Chairman of Shell: 'The boat is sinking'

Ron Dupuy asked about cost of improvements for energy conservation. The implication is what is the "break even" or "payback" time. Using monthly utility information (natural gas and electricity) compared to money spent, the payback time was 2.5 years. What is not factored in is decreased emissions or the positive affect on air quaity. The home is much more comfortable year round. One unforeseen benefit: the home is much quieter.

With detailed monthly records the home will command a higher selling price because a prospective buyer can affort a larger mortgage because the monthly operating cost of the home is less than comparable homes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Dupuy\";p=\"99509)</div>

Not as much as you think. But only if you "build in" the efficiency during construction. If you have to go after the fact and retrofit, then it's pointless.

The biggest difference in most climates is using 2x6 walls vs 2x4 walls. It should be obvious that 2x6 walls are far stronger and much quieter. Even better are double walls, like staggered 2x4 or even 2x6.

Compare a home with a basic R-12 2x4 wall to an R-20 2x6 wall system. The same exact blueprint will only have marginally higher construction costs. For the home I used to have in the Burbs, around $3,500. Since code requires 2x6, no choice, but for kicks I priced the materials both ways.

The 2x6 home is much quieter, which is really important if you're in a noisy neighborhood, next to a busy highway, near an industrial zone, etc. And the extra insulation helps maintain comfort much better too.

Tri pane windows compared to dual pane windows is another area. If you really wanted to save construction costs, use single pane windows. I don't think you could legally do so, but I'm sure it would save a lot of money up front.

For the home I used to have in the Burbs, I priced a favorite local PVC brand called Polar Windows: dual panes were priced with Low E and Argon fill, with insulating spacer; the tri-panes were priced with dual Low E and dual Argon fill, with insulating spacers. For my former home, price difference $1,100.

If you have ever been in a home with dual panes, in summer you get a lot more heat from the sun. In winter, especially at -40, a lot more frost/ice and condensation on the glass.

With tri panes, there is *much* less heat loss/gain, and frosting is non existent. Condensation is rare too. What I really like about tri panes is how much quieter the house is, the extra pane of glass and air space makes for a huge noise reduction.

Code here requires R-40, which for my former house in the Burbs would have cost $1,600. Upgrading to R-60 was only $250 more, and upgrading to R-80 was only $450 more. I suppose no insulation would be ideal.

The only catch to blow insulation is that most 5/8 gyproc ceiling sheets probably can't support much past R-70. Builders here are running construction adhesive and screwing good ply up first, then gyproc onto that. Then the ceiling should be good for R-100.

The building envelope is very important too for air infiltration losses. In a cold climate like this one, that means the vapor barrier is on the "warm" side. Tyvec house wrap is on the exterior. A lot of new homes are also clad with 1 inch Styrofoam, which also helps prevent cracks in the stucco finish. The Styrofoam cladding really helps comfort inside and also makes the house quieter too.

Insulated Concrete Form construction is really taking off here now. The ICF system may add around 15% to the cost of a home, but it's so much quieter and more efficient that many folks happily pay for ICF just to have a quieter home. The energy savings are an added bonus.

HVAC is important too. The ductwork should be sealed so it's absolutely airtight, and it should be insulated too. Heat Recovery Ventilators for northern climates will bring in a constant supply of fresh air while exhausting the stale air. Much improved indoor air quality, especially if you put MERV 12 filters in the HRV intake side and use an electrostatic air cleaner on the fan system.

More and more builders here are putting in +92% efficient gas furnaces, when in some cases only 1-2 years ago they were telling customers that they were better off with "cheaper" 80% furnaces.

What they forgot to consider is that the 80% furnace needs a chimney, which costs around $1,200 installed. It also puts a hole in your roof that will eventually leak. The condensing gas furnace is direct vented with plastic pipes, so there is no chimney. The practical cost difference is then lowered to under $500.

With an intelligent system, like the Bryant Evolution I had at the former home in the Burbs and now at my hobby farm, the air quality alone may very well be worth putting it in. The energy savings will typically ROI in 5-7 years at current energy prices.

Another thing about designing-in efficiency: I've noticed most homes are built with many expensive frilly things, like bay windows and "build-outs" from the wall to form neat little hutches, trayed ceilings, snazzy architectural cues, etc. That costs *way* more than a plain home with energy efficiency. Guess what most folks are spending their money on?

