Comments on: The Building Science Buy-in Challenge https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/ Building science knowledge, HVAC design, & fun Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:16:32 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 By: Scott Flipse https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11196 Tue, 09 Jan 2018 04:18:05 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11196 In reply to Elizabeth DiSalvo.

That is it in a nutshell.
That is it in a nutshell.
Well done.

]]>
By: RoyC https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11195 Mon, 08 Jan 2018 15:51:42 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11195 In reply to JC.

Yea, a shed roof could make
Yea, a shed roof could make sense. I wasn’t specific in that I was thinking of a southern climate with slab on grade where the air handlers and ductwork would be in a conditioned attic (insulated roof deck). So a shed roof with an attic might be a viable option, but it would tend to push the air handler towards the high side of the attic, rather than the center and thus might result in longer ducts.

]]>
By: JC https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11194 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 19:59:25 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11194 In reply to RoyC.

“So here is a question: What
“So here is a question: What is the “optimal” roof configuration for cost-effective energy efficiency, neglecting aesthetics for the time being? I would claim that it would be a gable roof with no valleys, at least 4/12 pitch, and with at least 8 feet of attic height at the ridge.”

I’d guess that it depends on how cost sensitive one is. Off the top of my head I would think a single-slope “shed roof” where the downward slope faces the equator would be in the top 3.

]]>
By: RoyC https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11193 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:48:47 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11193 In reply to JC.

I looked up the requirement
I looked up the requirement again to be sure that I was right, but the minimum is 10/12, not 9/12, so it is even a little “worse” than I thought. I agree that it is nice to have plenty of room for mechanical systems in the attic, but this goes way beyond that, especially for relatively square floor plans like mine. I agree that a lot of this space can and sometimes is used for additional living space, but then you have add dormers for windows and have sloped ceilings that are hard to insulate and seal, so I don’t consider this to be a very energy-efficient option either.

So here is a question: What is the “optimal” roof configuration for cost-effective energy efficiency, neglecting aesthetics for the time being? I would claim that it would be a gable roof with no valleys, at least 4/12 pitch, and with at least 8 feet of attic height at the ridge.

]]>
By: G_Bub https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11191 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:22:44 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11191 Interesting thoughts on the
Interesting thoughts on the buy-in.
I am a new HERS Rater and have run into this with builders, architects, and homeowners. It seems easier to get the homeowners into the concept. More so because of comfort instead of savings. Builders just seem to want me to do what I have to do for the building permit. Architects and designers seem to think they want to go greener, but don’t allow the room for proper insulation, and don’t seem to even know the code minimums. And they love windows here.

I am in area where the HERS rating system is fairly new. Right now I am the only local person doing the ratings. The company that has been doing most of the ratings here have not been the most honest in terms of sticking to what should be done. So much so that the neighboring town finally caught on, and implemented an affidavit for HERS Raters. I have heard many stories from builders and trades of this company fudging the final score. So it will be interesting to find out if builders expect me to do the same.

]]>
By: JC https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11190 Thu, 04 Jan 2018 15:33:50 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11190 In reply to RoyC.

A lot of new homes in the
A lot of new homes in the south are built on slabs so a 9/12 roof pitch allows for more room for mechanicals and additional finished space (builder upsell opportunity).

Besides 9/12 isn’t particularly steep. In fact it fits more in the “just right” range of roof pitches.

]]>
By: RoyC https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11189 Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:10:26 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11189 Where I live in the south,
Where I live in the south, most buyers of new homes want steep roofs (9/12 or greater) and some new subdivisions even require it in their covenants. I just bought a new house with a steep roof and spray foam roof deck which is unusual for this area and considered quite energy efficient. It is nice to have my ductwork and air handlers in a conditioned attic space, both in terms of reduced duct losses and easier maintenance, but it drives me crazy to see how much building material and energy is wasted by the steep roof due to its higher surface area. My attic is probably 16 feet tall at the peak. My point here is that we waste a lot of material and energy due to aesthetics. How do we change that?

]]>
By: Avery Ray Colter https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11188 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 23:16:40 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11188 I know this is a really
I know this is a really simplistic and not entirely accurate reaction, but my first reaction to that video was “That WAS how cars were built before Ralph Nader!” 😛

]]>
By: Chie Kawahara https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11185 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 17:53:26 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11185 In reply to Elizabeth DiSalvo.

Yes, let’s expand the bubble!
Yes, let’s expand the bubble! As a Passive House homeowner, I do my part by hosting tours. We share utility bills as well as data on temperature and humidity. Being in the house gives the visceral feel of comfort. The people who come to the house may “get it” by feeling it, but how they convey and pass on the message is questionable.

That’s why I love your simple message: “Basically if you live in one of our houses you pay about $18 per month for all of your utilities, the air temperature and humidity are always perfect- like living in LA, your kids have no more allergies, and you never hear any sounds of equipment kicking on or off- it’s really really quiet.” It’s simple, memorable, and repeatable. I’ll use that line. Thanks!

I’m also sharing stories of my home renovation journey (my house is 96 years old and was renovated to meet Passive House standard 5 years ago) in a book. It’s written by a homeowner for other homeowners who wants a high performance green home. I think your clients and prospective clients may enjoy it. http://midorihaus.com/book/

]]>
By: Old Redtop https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/building-science-buy-in-challenge/#comment-11184 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 16:59:48 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=the-building-science-buy-in-challenge#comment-11184 Allison, Another fine
Allison, Another fine article and some great comments too. I think Elizabeth from CT nailed the issue… buy-in is about selling the sizzle, not the steak.

]]>