Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ idea to make Greensburg more “green” through new energy-efficient buildings and design would get a boost from legislation she signed in April.
New home buyers often don’t know how energy efficient their homes are. That would change under the law, which requires home builders and real estate agents to disclose the energy efficiency of new homes to buyers. The law also requires new commercial and industrial buildings to meet an international energy-efficiency code of standards.
Efficiency is a major component of Sebelius’ new energy push. Such regulatory reform will help ensure that home and commercial developments, whether in Greensburg, Wichita or elsewhere, don’t work against state energy goals.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
17 Comments
“New home buyers often don’t know how energy efficient their homes are. That would change under the law, which requires home builders and real estate agents to disclose the energy efficiency of new homes to buyers.”
Ok, does that do anything for those that are renting?How many rental homes are not up-graded to current laws?
How does the typical two man construction builder know how energy efficient the home they just built is?
This is as stupid an idea as I’ve heard recently. Appliances have ratings – and usually homeowners purchase those, themselves.
Instead of making a builder SAY what the efficiency is – just pass a minimum into Code.
Signing a bill such as this will cause the price of homes to increase, while, at the same time, it will effectively prevent individuals from building their own homes.
There are some basics right now for homes purchased under gov-type loans, such as FDA, VA or USDA. Just expand those into Code and it’s a much easier ‘fix.’
Most of these are a given, anyway – R-13 in walls, R-30 in ceilings, etc., ans while some new products improve greatly on R values, such as blown-in foam-set, there are also questions as to their safety (sick building syndrome,) and bigger problems down the line – should they get wet.
Randy calls this ‘green,’ but in reality, it will go the other way. Most of the highest efficiency materials out there – are far from green. The healthiest homes, unfortunately, are those that are a little drafty.
Sorry Randy, when it comes to efficient buildings, most of the time, legislators are cutting off their nose – just to spite their face.
This should be rethought.
When you start making an efficiency ‘number’ the bottom line – the builders (of which I am one,) will build to out-do the other builders, number-wise, and the end result could well be detrimental to the health of the buyer.
There is no proof (yet) that any ONE substance is causing the alarming rise in Autism among our most precious commodity – wee ones, but it would be interesting to do a study on how many of these children spent their babyhood in new, or recently remodeled homes, in which the R-values have been increased.
Efficiency is well and fine – but in the dead of winter, when the bitter wind is howling outside and you’re bundled all toasty inside – the best thing you can do for your health – may be to open that window and let some fresh air in.
And if you do – I don’t care WHAT efficiency rating your home has; you just blew it all to hell.
Let’s think of the common-sense ramifications before we go off half-cocked in true Californication manner.
Sheesh.
Steve, that is usually monitored at the local level. When anyone pulls a permit – and most locales require some sort of permit – the building authority – City or County – presents the permit-puller with the requirements. Even a do-it-yourselfer, would get a sheet asking for the energy ratings of windows, doors, insulation, etc., to be recorded as they are installed.
It’s doable – but it’s stupid.
I could build a shell with a high R-value and the buyers could put in cheap appliances with low energy ratings and counter everything.
For instance, right now, we are installing, almost exclusively, outdoor sealed HVAC units. They are efficient – but because they are outside – they aren’t going to be SUPER efficient. However, since the furnace is outside there is no risk of Carbon Monoxide poisoning – as there is with inside faulty units.
Every winter we hear stories of folks that die in their homes from a back up of carbon monoxide. Not everyone has a detector, but it’s a smart move to have one.
Right now – there is a trade off in the market – health or efficiency.
Don’t make us sacrifice our health for a short-term fix.
I wonder what the efficiency rating of the Governor’s Mansion is? Not too high, I think.
I am thrilled to know how energy efficient my home is. I know GS you’re against anything that might cost a little more, but in this you’re wrong.
I know my insulation is r13 and my ceilings??? But I also know that the fireman can see the studs through my walls with the heat sensor camera in the wintertime. Why is standard r13 can’t you go higher> Why is it wrong to go higher?
As far as drafty, my windows are all practically brand new and i feel air come in through there. I also have dust worse in my home than I have ever seen. I have concerns about that in a big way as far as how efficient it is.
I was told it was going to be highly efficient, then only to find that my furnace isn’t a high efficiency furnace. We know my house isn’t typical of new construction..and we don’t need to discuss the reasons WHY my home isn’t typical….but still, I wish I had known more about it then.
Making Greener homes in an area that has to start over is not a bad idea.
However, I would have thought the inclusion of private housing safe rooms and Public area Tornado Shelters, would have been higher on the priority list.
PM – you have some problems in your home that should be addressed. Since I didn’t work on it – I don’t know for sure, but it seems to be that substandard materials were used. That furnace should NEVER have done that.
There IS a need for efficiency – but at what price?
People are pouring concrete houses – that’s super if done correctly, and the R value is astronomical, but concrete puts off toxic fumes. When the outside is wrapped with a moisture-barrier, like Tyvek, those fumes work their way to the inside of the home, through outlet openings, cracks, and window and base frame-ins.
If you’ve ever gotten concrete in a wound – you know it’s toxic.
