NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not exactly an environmentalist, but I think conservation is a worthwhile endeavor. With that in mind, what are some real-world actions that can have a positive impact on building a home, or at least mitigate the harm done? These changes must be budget conscious. I live in the US, so some awesome product from Europe may be expensive to ship and would increase the 'carbon footprint' of the project. For example,

-Build smaller houses. A family of 4 does not need 4000 sq. ft. of floor space.

-In light frame construction, space studs at 24" on center instead of 16". Build to the standard 8' ceiling instead of the increasingly popular 9' height. Use premanufactured trusses built from smaller dimension lumber instead of 12" rafters.

-Install an instant water heater such as those made by Rennai and Bosch instead of a hot water tank

-I live in timber country, so locally produced lumber products from companies that replant their forests after harvest are a reasonable lumber solution.

Now those are practical considerations. the debate begins when discussing other areas that have both positive and negative attributes, such as the following:

-Framing exterior walls with 2x4 instead of 2x6 and using an insulation material other than fiberglass batts, such as spray-in-place foam to achieve a higher insulation value. Less wood is used, and slightly more floor space is gained, but the insulation has hazards.

-Engineered lumber products, like wood I-joists, glulam beams, and OSB use wood that is otherwise a waste product, but can contain chemicals that are harmful.

-Vinyl window frames offer decent insulation but use petroleum in their production and may release harmful chemicals. Wood window frames use wood, but can cause rot and mold problems if improperly installed an maintained. Metal-clad wood windows offer the best balance in my opinion, but what do you think?

I know I've only scratched the surface here, and I haven't mentioned all of my ideas or dilemmas. NSG: What do you suggest for green building ideas that are both environmentally sound and budget conscious? After all, what good is a green technology that I can't afford?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZkddV39t6E

Keep the environment in mind if you want but remember that global warming caused by man is still very much a theory.

**Note, there is a bit of bad language in this video being from Penn & Teller and all. Not saying they are 100% accurate but they present a good argument.

what you need to do is get in touch with the companies you intend to buy from first and ask them (do some homework of course) though really I've never known anyone to have any hazardous affects from insulation

I say you start slow maybe get a compost heap going, start growing your own vegetables and follow the advice of superpower bloke (http://youtube.com/watch?v=oPkOFwaGKG0)

I know I've only scratched the surface here, and I haven't mentioned all of my ideas or dilemmas. NSG: What do you suggest for green building ideas that are both environmentally sound and budget conscious? After all, what good is a green technology that I can't afford?
Do un-sexy but extremely worthwhile things like getting double glazing and sorting out your insulation, as well as turning the heat down a bit in winter and turning the air con down or, better still, off in summer.

With the rising price of fuel oils and gas, spending a couple of hundred dollars on warmer/cooler clothing right now is a pretty sound investment.

Getting grass rooves and photovoltaics, mini wind turbines etc. might make you 'feel' green, but those things usually do more damage than they save, as well as costing loads.

You want a green house? Then go get some green paint.:D

No really this is cool. I want to build my own house some day too.

As far as foam insulation goes, I recommend icynene if you can get it. Its a CO2 water mix that contains no CFCs or HCFCs.

Those instant hot water heaters are the way to go. yup.

If you live in a particularly windy area, you could get one of these (http://www.pacwind.net/). Although they are kind of expensive.

You could also go for solar panels but they are not very practical from an environmental standpoint or a cost/benefit point of view unless you get a lot of them.

But, yeah, just go for double pane glass at least. Get Low - E windows if you can afford them.

I found a quick summary of Low - E glass online here (http://www.askthebuilder.com/B97_Low_E_Glass_-_Types_and_Benefits.shtml)

Table One - GLASS R VALUES
Type of Glass R Value
Single Pane regular glass 0.85
Clear Insulated Glass 7/8 inch overall thickness 2.08
Hard Coat Low-E insulated glass 2.45
Hard Coat Low-E insulated glass with argon 2.75
Soft Coat Low-E insulated Glass 3.50
Soft Coat Low-E insulated glass with argon 4.35

I you live in a particularly cold area you might want to insulate your pipes with mineral wool batting which is made from like 70% recycled materials. This kind that has an outside layer of aluminum foil works the best.

If you live in a sunny-warm area then aluminum siding would be excellent for reflecting light and not absorbing it. It has to be polished or brushed aluminum, it can't be painted. Theres a guy online who made aluminum siding for one side of his house using soda cans. Kind of tacky though. Aluminum roofs are cool but they are very loud when it rains.

