Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Environmental Issues
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-30-2021, 07:25 PM   #61
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Golden Rule: Insulate Insulate Insulate -- There are many "modern" approaches here -- I personally like the 2x6 on 24" construction, with 4-6" of external insulation. We have 2x6 on 24", but you can see the thermal bridging everywhere. With 2x12 ceilings (vaulted ceilings) you can see each joist as the snow melts. Someday I'd like to do the caclulation on an an "optimal" house -- my bet say until you get to R50 or so, it's probably better to keep insulating. That said, on grid that does not work out. On-grid, once reasonably insulated, money is better spent on just producing more solar power to offset the loss (efficiency vs horsepower).

There's a rough rule that builders are using now:

It's basically halving, and hopefully I get this right...

R80 for walls, R40 for roof, R20 for subsurface walls/floors, R10 for slabs?, R5 for windows. I believe that is what I recall from actual builders. This in contrast to others I've seen where it's R60 for ceiling, R40 for walls and so on.

I honestly have no idea why they "only" use R40 for the roof, but perhaps they've done the calculations and any addition is not worthwhile, especially if you get a little snow up there which adds R value.


I was also kind of diving off on a tangent on my own home, which I have no intention of going off-grid. I have a grid connection and NG. The incentive to change to geothermal here is minimal and I mentioned that earlier. Solar seems super easy based on what I'm dealing with, and probably will be the only "green" addition I'll do in the near future. There's some issues I'd have to address with appliances to really get anything out of it though. I have an electric dryer, stove and AC. I could switch those to NG and easily meet my AC needs, and probably most of my electrical needs, but what I am really benefiting? Still a majority of my energy is coming from hydrocarbons.

My house was built in the 60s, and is reasonably insulated - I added more about 10 years ago because I was having severe ice damming that I didn't like - still get some, but much better. And I have a cold, cold crawl space that I would have never done, but causes us some issues in the winter. Tried to insulate it but, there's just not enough heat getting in the crawl space from the basement and too long a run on the heat duct - not to mention it's an addition so it's not wanting to stay near the core temp of the house where the thermostat is. I've thought of just putting a small booster (electric) heat system in that room with it's own thermostat to help regulate that room. But of course that won't help my energy needs. A big issue with my home now is drafts and trying to seal them. Seems the best might just to be rebuild my door frames proper. The house has settled considerably and the original construction is a bit tore up - but because the rest of the house is fairly well insulated, I can really feel those drafts like jets of cold air. I'm sure there's a lot more to look into. Anyway, this house is not an easy project and if I did this whole "green" thing I'd start from scratch.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2021, 12:43 PM   #62
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I have an electric dryer.
.
Get a clothesline, we hang 95% on our covered porch clothes lines. Rarely do we use the electric dryer.
__________________
Be careful, don't spread invasive species!!

When a dog runs at you,whistle for him.
Henry David Thoreau

CL50-#23
chairrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2021, 02:52 PM   #63
mooregm
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 17
My take on thermal mass is that you need to be able to control it -- both adding and removing heat. Without control, it dictates your life, not the other way around. There are many approaches here, but personally water makes the most sense to me.

For instance, my basement slab is uninsulated underneath. With a dedicated basement zoned forced air heating I keep my workshop heated comfortably when I'm down there, but the minute I turn off the heat, it dives back towards the low 60s. That thermal mass controls the space -- everything else fights against it. Granted if I were to do it over again, I'd insulate with R30 and put radiant tubes in it to keep it a comfortable ~75*. It works the other way too. If a thermal mass is 80* and there is a warm day, the house will be 80* and you'd have to open all windows to cool it off, and then you are just wasting the stored energy.

