Hi Folks,
I am a newbie, and yet have a year or so before I build my own place. So please pardon the ignorant question(s). Is building green more costly then building a home the traditional way? It seems that going eco-friendly does add up to the general cost but there must be ways to keep the costs either similar or low.
What areas can be upgraded to eco-friendly that don’t add that much more to the building bill?
What areas in the building process / materials can be cheaper going eco-friendly?
Sorry about the vague question but I just wanted to see what I should further explore before starting to build.
Spaceghost
Replies
Spaceghost,
Materials selection is wildly over-rated in importance by those promoting green construction. Far more important -- and a great opportunity for saving money -- is reducing the size of the house. Build it very, very small. You'll save money during construction, you'll save energy when you live there. That's green.
SpaceGhost
I agree with Martin 100% build it small!
Check out the "Not so Big House" series of books.
Carefully consider the size of your rooms and fine tune them to reduce waste. If you want a room aprox 12 ft wide..consider reducing to 11 ft 4 inches wide and then you can use 12 ft long joists above instead of buying 14 ft joists and filling up your dumpster.
spaceghost,
I'd like to take a shot at answering that. I built my home green.. that is I used mostly locally available materials, added some recycled stuff, built it highly energy efficent and, here's where I really offend some,,,,, Built it large!
My thinking is two smaller houses use much more energy than one large house. and one large house uses even less energy than three smaller houses..
You cannot just cram in two families even if they are related into a small home.. it doesn't allow needed private space.. However if the house is large enough the space can be private while energy efficent and still available for privacy.
Now as to cost.
If you place a high priority on energy efficency you will have a higher cost than tradional building methods. Except! If you do it yourself.. Some of the higher costs are because very few builders are really into anything more than talk about energy efficency.. thus they commmand a premium for the real energy efficent methods of building, ie SIP's or ICF's
Just to give you an idea of what actually can be done I helped a friend design his new house. He built with ICF's for basement & walls and with SIP's for the ceiling..
He built a 4000 sq.ft. house for $100,000.00 He used local sawmill wood, and timberframed the interior his wood costs were $6000.00 compared to a normal lumberyard bill of $45-50,000. He bought surplus windows/doors for about 1/4 of what lumberyards wanted. ( he used what was available rather than fixate on a particular size and then incorporated them into the design) From teardown of his old house to the point to weathered in, it was about 30 days.. he did 90% of the work himself with family and friends contributing the rest.. it took him an additional 2 years to finish off all the details but he worked part time nights and weekends.. The second story is just bare. He has no need or plans for the space but it's there when he sells it..
So his 30 days of time off work saved him hundreds of thousands of dollars..
Even if "building green" DOES cost the original builder more when it's built, what savings will homeowners realize over the lifespan of the building? How much will inhabitants save in medical bills? How will society benefit from less embodied energy needed to build it? How much will our descendants benefit from use of less toxins and more biodegradable products?
You ask a simple question. But the answers are complex. How do we measure "cost"? What IS "building green" anyway?
Keep asking, though. Dialogue (sp?) is an important stimulant. I know I'm going to be thinking about this a lot today, mostly because I read your question. Thanks for that.
Remodeling contractor who once visited the Glass City.
Thanks everyone for the responses so far. I am planning on staying in the NYC area and I work from home so economically I can't afford to build too big of a house but at the same time because I work from home I do need a little extra walking/thinking space. I would be happy with a 2500 sq. ft. home plus basement and/or garage, though I would LOVE to have 3000 sq. ft. It seems in general that sq/ft in NYC will run me about $300+, not to mention the fact that a fifth of an acre of empty land can go for $300k+ so already because my location in NYC area I am already disadvantaged.
As for green building, I want to be able to reach some type of a financial compromise where I do use and go green, but at the same time it doesnt kill my finances. Let me give you an example. A few years ago someone turned me onto IKEA. I have heard of them before but never cared to visit them. In my recent couple of visits I actually learned that their kitchens are super cheap plus they make consciencious efforts to have minimal environmental impact. This to me is a win/win situation. I will certainly try to purchase materials that have already been used and that are low impact on mama earth.
Here is a little more information... My wife and I both are career people. She is a doctor and I have a web design company. So building this on our own is impossible. Not to mention that we have one baby now and want another one in the future. Besides, I don't know anything about building homes... For now my goal is to find an architect and a contractor who will be able to work with me and my budget. I understand that a good architect will write up the materials list and their job is to go on the building site and make sure that everything is used in accordance to their specs. In all likely hood, six months before we are ready, I will assemble the team of people to work with me. Thanks for bringing up an important point that many contractors talk green but either want more money for this "exotic" development or are not that educated. I think this reinforces the importance of putting them to a litmus test and seeing what type of work they have done before that is considered green.
I am seriously considering the use of solar panels despite the fact that our winters are a little gray here. At the very least in the sunny summers it will be great to run AC without worrying about sucking energy from the grid (not to mention the power outages NYC gets in real hot summers).
Some more questions...
Any web sites you folks found to be very useful for building green?
Any online stores you found to be green friendly and affordable (like IKEA)?
Any sites out there that have a good selection of green-friendly architects?
As you can all see this is just the beginning of it all for me.
Many Thanks!Spaceghost
"(like IKEA)?"there was a thread not too long ago about IKEA you should read
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter WFR
"But when you're a kibbutzer and have no responsibility to decide the facts and apply the law, you can reach any conclusion you want because it doesn't matter." SHG
spaceghost,
OK, think outside of the box here.. The box has you building with 2x4's imported from Canada or elsewhere and shipped to you possibly across country.. that isn't green.. period..
The typical builder will do what he knows and can bang together while making a buck.. 98% OF ALL HOMES ARE STICK BUILT.. THAT MEANS 98% OF ALL BUILDERS HAVE NEVER BUILT GREEN.. SIP's and ICF's are extremely energy efficent ways to build a home.. Which you use is a function of several things..
There are individuals out there who understand that the future isn't in stick building and want to try to get into alternative methods.. the trick is to find them.. Then have a plan whereby the risk of new technique is shared.. that means cost plus deals are out.. as is most green building if price is paramount..
Sit down with a bunch of builders and throw out your question. (with the information you've given here).. look for someone who's really creative.. You may not need a architect.
I didn't when I designed mine.. the kitchen goes here the bathroom there, you want a east side of the house for the master bedroom etc..
Make up your own rules and draw things on paper.. No need to be exact, ballons will work just fine.. bedroom here and there bathroom in between. Realize that building up is dramatically cheaper than building out but require stairs. (the first floor cost him 90,800 and the second floor cost him the last $9200.
