Archive for the ‘Green Building’ Category

July 10th Lake Sunapee Open House and Q&A with Green Building Experts!

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

When:  Saturday, July 10th, 4:00 PM — 6:00 PM

Registration Required!   Call Bonin Architects at 603-504-6009

Directions given to registrants only.

 If you are thinking of building a home or are purchasing a home in Sunapee, New London, Newbury, or another surrounding town that needs a renovation, call to register to attend our next Open House near Sunapee Harbor on scenic Lake Sunapee!

Not only will you be able to tour a beautiful custom home, you’ll be able to interview area green building experts at a Q&A discussion.  Gather your questions and ideas for Green Architect Jeremy Bonin of Bonin Architects & Associates, Custom Builder Everett Pollard of Northcape Design / Build, and Dan O’Halloran of Colby Real Estate!  Ask about:

Green building materials – Local construction costs – Green home design & why it is important

Solar and geothermal heating – Metal roofs vs. asphalt shingles – Shoreland Protection Act guidelines

and more!

Web_main_logo_final

Jeremy Bonin, AIA NCARB LEED AP:

Jeremy is a principal partner of Bonin Architects & Associates, award-winning architect, and the author of TIMBER FRAMES: Designing Your Custom Home.  Jeremy has a special interest in sustainable design and green building.  

 

logoNorthcape

Everett Pollard, AIA assoc.,  AIBD, CGP, CGR:

 For over thirty years Everett has been designing and building award-winning custom homes in the Lake Sunapee area. As a Certified Green Builder, Everett’s  priorities are successfully balanced between preserving the environment and providing superior customer service to his clients.

 logo

Dan O’Halloran:

Dan is a high-energy realtor who specializes in residential real estate and uses the most current marketing and advertising technology and techniques available in the real estate industry to achieve maximum visibility for every client.  His background in finance and marketing rounds out his qualifications and enhances his skills he offers.

Shoreland Homeowner’s Guide to Stormwater Management

Saturday, May 22nd, 2010

Are you a waterfront homeowner? If you are, your property may produce water that flows off the landscape and contributes pollutants directly into the lake you love. There’s probably a relatively easy way that you can fix the problem while, at the same time, beautifying your property.

Check this out!  A brand new publication, “A Shoreland Homeowner’s Guide to Stormwater Management: protecting your home & environment” by the NH Dept. of Environmental Services provides several simple and cost effective practices that shoreland homeowners can install to address stormwater runoff from roofs, patios, lawns and driveways.

Lake-Friendly Lawn Care

Saturday, May 22nd, 2010

Northcape Design-Build-214

by Jeff Schloss, Extension Professor and Water Resources Specialist, University of New Hampshire

There is often controversy and confusion regarding lawns on shoreland properties.  Some consider lawns inconsistent with the natural shoreland ecology while others want to bring to their shoreland home the same look and feel as the neighborhoods in surburbia that they have grown up with. 

As all vegetation provides at least some water quality functions, a lawn managed in the proper way can still allow for stabilized soils, filtered water infiltration into the ground and some nutrient and pollutant capture.  And, as with all vegetation, lawns sequester carbon dioxide, produce oxygen and, by doing so, cool the planet.  Thus, lawns still make a better alternative to pavement or patios which create greater runoff conditions and impede groundwater recharge. 

Of course, managed improperly, lawns and their care can add to pollutant and nutrient loading to our surface and ground waters, attract nuisance weed plants and insect pests (and even big pests like Canadian Geese!), impact important plant and wildlife species, as well as greatly reduce the available drinkable water supply with their potential need for irrigation.  So, how might you maintain a lawn area to enjoy on your shoreland property (or any property for that matter) while minimizing your impacts to the water quality and natural ecology?

The recent publication, “Landscaping at the Waters Edge: An ecological approach” from UNH Cooperative Extension (extension.unh.edu/resources/) covers the importance of considering how you may landscape your shoreline property for the improvement of water quality as you also enhance the enjoyment and value of your property.  While the publication goes into much greater and more specific detail, the information below is a good start when considering lawns and their potential impacts to water quality.

