Baby steps & a lot of but...A conservative look into sustainable housing

click the title to see
The Oscar the Grouch of architecture - earthship.com
earthship.com
Stephen Colbert sits down to talk trash with "Garbage Warrior" Michael Reynolds. Fri, Mar 27 2009 at 9:19 AM EST



Michael Reynolds aka ‘The Garbage Warrior’ is a person with great conviction. He has led the way for many of us to get what would be known as ‘non standard’ or ‘those crazy self sustaining designs’ through our local building departments. Many of who don’t want to make their job more difficult by dealing with the unknown and some, in my experience, even make codes up on the fly due to their personal opinion or lack of understanding. For the most part local governments are made up of very conservative people. Mr. Reynolds has broken through a number of these barriers and he has some great ideas. His homes are built with rammed earth in tires, old bottles and cans as bricks; sewage recycled and rain collection systems which are all excellent. However, there is always a however or a but, even with all of this, most of his designs are more related to an artist rather than a conventional family. Only the bravest want to brag or even admit their home is built from junk, it is a new way of thinking and a smart one I have to say. So for anyone who is willing, as I am, I appalled you.

Here comes the but again,

To get the average person to change their way of thinking, we must take baby steps. Most environmentalist believe there is no time for that but when you consider that many people still believe that there is no global warming at all, that it is just a hoax, then saving the environment as an argument is out of the question. They want their old economy back where convenience is everything. Even so, they can not argue with saving money. Even if they were right, there is still something in it for them, that’s $$$ and money talks. Now the ones who have been hit hard by that very same economy, have learned they want nothing more than to be able to live comfortably without the fear of losing their heat, electric or their homes entirely due to natural disasters or lose of income. They will easily change their way of thinking if we make it a little more, let’s say acceptable in design.
I differ from Mr. Reynolds’ ideas in several areas. The first is design; if we make it more conventional, a standard floor plan is easily accomplished with the use of concrete or block or any material that can be formed in straight or curved lines and carries a good thermal mass. You can argue that the energy involved in creating and transporting these materials is high, but, there it is again, if you consider that by using them in the short run you are eliminating the energy the home owner would have used over the lifetime of the home and that lifetime could be thousands of years. Remember we are looking at thermal mass and I am not recommending we cut down trees, if we do for design or necessity we need to replace them three fold. What I am saying is we are not going to get the majority of this country to change their vision of what a home can be, to utilize waste or even consider these ideas unless we take baby steps. Energy efficient housing is acceptable now, but there is little acceptance of underground or berm type housing. Caves, darkness and fear of collapse are the first thought that comes to the average persons mind when in reality these are the safest and can have more natural lighting than what is now standard in other dwellings. Not to mention they will save huge amounts of money on their utilities if you do nothing more than the simplest earth tubes and natural ventilation.

Second, as a nation we have become germiphobes. Although I am all for it, many people, especially those who want their economy back, as a general rule are not willing to have their waste systems or greywater running through their homes and growing their food in those systems. Remember, baby steps are the key. Maybe we take the waste outside first, process it and then bring it back through the system, or process it more efficiently so that is does not infect our ground water. I can guarantee that the average people in this country is not going to have any desire to sit on a toilet flushed with greywater no matter how clean it is, it is the thought. The thing they don’t realize is what they are drinking from their current taps can be and is probably worst, it is just a matter of out of sight, out of mind. My own municipal water system has failed miserably for the last 5 years running. Cancer causing agents etc….but the cost keeps going up to pump this crap into our home.

Rain water collection is probably the most acceptable change we can make now. Many a gardener will brag about how big their system is. But to use it even filtered completely for drinking (potable) water will take time to it get into people and our local government heads as safe. These days many people on the outskirts of town will abandon their wells completely as soon as municipal water reaches them. The convenience of having water under a steady pressure even if cold when power is out is enough to convince many a family. It is also the thought what well water has in it and we have all heard stories of local governments coming through and condemning wells as a rule by telling people they don’t pass their health standards or have a higher then recommended nitrate levels which will damage a baby’s liver. We don’t want blue babies now do we, they say? All this just to get as many people hooked up as possible. Even if their tests are actuate, many times over the government will set the accepted levels much lower than recommended to save itself from lawsuit or just to guarantee the customer base it needs to provide the profitable service. How much pressure from the city and local jurisdiction are on these departments and inspectors? Does, what is good for all, outweigh the good of an individual. Sorry I drifted, back to it, in my case a properly filtered, gravity fed rainwater system plumbing throughout my home would have to be far superior to what I am getting now.

So how do we change the minds of our local and national government? We keep pushing, pushing for acceptance of new and ancient designs as a norm rather then the opinion ‘it is just some hippie’s hobbit home fantasy.’ And we have to make it cheaper in cost so that there is more attention brought to it. Currently it will cost you about $200 per sq ft. (unless you do most of the labor yourself) for a self sufficient underground or berm style home, which is far less costly than what you are paying now in a conventional home, when you consider the savings in utilities over the years. It also has to be sociably acceptable by today’s standards, which means a little more conservative. Everybody loves to say they know someone who lives in a unique home but few are willing to try it themselves. We need to make the systems (i.e. rainwater, solar, geothermal) cheaper, simpler & easier to retro fit older homes so that it become the norm rather than the exception. Baby steps, baby steps, baby steps….

By the way Earthship Biotecture (http://earthship.net/) is currently attempting this. But the systems need to be cheaper and you can build them yourself. Over the last winter here in the northeast, many people who had lost their income or retirement went without heat. I have studied simplifying systems for 3 years now and the simplicity of earth tubes and proper ventilation can prevent this. Even retro fitting to an older homes could be as cheap as a one day rental of a backhoe and 100’ of 6 “ PVC along with modifying ventilation at the top of the structure which can be as simple as an open window in some cases, you could have a self sustaining heating and cooling system that shy of the install would be free, forever.

