Building Green: Chapter 1 – Why Green Building?

Notes from the Green Building Trenches: Should You Build Your Own House?

April 22nd, 2010 by Clarke

This article by Clarke Snell was originally published in the New Life Journal.


Just let me vent for a minute. I’ve been having a little trouble with my brain, nothing serious or anything… just been forgetting things, blacking out, and feeling a strange compulsion to listen to ‘N Sync. Okay, so I don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know I need brain surgery, right? Anywho, I’m a handy guy, so I’m thinking I’ll do it myself. I figure I can do a better job for less money and get the personal satisfaction to boot. I’m a careful dude, though, and after reading the pamphlets I’m not sure if I want to do it all myself, just assist in the operation, or simply run the hospital during the procedure. I decide to call a neurosurgeon for some pointers, right? I left four messages with different “doctors” explaining my situation clearly: I don’t have much money, I want to do as much of the brain surgery as possible myself, and I need it done immediately.  Would you believe it? Not ONE of them returned my calls. I guess they were too busy playing golf.
[Insert dream sequence music here.]

Insane, right? Out of touch with reality, eh? Interestingly, though, if we change the topic from brain surgery to house remodeling or other construction (and “playing golf” to “drinking beer at Hooters”), then this “rant” becomes a story I’ve heard repeated with a straight face by a number of people. But are the two really that different? How realistic is it for the average person to consider having a considerable role in the construction or remodeling of their own home? Where does this idea come from that we can do our own brain surgery…I mean house building?

The phenomenon is even more pronounced in my specific neck of the construction woods: “green” and “natural” building. I completely understand the impulse. In fact that’s how I first got involved in construction. I didn’t know a kerf from a smurf when I decided to build my own house. All I knew was that I wanted a house and I didn’t have to be a brain surgeon to see that modern houses were expensive energy hogs. They also often seemed like soulless, black-holes of emptiness…and then there was that bathroom wallpaper with seashells. It was all very confusing.

I set out to find a better way. I eventually built a house that is substantially heated by the sun for a fraction of the going square foot cost. Though my wife and I live and work there, our electric bill is usually less than $20 per month. We use less than 100 gallons of propane per year and have free water. By most standards, that’s very efficient. It’s also a beautiful place (though, like most owner-builts it’s not completely finished) and I have the personal satisfaction of having done it myself. This isn’t personal back scratching, just a testament to my credentials for making the following statement: Owner-builder beware. The road is potentially fraught with danger, stress, spousal unrest, and cramps in your check writing hand. I’m not saying you can’t do it, just be careful. The first step is to get real. Here’s a list of a few, from my point of view, popular myths that you should be aware of:

Myth #1: There are simple materials and techniques that can make house building accessible to everyone.

At some point in history regardless of your lineage, your ancestors built their own houses. People grew up involved in house building and repair and thus it wasn’t something to learn or study, it was a part of life. For most of us, those days are long gone. What’s more, a modern house is considerably more complicated than most of its forebears. I’m not talking fiber optics and heated towel racks here. Energy efficient construction, the hallmark of all environmentally conscious building, is a distinctly modern concept that requires careful design and attention to detail in construction. Even operable windows and doors are a complicated technology requiring a fair amount of skill to implement. The “simple” materials and techniques that people talk about (cob, cordwood, straw bale, etc.) are almost exclusively relegated to filling wall volume and as such just scratch the surface of the complex matrix that is a house.

Myth #2: “Natural” or “green” building is easier because it works with nature, using less complicated systems.

The evil genius of modern construction is the combination of mass-produced components with forced air HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning). This allows you to replicate a design anywhere using the exact same quality-controlled components. The floor plan can be of basically any shape and size and the building situated unconsciously because the indoor air is “conditioned” and moved around mechanically. This is the lazy way, and we pay for it collectively with the pollution and resource depletion caused by its resulting profligate energy consumption. The better approach is to create a building that works with natural forces on the site (sun, water, and wind) to create a comfortable base interior environment. This approach is more subtle, takes more thought, and is less forgiving of mistakes. For example, you can replace a too small boiler with a bigger one, but you can’t move your house to take proper advantage of winter solar heat gain.

Myth #3: If you do it yourself, you’ll save money and get a better product.