On the flip side, my garage is well insulated (walls and foundation) plus a shares a wall and ceiling with heated rooms. I use the thermal mass of the floor to my advantage even though it is not insulated underneath. Without any heat our first year, the lowest the garage got down to was about 40 degrees in late winter. We subsequently added a small forced air zone out there which keeps it heated to 55* (only run at night). This works well and the slab never goes below 50* now. And come spring because the slab stays about 10* warmer than prior years, we have much less sweating/mold issues come humid spring days. Again, the mass of the slab/ground control everything -- we just make it work for the use case. If I were to do a garage again, I think the best situation would be to insulate down several feet, then add back fill and do normal tubes in the radiant floor. Best of both worlds with cheap thermal mass and starting with 80* slab in October, you could run no supplemental heat for weeks at a time of cloudless days and it'd stay plenty warm. Pretty much a load dump. My thought on thermal mass is that it's great in a garage or other space where 10+ degree swings are acceptable. Heat when you can and coast when you cannot.

For primary living spaces, you should not let the thermal mass dictate anything, thus I personally like storage in water since it's incredibly efficient volume-wise, able to be moved easily and works natively with HVAC systems. No issue with freezing if kept inside basement/crawlspace which is should be to capture losses. ~5k gallons is not very big in the grand scheme of a new build. Heated to 115* in a well insulated house using low temperature radiant heated slabs @85* provides 1.25million BTUs -- enough for about a week by itself -- and a few more days if needed when it is around 30* and a well insulated house. There will be storage losses and it can be more complicated than above, but storing water is far cheaper than batteries. Additionally, using a load dump with resistance elements can bring the tank up to ~180* which is enough energy for additional 2 weeks. Though that is practically only possible early and late in the season when there is plenty of sun and less demand for heat -- and it's inefficient resistance heat (heat pumps only work to ~130* under ideal scenarios).

That said, the above 5k gallon tank would cost say ~$5-10k and store ~300kwh of electricity including heat pump conversion factor. A few years ago it was an absolute no brainer cost-wise for batteries. But batteries are now approaching $100/kwh and still declining -- $30k. In a few years it may be closer to even and then I'd say batteries for the win. I'd probably still have some thermal mass for a dump load in say a garage / basement slab / etc.

Windows to me for heating just does not make mathematical sense. Again, we as humans need windows, so include them as needed for light and personal tastes. If possible be smart and use south facing, summer shaded, etc strategies, but I personally would not include windows for primarily heating purposes nor get bent out of shape if they had to all be north facing because say you built on the south side of a lake. Another way to look at it is a common solar panel is ~20% efficient today. And a heap pump has an efficiency factor of say ~4x. Thus one square foot of solar panels (angled properly) can produce the same or more heat as one square foot of window (very bad angle). All without any of the drawbacks of glass -- namely they lose more heat at night then the rest of the house combined!
mooregm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2021, 06:21 PM   #64
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
Took me a few reads to get (most) everything out of that, but I think I'm there, and it sounds right to me.

I think one thing I was missing was how you were using the water - I thought perhaps you were storing energy in the head, not heat. So, as I understand it now, you're using your heat pump to store energy when you have excess electricity. I was generally think it was an entirely different system of of pumping and generating, but this is interesting. I'd assume you can only get back heat as you have no other way of converting to electricity. But I'd also assume you'd be able to use it for hot water if you had a heat pump hot water tank.

I definitely see what you mean about the thermal mass. I really need to digest it more because it seems it's all about storing as much as you possible can in late summer, early fall.

And as far as windows - passive solar I think was mainly developed for dry, sunny environments where you have large swings between day and nighttime temps i.e. deserts, high altitude arid environments, etc... The more I learn, and it keeps becoming a recurring theme in this thread: it's not all that useful in the NE.

And when you compare a really good R5 window to a R80 wall, then it really makes you put it in perspective.


BTW, thanks again so much for your practical expertise on this subject!
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2021, 07:24 PM   #65
mooregm
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 17
It sure is a deep rabbit hole! Over time things change and yesterday's "solutions" -- which usually were never really practical solutions to begin with -- do not make sense today. Today's hot items are solar and batteries. It will be interesting to look back in 20 years and see how things shake out.
mooregm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2021, 07:33 PM   #66
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
It seems like there's going to be a market for rural folks, maybe some limited suburban applications, but cities and industry are still going to need power plants.