I suspect that my friend could have found the right builders to help him build his house for another $100,000
Please, that is ridiculous. Using ICFs and SIPs doesn't automatically make your home green, just as building a stick framed house doesn't automatically make your home un-green.
Green paint makes your house green. Green mold makes your house green. Everything else is a compromise between competing requirements. One can work to achieve a valid compromise, or just go with the flow and let the marketing folks decide for you.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
jessie,
many times things are said on the internet in an attempt at brevity that can betaken out of context. You are guilty of just such an assumption.. Not that you are to blame.. what I wrote could easily have been taken out of context and I don't fault you for doing so..
However, green means a great deal, sustainability and efficency are two such priorities.. At times they are at odds with each other.. For example insulation tends to be a high net user of energy while it's long term payback can be greater than it's intial usage.. So which is more green? Useage of an efficent insulation or burning of more fuel to provide warmth during the winter?
It's generally considered to be more green to build better insulation than to suffer without insulation.. your opinion may differ, objects in the morror are closer than they appear, close cover before striking, etc..
Stick building is normally not green... Look at the source of those 2x4's. (plywood etc.) If they aren't local how far were they hauled before arriving at your building site? What sort of fuel was consumed cutting down those trees hauling them into being milled, and etc.. then compare the energy usage of a typical stick built home to that of an ICF or a SIP home..
Please don't attempt to obviscate the issue with how well built your house is. The R value of a stud is next to nothing and when they are doubled (or worse) as they often are that is an area of several inches with virtually no insulational value.. Something that doesn't happen in SIP or ICF construction..
If you build with adobe in New Mexico you can honestly say that you are building green.. If you are building with logs in Calfornia you cannot claim that.. much of what can be said about building Green is a local issue.. What local resources are available, how much oil does it take to convert them into a living habitate and how long will that habitate last all determine what is green and what isn't.. Importation of non local ingrediants must be calculated on a real net carbon cost before an actual determination of green nn green can be determined. However I can stand by my statement,, typical stick built construction is simply not green.
No one who stick builds, builds green. That's sorta nuts. Do you realize the amount of energy it takes to produce concrete? You have to mine and bake the raw materials usually with electricity made by coal which is shipped from the nearest coal producing region. You then have to ship your cement to your local ready mix plant.
I'm not saying ICF's are not a good product but painting anything one size fits all when you are talking about the marketing boondogle, green building, is silly. Just like some bizarre justification of building a larger home so you could someday use it as a multifamily dwelling.
If you want to do anything in a conservative environmentally responsable way you need to engage in planning, planning and more planning. Green products are usually just normal products with a few possibly environmental features touted really loudly.
Jason
Yeah, nothing is "perfectly green". The closest you can come is to use recycled materials, but even then you're almost certain to create a degree of toxic waste from machining the old materials.What you're looking for is a reduced overall environmental "footprint", considering both building and operating/maintenance issues, and even disposal when it comes to that. The "footprint" will never be zero, and it's not feasible for the average person to "optimize" down to the smallest footprint possible, but you can reduce the impact by a factor of 4-10 with a bit of care and thought.And don't feel that "green" requires going "off grid" or any such. It's likely "greener" overall to "buy" wind power from your utility than to put up your own windmill or PV array. "Green" doesn't equate to "going hippie" or becoming a survivalist.And, to get back to the original question, over the long term "green" is almost always going to be a money-saver, if you look at impact and don't get distracted by fads. In particular, any steps taken to reduce energy usage usually have a very quick "payback".
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Jason 99,
ICF's can be green in spite of the oil used in their creation! You need to figure in durability, efficency and energy savings potential to arrive at that.
Since concrete is an extremly durable material it has the potential to provide hundreds or maybe even thousands of years of use. There are some examples of concrete the Romans used that remain today. In a combined package like an ICF the sum can be greater than it's parts.. That's the case with both SIP's and ICF's
Yes oil was used in both the creation of the foam and making the concrete and delivering it. How much more than cutting down a forest, hauling the wood to the mill, hauling the lumber to the lumber yard and then to your jobsite is a real close case.. Most concrete is made from locally available materials. Most wood comes from rather distant forests.. I'm still amazed at how far some studs or plywood come from at the local lumberyard..
The average home in America is 56 years old before it's either torn down and hauled off to a landfill or so dramatically remodeled it may as well have been.. The wood going into landfills from homes built 56 years ago is old growth stuff.. trees that took maybe thousands of years to grow.. America only has 2% of it's old growth forests left so 98% of old growth timbers are due to be hauled into land fills while an attempt to make a more efficent modern home is done..
Jason I do absolutely agree with you about the misuse of the term green! If a tree that took 100 years to grow is cut down to make a home that lasts no more than 56 years that type of construction is not sustainable.. If it's not sustainable then it's not green.. it's that simple.. however the more durable the end result is and the less fuel that is used either in it's construction or it's lifespan as heating the more sustainable the home is and the more green it is..
We need a green rating.. so and so for sustainablity, so and so for energy consumption during it's construction, and so and so for energy use during it's lifetime.
Frenchy,
I agree with you however, the statistics I have seen show our housing lasting even less in the us. If I recall from How Buildings Learn, I think that book claimed somewhere in the neiborhood of thirty in the US and fifty in Europe. Most of that was not by nature but owner choice.
I just have a problem with the whole green building movement. I think of myself as being a conservationist. I've just seen to many wheat board cherry cabinets shipped halfway across the country to replace raised panel cherry cabinets that were not green thrown into the dumpster, boom now we have a LEED rating. I have read the lead criterion and have not to my knowlege ever worked for or seen a builder who could not qualify with their current building program. It is a product driven movement not a thinking driven movement. The more extra green products you can buy makes your house more green hmmm consumerism.
I am not a hippy and do not even think being off grid is green in anyway. If you are off grid and have access you are still wasting energy though the wasted creation of your alternative system. If you are outside of a grid a distance that makes power transmission an unreasonable prospect then by all means use an alternative source. It will always be more efficient to have a universal source of electricity. It would also be more intelligent to make that source more sustainable and efficient.
I guess my point is if you buy something or build something because it is touted as green you are a sucker. You need to on an individual and local basis spend more time planning and considering the lifecycle of your home and its componets, you may spend more on some features with a longer payback period and you may spend less by choosing to not buy something extra just because it is green.
Since I am ranting anyway people that think that buying carbon credits are a reasonable aproach to environmentalism are azzholes.