Also, be warned that 90% of the heat that escapes from your house does so through the attic/roof. So make sure to do a good job foaming the attic. Maybe go for those insulating roof tiles that have asbestos in them. Those are incredible insulators if your not afraid of products that contain asbestos, which is recyclable. Good old tar works well too.

Best of luck. I hope more people follow in your trend setting footsteps.

http://www.realworldhouses.com/realworld20.html

I'm not exactly an environmentalist, but I think conservation is a worthwhile endeavor.
Then you're an environmentalist. It's nothing to be ashamed of. ;)

Then you're an environmentalist. It's nothing to be ashamed of. ;)

Not me: "AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! We're goona die from global warming! save teh whales! hug a tree! peeple iz badness! Industry is Satan! Pleez save us, government! make lotsa laws!""

Me: Capitalist libertarian. We are stewards of God's creation and ought to avoid careless damage. As a libertarian, I believe that damaging the property (including the real estate) of another is morally wrong, so pollution it wrong. I also believe that regulation of industry is more harmful than beneficial.

Back to the topic: I'm an architectural draftsman. I am aware of the basics, such as orientation of the house to avoid direct sunlight in the summer and gain solar energy in the winter, setting up passive heating/cooling using natural air flow & using mass as a heat sink.

What bothers me most about the green movement is that the folks who just jump on the 'Green' bandwagon want to buy their way out of poor planning through carbon credits, fluorescent lightbulbs, a Prius, and anything that has a 'Green' tag on it, no matter the expense.

I grew up without AC. We has a basement, and during the hottest part of summer we would just use the thermal properties of concrete walls and live downstairs where it was cool. I know it's quite possible to live without AC and wouldn't mind going entirely without it.

I am interested in things such as straw bale insulation if I build a pole barn and finish the back as a residence. Insulated Concrete Forms are also intriguing. They look very energy-efficient, but they use a lot of petroleum and they are harder to remodel. Price may also be an issue.

The USA has a codified system for making an environmentally friendly home. This is called the LEED System.

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19

Now, if you are serious about this, i strongly suggest you see a qualified architect that is also an accredited LEED professional. If they're not accredited, find someone who is. This is important for may reasons. One of the most important is that you also need a general contractor who has experience building environmentally conscious buildings. As an architectural draftsman, I would strongly suggest telling your boss that you want to become a LEED accredited professional, and getting them to pay for your classes. Green technologies will eventually supplant contemporary building technologies. Now is the time to learn.

Please note, and this is very important: there is no simple solution or mechanism. You can't just simply buy a 'green' home or part of a home. Each design element has to be assessed in terms of its whole life cycle as well as many other factors. You could have a whole thread based solely on choosing where you're going to build (brown field decontamination, building on already developed land, and proximity to public transit are just a few of the issues).

In terms of $$, you are going to want to look at payback periods. Geothermal heating, for example, costs a lot to install compared to electric baseboards, but the energy savings on your bill will eventually pay back this initial layout. The amount of time this takes is the payback period. Most building owners like to have a maximum payback period of ten years or so.

A lot is climate dependent. Straw bale housing, for example, works best in environments that have less than 17% absolute humidity on average. Montreal, where I am, has an average about 20. Consequently, all the straw bale buildings around here smell a little farmy. Considering Quebec's lumber resources and climate, I would have used a glulam structure, exposed recycled wood studs, an exterior envelope with an integral rainscreen, soy based spray insulation, and recycled metal siding. This would eliminate interior wall cavities, which would greatly reduce the mold and mildew so common in Montreal's damp climate.

Anyways, If you have any specific questions about eco-friendly building design, i would be happy to share what little knowledge I may have.

Not me: "AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! We're goona die from global warming! save teh whales! hug a tree! peeple iz badness! Industry is Satan! Pleez save us, government! make lotsa laws!""
That's not an environmentalist either.

By your own words, you believe we shouldn't needlessly destroy our surrounding environment. That's an environmentalist position.

By your own words, you believe we shouldn't needlessly destroy our surrounding environment. That's an environmentalist position.

I don't really believe that's strong enough to be called an environmentalist, I mean I think you'd find it difficult to find anyone who actually supports needless destruction of the environment.

People really need to look into more multi-family living situations. Urban sprawl is horrible here. I just bought part of a co-op that houses 20 other families. Our footprint is the same as about 3 houses/lots and we all have plenty of room.