We are super close to practical fusion - and by that, I mean I think in the next 10 years some of the systems being built and tested now will actually show some promise. Then it could be another 50-100 years before it's able to be built and distributed on a wide scale... that could make it all obsolete - likely the end of my lifetime and beyond, but perhaps people living in rural areas will still favor the independence of renewables and not having to be tethered to a grid... tough to say...
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2021, 09:08 PM   #67
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
I looked through some diagrams and I'm seeing the "buffer" tanks much like you mention you are using now, mooregm. I've not specifically seen any heat pump systems that use those 5K gal tanks - looks more like direct solar, which I could see it could be used either way, just not popular now.

As much as I'm anti-chemical battery, it looks like they are the best solution for large storage with the heat pump, if it makes sense economically. What I mean by this is the tank is prohibitively large, surely has some associated losses with it - there's still a temp gradient, and once you've stored energy in water heat, you're forced to use it as heat. Battery power can be used to run your heat pump anytime as well as all other appliances. With a wood stove backup I think I'd err toward that for heat in the cold months and having electricity available to use for appliances.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2021, 10:54 PM   #68
Zach
Last seen wandering vaguely
 
Zach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Orwell NY
Posts: 1,005
I lived in a passive solar house in Maine till I was 15, and it worked quite well. We had more sunny days in the winter there than we do here, but it was not the desert by any means. We had 2" polyisocyanurate (if that is the spelling) foil faced panels that we put into the windows at dark in the winter and took out in the morning. They had tasteful duct tape to cover up the edges, and contact paper on the inside. The wood stove in the basement provided the rest of the heat. It would get hot inside on sunny days in the winter, and at night it would get cold sometimes if we didn't start a fire on borderline temperature nights, but it was not uncomfortable. I would like to build a passive solar house again someday, when time and money permit. It's not a perfect solution by any means, but it is helpful.
Zach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2021, 11:06 PM   #69
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
There are perfectly functional passive solar houses around the state, not sure how many in the Adirondacks, but I know I've watched videos on earthship builds in Ontario, Canada - which may be more similar or harsher than the Adirondacks.

The houses I know of in NY I believe all had wood heat as the primary source. They were also built into embankments on their north wall much like an earthship uses - almost all passive solar designs I've seen use the basic premise of the earthship but whereas the earthship was designed to be totally self-sustainable in water as well as energy, most of the houses in the NE forgo the water aspect as it's so easy to drill a well. But the desert models use a much more sophisticated system of water catchment and water recycling that wastes absolutely no water - every bit is used from drinking, to washing, to flushing toilets then finally to watering the green house and then watering the outside garden.

I also think they were designed around a desert environment in that they possibly aren't able to regulate (easily) long, cold winters. Deserts can be quite cold, and that's where the thermal mass comes in to try to smooth out those daily ups and downs as well as the seasonal swells.

Also a true earthship has a break between the greenhouse and the living space that is insulated - there are (sometimes) less windows (but also adjustable circulation vents) that allow you to bridge how much of this intermediate room you want in your living space, or how much you want to isolate it.

These designs don't really use much insulation at all, and absolutely no thermal break between the thermal mass and the living space, which is what mooregm is not a fan of - I get his perspective. You wind up with a space that is highly regulated, but not necessarily exactly where you want, and when you need to add heat, you are constantly sinking it right into your thermal mass.

Last edited by montcalm; 01-01-2022 at 10:01 AM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2022, 10:21 AM   #70
John H Swanson
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooregm View Post
My take on thermal mass is that you need to be able to control it -- both adding and removing heat. Without control, it dictates your life, not the other way around. There are many approaches here, but personally water makes the most sense to me.
Two points come to mind.

Water is easy but prone to bacterial growth, freezing and leakage. Additives can help with this.

I read an interesting book decades ago titled "double envelope houses" or something like that. It presented solar houses that used two heat sinks - one above and one below ground. The concept was to use one to add heat to the living space and one to remove heat from the living space depending upon the needs. This concept is probably of interest to you. I thought it pretty smart but then became more anamoured (sp?) with super insulation. As I previously mentioned I would still use a solar collection panel to pipe hot air into the living space but keep it isolated to avoid the work of opening and closing off many large shutters. One could create an air circulation system that uses the cool sub-grade heat sink to cool the living space but it might be fraught with problems (radon, mold, vermin) compared to a heat pump system that figuratively does the same thing. And of course a 100F day could be spend in the basement.

