Posts Tagged ‘energy efficiency’

The Stimulus: An Overview

Saturday, October 3rd, 2009

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) comes at an opportune time for the remodeling industry and homeowners. Intended to boost the overall economy, the stimulus package also advances energy conservation policy with more than $4 billion dollars earmarked to create, extend, or remove dollar limits on tax credits for energy-related home improvements and renewable energy systems.

But what, exactly, does the legislation say? Do the credits apply only to principal residences? Can owners of condominiums or cooperatives qualify? Does the Internal Revenue Service define “cost” to include labor as well as materials? And what kind of documentation is required to claim the credits?

The posts our section on the Stimulus answer these and a host of other questions relating to the ARRA. Our posts will include a detailed description of requirements in three major categories:

  1. Building envelope (roofing, insulation, and window and door replacement)
  2. HVAC systems (boilers and furnaces, biomass stoves, and water heaters)
  3. Renewable energy systems (geothermal heat pumps, and solar-, wind-, and fuel cell–powered electricity generators).

The chart summarizes requirements for each category, which are treated in more detail in separate sections. Expanded coverage, including IRS rules updates and interpretations, can be found at www.thestimulussource.com

Used properly, the ARRA gives remodelers a way to jump-start their businesses while helping you, the homeowner, to not only save money but create a more energy-efficient future.

(Excerpted from an article from Remodeling 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.