It's trendy here to move "out to the country" on acres and acres of land, only the "country" is getting further and further away. We just keep incorporating cities into our own. I live in an incorporated city now... it's messed up, we have our own water, sales tax, school district, police, etc. but we are considered part of OKC proper even in mailing address. It used to be a town far from the city, connected by highway, then it was a suburb, now it's in nearly the middle of the city.

The USA has a codified system for making an environmentally friendly home. This is called the LEED System.

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19

Now, if you are serious about this, i strongly suggest you see a qualified architect that is also an accredited LEED professional.

I am an architectural draftsman. The problem with LEED is that it tends to be expensive and the resultant designs are often uncomfortable for actual use. I'm looking for incremental steps that require minimal expense and can be built by an average framing crew. Expense is an issue. LEED can be expensive. LEED is paperwork-intensive. I am looking for simplicity.

My current plan is for a 20' x 20' structure w/ full basement accessed by a spiral staircase. the basement will have a large egress window well that can accommodate furniture. The main level will have a 70 sq. ft. bedroom (minimum habitable room per IRC), a 3/4 bath and laundry room w/ stacked washer/dryer and a tankless water heater. The rest of the house will be a combined kitchen/dining/living space. The basement is for my library. The decision for a standard stick-frame building is governed by the available materials here. I want a basement because it offers the cheapest square footage for the money, a refuge from summer heat, and a storm shelter.

I still need to run a REScheck analysis for some of the options I'm considering.

I know this design won't work for everyone, but it would suit me. The concept is that if I need room for a family, this structure can become the master suite of a larger home with the bedroom becoming a walk-in closet, the bath/laundry remodeled into a full bath, and the 'great room' being split into a bedroom and other yet-to-be-determined space. At least that's the story to help if the city building department tries to become a design consulting firm. &^$%^&$% city officials!

I'm not exactly an environmentalist
And clearly not a good architect either or you wouldn't have suggested that studs be spaced at 24" o.c. instead if 16".

-Build smaller houses. A family of 4 does not need 4000 sq. ft. of floor space.
The 4000 sq. ft. doesn't all need to be in the footprint. And have you ever seen a map of the United States with population density indicated? There's tons of empty space here.

-In light frame construction, space studs at 24" on center instead of 16".
I have one word of advice on this. Don't.

What next, you going to tell people to use 2 x 4s for exterior walls and cardboard for partitions?

Build to the standard 8' ceiling instead of the increasingly popular 9' height.
How exactly will a low ceiling save the world? The extra foot isn't going to be that much more expensive and leaves more room for ducting, lighting, and allows for the ceiling height to be adjusted as needed.

Use premanufactured trusses built from smaller dimension lumber instead of 12" rafters.
Finally something I can agree with.

-Install an instant water heater such as those made by Rennai and Bosch instead of a hot water tank
Another good idea...usually. There may be some instances where this might not work out so well but none come to mind at the moment.

-I live in timber country, so locally produced lumber products from companies that replant their forests after harvest are a reasonable lumber solution.
Fine for most people but if you want a house to last a long time I'd suggest steel and concrete.

Now those are practical considerations. the debate begins when discussing other areas that have both positive and negative attributes
Bullshit! Some of what you've suggested already is debatable.

-Framing exterior walls with 2x4 instead of 2x6
Oh for fuck's sake.

and using an insulation material other than fiberglass batts, such as spray-in-place foam to achieve a higher insulation value. Less wood is used, and slightly more floor space is gained, but the insulation has hazards.
I personally prefer batting but there are times that foam is the better solution and some clients prefer it.

-Engineered lumber products, like wood I-joists, glulam beams, and OSB use wood that is otherwise a waste product, but can contain chemicals that are harmful.
Glulams are fine but I don't like using TJIs. I've set a few on fire to compare how fast they burn to standard joists and I have been disappointed. OSB is that pressed wood chip crap.

-Vinyl window frames offer decent insulation but use petroleum in their production and may release harmful chemicals. Wood window frames use wood, but can cause rot and mold problems if improperly installed an maintained. Metal-clad wood windows offer the best balance in my opinion, but what do you think?
Another problem with wood window frames is that they can warp.

NSG: What do you suggest for green building ideas that are both environmentally sound and budget conscious? After all, what good is a green technology that I can't afford?
Metal roofing. It lasts, it offers a lot of design freedom, and light.

