Zillow Advice: News - What goes into a green home?

Obviously you have not read ...

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:36:00 GMT

Obviously you have not read the energy code for California. So I guess I should post the link for you:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/index.html

The code changes every 3 years to take advantage of what ever is considered "state of the art". But still, many homes built in the 1910's and 1920's have energy efficiency provisions most owners, designers, architects and builders presently ignore and have forgotten.

But I do agree with you, no one in Seatle should EVER be allowed to heat their homes as it is a total waste of energy. Nor should they be allowed to use electric lighting nor any computer that uses batteries or utility company power as they are extremely harmful to the environment.

I certainly never heat nor cool my home.

We are not taking our "first fledgling steps"; we have been taking steps backward for centuries. Sure the screw-in base LED lamps to replace incandecent will be a big step forward; but they are not available yet. Sure, pre-fab geo-thermal will be a step forward, but no-one has figured out how to mass produce that yet. Sure, better attention to landscape architecture will help; but most building codes still ignore the importance of living landscape.

The market hype is just that... "hype" with no real evaluation of life-cycle costs nor impacts.

you are right, we are taking ...

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:54:00 GMT

you are right, we are taking but our first fledgling steps, but you are wrong to criticize the message or the results.

a single grain of rice, pasa

i think the only way to curb a/c is to have power "rations"

no california's insulation mandate is obviously not sufficient anymore

you can also choose a light colored asphalt shingle the next time you replace your roof ^_)^

And what about "washing"? ...

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:20:00 GMT

And what about "washing"? In 1849, the "norm" was to bathe once a week. Yet most americans now bathe either every day or every other day. And some bathe twice a day. In Japan, a bathtub full of water is used by the entire household, and often not emptied for several weeks; yet we replace the water for every user each time, and boy do these "americans" love their 20 to 30 minute showers.

And the lawn and the toilets? Why are we using "treated" water instead of recycled water? Doesn't anyone consider the power consumption required for treating the water? Yet the city refuses to provide a recycled water distribution system, and the state has very strict laws against most implimentations.

And how often do americans now wash clothes? Do any even do it by hand, or is it only these "machines"? In most cases, the washing is not even good for the fabrics, which of course is probably why we replace them so often, which has even more environmental impact.

About 4 years ago a manufacturer started producing a "washer/dryer" machine that worked more like a dishwasher, where you do not remove the clothes from the washer to put in the dryer, but the machine goes to a "dryer" cycle. Not only is this more convienient for the user, but it lowers building costs and impacts, AND is more energy and water efficient as the water can be recycled and the drying uses a condensate method that doesn't put waste heat into the room nor out a vent pipe. Yet you still cannot find these for end-consumer purchase. You cannot even get the media to provide any news about them; you can only read about them in trade journels.

As far as lighting, cooling, ...

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:04:00 GMT

As far as lighting, cooling, heating, and insulation efficiency are conserned, that is mandated by California state law (title-24), and there is no "green" program or technology involved.

As far as "smart electrical systems"; that is mostly a gimmic to allow lazy people to not bother turning off things by themselves.

80 years ago, homes in California did not need to be built with air-conditioning as they were designed to remain cool in the summer without it. And really, even with the low efficacy windows used at the time, heating was rarely needed either.

You still don't need the heating nor the cooling, yet most occupants of dwelling units seem to use them all the time. You can do all kinds of things to be more environmentally conscience when building, but you still cannot change how most people would use the space. Nor do most people consider the landfill impacts of what they are "replacing".

Sure, a liquid crystal monitor uses less electricity than a cathode ray tube, but there are manufacturing impacts, and there are disposal costs and implications. And decades ago, households had only one and used it only a couple hours a day? Now households have 5 or 6 that seem to stay on constantly.

And you think there is no power required for those fancy "control" systems? Even the wireless receiver for the garage door opener is drawing power all day long.

As for electric car batteries, people would be foolish to exchange them just to get a quick charge; the life span typically is less than 5 years, and substantually depends on how they are used and how they are maintained. And just think of all the lead used that rarely gets recycled.

Methane fuel cells would be a much better choice; yet we are a long way from getting any kind of "standard" for that; and without a standard, one cannot rely on a company staying in business or that what you have can be serviced or maintained.

Really, for automobiles, the first thing we should be doing is what Brazil did well over a decade ago... modify the emissions control system with the oxygen sensor in the exhaust so that the engine would automatically adjust to run on any kind of fuel.

And the simple solution to getting alternative fuel distribution throughout the market place is to tax gasoline at 300% of full price including all existing taxes. And use this tax strictly for bribing people out of their cars into public transit where there can be economy of scale if the ridership is sufficient.

