NC has a green homebuilder certification program called "NC Healthy Built Homes", which establishes "green" standards that, in many cases, go beyond the normal state requirements, or have additional, more stringent requirements (but again, not being a builder or engineer, I really don't know what the differences are in some cases, such as insulation):
"The NC HealthyBuilt Homes Program provides a certificate for homes meeting "green home guidelines" built by residential builders who practice sustainable, high performance building strategies making the home a comfortable, healthy and affordable place that reduces energy and water usage, promotes renewable energy use and helps protect the land where the home is built.
In a HealthyBuilt Home, building materials and processes are selected to reduce pollution and the waste of natural resources during the manufacturing and construction phases and throughout the life of the home. The builder is encouraged to provide homeowner education about the high performance features of the home and provide local resources for "green" living."
The standards list everything from insulation to water usage to landscaping to indoor air quality and so on. The standards are listed here:
formatting link
So I am comparing two homes built by two different builders, both of which are "NC Healthy Built Home" certified, but each has varying implementations of the standards. In comparing the two, I'm trying to discern which features provide the "most bang for your buck", as I stated originally.
IOW, I'm trying to separate the fluff from the real "green" stuff.
You have pointed out that the R19 requirements are not really that green at all. So I'm curious as to what other features you think are required in order for something to be considered "green".
Ok I checked your state site and you apparently *don't* have a statewide mandatory code for 1 and 2 family dwellings.
I think that using minimal non-renewable energy is the goal, and you end up somewhere along that spectrum. The 'features' I listed above tend to make you much more comfortable while using less energy---much less if you do all of them; probably half as much as the house you are talking about.
Using less water is nice as well, but that isn't very difficult or costly---we have a very expensive toilet and a very cheap one, and they both use the minimal amount of water and work fine. Next step is composting (waterless) type, and that ain't happening. Likewise, low flow showerheads and faucets and so on are all out there and just as cheap as anything else---probably because here we do have state codes that require their installation.
So I would classify most other things as fluff, and I would question lines in the spec that say "doors and windows will be sealed", since that is just standard construction anywhere. In fact, I think I will add long-lasting quality construction that doesn't require constant maintenance and replacement to my 'green' requirement; one house every
100 years is much greener than one every 50. And that's another reason that factory-built structures are a better deal.
Which features were those? Is that what you're referring to?
I really don't follow as to where exactly I would gain this 50% more efficiency based on what I've said.
Re: insulation, going by this R Value Calculator
formatting link
the R19 walls are rated "Good" with R21 being "Best" -- I really don't know how much difference it would make between R19 and R21 tbh). The ceiling R38 is rated "Good", "Better" and "Best" (R38 is the only value listed). The downstairs floors have radiant heating, but the upstairs floors are R19, which ranks below their R30 value of "Good" and R38 of "Best". But I'm not sure if the radiant floor heating in the downstairs would affect their insulation choice in the upstairs.
Right, I noticed some of the standards seem rather common sense.
Well, sure, but the question is how can I determine whether the house is of "quality construction".
Both of the homes I'm referring to are not "factory-built structures". These are small, private, locally owned builders that live in the neighborhood in which they are building these houses. We're not talking about huge tract developments where corporate builders like Pulte and such throw up 150 houses in 3 months and move on to the next hunk o' land. (I live in one of those houses now, and it is definitely not "quality construction", but the only way I came to discover that was by living here).
The one project has 12 single family homes and the other has a mix of duplexes and single families for a total of 15 units -- both are infill development projects in walkable communities right in town. We're talking low-volume, small-time local builders here.
I notice you're cross posting to several groups, I'm limiting my response to construction types..
Firstly, insulation is not generic. Dense packed cellulose, if that's what they're using for the walls, is much, much better than fiberglass. Fiberglass loses R-value as the temperature goes down. Cellulose does not. Dense cellulose minimizes air movement through walls, fiberglass does not. Cellulose "buffers" moisture (a good thing), fiberglass does not.