Separately on the subject of insulation I read an article that discussed the merits of attic insulation and how much. It discussed adding more insulation (+6") to an already insulated (~8") attic. It presented the heat loss calculation for the entire attic and the heat loss from the area of the uninsulated pull down steps. Eye opening. I had already built a box over my pulldown steps and I went out and added 6" of fiberglass to the top of that 2" polyiso box. Then I used the IR meter to search out other warm spots in the attic on a bitter cold day. With the outside air at 10F (NJ) most of the attic floor was in the low 30F but there were spots up to 39F that got some attention.

And of course vigilantly focussing on sealing heated air escaping through gaps is of paramount importance.

Last edited by John H Swanson; 01-05-2022 at 10:27 AM.. Reason: spelling
John H Swanson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2022, 10:36 AM   #71
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
I know the question came up earlier on my part, but I read last night propylene glycol is often an additive used to both increase heat transfer, but also prevent freezing (or evaporation).

It is used as a food additive, so is non-toxic, at least in small doses. WTBS, you don't want it to mix with potable water, as it still would be a pollutant, so you have to add a some extra clap trap to keep it isolated.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2022, 10:54 AM   #72
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
On a side note - I'll try to find that presentation from the building company with the 80/40/20/10/5 thing. I'd like to try to understand the physics of that.

Also, I'm a bit skeptical on the whole R80 wall. Some calculations I looked at for a 12" double 2x4 with a thermal break wall would be on the order of R50. But I didn't look too hard to figure out how good that estimate was.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2022, 11:08 AM   #73
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
Another side tangent here, but I believe in my environment, I could easily use a air-sourced heat pump.

I really need to do the math here, but I *think* I only spend about $1200* a year on utilities - that's gas and electric. My furnace and water heater are fairly new - but I could probably get off the gas and switch to a heat pump WH when I need to upgrade. Furnace might be a while. I'm thinking if I do add solar panels I'll switch as much to electric power as I can, and that it would probably be worthwhile to upgrade my 60 year old panel.


*last year was $980. I'm pretty sure it's been as high as $1500, using the same appliances but when our local energy supplier was sub-contracting energy suppliers - it was very confusing and it was far more expensive, then it just magically disappeared.

For reference we have about 1300sf of heated space, a slab of 3 season room and garage attached. 600sf of full unfinished basement, unheated, non-insulated. 5 people in the house.

I use the basement all year as storage on one side, shop on the other. It stays around high 50s/60s all year. In the summer I don't do anything, in the winter, I sometimes wear a sweater if I'm down there for a long time. It has old terrible windows which could definitely be improved, and probably keep it a little warmer in the winter.

Last edited by montcalm; 01-01-2022 at 12:04 PM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2022, 01:22 PM   #74
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
I did some estimates for my own home just to see how easy it is to get net zero.

It's not very. I'm pretty average in terms of energy use per sf. Last year my monthly average was 600kWh.

I used a local solar supplier to make an estimate on my house. They gave me 17 panels @ 5.7kW. So backcalculating they are recommending 330W panels, which I'd definitely be in for because my roof area is minimal. They use google photos to estimate panels. I estimate I could fit 13 on my south roof, lying flat. Perhaps if they were tilted and up on a frame we could get another row and hit 17. They gave an annual output estimate for 17 panels at 6120 kWh. That's the tricky one - I'm hoping that's based on some actual solar data for this region. But either way, that's below my yearly electric usage - and that's not my entire energy usage, that's just electric. I still have hot water and heat on NG. So all-in-all, it's perhaps not as easy as one might think to simply add horsepower.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2022, 09:28 PM   #75
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
I'd like to bring this back to focus...

