Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GrilledSpamSteaks t1_j6lei0v wrote

15” thick walls. Flying squirrels and other rodents really want you to build a house like that too!

We lived in Germany, close to the Alps. The houses they had were sturdy and extremely well insulated. To ground floor was always a cool 60F in the summer and the top floor was always a warm 70F in the winter. It was heated with a heat pump and had no active cooling. If I ever have to build a home, I’m definitely talking to folks who are familiar with those construction techniques.

On a side note, we replaced all the insulation in our attic the first year we were here. There were so many runs the generations of rodents had created between 1980 and 2017 that there may as well have not been any insulation at all. It dropped our power bill the next winter by 75%. Our wood burning rate went from 4 cords to about 1 too. Good times… Just something to think about if your current place has insulation that hasn’t been touched since the disco craze ended.

63

TheMobyDicks t1_j6nc9lu wrote

Wait. The disco craze ended? Dad's not gonna want to hear that.

14

Kiernanstrat t1_j6n9ryr wrote

Spray foam insulation would solve the rodent issue probably right?

6

Calm_Captain_3541 t1_j6nxa5d wrote

Spray foam releases more CO2 than it saves over its lifetime, is a pain to work with for subcontractors, and is also toxic and will most likely be looked at like we do asbestos now in a couple decades.

And I haven’t even mentioned how it traps moisture against your framing causing rot after only a few years.

11

GrilledSpamSteaks t1_j6noyeo wrote

No. They dig through that stuff too. Sealing the holes, bait stations around the area, cats, etc.. Those things keep em out.

8

SRTie4k t1_j6nwrt7 wrote

Supposedly rodents don't like Rockwool.

11

recyclopath_ t1_j6p5dfg wrote

Spray foam is environmentally horrific. The expansion agent used in it is really freaking bad. White foam uses a different expansion agent that is exponentially less damaging.

5

Sweendogoflove t1_j6larjr wrote

I'm 5-10 years away from it, but hoping to do the same thing. Check out Unity Homes in Keene, NH. That's who I'm looking at for the build.

36

bond___vagabond t1_j6o425k wrote

Some joke about, if you are 5-10 years out, you should start scheduling now, tradespeople in new England are.pretty slammed, lol.

I've been interested in passive solar for decades, ever since I read an old backwoods home magazine article, about a couple who built one in northern Michigan, that was designed to store a years thermal energy so it averaged out the yearly temp, not the daily. This article has lit a fire under me to do more on it. Been thinking how to convert my house here in Vermont.

13

woodstove7 t1_j6o6wrp wrote

Was this the home that had the basement full of sand or something that stores the heat from the summer in some way?

3

horselifter t1_j6mlh32 wrote

We used the GO Logic houses as inspiration when building our house in Central VT in 2017 (self design/build)- we’re not a truly passive house but have foot thick walls and 18 inches of insulation (all cellulose) in the roof. Southern facing windows, concrete floors for the heat mass and an air exchange system. Heat source is a Woodstock Soapstone hybrid wood stove. We use 1.5 cords of wood to comfortably (72f mostly) heat the house all winter and it stays cool in the summer.

29

powderski84 t1_j6mrmr2 wrote

Just curious — what type of air exchange system do you have? I’ve been exploring HRV/ERV options for my home. Seems like it’s typically done during the construction phase, and less common to retrofit an existing (build in 1996) house.

8

CUTESTlittleDEADHEAD t1_j6ogkrk wrote

Hi, I know horselifter very well, we live in the same house and have the same child. We used a LUNOS e2 HRV system. They work great, I like that they are not centralized, easy to maintain, easy to install.

6

Mad__Vlad t1_j6pdgai wrote

Thumbs up for the Lunos system, very easy to retrofit.

2

2q_x t1_j6moymi wrote

It's not a certified passive house, but Vermod makes a modular style home that can be customized to look more architectural. They're very affordable and there are multiple programs making them more accessible to people of limited income with grants and special rates.

Ecocor, in Maine, also sells a number of prefab panelized passive homes that can cut out some design/labor costs.

Everyone says it's expensive to build a house in VT because of costs or labor, but...