You know, wouldn't it make more sense to build a concrete bunker-esque house? It'd probably be far more resource efficient, not to mention much safer from weather.

Then you're an environmentalist. It's nothing to be ashamed of. ;)

Nearly everyone is a environmentalists. I am one however I don't subscribe to extreme environmentalism.

I'm not exactly an environmentalist, but I think conservation is a worthwhile endeavor. With that in mind, what are some real-world actions that can have a positive impact on building a home, or at least mitigate the harm done? These changes must be budget conscious. I live in the US, so some awesome product from Europe may be expensive to ship and would increase the 'carbon footprint' of the project. For example,

-Build smaller houses. A family of 4 does not need 4000 sq. ft. of floor space.

-In light frame construction, space studs at 24" on center instead of 16". Build to the standard 8' ceiling instead of the increasingly popular 9' height. Use premanufactured trusses built from smaller dimension lumber instead of 12" rafters.

-Install an instant water heater such as those made by Rennai and Bosch instead of a hot water tank

-I live in timber country, so locally produced lumber products from companies that replant their forests after harvest are a reasonable lumber solution.

Now those are practical considerations. the debate begins when discussing other areas that have both positive and negative attributes, such as the following:

-Framing exterior walls with 2x4 instead of 2x6 and using an insulation material other than fiberglass batts, such as spray-in-place foam to achieve a higher insulation value. Less wood is used, and slightly more floor space is gained, but the insulation has hazards.

-Engineered lumber products, like wood I-joists, glulam beams, and OSB use wood that is otherwise a waste product, but can contain chemicals that are harmful.

-Vinyl window frames offer decent insulation but use petroleum in their production and may release harmful chemicals. Wood window frames use wood, but can cause rot and mold problems if improperly installed an maintained. Metal-clad wood windows offer the best balance in my opinion, but what do you think?

I know I've only scratched the surface here, and I haven't mentioned all of my ideas or dilemmas. NSG: What do you suggest for green building ideas that are both environmentally sound and budget conscious? After all, what good is a green technology that I can't afford?

If you're building a home that you'll be in until they plant you into the ground, you should consider a Monolithic Dome house. They're energy efficient, low maintenance, secure, able to withstand most natural disasters (Tornado, Hurricane, Fire, Earthquake, etc), usually lower insurance rates, no worry about columns or structural walls being needed to hold up the roof, etc. The only negatives I can see with a Monolithic Dome are, they're not normal looking (which may cause problems if you intend to resell it at a later date), they take more planning, they're difficult to expand (without the prior planning), and curved walls (which may lead to a bit of wasted space).

I'm no architect, but I would strongly advise against anything that might affect the long-term structural integrity of the building or not be up to local building codes. So all that framing at 24 inches with 2x4's I would suggest you forget about.

You want a green house? First, make it energy efficient.

-- Do not skimp on insulation, especially under the roof, and on sealing around windows.

-- I have heard that wood windows do give better insulation, though obviously they will not be as long-lasting as metal ones. On the other hand, there are many very old, very sound wood structures in the world. Maybe that's an area where an initial investment in proper woods and proper sealing will pay for itself in energy savings later. You should research that.

-- Whatever window frame you get, do get double glazed windows, as they also insulate better. And for summer, install awnings over your windows. The shade from the outside really does make a noticeable difference to indoor summer temperatures.

-- I have also heard good things about tankless water heaters, not only for saving water but for using less energy as well.

Second, do not add to pollution, waste, and resource consumption in the construction.

-- Do not skimp on structural elements, but do buy recycled, used, odd-lots, remnants, or renewable resource materials. There are a lot of very green sources for flooring, tiles, stone counter tops, cabinetry, and carpeting. Even buying used/recycled materials (hit ebay for starters) will not only save you money but will also keep perfectly good materials out of landfills and reduce the demand for new resources to be consumed.

-- For appliances, buy the most energy efficient ones you can find.

-- In your landscaping, plan for efficient irrigation systems, avoid large lawns (water guzzlers), put in plants that will support local birds and insects, install rain barrels under down spouts to collect rain water for the garden, install a compost heap, and avoid chemical herbicides, pesiticides and fertilizers (one of the leading contributing causes of coastal shellfish die-offs in heavily populated areas along the northeastern US coast is chemical runoff from gardens).

If you want a healthy house:

-- Go for wax finishes rather than varnishes, and avoid use of solvents in surface treatments.

