Posts Tagged ‘economics’

Insulation riddle resolved

Thursday, February 4th, 2010
Written by Marcus de la fleur

I spent a lot of time last October and November researching appropriate insulation options. In the post “Insulation – how much is needed?“, I described the SPF (spray polyurethane foam) phenomenon of diminishing returns.

I somewhat understood the concept of this effect, but had no information on the actual process or cause. So I asked whether anyone had more information on this.

Lo and behold, I received a comment on the post from a gentleman called R. Tom:

“… a report that illustrates a scenario that uses Fourier’s steady-state heat flow equation to evaluate the performance of a typical wall area with a prescribed R performance value. The results are quite profound… it indicates, basically, that the first inch of [SPF] insulation represents 80% of the heat flow reduction in the system, the next inch 9%, the next inch 3%, the next inch 2%, the next two inches 1% each and the next four inches only 1%! So in the first 2″ you are getting 89% of the total performance realized in your [SPF] insulation assembly.”

The report R. Tom mentions is a publication by Icynene Inc., describing the testing process, providing the math and plotting the results in various graphs.

My first thought was: “Is this for real?” I forwarded the report to a mechanical engineer I respect and asked for his opinion. He agreed with the rationales and results of the report.

Here is what my sleepy little brain cells retained. There are three types of heat flow:

  1. Conductive heat flow
  2. Convective heat flow
  3. Radiant heat flow

The R-value is a measure of the conductive heat flow resistance through a material, but ignores the influence of convective and radiant heat flow. SPF insulation has an R-value of 3.6 per inch thickness (as per the report). If properly applied, SPF can eliminate air infiltration (or convective heat flow), and thus delivers up to 89% of the total performance in the first 2 inches. I think I sort of get this.

My second thought was: “How does this impact our project? Do I need to rethink our insulation strategy?” The answer is yes. Now that I understand the effectiveness of the first two inches of SPF and the decline thereafter, I would like to look again at various insulation materials and their performance, cost and environmental footprint.

PS: I found a great website that explains SPF in plain language:

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Confusing doors

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010
Written by Marcus de la fleur

I wrote about the masonry repair work around the basement front door.

basement-front-door-01

That work is done, but I still need a new door and looking for one quickly turned confusing.

I started with a visit to various home improvement stores. What I found were exterior rated doors with a 24 or 22 gauge steel skin, insulated foam core and wood frame. The good news is that these doors are typically Energy Star qualified and are eligible for the $1,500 Federal Tax Credit.

The bad news is that they don’t offer enough security and could easily be kicked in. That is what happened with the original door, which had not only a steel skin but also a light gauge steel frame!  We consider the basement front door to be the most vulnerable to a break-in, as it is tucked away in a little staircase alongside the house.

I wanted to know where the professionals get their doors and asked my contractor friends. The first thing I learned is that I am probably looking for a commercial grade door rather than a residential door.

Commercial doors come with a heavier steel skin (typ. 18 gauge) and sound steel frame (typ. 16 and 14 gauge). There is no kicking in this door without getting the attention of the whole block.

That takes care of the security, but what about the energy side? We put a lot of work into good insulation and efficient windows. Having a poorly insulated exterior door would leave a gaping hole in the building shell and defeat the investment into an efficient building envelope.

While visiting and talking to a number of commercial vendors, I had to be very persistent with my inquiry about insulated doors. Once they noticed that I was serious, various product information appeared from back office filing cabinets.

Door examples:

I had to be even more persistent on the door frame! What is the point on spending close to $500 on an insulated door, when an uninterrupted (one-piece) steel frame turns into a thermal highway? During wintertime, such frame has energy loss, condensation and moisture problems written all over it.

Ceco Door - Thermal Break Frame

Ceco Door - Thermal Break Frame

It turns out that, after all, there are steel frames with built-in thermal breaks and that the frame profile can be filled with spray foam insulation.

Next question: How energy efficient are these commercial grade doors or assemblies?

Almost all residential doors come with a NFRC rating and tell you whether they are Energy Star qualified. This allows the consumer to compare apples to apples and determine if the product qualifies for the $1,500 Federal Tax Credit.

Commercial grade doors, on the other hand, exist in their own world, with no NFRC rating or Energy Star labels. I even called the manufactures and checked! What is provided are two R-values (calculated and operable), which differ by a factor of three to four. Confused? Me too!

