Restoring History – Protecting Our Future

“What use is a fine house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?” – Thoreau

by Matt Grocoff, founder Greenovation.TV, contributor to The Environment Report on Public Radio, and the greenovation guru for Old House Web

The full article is available on OLD HOUSE WEB

When my wife Kelly and I bought our 110 year old Folk-Victorian home in Ann Arbor’s Old West Side Historic District, it was a dream come true: drafty old windows, lead paint, zero insulation, a half-century old furnace, asbestos siding, a gas powered mower in the shed and even a few pieces of coal scattered around the back yard. What more could a couple ask for?

From the start we knew that homes use an astonishing 22% of energy consumed in the U.S. In fact, your home uses far more energy than your car. Home energy costs have skyrocketed to an average of $2200 per year. Old homes use even more than their fair share of the energy pie. . . .

But using resources to build big new “green” homes to save resources just seems ironic. There are 130 million existing homes in the U.S.; half were built before 1972.

So, retrofitting America’s old homes is not just about preserving history, it is indeed about protecting our future.

READ MATT’S FULL ARTICLE AT OLD HOUSE WEB

And . . . here’s helpful resources you must explore before starting your Mission Zero:

One Block Off the Grid http://1bog.org/

Joolze.com http://www.joolze.com/

Transcript

Matt: [at front of old Victorian house] Hi, I’m Matt Grocoff, the green renovation expert for Old House Web and host of greenovation.tv and this is my house.  So when my wife Kelly and I first bought this 110 year old folk Victorian house, it was a dream come true: it had lead paint, asbestos siding, zero insulation and even an old gas powered lawn mower out in the shed.  What more can anybody ask for.

Matt: [in living room] So on move in day we brought two things with us:  a crowbar to rip up all the old carpet and a box of compact fluorescent light bulbs.  We replaced every light socket in this house with compact fluorescents and then we added motion sensors to every light switch in the house.  We leave a room, if we forget to turn it off, it turns it off for us.

Matt: [in bathroom] So at the start of our renovation project, this was the only bathroom in the house.  It was fantastic.  It had pink Formica tiles, an old flush toilet that flushed 5 gallons every time.  This is a Caroma Dual Flush Toilet which only uses .8 gallons every flush and unlike our old toilet never clogs.  But not only have we made it look great, but we’ve made it way more energy efficient.

This is a 1-minute a gallon showerhead.  This is going to use a gallon and a half a minute less than an ordinary showerhead.  This will literally save thousands of gallons over its lifetime.

Matt: [backyard drilling for geothermal] I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say “I thought you couldn’t put geothermal into a historic house.”  Well this house proves that wrong.  We were able to put three 150-foot bore holes vertically into the back yard on a very small piece of property.  Not only do we have a heating and cooling system that uses half the energy of our neighbors, we have a house that’s a whole lot more comfortable.

Matt: [in living room] We’re out to prove that old houses can be the Greenest houses. In fact, with all the renovations we’ve done so far, we’ve made this house ultra efficient and we’ve got a ways to go.  We’re going to take this house all the way to Net Zero.  Meaning it’s going to produce more energy than it uses.

Matt: [at the computer] So you eco geeks, get ready to get geeked out because this is our WattVision Google Power Meter.  And this will tell us how much energy we’re consuming at any given moment.  If everyone knew how much energy they were using, they would probably use a lot less.  [I'm coming to get you, I got you, I got you] Before we get the solar panels up on the roof, you can see we’ve got a lot of work to do.

Matt: [pointing to house exterior] We’ve got to paint the house, restore these old windows, then top it off with some really energy efficient storm windows.  My daughter Jane will probably still be alive when this house turns 200 years old.  So restoring America’s old homes is not just about preserving history, it’s about protecting our future.   So for Old House Web, this is Matt Grocoff reminding you that, “The Green Revolution Begins at Home”

Share on Facebook

Check out the house’s website at www.MissionZeroHouse.com

America’s oldest Net Zero Energy residential restoration

Michigan’s first Net Zero Energy house

America’s first Net Zero home restoration in a historic district

What is Net-Zero Energy?