So lets go with Plywood – oh wait, formaldehyde. Gypsum? Pretty good, but the new additives are questionable? So what’s a person to do?
My house is passive solar. It’s designed to bring in the winter sun when it’s low in the Southern sky and block it from the windows when July rolls around and it’s at its apex.
There are so many things we can do to conserve energy – but making an airtight home isn’t the best choice.
That’s just my opinion. Perhaps many of you would risk health for energy savings. But in the long run will it be a savings, if your medical bills go up?
I’ve been in this industry a long time and while I’m not the expert on toxicity, I’ve read my share of warning labels, seen the usage of materials that are not controlled the way the disclaimer the manufacturer stated, and I constantly keep up to date on all the professional building journals that they ship to my house.
I agree with Republican that storm shelters need to be built, but basements are still safe for the most part.
Just my two cents.
GSheridan,
“There are so many things we can do to conserve energy – but making an airtight home isn’t the best choice.”
Use a heat recovery ventilation unit — you get controlled outside air exchange AND efficiency.
“When the outside is wrapped with a moisture-barrier, like Tyvek,”
It blocks water, but not moisture vapor.http://www.tyvek.com/whatistyvek.htm“The unique qualities of Tyvek® help stop air flow through wall cavities; help hold out bulk water and wind-driven rain; and allow moisture vapor to escape from inside walls.”
“those fumes work their way to the inside of the home, through outlet openings, cracks, and window and base frame-ins.”
Those openings and cracks should’ve been sealed. And TyVek reduces air flow in both directions.
There are multiple factors.* Efficiency – smart construction design, insulation, windows, appliances, etc.* Low toxicity – avoid materials with formaldehyde, use low VOC paints, etc.* Green sources – use sustainable wood, recycled materials, etc.
Even simple things make a difference.Studs in the walls are thermal bridges. Size the house so you don’t have to put an extra stud a short distance from exterior corner(s).Size the windows, and place them to minimize the # of extra studs needed.That also cuts costs, because less material is needed.
For tornado alley areas, build to hurricane specs.Special nails to help keep the roof sheathing on add only about $15. Use hurricane ties at the roof/wall connection, etc..
“Those openings and cracks should’ve been sealed. And TyVek reduces air flow in both directions.”———
In theory, I agree, it would be great to seal all those cracks, but in reality, it’s a different story.
Tyvek DOES reduce air flow, and that’s a benefit in insulation factor – but a detriment to health.
Imagine a concrete wall. The Tyvek goes on the outside. On the outside of that – goes the exterior treatment, siding, finestone, etc. There are firing strips also – but they are inconsequential for this purpose.
Now, we have the concrete on the inside of the home. When concrete walls are poured, allowances are made in advance for windows and doors. The windows will be set fairly early on in the process, and the walls inside the concrete will be studded out. Throughout all these studs, holes are drilled on a horizontal plane to install electrical wiring, telephone and cable wires, and Manabloc, or other supply water piping. The waste water drains through the walls until it exits the home, usually below ground surface.
If you can picture at this stage – wires and pipes are running here and there inside the studs. Now we insulate. Usually fiberglass batting is used, but the high R value stuff is the new foam and some blow in fiberglass also. The foam, if blown open-faced works pretty well to seal around all those wires and pipes, the batting is cut and fitted, the blown insulation – a cheap method, is done from the top and you can imagine the voids under the windows and outlet boxes.
So, the foam is the best, so far, UNLESS it is poured in from the top and then the voids can be greater than the blown fiberglass.
But if the foam gets wet – and then dries, it’s been known to crumble. There goes the R value.
BTW – you don’t have to have concrete walls to blow foam, but I’m using it as an example because the fumes from concrete are pretty bad.
So, foam, correctly blown is probably the best – but it’s pretty expensive. Folks in limited income areas might opt not to use it.
With the others – air moves – because they don’t seal tightly in the walls.
The ‘cracks’ are minimized – but not sealed. Sheetrock is taped, and windows are trimmed out – but there are tiny cracks, and fumes – blocked to some extent from releasing to the outside – Tyvek – head inside the home.
The biggest cracks are usually along the base – which is not airtight.
I agree, and advocate recycled materials.
Do you know what roof trusses are? They are the engineered studs prepared in a factory and then hauled out to put on a home. Factories, like Weyerhauser, get the new, often ‘green’ wood. Looks good and fresh, but as the home adjusts to the changing climate – the trusses will contract and pop. Cracks along the ceiling will appear. More fumes. As you stated – recycle. Wood that comes from an old home – is seasoned, it will move much less. The home will be more stable. But I remember seeing a special on Channel 12 a couple of years ago where a new homeowner was suing the contractor because some of the wood was ‘used.’ That was ludicrous, but folks usually don’t realize that.
Cosmos, I can build you an airtight, fume free home, at least pretty much so – but you would pay an arm and a leg for it.
Most folks just don’t have that kind of money. And builders are going to compete, if the rule says high R value – we have to cut somewhere else to stay competitive.
Guess where that’s going to be?
I do like your ideas, however. My husband and I have designed off-grid homes that are totally self-sufficient. Our next personal home will be very close to that.