Why does this matter?

Because the NFRC rating and Energy Star labels are prerequisites for credits in the Chicago Green Homes program (for which we have signed up) and the $1,500 tax credit. Looks like I will have a hell of a time to reconcile the security issue with the energy side. Anyone have any suggestions?

  • PS: If you are looking into doors and windows with the Energy Star label, note that the Energy Star program has new performance levels starting 01-04-2010. It is growing some teeth – finally!
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Where did all the concrete go?

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

I hope you enjoyed the last post about the basement floor removal. We had fun swinging the sledge hammer busting that concrete floor. It ended up to be a lot of concrete!

concrete-recycling-01

What did we do with it – other than throwing it in the back of my truck?

concrete-recycling-02

While researching Construction Waste Management (CWM) options, I compiled a list of various recyclers. I found my go-to places for deconstruction debris (WasteBox, Inc.), scrap metals and clean wood debris (which is turned into wood chips).

A few weeks back, when I was getting masonry supplies for the parapet repair at the Illinois Brick Company on California, just north of I-55, I noticed their neighbor across the street, Lindahl Brothers, Inc. They have a huge pile of old concrete in their yard, which was the give-away that they run a concrete recycling facility.

Mine and any other concrete received is crushed, sorted and sieved, turning it into aggregate that can be re-used in construction. Eventually I will need some aggregate for the new basement slab. If I get my materials here, I may end up re-using the very concrete that we removed.

concrete-recycling-03

As prices for scrap metal fluctuate, so does the cost for recycling concrete. If nobody is buying the aggregate, the concrete pile gets bigger and the cost for dropping off concrete for recycling goes up. If the aggregate ‘flies of the shelves’, you may even be offered a buck to deliver your concrete for recycling.

I was very happy to get charged as little as $15 per truckload. It made the whole operation rather affordable.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Insulation – which material cuts it?

Monday, October 26th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

If you have followed the previous posts about the insulation conflicts and moisture management issues, you may ask why not go simple – skip insulation altogether and just have brick wall exposed on the inside. A very tempting thought, isn’t it? It would look pretty good and we could avoid all these problems.

But we also would create a big problem. A three wythe (or 12”) thick brick wall may have a R-4 value. The air film on the wall would give me another R-1, totaling R-5. That is if the brick is dry. If it is wet, these values will drop. A decent window may have a better R-value than the brick wall! We need good insulation, if we want to have a decent shot at our zero-energy goals.

There is quite a variety of materials to pick from, starting with the very common fiberglass batts, the more expensive rigid foam boards, or materials with high recycled content such as blown-in cellulose or recycled cotton batts.

Understanding the limitations and opportunities that come with our masonry shell, and having distilled two key principles, the choice actually narrows to just one material: blown-in foam insulation.

“A low[…] risk approach to interior masonry retrofits that has been used for several years involves spraying an airtight insulating foam directly to the back of the existing masonry [shell].”

Reference: Building Science Digest 114 (Interior Insulation Retrofits of Load-Bearing Masonry Walls in Cold Climates)

Also known as spray polyurethane foam (or in short: spray foam), it would eliminate air gaps and air leakage if applied across the entire interior shell, including the roof. Basically, it would give us an airtight building envelope and act as a moisture barrier (or vapor retarder) helping with the control of incidental rain penetration.

A Building Science publication (Building Science Digest 114) explains spray foam rationales and choice in detail and is worth while reading.

Because spray foam is semi-permeable (a vapor retarder but not a vapor barrier), it will allow moisture in the masonry shell to diffuse to the outside and in. I have to make sure that the perm rate of the entire interior wall assembly is greater than 1 – and we are all set!

There are two kinds of spray polyurethane foams out there:

Closed Cell

As the name suggests, each little cell (or bubble) encloses an air pocket, forming a monolithic airtight layer at an R-value of around 6.5 per inch. Most closed cell spray foams have a density of about 2 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and have a low diffusion or perm rate (around 1 to 2 at 1 inch thickness).

Open Cell

This foam is much lighter at a density of 0.5 pcf and forms more of a web structure. It is still considered airtight if applied at a depth of several inches. The R-value for open cell products hovers around 3.5 per inch. Water vapor can diffuse freely through the material.