Everything in moderation.  We often hear from our health providers that moderation is the key to healthy living and the same holds true for natural systems.  Questions to ask yourself here include: How much lawn or open space do we really need for our intended uses?  Do we need to have our open space all as a monoculture of a single type of grass or can we live with a combination of grasses and groundcovers that match our use?  There are many varieties of grasses depending on the type and frequency of use (i.e.; occasionally picnicking to kids playing ball everyday) and site conditions (soils, sun exposure and slope).  Recently developed fescue grasses, for example, require less maintenance (water, mowing and fertilizing) and can even be obtained with symbiotic bacteria in their roots that make the grass better resistant to pests and diseases.  The best approach is a mix of grass species with other groundcovers and white clover (or another low growing legume to naturally supply nitrogen to the soil).  Talk to your county extension educator, landscaper, or garden center expert about your options.

Location, location, location. Yes, the mantra of real estate agents also works well for lawns.  Since a lawn requires additional maintenance that even, when not excessive, can still threaten water quality, locating the lawn as far away from the shore as you possibly can and maintaining a significant buffer area downslope from the lawn with a mix of shrubs and woody plants to make up for this.  A lawn leading right down to the water is the worst thing for the water and it will attract nuisance geese.  It’s a known fact that keeping the vegetation high at the waters edge will discourage geese from coming onto a property.  It also provides many water quality and wildlife related benefits.

Test first, apply later.  It is most important to test your soil before even thinking about applying fertilizers.  Once grass is established, fertilizing more than once a year (unless the yearly dosage is applied in fractions) is generally excessive and can lead to excess nitrogen loading to surface and groundwaters. Lawns tend to need less acidic soils, so sometimes just applying crushed limestone to reduce the acidity can release enough nutrients that were bound to the soil to maintain the lawn.  A soil test will let you know exactly what you need to maintain a healthy lawn.  As will often be the case if the test informs you that only nitrogen is needed, look for low to no phosphorus fertilizer blends (middle number of the N-P-K rating on the bag should be “0”) since phosphorous causes algae blooms in lakes.  Generally, a well-established lawn can survive adequately with no more than one to two pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet.  The best time to apply fertilizer on an established lawn is around mid-September when the grass is still active enough to incorporate the fertilizer into the plants, the summer drought is over and the surrounding vegetation is well established to capture any runoff from your lawn.  Choose slow release fertilizers only, to ensure less polluted runoff.  Many folks apply crushed limestone in the spring and fertilize in the fall.  Some folks have never felt the need to fertilize and others have had their best results just using lake water (which usually contains small amounts of nutrients) for irrigation.  It is really up to you to balance the results you are looking for with the minimum applications needed.  Remember, the NH Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act prohibits applying anything except limestone in areas within 25 feet of the high water line except in some circumstances.

Read the fine print! A recent survey in Maine indicated that many consumers did not realize that “Weed & Feed” products contain both fertilizers and pesticides.  Why pay for and put down something that can potentially threaten the health of pets and children and water quality when you may not need it in the first place?  If you do have weed or insect problems, consult with your county extension educator, landscaper or garden center expert to learn of safer alternative controls.  No matter what you choose to use, always read the application directions and never over-apply.  Many of the plants and animals that form the foundation of the aquatic food web are extremely sensitive to pesticides.

Conserve every drop.  If you are on a public water supply, it is best to choose grass species with low watering requirements or use alternative irrigation supplies like rain barrels or cisterns or even the water directly from the shore.  Summer water demand for lawns can be very significant.  Depending on the species and soil conditions, you should water only when needed, no more than a half inch to an inch total weekly.  You can use a rain gauge or a can to measure rainfall and irrigation amounts.  Early morning watering is preferable to minimize evaporation loss but give the water enough time to infiltrate and to allow the leaf blades to completely dry before night to not encourage disease problems.  Keeping the lawn height at least three inches or higher will also encourage deeper roots which require less water (and a mulching mower blade will allow for those grass clippings to recycle nutrients back into the soil).  Remember that in times of drought and hot summer, lawns are supposed to go dormant.  Letting this happen is the most environmentally friendly thing you can do.

