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.
Nobody said you can't have what you want, so don't get your knickers in a twist. You can still have the big house and big car that make up for your small......concern for the environment.
The thread isn't even about whether you should use more resources. Its only asking the simple question of whether a little house that uses $1500 a year in energy is more eco-friendly than Al Gore's mansion that uses $30000 a year worth of power.
Noahma says bigger houses are equally efficient, and that the little house will use the same amount of energy as the big house, so we should respect his expert opinion and quit pestering the poor guy.
And, my large home uses $-0- a year in energy costs.
Nobody said you can't have what you want, so don't get your knickers in a twist. You can still have the big house and big car that make up for your small......concern for the environment.
The thread isn't even about whether you should use more resources. Its only asking the simple question of whether a little house that uses $1500 a year in energy is more eco-friendly than Al Gore's mansion that uses $30000 a year worth of power.
Noahma says bigger houses are equally efficient, and that the little house will use the same amount of energy as the big house, so we should respect his expert opinion and quit pestering the poor guy.
Actually, I did not say that they will use the same amount of energy, some assume that bigger equals less efficient, which is not the case. both will use the energy it takes efficiently.
nice way to try to twist my words, If you look at that quote and read it the way it is written, it is in regards to the energy used to produce the materials used on the house, not the energy used by the house.
"you are going to use the same energy regardless of if the home is large or small, someone is going to use the items, it could be installed on two small homes or one large home, the company will still manufacture the same amount of material."
post # 74, responding to
post #69
"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."
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?
We keep coming back to this point, as if there are only 2 possible extreme options:
1) Everybody does whatever they want, lives in as large a home as they desire, and has zero obligation to their impact on the environment.
OR
2) The government dictates the size of your home.
When in reality, what we've been doing all along is deciding collectively - as a culture - on the appropriate size home.
In the 40's and 50's, homes were usually less than 1000 sq ft, and families lived in these homes comfortably in their time. Now the average home is 2400 sq ft and even that is considered small by some individual's standards.
We've decided - together - that 2400 sq ft is an "acceptable" size. Now we're starting to see a trend to smaller homes again. Will the average size home start to shrink and the 2400 sq ft home will become unfashionably oversized? Only time will tell.
The government is not going to step in and tell us how much square footage we're allowed to have, but consumers will dictate the trends, consumers will decide.
the 2003-2006 IECC are the standards used. The code may vary a little between each jurisdiction, but most likely they will make more strict rather than less.
Outside of bigger urban areas and a handful of strict states, building codes tend to be quite minimal in this country. When I build my cabin, I don't need any permits and there are basically no codes to follow (even if there were, they can't be enforced with the lack of permits/inspections). Many other areas are similar in some ways, no codes or codes that aren't really enforced at all. You can't compare your area where codes may be strictly enforced to other areas where it's a very different picture.
I dont think it really is a weak argument. You have seen how many homes a sub-division will build. You can easily fit twice the small homes in the same land that may be sub-divided for larger homes. These materials will be made regardless if they are made for small or large homes. The increased demand for small homes will probably see an increase in production of these materials.
I think it is. Given the same number of houses built, if the houses were all smaller than the current average, it would save a lot of resources, pollution, etc., and take up less space. Obviously the trends of developers is a problem, because they try to slap up as much stuff as they can. It's purely about money to them.
10 years ago we built a 2,200 Appalachian style cape cod. Open great room/kitchen, loft/family room with 2 bedrooms upstairs, 2 bedrooms down. We designed it with 2 baths, one up and one down, the downstairs bathroom sharing the wall with the kitchen. Super efficient windows (low-e) and 12" block foundation insulated in the basement. Double stack masonry chimney with a woodstove in the fireplace in the greatroom, another in the basement.
2x6 construction, cedar siding, locally grown and milled red oak floors. With all the plumbing routed directly north and south we wound up usiing a lot less copper for plumbing. We used propane for cooking (I filled the bottle myself) and everything else was electric, including two Heil heat pumps.
My annual energy costs were $900 (if that). We burned about 5 cords of wood for heat and had no problems keeping the entire house at 72deg on the coldest of nights. Drew water from a well, paid for sewer.
If you want to call 2,200 'small', well it sure was a lot more efficient than most homes around us. My old neighbors (all electric) paid over $1,800 p/yr in electric, and another that heated with propane paid over $2,400 in utility bills. Additionallly my construction costs were waaay under theirs. My house cost $150,000 to build 10 years ago, that's using low-e windows, 2x6 construction and other efficient features. My neighbor paid $250,000 to build his 2,500 sq. ft house with 3 baths (spread all out) and standard features- no wood floors or high efficient windows/doors/framing.
I'd say smaller (and smarter) is definately the way to go.
We had to move this winter due to a job relo, and I won't even tell you what I pay in gas/electric for the 2 story 2,400 sq. ft colonial we live in now. Makes me sick. I can't wait to find ground and duplicate my last house.
2x6 construction, cedar siding, locally grown and milled red oak floors. With all the plumbing routed directly north and south we wound up usiing a lot less copper for plumbing. We used propane for cooking (I filled the bottle myself) and everything else was electric, including two Heil heat pumps.
Sounds like the "Not So Big House" concept where you design the house well to make every sq. in. work instead of a lot of space that isn't really used. Aligning the plumbing so it isn't spread all over the house is an old economy trick. Then it doesn't take so long for the hot water to show up too.
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.
