Re: Tunneling through the cost barrier | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Racheli Gai (jnpalme![]() |
|
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:02:03 -0600 (MDT) |
>From Racheli Sonora Cohousing. John, I agree with you that some forms of environmentally responsible design and materials don't cost more (or much more), and are cheaper if one takes into account the full life-cycle of the buildings. However, this is not always the case, and somewhat depends on what we mean we we use the term "environmental" or "green". As long as we aim at energy efficiency, the assupmtion that while the initial investment might be larger to begin with, the extra cost will be recovered in the long run holds true much of the time. But "environmental/green" means other things, too. One of them is the level of toxicity of materials. Moving from toxic to lower or non-toxic materials costs more, and the payoff cannot be justified on a solely economic basis. We looked at many of these issues, in large measure because I have multiple chemical sensitivities. I can tell for a fact that making houses which are less toxic costs more. In our case, only some of the necessary measures were taken on a community-wide level. Some examples of things we were able to do for everyone: We used less toxic mud-sills; painted interiors with low VOC paints; insulated with cellulose instead of using fiberglass. We have metal roofs, which means that we won't have to re-do them with asphalt. (We do have some asphalt underneath, because some of our professionals couldn't be convinced that it's unnecessary :( ... ; We used OSB (which contains the lesser-toxic form of formaldehyde) for subfloors etc. We installed a solar stub in all houses, so that if people wished to install PV panels at a later date it wouldn't be too difficult to do; We have solar panels on our strawbale CH; Our heating and cooling systems are not the cheapest... There are probably other things which don't come to mind right now. We have not been able to get kitchen and bathroom cabinets which are low on toxicity (except in the CH) because this would have cost a whole lot. We got cruddy interior doors, which are toxic; We also built with wood studs instead of with metal ones, since the difference in price ended up being too high. [If it was up to me, we'd have gone with the metal studs anyway - because I think we'd live to regret this choice in view of termite activity in our part of the world]. we allowed certain types of upgrading during construction. In my case, I was allowed to get a different kind of cabinets. People were able to choose different floor materials, and not be stuck with the cheap-but-very-toxic carpets. (Some people who could probably afford other floors stuck with carpets, which comes to show that this isn't *all* about economics)... IMO, if we were all more prosperous, we might have had some additional environmenal elements, but its also very likely that the houses would have been larger - so the good and the bad (environmentally speaking) would have cancelled out each other at best. R. >This assumption, that greater energy efficiency costs more money up >front, is something that almost everyone seems to take for granted. >However, please consider this: >"When intelligent engineering and design are brought into play, big >savings often cost even less up front than small or zero savings. Thick >enough insulation and good enough windows can eliminate the need for a >furnace, which represents an investment of more capital than those >efficiency measures cost. Better appliances help eliminate the cooling >system, too, saving even more capital cost." (Paul Hawkin, Amory and >Hunter Lovins, in Natural Capitalism--see links below) >In other words, if enough energy efficiency improvements are made during >the design of a cohousing community, houses can (and have been) built >that are not only super energy efficient but which are more affordable >(cost less up front) than conventional buildings. ----------------------------------------------------------- jnpalme [at] attglobal.net (Racheli Gai) ----------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
-
Green building--tunneling through the cost barrier Kellie Teter and John Connell, June 28 2002
- Re: Tunneling through the cost barrier Racheli Gai, June 29 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.