So, the choices are yours—you can have an open space on your property with minimum impact to our waters if you can restrict its size, locate it properly, provide adequate vegetative buffer areas down-slope and use low input design and maintenance methods.

For more information:
Contact Jeff Schloss at jeff.schloss@unh.edu.

Tankless Water Heaters vs. Conventional Storage Tanks

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Hot water is a hot issue for homeowners, builders, and remodelers these days.

Why? Many current buyers are interested in homes that are energy efficient and economical to operate, which are factors that can be dramatically affected by a home’s hot water usage. According to the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, water heating is the third-largest expense in most homes, accounting for 14% to 25% of a home’s expenses. In some cases, that percentage may even be higher, which means energy-conserving hot water solutions also could result in big cost savings for homeowners in this difficult economy.

Currently, the most popular energy-efficient option for water heating is a tankless water heater, also known as an on-demand system. Unlike a traditional tank that heats a reservoir of water 24 hours a day, a tankless unit activates only as needed. When there is a demand for heated water, cold water travels through the tankless unit, where a gas burner quickly heats it to the preset temperature.

According to www.smarterhotwater.com, a Web site launched by Alabama-based Rheem Manufacturing, the average annual operating cost for a conventional storage is between $230 and $285, nearly twice the cost for a tankless system. They estimate a tankless hot water heater would cost $165 to $170 annually to operate.  Given those numbers, the decision to go tankless might seem simple, but like many other construction technologies, tankless water heater usage in the United States lags behind the rest of the world.

Cost could be a factor since in the U.S. market, tankless heaters cost significantly more than a conventional system. But it also could be a matter of educating the American market about the product. In recent years, manufacturers say awareness has grown significantly, and so has usage, which has seen double-digit increases. Consumers, not builders, are driving the demand for tankless water heaters.

Does that mean that everyone should install tankless in their homes? There are pro’s and con’s. While tankless technology can reduce a home’s energy costs by as much as 25% annually compared to a standard 40-gallon tank heater, there are other considerations. Standard storage tanks now qualify for Energy Star certification. And tankless systems may have other issues that negate its energy performance and lower operating costs.

Here’s a handy guide outlining the pros and cons of tankless water heaters versus conventional storage tanks that you can use to evaluate the options for your situation:

Conventional Water Heater

Pros for Conventional

  • Proven technology that builders and home owners know and trust. The straightforward system has been around for years and works well.
  • Low product cost and low installation cost. A basic 30-gallon electric tank can be purchased for less than $300. Installation is fairly simple.
  • Inexpensive replacement cost. If and when a water heater goes bad, the system can easily replaced with a similar unit for about $500 to $800.
  • Energy Star tanks are now available. As of this year, the Energy Star program certifies conventional high-efficiency gas water heaters, so it’s possible to save energy and money. Units must have an energy factor of .62.

Cons for Conventional:

  • Conventional tanks are always on. No matter how energy efficient it is, a storage tank cycles on a regular basis to heat and reheat water at a preset temperature, using energy to heat the water whether a homeowner needs it or not.
  • Big and bulky. Most storage tanks take up precious real estate in a mechanical or laundry room, especially in smaller homes such as apartments, condos, or townhouses.
  • May be inadequate. Depending on the capacity and household hot water needs, a conventional storage tank may not be able to meet demand. “If not sized correctly for peak demand, tank water heaters will run out of hot water,” according to www.smarterhotwater.com. In addition, only about 70% of the hot water in a typical storage tank is available for use.
  • Less versatile installation. The unit needs a fairly large space for installation.
  • Less durable. The life expectancy of a conventional hot water tank is about 12 to 15 years.

