Building "Green"

John_M · February 25, 2009, 02:45:38 PM

I love this website becasue it has really helped me design and build my cabin and I am really proud of what I have accomplished so far!!

I am also a high school science teacher and this year I am teaching an AP Environmental Science class. It has really opened my eyes to what we are doing to our planet and has really got me thinking of ways in my everyday life to live "greener".

What I have found out through some research and constant discussions with my students is that living "green" or even building "green" is in most cases really expensive.

I know you can build with reclaimed materials and things like that but in most situations installing a solar electrical system or geothermal heating system has an enormous upfront cost.

If you want to buy a hybrid vehicle....the cost is much higher than a regular vehicle. Any building suplly that labels itself as "green" seems to have a much higher price tag!!!!

A great example is an article I just read about a new structure built in Maine called the BrightBuilt Barn (It has been mentioned on this site before). It is a 700 squarefoot home that is ultra efficient. Claims to not even need a furnace!! In fact it is "net zero plus" which means it creates more energy than it uses. It is really a cool looking place.

Here is the issue though...base price "just under $200,000". Things like water, septic, electrical are extra!!! Great idea but an enormous cost!! With the economy the way it is, it will be more and more difficult to have people on this planet live "green".

www.brightbuiltbarn.com

Coal is very, very plentiful in this country and very inexpensive to remove from the ground!! It is hard to get our society away from a "whatever is cheapest mentality". We see it on this forum. Lot's of statement's like "I have minimal funds" or "where can I get the cheapest materials?" are always popping up!! I don't blame anyone for this.

But until the cost of "going green" requires less green ($$$) it will be difficult to build and live this way!!!

Ernest T. Bass · February 25, 2009, 11:02:31 PM

Well, it kinda seems that there's two different green approaches, a rich man's and a poor man's... You could continue living a modern way of life in a fancy but "low-impact" house fitted with every high-tech "green" gizmo to keep life nice a cushy for $$$, or you could live in a small cob hut and bathe in the creek, which is a much cheaper way of going green.

February 26, 2009, 09:46:02 AM

I hate to sound cynical, but I just don't see how building a new home can ever be called "Green" no matter how many solar panels you put on the roof. This is just an excuse for people with lots of money to burn to go ahead and have their vacation homes without feeling guilty.

To truly live "green" you should take an existing home that is close to where you work, rehab it, make it more energy effiecient and so forth.

My wife and I are planning on building a modest-sized, energy-efficient (and inexpensive) home, not because we want to feel good about ourselves, but because it fits our needs.

Jens · February 26, 2009, 10:16:19 PM

Quote from: jimgranite on February 26, 2009, 09:46:02 AM
I hate to sound cynical, but I just don't see how building a new home can ever be called "Green" no matter how many solar panels you put on the roof. This is just an excuse for people with lots of money to burn to go ahead and have their vacation homes without feeling guilty.

To truly live "green" you should take an existing home that is close to where you work, rehab it, make it more energy effiecient and so forth.

My wife and I are planning on building a modest-sized, energy-efficient (and inexpensive) home, not because we want to feel good about ourselves, but because it fits our needs.

I really like the second statement, as there are thousands of vacant houses in this country, and probably hundreds that get torn down every day because they are condemned. Many of them need about $20k investment to make them new again! I am puzzled though, about your third thing there. Why wouldn't you remodel instead?

IMO, the only way to truly be green with a new house, is to build it only as large as basic needs dictate (in other words, as small as you think you could live with, times .75), as many/most of the houses here are. If you can do it out of reclaimed, or natural, or waste materials, even better. Use as much local resources as possible. Last, build it to last...that means no MDF trim, particle board cabinets, pergo, etc. (I do realize budget does not always run along with this goal). And like Ern said, go low tech! If you become mortgage free, and raise/grow some or all of your needs, or can get it in the community, I think that is the ultimate in green, because all of your energy stays at your house. In other words, no commuting, truckers not needed for you to get your food and supplies, and when low tech, usually less dependent on the resources that are doing the polluting. The way I see it, is that enjoying and working this world the way God intended us to, that is green. If he wanted us to have refrigerators and computers, We would have read about them in the garden of Eden. I'm not saying we (personally) don't have these things, just voicing my opinions on the brass tacks.

Pritch · February 27, 2009, 03:16:54 AM

Quote from: jimgranite on February 26, 2009, 09:46:02 AM
I hate to sound cynical, but I just don't see how building a new home can ever be called "Green" no matter how many solar panels you put on the roof. This is just an excuse for people with lots of money to burn to go ahead and have their vacation homes without feeling guilty.

To truly live "green" you should take an existing home that is close to where you work, rehab it, make it more energy effiecient and so forth.

My wife and I are planning on building a modest-sized, energy-efficient (and inexpensive) home, not because we want to feel good about ourselves, but because it fits our needs.

