You buy them from a lumber yard. You cull the bunk of lumber and use crooked studs for blocking, jacks, truss bracing, shoulders, ect. Then any leftover crooked lumber in the crooked pile that is left you return to the lumber yard for full credit, in fact they will come and pick it up and load it for you, and then apparently guys like you buy them (since you be complaining bout it). Texas ICF, what kind of wet lumber are you using that twists after the house is done? Thats a bit of a stretch.

Sipper, I searched for "affordable," which is the real test of zero energy. Anyone can do it if you have all the money in the world.

Come to think of it, affordable is also the crucial test for ICFs and SIPs. Those buyers three years ago who had all the money in the world? They're gone and they won't be back in our lifetimes.

greentree, re: lumber, okay good quality lumber is still available out there in quantity you are right. My point was that even good lumber or perfectly straight pieces are going to loose moisture over time and some are going to move pitch and yaw over time. Generally younger wood is being used today than in years past. Regards.

TexasICF you are absolutely correct! When I brew my homebrew beer, I use a stir stick that was a left over piece of oak trim from the cabinets in the house that I built in 1978. I cry every time I look at that nice straight stick with the tight grain!

I think ICF walls and thermal mass would help in a number of ways. The first is that if you have a power outage, you have a lot longer coast period before the house is below freezing and you have problems. Second, in the swing seasons, thermal mass helps even things out. Third, if used with setback thermostats it can increase the efficiency of the heating system. We all know short cycling is bad so picture this, House cools all night long because the heating system is off (but only drops 3-4 degrees). At 6 am, it calls for heat and the heater output is steady for several hours warming the mass back up to the morning set point. (I take a shower at the same time so it can heat the indirect tank back up at the same time if the solar tank isn't hot. At which point the thermostat resets to a lower temp and the heat is off all day. Around 4 in the evening it restarts and brings the temp back up to the evening setpoint. Done properly, the boiler, etc only fires twice a day and can be set to run at maximum efficiency and does not ever short cycle. This is using thermal mass to great advantage.
My house can coast for many hours without heat input. IF it is a cold day but sunny, the boiler fires once a day at 5:30 AM. (unless I used the woodstove). Over night the temp drops from 60 to~56 or so. The boiler warms it up to 62 in the morning. If it is sunny the house heats itself all day and gets up to ~ 65 by midday and slowly drops back to 60 by 6-8 pm.
IF it isn’t sunny the boiler will fire again at around 4:30 pm and the cycle starts again. That is the advantage of thermal mass, allowing the heating system to coast.

Of course if you decide you need an exact temperature 24/7, then the heating system will have to cycle more often and you loose some efficiency of the heating system.

do you seriously keep your house at 60 degrees?  I could never get away with that..

The most cost effective use of thermal mass is for solar or where you use electricity for heating or cooling and there are significant discounts for off-peak usage. An active thermal mass system will avoid the temperature swings that passive systems have.

C'mon, toddm, I'm not just talking about people "with all of the money in the world", though there are still a few around who want, and can afford, all, or at least most, of the "bells and whistles" that they want. Shouldn't we want them to consider building a ZEH, or NZEH, home? Isn't the primary goal here to provide options that will allow for the design and construction of buildings that appreciably reduce the use of fossil fuels to provide the energy required to heat and cool them? My contention is that SIPs, and in many cases ICF's, are a widely available, relatively simple, affordable, option, that can help achieve these goals. Not everyone can approach the home building process as though its a "science project". My hat's off to those who do, and are able to successfully execute their plan.

In the meantime there are many interesting websites, that are relative to this discussion that can be found by simply Yahooing the following words: Affordable Zero Energy SIP Homes (I don't know why you didn't find anything under this heading?) Granted, many are sites that are presented by "for profit" firms, but that's not all bad, is it? (I don't want to go off on a tangent here) However, there are some examples of Habitant for Humanity projects, and some other demo projects that emphasize "affordability" in their criteria. I don't want to take up a lot of space here with more details, anyone who's interested can do their own research, and draw their own conclusions.