I'm Conservative in the very literal sense and refuse to pee away money on frilly crap I don't even believe in. My house in the Burbs was somewhat plain compared to the other homes, but the finished price was identical.

Otherwise, that home in the burbs would have broken even in energy savings vs "extra" cost around 7 years after construction if I had gone with the frilly options too. Since I forego the frilly useless stuff, and had an identical price to the other homes on my street, it was saving me money from day one.

When I sold the home, the Spring after the first big jump in natural gas prices here, the energy saving features sold themselves. That was what really helped sell my home.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse\";p=\"100070)</div>

Ditto.

Since the variable speed fan in my former Burb house, and now at my hobby farm, runs continuously at very low speed, the HRV has a MERV 12 filter on the intake side, and the furnace has an electrostatic air cleaner, the indoor air quality is light years beyond a conventional home.

You don't appreciate a quiet home in a noisy city until you've compared one to a noisy home.

 

I am impressed with your knowledge of energy efficient new house construction. What I was referring to was retrofitting solar-voltaic panels. Presently the pay back cost is ten-fifteen years, and that is with a 50% subsidy of tax dollars - a lot of monthly utility bills. In ten years maintenance, repair, and the fact that it is ten year old technology, means it is a poor investment. And that doesn't take into consideration that you are compromising the integrity of your roof.

If I was in the position to build now I believe I would follow your advice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Dupuy\";p=\"100685)</div>

Ron:

Oh, gotcha. I'm also leery of PV panels on the roof. One good hailstorm and you're SOL.

Jay

 

Hi Ron Depuy and all-

Profit.

Do you think it's all about profit? Profit, as discussed here, seems to be an attribute of the currency system. A currency system is a human construct, a model, a machine. Machines do become worn and outmoded, they exhibit entropy. My point: I've seen pretty noticable differences between currency price of an item and its' value in a context other than cash.

So there is pleasure, and there is pain: One we seek, one we avoid. Social and/or physical dominance, money, drugs, escape, religion, or oblivion (and new cars) all are modes that help us seek pleasure, avoid pain, or both.

How this relates to a fossil fuel economy: Many have achieved relatively pain free lives (wealth), through subscription to a system. (Fossil energy, it's distribution, and subsequent cash profit). Other (often called "competing" ) systems, instinctively viewed as threat to ensconced comfort. Even if increasing entropy is aparent in the previously adopted system, it's much less threat to ones' (often imagined) security, to bully the newcomer system(s),
than to dream that the old machine may be ready, at the least, for a rethink and retool.

Some people always pick on the new kid. I'm here to welcome the new kid, at least until we get to know each other.

Watts D. Hour

 

Ron:

As far as the tax subsidy angle, all the "conventional" systems (Oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, etc) get plenty of freebies too.

Solar tends to be more open about the subsidies, which in my eye is a tally to seriously consider it.

Like folks who knock down cars like the Prius because of the tax breaks (Very rare to non-existent in Canada though). How about all the tax breaks GM, DC, and Ford get to build new plants, to "defer" taxes, to get loss-leader utility pricing?

Jay

 

Very good point. "Profit" under the "cash accounting" system, which is what most oldsters use, and what a modern accountant would use, are entirely different things.

My "profit" is your "loss" or v-v.

It's nothing more than a twisted Ponzi Scheme.

 

Uhh, Ive built homes for a living and the figures you are using are not in any way what I'm seeing to build green. Lets take for example 90% and up efficient furnaces. They arn't 20 or 30 % more to buy, they are double what an 80 percent furnace costs and the plastic pipe you refer to as cheaper to install and buy is offset by the increased costs to install yet another drain becuase 90 % furnces generate condnsate that has to be run outside through a PVC drain. To furthur that comparison most counties now consider the condensate generated to be acidic and require a condensate neutralizer that needs changing every year. The internal workings of the furnace are more complex too and reqire more upkeep and cost to repair. There are complex and confusing circuit boards that can't be serviced and must be replaced and troubleshooting problems is always more $. just try and fix a variable speed, 93% furnace that isn't working right. you will then understand. In old furnaces the exhaust gasses were hot and they would rise up the flew on their own. The modern high efficient furnaces wring every BTU out of the combustion process and that makes the CO exhaust cool and it will not rise on its own and needs an inducer motor to get them out of the structure. They are expnsive and complex devices with all manner of safety reqirements so you don't die from CO poisoning in winter.