-- When in doubt, go for natural materials -- stone for tile and counters, wool for carpets, cotton for upholstery and curtains, etc. In addition to being less toxic, they also have the benefit of lasting longer and being non-polluting if they do end up in a landfill someday.

Nearly everyone is a environmentalists. I am one however I don't subscribe to extreme environmentalism.
Well, what you would call 'extreme environmentalism', I would probably call 'realistic environmentalism', but I doubt we'd agree on that. :p

You know, wouldn't it make more sense to build a concrete bunker-esque house? It'd probably be far more resource efficient, not to mention much safer from weather.

A Monolithic Dome house is more efficient, as well as being tough enough to handle most natural disasters (and some unnatural ones, too). For example, this Monolithic Dome building in Iraq was hit by a 5,000 lb bomb. It is still structurally sound (although it needed to be completely rebuilt inside): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/Iraqi_dome.jpg/180px-Iraqi_dome.jpg

Part of the fun with this thread is seeing the disagreements over what constitutes a green building, what's 'green' enough, and what is considered an acceptable change to existing building practices.

Monolithic domes are interesting, but I'd like to see how to persuade the building department nazis that it's a good idea.

As I stated before, I also like the insulated concrete forms. Concrete bunker-esque? yeah. "AAAHHHH!!! A bunker! He must be a neo-nazi survivalist terrorist! Call the cops!" Still, it has its appeal. ICFs are good for building a bunker that looks like any other house once the siding is on.

Structural Insulated Panels offer quick setup and good insulation value, which offset the manufacturing costs.

2x4 @ 24" o.c. w/ 1/2" ply shear-nailed at each panel should be structurally sound for my specific application, especially if the gyp board is also shear-screwed. I don't live in a hurricane- or tornado-prone region. Seismic activity risk is also low to nonexistent. The small footprint minimizes the roof loads and wall shear problems. If studs, joists, and rafters are all spaced 24"o.c. and placed above one another, the load is transferred directly to the foundation very efficiently.

What about para-lam or versa-lam type joists and rafters? Does anyone have experience with those?

Metal roofing would serve my purposes quite well. The only problem with that system is the way the snow can chew up the valleys if I build where snows are heavy, such as where i live. My plan has simple roof planes, though, so that isn't an issue.

Windows: No matter what frames I use, double pane with low-E is a given. Fixed picture windows (if any) would be triple-pane, perhaps even argon-filled.

-In light frame construction, space studs at 24" on center instead of 16". Build to the standard 8' ceiling instead of the increasingly popular 9' height.
[i]-Framing exterior walls with 2x4 instead of 2x6



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH * breaths * HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry.

But for fuckshit sakes.

Using 2x4s for framing and doing 24" on center is a AWESOME way to bring a house crashing to the ground in a bad storm. Oh yeah, you'll fail inspection as well.

Now that I've thought about it I suggest you do go for the 2 x 4 exterior studs spaced at 24" oc. Perhaps you should try to go the extra mile by spacing them another full foot apart. And the roof should be 3" thick stainless steel plate, not shingles and felt. What could possibly go wrong?

Kindly show how 24" OC violates code. Cite the IRC section and I'll look it up on Monday. Floor joists are sometimes spaced @ 24" OC, roof framing is typically 24" OC, why not wall framing? If all of the sheathing is shear-nailed plywood, I don't see how it would fail. Remember - no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no earthquakes, and no massive winds here where I live. The rafters/trusses would bear directly on studs, which would bear directly on the joists, which are on top of the sill plate, which is anchored to the foundation, thus transferring snow loads directly to the foundation. Perhaps 2x4 @ 24" is extreme, but 2x6 @ 24" is quite kosher, I'm sure. If not, please correct me with code references or (ideally) engineering calculations.

One of my references to support the concept: http://www.toolbase.org/pdf/techinv/oveadvancedframingtechniques_techspec.pdf

Tothe, whereabout in the US are you located? Would be useful to know, as a 'what's relevant' point of information.

Kindly show how 24" OC violates code. Cite the IRC section and I'll look it up on Monday. Floor joists are sometimes spaced @ 24" OC, roof framing is typically 24" OC, why not wall framing? If all of the sheathing is shear-nailed plywood, I don't see how it would fail. Remember - no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no earthquakes, and no massive winds here where I live. The rafters/trusses would bear directly on studs, which would bear directly on the joists, which are on top of the sill plate, which is anchored to the foundation, thus transferring snow loads directly to the foundation. Perhaps 2x4 @ 24" is extreme, but 2x6 @ 24" is quite kosher, I'm sure. If not, please correct me with code references or (ideally) engineering calculations.