I too am investigating the use of SIPs. I was told that if your GC doesn't have SIPs experience a subcontractor recommended by the manufacturer who specializes in SIPs erection can come in and knock out the frame in a week and then leave the GC to flesh out the shell ie. windows, doors, roof and cladding. Is this true?

If the GC is willing to do it.  I've learned through this process that a GC makes the bulk of their profit from the framing portion of the job, which probably makes them less likely to give it up.  Also, you can see if the SIP supplier is willing to educate your GC so he can do the job himself.  When I was looking at SIPs, the supplier said he was happy to do it.  Our builder was willing to build with SIPs, but the prices were coming in too high so we decided against it.

lwigle1, following are some comments for you to consider , regarding the use of SIPs as a building envelope system, for your anticipated custom home building project.

jerkylips' last post basically reinforces some of the points that i've tried to make on this, and other threads, on these forums. 1. "If the contractor is willing to do it" If he isn't, find one who will. If you can't accomplish this, then you do have a definite challenge in your desire to use SIPs. (This is gradually getting to be less of a problem here in California, with many "SIP experienced" contractors, and many more who want to get aboard with the technology.) You're not going to have a problem finding one of these "SIP experienced" contractors in your area, Seattle, Wa., and there are also several SIP companies in that area, with either manufacturing, or distribution, facilities. 2. Re: "Contractor's profit from the framing portion of the job" There is absolutely no intent here to "bash" contractors, not much would get built without them. However, you and other "consumers" who are reading this post, can draw your own conclusions regarding this issue. I understand that the current economy, and decreased number of new building projects, comes into play here. But, again, only "the customer" should determine how much this factor should affect decisions regarding one of the most important elements of what will likely be the most important investment that he will ever make. 3. Re: "Educating the GC, supplier happy to do it, builder was willing, but the prices were too high" I don't doubt that this is an accurate portrayal of this particular situation, but consider the facts as presented, and, again, draw your own conclusions.

Having said all of that, I think that jerkylips will likely end up owning a very good quality, energy efficient home. Will it be as energy efficient, as structurally strong, not to mention as "Green", as if he utilized SIPs as his building envelope system? I sincerely doubt it, particularly if he incorporates a framing/insulation system that is "dramatically less expensive" than SIPs, which is what several of his posts have implied.

Good luck with your project, Jerkylips, and to you, lwigle, as well as all of you who are researching your "green" building options.

Thanks for the good luck wishes. For the record, I pretty much agree with you.  If money was no object, we would have done SIPs.  I think the problem is that in this area, they just aren't competitive on price yet.  I don't doubt that in other areas, they may be.

I wanted to clarify one of my comments.  My GC WAS willing to build with SIPs.  We had the conversation and he said, "it's your house, it's about what you want.  If that's what you want to do, I'll educate myself on the system and do it for you."   I was more than happy with his position on building with SIPs, it just came down to cost.  SIPs plus his labor was significantly more ($20,000) than what he could do with stick framing and really increasing the air sealing & insulation.  I've known our GC for many years, like him, and trust him.  Just felt like defending him a bit.  ;)

The other thing that I'm trying to factor in is what I'll call "whole house r-value".  We probably COULD have used SIPs, but it wouldn't leave much money in the budget for some other things.  Using SIPs and having to go with inferior windows may very well give a lower REAL r-value than doing what we're doing and having money left over for upgraded windows, insulating the slab & basement walls, etc.

jerkylips, That type of contractor/client relationship can be invaluable. I understand everything that you're saying so I'm not going to rehash this thread, or the many others that you're involved with on the "Green Building Talk" forums.