Second, there was a comment along the way about sealing windows and doors. This is NOT standard practice. Builders think it is, but every house I analyze has windows and doors installed the same way - they shove fiberglass in the opening between the framing and the door, thinking that will help the insulation in that space. It does nothing good. Proper sealing of the window or door involves filling the entire gap with a low-rise foam that insulate and air seals. If they are not installed completely air tight, you can install the most expensive window and it will perform little better than a cheap one. You also run the risk of wood rot as moist air works its way into or out of the house.
Third, R-19 vs. R-21 wall insulation. Again, the type of insulation makes a difference. Also, an R-whatever wall is not really that R- value. You could put insulation rated R-19 into a wall with 24" stud spacing and that wall will be better insulated than R-21 in 16" stud spacing. If it were an option, you should have whatever R-value in the wall plus use taped, insulated sheathing on the outside. This will give you the best overall R-value for the wall structure as it minimizes the "thermal bridging" at the wall studs". That is a very good bang for the buck as adding R-7 insulated sheathing could increase the overall R-value by about 50%. See:
formatting link
a very good discussion of these factors.
As others noted, in your climate, go with as much insulation in the attic as possible. You get a lot of heat and regardless of attic venting they put in, you're going to have a boiling hot attic. Pay extra for added attic insulation. R-50- R-60. Again, air sealing is a key part of the construction, especially in the attic. Before the insulation is installed, you need to make sure that all the holes between the house and the attic are sealed air tight. That means every electrical wire, pipe hole, etc. should be sealed. Also, if you have a choice - don't use recessed lights. They're one of the biggest holes into the attic that you can have. No matter the rating, I've not seen a recessed light that doesn't leak like crazy. Use surface mount or hanging lights. The fewer holes through the ceiling, the better. And any holes that are there, seal them up after the electrical work is done.
Light colored roofs make a difference in attic heating.
All the other basic stuff everybody says - front load washers save tons of water and get out more water so you need less drying. Smaller, over/under style fridges can be much more efficient than side by side models. A heat pump water heater (very few on the market) would be great in your climate and would reduce water heating energy use by
1/2. Heat pumps for the house are great in a tightly constructed house. And don't forget about an HRV or ERV, which is a necessity in a tight house (google it if you don't know what it is).
I can only answer the very narrow question about the actual structures and their relative merits in terms of (non-renewable) energy efficiency. You clearly get points for walkable and infill, for example, but what are we comparing it to? The same problem exists when you talk about cost---are you going to be using coal-fired electricity with no carbon tax? Are you thinking of resale value in 10 years when energy costs may include what are now externalities? All too complicated for me.
But I would guess that, even in NC, the house you describe would use twice as much energy as the house I describe here:
1) R30 prefabricated wall panels and R50 prefabricated roof panels.
2) Heat pump
3) Slab foundation perimeter insulation only.
4) Interior walls 5/8 gypsum, tile floors where functional.
5) High efficiency lighting.
6) High efficiency windows with external shutters, skylights.
7) Structure orientation and shading non-random.
You get the most savings with 1, perhaps 30% or more of the heating and cooling. Each other thing contributes some percentage, and that depends on lifestyle to some degree---you might get a total more than
50%. I'm also not familiar with your climate, but as I said somewhere I am thinking that cooling is more important than heating. That would influence my choice, for example, about the radiant floor heat business. Those are getting popular now but I'm not convinced; I would like to see radiant heat that is in the ceiling of the downstairs and floor of the upstairs, for example, which would also serve for cooling.
I think the other stuff is fluff, as I said. Is cellulose 'greener' because it is recycled? I don't think so, really, because if it settles and loses R-value---which it probably will---you have a big tradeoff. What about the CO2 transport cost of bamboo v native lumber? And so on.
I know this may not help since you don't have the choice to build 'my' house and you might have different tastes. But you shouldn't just take the builders at their word, because the numbers get played with a lot. For example, the claim of R19 by itself is meaningless---it may refer only the insulating value of the 6" glass insulation, where a 4" wall with foam sheathing and insulated vinyl siding could be rated the same but yield better results.
I'm happy to try to give some guidance if you have specific questions.
I've read mixed reviews (again, I'm very early on in my research and I am starting from basically point zero) so far of prefab walls. Most recently, I was reading this highly critical analysis:
formatting link
Feel free to add your counter-arguments to theirs if you wish.