One of my references to support the concept: http://www.toolbase.org/pdf/techinv/oveadvancedframingtechniques_techspec.pdf


I'm not sure where you live, but where I live ( Butler County PA, its just north of Pittsburgh )

24 on center will Fail.

I live in the "Inland Northwest" - Eastern WA, North ID, Western MT. Canadian products from southern BC and Alberta are possibilities.

I live in the "Inland Northwest" - Eastern WA, North ID, Western MT. Canadian products from southern BC and Alberta are possibilities.

I know nothing about building codes over there, but here that would fail.

Your not going to make a huge impact on the environment by saving a little bit of work, build it safe. 24 On center and 2x4s for the exterior framing is a disaster waiting to happen.

Use steel instead of wood, it'll last alot longer, and be stronger.

If you're building a home that you'll be in until they plant you into the ground, you should consider a Monolithic Dome house. They're energy efficient, low maintenance, secure, able to withstand most natural disasters (Tornado, Hurricane, Fire, Earthquake, etc), usually lower insurance rates, no worry about columns or structural walls being needed to hold up the roof, etc. The only negatives I can see with a Monolithic Dome are, they're not normal looking (which may cause problems if you intend to resell it at a later date), they take more planning, they're difficult to expand (without the prior planning), and curved walls (which may lead to a bit of wasted space).

They're a bitch to get zoning for in my area. Sucks too. Bought land, couldn't build, had to sell the land. :headbang:

The rafters/trusses would bear directly on studs, which would bear directly on the joists, which are on top of the sill plate, which is anchored to the foundation, thus transferring snow loads directly to the foundation.
So no sole plate or double top plate? I wouldn't with that spacing. And I wouldn't go with that spacing if you expect snow.

Perhaps 2x4 @ 24" is extreme, but 2x6 @ 24" is quite kosher, I'm sure. If not, please correct me with code references or (ideally) engineering calculations.
2x4 studs maximum spacing is 16" o.c., except when supporting only a ceiling and roof, 2x4 studs not more than 10' high may be spaced 24" but it is not recommened. 2x6 studs maximum spacing is 24" o.c., except when supporting 2 stories and a roof, space studs not more than 16" o.c.

I would say stick with 16". A good Engineer is always a wee bit conservative, at least on paper.

According to the International Residential Code, a 2x4 wall with stud spacing of 24" OC is perfectly acceptable for an exterior load-bearing wall as long as it only supports a single roof/ceiling structure. I could even use a single 2x4 top plate if I used a metal plate joint to splice the boards, but I would prefer the standard double top plate.

Once my e-mail is working again, I'll cite the table that shows this information. *curses Hotmail*

You want a *really* green house? Very simple. First you get some straw and some mud, and prepare to forgo all the luxuries of modern civilization.:p

You know, wouldn't it make more sense to build a concrete bunker-esque house? It'd probably be far more resource efficient, not to mention much safer from weather.

You don't want to know how concrete is made.

Ecologically speaking, wood from grown timber is the most Green material. This is wood that has been planted, and will be replanted, by a timber company. It's a crop, like any other, just a bit slower to grow- a fully replaceable resource, carbon neutral. Most of the wood currently being harvested in the US is from trees planted decades ago and grown specifically for this purpose. Avoid Old Growth woods and tropical woods.

Hmm.. I can tell by Indri's post above, he is a builder. Absolutely right on a lot of issues. Metal roofing is good. 2 x 4's do not make for a good exterior wall.

But If I could afford it, I'd go for slate shingle.

Per 2006 IRC Table R602.3(5), 2x4 studs may be spaced at 24" O.C. when supporting roof and ceiling only with a wall height of up to 10' and may be used for exterior walls. Local codes may be more stringent than the IRC, but I don't live in an area with high earthquake risk or hurricane/tornado risk.

Remember that my plan is to build a small home, about 20' x 20', and every sheet of sheathing will be nailed in place as if it were a shear panel. The structure will be very rigid. The reasons for building with 2x6 are to allow more room for insulation and to provide more support if the bearing walls are also carrying a floor load as well as the roof load.