How is it with your scenario that to add double the insulation adds only 20% more cost? Double the insulation R factor means double the cost no matter how you figure it. Lets say for example you do away with fiberglass insulation and you go with ridged foam or blown in insulation. Now you are paying for real labor instead of unskilled laborers to install and staggered 2x6 walls you mentioned are commonly used in condos to reduce noise transmission. They require 2 mudsills and two top plates and take up valuabe floor space. They arn't double the cost to build they are 5 times the cost because of so much more labor. The ply going up before ceiling insulation going up requires skilled carpenters cutting and adding those sheets and we all know that labor is by far the most expensive part of any building project. I would estimate that adding ply to the ceiling before adding gyp board would increase costs by as much as 8% to the entire cost.

Now onto foam insulation on the outside of the walls . Labor to add such is expensive. No unskilled laborers there. You are paying carpenters to add foam at 45 $ an hour per person. And lets say you are adding a tankless hot water heater. Great... they reduce energy use. They cost 3-4 times what a standard hot water heater cost to buy. Then they require an upsized gas supply and now to the real fun part... the stainless flew pipe to exhaust the gasses is 10 times what standard class 2 vent pipe costs. You can only use one of 2 systems out there and they are not interchangeable. So, that flew in a tankless system now costs 550$ dollars to install instead of the usual 60 $ and because of union issues a licenced plumber can only install it. The last time I had to hire a plumber for that job they charged me 400$ as opposed to my doing it for 50$.

Now, onto triple pane windows. In the Bay Aerea we generally use good quality windows by Anderson or Marvin double pane, low e, argon filled, pepainted on the inside and vinyl clad exterior. When estimating the cost for windows like that I average 12 % total cost of the structure. In a 1,000,000$ home typical of the bay area thats 120,000$ for windows and their installation and trim. I don't have any idea how you got your figures but I'd be out of business in a years time using figures like yours and thats for good double pane windows. Triple panes are more, way more.

We last built a house with new roof decking that is reflective on the outside to reduce solar gain. It was double what 1/2 ply costs. Did you know that by using white roofing you can cut your cooling cost by 30% in summer? How many houses do you see with a white Roof???

Now, I agree with your philosophy that costs can be cut by building better up front. Thats a no brainer and we can cut costs further by building in increments of 2 or better yet increments of 4 feet minimizing waste. Tell that to the architects and enginners that spec the way homes are constructed!!! We also can do passive things like calculating the latitude and designing eaves to maximize sun exposure in winter and minimize exposure in summer and to orient the house to add such, again, tell that to the arcitects and engineers. Another point is that carpenters took years to perfect their craft. In general, they are loath to use something new because the old has worked for years. I'm not agreeing with that but I understand it.

In conclusion then, and from a builders standpoint, it's the labor that adds up not the materials but materials arn't cheap either especially the upscale stuff like windows and doors. Try selling a 1.4 million dollar house with vinyl windows and hollow core doors, cheap fixtures or a 15 year comp roof.... you don't! I work for a year and have 1,000,000 $ of my own tyed up in a house project before its completed. I have workers comp and insurance thats astronomical. I have to pay my own medical and retirement and both sides of Social security. I argue with designers, engineers and laborors who work hourly and have no stake in the project or money invested. I hassle with county or city office employees that don't care what your problems or deadlines are and then there are the inspectors.... and the red tape in getting the project signed off. The hours spent in a county office because you have a new inspector or, what's worse, having to pay off one to get it out of some quagmire not of your making. Or architects that spec somthing that can't be built or engineers that screw up the drawings. The problems are endless

The inspectors are not easy and often they pose other problems with going green. I wish it were easy it would make life easier but going green, like it or not, is not easy or cheap despite what posters here may say.
-Paul R. Haller-

 

Of course people don't consider that creating an energy efficient home is not always about "pay-back" times. Many would rather spend 100 dollars with a company that provides environmentally reponsible products, than give that 25 dollar savings to the coal fired power plant.

Just like the prius. I would rather give money to Toyota, who is aggresively pursuing Hybrid technology than give half that money to the oil companies.

It's people that do this that help fund the next level of research that will make it economically profittable to conserve, therfore making it commonplace.

 

Mr. Haller points out some of the many reasons why single-family dwellings don't make sense from an energy use perspective. My next home will be a condo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Paul R. Haller @ Dec 13 2006, 07:43 AM) [snapback]361409[/snapback]</div>

Paul

Whoa, let's calm down here, take a deep breath, and not pop a vein.