Secondly, regarding R-levels and insulation, I've talked to several insulation experts (i.e., people who are not in any way associated with the builders and who would actually be motivated to upsell me), and each of them basically said the same thing, which is that anything beyond the R19 walls and R38 roofs spec'ed by the builders would be overkill and not cost beneficial. For you people who have for some god- forsaken reason made the dubious decision to live in the Arctic zone, perhaps the R38 and R50 levels you mentioned might do some good, but I really don't know. ;-)
I also talked to a local Energy Star certifier, and he went as far as to say that the R-levels are not irrelevant, but a comparably minor consideration compared to the sealing of the house. The Healthy Built Home certification mandates that these homes are Energy Star certified as part of the process, so they would be sealed using the highest standards and inspected appropriately.
In either case, I am pursuing the question with another individual who certifies homes for energy efficiency.
On a side note, according to the individuals I spoke with, NC does have mandated residential building codes (R11 for floors, R13 for walls, R21 for roofs, if memory serves me right). In either case, the levels on the two homes I referred to exceed the minimum levels enforced by the State.
I really can't argue the comments made above; I'm just passing on the information. In any case, this is all very good because it makes a perfect launching pad for discussion/research on my part.
Check (on House1) ... mini-split a/c on House2
Check.
I don't think this is feasible with 2X6 framing, is it? Why tile floors over concrete?
Check. Energy Star certified.
Check on windows (Energy Star certified), don't think so on external shutters and skylights.
Both homes are roughly North/South facing. I don't know what "shading non-random" means.
That didn't seem to be the opinion of the folks I spoke with, none of whom are affiliated with the builders in any way, but I'll keep investigating this.
In Western NC, the average high temps in the dog days of summer are around 80 and the average low temps in Winter are around 30 (the skiing ain't that great, I'm sure). In fact, it's not uncommon at all to find houses that have no A/C at all.
Bamboo grows in NC and other parts of the States, but I'm not sure where these particular floors are coming from - something to investigate. The ones I currently have were manufactured in China, I'm pretty sure. The oak floors in House1 are FSC-certified, but I'd have to investigate their source of origin.
Well yes, why do you think I started the thread? ;-) I'm seeking out a number of different sources of information, as I always do.
I can't add counter-arguments because we are talking about completely different things. If you read their article, you will see that it says that most prefab *houses* are still using the same insulation system as stick-built. I said prefab *panels*, which are a different technology.
I thought I pretty clearly said that I am talking about relative energy efficiency *not* cost. If you are generating electricity by burning coal, then the state standards that you mention are just fine. If all you care about is cost; just turn the thermostat up and down as needed like Al Gore. Also, insulation 'experts' are usually interested in selling their particular technology, and there aren't any insulation experts that sell prefab panels and wall systems.
I hardly consider where I live Arctic---I've lived in the Lake Effect zone, and winter camped in the mountains for years never using a tent. This is my version of living in Florida.
Again, air leakage around openings is the result of shoddy construction, not design. See below.
But it is the opinion of physics. If you build two identical houses, and one has R19 effective walls and one has R30, you will lose and gain heat at different rates. I have the luxury (heuristic, if not economic) of moving between 3 space on a daily basis, one of which is poorly sealed R7, one at R19 well constructed, and one at R30 well constructed. Today, because of our conversation, I confirmed the test I've done in the past---placing the palm of my hand on the wall of the different spaces. In the first case, your palm starts and stays cold, in the R30 it is just neutral, and the R19 starts cold and ends up feeling slightly cool after about 15 seconds. What's interesting is that the R30 air temp is about 52 while the R7 and R19 are around 58. Outside temp is just under 40.
Yeah, the terminology is a bit confusing. I've only heard them referred to as SIPs, so I didn't realize that's what you were referring to.
Right, but my reasoning was that if you weren't going to realize the cost savings in my lifetime (which is what one person said), then it would follow that they can't really be *that* much more efficient. Again, I'm talking about comparing apples to apples -- R19 insulation in stickbuilt homes with R38 insulation in stickbuilt homes. The SIPs are another issue altogether.
