" I was going to talk about PTAC's, but they would say that is a different beast, too. Thousands of hotels use them, too. Cheaper than minisplits, lower maintenance, heats and cools, complete unit, etc. Should be a good candidate."

We've used them as solutions in 3 season rooms for years, however they generally are electric resistance heaters and code minimum efficiency air conditioners. Not sure they fit a discussion on "Green Building." If the same hotel rooms used highend splits or geo consoles that might be "greener".

I Posted By ICFHybrid on 31 Mar 2014 09:03 AM

strange place where you have 6,000 sq ft homes, and you are worried about home invasion.

Thieves sorta go where the money is.

in my neighborhood of much more modest sizes, people leave their garage doors open all day

See my comment above.

You will note that your "alternative" article talked about energy-wasting mcmansions. I would concur with that problem. That's hardly what mine is.

being truly green means having the lowest impact to the earth.

It really doesn't. If that were the case we would all live in yurts and forego overseas trips.

Maybe you can come up with a better definition of what "green" is.

I guess that is a fine sentiment, but I think if you look at the crime blotter in nice towns versus poor areas, I think you will surprise yourself, but another sign of fantasyland.  Homes is nice neighborhoods don't have bars on their windows and doors.  I drive by homes where the average home price is nearly $2 million, and people don't have bars on their windows and doors, and the weekly crime report is some trivial issue.  I am not sure why kind of alternative universe you live in.

I am amazed by your selective reasoning, or I guess you just read the title.  The very first paragraph says exactly what you said.  I am building a green home, even though it is 9,000 sq ft, and the board said you can't build a 9,000 sq ft home.  Seriously, when you post with your 2,800 posts, it just reinforces the idea that you post jibberish.

If you don't like the definition of a word, it doesn't mean you can change it.

How does that go hand in hand about living in yurts?  Most people don't claim to be green, and that is why we have the big homes and the high energy usage that we have.  You, however, are claiming to be green, and the reality is that you aren't. 

Your logic is astounding.  Ninety-nine percent of the population is not green, and they are only looking out for number one.  You claim to be in the 1%, but you are still in the 99%, and you are trying to convince yourself otherwise. 

The facts speak for themselves.

being truly green means having the lowest impact to the earth.

It really doesn't. If that were the case we would all live in yurts and forego overseas trips.

I guess this truly sums it up. You really have no idea what it means to be green.

The very first paragraph says exactly what you said.

Actually, it talks about "energy-wasting homes". This is the second time I've had to point that out to you.

If you don't like the definition of a word, it doesn't mean you can change it.

I have supplied a definition of "green" and asked you to reciprocate, which you haven't done.

Posted By ba_icf on 28 Mar 2014 04:55 PM
It is not so much that I don't like mini splits, but I am just countering the argument that they are sufficient for new home construction.  I believe most people who aren't experts at HVAC don't want to have multiple systems in their household, so they would only choose one heating system.  People keep mentioning that mini splits would work fine for new home construction, but most of the information about particular installs shows that they have to do a variety of things to get it to be a reasonable temperature in all living spaces.  I have seen putting fans in walls, using secondary heat, redesigning the floor plan, keeping doors open, etc as possible solutions to making mini splits work.  I am just saying that if people are trying to convince people that they are a reasonable alternative, then they shouldn't have all of these additional requirements.

I am sure that some people have them and love them.  I am just trying to show the other side of the argument.  If those things don't seem reasonable to someone trying to push mini splits, I think it will be a very hard push to convince the average home that they are a valid option versus ducted systems.  I never considered mini splits in my house.  I am just giving another opinion, which all seem valid to me

Just as an FYI, I will have a tight envelope.  I am using radiant heating on Amdeck flooring.  I have ICF walls.  I will use closed cell attic insulation.  I am using tilt/turn windows.  I am using European doors for my entry door, side patio door, and folding door (like a nanawall).  Every window and door opening will be foam sealed.   All penetrations will be foam sealed. 

I will use ducted A/C, but I am mostly using the ducts to bring fresh air into the house and to cycle it around, and I will use my exhaust fans to send the stagnant air out.  I probably will not need to use A/C for my climate.

Nobody is arguing that mini-splits-only are a reasonable plan for code-min-houses. But it's pretty easy in new construction to design & build in such a way that the approach works, and works well.

It isn't really about being an HVAC expert- it's as much or more about high-efficiency building design as much as it is about HVAC.  Mini-splits have become a popular solution for high-performance homes in colder climates in part because everything else tends to be oversized for the actual loads.  The tweaks you need to do to a truly high-performance design are small to none, but you usually have to do the math & modeling to convince the inspectors, even when the changes were zero.

A standard ICF isn't necessarily a high performance wall assembly- depends on the climate.  For most of the US a minimal ICF beats code-min, but it's silly to presume that ICF is inherently going to meet all thermal and air-tightness goals without modeling it.  A 2.5" + 2.5" EPS ICF just barely meets IRC 2012 code-min in US climate zone 7, and not exactly a super-performance wall assembly even in climate zone 5.