A Net-Zero Energy Home (also called Zero Energy Home) is a home that produces as much or more energy than the occupants consume.  This is accomplished by first reducing energy demand, typically by 60% – 70%, then meeting that demand by adding on-site renewable energy.

www.MissionZeroHouse.com

Share on Facebook

Read more about Matt’s clean and green bath addition at Old House Web.

More cool stuff

Materials Unlimited – for salvaged material, clawfoot tubs, bathroom hardware

Habitat Restore

Permaglaze

BIO  > > > > >

Share on Facebook

Case Study: Window Restoration & Energy Efficiency for 110 Year Old Net Zero Home

By Nick Helmholdt
Read more at Old House Web: Save Big Bucks By Restoring Your Old Windows and Making Them Energy Efficient

Founders of www.Greenovation.TV, Matt & Kelly Grocoff own a 110 year-old home in Ann Arbor’s Old West Side Historic District. The Grocoff’s Folk-Victorian home includes sixteen original, single pane, wood frame windows. They knew that the windows were a major source of cold, wintry drafts that made the house uncomfortable. GreenovationTV and Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) were interested in understanding how repairs to original wood windows would affect air infiltration in old homes. CEC agreed to perform blower door tests before and after the repairs to his windows.

The original blower door test was conducted with the windows in their original state of disrepair. The sashes of several windows refused to close completely and in some cases the original hardware was missing or damaged. The blower door measured air leakage of 4,400 Cubic Feet per Minute (CFM) at 50 Pascals. This rate of air flow was equivalent to leaving a 241 square inch window open year round (that is the size of a rectangular opening 1’ x 1’8”). Under normal conditions, just over 100% of the air in the Grocoff’s house was replaced with outdoor air every hour. These figures describe a house that has high, uncontrolled air infiltration.

A second blower door test was performed after the wood window repairs were completed by Lorri Sipes & Maggie Hostetler Wood Window Repair Company in Ann Arbor, MI. The repairs included re-glazing the original single pane glass, repairing any damage to the wood sashes, installing bronze spring weather-stripping on both jambs (Image 1), cutting a kerf (saw-cut) and installing silicone tube seals (Image 2) in the head of the upper sash, at the meeting rail of the lower sash, and at the sill of the lower sash. The hardware was repaired or replaced and adjusted to draw the two sashes tightly together, push the top sash up, and the lower sash down, effectively sealing both sashes all the way around.

This second test revealed a substantial reduction in air infiltration. The blower door measured air leakage of 1,530 CFM at 50 Pa. By comparison, the effective leakage area was 84 square inches (a rectangular opening 1’ x 7”). Now under normal conditions, 35% of the air in the Grocoff’s house should be replaced with outdoor air every hour. Effectively 65% of the air infiltration was eliminated by the repairs to the original 110 year old wood windows, and the addition of two types of weather- stripping.

The Grocoffs also had low-e storm windows installed to replace the wood-framed versions that came with the house. The low- emissivity (low-e) coating on these storm windows reflects heat back to its origin: to the outdoors in the summer and indoors in the winter. A third blower door test was performed and again air infiltration was reduced noticeably; down to 1,330 CFM at 50 Pa. This resulted in an effective leakage area of 73 square inches (an opening 1’ x 6”). The combined effect of the storm windows and the repaired windows resulted in a 69.8% reduction in air leakage.

It is clear that the wood window repairs performed here resulted in an impressive air infiltration reduction. This case should be evidence that repairs to windows may be a potential energy-saving measure to consider for homes in historic areas. What’s more, the storm windows were able to further reduce infiltration by a noticeable fraction.

Resources:
Wood Window Repair Company in Ann Arbor:
Trapp Storm Windows:
Robertson’s Storm & Screen in Ann Arbor:
Clean Energy Coalition

Share on Facebook

Track Your Compact Fluorescent Bulb

I recently had an unusual occurrence at my house: one of the lightbulbs in my kitchen burned out.  What’s so special about that, you ask?  Lights burn out all the time.  But I’ve been using compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) for the past few years, so it is rare that I need to change a bulb.