According to the stuff I've read on SIPs so far and the SIPs reps I've talked with, there seems to be little doubt about the superior technology and better efficiency. That's a non-issue. When it comes to SIPs, the *only* relevant issue is cost.
The builders in charge of these two projects reasoned that in order to keep their homes affordable for the average Joe, they aren't using SIPs.
The SIPs people of course claim that the reduced labor costs and lower utilities bills will mitigate the additional up-front costs, but again, they are trying to sell product as well. Being the reasonably intelligent person that I am, I'm fully aware that each party is probably going to present a slightly different "truth". ;-)
The totally neutral party I've been talking with -- an energy rater who is building his own home using SIPs, and who has no vested interested in either technology, had this to say:
"It is a cost issue. SIP's are great and significantly more efficient than stick-built framing (they use a lot less wood framing), but when we run the numbers in the energy model, it takes a while for the SIP's to pay back. For some people, it's worth the upfront cost. For builders who are watching the bottom line, especially on spec houses, they can't justify the increased cost. The house I designed for me and my wife is planning on using 4.5" SIP's (R26) because I understand the benefits, but I also know that it will take 7-10 years for the energy savings to pay me back for the increased cost of the panels. I was originally planning on 6.5" SIP's for the walls, but the payback jumped to 20 years."
So ultimately, as a matter of necessity, it has to be about cost. If I could find a way to afford the superior technology and not live in a
300 sq.ft. box, then obviously I would do so. ;-)
Hey, to each his own. I wish more people would plan those types of trips so fewer would haul their RVs and SUVs down the blue ridge parkway every summer. Eventually, we might be able to actually *see* the mountains through the smog . . . that is, the ones that the developers haven't yet shaved off to build McMansions for those rich yankee retirees who need their 2nd homes to escape the Florida heat in the summer.
Hey, if this global warming thing really takes off, they might soon be headed your way. ;-)
Of course -- but Energy Star certification is one way to ensure quality. The point is that if the house is sealed properly, which Energy Star certification helps to ensure, then pouring alot of money into thicker insulation is not necessarily a wise thing to do, according to these folks. If anything, I would think they'd be motivated to sell me thicker, more expensive insulation. Again, talking about stickbuilt here.
Are we talking apples and oranges here? In your experiment, are you comparing three SIPs walls or 3 stickbuilt walls?
Why in the world would you think that? You can obviously buy one of those Tesla cars, and it is far more efficient than anything else, but with gas at 1.60 per gallon it is a lousy economic choice. Jeez ta, I guess should give up my quest to get people to think quantitatively and go back to knocking down windmills with my lance......
Again, that is not the right question for two reasons:
1) You are asking about 'what is really green', but you are deciding based on economics, not green-ness.
2) You can't figure out the payoff period with any certainty because you are making assumptions about the cost of energy in the future. By this reasoning, you should have bought a Prius two months ago, but now you should by a Hummer, since gas is 1.60. That way lies madness.
.......
Yes, ta, the guy who has been reminding people on this group for years about comparing apples to apples is comparing apples to apples.
I know the 'data' is hard to believe---it is one of those neat things where the physics really comes home to you through a simple physical experience; these are all conventional walls of different thicknesses. The only difference is that 4 inch wall (R7 insulation) has different stud spacing 16" v 24", which brings us to a little discussion that may illustrate my basic point. This will require carefully reading and very simple math.
Consider a nominal 6" standard wall (5.5" actual) as described in your second house, which is claimed to be R19. Every 24", there is a stud, which is 1.5" wide. So for a 32 foot section of wall, assuming no doors or windows, there are 16 studs, yielding a total of 24" (2 feet) which is wood, and 30 feet which is insulation. Now the studs aren't quite 8 feet high, but let's round up, and multiply 2ft wide by
8ft high, which yields 16 square feet. This would be the same area as a 4ft by 4ft window!