My primary problem with all of this is the "$ 20,000 premium for SIPs" which you mentioned in your last post. I'm going to guess at the primary factors behind, what appears to be, an inordinately high cost differences between SIPs and an "alternative" that is purported to be "nearly as good". 1. Is the cost of your lumber package (incl trusses) being sufficiently reduced to reflect the use of SIPs? 2. Is KD or Engineered lumber specified for the framing package? (this speaks to the issue of a square, plumb, level, stable structure, that will remain that way over the long term) 3. Does the contractor's labor costs reflect the reduced amount of labor required to frame with SIPs? This is that "slippery slope" that I tried to tactfully introduce into the equation in my last post. Another way to express this concept is to pose the question "is your contractor expecting you to pay his tuition to learn a "new" system, and gain experience that he can likely then use to expand his business to generate additional revenues over the long haul?" Maybe, he can't afford to do it any differently, and just can't take a chance on your project, and/or on future "potential".

The sip supplier included the roof trusses in his bid, so it was everything except the interior framing materials.  I based my numbers on his bid compared to my buider's bid for stick framing.  I think there's two things going on -

1.  In this area, there isn't much competition for the sip guys.  I think that there are a lot of people out there that decide they want to do sips, and will do it at any/all costs.  That was my mindset, initially.  Once I convinced my wife, I couldn't really see any way that we WOULDN'T build with SIPs.  As the planning process continues & we had a budget reality-check, we realized that we would have to make some compromises - either keep the SIP plan & cut costs elsewhere (windows, hvac, etc.) or re-evaluate our plan.

2.  I don't know that our builder had any idea how to bid the labor for SIPs, so he based his labor numbers on stick-framing.  There is a chance that if we had gone the SIP route, the labor would have come in much cheaper & we'd end up gaining back a big chunk of that $20,000.  I'm confident that in the end it would not be $20,000 more, but it makes it very challenging to budget.  I can't move forward, hoping that the project comes in under budget - because what if it doesn't?

The short answer to "is the expecting you to pay his tuition?" is....probably to a certain extent.  At the same time, he's in this business to make money.  He has been extemely fair & flexible with us, including being OK with letting me have some friends in the trades bid out jobs instead of his people - but at the same time, he shouldn't be expected to do it for free.

JL, No one suggested that your contractor should work "for FREE".

However, I just hope that your experiences, as you've described them, along with my questions and comments, will help others to work their way through this "process". Of course, I also recognize the fact that you and I haven't been the only participants in these dialogues, as there have been many other qualified contributors whose agendas and/or opinions "might" differ "just a bit" from mine. (do you think?)

Just chiming in since we built in the same area Jerkylips did two years ago. We ran in to the same thing looking in to SIP's. We did get three quotes from three contractors and they were between 10 and 20K more going with sips compared to traditional stick framing and 2 inches of foam. Honestly at the time I had assumed it was because SIP's were newer and people were charging a "premium" to build with them and secondly our house was "odd" with large spans because of our indoor pool and maybe SIP's didn't fit well with that.

A friend of ours, who has since gotten divorced and sold his house (same size as our without a pool) built with SIP's paid the extra $20k and had utility bills similar to ours, slightly more, but he didn't go with geothermal. Anyway when they sold he certainly didn't get his extra $20k out of the house. Again I am not knocking SIP's, just that in our area they seem to be abnormal.

Supply/demand of economics is a big factor on prices.  If someone comes up with a new superior building system that might even be cheaper, whether that is Sip, ICF etc... margins can remain higher to get the early adopters and the fact that enough builders aren't using the new system.   Education and adoption of new products/methods takes quite awhile to hit the broad market.  Once it does, economics and competition comes in to become more efficient and lower costs(part of that may be lower margins).

It strikes me that SIPs can't get there through simple economies of scale. No matter how proficient you are at making foam sandwiches, each order is a custom house that requires markup and retooling. Worse, if the design makes effective use of panelized construction, it is probably by accident.
The SIP industry needs a version of the mass customization processes made famous by Dell Computer. (You design your laptop online; the specs are fed into an automated assembly line where it is built for mass-production prices.) You'd start with a design front end that would allow online users to render their designs in SIPs. You'd want to push a complement of off-the-shelf panels and modular components that could form a core of mass production and cut costs. You'd also design kit houses around standard panels and components. You'd develop an expert system, a la TurboTax, that would nudge buyers toward good design practices.
The Sipper wanted me to find affordable ZEH using SIPs, and there are few. Here is a series of five done by ORNL and Habitat for Humanity in Oak Ridge's backyard. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/etsd/btric/pdfs/whole_tva_zeh_fs_2-07.pdf
And here is a befuddled ZEH blogger who would spend lots of time on a SIP design site if one existed. Meanwhile, he, too, is put off by prices. (Note the difference between precut and uncut panel prices.) http://www.zeroenergyintelligence.com/blogspagehtm/?tag=timberline