As much as I love the idea of earthships and that kind of design, I just don't think they work well in this environment. I've watched a number of video tours of current builds in different environments and they all rely on a woodstove (which is OK - more on that later) but I'm not loving the idea of minimal insulation. I'm actually thinking now, based on previous posts (which then led me down other paths of research) that superinsulated + basement slab thermal mass seems like the way to go. There are still a few things I'm skeptical about, but here's my basic requirement:

1000-1200 sf of living space + 600-1200 sf of unfinished basement, insulated, with radiant tubes. Basement size would depend on site and whether I needed to do two-story. I'd prefer single story, perhaps with a small loft in one area.

I don't know that I'd do the large water tank. Maybe now it works, but I'd rather rely on the grid a little bit than invest in that. But my mind may change if I buy land without grid access.

The radiant basement seems like you get it for free, so why not? If I do a garage, I'd do that too, but a heated garage would not be a direct requirement off the bat. Insulation recommendations I see are for R20 in basements, but I'd check that over see how much benefit there might be for more...

I think I'm convinced on minimizing windows and focusing on insulation. With the temperatures in the toughest months I think every bit of thermal resistance will be the winner. I'll likely design the window scheme around the site with an emphasis on south facing (just for sanity of getting some natural light during the dark winter).

I like the idea of double wall, 2x4 construction with the thermal break. Whatever R value that comes to be I'm sure will be sufficient - R40 min.

The questionable area I get into here is secondary heat. I'd like wood. It's cheap, easily accessible in the ADKs and if I use this for a vacation home at first it may likely ONLY have this heat source at first, but be setup to add a heat pump. I'll likely have the well and lines put in during build, and add the system later.

Anyway, my experience with wood, and especially woodstoves is that they tend to overheat the heck out of a place when you run them. I'd imagine on a small, super insulated home this could be hard to control. I was thinking a small stove in the basement with forced air might be the best. Hopefully just a small fire at night would keep it warm until morning. Gonna have to do some figuring here....

Electric - I'd hook up the grid if it was available, start with just panels, then add batteries and see how far I go. If I use it seasonally I don't really want the batteries because I'd assume them getting cool is not going to be favorable. If no grid is available, then I'll think harder, but I'd like to lean on wood for any inadequacies in energy needs and minimize the batteries.

Seasonal use - my wife has summers off, so it may be occupied through summer vacation from school. My hope for solar would be to fulfill that at first - shouldn't be too hard. Winter use would be on weekends, so minimal electricity and wood heat. I hate to say the "g" word, but maybe in the cards for part time. Spring and fall would be sporadic, but I'd assume solar demands could be met for the amount of time we'd be there.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2022, 04:05 PM   #76
mooregm
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 17
Overall that's about what I'd build myself structure-wise, though I'd make minor tweaks like 2x6@24" construction with cavity & exterior continuous 4" foam from ground up to roof and down the other side. Using attic trusses gives extra "free" loft space that goes unused with normal ceiling insulation. Or vaulted ceilings if that is preferred. Here is a video of a guy doing it in Texas if you have not seen that method before. It creates continuous thermal breaks for the whole house except windows and doors. The double stud is similar, but obviously misses the roof, floor joists, and possibly foundation walls. Cost should be roughly the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbMVdmnNlw

One major factor is the on-grid or off. I do not want a primary or secondary house that I need to babysit daily. It's crazy, but I think it actually costs me more to run my fireplace than use the heat pump when you factor in chainsaw, tractor, blower fan, leaked makeup air. That's with a better old-school non-gasification fireplace with dedicated makeup air from 40 years ago. On the flip side, there is a 6" hole and metal front conducting heat away 24/7. That said, we still do burn most Saturdays out of preference and an abundance of wood on-site. Doing the window coverings makes sense to the engineer in me, but that breaks my babysitting goal and also creates condensation issues if done from the inside. They had those in the Alaska videos I referenced above.

So if on-grid, I'd try to build a reasonably well insulate house geared towards a 5-day power outage -- namely pipes do not freeze for several days allowing time to get a fire/generator going if there is an extended outage. It makes no real sense design for 30-day stretches of winter and a true zero house in this case. Keep it simple with smaller tanks, less thermal mass, smaller solar array, smaller battery backup, perhaps a small propane furnace for backup when not in town when heat pump is out -- or with the new air source pumps when it's less than 5* outside.