The one disadvantage of spray polyurethane foam that is often mentioned is cost. And yes, it is much more expensive than your typical fiberglass batts – closed cell more so than open cell, because it requires more material. Plus, it needs to be installed by a trained professional.

  • 6” of fiberglass batts (around R-19): $0.30 to $0.60 per square foot (material only)
  • 6”of open cell spray foam (around R-21): around $2.50 per square foot (material and labor)
  • 6”of closed cell spray foam (around R-39): $5.00 to $6.00 per square foot (material and labor)

We would pay more – and that is fine – because we will get more. With spray foam, we don’t have to worry about air leakage, condensation and potential mold problems, or diminished R-values. Instead, we get the airtight building envelope we need, and lasting R-values. If we would try to accomplish the same results with cheaper insulation materials, we probably would, in the end, pay as much.

A drawback that I still debate is that spray polyurethane foam is a petroleum based product. The good news is that most spray foams are now VOC (volatile organic compounds) free, using water as their blowing agent. Some products are marketed as green because of some soy based oil content. That overall content is, however, relatively small, plus I am not sure if I would accept soybean farming as a sustainable practice.

Another unanswered question that keeps me pondering has to do with the end-of-life use. There is no known recycling option or second use for this material. If the spray foam ever gets torn out, it is likely to end up in a landfill. The only conciliation I have is that it should serve and maintain its performance for several generations.

More info on spray foam:

What is:

Air barrier

Moisture barrier: See references below to vapor barrier and retarder.

Vapor barrier and vapor retarder

Additional resource: Consumer’s Guide to Vapor Barriers at the U.S. Department of Energy

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Insulation – how it started

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Our two key goals are super-insulation (high R-value) and air-tightness (elimination of leaks and drafts). Simple enough, isn’t it? To my surprise, this issue got me deep into rocket science. There was a very steep learning curve and my ideas and aspirations on insulation options had changed several times over the past year based on emerging facts and realities.

While we were house hunting, we were only considering buildings with a masonry shell for the structural and longevity aspects (see also “Dream home wish list” post). Another idea of mine was to use the masonry building shell as thermal mass by leaving it exposed to the interior and applying the insulation on the outside.

bldg-shell-01

Fast forward. We now own our house with typical Chicago common-brick side elevations and an ornate front elevation. Our dream of exposed interior brick walls radiating warmth appears to materialize. To get there, we will need to super-insulate the building from the outside. I began to research our options, and ran into a brick wall (pun intended).

bldg-shell-02

Do we really want to hide our ornate front elevation behind insulation? Of course not! We would insulate the front from the inside – and would be left with big thermal bridges to the left and right. Not good.

Then there is the dimensional issue. Portions of the west side of our building are almost on the property line. We would encroach into our neighbor’s property if we began to insulate on the outside of these wall sections.

How about insulating portions on the outside and others on the inside? Not only is this getting really complicated, but I end up with a whole bunch of thermal bridges that would defeat our insulation goal.

And, of course, there are code issues to contend with. Chicago common brick has an excellent fire rating. Whatever I would use to cover the outside insulation will have to meet the one-hour fire rating requirement.

Most innovative ideas start with an uphill struggle. If we really pushed it and worked long and hard, we possibly would find a way to make it work. The question is: Is it worth it?

I talked with a lot of friends, contractors and green building professionals and did not receive any encouragement for my idea – absolutely none. Nor did I find any supporting clues in my research. The consensus was that insulating our building from the outside was too resource intensive and expensive to justify any thermal mass benefit in the interior – thermal mass we may not even need with a super-insulated and airtight envelope.

Time to hit the reset button! How about insulating the shell from the interior? But what would be the best material choice? And how can we do this without compromising the integrity of the 100+ year old Chicago common-brick walls?

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Design workshop

Sunday, October 11th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Saturday 08/22/2009 – the scheduling and preparations are complete and the long anticipated design workshop is finally becoming reality. I have the energy model and an agenda – and most importantly – I have gathered a green team.

We started the day in the house with a quick inventory of the gutted basement and first floor. Because the house offered no comfortable or clean enough room in which to conduct the workshop, I had organized a meeting room one block north at Saint Agatha Catholic Academy.

workshop

Corbett Lundsford from the Green Team Group started the workshop session with a summary of the energy model results, providing us the foundation for the following discussions, which we had organized into the broad subject areas insulation, heating system, ventilation, and floor plan layout.