Jason:)
Jason 99
You make a couple of interesting points. I do think the numbers you have are off a bit.. in that while a home may be remodeled as you say every 30 years or so.. I don't feel that tossing some sheetrock and plywood in the dumpster is a particularly grevious crime. I do have an issue with tossing 2x4's from old growth douglas fir trees into the dumpster a major crime. Simply because it's cheaper to buy new than to pay someone to stand there and pull nails simply cannot be justified (in my humble opinion)
I do agree that some people jump on band wagons and more than a little bit of those who advocate the green movement do so for fincial reasons rather than any real concern about this finite Earth.
I am a hippy (at heart) I read Mother Earth News and I try to minimise my impact on the planet but I try to do so in an intelligent manner with an eye towards the long term.. Some of us honestly believe that and act accordingly.
Finally while the buying and selling of carbon credits does on the surface seem to be just a rich mans way to ease his guilt, it honestly will have some long term benefits.. I don't know of a CEO or top management in the world who wouldn't sooner or later try to eliminate his creation of pollution rather than continue to pay money to others in order to continue polluting..
This has the potential to creating a whole new industry and job market.. Imagine GE hiring so pimplely faced kid out of College to reduce pollution. OR some electronics wizard figures out how to drive things with capacitance instead of inductance.. The first genius who figures that out will become the next Bill Gates..
At a minimum we are now talking about ways to solve the problem rather than denying that the problem exists..
We need a green rating.. so and so for sustainablity, so and so for energy consumption during it's construction, and so and so for energy use during it's lifetime.
Absolutely, but put it into $$ terms. I think for most of us who are, or hope to be, homeowners, green building is best sold as a money saving idea, with incidental environmental benefits. People give up their big SUVs because they get tired of spending $80 to fill the tank, not because they care about global warming or anything else enough to change their lifestyle.
If using ICF/SIP/ etc. will result in less oil, gas, wood, etc. to heat or cool a dwelling, once the usage is quantified and compared with alternatives, and realistic increases in projected costs for fuels are plugged in, most people will spend a little more today to save a little each month for the life of the structure if the numbers make sense. Builders and architects need to be able to show clients the numbers though, because some vague appeal to protect the bunnies won't do it for most people.
Getting the technologies into common use is hard, because people do what they already know how to do. The "tipping point" will come when contractors and subs who don't or won't employ green building (whatever it means) can't find work. Some wagonmakers learned to fix cars and some didn't.
"Some wagonmakers learned to fix cars and some didn't."
That's an excellent point. But the problem I keep running into out here in Washington is not the lack of interested customers so much as an understanding of what "green" is. People in their 50s, looking to remodel or add on, are looking for builders who can lead them through the process. So if you want to "build green" YOU have to be the leader. It's pretty hard to lead something you don't understand. Remodeling contractor who once visited the Glass City.
Yep, to me the real green is the old time hippie green stuff. Funny thing is, a lot of folks wanting green houses now, used to be hippies, then made some money, and now want to be comfortably green<G> I'm also doing an addition/remodel for some friends in their 60s. They've lived in a 900 sq' house for 30 years. Wood stove for heat, whole house fan for cooling. Upgrading to 1800sq' with geothermal system...I don't have to lead them, just point them in the direction...and I get to learn something at the same time<G> I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Well, she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
As for green building, I want to be able to reach some type of a financial compromise where I do use and go green, but at the same time it doesnt kill my finances.
Exactly. The way I approached that was to consider every alternative I could find. Spent several years reading. Finally came up with something that worked extremely well for us, both financially and left a clear conscience. This forum would have made my life much easier at the time.
The problem: when you hire someone, you will do it her/his way. That leaves you looking at construction methods to determine your builder. Which may very well not work out. Then you go to your second construction choice and hope that builder will be a better fit with you. Or... do what's common here, build a standard, reasonably efficient house, install bamboo floors, and call it green.
Like frenchy, I DIYed (not a GC or even a carp, my first house). Would have been impossible to get ours any other way. "Green" is highly variable and up for much disagreement. You have to determine where on the continuum your standard is.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Hi Tom,
Solid advice. Each one of us has a definition and a compromise of what "Green" is considered. From what I am reading between the lines is that there is a clear boundary between what architects want and what builders are willing to do. So it almost sounds to me (as a first time home builder- meaning someone will build it for me) is that I should hire an architect first, plan everything out, write up the requirements list as well as materials list and then try to find a contractor to build this?
My bottom line is that I will not be building the house. I have a business I run, plus a family. If I save myself 100k in building a place, I will probably lose 100k in my business. I would LOVE to learn how to build but... maybe in a later stage in my life.
So how should one proceed with the whole relationship then? Is it better to find an architect first before a contractor? I realize that many of you are contractors but am curious what is the best approach to minimize any friction or dissapointments.
Thanks
So how should one proceed with the whole relationship then? Is it better to find an architect first before a contractor? I realize that many of you are contractors but am curious what is the best approach to minimize any friction or dissapointments.
Sorry, no blueprint works there. My experience indicates that design/build is preferable, but that could very well fail you.
For instance: good friend here hired a well-recommended architect, gave him a list of must-haves. Did not adequately review the plans. Well-respected builder did his best to accomodate the client. Cost was not well-contained. Fortunately the HO had deep pockets. He also made the mistake of asking my advice.
Which was mostly that he shouldn't ask anyone not involved in the project. He did get a fresh air system that neither the archy nor the builder had any idea about. Had to do the research to find an HVAC guy who really was more than a HAC. Other than that, I butted out. We'll talk about his underground swimming pool another year.
This house was considerably more expensive than what you're thinking, both from the plan and from the execution. Certainly I learned a lot from the experience. It's an amazing house.
What you're contemplating is probably the most stressful undertaking you could attempt. My normal advice is: don't. Purchasing existing housing certainly has its drawbacks, but it's usually simpler to manage. For me, buying existing was an unrealistic option. I won't suggest your best path.
Good luck. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
I would be happy with a 2500 sq. ft. home plus basement and/or garage, though I would LOVE to have 3000 sq. ft.
Now, one of the best "green" things to do first (and something I think/speculate Frenchy was getting at earlier) is to really attack your preconceptions.
Really, you could live in a 1600sf 3/2; even with a growing family. Would that be ideal? I don't know. But, such things become "locked in" early--which gets in the way of things.