Sure, you’ve heard about the advantages of compact fluorescent bulbs.  Maybe you don’t think that they are going to be cost effective, and you can’t bring yourself to invest in one or two in order to find out.  I have a couple of suggestions for those of you who are still holding out.

We think about the energy savings from using CFL bulbs, and that’s one of the big advantages to using them.  But they also save time and effort.  If an incandescent bulb has an average life of 750-1000 hours, then you’re going to end up changing that bulb about twice a year, if it’s being used an average of 4 hours a day.  CFLs have an average life of 6,000-15,000 hours, so they last about 10 times as long, which means you would be changing that bulb about once every 5 years (maybe 10), instead of twice a year.

Maybe that’s not a big issue for a table lamp, but if you have ceiling lights that are harder to reach, changing bulbs is more of an undertaking.  (Those of you with high ceilings that need a maintenance visit and someone with a ladder to replace your bulbs should definitely be thinking about this.)  Isn’t that a chore that would be better if it needed to be done less frequently?

Most of the standard light sockets in my house now have CFL bulbs of one variety or another.  Some I like better than others.  I’ve identified a couple manufacturers and brands that I won’t buy again.  But others have good brightness and a color that I like.  I was dubious a decade ago when I first started trying CFLs.  One way I tried it out was to put one CFL and one regular bulb in a two-socket fixture.  That balanced out the color and let me find that the fluorescents weren’t that bad, and it also gave us some instant-on light with that fixture (since the first CFLs were often dim for the first couple minutes).

Compact fluorescent bulbs are now available for only a couple dollars, and, even if the energy savings aren’t convince you, maybe the longer life of a CFL will make a difference for you.  If you absolutely don’t like them, you can still swap them away into a utility space like a closet or basement where, if you only turn on the lights there occasionally, the bulb might last for decades.

If you want to convince yourself (or perhaps a dubious relative or neighbor) that your compact fluorescent bulbs are really lasting for a long time, write the date on the base of the bulb when you put it in (you can use a Sharpie or a pencil and write on the plastic covering on the base).  Unfortunately, I didn’t do this with that last bulb, so I can’t tell you how long that one lasted (our kitchen light is on for more than 4 hours a day, especially in the winter time, and I think this one was about 3 years old).  But if you check in with me in a few years, I can tell you how long the new one was good for.

Philip Proefrock is a regular contributor to GreenovationTV and a registered architect with p s proefrock architecture, based in Michigan. He is a LEED accredited professional and has taught sustainable design architectural studio at Lawrence Technological University and assisted with LEED study groups for other building professionals. He is also an architectural photographer, writer and blogger. Philip is senior contributing writer for EcoGeek.org where he concentrates on green building systems, renewable power, and transportation, and a regular contributor to JetsonGreen.com

Share on Facebook

Solar Scorecard Assesses the Manufacture of Solar Panels

Solar panels are one of the greenest and least controversial types of renewable power generation technology. Some neighborhoods don’t like how they look on roofs of houses, but there are no concerns about harming wildlife, as with wind turbines or tidal power systems. And the technology to make them is continuing to improve.

But not all solar panels are created equally. Solar panels are energy intensive to produce, and potentially harmful materials such as
cadmium and lead are sometimes used in their production. The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition has begun to assemble a ‘Solar Scorecard‘ that evaluates solar panel manufacturers.

There are already standards in place for other kinds of electronics. EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) rates information technology equipment such as desktop and laptop computers and monitors. The European Union’s RoHS Directive also mandates restrictions on the use of six hazardous materials in electronic equipment: Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg); Cadmium (Cd); Hexavalent chromium (Cr6+); Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB); Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE). The Solar Scorecard offers a voluntary rating system like EPEAT to rate the greenness of the manufacturing process for solar panels. Solar Scorecard used the RoHS list to identify the chemicals to inquire about in their survey.

The Solar Scorecard site indicates that six of the responding companies’ survey answers said that they presently use lead in their modules, but all also said that they have plans to phase it out. Three companies indicated that they use cadmium compounds, but none of those have present plans to phase out those chemicals. However, none of the responding companies use mercury, hexavalent chromium (Cr6+), polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), or polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE).