If you add in the horizontal pieces of wood that tie the vertical studs together, and the extra pieces that go around doors and (actual) windows, the usual estimates are that 19-24% of a wall is wood, not insulation. Now, the R-value for that thickness of wood is in the R7-8 range, which is only slightly better than an actual window, So, conservatively, about 80% of our wall is the R19 insulation, *but*
20% is the R8 wood.
So how do we tell if the builder is serious about green-ness, and what are the economics? You can nail some siding on and *claim* that you have an R19 wall, which is what your second house seems to be. Or you can first apply a 1" layer of isocyanurate rigid foam, which has an R- value of about 6.5-7.5. What that does is raise the value for the 80% that is fiberglas insulation to say 26, but also bridges over the 20% that is just wood, raising that to 14---which is above your state mandatory minimum. Going by *retail* prices, the cost of doing that for a 32ft section of wall is 8 pieces times $18 or $144 (in reality less because of windows and doors). I think you can do the math to extrapolate to whatever size house you are looking at, and see that compared to the total price, the difference is trivial.
Now we can look at some of the other features I've mentioned, and there will be similar (relative) numbers. But those small numbers add up to profit margin for the builder; even on 12 homes, a few K per house is a big deal, and they have little motivation to give that up. FWIW, I'm just trying to make you aware that if you wish to be greener, and/or don't believe that there will be a magic cheap energy source discovered in the next few years, it might be worthwhile to study up on the details *and the actual numbers*.
We should all be building to the =93Austrian Passive Home=94 efficiency or better. If I understand their requirements they do not care how one gets efficient just that they do =93Perform=94 after built. Living in a home like this will make you the envy of the neighborhood. Little or no utility bills, and very comfortable. So find a builder that knows how to build a house like this and do it.
No, I obviously can't, since I can't afford them.
It wouldn't be a lousy economic choice for someone who could afford it, but it certainly would be a lousy economic choice for me. Actually, there's no choice involved at all, because they are obscenely expensive, by my standards (which are the only standards that are relevant, since this is my house we're talking about). You cannot determine what are good and bad economic choices unless you consider the financial state of the buyer.
Obviously Larry Hagman can afford to be a lot more "green" than I can.
You seem to think that efficiency is the only relevant factor and that economics are irrelevant (in my original post, I said "bang for your
**buck**). That's fine if you're an academician writing a paper or preparing a lecture about some theory or ideal. However, for those of us actually dealing in reality, we have real housing needs with real budgetary constraints that must be considered.
The right question is: how efficient can I get within my financial and other constraints. All other questions are strictly academic and of absolutely no interest to me.
The guy who wrote the paragraph above has his own criteria, which may or may not be different from mine (I really don't know his financial condition, so it's not for me to judge). If I were in his place, I may or may not choose to install the 6.5" SIPs, depending on how much more they cost (i.e., if I could afford to take the hit, the extra green- ness might be worth it . . . just as if I could afford to buy the Tesla, then the added efficiency/green-ness might be worth it -- "worth" being used generically, not strictly financially).
No. I am deciding on *both* economics and green-ness. I don't think it's that complicated a question really. I have X amount of money and I want to achieve maximum efficiency within that real-world constraint. Other real-world constraints/factors include geography and size.
That's true. I have no idea what kind of model he used, tbh.
Nonsense. I wouldn't buy a hummer if gas was .60/gallon.
You misunderstood. I said are **we** talking apples and oranges. That is, are you talking about one thing (SIPs) and I'm talking about another (stickbuilt).
Right, so all this an argument for SIPs, which I am already familiar with. No studs =3D more efficient.
Ok, that's good to know. These are things I can investigate.
Yes, I agree -- that's why I'm asking these questions. ;-) And again, I do appreciate the information. I'm simply trying to discover optimal efficiency at a price I can afford and in a location and size that is suitable to me.
I have no allegiance to these two examples that I've given -- they're just the first two that I have come across. I was talking with another builder this weekend who may be able to sell me a house using SIPs that I can actually afford (the two that I had investigated prior were way out of my price range).
Ok, I've finally figured out what I've been trying to say and perhaps can now do it in (somewhat) fewer words.
One is obviously constrained by one's budget, location, and size requirements, and you are obviously more conscientious than most because you are doing the research. But I am concerned that everyone treats efficiency by a different standard than they do all the other factors *other than* budget, location, and size.