Architect & builder will have a specific "mind set" if you bring one to this--which is why I bring it up. If, though, you can go, well, our furniture takes up this amount of sapce; we want these items in these rooms--that matrix can be "worked" by a good design professional to give you a "best compromise." That compromise will also mean less "waste" on spaces not really needed, or not really important, or whatever. It gives you a starting point that skims off the dross of "all the other (tract) houses have it, our ought to, too" thinking that clouds the issue.
Once you have that place to "stand," you can then start looking for fulcrumae for materials selections, methodologies, etc. Some plan shapes "want" different answers.
Note that challenging assumptions also lets you look at other things. Like how long are you living in this house? Ten years is a different answer than twenty. Should the house "last"? Is another question (and one rarely addressed as "green"). If the scheme is the house lasts as long as its parts, you will choose those parts differently, to my thinking, than if you just go "it has to last my lifetime only."Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Yeah, even if one is determined to build something large, "The Not So Big House" should be required reading to help select which features are or aren't in keeping with one's lifestyle. In the vast majority of homes, eg, you can do away with the living room and formal dining room, and often a small kitchen is better than a large one.What IS important, though, as Susanka points out, is having a number of "intimate" areas in the house -- relatively cozy spots where people can sit and talk or read or whatever, with a modicum of privacy. It's often the lack of such spaces, oddly, that drives people to seek larger homes.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
It's often the lack of such spaces, oddly, that drives people to seek larger homes
Too true. Have to have that 22 x 28 family room, since it was not designed to have a TV and its builder-requisite fireplace, and a couch and a recliner and the game station and . . .
And since we all have TVs (even if we do not wish to admit it), we have to have space for them. How much space? Who knows, just make all the bedrooms 30-50% larger--that will fix it, right?
Gee, we take that oh-so-very-blank wall with the too-small window in it (which is perverse, since its sill is 15" high, and has a transom over it, so that it's 15" from the 10' ceiling <eyeroll>). Take that wall. Apply some semi-stock tall cabinets on either side (if you've lived a good life, the window below the transom lite will "hit" a stock cabinet height). Set some 15" tall drawer units between the two taller ones. Now, put a top on the drawer units. Get poofy pillows from the store, or have the upholsterer custom-up a cushion for the top (do not forget to tinish the tops of the tall cabs if they don't reach the ceiling).
Voilá, an intimate space (and storage space, too <G>)Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Building "Green" is more in the eye of the beholder than in any real practical sense.
In commercial you can buy credits to qualify your building to be green which is hypocricy at best.
We have become obsessed at living in a sterile environment surrounded by catch phrases and acrynoms that use up half the alphabet.
Want to build green, build to your needs and not to your wants. Build well and only use products that will not beat you to the landfill.
The difference between a 300 dollar low E argon filled window and a 50 dollar single pane HD window is 250 dollars and an R2 improvement. Cut the number of windows down to reason and reduce the size of all of them and that will make a real difference in your fuel bill.
High efficiency windows are hype to feed the gulliable.
Gabe
Gabe,
Not so fast buddy!
If you cut down the number and size of windows you increase the need for light and thus increase the use of electricity..
In a very real sense windows do more than simple provide a view.. Up here in the great North we know that SADs is a real issue. Lack of natural light drives many people to depression. IT's well documented and clinically tested. In addition suicide rates increase dramatically with those stuck in offices or other places where there is no natural light.
So you see what appears to be so simple on the surface gets more complicated as you begin to fully understand all the ramifications. Waste more money heating rooms with windows or waste money on doctors and shrinks.
If you cut down the number and size of windows you increase the need for light and thus increase the use of electricity.. I was referring to people who install virtual walls of windows in their homes. Nothing wrong with modest sized windows. Take a look around most built up subdivisions and you will find "blinds of all kinds". People who build subdivisions don't take lighting into consideration, only the asthetics of the size and location of windows. Homes are not oriented to maximize the sun's benefits anymore. Being more intelligent with window sizes does not increase but decrease the use of electricity.
In a very real sense windows do more than simple provide a view.. Up here in the great North we know that SADs is a real issue. Lack of natural light drives many people to depression. IT's well documented and clinically tested. In addition suicide rates increase dramatically with those stuck in offices or other places where there is no natural light. Windows provide light and the house's location provides the view. Up here in the great North, cabin fever is caused by staying inside the CABIN all winter long and watching television or playing video games all day long. Here in the great North, we have learned that being active in the winter negates cabin fever and the depression that accompanies it.
So you see what appears to be so simple on the surface gets more complicated as you begin to fully understand all the ramifications. Waste more money heating rooms with windows or waste money on doctors and shrinks. So what you make out to be complicated is simply people having to much time to think about life and not using any of that precious time to live it.
Reasonble sized windows equals reasonble sized electricity bills, period.
Gabe
Gabe,
OK if I accept the idea that reasonable sized windows equals reasonable sized electric bills, who's to decide what is reasonable? YOU?
Honestly Gabe, much of what you say makes good sense and I do happen to agree with you. However the overall tone of your post is what I seem to find offensive. I'm not trying to be critical here, or offend you, I just feel that perhaps what you are saying could be said in a less confrontational manner..
If I'm out of line please disregard and I'll apologize..
You know, it's funny. Around here, the basement counts in square footage, so we would say "1600 sf, 800 finished". And no, I can't live in 800 sf given our current possessions. We use every single square foot of our home for something, and we use every room in it every single day (except the utility/laundry room, I use that as little as possible).
Because storage is always an issue for me, as in "What items get put away every day but need easy access, and what items are like my skis that need easy but not daily access, and what items are like my college diploma which needs a storage place but is never accessed", my ideal home has not been built. I would build my home around a beautifully designed and organized warehouse, er, closet - central to the entire home. All the rooms would satellite around it and everything I own or will ever own would have a home. The warehouse will have some "private" space for everybody, but most things will be accessible from all parts of the house, so I don't have to track across the living room to get a towel to clean my muddy but happy children just because we forgot to bring some towels to the back door ahead of time. With this design, I could live in 800 sq ft, but the warehouse would need to be 4,000 so I could turn the forklift around :)
I would build my home around a beautifully designed and organized warehouse, er, closet
And there's a glorious logic to that. Wouldn't it be fun to come across an "old" house built that way (back to my thought on should we bother to make houses last).
To my thinking, and my reading of Susanka, part of the intimacy of spaces ahs to do with how they hold, how they store, our "stuff."