Tankless Hot Water Heater

Pros for Tankless:

  • Saves energy. The unit only operates when there is a demand for hot water, which can reduce its energy cost by about 25% annually.
  • Highly efficient. The most efficient storage tank has an energy factor of about .67, but, according to Energy Star, some tankless units have energy factors as high as .95.
  • Reliable. If a unit is sized properly, a gas tankless heater can deliver a continuous supply of water at a preset temperature (plus or minus one degree) at a rate of typically 2 gallons to 5 gallons per minute. The units never run out of hot water, though the flow rate may be inadequate during times of peak demand, according to www.smarterhotwater.com.
  • Compact size. The typical tankless heater is about the size of a small suitcase, which takes up significantly less space than a conventional tank.
  • Durable. It has a life expectancy of 20 years or more.
  • Versatile. The unit is easy to zone and it can go almost anywhere in the house.
  • Tankless units cost about twice as much as traditional storage tanks. A typical tankless unit may cost about $700 and can easily top $1,500.
  • Installation is expensive. In addition to the high product cost, installation for the unit and the necessary piping can be pricey. They also need very good venting, which is also expensive.
  • Retrofit is pricey and complicated. Unlike a traditional tank, retrofitting a home with a tankless unit is difficult and expensive. “In new construction, the labor time required to install a tankless water [heater] is about the same as a tank water heater,” according to www.smarterhotwater.com. But the equation changes in a remodeling situation. The process is complicated, and the installed costs to replace a tank water heater with a tankless unit can be as high as $3,000.
  • Best performance comes from gas units. Though gas-fired tankless units are great performers for whole-house use, electric units are woefully inadequate. Electric units are not Energy Star-rated, Aikens says, and “require significant amounts of energy to use.”

Cons for Tankless:

  • Tankless units cost about twice as much as traditional storage tanks. A typical tankless unit may cost about $700 and can easily top $1,500.
  • Installation is expensive. In addition to the high product cost, installation for the unit and the necessary piping can be pricey. They also need very good venting, which is also expensive.
  • Retrofit is pricey and complicated. Unlike a traditional tank, retrofitting a home with a tankless unit is difficult and expensive. “In new construction, the labor time required to install a tankless water [heater] is about the same as a tank water heater,” according to www.smarterhotwater.com. But the equation changes in a remodeling situation. The process is complicated, and the installed costs to replace a tank water heater with a tankless unit can be as high as $3,000.
  • Best performance comes from gas units. Though gas-fired tankless units are great performers for whole-house use, electric units are woefully inadequate. Electric units are not Energy Star-rated, Aikens says, and “require significant amounts of energy to use.”

(Excerpted from Builder Magazine)

6 Myths of Green Consumers

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

New study shatters stereotypes of what motivates buyers.

By: Jennifer Goodman

 

 

A new national study of green consumers contradicts several long-held stereotypes about them: The environment is not their top concern, their kids are not influencing them to be green, and while many know what they should do to save the planet, they often don’t do it.  As a result, marketing messages aimed at this group often fall on deaf ears, says Suzanne Shelton, whose Knoxville, Tenn., firm, Shelton Group, conducted the study.

 

“Most green advertising is created as if there’s one pool of green consumers and they’re all motivated by ‘Save the planet!’ messaging,” Shelton says. “We need a revolution in this thinking. Not all green consumers are the same, they’re not all motivated by the same messages, and they’re not all inclined to buy only green products.”

 

Released Aug. 21, the Green Living Pulse study polled 1,007 U.S. consumers who at least occasionally buy green products (77% of the population) and found there is no typical “green consumer.”  The study discovered six myths about this group:

 

Myth 1: Green consumers’ top concern is the environment.
When asked to identify their top concern, the economy, by far, is No. 1 (with 59% calling it their top concern) and the environment falls far behind (8%).

 

Myth 2: Green consumers’ main motivation when reducing their energy use is to save the planet.
When asked the most important reason to reduce energy consumption, 73% chose “to reduce my bills/control costs” and only 26% chose “to lessen my impact on the environment.”

 

Myth 3: Green consumers are all-knowledgeable about environmental issues.
For example, the survey asked, “From what you have read or heard about CO2 (carbon dioxide), please place a check beside any of the following statements you think are true.”  Almost half (49%) chose the incorrect answer, “It depletes the ozone layer.”

 

Myth 4: Green consumers fall into a simple demographic profile.
While the study detected some demographic tendencies, it found that green consumers aren’t easily defined by their age, income, or ethnicity.  