Insulation

The two key principles are super-insulated (high R-value) and airtight (elimination of leaks and drafts). Simple enough, isn’t it? To my surprise, this issue got us deep into rocket science. I will dedicate a post or two just to this subject – so stay tuned!

My research has pointed me to open cell and closed cell spray foam insulation. We discussed alternative materials, environmental impact, the objective of an airtight building envelope, R-value and point of diminishing returns, as well as moisture management in the masonry building shell.

The consensus that emerged was that spray foam insulation may not be the most economic option (ranging from $0.40 to $1.25 per board foot), but would allow us to effectively meet our insulation and air tightness goals in the building shell. Cellulose insulation, with a high recycled content, was suggested as an alternative for the basement and first floor ceiling, providing the needed insulation and sound attenuation.

Because we plan to install a new concrete floor in the basement, we discussed insulation under the new floor slab. With no insulation, the floor slab would provide a nice cooling mass during summer. It would, however, make heating rather inefficient. The final recommendation was to integrate insulation under the concrete slab. It would provide the right conditions for a radiant floor heating system, which leads us to the next topic.

Heating systems

Our preferred energy source for heating and domestic hot water is a solar hot water (SHW) system. The preferred heating method is radiant hot water, such as cast iron baseboard heaters. The green team was quick to educate us about the water temperature demand of hot water radiators (typically ranging from 150 to 180°F) and the capacity of a SHW system (typically ranging from 100 to 120°F). We have a 30 to 80°F temperature difference problem to solve!

Not only that, but the green team recommended a backup option to the SHW for those overcast and cold stretches. I would love to install a biomass furnace. The problem is that the best, cleanest and most efficient models are all European. The green team suggested a high efficiency condensing gas furnace instead. I could always switch to a biomass furnace once a clean and high efficiency model becomes available on the U.S. market.

With a temperature problem to solve and a need for a backup furnace, geothermal entered the discussion as an alternative to SHW. It could provide the energy needed for heating and domestic hot water. That said, I was concerned about the electricity demand by the pumps and condensers of a geothermal system, making our zero energy goal more challenging. Geothermal and SHW is something that will require more research and additional expertise.

Ventilation

Ever heard of sick building syndrome? That’s when a building does not get sufficiently ventilated, the air becomes stale and unpleasant and pollutants and toxicants start to accumulate. With our plans for a super-insulated and air tight building envelope, indoor air quality (IAQ) and proper ventilation becomes very important.

I was hoping for passive ventilation option to avoid ventilation duct work in the building. It would be difficult to integrate into the interior architecture without having it look ridiculous. I pressed the green team hard on passive ventilation, but had to concede that some duct work will be needed if we would like to use a heat recovery or energy recovery ventilator (ERV or HRV).

Basically, ERV and HRV are air-to-air heat exchangers, taking the energy from the exhaust air and transferring it to the unconditioned supply air. I now get the fresh air I need for ventilation at minimized energy loss. The tradeoff is that I need to have the supply and exhaust points at opposite ends of each floor. The green team’s recommendation was to consider lowering the ceiling by 6 inches (from 10 feet down to 9 ½ feet) and using the flat, rectangular ducts. Although cylindrical ducts would create less drag on the air flow, we’re making the esthetic choice to trade some flow for the ability to fit the duct work into the ceiling.

Floor plan layout

My idea was that after we had brainstormed and decided on heating and ventilation, we could look at the floor plan to determine what utilities should go where. Well, I had to table this discussion. The problem was that our MEP (Mechanical-Electrical-Plumbing) contact was a no show for the workshop. We had no one who had the engineering expertise to confirm the feasibility of our ideas or where to place and how to route utilities. Instead my research list grew and was to keep me busy for the next few weeks.

A big thank you…

… to our workshop green team:

  • Howard Allen – Howard Allen Architects
  • John Edel – Chicago Sustainable Manufacturing Center
  • Ted Krasnesky – Pepper Construction
  • David Lemaire – Hammerhead Carpentry, Inc.
  • Corbett Lundsford – Dream Green Group LLC
  • Drew Schmidt – student at Waubonsee Community College
  • Mark Weitekamper – GreenWerks, Inc.
  • Ryan Wilson – Conservation Design Forum, Inc.
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Deconstruction (or rückbau)

Thursday, July 9th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Deconstruction? I bet you are familiar with demolition: A house, a big old backhoe, a few hours later a big pile of debris and rubble and a line of trucks hauling everything to the landfill. At that point all the waste may be out of sight, but it should not be out of mind.