Hmm, it occurs that makes for an interesting "green" argument--which is better, well-designed built-ins, or stock furniture? We could argue that the furniture makers use far far too much high VOC or alleged outgassing materials. Further, I suppose that there is an argument about the fuel cost in hauling furniture to the store, and then to the house, and then to every other house when moving. Whoda thunk furniture was under-sustainable?Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I love builtins to a point. That point ends when the shelf isn't tall enough for my mixer, or the benches are too far apart for my whispered conversation. I like to be able to move seating around as needed, and periodically we change rooms around just for the heck of it.
That point ends when the shelf isn't tall enough
Gee, back to well-designed again <g>
Seating sure does make it hard to be pedantic, though <g>. Can't really have a chair without a light fixture (for task lighting); and you really need a table of some sort within arm's reach.
Hmm, more thinking to do . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Sounds like one of those automated parking garages would be your ideal home.
Spaceghost,
Since you are interested in solar, my reading (no experience yet) indicates that one of the most important things you can do, and probably the least expensive, is site placement. By placing the house properly you can either take advantage of passive solar design or you can make it impossible. Look at your climate, preferably the microclimate on your lot, and determine what direction the house should "face", where should the windows be for a heating/cooling climate, how much overhang do you need at your latitude to get sun entering the home in winter and shaded in the summer. Your decision to have a basement makes true passive solar difficult because you can't get the sun warming the slab, but if you take advantage of the space in the basement as living space you have the ground helping you with heating and cooling.
Solar power has many permutations. You can use it just to heat water fairly inexpensively. You can use it for power without battery storage. This will actually run the meter backward in times of low usage, but it won't work in a power outage. You can go full solar with storage as your most expensive option. One thing to factor in to the cost of solar power is the cost of appliances. In order to reduce electrical load, fully solar homes buy "non-standard" appliances, and use gas where those types of appliances are available, such as stoves and dryers.
Hi,
You were asking:"Any web sites you folks found to be very useful for building green?"You might find some helpful material here:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SolarHomes/solarhomes.htmParticularly the "Construction Types" area.Gary
Thanks much GaryGary! I am enjoying this site quite a bit. Excellent sources and its rather interesting to see how far some people go for being green. In high school I was a republican. Now 10 years later I am an independent tree huggin, hybrid driving guy who loves his 8 month old daughter and is looking into dishing some major money into solar panels. Looking at this site, I realize that I've evolved quite a bit...
Thanks again!
Filip
independent tree huggin, hybrid driving guy I dont think, I could jump in front of a bulldozer to save a tree but I do like walking in the woods. and I am cheap so I could drive a hybird.does that make me a bleeding heart liberal.A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do...
Hi,I'll also plead guilty to being a hybrid driving, tree hugger, but I'm not sure I'd ever admit to being a republican :) I have a new grandson, which I think has somewhat the same effect as the new daughter.The website is mine, so I'm glad you liked it!Good luck on your new house plans.Gary
Gary, great site. I have spent quite a bit of time there in the past.
Good response, Jim. The answers aren't easy.A friend of mine believes that ALL asphalt roofing is out of the question for green building because of the disposal of the roof when it's shot. Hum?
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
Should be feasible to recycle the asphalt.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Should be, but I've never heard of it being done.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
Well actually, I remember a TOH episode maybe 6-8 years back where they visited a recycling yard that was recycling asphalt shingles. I think it was made into garden grade asphalt paving or some such.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Want to make a guess as to what percentage of torn off asphalt roofing gets recycled?
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
If it's 1% I'd be surprised. But in large part that's because it's not a lot of volume in the grand scheme of things, and not terribly polluting to dump it.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I'm guessing not very much. But all that old roofing is going SOMEWHERE. And it's heavy, so if companies are paying by the ton to dump it, it doesn't seem like it would take much incentive to take it to a recycling spot. Even if they broke even dollars wise, it would be enough.Remodeling contractor who once visited the Glass City.
Around here pretty much all road asphalt seem to get recycled.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Roofing too?Remodeling contractor who once visited the Glass City.
Here too, Dan, but not the roofing. Since the focus of the thread was green building, it's really the roofing material that is pertinent, IMO.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
Yeah, I agree. But asphalt shingles are really a relatively small volume, and shouldn't be a big issue. More important is to look at the production side of things, and durability.Let's see, for homes:
-- Wood shakes/shingles
-- Asphalt (natural or fiberglass felt)
-- Flat laid-up asphalt
-- Flat rubber
-- Sheet steel (copper is unreasonably expensive for a normal home)
-- Steel shingles/tile
-- Clay tile
-- Plastic shingles/tile
Am I missing any?Wood would probably be the least polluting during production/disposal, but durability any more is a big issue -- old growth shingles could last 50 years in our climate, but new stuff is lucky to get 25. Quality installation is iffy. Basically only available in one color.Clay tile is probably second best in terms of production/disposal pollution. Has pretty good durability generally, but some weaknesses. Not recyclable worth mentioning. Requires stronger roof and more labor to install than most other options. Not too many options for appearance.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Am I missing any?
Dirt. <G>
Total lifespan cost is what you really want to consider.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Clay tile is probably second best in terms of production/disposal pollution. Has pretty good durability generally, but some weaknesses. Not recyclable worth mentioning
Now, it is and it isn't. The unglazed tile is probably "good" to put in landfills, as it would be a neutral product to help make the laterite the landfill is supposed to metamorphize into. Glazing confuses that a bit, unless the tiles are crushed/ground.
Now, the need for more structure, and more complicated flashing/trim for clay tile roofs might be seen as less-than green, since less-good installations could lead to more/faster material decay.
Greenest roof, right now, still looks to be some form of galvalume, given the longevity, and the recyclability (and/or recycled content), and so forth. That, of course, presumes that it is installed correctly, and recycled rather than landfilled at the end of its lifecycle.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I'm thinking that sheet metal likely has pretty high lifecycle environmental costs, due to mining and refining mostly. True, if it can be recycled that cost is reduced significantly, but steel roofing doesn't seem to be recycled very often.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
has pretty high lifecycle environmental costs
I know there are some on-going LEED arguments about both aluminum and steel as products, based on the "manufacturing" side costs. I'm not so sure I'm buying all of those arguments. Steel is being constanly made, so is aluminum. Both use their own slag and "recycled content" as part of the manufaturing process.
What may be the "sticking" part in whether they are "green" maybe down to how long it takes to get some of the old stuff out of the system. Just think about how long those vine-and-leaf columns last. Think about how long aluminium soffits can last.
Now, if most of those old bits of steel trim had not had decades of leaded paint, if heavier gauges of sheetmetal not glopped up in "bad" coatings had been used--perhaps there might be less antagonism. Or not.
