Comment on this cost effective green building?

soldsold

Hi,

Came across this description of a timber frame, super insulated, airtight, ventilated, cheap house and i thought it would be interesting for boardies to discuss as a potential cost effective method of building low energy houses without all the eco-bling and expensive eco materials.

"Discuss"!

S

Mellor

I think we'll need more technical details than;

timber frame, super insulated, airtight, ventilated

It's nothing strange. BEDZed was one of the pioneering eco developments. These were build using traditional methods. Timber, quilt insulation (I think rockwool), local brick, mass inner leafs etc. Lots of insulation is easy, but its not cheap.

sinnerboy

OP your question is too open in it's scope for any meaningful discussion . Your descriptions ( eg eco bling) are so open to interpretation - you , with respect , are asking how long is a peice of string .

In any event a discussion taking place in 2010 would have to be revisited in 2011 . And 2012. And 2013 .......

Legislation requirements , fuel prices , technological advancements in materials - build systems - and equipment manufacture are not static they are in constant flux .

So again with respect - I am locking this . I would encourage you to post again with a more defined inquiry .

sinnerboy

After pm from Soldsold - thread un locked .

soldsold

Thanks Sinnerboy.

Sorry everyone,

I hadnt lost the plot with my original post...

Ive been away for a couple of days so hadnt checked the thread locked on me, of course the question looked daft, as I had forgot to add the link to the house I was talking about.

My description was just a broad description of the details described (so not to waste everyones time who were not interested in clicking the link) of a house at:

http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/art...arsentruss.htm

There were some interesting things being done in the house like pumping cellulose into open trusses using multiple pipes (I had to go to lengths to make sure my rafters were closed off from each other so this looks like a clever way to avoid this work), use of "larsen truss" walls using rough cut lumber, use of acoustic mastic for airtightness, etc.

Im past these stages now but thought some people planning their builds might get ideas or someone might comment on the advantages or disadvantages of the different techniques being used.

Cheers,

Steve

beyondpassive

twinwall frame.jpg

i've spec'ed this kind of approach for off site closed panel timber frame. where a 350 cavity has both 175 and 75 studs seperated by osb web plates. Its a cheaper form of I Beam really.

That guy has put huge effort into the timber frame of the house but didn't adequately insulate the ground beam.

heinbloed

Well, stars and dollars...

Achieving " 5 stars " from a comunity who's nuclear power plant is leaking radioactive poison into the public groundwater (Vermont), see

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123463722&ft=1&f=1001

or

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/radioactive_tritium_leaking_fr.html

( quote from OP's link:)
" ...This house was rated 5+ stars by the Vermont Energy Star home program "

isn't that daft?

No, one has to look at the details: 2 inch of floor insulation with a ventilated floor (radon vent) in combination with under floor heating...

Cheap that is indeed. Give away the lamps for free and sell the oil.

The nuclear powerplant in Vermont is one out of two owned by a US community, they would file for bancruptcy if they
had to close it down. Imediate action to secure the leaking material would be what US laws demand when a power plant is closed down for good, decommissioned. But only for decomissioned powerplants, those kept in business are allowed to monitor their polution, using profits to evacuate the people and paying compensation.
So they keep it running, taking a little bit of the incoming money from the electricity bills to finance energy saving and safety measures. Like "star programs".
To keep the 'Greens' quiet. Pre-financing pay-as-you-save-schemes. To increase dependancy of the population.

How much energy is used by this cheap building? No one asks, it got 5 stars.....
KWh/m2a ? That's something not tought on public schools in Vermont. No money for this type of education.

The public creche oposite this nuclear powerplant is connected to a district heating system running on the efluent waste energy of the very same nuclear power plant. This creche has 5 stars as well...and is cheap as well.
Until last year the children's blood was tested once per month for radio nucleids, now it's once per week.....
They're fine, the children....

Springfield (the Simpson's town) is only a few miles down the river....

I would say forget US "green" building methods. When sustainable building means death and missery then it should be purple stars for the citizens. Or pink glases for the architects.
But these methods shouldn't be used as samples of good building practice. The climate in which these types of structures are build isn't the same as in Europe.....

soldsold

Hi heinbloed,

what I was really wondering here was if boardies would see any of the techniques used in this build as being cost effective ways to build a relatively airtight, efficient house at low cost. While passive or near passive is probably the best long term build structure, many people are miles away from the funds or interest in building to these levels with the planning, detailing and cost implications. So rather than focusing on what is wrong with the article, do any of you think there are useful, low cost ideas that are relevant and reasonable to consider?

S

heinbloed

Quote by soldsold:

" ...useful, low cost ideas that are relevant and reasonable to consider?"

Well, I can't.

Sustainable building technolgies have to produce long lasting buildings to be used capital efficient.

Building with timber in a termite invested area is a sin.

The men hours needed for the errection of the shown structure are intensive.
As a weekend retreat for someone who seeks a DIY employement and who's aim it is to sell the structure with some 'stars' fixed to it,not caring about his own financial and health and accident risks, well, it might work out.
But in a commercial market paying real wages (incl. giving a guarantee on the energy usage)this type of building method would hardly be profitable.

Factory made walls of this type are much cheaper to manufacture and errected within days or even hours.

Stick-builds (I think that is what this type of structure is called)are hard to sell in the USA, at least at the moment.
Did it sell by the way?

De.Lite.Touch

soldsold wrote: »

Thanks Sinnerboy.

Sorry everyone,

I hadnt lost the plot with my original post...

Ive been away for a couple of days so hadnt checked the thread locked on me, of course the question looked daft, as I had forgot to add the link to the house I was talking about.

My description was just a broad description of the details described (so not to waste everyones time who were not interested in clicking the link) of a house at:

http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/art...arsentruss.htm

There were some interesting things being done in the house like pumping cellulose into open trusses using multiple pipes (I had to go to lengths to make sure my rafters were closed off from each other so this looks like a clever way to avoid this work), use of "larsen truss" walls using rough cut lumber, use of acoustic mastic for airtightness, etc.

Im past these stages now but thought some people planning their builds might get ideas or someone might comment on the advantages or disadvantages of the different techniques being used.

Cheers,

Steve

For a house built in a beautiful place, the windows aren't very big, are they?

Aren't you meant to face big windows to the sun to get the heat in?