A super-insulated mechanically ventilated home is much more feasible to operate under it's own power, from PV and Batteries.

In the next 30 years, it's probably going to become much more obvious that a home must continue to remain habitable on a 105 degree day under it's own power, even when the grid fails.


EDIT:

Even focusing on the financial aspect beyond home safety, a lot of cursory financial analysis is somewhat flawed.

A mortgage is likely a fixed expense, paying down equity, at an interest rate near inflation, without being subject to inflation.

A performant home has equity. But there is no point, without chopping a lot of wood, where a traditional home heating supply is paid for. Home owners can't sell electricity they consumed over the years along with their home. They can't take out a mortgage to refinance high interest loans against home heating/cooling costs they paid. So owned equity verses a consumed commodity is completely different.

Second, it's a fixed cost at interest near inflation. So if someone built a home with better thermal performance, at no point in the next 30 years would they see their mortgage rates jump 50% in a year because of inflation or a war. If inflation wasn't transitory, they would not only not be harmed, they'd benefit from a lower effective payment. If there were new players in the energy market driving prices higher, they wouldn't be exposed.

So anyone who would say that a Passive House is not cost effective today, is implicitly saying they know with as much certainty as a mortgage contract what inflation and energy markets will be for the next 30 years.

Germany has built so much living space to Passive House spec that the cost has actually dropped lower than traditional housing, and they're still having energy problems at a regional level.

14

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j6myze7 wrote

I’d say at this point full passivehaus isnt worthwhile in our climate. Net zero is and draws a ton of inspiration form passivehaus. To get to true passivehaus you’ll spend exponentially more for minimal gain.

We’re in the process of building two now. If you have questions fire away.

13

Twigglesnix OP t1_j6ndqrh wrote

Would love to know your approach if you think passive isn't worth it.

3

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j6nik64 wrote

I’m a big advocate of net zero. Its basic goal is to have a house that’s net energy input is zero. This is achieved by building a tight envelope, being realistic with size requirements and using efficient heating where the energy can be generated on-site. Site generated energy is usually solar with possibly a small woodstove to cover below zero days.

This allows you to look at energy consumption over a year not day or week as with passivehaus. Because you’re actively heating the house you drastically lower then envelope requirements but at the same time on a yearly basis you’re a net zero consumer of energy.

The solar/minisplit/woodstove/tight envelope compliment each other very well while still being reasonably priced.

For envelope I’m a big proponent of simple rectangular houses and double 2x4 walls with dense pack cellulose. With a little planning it’s easy to air seal effectively and costs much less than foam for the same r value. Im also a fan of still foaming rim boards as it’s just so much more consistent.

Ventilation is easy as sizing an erv based on house volume. If you want to splurge the zehnder system is a very elegant way to get even balanced air exchange.

Edit: spelling

12

8valvegrowl t1_j6nnwvb wrote

Exactly this.

I looked into Passivhaus design when I started planning for my new place, and given our climate and the overall costs, I decided net-zero should be my goal. I took about 4-5 years of research and planning before I even broke ground in 2019.

I built a 1500 sq ft timber frame house, R24 SIPS for the exterior walls, R38 SIPS for the roof. Roof aligned with the south and my main windows on the south wall. 4 zone minisplit system and a small woodstove. SIPS have virtually zero thermal bridging except on wall penetrations, the insulation doesn't degrade, or pack down, and can be made into large panels, they just really seem like best envelope you can make, whether stick-built, or timber frame.

It isn't fully net-zero yet...I need to install a ERV system, then size my solar appropriately (waiting to install the ERV and possibly a Level 2 car charging setup before I size my panels), but it's all designed with it in mind.

I use 1.5 to 2 cords of wood per winter (most of which I can harvest on my land), and the house is a nice 70 all summer and a nice 75 all winter. My electric bill is stable at $150/mo year round with no solar at the moment. The only fossil fuel on-site source is my gas cooktop, which seems to use about 20 gallons per year.

I'm very pleased so far.

8

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j6nr9ld wrote

The timber frame/sip combo is a great setup.