I think that’s where much of the answer lies.
GSheridan (and anyone interested in the issue)
A good sourcebook, case studies, info, links, etc here,http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Green%20Building/index.htm
And if done carefully, building higher efficiency and non-toxic doesn’t cost too much more.
Smarter design is basically free. And higher costs of items like windows will be paid off by lower utility bills.
At least one mortgage company was qualifying people they normally wouldn’t have, for homes that were very energy-efficient. The low utility bills allowed higher mortgage payments.
IIRC, one builder guaranteed the utility bills of their homes would be below a certain amount — think they’d pay the entire bill, if it went above it.
That all sounds good, but, as I said before, in reality it’s a different story.
Thanks for the link – it’s a good one.
Having been raised in Pratt County and knowing western Kansas fairly well, I don’t know whether Greensburg people who lost their businesses and houses will want to rebuild there once they get their insurance and FEMA checks.
I suspect many will decide to move to nearby Pratt and Dodge City to get a faster re-start in their lives. After all, Pratt has houses already available, plus a strong business district, a Dillons Store and Wal-Mart, more restaurants than downtown Wichita, a thriving Community College where I noticed many Greensburg High graduates will be enrolling this fall, parks, swimming pool, schools, etc.
Of course, every small town has a life-long loyalty factor by residents that will work in its favor.
Greensburg is in the center of a vast wheat area with some oil. It’s people are honest, hard working, thrifty bible-belt citizens. It is a gateway going south to the Gypsum Hills or Red Hills, a unique area carved out by the Medicine River eons ago, a cattle grazing country.
And Greensburg is located on Highway 54, possibly the most important cross-country highway that is not an inter-state highway. Beginning near Chicago, Highway 54 travels through Missouri’s Lake of the Ozarks country, across Kansas, through the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas, into New Mexico where it turns south to El Paso. Once billed as the “short cut road” from Chicago to Southern California, it more or less paralleled the more famous Highway 66 and intersected with it in New Mexico.
And of course Greensburg still has its “Worlds Deepest Handdug Well,” an attraction, I believe, originally made famous by Ripley’s Believe It or Not. The well was originally dug to provide water to the transcontinental Rock Island Railroad that ran through there plus a Wichita spur of the Santa Fe Railroad that was later pulled back to Pratt.
I suspect a lot of discussions will be needed to decide on the future viability of Greensburg which should be a lot more than cheerleading hype by politicians.
Hopefully, the residents of Greensburg will decide to stay and rebuild. I am a city boy (Detroit) but I appreciate small towns and the character they offer. America was built by the folks that live in small towns and villages. It would be a shame if the devastating effects of a tornado would actually wipe the town off the map for all time.
GSheridan,
In reality, the economics of green building works very well.
Smart design is basically free, as are the ideas like you used for passive solar heat in the winter.
Spending more on better windows, etc can allow using smaller, less expensive A/C and heat systems.
Factor in higher future costs for electricity, nat gas, and carbon taxes — you’ll get an even faster payback on todays investment.
And it’s usually cheaper to do it right during construction, than to try to retrofit and/or redesign it later.
Sorry cosmos, you’re wrong on this one.
Sure, good windows are nice, but you haven’t even begun to address any of the complications behind air-tight homes.
If the only consideration were windows – you might have a point, but it is more expensive – MUCH more expensive.
Do you know what rises when air reduction is reduced? Mold. Do you have the mold-resistant materials that folks will need? Is the industry ready to mass-market them? How will you educate the public? The builders? Who will oversee this?
There are SOOOO many more things that you’re not considering here, but don’t feel bad – you don’t build for a living.
You need to consider that the national average for a person to stay in a home – is 7 years. A typical home has 12-15 windows. A cheap window can run around $100. An Anderson, argon gas, Sun to Gray, will run you about $600. Same size.
On a modest house with 12 windows, that’s a $6,000 dollar difference.That’s unlikely to be recouped in 7 years on lower energy bills.
Sure it’s cheaper to ‘do it right’ during construction – but I challenge you to approach any local builder in your area and ask him what he will charge you to build a home – and then what he will charge you to build that SAME home with the ‘green’ features you want.
You’re in for a shock.
Most of the people dying of exhaust fumes, CO2 poisoning, etc., are doing so in older homes. The newer homes built so there is a more that adequate exchange of outside air with inside air. And they are doing so with energy conservation in mind.
The newer technologies available, which all came about as a direct result of energy saving, make “green” houses both practical and not as expensive as one would think.
Of course, if one has the money, they can divorce themselves entirely from the power grid. The ability to create and store power via windmills and solar panels, and store it in the form of hydrogen, is here. Cost for a house is around $300,000, but if the rich and affluent start building using the technology, then the cost will drop down significantly.
Government help, as long as it is controlled by republicans, will not be forthcoming, as there is no benefit for the energy companies. But if oil continues to rise in cost, you might see some form of rebate offered by the government. That would be a good one, for a change.
“The newer homes built so there is a more that adequate exchange of outside air with inside air. And they are doing so with energy conservation in mind.”————
Boom. There goes your energy efficiency.
lol
Air-tight, or air-exchange.
Take your pick.