 

Myth 5: Children play a big part in influencing their parents to be green.
Only 20% of respondents with children said their kids encouraged them to be greener by, for example, promoting recycling and turning off lights.

 

Myth 6:  If buyers just knew the facts they’d make greener choices.
The study showed that knowledge does not always lead to eco-conscious behavior. Individuals who answered all of the science-related questions correctly did report participating in a significantly higher average number of green activities, such as driving a fuel-efficient car or lowering their thermostat during the winter; however, the 25- to 34-year-old age group consistently answered the questions correctly, yet, on average, this group’s green activity levels were lower than those of older respondents.

 

“Because green consumers are being stereotyped, and these myths we tested are embraced by marketers as facts, many green messages are falling on deaf ears,” Shelton says. “If these messages were better targeted, more people would be buying green products, conserving electricity, and doing more to save the planet.” 

 

Jennifer Goodman is Senior Editor Online for EcoHome.

Growth continues for certified green professionals

Monday, August 17th, 2009

logo_cgp_2cd-copy1

WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 — The number of home builders, remodelers and other members of the real estate and construction industry who hold the Certified Green Professional educational designation now tops 4,000, the National Association of Home Builders announced today.

The milestone is the latest sign that NAHB green building education and training initiatives continue to find an enthusiastic audience, said NAHB Chairman Joe Robson, a home builder and developer in Tulsa, Okla.

The NAHB Research Center, which administers the National Green Building Certification program for new homes, developments and remodeling projects, is also reporting solid growth: More than 350 homes have been certified and there are 4,500 projects in the certification pipeline.

“When the housing market returns, it will be accompanied by increased demand for green and energy-efficient new homes and remodeling projects,” Robson said. “Our members want to ensure they are ready to meet the demand, and that’s why so many are beginning to score and certify their projects or studying and taking classes to obtain their CGP designation.”

Robson noted that the New Hampshire Builders and Remodelers Association will use part of a recent state grant designed to promote greenhouse gas reduction projects to provide members with the coursework needed for the Certified Green Professional designation.

CGPs must successfully complete three days of classroom training, have two years of industry experience and commit to continuing education requirements.

The coursework is now being enhanced to reflect the requirements of building to the National Green Building Standard, the consensus standard for green homes, developments and remodeling projects approved by the American National Standards Institute in January.

In addition, NAHB is creating advanced training for CGPs that will result in a new designation for building practitioners: the Master Green Builder Remodeler. NAHB expects to introduce the designation program early next year, Robson said.

The CGP designation was introduced in February 2008 during the International Builders’ Show and is the fastest growing designation offered by the University of Housing. “That’s no surprise to me,” Robson said. “NAHB members have always been the leaders of the green building movement.”

Everett Pollard of Northcape Design is a Certified Green Professional.

Not On Price Alone

Monday, July 27th, 2009

This is from an e-newsletter that I received from Ron Jones at the Green Builder.  I asked his permission to re-print it here:

Ask any home buyer or homeowner how many leaks in their roof or spewing plumbing joints would be acceptable. What about gas leaks or faulty electrical circuits? How many doors or windows are allowed to be left out? How large a hole can the builder or remodeler leave in the ceiling, wall, or floor and still call the job complete and satisfactory?

Now, ask that same consumer how much of the energy and water that they pay good money to bring into their homes they are willing to waste every month because of poor design, obsolete products, shoddy workmanship, mediocre materials, and inefficient mechanical systems. (Never mind the fact that their lifestyle and habits will have just as large an impact on these resources—if not morethan the sum of the building quality.)

Most of the studies I have seen estimate that as much as 30% to 40% of the energy brought into American buildings, including residences, for space heating, air-conditioning, ventilation, water heating, and operating appliances is never put to its intended use. It is simply wasted. As for water, these waste estimates range from 15% to 35%, and even higher in some parts of the country.