So, what is deconstruction? The key principle is to salvage and save the embodied energy present in existing buildings. The Deconstruction Institute offers the following, more detailed, definition:

“…a process of building disassembly in order to recover the maximum amount of materials for their highest and best re-use.  Re-use is the preferred outcome because it requires less energy, raw materials, and pollution than recycling does in order to continue the life of the material. As a consequence of deconstruction, there are also many opportunities for recycling other materials along the way.”

Source: Deconstruction institute

Cathy and I are already knee-deep in deconstruction, working with our waste hauler to sort and recycle as much of the materials as possible.  Looking to the future, we’ve started to think about building our new home with future deconstruction in mind – nipping the Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste issue in the bud, right at the inception of the project.

Why is this important to us? Because the C&D waste has a significant impact on our waste stream, the environment and our carbon footprint.  The Economist published an interesting special report on waste that showed C&D debris as the single largest waste source. We do (or should) know that we (in the U.S.A.) have a particularly acute waste problem. Figures vary with different sources, but it appears fair to say that C&D waste comprises about 30% of our total solid or landfill waste.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) estimated the amount at 136 million tons for 1996 in its report ‘Characterization of Building-related construction and demolition debris in the United States’. That was over ten years ago. To my surprise it appears that no recent USEPA publications or statistics are available on this subject. Have things improved since? Maybe, or maybe not with the recent housing and construction boom.

What does 136 million tons mean? The Illinois Sustainable Technology Center has a fact sheet that helps visualizing the amount of C&D waste:

“We generate enough construction and demolition debris in the United States each year to fill a typical city street four feet tall with trash and run that wall from New York, NY to Los Angeles, CA six times – an estimated 136 million tons annually”

Source: Illinois Sustainable Technology Center

The same fact sheet provides a breakdown of C&D waste for commercial and residential projects. For residential demolition, which is somewhat applicable to our project, the largest source is wood at 34%, closely followed by asphalt shingles (29%) and the dubious category called ‘other’ at 19%.

Another interesting local fact is listed in the Illinois construction and demolition site recycling guidebook from 1997:

“Construction waste and demolition debris (C&D debris) comprise 20 to 35 percent of all the solid waste generated in the five-county Chicagoland area.”

Source: Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs

Back to deconstruction: I had the privilege to attend a Chicago Chapter U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) event on April 2nd with a presentation by Ken Ortiz from The ReUse People. He went through a range of fascinating numbers, explained what deconstruction is all about and walked us through the process.

Based on Ken’s experience, the average residential home weights about 80 tons, of which 40 tons are above ground. Those 40 tons break down into about 20 tons of structural materials and 20 tons of fixtures. 70 to 80% of that and the 40 tons that are below ground would go into a landfill in a conventional demolition case.

Ken pointed out that 72 to 75 tons of materials (or 90 to 94%) can be salvaged, recycled and diverted from the waste stream. Only an average of 5 to 8 tons out of the 80 tons (or 6 to 10%) would need to go into a landfill. An average of 245,000 residential homes are slated for demolition each year, which could translate into a significant reduction in C&D waste if they were deconstructed instead. The reuse of the embodied energy would contribute to the carbon footprint reduction as well as responsible resource management.

Does it make economic sense? According to Ken Ortiz, it does. Although deconstruction typically costs twice as much as conventional demolition, the value of used building material donations can often be substantial and provide tax savings that pay for the deconstruction process. (For more information go to: http://thereusepeople.org/Deconstruction)

Ken Ortiz’s presentation at the USGBC event was a real inspiration and led us to think even harder about reducing waste, reusing materials, and recycling. To our delight, we learned about local salvaged material suppliers that offer a wide range of building material supplies from deconstruction projects and could supply the majority of materials for our green rehab project.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Interpreting ball park estimates

Saturday, May 16th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

First, let’s look at some basic project budget principles: The total loan amount cannot exceed the projected appraised value of the property, once the renovations are complete. That appraisal takes into account all of our planned improvements to the house (see also 04/12/2009 post) and came in at $280,000.

