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 never said they were less expensive in terms of utility bills. Everyone keeps saying that the bigger houses are not as efficient as the smaller ones, which is completely and undeniably untrue. They are just as efficient, and if you get the client that has extra money, they can be MORE efficient.
I guess 'efficiency' needs to be defined. My example above showed that driving an SUV is more efficient than driving a moped. That was determined in terms of pound miles per gallon. If you determined it in people miles per gallon, the moped is clearly more efficient.
Noahma appears to be calculating energy efficency per square foot instead of energy use per occupant.
So it's settled big and small houses can be equally efficient if the money is invested into doing so. But in the big picture of what's best for the environment, small efficient homes would be best, to use less resources and take up less land...since the issue isn't simply efficiency but the amount of resources used.
No, What we have been finding if using EQUAL building techniques with EQUAL insulation the homes preformed EQUAL. with no EXTRA money invested, if you invest more into the design then you can be MORE efficient than a smaller home.
I guess 'efficiency' needs to be defined. My example above showed that driving an SUV is more efficient than driving a moped. That was determined in terms of pound miles per gallon. If you determined it in people miles per gallon, the moped is clearly more efficient.
Noahma appears to be calculating energy efficency per square foot instead of energy use per occupant.
yes, the homes are rated without occupancy taken into the equation.
No, What we have been finding if using EQUAL building techniques with EQUAL insulation the homes preformed EQUAL. with no EXTRA money invested, if you invest more into the design then you can be MORE efficient than a smaller home.
Money has to be invested to make either efficient. My statement was targeting homes where the investment is not made and it's not efficient...
I cannot agree that ....in the big picture of what's best for the environment, small efficient homes would be best
Lumber is renewable. Concrete does not hurt the environment. Use of copper wire does not hurt the environment and so on.
If someone wants to live in a small environment - if that is what makes them happy - then that is what they should do.
Conversely, if one wants to live in a large environment - if that is what makes them happy - then that is what THEY should do.
No one - no group - no governmental agency should tell someone - anyone - how they "should" live.
You fail to account for the pollution that results from using those resources, and the damage to habitats, and the energy used to build (more needed obviously for larger homes) and maintain. Given the population of the world, conserving resources would be a good idea. Renewable resources are renewable if the rate of harvest/use doesn't exceed the replacement rate.
You fail to account for the pollution that results from using those resources, and the damage to habitats, and the energy used to build (more needed obviously for larger homes) and maintain. Given the population of the world, conserving resources would be a good idea. Renewable resources are renewable if the rate of harvest/use doesn't exceed the replacement rate.
There is not necessary any additional pollution or damage to habitats from building a larger home. Nor is there necessarily any additional energy - other than perhaps human energy - IMO -
There is not necessary any additional pollution or damage to habitats from building a larger home. Nor is there necessarily any additional energy - other than perhaps human energy - IMO -
More materials used, more pollution in the extracting and manufacturing processes related to those materials. You need to take into account everything related to it, down to the energy needed to extract and create products from those resources and to transport them (which often comes to oil and such). Quite simple really. Forests can support only so much harvesting sustainably before the rate of logging exceeds the rate at which it regrows and replaces the lost trees, so we must not over-harvest timber, as one example. When natural forests are replaced with tree farms to provide lumber, it becomes an unnatural forest and many species do not do well in the new conditions. With resources such as stone, it must be quarried and that destroys habitat for some species. With any new construction land that otherwise could be left to nature is devloped into an unnatural state, with a house, obviously, and landscaping that often is far from natural for the area. Loss of habitat.
There is not necessary any additional pollution or damage to habitats from building a larger home. Nor is there necessarily any additional energy - other than perhaps human energy - IMO -
Every pound of copper requires a certain amount of energy to extract and refine. Same goes for concrete, lumber, shingles, windows, countertops, faucets, carpet, drywall, paint, siding, etc.
Every pound of copper requires a certain amount of energy to extract and refine. Same goes for concrete, lumber, shingles, windows, countertops, faucets, carpet, drywall, paint, siding, etc.
Let's assume for a moment I agree with you -
Would your suggestion then be that the size of homes be reduced? And, if so, and if the individual won't "down size" voluntarily, the government should force smaller home upon the public?
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.