Does anyone reading this newsletter believe the cost of traditionally produced energy is going to go down? Does anyone on a public water system anywhere in the country think they pay the true cost of sourcing, treating, and delivering a gallon of safe, potable water to the tap? Does anyone know of a city council, a county commission, or other government body that has the political will to charge the electorate the real cost of anything, fearing that people mostly vote their pocketbooks, when they can instead externalize portions of these costs and cloak them by a variety of means?

I am always amazed when I hear builders and remodelers say that their customers are not willing to pay extra for higher quality or performance or that they are only willing to spend more if an acceptable payback can be assured. Sorry, that simply does not fly with me. If this were true then there would only be one model of each product, the cheapest version possible. And somebody please tell me what the ROI is on a brand-new big-screen HD television. Sure, price matters but people don’t make purchasing decisions on price alone.

No, my experience across the 25 years that I delivered homes to my customers was that they invariably chose to buy the best product, component, or system that they could afford. Sure, there were trade-offs. It was regularly necessary to balance the level of performance or price point with the overall budget until an acceptable bottom line was reached. And often they looked to me for my advice on what parts of the project they should prioritize, not only for the sake of resale value, but to help them understand where they could economize with the least impact on their quality of life.

Today, homeowners and home buyers are beginning to look at the long-term ramifications of their selections. They are realizing that operational costs, replacement rates, maintenance expenses, reliability and durability—not just the initial purchase price—are all keys to their ability to afford any dwelling over the long haul.

They are also carefully factoring insurance costs, property taxes, and the soft costs associated with their chosen type of financing vehicle (especially in the case of adjustable rate mortgages) with a keener awareness that keeping the lights on, the appliances running, the water heater fired up and the living space comfortably conditioned all come at a price, month after month, and must be transparent in the calculation.

Industry groups and individual building professionals have got to abandon their outdated circle the wagons mentality when it comes to attempting to forestall regulations requiring higher levels of performance and put an end to the monotonous messaging of denial and fear that only tell part of the affordability story. Trade associations, like NAHB, are not speaking for all of their members when they lobby lawmakers to limit increases in performance regulations to no more than token increments.

Many builders, remodelers, and contractors are already delivering performance that well exceeds the embarrassingly low minimum requirements held forever sacred by the foot draggers. It is time that the achievers are represented and rewarded rather than continuing to protect and defend those who make up the lowest common denominator.

Any building professional who believes it is possible to succeed going forward on the basis of price alone, or that higher building performance will remain voluntary, is in for a rude awakening. At the end of the day, a level playing field, an understanding that the market paradigm has definitely shifted, and a genuine determination to deliver the best performance and highest quality product possible are the keys to successful building, satisfied customers, and a brighter future for everyone.

By Ron Jones, The Gatekeeper @ www.thegreenbuilder.com

“Green” Myths

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

Let’s set the record straight on four of the biggest misconceptions of going green.

Myth #1:  Green building costs a lot more than conventional building.

The truth is there are lots of examples of green homes that cost more than their conventional counterparts, and some the highest-profile demonstration green homes are incredibly expensive. And, yes, it’s also true that many of the building materials we think of as “green” (bamboo flooring, composite decking and recycled-glass tiles) are more expensive than their non-green counterparts. Features like photovoltaic (solar electric) panels and geothermal heat pumps are anything but cheap.

But, it’s very possible to build a green home with just a moderate increase in construction costs—or none at all. First, a large part of what we consider conventional construction by today’s standards is already green.  One of the most important green strategies, building smaller, almost always brings the price down. If you thought you needed a 3,000-squarefoot home, think again. You can get by with less than 2,200 square feet with better design and really analyzing what spaces you will actually use.

A key aspect of green design is a better-insulated envelope (walls, roof, windows and foundation) that will curb heat loss in the winter and heat gain in the summer, so another way to reduce costs is to improve your home’s insulation. Using structural insulated panels (SIPs) and energy-efficient windows are two ways to raise your home’s R-value. And if the R-value can be significantly increased, it can be possible to greatly reduce or even eliminate a traditional whole-house heating system and opt for less-expensive and innovative systems. The money you save can offset much of the envelope improvements.

Myth #2:  Green homes look different than “ordinary” houses.

