Are smaller homes better for the environment? How big is yours?

According to the county, our house is 1458 sq ft.

We raised 4 teens here, and now it's just the two of us.

There is no garage, so the upstairs is becoming the major storage space... it is not heated (there are heaters, but they are turned off), and we have it blocked off, so little heat goes upstairs.

When there were 6 of us, it was a little tight. At one point, DH had a whole nuther family living here, besides his own... so there were 9 people living here for about a year or so. That was back when there was just one bathroom!

We've talked about moving, finding a little shack to fix up out in a more rural area, no upstairs, with a garage (big, BIG garage... DH is a packrat), and some scope for doing some interesting things, like wind power, solar, and water power. However, for right now, our house is a perfect little lovenest for us.

 

By all means. Make sure to cut off my buttons and break my sword.

I found a couple of photos. They are from opposite seasons and opposite sides of the house. I really should find some from the back too. We are sited on six lots. The house sits on the front three, and the back three are park land along the stream. I think the total square footage for the building is around 13,000. I loose count. I can never remember how many dormers we have, and I have to count doors on my fingers. It's kind of silly.

Tom

 

Nice garden.

How are the roofs for solar? The angle is good but do they face the right way?

 

We have roof sections facing every cardinal direction. The pitch is 12x12, or 45 degrees, which is a little low for our latitude. Up here you need 69 degrees for peak production on December 21st. Solar might be good on those rare days we see some sun. Most of our sunny days are in the summer. I did see some sun for 5 minutes today. That was the first sun I've seen in two weeks.

Tom

 

Can I come to the drumming? I like a good drumming.

I wonder if I belong on this forum, I was raised in a small 3 bedroom 1 bathroom brick home, maybe 1100 feet with my 4 brothers and 3 sisters plus mum and dad. Dad was a truck driver mum stayed home. Because the order was 2 girls, 5 boys then a girl the lounge room was converted into a bedroom so my little sister could have her own room.

The only heater we had was a small kerosine heater and in summer a portable evaporative unit until it died of rust. There was a 12 foot diameter above ground pool, I thought we were rich.

 

Don't worry about peak production on Dec 21st. See what you can average over the calendar year. With tax breaks, utility incentives, Pv solar can get competitive with grid power. Cold climates have an advantage, as Pv panels are more efficient as they get colder. Also reflection from snow is quite significant.

Icarus

PS Way to go Godiva!!! Set a good example!

 

You're kind of changing the question. The OP is assuming similar building styles, in which case smaller is better. A smaller well-built house is even better yet. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "The Not So Big House" book, which has sold quite well. It describes how to lay out a house efficiently so all the house is utilized without making it feel small.

I live in a 2600 sq. ft house (including the finished basement), the living room is under-utilized, as is the basement bedroom, so we could comfortably live in a house with 2000 sq. ft. (Comfortably = no change in lifestyle). At the time we bought this, we thought we'd have another kid, but that never happened. We did replace the windows and the furnace, that reduced natural gas usage by 15% or better. My wife works out of the home, if that helps justify the size. At our old 1300 sq. ft house we always had some relatives living with us, which made it cramped. Shortly after we moved into the big house, we were by ourselves.

There's a formula for determining the efficiency of your house:
(total BTUs/sq.ft)/(total degree days), averaged over a year (to get all the seasons). Wood, oil, natural gas, KWh, etc. can be converted to equivalent BTUs. Degree days are the variation from 65'F, most utilities report this with your billing statement. So if you're a nerd and green like me, you already have your utility statements in an excel spreadsheet. The number you get should be below 10 for an efficient house, 10-20 is "acceptable" according to what I read, and above 20 shows your house needs improvement. My house started at about 9.5, I dropped it to 7.8. Note that the square footage is factored out of the equation, it's energy usage per square foot essentially, so big houses are not penalized under this equation. We use 135,000 BTUs/year currently. I want to get an on-demand (tankless) water heater next and see what that does. The A/C is also a real energy hog, an attic fan or whole-house fan might help there.

I've read some interesting things awhile back on square feet per person, and there's a limit where happiness is affected, but Americans are well above that limit on average.

 

My experience was similar. First it was Mom, Dad and 6 kids in an approximately 1100 square feet 3 bedroom apartment in a NYC housing project. Then Mom, Dad and 7 kids in an approximately 1500 square feet 3 bedroom house in the suburbs. One bedroom was for the girls, one bedroom for the boys, and one bedroom for Mom and Dad.

Since graduating from college, I've always lived in Manhattan in smallish one, two or three bedroom apartments ranging from 500 to 1000 square feet. Can't foresee me ever living in a large apartment in Manhattan ... although admittedly that's mostly because of cost (I think the average 2 bedroom apartment in Manhattan is around $1.45 million to buy, and $4500 a month to rent), and not because of ecological concerns.

 

My 500 sw ft house will do all your 1100 sq ft house will do,,,except for the outhouse! Add an additional 32 sq ft!

 

Has anyone considered that WHERE you live is at least as relevant of a question.

There are energy calculators online that suggest a small footprint condo in a northern climate uses more energy than a much larger single family home in a moderate climate.

Of course, a small home in a moderate climate would do even better. But then again, a shack with a dirt floor in Mexico would be even better still. It's all relative.

Another consideration (as I think stated before) is square-footage per person. Is a single person in a 1000 sq. ft apartment "less consuming" than a family of 4 in a 3000 sq. ft. home? I suspect not necessarily.

 

Here is an aerial shot of my home.

 

Very good, he does not seem very concerned about his carbon output.

 

Stayin alive, stayin alive, ha ha ha,,,,

Takes on a bit of new meaning!

Icarus

 

If he adds a solar panel, he can then claim the house is green.

 

1940 2 1/2 story English tudor about 2,200 heated sqf. Over the last 4 years we have cut our electric consumption almost in half. From 9200 kw per year, just under the USA average of 10,600, down to 5,100 in 07. The av for Europe is 4,900. I will get below that in 08.

 

He might also own an Amazonian rain forest to offset his emissions. I hope he drives a fuel efficient car or a bicycle when he runs to the local shops, at least that is something. We all have hobbies, some weave baskets, some do wood turning and some fly around in passenger jets.

Does he fly as a commercial pilot as the face of Qantas or is the jet just painted in Qantas colours for the sponsorship?

I was under the impression he flies commercial routes from time to time to remain current. If that is the case is the pilot responsible for the carbon emissions of the jet or the passengers?

How does the emissions of a jet compare with the same journey for the same number of people in a typical American family vehicle? Maybe an average of 2 to a vehicle because some of the passengers will be travelling alone and some in groups.

It might just be the jet in front of shot reduces greenhouse gas emissions, I don't know, I'm no expert.

Sorry this is a little OT.

 

My house is a 1948 ~2,000 sqft wood structure housing six people. New double-paned windows on the southern exposure in addition to a full set of solar panels on the roof. Heat is provided by a pellet stove and cooling by evap.

I am planning on adding some space to the house, but re-roofing at the same time, hopefully improving the efficiency in the process. I'm also going to put new siding on and insulating during that evolution.

I live in a near-desert, so of course I have heat/drought-tolerant plants and timed irrigation.

 

Pat, from what I've read a fully loaded passenger jet, flying a longer distance (don't know what the floor value of reasonable is, but I'm guessing at least 500 miles/806 km) gest about 48 mpg/seat. So it's pretty efficient compared to the typical car. Private jets, by definition are a very high carbon way to travel. When I did security for the 2002 Winter Olypics I saw several private (!) 757s that had 4 people aboard. Obviously you're looking at several thousand gallons per person per flight traveling like that!