Some brief responses to the comments of the last 3 posters:

First of all, there are no hostile intentions here, and certainly no intention to question the credibility of anyone. However, in my view, the subject comments are still only, for the most part, opinions and anecdotes, and should be treated thusly by those who are seriously researching their "green building" options

Brock: 3 different projects over several years, in the same area, and SIPs were $ 20k more than the "almost as good" stick framed alternatives on each one? Sounds like quite a coincidence to say the least. However, in your case, the SIP quotes ranged from a $ 10k to a $ 20k premium, and that's quite a swing. However, it does tend to support the concept that no one really understands SIPs in that particular area. Maybe there's an opportunity for some bright, young aggressive contractor to see if he can carve out a niche for himself there.

Also, in order for there to be a true evaluation of your friend's situation as compared to yours, one would need a bit more factual information. I'm not suggesting that you go to the trouble of assembling, and posting, such information, but that anyone who is considering similar tradeoffs just be aware of the issues and implications that are involved. If utility bills were "similar" to yours or even "slightly more", the cost difference of your geothermal system vs his hvac system would be a relevant factor, wouldn't it? In regard to him "not getting his extra $ 20k back when he sold his home", if he sold his home during the last 2 or so years, I think that it would be difficult to assess this situation. Maybe the fact that it was built with SIPs helped to close the sale. If he sold it back when the real estate market was "hot", and he got the same price as similar sized homes, in the same area, with similar amenities, then, yeah, you might chalk that one up as a negative for SIPs in that particular case.

slenzen: I think that you'll probably find that the SIP industry, has held up a bit better than the construction industry as a whole. It had actually started to gain momentum prior to the economic downturn. It'll be interesting to see how things shake out as the economy strengthens, and building picks up again. At this point, I'll be surprised if anyone comes up with a building system that is both "better and cheaper" than SIPs, particularly in areas with stringent building codes, and an emphasis on "green building". Of course there can be no argument against the old economic laws of "supply and demand" along with the elements of efficiencies, lower costs, lower prices, higher volume, etc

toddm: I've got to say that I totally disagree with your economic theories as you apply them to the SIP industry. The same goes for your Dell Computer analogy, totally different industry, totally different set of rules. It is my contention that the SIP industry is doing just fine. There's a wide variety of products out there that are readily available to meet the requirements for a diverse array of projects at a price that is competitive when evaluated against
the "almost as good alternatives".

Also, many projects have been designed, and constructed, utilizing the 4' SIP module, that were not "accidental". This is no doubt the most cost effective way to build with SIPs, even though one can utilize SIPs with virtually any design. There are a number of suppliers who offer predesigned SIP building packages, and at least one major source for plans that are designed for SIPs, (many of which are free) with a partner SIP manufacturer (R-Control)
thats: freegreen.com

Again, as I mentioned in a previous post, all one has to do is "Yahoo", or "Google", the words "Affordable Zero Energy SIP Homes" and they will find scores of projects all over the US.

In regard to that "befuddled ZEH blogger" that you mentioned, I hope that he finds freegreen, but I'm not going anywhere near that blog site, this one is all that I can handle. As far as him being "put off by prices" there's no way to know whether or not he knew what he was comparing those numbers to but the higher price probably included, not only custom cutting, but screws, adhesive/sealant, splines, tape, panel layout drawings, etc. If those companies are charging too much for their products services, they'll not be in business very long, right?

Went to your design website only to discover that there is free and then there is "free." (Missionary to heathen: I'd be happy to explain my theology but first you have to give me two buckets of corn.)