There are many green homes that are fairly unconventional: straw-bale houses with roof-mounted photo-voltaic panels or passive-solar homes buried into a south-facing hillside. Remember the “Envelope” homes of the early 70’s?  Who could live in that!  But now most green homes are almost identical in appearance to conventional housing. Much of what makes a house “green” is hard to notice unless you look carefully: thicker walls to increase insulation, better windows with multiple low-E coatings, energy-efficient appliances and water-saving fixtures. Good architectural design can integrate south-facing windows, which support passive solar heating, into a fairly ordinary design.

Green design is also about durability, and you could argue that “timeless architecture” is a big part of building a house that endures. The home has to be beautiful and comfortable if it’s going to last for centuries. A green home should look good enough that people will want to live in it today and a hundred years from now.

Myth #3:  Green building is mostly about using eco-friendly materials.

Though green materials, like reclaimed wood floors or sustainable compressed-paper countertops, can reduce the environmental impact of a home, far more important are energy performance and location. Energy-efficient design is fairly obvious, but few people think about how significant location is, relative to the overall environmental performance of a house as well as issues such as water efficiency, moisture control and indoor-air quality.

It’s possible to build a green home without using any recycled materials. Conversely, it’s also possible to build a house using almost entirely “green” products that wouldn’t be considered green if that house isn’t energy-efficient, suffers moisture problems or is too large.

Myth #4:  Green building is a fad.

As someone who’s been promoting responsible building practices since the 1970s, I’ve seen my share of fads come and go. People still argue that soaring energy prices will never last. “Drill, baby, drill!!”

What has been a fad is the era of fossil-fuel dependence. If you look at the oil that’s been expended since the mid-1800s, 68 percent has been consumed since I founded my first construction company in 1976. Think about that! In just the span of three decades, two-thirds of the oil in the history of the world has been used—and, not insignificantly, the burning of that fuel has released all of that stored carbon as carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. The reality is that many of the houses we’re building today are dependent on cheap fossil-fuel energy. They’ll become obsolete long before their useful life is up—like most fads.

Building a green home is far from a fleeting trend; it’s common sense. Within a few years environmentally conscious construction will be standard practice, and homes not built to such standards will be devalued, making building a green home a shrewd investment in your future.

Some GREEN tips:

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (Reclaim). Incorporating this mantra into your lifestyle is the first step to going green.

Incorporate dimmers for your incandescent bulbs. By dimming your lights just 25 percent, you’re only using 20 percent of the electricity you’d typically use and your bulbs will last much longer.

Buy better light bulbs. Energy Star-qualified CFLs (compact fluorescent bulbs) use 75 percent less energy than standard lighting, and LEDs (light emitting diodes) can reduce energy consumption by 80 to 90 percent.

Build with low-emitting and solvent-free adhesives (e.g., grout for tile) as an overall plan to ensure good indoor-air quality.

Switch to Energy Star qualified appliances which use 10 to 15 percent less energy and water than standard models. (Appliances account for up to 34 percent of your home’s utility bill.)

Service your furnace annually. Look for furnaces with annual fuel utilization efficiency ratings of 90 percent or higher.

Use low-flow showerheads and faucets to reduce water usage. Screwing on a WaterSense labeled faucet can decrease the amount of water a household uses by more than 500 gallons per year.

Choose sustainable flooring made from reclaimed wood, rapidly renewable bamboo, recycled ceramic tile or wool carpet.

Install high efficiency toilets (HETs). They use 20 percent less water than ultra-low-flush toilets. Toilets account for approximately 30 percent of indoor water consumption.

Use low-VOC paints, stains and finishes, which are guaranteed to have less than 250 g/L VOC content, contributing to healthy indoor-air quality.

Wrap your home in structural insulated panels (SIPs). They not only have high R-values, they also create a tight shell, the other major component for an efficient home.

Harvest rain for household uses such as irrigation. (Roof runoff will be your main source for this.) 

Solar electric and thermal-energy systems use sunlight to heat water and make electricity without greenhouse gas emissions. They can reduce your monthly energy bills; plus, you may be able to sell energy back to your local power company.