Wood is a very green building material - trees sequester carbon very efficiently and much less energy is used to harvest lumber than is used to create steel or concrete.

Per 2006 IRC Table R602.3(5), 2x4 studs may be spaced at 24" O.C. when supporting roof and ceiling only with a wall height of up to 10' and may be used for exterior walls. Local codes may be more stringent than the IRC, but I don't live in an area with high earthquake risk or hurricane/tornado risk.

Remember that my plan is to build a small home, about 20' x 20', and every sheet of sheathing will be nailed in place as if it were a shear panel. The structure will be very rigid. The reasons for building with 2x6 are to allow more room for insulation and to provide more support if the bearing walls are also carrying a floor load as well as the roof load.

Wood is a very green building material - trees sequester carbon very efficiently and much less energy is used to harvest lumber than is used to create steel or concrete.
I'm making a new life rule for myself. When shopping for a house, do not buy unless it can be proven that the house was not built or worked on by anyone who ever posted on NSG under the name Lord Tothe.

You don't want to know how concrete is made.

Ecologically speaking, wood from grown timber is the most Green material. This is wood that has been planted, and will be replanted, by a timber company. It's a crop, like any other, just a bit slower to grow- a fully replaceable resource, carbon neutral. Most of the wood currently being harvested in the US is from trees planted decades ago and grown specifically for this purpose. Avoid Old Growth woods and tropical woods.

Hmm.. I can tell by Indri's post above, he is a builder. Absolutely right on a lot of issues. Metal roofing is good. 2 x 4's do not make for a good exterior wall.

But If I could afford it, I'd go for slate shingle.

Metal roofs are pretty. You can get them to coordinate in color to your house.

I like clay roofs too, but they are expensive and don't hold up well in my area.

I was hoping this was about an Electric Six song. Should have known better I suppose.

According to the International Residential Code, a 2x4 wall with stud spacing of 24" OC is perfectly acceptable for an exterior load-bearing wall as long as it only supports a single roof/ceiling structure. I could even use a single 2x4 top plate if I used a metal plate joint to splice the boards, but I would prefer the standard double top plate.

Once my e-mail is working again, I'll cite the table that shows this information. *curses Hotmail*

The CMHC's guide to wood frame house construction confirms this. You can use 2x4s on an exterior wall with 24" spacing provided it supports only a roof with an unused attic. I wouldn't do it here in Montreal, due to snow loads. If you slope your roof properly, you should be all right. Will you be using a cold, vented roof, or will you be heating it? I'm assuming you're using a sloped roof.

I am an architectural draftsman. The problem with LEED is that it tends to be expensive and the resultant designs are often uncomfortable for actual use. I'm looking for incremental steps that require minimal expense and can be built by an average framing crew. Expense is an issue. LEED can be expensive. LEED is paperwork-intensive. I am looking for simplicity.

The LEED paperwork is cumbersome because of the third party verification. You can still use the strategies and spreadsheets to calculate the environmental impact of your design even if you don't do all the paperwork. The only purpose of the paper work is so that the design team can prove to the client and the LEED certifiers that evrything was done as planned. If you're the owner, designer, and GC, the paperwork is unnecessary. However, the rest of the process is still useful.

My current plan is for a 20' x 20' structure w/ full basement accessed by a spiral staircase...I want a basement because it offers the cheapest square footage for the money, a refuge from summer heat, and a storm shelter.

I still need to run a REScheck analysis for some of the options I'm considering.

What's a REScheck analysis?

At least that's the story to help if the city building department tries to become a design consulting firm. &^$%^&$% city officials!

My city inspector friends only check for compliance to construction codes. However, there are a few municipalities around here that try to 'maintain the architectural integrity of the community', i.e. it has to look old and Victorian.

You know, wouldn't it make more sense to build a concrete bunker-esque house? It'd probably be far more resource efficient, not to mention much safer from weather.

The embodied energy of concrete is vast, especially in terms of transporting all that mass. If lumber is locally available, it would be a better choice.

But If I could afford it, I'd go for slate shingle.

If he could afford slate shingle, I doubt he would build a 400 sq.ft. home.

Eco-roofing is problematic. Any decent waterproof membrane is probably made of toxic evil. I'm trying to design a green roof for sloped roofs. I originally thought moss, as I was inspired by Eastern Cree winter lodge designs, but I'm not sure how the moss would deal with the high amount of sunlight. Recycled metal roofing is a possibility, but I would still want my petrochemical membrane underneath.