This statement is part of the great CON-tractor vs. c-LIE-nt culture wars. The owner-builder variation is to make cost comparisons between owner-built and contractor-built houses without factoring in the cost of the owner’s labor. That’s just bad math. Every hour you spend on your house is an hour that you aren’t spending at a job that you know how to do. Unfortunately, beginning construction workers with your skill level earn low wages, don’t get paid vacations or holidays, and often don’t even have insurance. Moving from spending time at your job to grunting and groaning at your construction site is most likely a financial loss. In other words, it would be cheaper to pay someone with more skills to do the work while you earn cash to pay them. As for the quality of the product, when did you ever do a good job on anything the first time you tried it? Fundamentally, you have to ask yourself this question: do you really want to trust some clueless novice, i.e. you, with something as precious and practically fundamental as your own house.

In the end, the real question is about your goals. If you are looking for a vision quest, building your own house is a great one. Just realize that you’ll spend so much time (measured in years, not months) amassing knowledge and practical experience that the most practical outcome is that you’ll find a profession in the process. On the other hand, if you’re looking for the most cost-effective way to build the most environmentally conscious house that fits your needs, I strongly suggest making yourself part of a design and construction team that is dominated by experienced professionals. We’re not all CON-tractors, just like you’re not all c-LIE-nts.

Share

Five Elements of Green Building

October 28th, 2009 by Renee

By:  Clarke Snell

This is the first in a series of columns written for New Life Journal on the quickly propagating though illusive animal known as “green building”. These days it seems like there is such a frenzy to do “green building”, that few of us slow down long enough to really say what it is. I’ll remedy that problem right off. For me “green building” grows out of the broader concept of “sustainability”: the simple idea that the way of life we choose must not lead to circumstances that prevent that way of life from continuing. Bees have got it down, rabbits can do it in their sleep, but we humans just can’t seem to wrap our big brains around it. In order to even start moving in the direction of sustainability, I feel that we need to create buildings that balance five often conflicting traits:

Five Elements of Green Building

(1) Low Construction Impact. Building is almost always an initially destructive act. Land usually has to be at least minimally cut and reshaped, holes need to be dug, and materials refashioned to serve the building. A green building minimizes its construction impact on the local ecosystem through careful design that considers the building site as a partner rather than an inconvenience. It minimizes its impact on the ecosystem of the planet by utilizing replenishable materials that cause the least amount of environmental destruction in their use.

(2) Resource Efficiency Through the Life of the Building. After a building is built, people move in and use it. This hopefully long relationship usually constitutes the main period of impact that the building will have on the planet. Heating, cooling, lighting, bathing, and watching re-runs of “Survivor” all require resources that are often non-renewable and polluting. A green building creates the daily indoor environment for its human inhabitants in the most efficient, non-polluting, and renewable manner possible.

(3) Longevity. Creating a building requires natural resources such as construction materials and fuels as well as human labor and ingenuity. The longer a building lasts, the longer the time span before the natural environment will be asked to ante up resources to repeat the process. A green building, then, is designed to have a long fruitful life.

(4) Nontoxic. It’s a true testament to our dire straits that this one even makes the list. As bizarre as it may sound, we have to be very vigilant if we want to create a modern building that is nontoxic to its inhabitants or the environment at large. Okay, y’all, it’s pretty simple: a green building does not poison its inhabitants or the environment.

(5) Beauty. To be simplistic (give me a break, it’s just a short column), a sustainable system is one where component elements work together to create a self-regulating, self-maintaining cycle. The complex tangle of relationships that tend to create such systems in nature develop slowly over eons. Everything on the planet earth developed, changed, and adapted as part of a sustainable system.

Flash forward to today. We modern humans find ourselves out of the sustainability loop. What happened? Simply put, we left home. Once we cut ourselves off from a deep, cultural connection to a specific place, an exact climate, a complex matrix of relationships that slowly developed over time, we left the basic source of our sustenance, our sustainability. Now we are left with the daunting task of trying to rebuild that delicate connection to the web of life.

Hey, don’t look at me. I can’t begin to imagine the delicate negotiations we’re going to have make to get back in the club. It does seem to me, though, that to create a sustainable lifestyle, we need to stay put more of the time and derive more of our social, physical, and spiritual sustenance from our own backyards. For example, it takes a long time to build healthy soil to grow good food; to build a network of friends and compatriots that will be the basis for community; to nurture the trees and other plants that will be part of a house’s cooling strategy. These things simply won’t happen if we aren’t sufficiently seduced by our buildings to stay with them for the many years it will take to turn them into integrated places that nurture both their inhabitants and the environment. A green building, then, needs to be deeply and personally beautiful to its inhabitants, a place that is as hard to leave as a lover and as unthinkable to neglect as your own child.

