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.
I read all about green houses. I "get" green. But one thing I don't seen mentioned is housing & room size.
Houses take materials to build and energy to sustain. The smaller the house, the less materials and less energy. Yet, I see 3-4,000 SF "green" houses all over with 1-4 people living in them. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. All that wasted materials and wasted continuous energy. That's green??
We intentionally chose an 800 SF house for the 4 of us. By creative use of space, it works great. We have privacy and with the use of space age european heaters in each room, our electric bills in the cold NW winters are about $50. Our house took 1/12th what a 4,000 SF house took to build, materials wise.
We love our SUV's and our BIG empty houses. And, oh yeah, we're green.
In the Oregonian's home section (maybe 8-9 months ago?), they proudly showcased a couple with two (grown) children who turned their rambling, 4,000+ square foot house "green" by adding something like $100,000 worth of solar panels to run the house. (I remember that they had 3 refrigerators and a walk-in freezer which they weren't willing to give up to be "green"). This is "Street of Dreams" green to me, and missing the entire point of what it means to be green, which is reducing your consumption and output.
On the other hand, building trends generally start at the high end and percolate down. Insulation techniques, window design, solar siting. Maybe there is a benefit in the long run.
I guess my thinking is that going green and wanting to live "sustainable" lives, at some point, means living in only the space we minimally require. To do so uses less land, far less building materials, far less energy... it's a part of the green equation I have yet to see and it's disappointing.
My family and I are in the process of down sizing our consumption. We live in a 2500 square foot house yet we built it 13 years ago with as many energy conservation components as possible at the time. We consume about 600 to 700 gallons of oil per year to heat the home in CT. Many of the older and smaller homes in the area are consuming that amount in 1 to 2 months in the winter.
Set back thermostats, low-e windows, high performance insulation in walls and proper amounts in the attic with good venting make huge differences.
Now there are fresh air exchangers, more affordable radiant heating systems, tighter casement windows, on-demand hot water heaters, power management strips, etc., that can help people save money and energy without significantly changing their lives.
Conspicuous consumption is an issue and a very hard one to crack. While larger structures can never be as "green" as smaller ones with the same energy efficiency because of the greater use of resources, living in a larger structure addresses a lot of social things along the lines of "see how well I'm doing." Adding in the energy efficiency and renewable or non-impact energy use helps a lot in larger structures. You have to be a type of person who wants to live in the "shipshape" mode of super efficient use of space to make that work. Most people aren't going to be willing to do so unless they simply have no choice. So kudos to you and your family for choosing that lifestyle.
Another question along the lines of green use of resources, is whether it is more green to live in an existing house or build a new one that is much more energy efficient? There is obviously much lower use of resources in reusing an existing house compared to building any house of comparable or smaller size new.
I keep thinking that for green living to work, it needs to be mainstream. Individual action is good, but not enough to make a serious impact on the health of the earth. It needs to be mainstream action. That is the hard puzzle to solve.
In the Oregonian's home section (maybe 8-9 months ago?), they proudly showcased a couple with two (grown) children who turned their rambling, 4,000+ square foot house "green" by adding something like $100,000 worth of solar panels to run the house. (I remember that they had 3 refrigerators and a walk-in freezer which they weren't willing to give up to be "green"). This is "Street of Dreams" green to me, and missing the entire point of what it means to be green, which is reducing your consumption and output.
On the other hand, building trends generally start at the high end and percolate down. Insulation techniques, window design, solar siting. Maybe there is a benefit in the long run.
IF their solar panels enabled them to 100% come off the grid then i say great on them!
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.
