Dumpster 0 #51 April 23, 2009 Yeah that's it!! Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #52 April 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf I were a builder, I would focus on technologies that reduce operating costs, since those are features that can be justified to potential buyers regardless of their ideology w/r/t the environment. that's a much more effective approach for a home buyer than just trying to appeal to the self righteous "enviro-smug" and it's real, compared to the other the nutjobs (5%) are doing it anyway, you need to appeal to the practical home buyer (80%) who want a REAL reason to do this There's nothing wrong with using green technology simply because it's the right thing to do, regardless of cost. I certainly wouldn't call altruistic people nutjobs as you do. Altruism isn't a bad thing. However, from the builder's perspective, the home is an economic asset, not an ideological symbol.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #53 April 23, 2009 Roof fan would be very helpful. A dehumidifier in the attic wouldn't do much more than run up your electricity bill. It would be much more beneficial in the living space in the sumertime. Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #54 April 23, 2009 QuoteI live in the south where it can get humid at times. This weekend will have highs in the 80's and lows in the 50's. My house has the vents along the eaves and the roof crest vent, as well as the screened vents at the ends on the wall under the roof crests. It gets hot in the attic during the day from late spring to early fall. Should there be a dehumidifier or exhaust fan installed up there? Note that I have not seen any mold or mildew damage up there, and we had a new roof installed last fall. There's no need for dehumidification, that would waste a lot of energy since you're constanly getting more humid air circulating through the attic. There should be a minimum 1:300 square foot ratio between the attic area and the area of your vents. 60% of that vented area should be for intake and 40% at the upper portion as the outlet. In the South it's better to have your vapor barrier at the outside of the wall/insulation construction because you need to keep that humid air out of the wall/ceiling. The vapor in the wall also needs to be able to pass to the inside/occupied space. For that reason in the South you have to be especially carefull not to use paints that seal the walls and ceiling. You only need an attic fan when there's no way of venting enough heat from the attic regardless of what you do. But remember, the makeup for this air needs to come from the outdoors, not the inside of the house. This makeup air is as cool as the outside air so you're now ideally seeing the same temperature difference across the ceiling assembly as you are across the wall assemblies. It's a last resort, really and the more air you exhaust, the more cool air you're going to suck through the ceiling. Edit: Some clarification as to why people DO use an attic fan. The idea is that you keep the attic at the same temperature as the outdoor air instead of letting it build up. It then sees the same conditions as your walls. I'll see if I can turn the calcs and graphs into something I can post so you can see where it does or doesn't work well enough. The short of it is that if your attic is (an exaggeration) 900 degrees and you have the choice between adding 10 ft of insulation vs. a few vents and a fan then you're probably gonna go for the fan."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #55 April 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf I were a builder, I would focus on technologies that reduce operating costs, since those are features that can be justified to potential buyers regardless of their ideology w/r/t the environment. that's a much more effective approach for a home buyer than just trying to appeal to the self righteous "enviro-smug" and it's real, compared to the other the nutjobs (5%) are doing it anyway, you need to appeal to the practical home buyer (80%) who want a REAL reason to do this There's nothing wrong with using green technology simply because it's the right thing to do, regardless of cost. I certainly wouldn't call altruistic people nutjobs as you do. Altruism isn't a bad thing. here's the thing, if it's truly the "right thing to do" in terms of energy, cleanliness, etc - then it will be cost effective of a reasonable period of return. If it's not, then it's likely a false improvement that sells due to the marketing only and not the science. certain kinds of altruism are bad things - when the foundation of the altruism is based on bad logic - there's a lot of well meaning idiots out there Quote However, from the builder's perspective, the home is an economic asset, not an ideological symbol. again, you hit the nail on the head. and, it's true for most also from the home buyer's perspective as well examples: 1 - "add feature B, you're saving the PLANET" - the buyer is an idiot catering to a fad that's likely meaningless and contrived to sell feature B 2 - "add feature B, it'll pay for itself in evergy reductions in the first 10 years and it'll last for 30 years before replacement" - the buyer is thinking things through from a real payoff perspective for himself and the rest of us ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #56 April 23, 2009 Pink House ? ...Dude...smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #57 April 23, 2009 It's annoying how many of these well meaning idiots there are who thrive on environmental snobbery."