From Theory to Practice

Okay, we’ve defined the task, let’s build some stuff! Unfortunately, we live in a place called the real world where things are never that simple. The fact is that the five elements I’ve outlined are often in conflict with one another. For example, to save energy using passive solar design on a forested site, you need to create a larger construction impact by cutting more trees to access the sun. On the other hand, cob, a mixture of clay soil, sand, and straw, can have an incredibly low construction impact, but isn’t the best insulator. Cob buildings, then, will often use more energy to heat, than comparably sized buildings using other wall systems. Even the seemingly no-brainer concept of building without toxins is harder than it sounds. When it comes to drain pipe, for example, you’re probably going to use PVC. It’s a non-renewable petrochemical product and highly toxic dioxins are released in its manufacture, but I have yet to find a truly practical alternative.

In the end, “building green” is a deeply personal process in which you make judgments as to how a building will best merge with your own personal mode of survival, be it computer programming or subsistence farming, to create the most beneficial impact on your environment, both local and global. An ideally “green” building, then, must be a very specific thing, matching your idiosyncratic personal needs with the fabric of your exact local environment. It’s a daunting challenge, yes, but what more important goal have you got on your to do list? In the coming months, I’ll be throwing in my two cents worth as to how you might go about creating that strange, beautiful animal known as the “green building”.


Share

Shai Agassi on Attacking Climate Change

April 27th, 2009 by Seldom

In 2007 Shai Agassi left his position as next in line for CEO at SAP to found Better Place.

When horrific climate-change scenarios elicit little but endless chatter from governments and entrenched special interests, the difference between talk and action represent an embarrassing gulf. Meet Shai Agassi, who has stepped fearlessly into that gap. His approach to solving the puzzle of electric automobiles could spark nothing short of an automotive revolution.

-TED.com

A two minute excerpt from Shai’s TED talk.

Watch the entire 18 minute presentation where he describes Better Place’s plan at TED.com

Share

Embodied energy and CO2 emitted in the production of some common items and building materials

March 30th, 2009 by hana

Here we have a kilogram to kilogram comparison of embodied energy and carbon dioxide emissions during the production of some common items and building materials.  (The values for gasoline are not embodied energy/CO2 emissions of production, but energy and emissions produced by burning 1 kg of gas.)

Here we move on more specifically to building materials and put them in more recognizable building units.  For comparison, the energy and CO2 emitted in the production of the average American’s weekly food consumption and the energy and CO2 emitted by burning 1 gal of gas are provided.

Next, we compare wall-building materials.  Here we see some growing trade-offs in embodied energy and CO2 emissions, although distinct advantages can be seen in some building materials over others.  (CO2 emissions for Adobe unavailable.)

Finally, some insulating materials (adjusted to different thicknesses to achieve an R value of 10).  Here there are clear winners among the alternative insulating materials.  (Also notice the CO2 emissions differences between HFC-foamed and CO2-foamed polystyrene.)

Data from:

Share

How Much Does a Shower Cost?

March 18th, 2009 by Seldom

A shower’s cost varies with water use, the cost of the water, inlet water temperature, the amount of energy used to heat the water, the cost of that energy, shower temperature, and sewer costs.

Imagine two neighbors. Each has a supply water temperature of 50°F, combined water/sewer charges of 0.28¢/gallon, electric rates of 8¢/ kWh, and gas rates of 60¢/therm. However, one has a low-flow showerhead on a water heater, and one has an old showerhead on an electric water heater. They both take 105°F showers, but because of the different water heaters and showerheads, the cost per minute of their showers differs by a factor of seven.

The neighbor with a low-flow showerhead rated at 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) and a gas water heater with an Energy Factor (EF) of 0.6 can shower for just 1.6¢ per minute–0.9¢ for gas and 0.7¢ for water. The other neighbor, with an old 8 gpm showerhead and an electric water heater with an EF of 0.92, will pay almost 11¢ per minute for the shower–8.5¢ for electricity plus 2.2¢ for water.

During the time they run water to heat it up, they will both pay more per minute, since they will probably run all-hot water at a higher flow rate, perhaps running it at full blast through the tub spigot.

:: Home Energy Magazine

Share

Building Materials Certifications

February 28th, 2009 by Seldom

We have FSC for wood, but what about the remaining building materials?

There are no requirements or incentives of any kind that a purveyor of steel, aluminum,
concrete, plastic, glass, bamboo, or any material other than wood demonstrate environmental
and social responsibility in management or resource extraction, despite the fact that substantial
environmental and social impacts are associated with production of all of these materials.

It is now time to begin moving toward certification of all materials used in construction. The
responsibility for initiating such change lies squarely with the leaders of green building
programs, executives of the largest building materials distributors, environmental
organizations, and environmentally concerned citizens.

:: Certification of Building Materials: Important or Not?

Share