The problem is that there is no other feature of the house which is required to 'pay for itself' in some number of years in order to be a desirable choice.
Let's say you are buying/building a 64x32 house (I don't think you are going to buy a McMansion any more than I think you are going to buy a Hummer.) That would be 6 of the above wall sections, and let's say the cost to add those rigid foam sheets comes out to $1000. Not SIP, but a similar effect by bridging over the framing members.
Well, lots of people would gladly spend $1000 to get, say, a nice front door---maybe with one of those little semicircular windows over the top. But they would never even think to ask whether that was going to 'pay for itself' in 6 years or 12 years. They simply accept some risk v benefit, since when they sell the house such doors may be out of fashion, or maybe there's a revival, so they could lose or win, but probably they just like knowing that they have a nice door and are happy to spend the 1K.
But then, why don't we apply the same approach to energy efficiency? Why do people have to see some calculation that the choice of extra insulation is going to be economically neutral, and in a specific time frame? Why not apply similar reasoning: It could be that energy will become cheaper, or more expensive, and you could lose or win, but by making that choice you will at least be a bit more physically comfortable and have contributed something to the future.
So my question is, why is spending that $1000 such a big deal in one case, but not in the other? I'm not saying someone should choose (if the choice were available) the insulation over the door, or vice versa. But it should be a matter of preference, without the double standard that seems to have been created involving 'pay-back periods'.
tg, I think you are trying to convince me of something that I don't need to be convinced of. :-)
I don't believe I stated anywhere that any choice I make about efficiency has to pay for itself over x amount of time (I cited the Rater's example to illustrate the cost differential, which is a relevant factor, and noted that his decision is not necessarily mine. And I cited the insulation guy's comment that you would not see the cost savings in your lifetime to illustrate that the two choices are not *that* different in terms of efficiency, according to him); I just said the choice has to be affordable. These are two different things.
I most certa "The guy who wrote the paragraph above has his own criteria, which may or may not be different from mine (I really don't know his financial condition, so it's not for me to judge). If I were in his place, I may or may not choose to install the 6.5" SIPs, depending on how much more they cost (i.e., if I could afford to take the hit, the extra green- ness might be worth it . . . just as if I could afford to buy the Tesla, then the added efficiency/green-ness might be worth it -- "worth" being used generically, not strictly financially)."
in my previous response.
So the bottom line is that the decision doesn't have to result in a break-even or better financial scenario, but it does have to be affordable. If I had $1000 (or $5000 for that matter) of financial wiggle room, then I would choose the "greener" solution, assuming there was a reasonable, tangible (environmental) benefit of doing so. On the other hand, I would not spend another $1000 (or $5000) on something if the benefit was going to be negligible. So I would just need to be confident that the investment was going to be worthwhile (again, using "investment" in the larger, global sense).
I've made the same argument countless times in discussing factory farming with people . . . that the true "cost" of a factory farmed pork chop is not built into the price tag, when you consider other environmental, health, and ethical side effects. As a matter of practice, I've always been willing to pay the premium food costs up front to prevent larger, more pervasive costs down the road. I do this despite the fact that the locally raised, organic chicken that I (usually) buy is not going to provide me with a financial return on my investment. The other benefits (health, environmental, ethical) are "worth it" to me.
I short, I'm willing to eat the costs of a greener implementation, as long as I can afford the upfront premium costs, as in my food shopping example. That's a non-issue.
Ok, ta---you buy that organic chicken, and I'll work in my R-30 building, and between us we'll save the world. :-)
Anyway, I'm glad that the attitude I described doesn't apply to you, although from what I can see, it is actually the norm.
But I would still question your use of the payback period as an indicator of relative merit, because of the price factor. IOW, doubling the efficiency is always twice as 'good', whether I am paying $2 for heating oil or $4---but of course that price greatly affects the payback period.
Say, it just struck me that this is some kind of prisoner's dilemma deal, actually---if everyone buys efficient houses and cars, the price of energy will drop, and then they will all complain that the investment wasn't worth it.
