/size of construction is that it is "green" then something is sorely lacking. "Green" in the sense of utility cost savings, a more comfortable home, and/or better air quality is great. These things provide their own incentives. "Green" that does not provide these things has little interest to me and probably most homeowners one might try to push them onto. I doubt this homeowner has lost any sleep over whether his house will be small enough to be "green".

I forgot to mention that it is overall savings (not just utilities). "Green" building can involve very durable, low maintenance structures. Local and or recycled materials can produce significant cost savings. I think economics/comfort are a good metrics in green building. If they are ignored there is no reason to expect green building to succeed.

and.............

Aw Chris, you're not gonna open up that LEED-validity can o' worms now, are ya? :-)

BTW: Are the curved sides of the tower/stairwell section being done in steel-SIP technology as well?

Posted By cmkavala on 15 Sep 2011 04:42 PM
and.............

Well Chris, I stand corrected. This owner is interested in "Green" for "Green" sake. I used Energy Gauge computer modeling (HERS ratings) to check how different changes impact efficiency and I referred to LEED, Florida Greenbuilding, Southface, and Passivehaus for efficiency/comfort ideas. The price of a LEED rating didn't seem worthwhile for me personally (and I think there are several silly components to LEED). I've been involved in LEED for a number of commercial projects but very few have decided to actually do the certification. Most just compare their project to the checklist, pick what items they think are worthwhile to implement and don't bother with the certification. I think FL Green penalizes you for large homes. Do you have a preliminary HERS number and what LEED level are you expecting?