BTW: Please don't screw up the planet by insulating a high-R attic with closed cell foam. Most closed cell polyureathane is the exact opposite of green, unless you seek out water-blown foam (Icynene's 2.0 & 2.2lbs semi-open cell foam, or Aloha Energy's 1.8lb goods) or you can find somebody using a very low global warming potential HFO or HC blowing agent with a GWP less than 10x CO2.  Almost all closed cell polyurethane installed in the US is blown with HFC245fa at about 1000x CO2, and if you're using it for anything more than air sealing or a 1" water vapor control layer it will be environmentally net-negative, unlikely to offset it's damage in reduce energy-use carbon over it's lifecycle.   Both Honeywell and DuPont have released HFO1234yf blowing agent products (GWP = ~4x CO2)  for polyurethane foam, but I don't know of ANY major vendors who have made it their standard.  The EPS used in the ICFs does not have this issue, since almost all EPS is blown with pentane, which has a GWP of ~7x CO2.  But XPS is blown with HFC mixutures, the primary component of which is HFC134a, at ~1400 CO2.

It's possible to air seal a place without using ANY spray foam, but if it's air-sealing you're after, open cell foam tends to do a better job of it, and almost all open cell foam is blown with water (which has a fairly low GWP), and you'd be using 60-75% less polymer to boot.

Based on the manufacturer's website, they say they are using a zero ozone depleting blowing agent.  I know it might not be true, but that is what the technical document on their website says.

I am using BASF spraytite foam.  I am not sure if my installer is using 158 or 178.

Posted By ICFHybrid on 31 Mar 2014 11:59 AM

The very first paragraph says exactly what you said.

Actually, it talks about "energy-wasting homes". This is the second time I've had to point that out to you.

If you don't like the definition of a word, it doesn't mean you can change it.

I have supplied a definition of "green" and asked you to reciprocate, which you haven't done.

Okay, I guess I will have to stop this discussion.  I think we are reading two different articles.  The main gist is that homes are too big, and if you build a house that is twice is big, it will be a net negative, but you can't see that.  I guess I have nothing else to say.

Yes, you are right, I can't read.  Please forgive me.  Will that make you feel better.  It doesn't change the facts, but if it helps you sleep better at night, go for it.

I provided you a definition of green, and you said it wasn't true.  So, I did supply you a definition.  You didn't like it.  It doesn't mean I didn't supply one.

I can walk safely in Atherton at night, where the homes are valued probably on average > $5 million, but I doubt that you would walk at night in East Palo Alto, where the average home price is <$400,000.  However, I am sure that I am wrong again, and you are right.  It is weird how there are so many bars on the windows and doors in East Palo Alto, but almost none in Atherton.  I guess those towns are the exceptions to your rule of more crime where there is more money, and less crime where there isn't any money.

http://www.redfin.com/city/820/CA/Atherton

http://www.redfin.com/city/5401/CA/East-Palo-Alto

Posted By ba_icf on 31 Mar 2014 01:28 PM
Based on the manufacturer's website, they say they are using a zero ozone depleting blowing agent.  I know it might not be true, but that is what the technical document on their website says.

I am using BASF spraytite foam.  I am not sure if my installer is using 158 or 178.

Okay, I just read up on the GWP that you mentioned and I see that it not the same as ODP, which I was quoting.

I will look into some more. 

Posted By ba_icf on 31 Mar 2014 01:28 PM
Based on the manufacturer's website, they say they are using a zero ozone depleting blowing agent.  I know it might not be true, but that is what the technical document on their website says.

I am using BASF spraytite foam.  I am not sure if my installer is using 158 or 178.

HFC245fa is a zero ozone depleting agent. To use an ozone eater would put them in non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol and would not be allowed to do business in most of the developed world.  BASF's proprietary formulation HFC245fa blowing agent for closed cell foam is called Zone3 ®.  This document implies that Zone3 was one of the the very first HFC245fa based blowing agents released to the market. The article seems to lowball the GWP estimate for HFC245fa (at "only" 790x CO2) compared to more recent estimates.  Most put it at 950-1050x CO2.

If BASF's closed cell foam is being used as the primary insulation in the roof it is not a benign choice.

Icynene MD-R-210 is a 2.2lb water blown foam (albeit at only R5/inch compared to R6-7 for the HFC blown goods), and available in many markets. Their 2.0lb MD-R-200 is similar, and somewhat more vapor open- not that it would much matter in even a code-minimum application. (Don't confuse MD-R-200 with MD-C-200, which is also blown with HFC245fa.)

Depending on climate and stackup half-pound open cell foam may be the nicest approach if committed to using foam, but there's nothing particularly enviro friendly about spray foam other than it's air-sealing capability- something that is achievable by other means.

Honeywell has hyping Solstice ®,  for a year or so, and DuPont is hyping Formacel 1100 ®, both of which are primarily HFO1234yf, which is both ozone-friendly AND low GWP. There is some technical dispute to how low it's true GWP is- most estimates are ~4x CO2, others put it at roughly par with CO2.  But either way you're looking at less than 0.5% of the climate damage of HFC245fa blown goods.

unfortunately, my builder started work on this today.  when i went by the house on friday, they gave me the impression it might not even happen this week.  the installer will inform which blowing agent they are using, but it will only be informative, because they have already started.

being truly green means having the lowest impact to the earth.