PFFT! To be truly green you must kill yourself with an organic poison and fall into a hole where your corpse will provide nutrients to Nature.

-- Pritch

February 27, 2009, 02:18:13 PM

Squirl · February 27, 2009, 04:09:41 PM

Living "green" can have so many different interpretations. Is it renewable, low impact, low embodied energy, or how long it lasts? I disagree slightly that building a new house is less green than an already built house depending on what the definition of "green" you use. More energy can be used in restoring fixing up a house that was built poorly than building it correctly from scratch. If you build a house from stone it will last longer and, depending on how you build it, use less energy than a restored log cabin. It depends on how you define green.

MountainDon · February 27, 2009, 06:14:01 PM

Quote from: Squirl on February 27, 2009, 04:09:41 PM
I disagree slightly that building a new house is less green than an already built house depending on what the definition of "green" you use. More energy can be used in restoring fixing up a house that was built poorly than building it correctly from scratch.

Agreed. Building green has to be cost effective. There are old buildings that are not worth spending the money on.

jimgranite · February 27, 2009, 08:58:40 PM

I agree that "green" can have wildly different meanings, depending on who you ask. I hope that Pritchs meaning (that the ultimate Green is just to die, thereby using zero resources) is not the one that wins out.

I spend a lot of time of time reading about green homebuilding techniques, and have found some very useful ideas, but I laugh every time I read about some 5000 sq. ft. log home built on a mountaintop, with a couple of solar panels stuck on the roof to make it "green."

February 28, 2009, 12:36:05 PM

Meanwhile I have seen a 5000 sq ft house that was built with a passive solar design and uses less energy than most 1500 sq. ft. houses. The shows that can really outrage me are the ones on the green living network. They incorporate one "green" idea into a 6,000 sq. ft house and call the house green. Normally the homes cost $800,000 to $1,000,000. Adding a $30,000 solar array to your house that can't even cover you monthly energy consumption isn't green to me. Green is cutting your consumption in my book.

glenn kangiser · March 01, 2009, 12:35:39 AM

I call the green movement the faux green movement. The real green movement big business talks about costs lots of money -- that is the reason for all of the green noise.

I'll go with my and Andrews green any day.... and yes - our solar off grid system is rather expensive but satisfying and it makes us true faux green.

We us about 1 1/2 to 2 cords of wood cleaned up off our property for heating - can't get much greener than that.

Ernest T. Bass · March 01, 2009, 12:43:11 PM

We're on track to burn about 5 cords of aspen this year, and it's been pretty cold.. Not too bad considering our walls have gotten rather drafty as the logs fully dried out. We need to apply a layer of plaster over the mortar outside to help in that department..

BobHHowell · March 01, 2009, 01:38:52 PM

I have always liked red, blue, and even brown better.

What's the big deal about buying all this green stuff? Its just dumb.

John Raabe · March 01, 2009, 09:05:21 PM

Green has certainly become a marketing term - and part of its allure is that it offloads the guilt of ecological responsibility. This confuses things as some want the badge of "green certification" mainly for the feel good aspect.

I think the green movement works to its highest purpose when the green of money is conserved at the same time as the "green" of the environment.

Things that do both:
• build small (less SF to maintain, heat, cool, etc)
• build simple (simple shape = less materials, recycle materials, etc)
• build efficient (good insulation, open floor plan, orient for use of natural energy like sun and breezes)

A good friend in BC Canada is involved with a demonstration project called "Harmony House".
Check out some of the planned features: http://www.harmony-house.ca/gallery.html

March 01, 2009, 09:39:29 PM

Interesting John. R40 walls! Wow!

glenn kangiser · March 02, 2009, 01:42:19 AM

That makes more sense, John. Once the marketers get ahold of stuff with their stupid little catch phrases, I tend to despise them.

lipadier · March 02, 2009, 04:57:03 AM

Here in switzerland the word "greenhouse" means a small glass shed in the garden.

Instead of "green house" we use "Niedrigenergiehaus" for buildings which means "Low energie using house". And this label is protected by clear government standards. So either you have such a house or you don't.

Squirl · March 02, 2009, 09:07:09 AM

When I saw BP advertising themselves as green, I knew everyone latched on to the bandwagon. It is up to the consumer to do their due diligence.

glenn kangiser · March 03, 2009, 02:49:26 AM

Hmm - I have some BP Enron Solar Panels -- they have to be green, don't they?