Properly detailed, a metal roof has a huge lifespan. A lifespan not shortened by hail and wind damage that would ruin other materials (what good in putting up a 50 3-tab if it's replaced every 5-10 years due to hail damage).
Oh well, once again, it looks like the key is understanding, flexibility, tollerance, et al--the clean opposite of dogmatic, singular, must-do-it-this-way approaches <g>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Yeah, it's always a compromise. But my take is that durability and service life should probably be high on the list of aspects to optimize, and in that regard steel is likely a good choice. But a lot depends on local conditions.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Could you talk a little about "galvalume"?
Is it alluminum with a galvanized coating? Is it galvanized steel mixed with alluminum when both are liquid? What's the advantage of this over alluminum? Strength? Price?
And what the heck IS "galvanise" anyway? Why aren't we supposed to put it in our mouths, or incinerate any? Is there lead in it?Remodeling contractor who once visited the Glass City.
And what the heck IS "galvanise" anyway?
LoL!
Galvanize means to coat with zinc (or a zinc-based compound). Hot dipping is jsut that, submerging in molten zinc (or zinc alloy). The name, if I remember from my Materials class o so many decades ago, comes from the galvanic action of the easier-to-oxidize zinc binding oxygen rather than the underlying steel.
Galvalume, IIRC takes it's name from zinc-based or zinc-added coatings that are electircally bonded to the sheetmetal. But, I could be wrong--it could just be a baked-on acyrilic coating named to be suggestive of the previous standard for sheet roofing.
The "alloyed" zinc is what you're not supposed to chew on. Zinc is healthy for many living things, just does not take that much. Hmm, I've no recollection at all, so I wonder what I'll get if I google zinc overdose . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Simply put, Galvalume is steel coated with a zinc/aluminum alloy. "Galvanized" means coated with zinc only.
Steel can be galvanized either by "hot dipping" or by electrolytically plating the steel with zinc. I think Galvalume is always "hot dipped".
Galvanization works well for steel because the electrolytic action that works on wet galvanized steel tends to prevent corrosion through "cathodic protection".
One downside of the stuff is that the zinc that slowly erodes from the metal is (slightly) toxic to plants. If entire cities had galvanized roofs it might create problems.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
CapnMac,
I was in Spain back in the 1960's and noticed that all of the roofs were clay tile.. According to my host some of the tiles were well over 400 years old.. when termites got to the roofing members they'd recycle the tiles right back up to the replacement roof. Any tiles that were broken were smashed to use again in making the clay, apparently old clay tile is excellant as an ingrediant of roofing tiles.. I've known some roofing tiles here in Minnesota that have lasted at least a century so far..
I've also seen slate roofs last well over 200 years. Acid rain seems to be the weakness of slate.. But if acid rain affects slate wouldn't it really affect any metal roof as well? `
English thatch might make a real addition as a roofing material.. since it only takes one year to grow and lasts 20 years or more don't we have the perfect biodegradable roofing material?
Spanish tile, if I remember rightly is fired and not glazed, too. Means it could be ground back to "slip" and sent through the tile/terra cotta process over and over again. (Or left 'chunky' with its sharp edges to help "digest" landfills--a topic never really well addressed in the green issue--how best to manage what landfills we must have).
English thatch might make a real addition as a roofing material.. since it only takes one year to grow and lasts 20 years or more don't we have the perfect biodegradable roofing material?
May be on to something there.
Hmm, getting a good vapor plane at the roofing/framing plane is a bit tougher. And, in my climate, the northern faces would harbor mildews, molds in the first year, with mosses and lichens the next. Pruning the chinaberry and hackberry out of the roof is not so bad in a PAHS house--less so in a gabled ranch . . .
Darn it; thatch is straw (or reed straw)--essentially that's the cellulose fiber left over after "food" portion of a cereal (or similar) grain is harvested. Means the "waste" thatch will break down, but it needs to be "digested" making it bad for the landfill when buried.
Dang it, thatch is such an elegant answer other wise . . .
Wonder how you set a valley in a thatch roof? Or a dormer? I want to remember that thatch has a real decent R value, which could make for ice dam problems for some northern builders.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Would you vent a thatched roof?Remodeling contractor who once visited the Glass City.
Would you vent a thatched roof?
I can't find a reference that says so, but I think you have to, so that any dampness in the thatch can evaporate out.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
CapnMac,
Please accept the fact that I'm not the worlds expert on either green or thatch roofs. However the examples I've seen simply toss the "used" thatch onto the compost heap.
As for climate it's normal to have snow in England and yet they endure.. so I don't think that would prove to be a monumental issue.
The sole issue I see is the relatively short life and labor intensive nature of doing a thatch roof.. It's not unusual to hear about someone working six weeks or more on a relatively modest cabin.. maybe with work platforms on telehandlers that could be shortened dramatically?!?!!!???!! I do understand the roofer is totally differant from the one who harvests the reed. So that's two specialists we'd need to import from Ireland;-)
As for your comment about best handling the landfills that we must have,, I shouldn't imagine that would be such an issue. look for example at all the quarries that we extract stone and rock from.. simply line them and start filling.. put a rubber membrane on top to capture the methane that would escape and burn the resulting methane to generate electrical power.. it done all of the time!
Once the landfill can no longer provide methane and the rubbish inside them is fully decomposed you cover them with dirt and they become future baseball parks, golf courses, etc. for an ever growing population..
Actually, I understand that a good thatched roof can last 50 years. Needs regular maintenance (every 5-10 years), though.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Hey Jim,I've got a cousin-in-law that's hankering to build one of these:http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/cob.htmready for a busman's holiday?<G> I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Well, she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
As best as I can tell, "green" is a marketing buzzword. Some kind of energy has got to be expended somewhere for a house to built...it's a matter of degees.That said, the footings are being dug for a house I'm building that is going to have some energy saving features: passive solar siting,photovoltaic array, solar hot water, foam insulation, CFLs, conditioned crawl space, high seer HVAC, efficient ductwork, programmable thermostats, energy star rated appliances, and an Energy Star Certification, to name most of them<G>It is costing a bundle up front, and I honestly don't know if the energy it will save will ever be greater than the energy it took to make all that stuff and make it work. But, in a downward market, this stuff is what's selling here.I do know that it makes me feel better to be doing something to try and practice some conservation, rather than to just act like I don't really need to. And luckily, most of the folks buying these houses have done well enough that the higher costs aren't the issues. I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Well, she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Snort,
I understand your cynicism, However simply because there is no uniform standard to adhere to does not mean that the intention is junk.. (nor does it mean that it will go away).