Ha Ha. I finally found your green definition.

Like I said; you don't know too much about the green movement.

Posted By ICFHybrid on 31 Mar 2014 09:42 PM

being truly green means having the lowest impact to the earth.

Ha Ha. I finally found your green definition.

Like I said; you don't know too much about the green movement.

Stop this stupid argument ICFHybrid ...... this has gone on long enough. Everyone has their own option, some are more green than others. If your using some sort of building material/method which is designed to conserve energy/resources ..... its green, its just a matter of how green it is. If you build a 20,000 sf house in a green energy conservation/resources way it is green, but not near as green as a 1,800 sf home. Bigger the home the less green it would be considered. End of story ....... their is nothing else to be said

This is why you have various levels for energy star ratings, the more you do to conserve energy, the higher the star rating your home can qualify for. Earning Leed points is sort of the same thing also.

their is nothing else to be said

It's important to build a home of the size you actually need. You'll notice that well thought out definitions of green activity talk about sustainability.

Posted By ICFHybrid on 31 Mar 2014 10:35 PM

their is nothing else to be said

It's important to build a home of the size you actually need. You'll notice that well thought out definitions of green activity talk about sustainability.

I think you should change need to want for your definition.  No one needs 6,000 sq ft for 2 people.  if that were true, then no one could live in a house smaller than 3,000 sq ft, but I am pretty sure many people live in homes smaller than that, so it isn't a question of need.  it is a question of want.

Anyway, your dictionary is different than other people.  You can make up your own definitions to satisfy your guilt.  That's fine.  I like how you pick and choose what you want to define yourself as green.  It is like the vegetarians who only eat fish and chicken.  I am a vegetarian who eats beef, pork, chicken, etc.  Just like you are green who is building a 6,000 sq ft house for 2 people.  In reality, I am not a vegetarian because even though I eat vegetables, I also eat meat, just as you are not green.  You might do some green things, but you aren't green by definition.  I can call myself a vegetarian all day, it doesn't change the fact that I am not.

So you have to be a Communist to be "perfectly" Green?

Directly from our website:

Green Building (v) [grēn ˈbildiNG]
The act or process of creating a building that is environmentally sustainable and resource efficient throughout the building's life cycle: from siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and demolition.

So building size isn’t actually part of the green building definition. We have constructed some very large commercial green buildings. Nevertheless, you can still be guilty of the sin of gluttony while fully adhering to the green building philosophy. We personally believe exceeding about 600 SF per person is excessive. We have been happiest when sailing the world with four people with maybe 400 SF total. Some folks never learn that true happiness isn’t about how much you have, but how little you actually need. However, this is more about personal choice and less about green building.

No one needs 6,000 sq ft for 2 people.

Well, of course they might. In any case, I've got three there right now. I hope you aren't thinking that everyone is "the same", because that most certainly isn't true.

I entertain a lot.

And, if I produce a hundred times more than you, I might need a little more space (than you) for things and whatnot.

That’s right, if you control and entertain a lot, you might need several large castles and you may want them to be green castles.

you may want them to be green castles.

The biggest issues with castles are not expecting too much comfort from solid masonry construction and trying not to transport the materials too far. Best to use stone from on-site. Imagine the dunnage in packaging up stone blocks and transporting them.

Posted By BadgerBoilerMN on 01 Apr 2014 09:54 AM
So you have to be a Communist to be "perfectly" Green?

Seriously, is that your take on my comments.  Basically, if you do a bunch of small green things, and one thing that is totally not green, then I would say you aren't truly green.  If I recycle a few cans and compost my food waste, and then build a 6,000 sq ft home for me and my wife, and then I would say you are trying to give the impression that you are green, but you aren't.  It is the same for the Tesla car.  They profess to be green, but a majority of the owners have the maximum sized battery which is about the least green thing you can do with respect to building an electric car.  It is a status symbol of being green.  It is the same people who complain about wearing fur coats while wearing leather shoes.

Just don't be a hypocrite.  Show some consistency.  If you don't show some consistency with regards to a particular definition, then most people would say that you don't satisfy the definition.

Posted By ICFHybrid on 01 Apr 2014 10:13 AM

No one needs 6,000 sq ft for 2 people.

Well, of course they might. In any case, I've got three there right now. I hope you aren't thinking that everyone is "the same", because that most certainly isn't true.

I entertain a lot.

And, if I produce a hundred times more than you, I might need a little more space (than you) for things and whatnot.

I have never said everyone is the same.  I don't care if you build a 100,000 sq ft.  I don't care if you are richer than me.  I don't care if you make more things than Apple.

If you would read what I wrote, I am saying that building a house 2.5 times the average home for less than the average household size is not green, and no matter how you try to justify that you are rich, popular, a pack rat, whatever, it still doesn't make you green.  Saying that you have more stuff and so you need more space to store is just saying in bold letters, "I AM NOT GREEN". 

Live in your high security, super large home, and feel green.  It doesn't change the facts.