Ok, I see your point -- I was using the utility bill as a gauge of efficiency because it is a tangible measurement and it is one I can readily understand. I don't understand all of the technical details behind the various insulation options (or even what all of the options are), so financial savings made "common sense" to me.
So how would I measure the efficiency gain with the added layer of foam? It makes sense to me that it would be more efficient, how can it be quantified?
(your physical experiment with the hands on the walls makes sense as well, but how can that be quantified?)
Now that you've read and absorbed that, perhaps we can refine your questions as I suggested earlier :-)
I think when you say 'how do you quantify increasing R value?', what you really mean (since R is already a quantity) is: "what is the relationship between increasing R value and my need to turn the thermostat up or down?". Your sources are correct that the relationship is not linear---there is some degree of 'diminishing returns' from simply increasing R. But it is difficult to tell how this affects your particular case without more info on your preferences and options.
For example, as I said, I am more concerned with staying cool when it gets hot, so my 'bang for the buck' involves an R50 roof and good thermal mass as top priorities. But knowing that, we have to ask: Does a particular roof design work with the style of house that you want to get? Will the builder be willing/able to modify his standard design at a fair price? Do you prefer carpeting to tile?
So the 'quantification' requires that we begin at least with some parameters or ranges.
I would think you'd be more concerned with staying warm up there in the north pole. Where I'm going, the summers are cooler and the winters are mild. And although the climate projections are hardly what I would call a sure thing, warmer is probably the safe bet. But honestly, planning for any more than a few years in advance is a crap shoot.
I don't know.
No, I'd like to do concrete floors downstairs+hardwoods upstairs if possible. Otherwise, hardwoods throughout, but ceramic tile in the kitchen.
I'm really talking about a pretty simple, 1300-1500 sq. ft. house here, so design is less important than function to me.
At least with the 44 acres you can gain some distance from the pig farms---although I suspect even that isn't really enough :-(
Sure, that's what they all say;-). If you are really going to end up that small, with 2 stories, and no frills, what I've suggested so far would probably allow you to live in that climate and never use a drop of energy specifically for heating or cooling. And just in case this is the one time I've ever been wrong about anything, the most sensible thing to do is put in electric baseboard heat, which will save a whole lot up front. A couple of window-sized AC units upstairs will turn the place into a refrigerator should you so desire.
I'm not really exaggerating here, ta. The insulation plus thermal mass will keep you very comfortable. I would see about conventional walls as I described earlier to get about R24, and maybe the roof could be the R50 SIP given your small span and low snow load. Definitely get
5/8 sheetrock on the inside; again this adds just a little to the price. I don't know anything about concrete as a residential floor but I assume with some kind of epoxy paint it should work fine.
There are designs for that configuration (small 2-story) out there but you will have to do your own research on it.
The hog farms are all on the other side of the state. That way when the hurricanes come, the hogs can go for a spontaneous swim:
formatting link
That's seriously what I'm looking at; that is the size of my current abode. Ok, I don't want to live in a box, and a window or two *would* be nice, but I'm not too hung up design features. (btw, western NC has some of the most expensive housing markets in the state and entire region -- did I mention those rich yankee floridian retirees and their
2nd McMansions?).
What about straw bale homes?
Really? I mean, average lows in the winter are around 30, but that's still pretty damn cold. I spent a couple weeks in December in western NC once that only had a single wood stove as the sole heating source (but it had these huge picture windows). It was c-c-c-c-old.
Many of the older homes in Western NC don't have A/C at all, other than a window unit or two, but all of them have heat.
I know zero about thermal mass; I'll have to do some reading.
Ok, I didn't realize you were talking about higher elevations. But you will still use very little energy over the course of the year--- even in the mountains, your winter is relatively short.
Sure, you don't care about design features but now you want a picture window. ;-)
One of the tricks I've seen, depending on the layout of the house, is the use of clerestory windows to give a lot of light. This allows you to have smaller windows at 'ground level', so you don't affect the radiant temperature as much (see that reference I gave you).
Also, if you just want the coziness effect, throw in a wood or pellet stove for the living room. Both use local renewable energy sources.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.