If off-grid -- first I'd decide if this is a house or camp. If camp, then probably best to do as has been done for decades. Wood + Propane -- defeats your goal, but really makes no sense to spend $100k+ on off-grid panels/batteries/heat pumps/etc when it's only going to be used for ~20 days in the non-summer. No geothermal or water-radiant heating as it's too much of a liability. But if it's a camp today and home in 10-years, then that's even harder call to make. Personally I'd do whatever can only be done now (unused radiant tubes in floor, insulation, and wait to upgrade solar/batteries/heat pump later if it were to become my primary house.

If primary house, then I'd personally shoot for 7-days autonomy. Meaning no fire, no generator, no anything and the house will run for 7-days if starting from "full" batteries and thermal tank. Then on day 5 or so of clouds you can see both if batteries and tanks are low/cold and act if the forecast shows no real solar for next few days. Then start a fire to raise the buffer tank temp, thus shutting off the heat pump so batteries recover to get ahead of things again. Similarly you can take a vacation without worrying too much, particularly if you lower the thermostat buying extra days. I'd probably still do some extra things like insulate basement ceiling to create a second layer against freezing, and make upstairs pipes easy to drain when leaving in winter. Simple to do during building and pays dividends in 25 years when life changes.

So to answer your question on a post-construction "green" house. If grid connected, I think it's possible to get good enough without too much effort -- much better than the current practice of "net zero". At a certain point it makes more sense to not shoot for true zero and spend the extra money in far more impactful ways.

If off-grid, assuming you allow some burning of wood as "green", I think it can be done to a modern standard that my wife would not notice the difference -- my personal standard of success on our all upgrades. If you are trying to be "green", then wood should be a secondary source of heat via a gasification fireplace/boiler -- say with a design goal of less than a cord per year. That may not work in other regions, but locally we can easily find a cord of wood with just dead/dying/down trees if you own or have access to a few acres of property. That wood is turning to CO2 in a matter of a few years anyways while being fully offset by new growth. No fuel generator. But probably ~$100K in batteries and solar panels and the need for space to put them all.

Now if only I had bought the place on 7th Lake when the marked tanked 12 years ago...
mooregm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2022, 05:20 PM   #77
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooregm View Post
But if it's a camp today and home in 10-years, then that's even harder call to make. Personally I'd do whatever can only be done now (unused radiant tubes in floor, insulation, and wait to upgrade solar/batteries/heat pump later if it were to become my primary house.
This is the likely situation I'd be in. I'd though maybe it would be best to shoot for a camp now, home build later... but I don't know if I have two in me.

Thanks again for all the great information, lots more to learn.

I was kind of figuring if I'm going to invest the big money in a foundation, and I'd assume that's going to be a good portion of the budget, I'd spend the little extra and make sure I can upgrade how I like, even if maybe it's more than I need at the moment. Like I said earlier, seems like if you're gonna pour a slab, adding the radiant tubes isn't all that much more and way more of a PITA to try to add later.

Obviously the biggest factor is going to be availability of grid. I've seen many great lots over the years that were off-grid. A generator might be OK for emergency or the weekend in the winter, but no way do I want that going during the summer - I live in a noisy area, that's the last thing I want up there. Propane has always been on the list, and it may be for a reliable way to keep the pipes from freezing in winter while I'm away, and for a stove. I don't know that I'd invest in a propane fridge though, I had always been thinking go straight DC and solar for that. And other things such as pumps, etc...

I'm also firmly against the babysitting of the house. I figure if I have to purchase a cord of wood from a local, it's not the worst thing in the world. Even the most "green" of all the technologies has some impact to it i.e. batteries, pvs, concrete, blah, blah. If I start fresh I'd like to have a path to energy independence. But the reality of the matter is my minor decisions here probably don't amount to squat in the grand scheme of things, so it's really a matter of cost/efficiency/headache...
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 10:22 AM   #78
John H Swanson
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 206
A few points about recent comments to the thread:

If I was building a cabin in the woods I would do 2x6 construction on 24" centers. If I was building a house I would favor a wall construction with 2x4 vs. 2x6. 40 years ago my college professor said if you hire a framing contractor to build a house with 2x4s they will build that frame in no time. Ask them to do 2x6 on 24" centers and the whole project slows to a crawl and the price increases. I'm not a framing carpenter but it makes sense to me.