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,454 #58 April 23, 2009 >here's the thing, if it's truly the "right thing to do" in terms of energy, >cleanliness, etc - then it will be cost effective of a reasonable period of >return. ?? You're equating "clean" to "cost effective" and they're not close to similar. Coal power (ideally with no scubbers/precipitators/pollution controls of any kind) is the most cost effective power there is, looking at a purely dollars to megawatt-hours comparison. >If it's not, then it's likely a false improvement that sells due to >the marketing only and not the science. I don't get this either. A house on a hill has nice views, but there's no scientific reason why the house should sell for more - yet it does. There are a lot of reasons people buy houses that have nothing to do with science, efficiency or cost effectiveness. >1 - "add feature B, you're saving the PLANET" Or: upgrade to lot 6, you can see the ocean - an idiot catering to a view fad? upgrade to this floor plan, it has more storage space - an idiot catering to a storage fad? upgrade to the lot with the pool - an idiot with a water fetish? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #59 April 23, 2009 The Homeowner's Association would never go for green. You can't put solar panels on your roof. You can't put awnings on your windows. You can't let your grass get longer to reduce evaporation. You can't do this.... You can't do that.... ad infinitumMy reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #60 April 23, 2009 Yeah its important! I can personally attest to pumping MAD greenhouse gasses into my house for sure. Oh wait were we talking about something else? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #61 April 23, 2009 Quote here's the thing, if it's truly the "right thing to do" in terms of energy, cleanliness, etc - then it will be cost effective of a reasonable period of return. Not necessarily. Sometimes newer, more efficient technologies cost more because economics of scale haven't kicked in yet or because they don't have hidden subsidization discounts that more traditional technologies might have. Quote there's a lot of well meaning idiots out there Clearly. Quote Quote However, from the builder's perspective, the home is an economic asset, not an ideological symbol. again, you hit the nail on the head. and, it's true for most also from the home buyer's perspective as well Right, but that does not make one a "nutjob" just because they are willing to pay more money in order to lessen their carbon foot print. Some people actually consider other things to be more important than money.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LisaH 0 #62 April 23, 2009 QuoteThe Homeowner's Association would never go for green. You can't put solar panels on your roof. You can't put awnings on your windows. You can't let your grass get longer to reduce evaporation. You can't do this.... You can't do that.... ad infinitum HOA's suck!!!!!!!Be yourself! MooOOooOoo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #63 April 24, 2009 QuotePink House ? ...Dude... Yeah - what's wrong with the White House . . . buh duh bump!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowwhite 0 #64 April 24, 2009 I spent ten years on city council What an education! We were mandated by the Federal government to start recycling programs (which we of course did) but nobody was mandated to USE the recycled components. We seperated out glass We seperated out paper We seperated out aluminun We seperated out yard waste We seperated out plastic We paid DOUBLE the tipping fee to put the glass paper and plastic that no one ever wanted, BACK into the garbage dumps, (sorry there is no other nice word for it) We still pay many times more than the original fee to "recycle" yard waste and we DONATED the aluminum to a non profit, who sold it for enough to stay in business, but not much. (City of 40,000 people, $15,000 a year in aluminum) All in all, "green" is a good idea, it's just not working well enough yet to make it a feasible option. In my real life I live in a 100 plus year old home. We have always had a compost bin, we never buy "new" clothes, cars or furniture. We believe in recyling, not buying "new recyclable". What the F&*() does that even mean?! If you are using it for the FIRST time, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We added insulation, energy conserving appliances, double pane windows and a water garden for capturing rain water for watering the yard. We even use gray water to flush toilets. Yea, I believe in the earth. I planted 500 trees last year.skydiveTaylorville.org [email protected] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #65 April 24, 2009 QuoteThe Homeowner's Association would never go for green. You can't put solar panels on your roof. You can't put awnings on your windows. You can't let your grass get longer to reduce evaporation. You can't do this.... You can't do that.... ad infinitum I'm so glad I don't live in a HOA controlled neighborhood. I'd go apeshit."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