Underground house. Huge savings on heating/cooling and no worries about piddly things like tornadoes.

Underground house. Huge savings on heating/cooling and no worries about piddly things like tornadoes.

Earth sheltered housing is a very good option for eco-friendly design. Combined with geothermal heating and passive solar design, you would never need to pay a heating bill again.

New topics: Green appliances for the kitchen.

Dishwasher? Standard or countertop?
Range? gas, electric, or magnetic induction?
microwave? freestanding countertop model or integrated with the range hood?

Besides looking for energy star certification, what are your thoughts? Considering the framing debate, I'll keep my thoughts to myself for now ;)

New topics: Green appliances for the kitchen.

Dishwasher? Standard or countertop?
Range? gas, electric, or magnetic induction?
microwave? freestanding countertop model or integrated with the range hood?

Besides looking for energy star certification, what are your thoughts? Considering the framing debate, I'll keep my thoughts to myself for now ;)

Microwave: none. The first step is to reduce. If you can get away with not owning one, that is the best choice. I know that what I wrote is pretty much heresy in our consumer society, but that's how paradigm shifts go.

Range: I don't know about you, but I get electricity from hydroelectric dams. So electricity is fairly clean for me. I would probably get the mostefficient electrical range possible. But I will laso admit that I haven't really thought about it.

Dishwasher: no idea. I am looking forward to this one.

Microwave: none. The first step is to reduce. If you can get away with not owning one, that is the best choice. I know that what I wrote is pretty much heresy in our consumer society, but that's how paradigm shifts go.

Range: I don't know about you, but I get electricity from hydroelectric dams. So electricity is fairly clean for me. I would probably get the mostefficient electrical range possible. But I will laso admit that I haven't really thought about it.

Dishwasher: no idea. I am looking forward to this one.
You gave a "none" to microwave and "no idea" to dishwasher? Microwaves are 100x more useful than a dishwasher. Dishwasher's have no use other than to support laziness. It isn't like you have to take a heap of dishes out back, scrub them against a scrubboard then hang them over a line.

You gave a "none" to microwave and "no idea" to dishwasher? Microwaves are 100x more useful than a dishwasher. Dishwasher's have no use other than to support laziness. It isn't like you have to take a heap of dishes out back, scrub them against a scrubboard then hang them over a line.

No, you have to take a heap of dishes over to the counter, scrub them against a sponge, and then stack them carefully on a rack. Three or four times a day. I'm also a single parent, so I end up doing all the dishes all the time.

On the other hand, I never use a microwave.

No, you have to take a heap of dishes over to the counter, scrub them against a sponge, and then stack them carefully on a rack. Three or four times a day. I'm also a single parent, so I end up doing all the dishes all the time.

On the other hand, I never use a microwave.

I never use the dishwasher. I always need the microwave......it uses less energy/time than the stove/oven/rice steamer.

I never use the dishwasher. I always need the microwave......it uses less energy/time than the stove/oven/rice steamer.

The old ladies I know who lived through the Depression are the best people in the world for knowing how to save energy in the home. They say that if you have a full family living under your roof, a good dishwasher will save far more energy than hand washing.

You are probably correct about the energy use of a microwave compared to an oven.

The old ladies I know who lived through the Depression are the best people in the world for knowing how to save energy in the home. They say that if you have a full family living under your roof, a good dishwasher will save far more energy than hand washing.

You are probably correct about the energy use of a microwave compared to an oven.

I'm not sure. I think our dishwasher might be wasting water. It's new, but it seems like a lot of water over nothing really. We use it only when we have lots of guests over. It's my first dishwasher ever though so maybe I'm just not used to that "whooshy" sound.

I'm not sure. I think our dishwasher might be wasting water. It's new, but it seems like a lot of water over nothing really. We use it only when we have lots of guests over. It's my first dishwasher ever though so maybe I'm just not used to that "whooshy" sound.

If you find that you use more water with the dishwasher, let me know. More data never hurts.

FWIW, I think my house has toilets that pre-date the whole 1.6 gallon requirement thing.

So...um...sorry about everything.

FWIW, I think my house has toilets that pre-date the whole 1.6 gallon requirement thing.

So...um...sorry about everything.

Put a brick in your tank. It will still work, but you'll use less water. The volume of the brick is equal to the volume of water you will save per flush, obviously. Or you could the whole 'yellow-mellow, brown-down' thang. Or both.