Movements like this tend to start out as concepts and become firm over time.. If you ignore the movement at this point expect to be required to adhere to rules which you will have no input and may not agree with..
< I understand your cynicism, However simply because there is no uniform standard to adhere to does not mean that the intention is junk.. (nor does it mean that it will go away). Movements like this tend to start out as concepts and become firm over time.. If you ignore the movement at this point expect to be required to adhere to rules which you will have no input and may not agree with.. >Frenchy, did you read my post? I'm fer it, not agin' it...and, I'm putting my money where my mouth is<G> I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Well, she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Snort,
I too am "fer it, not agin it" even though several have challengenged me on exactly what my definitions are.. For example I'm building a bigger house, not for ego reasons but because I believe that a large house can be acceptable to multi generational families. Instead of your children running off and buying their own little rabbit hutches they can remain at home and still enjoy a little privacy. The efficencies involved in a large well built home more than offset the added energy footprint of the size of the home..
Further some of the things used in the construction of my home have a large carbon footprint associated with their manufacture. On the other hand I built this house using products that should last hundreds of years, using construction techniques thathave been proven for milleniums, combined with the newest most energy efficent insulation techniques.
Welp. when individuals make the definitions for anything, the water gets muddy. I, for one, am totally mystified as to the "true" definition of "green building." All I know is that we have to build better, and more efficient houses<G> I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Well, she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more. No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more. Well, she talks to all the servants About man and God and law. Everybody says She's the brains behind pa. She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four. I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Newport RI, Summer 1965, Dylan's electric debut-seems like only yesterday.
<Newport RI, Summer 1965, Dylan's electric debut-seems like only yesterday.>Man, were you there? I liked him as folk kinda singer, whooo boy, but I loved him when he started rockin', that's one of the things I wish I could have seen...and he's he's still freakin' amazing I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Well, she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
but nobody has a defination for green, it just a marketing term like global warming, and climmate changing. its feel good words.A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do...
Global warming feels good??
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
That's the problem--various criteria define "green", and many of them aren't really measurable by the consumer. The problem with "green ratings" and the like is exactly the same problem that the old Soviet Union had in setting quota's and organizing production. Rating green'ness has the same arbitrary, non-market, choices to be made as when setting factory targets--measure the output of a factories nails and you get nothing but 16d (or one really big nail), specify the number of nails and you get a lot of 6d.
I was there. He was backed up by several members of Paul Butterfield's band and some other luminaries, like Al Kooper, Danny Kalb. Butterfield was supposed to play that afternoon, but a huge thunderstorm postponed his performance until evening. Dylan sang Maggie's Farm and a few others from "Bringing it all Back Home." My recollection is that while there were a few boos, the crowd was mostly ecstatic, at least partly caused by the music.
His live concerts are pretty inconsistent. A few are great, a few truly suck and some are just OK.
He gets my vote for the most influential musician of the last half of the 20th century. Lennon is # 2. Sorry Elvis.
Edited 5/31/2007 7:11 am ET by smslaw
I like your tastes in musicians...I'm listening to Blond on Blond over breakfast<G> I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Well, she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
It's starting to rain here, so I better put on my leopard skin pillbox hat. Gonna be a hard rain.
You, me, cob, and a few weekends at the shore? I could be convinced, brotherman.Remodeling contractor who once visited the Glass City.
Dang, a cob house at the coast, now that would be green. One good hurricane would send it back from whence it came<G>How's the wedding plans comin'? I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Well, she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
"How's the wedding plans comin'?"Marrily.You break ground on that green spec house yet? Just about ready to buy my sawmill (heard that one before?).Remodeling contractor who once visited the Glass City.
So you've got the dower chest done then?<G>Break ground is putting it mildly, I'm changing the realtor's sign from Home for Sale to Hole for Sale. HA. I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
Well, she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law.
Everybody says
She's the brains behind pa.
She's sixty-eight, but she says she's twenty-four.
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's ma no more.
climate it's normal to have snow in England and yet they endure
Yeah, but it's probably nothing like an average Minnesota snow <g> . . .
The traditional thatched cottage is also usually a simple gable, if memory serves.
Our modern design sense (or the stubborn insistence on "saving money" by buying stock plans) with gable walls and dormers might make for atraditional thatch detailing. And when you take a technology out of its "niche" is when you really have to watch out for system failures.
Actually it was not the "where" of landfills so much as the what goes in part. The environmental engineers tell me their biggest gripe is that they don't get the right mix of "stuff" in the landfill. Several tell me that they'd like to get "construction rubble" back in (as it acts to help "digest" materials in the fill, same as a yard bird pecks up gravel). The trouble is that the munis are all afraid of epa "problems" with construction stuff.
That then means that the landfill gets "household" and "office" waste in polyethylene bags set on three clay pit liners and topsioled to control methane emissions. The end result is neither anaerobic, nor aeorbic, which can prevent ant sort of break down of any of the materials at all. That "office"fill, which is largely unshredded semi-gloss paper mixed with corrugated paper, "laminates" into strata that are not pourus at all (but are gluing themselves into a more-than useless shale-like laterite).
(And the clay capture pits ensure that all of the bad things--solvents, cleaners, fingernail polish--that can leach liquidly, do; and then concentrate and consolidate afterwards.)
So, at some point, to be green, to be sustainable, we need to look at our waste management the way caring people do about their compost heaps. We could, with the right "will" design consumables in reverse. Little things like packaging. We could package things like potato chips in cornstarch-impregnated natural paper bags. Thos bags could be printed--quite brightly--with vegetable inks. Freshnes of the product could be insured with sealers made from fructose and cellulose and similar.
There's some real long-hair egghead work on converting the almost-standard 49 gallon automated-collection trash bin into an impromptu composter that only needs collection every other or every third week (there's a way to get muni attention, decrease garbage collection by half gives the muni thousands of dollars to squander on useless stuff (oops, that was out loud, wasn't it?) Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
--- Spanish tile, if I remember rightly is fired and not glazed, too. Means it could be ground back to "slip" and sent through the tile/terra cotta process over and over again. --Equally important as the lack of glaze, terra cotta is fired at a low temperature -- it is not fired hot enough to vitrify. Once virtified, clay can not be just ground up and reused, as its crystalline structure is disrupted.Rebeccah
is fired at a low temperature -- it is not fired hot enough to vitrify
Ah, there's the magic of BT, somebody knows at least some of all this stuff.