Mark L. · March 03, 2009, 08:32:39 AM

In reply to the original post, building green is not always expensive. The initial cost is more (im talking residential construction) but there is a estimated "payback." I toured the Great River Energy Center for one of my classes at school, which is a several million dollar building, and they had a four year payback on the "green" building style they used. Keep in mind that this is an office building that has the room for up the 300 or so employees. A windmill was built, they have a fairly small solar array on the roof, but what really interested me was their heating system. They have, if i remember correctly, three massive heat pumps that take care of all their heating and cooling costs. What is used is a small man made pond outside their building. This building was built more as an example by the energy company to how "green" something can be built. http://greatriverenergy.greentouchscreen.com/ Here is a link if anyone is interested, the building information is in a very simple form, but it is interesting. On the bottom click green pages, then green features to view some direct information. Oh, and forgot to mention about natural lighting. I was there on an overcast day, and no lights were needed in almost the entire building because of properly placed windows and open offices. All of the lights were on a sensor so when it got dark enough, the lights would come on. Right now in my carpentry class we have built a "green" home using ICF foundation and following the MN Greenstar certification process which is more strict than LEED. If anyone is interested I could provide some more info. By the way, I'm in no way new here, but just new to posting. Greetings from central MN. I will post some pictures of my on going "shack" as soon as I borrow a camera from a friend. Thank you all for all the useful information I have learned from this site.

Mark L.

March 03, 2009, 08:43:14 AM

Great information Mark!!

When I started the post...I guess I was commenting on how everything labeled as "green" seemed to cost more. Even at the grocery store you can buy "green" paper towels, but expect to pay a few cents more.

Its not suprising to see people making a profit off of it though...that is the society we live in.

I guess it depends on which "green" you're talking about.

Mark L. · March 03, 2009, 09:23:01 AM

Yeah but keep in mind a product labeled as green, is only as green as it is manufactured. It is easy to use that as a marketing technique but the company has to follow through. Like glenn said, the move towards being green is a "faux movement." It may catch on, hopefully it does and makes us more efficient as a whole. In no way am I an environmental nut, but to me it seems like this is something to look into. With the state of the economy right now nobody wants to spend the extra dollar for a product.

Jens · March 04, 2009, 10:15:32 AM

Like some others have said, one of the largest lies of the green movement, is that a house over 2000 square feet can ever be called a "green" house. It makes me so angry to see the amount of resources that go into a house that size, whether materials or money. Most of the time they use inferior materials too, so that they can still have a huge house in their budget range. If you have 4-6 kids, or more, I can begin to understand a house that big, but the largest houses are usually inhabited by no more than 4 people.

People argue with me, and say, "well, it's their money, let them build a big house", but how much good could that missappropriated budget do in the world? I mean, 30,000 people die each day for lack of clean drinking water! And that can cost as little as $3000 or less to put in a well that will service a whole village. So when I think about people using too much in the way of material or monetary resources on their house, it makes my stomach turn. It just seems like very poor stewardship of the Master's funds to me.

waggin · April 18, 2009, 07:16:52 PM

Ever heard the term, "greenwashing?" Like the Fonz jumping the shark, the green building hype is interesting to observe, and definitely overplayed. A lot of companies are claiming "green products" while really accomplishing very little in resource conservation. And yes, I agree that a 5,000 square foot house for one couple hardly qualifies as "green."

from Wikipedia: "Greenwash (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term used to describe the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources."

Some of the green ideas can be incorporated for very little additional expense, though. Things like orientation, window placement, ventilation, insulation, sealing for air infiltration, wise selection of framing design and insulation, and more can be done without spending a lot more money.

Pritch · April 18, 2009, 10:47:22 PM

Quote from: Jens on March 04, 2009, 10:15:32 AM
Like some others have said, one of the largest lies of the green movement, is that a house over 2000 square feet can ever be called a "green" house. It makes me so angry to see the amount of resources that go into a house that size, whether materials or money. Most of the time they use inferior materials too, so that they can still have a huge house in their budget range. If you have 4-6 kids, or more, I can begin to understand a house that big, but the largest houses are usually inhabited by no more than 4 people.

People argue with me, and say, "well, it's their money, let them build a big house", but how much good could that missappropriated budget do in the world? (Excuse me, misappropriated!? Anybody who has cash is a robber baron and his assets belong to the world? ) I mean, 30,000 people die each day for lack of clean drinking water! (Yeah, and my mom used to tell me to clean up my plate because there were people starving in China. ) And that can cost as little as $3000 or less to put in a well that will service a whole village. So when I think about people using too much in the way of material or monetary resources on their house, it makes my stomach turn. It just seems like very poor stewardship of the Master's funds to me. (It seems to me The Master spends much more time telling us how to be good stewards of our own resources, not our neighbors'.)

Jens, it is always easy for you to point at somebody who has more than you and say that they are wrong/wasteful/have too much. Of course, many of those in those parts of the world that you were voicing concern for would probably say the same thing about you. I'm sick of people thinking it is their business how I spend my money! I choose to give a significant part of our household income to charity because I take "The Master's" commands seriously. Collectivists spouting this philosophy want to tax all of the fruit of MY LABOR and dispense it (or a few pennies on the Dollar after costs) to who they feel is deserving. Studies have shown that these people don't tend to part with their own pennies for charity!

-- Pritch