Concerning insulation: Rigid insulation is much more costly than other forms. Loose fill tends to compact resulting in very bad voids. Fiberglass stays in place better. And the best for staying in place would be sprayfoam. I still have some stuck to my fingers. /s I would probably still consider a 1-2" layer of rigid insulation over the outside of the house.

So this led me to the double wall 2x4 with fiberglass

As I believe I previously mentioned air inflitration (leakage) accounts for about 1/2 of the heat loss in a normal design house. A typical house has about 1 air change an hour, but this can be reduced to 1/2. That's a 25% energy savings.
As you go lower, you need to control the introduction of fresh make up air eventually with an air to air heat exchanger. In order to lower the infiltration losses, it was common to have a full plastic liner to the house with taped seams just under the sheetrock. Penetrations (like electrical outlets) need to be managed. Spray foam insulation applied after the electrical work is done might be a good solution here, but I dont know about the cost, and one should also consider the off gassing to be sure there are no health issues. I remember they had an issue with huricane relief trailers that were sprayfoam insulated. Alternately, I remember seeing an episode of "This old house" where they reported on a NH company, Bensonwood, that manufactured modular and kit homes that use a composite wall with insulation with a very high R value. Might be worthwhile looking into their practices.

The amount of energy used is directly dependent upon the delta T (difference between T outside and inside) If you lower the inside temperature you use less energy. This really only works when the thermal mass of the house is smaller and the temperature can be manipulated reasonably quickly or for a long period of time. Hence I favor low thermal mass in the heated area of the house. Then set up dedicated zones and heat them when you are in them. For this electric heat is easiest. Electric allows for the most easiest adaption of a green approach as you can implement solar, hydro, wind... and when/if we take climate change seriously the grid will convert away from carbon fuels.

Last edited by John H Swanson; 01-05-2022 at 04:00 PM.. Reason: Added data on Bensonwood. corrected errors
John H Swanson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 10:47 AM   #79
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
I'm not 100% educated on the subject yet, but I like the double 2x4 because your thermal break for the studs is on the interior rather than exterior. That seems a better solution for vermin who'll want to gnaw at it and burrow into it. Not sure about the builders - 2x6's are used in a lot of other parts of the construction, but people tend to do what they want. I may frame myself, so that's less of a worry.

Yeah - looking at the physics of the situation I'm totally sold on "isolating" and controlling the thermal mass. That's why the basement slab radiant is genius, IMO. It's just down there doing nothing - it has a lower delta T between the "outside" because the outside is the relatively regulated earth, and insulating will let it hold its energy even longer. It would gently warm the rest of the house through convection, but not enough I don't think that I'd cry about it - the upstairs (living area) is generally isolated - allowing it to be quickly adjusted in temps, although I'd shoot for tight regulation of 69* all year if I was there.

I don't like spray foam for a number of reasons. Number one is recyclability of materials in the future - not that anyone seems to do this but we could easily salvage entire frames of houses and rebuild them - coating it with foam that needs to be chiseled or scraped away is a guaranteed recipe for it going in the garbage. There's so many wood building products out in existence already it is almost getting to the point where we don't need a huge volume of new boards. It just so happens it's cheaper now to buy new, but maybe that won't always be the case. Anyway - I think we should think more about the ENTIRE product life cycle rather than just its short "service" period. That meaning, how do we recover and reuse as much of the material possible when we need to upgrade? Obviously for a home, I'm thinking out of my lifetime, but I believe these are the questions we need to think about when engineering something.

Last edited by montcalm; 01-05-2022 at 11:28 AM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 04:05 PM   #80
John H Swanson
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post

I don't like spray foam for a number of reasons. .
I corrected my previous post. I thought Bensonwood used sprayfoam, but it uses celulose fiber. There's a youtube video about it.

here is an interesting site for ideas.

https://bensonwood.com/passive-house/
John H Swanson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.