Because the Scorecard is based on company self-reporting, presently there are only ten PV module manufacturers and one solar cell manufacturer with scores listed. Four compaies also have a gold star, indicating that the company “has a takeback program and has policies against exporting waste and using prison labor to dismantle end-of-life panels.”

Scoring is based on a 100-point scale, with four major categories: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Takeback, which deals with end-of-life and recycling for the panels; Supply Chain Monitoring and Green Jobs, which looks at employee exposure to toxic materials among other issues; Chemical Use and Lifecycle Analysis, which looks at
hazardous material use; and Disclosure, which considers a company’s transparency about these issues. The survey was originally sent to 227 solar PV companies in October 2009 and the survey dealine was extended to late January 2010. Hopefully more companies will respond and the listing can be kept current in coming years, providing consumers with more information about the panels they are considering.

If you are considering buying solar panels for your own project, this information might be useful in evaluating different suppliers of solar panels. If you are the kind of person who pays attention to other rating systems like EPEAT, why wouldn’t you also look at those same considerations for solar panels?

A shorter, earlier version of this article appeared on EcoGeek

Philip Proefrock is a regular contributor to GreenovationTV and a registered architect with p s proefrock architecture, based in Michigan. He is a LEED accredited professional and has taught sustainable design architectural studio at Lawrence Technological University and assisted with LEED study groups for other building professionals. He is also an architectural photographer, writer and blogger. Philip is senior contributing writer for EcoGeek.org where he concentrates on green building systems, renewable power, and transportation, and a regular contributor to JetsonGreen.com

Share on Facebook

LISA SIMPSON had been a professional cook, so when she remodeled her kitchen she was counting on a big, powerful gas range. But that would have meant installing a huge propane tank on her rural property outside Seattle. It would have been expensive, ugly and, in an area prone to earthquakes, nerve-

racking.

So Ms. Simpson went to an appliance dealer, cooked a few dishes on a six-burner induction range and fell in love.

“It was like I had driven a VW Beetle my whole life and someone suddenly handed me the keys to a Ferrari,” she said.  READ MORE

Via New York Times

Share on Facebook

DOE announced on April 1 that it has finalized higher energy efficiency standards for a key group of heating appliances that will together save consumers up to $10 billion and prevent up to 164 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the 30 years after they take effect. The new standards apply to residential water heaters, pool heaters, and direct heating equipment such as gas fireplaces, increasing the stringency of the existing minimum conservation standards for these three types of residential heating products. The new standards will cut the energy use of large electric storage water heaters by 47% and of large gas-fired water heaters by more than 30%. The standards for water heaters will go into effect in 2015, while the standards for pool heaters and direct heating equipment—including gas-fired wall, floor, and hearth heaters—will apply to products manufactured in 2013 and beyond. On average, these products account for about 18% of the energy use in U.S. homes.

Under the Obama Administration, DOE has accelerated the pace for finalizing new appliance standards and has placed new resources and emphasis behind the enforcement of these important standards. Since President Obama came to office, DOE has issued or codified new efficiency standards for more than 20 different products, which will save consumers between $250 and $300 billion on their energy bills through 2030. See the Web site for DOE’s Appliances and Equipment Standards Program.

Share on Facebook

200-year-old house undergoes massive green renovation.

After playing a colorful role in America’s early years, a Salem, Mass., house has made history again, thanks to a two-year renovation that resulted in its certification as one of the first LEED-certified National Historic Landmarks.

The federal-style house was built in 1811 for Joseph Story, the youngest person ever appointed to the Supreme Court, and it later served as home to the Vaughan family, whose members made significant contributions to early aviation and to Antarctic exploration as part of Admiral Richard Byrd’s 1928 South Pole expedition.  Read the full article at EcoHome

Learn more about this green remodel at www.greenremodeling.org

Learn about more historic green homes at www.OldHouseWeb.com

The Joseph Story House in Salem, Massachusetts - Credit: Wikimedia Commons CC 3.0

Share on Facebook