I believe you are from the SF area, at least you claim to be. So it may be entirely accurate all of your claims hold true for the SF area, perhaps all of CA in general.

Maybe you didn't notice, but I'm from Winnipeg, Manitoba. That's in Canada. Our climate locally can range from -40 C in winter to +38 C in summer. So for starters the building code REQUIRES a lot of energy efficiency to be built-in.

As far as the furnace, for the average new home, the cost differential between an 80% furnace and a condensing +92% furnace that I quoted are acurate. Even four years ago, only around half of new homes had the condensing furnaces. According to local tradespeople, now every new home has one. They only keep a few of the 80% models around as spares, and usually when it's time to replace an older model, Manitoba Hydro kicks in rebates to make it a no-brainer.

As far as CO poisening, every condensing furnace I have seen has an isolated combustion system, drawing in fresh outside air from one pipe, and exhausting the gases from another. Every winter we have a few CO deaths, and those are usually due to older furnaces without separate combustion. Or are you referring to the older condensing furnaces that had cracked heat exchangers? Same thing happens to 80% furnaces around here.

As far as I'm concerned, and this view is shared by the Winnipeg Fire and Paramedic Services, every home should have a smoke detector and a CO detector in good working order.

Folks in rural areas that don't have natural gas still heat with electricity, as Manitoba Hydro has about the cheapest power rates in North America. Yet Manitoba Hydro encourages rural house builders to go with geothermal, and offer good rebates and financing options to do so.

As far as the cost of R value, perhaps that was poorly worded. I intended to state it as a percentage of total building cost. Not that we have many multi-million dollar homes here, it seems all of them are owned by the Asper or Nygard families (Local wealthy folks, nice people, give generously to charity, etc)

As far as double walls, for condo developments that is now code, either a double wall or insulated concrete foam. Folks happily pay for it. Guess it must be something in the water, makes us dum.

As far as 1 inch exterior foam board, almost every new home I see going up has it. Since these homes will eventually get stucco, makes it easier for lathing I suppose. You also get a virtually airtight and waterproof membrane, which us simple folk way up in the frozen arctic wasteland of Manitoba really do appreciate.

As far as tri-pane windows, well, have you ever been in a house at -40 C with double pane windows? The condensation and ICE on the window are a sight to see - pardon the pun. Some homes still have double-pane, but I have yet to see recent new home construction put in double pane. You would almost have to give away a home here if it "only" had double pane windows.

As far as million dollar homes, I just don't understand that. Is everybody in San Francisco a billionaire? The median new home price for a single detached within the city of Winnipeg is around $265,000, the range can be from $160,000 to $400,000. I guess we po' folk up here.

The costs I quoted are accurate, as they reflect the costs to add the additional energy-efficiency features I wanted four years ago in my single family home. I sold it two years ago, at a modest profit, to live in a high-rise condo.

Now, here is where I agree with you: tankless water heaters even after all the rebates are still three times what the average water heater is. The comment about architects is right on the money, a lot of folks are getting back to building houses with an enclosed PORCH. Why? It functions like an airlock so keeps out cold drafts during our bitter cold -40 winters.

There is no way a single entry door, no matter how equipped with gaskets and foam cores, is going to stop drafts and even ice at -40.

Anyhoo, try to smell the roses once in awhile. Enjoy a nice cup of coffee, give the missus a peck on the cheek, etc

jay

 

This guy (see below for very interesting interview) says that it costs 7% more to build a "passive-house" compared to normal building costs, here in Europe. Passive-houses consume about 10% the energy of a normal house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQVmgLvkco

 

i listen to the dollar values being passed around, ROI's, etc. makes me grudgingly (very very grudgingly i MUST SAY!!) admit that government regulations do have a place in society.

because in that way, the cost of a clean, renewable environment with less health complications for future generations is factored into the "investment price".

having been thru the medical bill dilemma, i can say that if the elevated cost of treating our kids for issues due to polution were factored in, then we would soon realize an immediate ROI on any effective energy reducing measure for simply keeping our air clean enough to breathe

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Dec 14 2006, 01:23 PM) [snapback]362270[/snapback]</div>

No offense to the wonderful company you work for, but if I am ever again forced to work with BACNet, I'll seriously consider qutting drinking.