So why aren’t we doing this? Because most people don’t know they can. So again, I thank Michael Reynolds for leading the way along with many other designers, architects and builders out there. I hope that you will consider this so called alternate way of life, because it really isn’t. It is just a common sense, simpler and less costly way of living.

Sneak peek at concept home

I have talked about this before so I thought I would give you a sneak peek of what my concept is for underground housing. Please excused the roughness, this was drawn with only a pencil and ruler on a rough dining table.

The floor plan for this model will be posted soon. The home is approx 1600 sq. ft., 3 bedroom /2 bath plus a 2 car garage.

• The 2 story atrium is 18' X 18' and is accessed from the master bedroom and dining area via french doors filling these area with natural sunlight. Additional natural light is brought in via solar tubes. The atrium also includes a spiral staircase to the roof (garden) which meets code for a second exit. The two additional bedrooms are located in the front of the home.

It will incorporate solar panels for hot water and electric, along with self-sustaining plumbing system, see previous blog. The louvers over the entrance area help shade the front during the summer but allow the lower winter sun to warm the front wall. Although minimal heat is required due the earth insulation.

The venting at the top allow for plumbing ventilation, radon gas evacuation along with air circulation venting (not shown) and the wood stove chimney. I may include as an option a wood oven and stove in case of long power outages.

I am working to get the total price of construction for this model down to <200k>

This sucks!!!!!!!!!!! We have to do better!!!!!!

Today as I wandered through the internet researching the latest greatest advances in solar power I came across The American Solar Energy Society, their page to had a link to a solar calculator http://www.findsolar.com/index.php?page=rightforme.

Hey Great! I plugged in my average power usage for a 30 day period (from my electric bill) and let it do its thing. The calculator is based on professional installations using state of the art systems. The results are below.

This sucks!!!!!!!!!!! We have to do better!!!!!!

This is what drives me and this is why I am here to promote a grassroots effort to make it better and cheaper so that anyone can afford to reduce their carbon footprint and SAVE MONEY doing so. You can not rely on corporations when everybody is in this for major profit.

The results below show it will take 30 years to breakeven. Who but the wealthiest can or will do this? By the way, the newest of solar panels have a 30 year life expectancy and from what I have seen in the real world the power accessories (i.e. inverters, controllers and batteries) have far less. If you go this route you will never ever break even unless you back feed the grid and reduce you consumption. Even then they will only pay you the whole sale price (far less than what you are charged) for what you produce. I have seen advertised 'How-To' books (@$49.95) and videos on building your own solar panel for under $200, I have not purchased these guides simply because I know how to reuse old panels but I am very tempted to see if they are worth the money so that I can advise you on a better way.

For those of you interested in alternative methods, I recommend you visit another site I found. I have yet to read everything on it but it does look promising. Low Tech Magazine at http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/ for better solutions.


Calculator found at
http://www.findsolar.com/index.php?page=rightforme

System specifications for: Ranson, WV
Utility: Other

Solar Radiance: Solar radiance (insolation) is the amount
of solar energy received on a given
surface area in a given time. Commonly
expressed in kilowatt-hours per square
meter per day (kWh/sq m/day). This
measurement varies based on weather
and latitude of the given location. 4.62 kWh/sq m/day

Avg. Monthly Usage: This is the amount of electricity you
consume on average every month. It is
either determined by your input or
approximated by your electricity bill
divided by the cost per kilowatt hour
in your area ($0.0688/kWh). 1,526 kWh/month

System Size: This approximation is for a system to
produce enough electricity to offset
50% of your yearly usage.
It is determined by taking your avg.
daily usage, and dividing that by your
(solar radiance x 80%). The 80% is used
for the inherent inefficiencies in solar
power systems (95% inverter inefficiency,
89% weather impact, 95% inefficiency due
to soiling, utility, and module
inefficiencies). 6.85 kW

Roof Size: Approximate roof size needed to
accomodate your solar power system
can be deteremined by taking the
size of the system and dividing by
10 to get the square footage
(10 watts/sq ft). 684 sq ft

Estimated Cost: The approximate cost is an estimation
based on a price of $8/watt. This is
the average rate, including parts and
installation, for systems above 2kW. $54,782.04

Post Incentive Cost: The post incentive cost is an estimation
based on the available credits/rebates for
your area. This may include kWh
production incentives for up to 25 years
if applicable in your area. This provides
an approximation of the local/state
incentives, and should only be used as
an approximation. $36,947.43

Federal Incentives
Tax Credit: 30% Federal Renewable Energy Tax Credit

State Incentives
Tax Credit: 30% ($2,000.00 max) Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit

Estimated Cost: The approximate cost is an estimation based on a price of $8/watt. This is the average rate, including parts and installation, for systems above 2kW. $54,782.04

Post Incentive Cost: The post incentive cost is an estimation based on the available credits/rebates for your area. This may include kWh production incentives for up to 25 years if applicable in your area. This provides an approximation of the local/state
incentives, and should only be used as an approximation. $36,947.43

Avg. Monthly Savings: $52.49 25

Year Savings: The 25 year savings is based on the
amount of electricity cost you save over a 25 year period assuming a yearly
4% increase in utility rates. $26,234.12 25

Year ROI: 71.00%

Break Even: 30.79 years

The electricity you use causes the release of 27,468 pounds per year of carbon dioxide (which promotes global warming). Driving 30,438 miles in an average car emits an equal amount. To offset the yearly emissions, it would require planting 69 trees a year.