I knew the terra cotta people always add some slip into a new batch, rather like aggregate in concrete.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
--- I knew the terra cotta people always add some slip into a new batch, rather like aggregate in concrete. ---Careful, I know just enough ceramics to give out tons of misinformation..."Grog" is the clay additive that's akin to aggregate. "Grog is ground fired clay, added to clay bodies to reduce shrinkage, minimize warpage, improve drying properties and increase wet strength." http://www.baileypottery.com/clay/tuckersclays.htm"Slip" is a slurry of (unfired) clay in water, often used for mending of cracks, glazing, or pouring into molds. Clay that has been "bisque" fired (fired at a low temperature, more to dry it out and prepare it for glazing than anything else) can be repaired with slip if it cracks during the firing or if it breaks through rough handling (it's very fragile). Conversely, I'm pretty sure that bisque fired clay can be ground up and reused just as if it hadn't been fired, including using it to make slip. I know terra cotta is fired at a low temperature; I don't know if it's really a low enough temperature that ground up it could be used in slip.Rebeccah
Careful, I know just enough ceramics to give out tons of misinformation...
LoL!
And you're still doing better than I am <g> . . .
Still not "getting" the image of mixing busted terra cotta with rhum to make grog . . . <g>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Yeah man, it's confusing. I've been studying it and thinking about it and discussing it every chance I get and I don't think I'm any closer to any answers than I was a couple years ago.
But I DO agree with DanH. It seems like asphalt roofing should be recyclable as the term is commonly used. Is it the fiberglass mixed in that limits reconfiguration of that asphalt?
The one that really confuses me is concrete. I could go on and on, but bottom line, how the heck does that mulch it's way back into the soil after it's usefull lifespan? How the heck can ANYONE call that "green"? But they do.
It's all very confusing to me. I just try to be make responsible choices. I don't think I've ever resolved the conflict between what I think of as "natural" building materials and what are now called "green" building materials. In many cases they overlap, but in many cases they are at odds with each other.Remodeling contractor who once visited the Glass City.
It is really tricky. I'm thinking if they'd just build some really good paved roads to all the places I go, I could buy a Prius, save lots of gasoline, and the world would be a better place. ; )
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
I see most large masses of concrete around here being crushed up for aggregate. Combination of high disposal fees and a shortage of decent aggregate.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Building green requires thought and study. Many people would rather not think, and prefer to spend money instead. They "buy green" instead of "building green".
The green things I did when I built my house were very costly in the long run. Most of the expense was in time spent. It may have been more green to build a T111 box like many of my neighbors.
My exterior siding is recycled redwood jumbo shakes. Each shake had to be de-nailed and then cleaned with a soft brush to maintain the nice patina. Each butt had to be trimmed with the miter saw and the edges had to be shaved a little on the table saw. I transported them 300 miles in a rental truck. More shakes came to a halfway point from my brother from his truck to mine.
The exterior trim was salvaged old growth redwood that had to be de-nailed. Often the nails were fused into the wood and took a lot of time to remove. The trim that was stained had to be cleaned with water. Milling all the trim took hundreds of hours and generated a lot of sawdust and unusable rips.
The interior trim was salvaged sugar pine from a nearby house that was fire damaged. The pine started out as 2x12 T&G planks. I had to clean the nails out of it and rip the skin off and plane to thickness. That also generated a huge pile of landfill that was semi toxic because some of the pine had paint on it.
My rafter tails and porch rafters were home milled with a portable mill that runs a 30 " blade with an old VW motor. I don't think that motor complies with California air quality standards.
The insulation was dense pack cellulose that is basically recycled newspaper. The bid was almost twice the cost of fiberglass.
If radiant heat is considered more green than forced air then that cost about twice as much too to install.
All in all the cost was about 215K plus 3 years time for 1600 SQ FT. If I pay myself 100K per year then I paid about $320/SQ FT.
The landscaping was left natural. That was about the cheapest green thing I did.
In the long run, what I did I did for looks and comfort. In spite of my green lifestyle doing things like riding my bike to work while I keep my tools there in a giant Knaack box, I ride a bike because I like to and it keeps my body ripped and I don't ride to save the planet from human stupidity. I used to care a lot more about sustaining the environment. Global warming is unstoppable. Like every other species that has ever existed, the human race is going extinct and I could care less. Perhaps a more benevolent creature will evolve from the cockroach after we are gone.
Eat, drink and be merry.
This photo is of my wife prepping the siding. The temporary table she is working on is made with some of that salvaged pine.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.
Why bother building "green?" Oh, sure, we all want to 'save the planet,' but don't you think we need to define our terms a bit first?
The act is, everything has some sort of impact ... it's a matter of choosing your impact.
For example, concrete is rarely considered "green," yet it lasts forever- you need only build once. No waste, no repeating impact over time, etc.
Finite cement resources your concern, or landfill worries? Well, wood is 'green,' in that it grows. Of course, someone has to cut that tree down. Sure, you can burn the waste ... but what about carbon emissions?
Plastics are rarely considered 'green,' but, again, they have properties that make them ideal for any number of uses. Windows that won't kill the kid who runs into them, for example.
Apart from the material, there is the cost of manufacture. For example, fired clay drain tile (pipe) requires far less energy to manufacture than plastic pipe. Hard to believe, but true. Styrofoam may be a divine insulator, but it's made from oil, and requires a lot more energy to make than shredded newspaper.
There's the cost of operation. A straw and mud hut might be 'eco friendly' in some eyes ... but will cost you to heat and cool.
Finally, there's the matter of life quality. Again, we can return to the Middle Ages, where multiple generations -and their cattle- lived in the same room ... but who wants to?
I suggest you settle on a design that will best suit your lifestyle first. Don't try to keep up with the neighbors; just because they have a pool does not mean you HAVE to have one.
Then, I suggest you chose materials and methods that will last the duration of your use - and not much longer. The home that is 'perfect' for a young couple will not suit a family with kids, or retired folks. Count on either moving, or remodeling, several times.
Keep in mind that materials and methods will change over time, as will our needs. What is 'perfect' today will prove unsuitable sooner than you think; just look as any 1950's home if you doubt me.
"Friendly to remodeling" is one criteria that always gets left out of the 'green' equation.
I believe that good design, and proper engineering, inherently result in a 'green' design. The equation gets corrupted when the goals get blurred by outside concerns. Examples of such concerns might include trying for a 'perfect' design, trying to do everything, trying to be as cheap as possible, or trying to fit specific shape, style, and size constraints.