Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are building a home and the builder wants to put on SIPS for the roofing...to the tune of a lot of $$. However, it looks like a great system...he's done it before....but I can't wrap my head around the $$. We've seen this before on someone elses home that he was doing. Granted, this is going to be a very energy efficient home so I certainly don't want to skimp on the roof.....anybody have any thoughts? Oh yeah - this will be in Northeastern Vermont.
If you are going with a vaulted ceiling I think it is a great idea. However, if you will have an attic space, the traditional insulation above the ceilings would cost a whole lot less $$ and with a high R installation be every bit as efficient. Being green means saving $$ as well as being efficient, IMO. YMMV
The major downside I see is that when the roof leaks, the OSB on one side will be damaged and you might have to replace the entire panel, which could be a problem and expensive. In a fire, those will likely drip flaming melting styrene, although the fire won't be able to spread laterally as fast as with an open rafter system. Be very concerned about fire issues up in the Northeast Kingdom. The fire departments may not have a whole lot of equipment, and can take some time to get to a fire.
Yeah, I completely get what you're saying and have expressed concern to the builder regarding the cost. The thing is - we saw this roofing on a home in another rural part of Vermont and my husband fell in love with it. We'll see what other options we have...we were not planning on having any attic space.
Harry Chickpea - completely understand about fire. Fortunately, we do have a dry pond hydrant at the base of our property and just minutes from the volunteer fire department - that is one thing we took into consideration when buying our property. Other properties were out there but eons away from emergency services and no hydrant anywhere to be found.
Well, with all due respect, if energy efficiency is the goal, log home constuction isn't the best method to achieve that end. There are ways to get the log home look inside and out with more modern and energy efficient construction methods. Of course it isn't "authentic" log home construction but it is energy efficient. You might look into what is being called "hybrid" log or timber homes.
I have just completed A lot of research into this. If you are locked into a cathedral ceiling, The sips gives you the best overall roof in terms of R- Value, Durability, Buildability, Material Use, and Cost.
A 12" SIP will give you R44 and a 20" R74. These are the true R values, taking into account for Thermal transfer of any support structure, Moisture transfer tec.
As mentioned before, a tradiltional Vented Attic outperforms Sips in ALL aspects. You can esily acheive R100. We are in the process of designing a net Zero Energy Home, and this information caused us to totally redesign the home, it is that big a difference.
Reference: Building America Special Research Project:
High R Roofs Case study analysis.
By John Straube, Phd, P.Eng
and Aaron Grim, M.A.S.c, P.Eng
But as mentioned above, a log home is not that Efficient to start with so putting an extremley expensive, or high r value roof may not make sense.
Well, with all due respect, if energy efficiency is the goal, log home constuction isn't the best method to achieve that end. There are ways to get the log home look inside and out with more modern and energy efficient construction methods. Of course it isn't "authentic" log home construction but it is energy efficient. You might look into what is being called "hybrid" log or timber homes.
Wood is a rather poor insulator. If you look at a house on a cold day (with some frost on the roof), you can see exactly where the rafters are, because the are warmer than the insulated spaces between the rafters.
I am in a very green house: (even though it is stick-built)
--Very thick insulation, between traditional rafters/studs. I like extruded polystyrene (styrofoam), with R5.0 per inch. but it is not legal in some places, and fiberglas can be just as effective if you make it thick enough.
--Lots of high-efficiency glass for daytime thermal gain (heating a large thermal mass). When it is 30 degrees outside in the daytime, I can get the house to 80 degrees purely by sunlight. This is in New Hampshire.
--At nighttime, insulated shades close on all the windows (including the attached greenhouse)
-- Geothermal open-loop heating/cooling system. Water temperature is 50/55 degrees. It basically never runs.
-- Two wood stoves, with secondary combustion chambers, and catalytic converters.
You can make a house very efficient, and the systems used are not intrusive on the look of a traditional house.
I have seen houses in Michigan that are so airtight, if you slam the front door, your ears pop ;-) External heat exchangers are virtually mandatory in those houses due to outgassing. (But I digress).
If you are going with a vaulted ceiling I think it is a great idea. However, if you will have an attic space, the traditional insulation above the ceilings would cost a whole lot less $$ and with a high R installation be every bit as efficient. Being green means saving $$ as well as being efficient, IMO. YMMV
Huh... (IMHO)
I always felt that saving dollars and being efficient (in the green way) are relatively uncorrelated.
Four choices:
1). saving $$ (i.e. frugal) and being efficient
2). not saving $$ (spending) and being efficient
3). saving $$ (frugal) and not being efficient
4). not saving $$ (spending) and not being efficient
Examples:
For #2, I put in a geothermal system (could use solar panels too). Not saving $$ (these things cost a bundle. My time to break even is 18 years), but I am being efficient.
For #3, I could go buy cheap sulfur-laden coal and live in an uninsulated shanty for close to nothing, but also trash the environment and not be efficient.
For #4, I could go buy a mansion for just me and a 5lb dog (been there, done that).
For #1, it is easier said than done, without potentially a major impact on lifestyle.
Just my opinions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