But no, it has never been about the envirornment, it is only about profit for the few.

oh i agree completely, but ...

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:10:00 GMT

oh i agree completely, but even in the mean time there are partial moves that one can make that involves minor changes to one's life that improve one's carbon footprint and has minimal impact on the wallet.

taking a hybrid car as an example, there is in fact a buisness model in place to roll out an automated battery changing station that will swap a spent battery for a new one in about the same amount of time it takes to pay for the "gassing up" at the atm before hand. there is a huge infrastructure deficit, but solving the battery cost issue and the overnight charge and 250 mile/day limitations of the car would be great progress.

but even without that technology, someone who already has a hummer H3 and drives 20 miles to work might feel "stuck" but what if you live less than a mile from the supermarket? take a walk, save some gas, get a little healthier? buy a nice little $1200 motor scooter and drive around rush hour traffic(pays for itself in 2 years, hummers are gas hogs ^_)^?

likewise in housing the cost of installing a skylight is roughly 300-350 (or 180 if you have the construction workers on your payroll already) but because the added value of supplying natural light in large quantities can increase values by 5-10k if done appropriately, 5-6 skylights in main living areas and bathrooms is easilly justifyable.

bamboo floors offer a very tough (albiet fiberous) wood that insulates better than traditional hardwoods and grows in approximately 1/20 the time, often in otherwise unusable soils.

insulating your homes is costly but what if new constructions were required to use high density blown insulations that offered higher heat retention? the cost to them might be substantially higher, and truly, that cost would have to be passed along (although this is the perfect time for an upward pressure on prices of new constructions, is it not?) and would result in literally hundreds of thousands in savings over a 50-80 year life of the home!

smart circuit electrical systems that allow you to kill circiuts and systems to mitigate vampire losses cost almost nothing (except for labor) is another high cost rennovation that costs nothing for a new construction to add. again saving homeowners thousands over 30 years and more importantly if used correctly lessening demand on the grid. large scale usage could have a huge cumulative impact.

the list goes on

for a home to be "green" it doesnt have to be laden with toys like windmills covering the back 40 acres, all it needs is efficiency. that is the technology we do have access to, in fact most of it is a decade old by now

Another marketing ploy.Like ...

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:33:00 GMT

Another marketing ploy.

Like the hybrids... by the time you calculate the premium vs. the base model it will take 5 years to return the savings and then you have to factor in the battery replacement. We've had small diesels (VW) that are are more cost effective but do not have the foolish cache of the Prius (ego-driven, not ecological driven). Why don't they put a small V-4 high torque diesel in a small pickup like the Ford Ranger? They're doing it in Europe.

When the "green" hype goes away will be the time to go green. Then it will be "cost-effective" requiring no certifications or phony marketing hype.

to be fair, melody Parker ...

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:17:00 GMT

to be fair, melody Parker doesn't have a clue, either...

as far as cost goes, the ...

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:50:00 GMT

as far as cost goes, the costs have been and will continue to come down as scale grows, these costs are representative of the specialty and novelty of the industry. green tech is the new qqq... ride the bubble for a while

sustainability is not about ...

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:44:00 GMT

sustainability is not about spending money, sustainability is not about $30,000 solar panals, its about when faced with two choices, trying to do the right thing. put solar lighting in the living areas so that you dont need lights during the day. using a smart home that doesn't bleed electricity when you are at work. floors that dont feel cold to the touch and are made from materials that grow quickly like sugar cane or bamboo. not cutting open a mountain for your countertop or floor. taking already used material and rather than sticking that in the ground, creating a composite countertop. using heating systems that are more efficient, without compromising on cost(if installed during construction, hydronic heating is only 15% more expensive when compared with a nice forced air unit.)

green construction is one branch of sustainability that, if adopted nation wide, could reduce substantially our dependence on both energy per capita and our national infrastructure, it also will lead to our independence from foriegn strangleholds. this is at the moment a pipe dream, but we are taking our first steps.

Jeffrey Immelt is on Obama's ...

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:38:00 GMT

Jeffrey Immelt is on Obama's economic advisory board
Jeffrey Immelt is head of GE
GE owns NBC/MSNBC/etc

GE makes billions on cap&trade
Billions are dumped into NBC/MSNBC/etc
NBC/MSNBC/etc endorse Obama

Or put another way, Obama bails out the media.

I agree we should not be polluting as much as we do. All types of pollution. The whole "Green Scam" is a politcally motivated move to increase tax revenues. Sadly you cannot even have a rational debate on the issue since those that are in favor of all this are so entreanched they cannot even imagine they "might" be a "little" wrong.