HOME IMPROVEMENTS

My office is located in a finished room between the garage and main house. The room is built over an inaccessible crawl space and with no access to above the ceiling. It also has wide pine flooring which has been impossible to keep in good condition due to grit coming in from the garage. There is cold air flowing into the room around the window trim and from the recessed lighting fixtures.


The energy loss from this room probably reflects the inefficiencies in my entire house and typical to most older homes. Although the goal of my project is to create a mud room area with appropriate tile flooring, I am addressing the energy efficiency issues as much as possible.

I will remove the window trim and spray foam around the edges of the window to seal from infiltrating air. I am replacing the recessed fixtures with fixtures rated for insulated ceilings that omit air flow through the fixture. While the electrician is up in the attic space, I will add another layer of batt insulation over the ceiling joists. I am not using compact fluorescents due to the fact that the fixtures are on dimmers. I will put air blocking foam inserts in all the switch and outlet boxes on the exterior walls. I would love to cut open access to the crawl space and see if the builder ever properly insulated, but it is very difficult to insulate in this type of space after the fact. So I am passing on that procedure.

As I stated, the area above the ceiling was inaccessible. In order to change the light fixtures and add insulation, I have had to cut a drywall opening in my second floor closet and through the exterior plywood sheathing to open a very small hole for the electrician to crawl through and rewire while on his stomach. Glad I am not an electrician!

For a small 12' x 16' room, this seems like a major project. But this type of project is the future. People are looking for ways to cut energy bills and to make their existing homes fit their lifestyle. Pick a room and get started.

LEED: A Healthy Discussion

A recent discussion forum brought to highlight questions about LEED commercial projects and the post occupancy evaluation determiniation of actual energy savings. When a topic is "hot" and full of momentum like the green movement, it is difficult to be a voice that goes against the tide. LEED is full of good intentions that cannot be questioned, but the cost in time and money to qualify a LEED project should rightly be justified.

Is the LEED program a fraud?

March 13th, 2009 in Blogs

Kevin Ireton, contributor

24 users recommend

---

---

Add Comment
Email to a Friend
Print
Share

Stumble It!
Facebook
DIGG
Google

The LEED rating system is “a tragedy,” according to Henry Gifford, resulting in buildings that use more energy, not less, and “a fraud perpetrated on U.S. consumers trying their best to achieve true environmental friendliness.” Henry is a mechanical systems specialist in New York City and, apparently, a vocal critic of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. I heard him make these claims on Tuesday night as he sat next to Brendan Owens, USGBC’s vice president of technical development. The two were part of a public debate that took place in Boston at Building Energy 09, the annual conference of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association.

The source of the debate is a study released a year ago that compared the energy performance of LEED-certified buildings with that of existing, noncertified buildings. The USGBC claims that the study shows LEED buildings to be 25% to 30% more efficient, but Henry says their methodology is flawed. According to him, the LEED buildings actually use 29% more energy than other buildings. Henry also thinks that “green” buildings ought to be certified based on their performance after a year or two of service and that the energy use for buildings ought to be available to the public on utility Web sites. You can read more about Henry’s views on his Web site and in the latest issue of Northeast Sun. Iconoclastic building scientist Joe Lstiburek has weighed in on this debate (pretty much agreeing with Henry), as has Nadav Malin of Building Green.

I should make it clear at this point that the study and the controversy surrounding LEED deal only with commercial buildings, not houses. The USGBC launched the LEED program for commercial buildings more than 10 years ago, while LEED for Homes is brand new. I hesitate to offer an opinion on all of this because I haven't read the study and don't understand the rating system like these other guys do. But I will venture to say that launching LEED and then waiting 10 years before studying the actual performance of certified buildings hardly qualifies as “leadership.” And I certainly hope that the LEED for Homes program learns from this embarrassment.

Resource: www.finehomebuilding.com

ENERGY EFFICIENCY 101

According to Ecohome magazine, builders make five common mistakes when it comes to energy, health, and resource efficiency in home building; HVAC ducts installed in unconditioned space, tight construction without an whole house ventilation system, improper flashing and drainage planes for water management, poorly selected and installed insulation, and wasted resources.



My experience is that the client may be lacking the experience and education to take the current popular "green" ideas and apply them to their specific project and budget. Good builders will feel strongly that the envelope quality of the house is the top priority. It guarantees energy efficiency, mold and mildew minimization, indoor air quality, and minimal maintenance. Costly "green" interior finishes will mean little if your energy bills are skyrocketing or ice dams are causing interior water infiltration. In these economic times, few can afford everything on their wish list. Start with the basics.