With recent spikes in foam prices were getting r40 walls and r60-80 ceilings for similar or lower cost than sips. In our experience with sips it’s been very easy to get a decently tight house but hard to get a very tight house. Getting to 1 ach50 seems easy but getting below .33-.5ach 50 hasn’t been consistently easy. The double stud alsogive a lot of benefits such as being able to run plumbing in exterior walls.

Overall we’re so much better at this than 10 years ago. Being unsatisfied with 1 ach50 was nuts in the US 15 years ago.

5

8valvegrowl t1_j6nzfc1 wrote

For sure...I seem to recall my house fell in the 0.5-0.75 ACH50 range, which is pretty tight. Interesting to know that foam prices have risen so much. We paid as much for the SIPS as we did for the timber frame (About $30K for frame and $30K for SIPS in 2019 prices)

Is the double stud scheme staggered? It's pretty fascinating how much the state of the art changes in building tech...seems like so much is pretty much built using legacy techniques still.

2

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j6o1e1o wrote

That’s still a very tight house, nice work!

It depends on the builder/architect/engineer. I like to treat the interior wall as non load bearing and stagger it from the exterior. More thermal break makes me feel good and then we can make the stud layout an even 16” from one corner on the inside so drywall and trim are easy. Realistically if the wall is 10” thick you still get an r12 break wirh aligned framing and the total r value is only knocked down by 5% or less.

4

8valvegrowl t1_j6o2406 wrote

Yeah, makes sense. Good stuff. I know in the future if we have an addition made for a first floor bedroom, we may consider stick built on a slab, so great to hear about options for construction! Thanks for all the info.

3

recyclopath_ t1_j6p5u4k wrote

The US has a Passive House standard, the above commenter used the German spelling, that is much better aligned with US climate zones. Getting your home Passive House Certified is likely a bit over rated, like many certifications unless they open up funding.

You can absolutely build a Passive House without getting it certified which is totally worth is.

That being said, there are freaking excellent green building experts in Vermont with loads of experience who can guide you on what approach is right for you.

1

Twombls t1_j6nhrqu wrote

This reads like an add. Keep in mind you would have to cut down all trees in a huge radius. Not live on a mountain side. And the house doesn't have a furnace but it does have a heat pump. Like almost all new construction. This really just seems like a modern construction home with a few improvements tacked on to make it slightly more efficient. However I wonder if the gains from doing this offset the utility costs at all. It cant be cheap to build 15" thick walls.

Even the article states this is best for appartment buildings and condos.

10

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j6ncr3p wrote

Although it is not necessarily applicable for everyone, I think environmentally it makes a lot of sense to focus on using as much natural materials as possible and reduce embodied carbon in building materials even if it's at the expense of performance. Ultimately, this doesn't need to turn into some sort of competition of who can have the least energy input to heat (regardless of energy input to build). If we use wood heat, even if the house is not R100 walls, we are still using a renewable and eco friendly resource, and performance of the walls is less important. What will matter more in this case, is that the house was built from sustainably/locally harvested timber, with minimal imported/highly processed construction materials, whose embodied carbon has a huge impact on the overall environment effect of the house.

9

buildandgrow t1_j6mjhrj wrote

These are very cool and I definitely support the innovations… But… this article definitely skews to the point of sounding like a commercial. Performance in optimum conditions may or may not predict performance in non optimal. How many days out of the last 10 have you seen the sun in VT? Just make sure you build redundancies into your designs… Don’t rely on heat pumps exclusively, don’t expect solar to always work, and if you need work done on your house, don’t expect most contractors in rural New England to know how to do it at the original designer intended.

8

EpictetussutetcipE t1_j6n2vnd wrote

I hear so many people talk about the lack of sun... all you have to do is work with the Sun to meet your demand needs. Do laundry when it's sunny, etc.

Or oversize your array to get up to where you need. Frustrates me when people act like cloudy = no power.

0

Twombls t1_j6njtl5 wrote

So does that mean I would have to go a month without doing laundry?

What if im at work for the 3 hours its sunny.

6

buildandgrow t1_j6npozu wrote

Certainly you’re correct that you can do things to make it work. Do it more, do it better, and do it with less.

1

_JunkyardDog t1_j6onvgb wrote

Are there any good green design/builders in NW Vermont for residential construction?

1

Twigglesnix OP t1_j6orwg5 wrote

I don't have an answer to your question, but is your username based on the Junkyard Dog the wrestler?

1

Corey307 t1_j6lkow2 wrote

I’d be interested in the cost savings from not needing to heat the home much or at all versus money spent on that much insulation. Sure it’s probably better for an environmental standpoint but might not be a good financial move. The article says about 10% so what, an extra $30-$40,000 on a house that size? Your paying maybe 5-7% that to heat a normal house annually. That money would make you a lot more money over the years in a mutual fund so the selling point is really that it’s more environmentally friendly I guess.

−1

rufustphish t1_j6mett3 wrote

I'm not sure your math here checks out. A house lasts a long time, and in colder climates, heat is a large cost of living. You'd have that sunk cost paid for in less than 10 years, after that it's all profit.

8

Corey307 t1_j6nsk9r wrote

You would not in any way pay for that much insulation and windows in 10 years, not even close. My home is significantly larger than theirs and I maybe pay about $2000 a winter to heat it and next to nothing in the summer to cool it because I’m stubborn and just use a fan or two. And that’s heating with propane and electricity Mostly leaving the thermostat at 70 since I don’t have a smart thermostat, I could get that cost down by more than half if I used wood. They’re paying around $40,000 premium on tons of insulation and high end windows. They also bought solar panels to run the heat pump. But even excluding the solar panels it would take at least 20 years to get back their investment and then that time they could’ve turned that $40,000 into more like $100,000 in a high-yield mutual fund. Since they have solar panels they could off and heat their house with free electricity if it was of traditional construction instead of sealed up like a bank fault meaning they’d probably spend a lot less and not even recoup their money in 30 years let alone the opportunity cost of investing that money.

3

recyclopath_ t1_j6p72ee wrote

Also just the value of being comfortable and knowing what your bills will be!

0

RobertJoseph802 t1_j6mva1t wrote

Not sure why you're getting downvoted as this is absolutely true. Altho future costs of utilities does weigh heavily on the ROI.

Have a wall of south facing windows that will cook you out if the sun is shining, but then again November thru January aren't very sunny.

8

Corey307 t1_j6nqpbt wrote

So I just ran the numbers and the majority of their expenses are on the insulation and construction, not the windows. I think it’s safe to assume they’re spending about $30,000 on insulation and thicker walls, that’s about $83 a month added to their mortgage over a traditional home. If you invested $83 a month in a high-yield mutual fund averaging 10% which really isn’t even that high and it’s over 30 years you’d have $172,000. The savings from not paying to heat your home barely breakeven especially since they’re “cheating” in this case by having solar panels. it sounds great and if you’re well to do you can get away with it but for most blue-collar folk they’re doing something to help the environment which is great but they’re spending well over $100,000 more just on insulation then they would’ve spent to heat the home. Some decent windows and some decent insulation is more than enough, I pay maybe $500 a month four months out of the year to heat a significantly larger house and I just leave the thermostat at 70f.

1

recyclopath_ t1_j6p6zlw wrote

If you understand how the sun moves across the earth and how things like eaves are used in passive homes, this is specifically designed for. It is used beneficially by designing appropriately.

0

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j6mzd42 wrote

Yeah not sure on the downvotes.

Passivehaus is massively expensive in our climate and has minimal benefit over net zero.

In climates where they don’t get the negative temps passivehaus becomes much more economical.

6

Corey307 t1_j6npmz5 wrote

See they are running a heat pump and it cost them nothing but that’s because they’ve invested in solar so between the at least $30,000-40,000 for extra insulation and whatever they paid for solar panels they are spending significantly more over the next 30 years that if they were just heating a house with good windows and reasonable insulation.

I’m not being anti-environmentalism, no lol if you can afford it go right ahead. These are just the thoughts of a blue collar guy that does what they can to help the environment but couldn’t justify spending that much to never get the money back when I could put the equivalent money in high yield mutual funds. Let’s say the extra insulation cost $30,000, that works out to about $83 per mortgage payment over 30 years. If instead that $83 was put directly into a high-yield mutual fund monthly doing an average of 10% over 30 years you have $172,000. These two look like money having been a poor kid that grew up around rich kids, that’s great for them not good for blue-collar people.

4

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j6nt3s4 wrote

Few flaws in that argument.

You’re assuming energy prices will remain the same and that the insulation costs more.

We’re getting r32 ish walls for less money then foamed 2x6 walls. The attic is easy, just blown in more. Windows can be just good double pane. Nothing crazy needed.

And you skip the whole heating system and have 2x 15k heat pumps. That’s a savings of 10k or more. Heating with a current heat pump is ballpark same as the cheapest natural gas.

So for the same money you can skip the boiler/furnace, Insulate well, have heat and AC and still pay the same or less for heat. You don’t need to offset with solar that we can agree on for sure.

The air sealing has the added benefit of making your house last longer too.

3

Corey307 t1_j6ntlx7 wrote

Of course I’m assuming it cost more since the article said they spent about 10% more on this house than they would a traditional build and building a house these days costs at least $300,000. I get the environmental aspect I’m saying that the financial aspect isn’t great. And r32 is not cheap, I’m not telling you what to do with your money I’m saying that fully insulating the house with it is a major expense. I’m also not quite sold on the airtight house idea since our house is supposed to breathe at least a little bit, if you don’t go outside for a couple days the air is going to start getting pretty stale.

2

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j6nud1m wrote

It’s not my money, I’m the builder.

I think you missed the part where I said r32 is cheaper than foamed 2x6. R32 is cheap now relative to just foaming the walls. And just straight batts don’t meet code so you’re stuck with some combo of foam and batts at minimum.

There is no financial reason to not do this now. There’s reasons builders don’t want to, but it’s not money.

2

Corey307 t1_j6nwq6y wrote

Thank you, I should’ve known by your name that you knew more than I do haha. Hey I’m not asking for legal advice or anything but if someone wanted to insulate a basement is that something you can do as a homeowner or are Vermont state regulations too strict? Because I was thinking about just laying some R19 between the beams as a balance between cost and energy savings. But if I had to also use foam and then drywall it I’ll probably let the next owner do so. That’s something I missed when I bought the house since I’m originally from a warm climate, I’m disappointed my home inspector didn’t say anything but I heard they passed away so it’s not like I can do anything about it.

4

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j6nzw0a wrote

Not strict, go for it!

You want to insulate the floor system between 1st floor and bassment? Batts will work, I’d go with mineral wool since it’ll hold its shape better and mice hate it vs fiberglass.

3

Corey307 t1_j6o32g1 wrote

thank you for your help, I’m not trying to fully insulate the basement just trying to strike a balance between reducing heating costs, having a warmer floor during the coldest days and not spending a lot of money. I’m also thinking it would help avoid a sticking point when I sell since I can get this done for about $600 and insulation and maybe $30 for a painters suit, goggles and mask.

3

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j6ouufj wrote

Depending where your mechanical equipment, what it is and how it’s insulated you may or may not gain much insulting the floor system. Depending what type of foundation you have (concrete, block, stone) it’s pretty darn easy to install 2” foam on exterior walls. Foam board on the foundation walls will certainly help all aspects.

1

Twombls t1_j6nigwr wrote

You are getting downvoted but you are absolutely correct. Even the article says this is best used on large apartments buildings and condos. doing this to single family homes is more of a lifestyle / branding choice than anything.

4

Corey307 t1_j6nozdo wrote

Sounds about right, my point was not to be anti-environmental it’s that people should know what they’re spending their money on. The savings from that much insulation don’t actually pay for themselves if you were able to put the equivalent money into a high yield mutual fund or slightly lower yielding retirement funds. judging by the age of that couple they’re probably 30 years from retirement. Some people would prioritize lower emissions but they’re already getting that in part by having solar panels.

5

recyclopath_ t1_j6p6pnk wrote

Something to consider here is the difference between a predictable expense and a variable expense. That 10% is rolled into the mortgage over decades and is a stable, predictable expense that results in an incredibly comfortable home (I cannot overstate how comfortable efficiency homes are). Versus the variability of annual energy expenses over time.

Really what needs to happen is factoring in energy efficiency into home value.

0