If we subtract the purchasing price of $60,000, we are left with $220,000, which is the maximum amount that our bank (ShoreBank) would lend us for the green rehab.

Cathy and I feel that $220,000 for the rehab is more than we want to take on right now. We went through our personal finances with a fine tooth comb, looked at various mortgage scenarios, estimated monthly payments, and decided that we can manage a rehab loan amount of $160,000 right now.

This $160,000 is one piece of the puzzle. I now have to get the other piece – what that $160,000 is actually buying us. We have a number of ball park estimates from contractors and vendors (see also 05/13/2009 post), which are all very conservative, because of the limited information I could provide at the time I requested the information.

How would I know that these estimates are conservative? By talking to friends, industry contacts and other homeowners who actually had, for example, a base board heating system installed. Their project may be different from ours, but the aggregate pricing information gives us the clues.

scope-and-pricing

In short, our project budget (see also: 3141 ball park project budget) is based our interpretation of the conservative estimates we received. It is a product of our combined guesstimates, leaving a lot of questions unanswered, such as how the work we plan to complete ourselves impacts the budget.

We hope to completely rehab the basement and 1st floor for the $160,000. What can we really get for that money? Your guess is as good as ours, and you can witness this unfolding over the next few months on this blog.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Cost shock management – developing a budget

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

In order to develop a somewhat reliable project budget, we need a real property, which we now have (finally). I mentioned in the 04/12/2009 post our efforts to put a rehab budget together. Let’s look at this process in some more detail.

  1. Fact: Our total loan amount for the sustainable project includes the purchase price of the property plus the money for the green rehab.
  2. To pursue any meaningful budget exercise, we needed a basic plan for our green rehab ideas. Our project principles and rationales provided that framework.
  3. We shared this information with vendors and contractors and arranged for meetings at the property to discuss the project, its various components and the associated work in more detail.
  4. After we shared this basic information with vendors and contractors, we solicited initial ballpark estimates. These estimates became the foundation for our rehab budget.

The tricky part in all this is that we have no final design or engineering. In other words, some of our assumptions may have to change down the road. Those are the same assumptions on which the contractors and vendors based their estimates, which we in turn used to as the foundation for the budget development. Sounds like a house of cards, doesn’t it?

Why would some assumptions change? Well, this is an old house, and we don’t have a full inventory of the building. Electrical, plumbing and heating will most likely need to be completely rebuilt. But we can’t look into the walls to see what other problems, if any, are lurking there waiting to be discovered – such as structural damage (God forbid).

I owe an apology to all vendors and contractors that were kind enough to issue their estimates. I did to them what I do not like having done to myself in my capacity as a landscape architect. And that is to answer the question of “what does the project cost,” based on very little research and very vague parameters. You typically can’t win in these situations, and risk an unhappy client because the budget will change with every piece of new information that rolls in.

The contractors and vendors have my sympathy and my gratitude for working with the limited information I had at the time.  The exercise wasn’t fruitless because we got to meet and talk about the project. The vendors and contractors extracted more details on our plans and expectations, while we were able to evaluate a potential working relationship.

I don’t plan to hold the vendors and contractors to their estimates, but use the numbers to the development of the initial project budget – something that I still need to complete.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Getting over the cost shock

Saturday, May 9th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

The cost shock kept us occupied for some weeks. It gave us time to reflect, which was very much needed (our house search was going slowly at the time). We were able to put our finger on a fundamental flaw in my thinking.

For example: A tight building envelope, or a super-insulated home, is very important and a top priority for us. It significantly reduces the building energy consumption and operational cost. It further allows scaling back and cost-savings on mechanical equipment, such as heating and cooling.

With that said, why exactly do I want radiant floor heating in a super insulated home (see also 05/07/2009 post)? It’s like I am searching for a hybrid car with eight wheels, just because I like wheels. It is counterproductive and will have a negative effect on the gas mileage. Four wheels will do the job! And you know what? Two wheels will do an even better job – that thing called bicycle. Not only would I not burn gasoline or require all that energy that goes into the production of the automobile, but I get the needed fresh air and exercise and have the opportunity to wave hello to my neighbors while I am pedaling by.

Why was I focusing on radiant floor heating (and some other fancy but costly items), if all I really need is a solar collector, a hot water thank, and a very simple radiator system that only needs to come on occasionally?  Time to rethink and remember basic sustainable design principles!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark