Imber Akse House – Burlington’s LEED home

The solution to save thousands of megawatts and carbon output for Canada is at our fingertips, and in our minds, already. It’s simple – change our perspective on comfort. There’s a reason why Canada and the US consume considerably more energy than the rest of the world and it’s not climate. It’s that we’ve developed an overly keen awareness to comfort — we are far more particular than other cultures. We like it warm in the winter and cool in the summer like everyone but consider the energy necessary to keep a house artificially cooled at 24ºC as compared to 26ºC. It doesn’t sound like it should be much but it usually takes a system a couple of hours to shift 2 degrees throughout the home and that accounts for a lot of energy.

But what if we just decided that 26º or even 28º was perfect in summer and 19º in the winter. That’s it. Then for most of the summer or winter the house would only require venthillation and little conditioning. Then also the system in summer could run the condensor on a low fan speed to remove humidity to make the air feel cooler in a relative sense. Nation wide this would be a major savings.

Using this perspective how would we judge other mechanical systems that require energy? Say lighting? Well we could consider a slightly darker room romantic, especially if we used accent and task lighting instead of a center of the room high wattage bulb trying to do too much. And then there’s our thirst for cold water compared to room temperature – image if we just unplugged all water coolers concluding that room temperature water was just as refreshing.

In the end we pay, as does the environment, for our desire for perceived comfort – for our perspective that’s unrelated to need, health or even average human comfort.

That being said, how will we change or relate our comfort consumption to cost especially when it’s an individual, house by house case scenario. I believe the start is knowing what the real cost is and that’s with a Power Monitor. Over the next year you will be hearing a lot about these devices and ideas. More.

The framing started today. Yes framing and not ICF, straw, or otherwise. These and other technologies all have their merits, as well as faults if only by lack of practicality to our situation. Our situation being that we are building a house in a market where sustainable suppliers are currently hard to locate and far and few in between compared to the suppliers lined up to provide legacy ideas. We’re lucky, we’ve found a sustainably sympathetic building partner but what about everyone else?

It’s worth commenting that sourcing green materials and sustainable products is still too difficult. Not because they aren’t available; literally thousands of options abound on the internet and in every consumer mag you pick up today. It’s that the end suppliers haven’t picked up those magazines yet – the trades, renovators, supply companies, builders, wholesalers – the supply chain – and it’s here where the greatest influence lays, with the expert and the ones you trust with your home and your wallet. They are undoubtedly aware, but like most industries it’s easy to dismiss impending change or the demand for change as, impractical, or not relevant to the existing consumer.

I’ve read a number of articles by suppliers and builders that say the average consumer doesn’t want to pay for green building – and they can’t afford to carry the burden for the consumer. Meanwhile the consumer is looking for these solutions in ever increasing numbers but meeting resistance. It sounds like there must be a lot of pressure in the middle somewhere. As a business owner I understand the pressures of change and change management is a major concern and investment in any business – but it’s just that. A responsible investment in your business is education toward change, change in processes and procedures. In the case of building, change will be mandatory and waiting until regulation comes means suicide for business and unfortunately the ecology.

So this disconnect is very hard to manage for consumers and sustainable minded people who wish to build responsibly. We received a note from a reader preparing to build in ‘09 who concurs – feeling that already the weight of responsibility to source materials and provide green ideas will rest on them. I hope they can manage to inspire their contractor to learn and change and go along for the ride with them, it will be worth it for everyone.

Irony. Tear down an old house, weigh all the stuff that you toss, recycle what you can and then commend yourself for what you diverted from landfill. So let’s. Apparently we diverted over 80% of the demo from Landfill – and this is good. Really though, destruction aside, waste diversion, or avoidance, is a key to efficient construction and should be achieved in a number of different ways starting with building simply.

Complexity leads to waste, in odd cuts of materials, re-dos, or excess layers of finishes, veneers and hidden materials. Mike Leyer, our build foreman might have a alternate view on our “simple” house design however.

Next, use everything for something. Since we are all amazed at how much material could be recycled from the demolition, imagine how much easier it is to use the waste from new materials. The secret is to plan ahead — choosing materials that are recyclable (cut studs used as framing blocks or cabinet filler) or at least down-cyclable (off cut studs sent though the chipper as mulch). Next a waste plan is needed to ensure material waste is sorted when created, not later. Later means labour waste and labour waste is money burned and that means… (see Sustainable Costs)

Don’t invite waste. While working with a client on green initiatives, we looked at their waste problem and suggested something simple to us but apparently revolutionary to them. “Hey, don’t invite waste by allowing suppliers to bring more than they need and certainly no packaging”. What this means is every time an outsider from your site or company brings a coffee cup, lunch, packaging for their material or good, or excess beyond what’s ordered, you have to deal with it and it costs you and the environment. It’s easy. If they can’t bring it, they won’t. And if they can’t bring it they’ll change their policies to deal with their wasteful ways – perhaps by initiating methods for delivering goods sans package, or in re-suable containers. The dam of resistance forces pressure upstream.

Certainly if they are forced to take back packaging and incur the cost of waste, one of a few things will happen. They will reduce packaging to reduce costs. They will become efficient at recycling waste from packaging as an economies of scale will be achieved. They will begin to develop products that don’t require packaging or overages. And, they might even start carrying a travel mug.

Build with prefabricated materials. This is a way to combine two ideas – a supplier that plans, brings only what they require as per your design and doesn’t need packaging. Pre-fabricated house components are a growing trend in building with everything from radiant floor sections, walls (SIPs), foundation components (ICFs) and even entire house sections. The idea is that from plan, sections of the home are made off-site with precision in ideal conditions using labour achieving an economies of scale. The finished components are shipped to the site and installed in less time compared to building from scratch in less than ideal situations.

Our goal, and the goal of LEEDs, is to have very little, if any, material waste enter or leave the site. Except for those appliance boxes we’ll convert into condos for the kids.

At our house we (I) like to say, “why do today what you can do tomorrow”. No, not complacency but a practical sensibility toward hiding that list of to do’s for a rainier day. Essentially this is why we (Canadians) are simply putting off some dirty housekeeping (green and sustainable change) for a rainier day too.If you are looking for some solid logic for getting around to the job, read David Elfstrom’s article on preparing for the rainy day of $500/barrel for oil. David Elfstrom is an Engineer specializing in the field of Sustainability and among many other things, a volunteer (non-voting attendee) for the CaGBC LEED-H administrative committee. Canadian Green Building Council.

-

How to prepare for oil reaching $500/barrel

It’s coming. Or rather, it’s not going to continue coming any more. I’m
referring to the declining availability of natural gas and oil while facing
increasing demand. Add the possibility of an international political event
and we’re primed for an energy price shock.

How well prepared you are for these events can make the difference between
financial success and failure in the next several years.

Resource production peak is a fact of geology and physics. If we just had
the slow decline in global resources to deal with, we could manage.
Unfortunately it’s never so simple. Taxes on nonrenewable carbon-based fuels
are also on the horizon, further adding to cost as the supply dips below
global demand. And political events in countries far away can have a
dramatic impact on everyone in the blink of an eye – maybe this week, this
year, next year. Like a rumbling volcano, we don’t know for certain when it
will blow, but it’s highly likely it will soon erupt. The risk is real and
quantifiable.

History repeats itself

In the early 1970’s U.S. domestic oil production peaked, and America’s
imports of oil started to rise. Soon after, political events occurred that
tightened international supply, causing an oil shock. The gasoline pumps
went dry and the price skyrocketed. The U.S. could not produce enough to
meet its own demand.

Once the 70’s oil shocks were over and energy prices dropped, it became
business as usual to create a North American infrastructure that ignores the
finite limits of fossil fuels and the vulnerability of our supply lines.
Today we are reaching global peak oil production and the threat of political
interruptions to the oil supply are at the highest since the 1970’s. North
America imports more oil from overseas than ever before.

Even in Canada, where there is a net surplus of oil nationally, many people
are surprised to learn that Ontario imports over half its oil from the world
market, and Quebec imports 90%. There is no pipeline from Alberta large
enough to supply the thirsty marketplace. Here in Ontario we are in a
vulnerable position relative to the Western provinces.

It’s not just about oil however. Domestic natural gas production is also
peaking. Because we can’t import any substantial amount of natural gas,
supply will decrease and price increase. Homeowners will be paying multiples
more for heating bills, and industry will compete with households over use
of the remaining supply. In 2007 the Canadian plastic industry began a
campaign promoting the economic benefits of using of natural gas to produce
plastics rather than burning gas for heat.

Individuals and businesses that are not prepared will be highly vulnerable
to the coming energy crisis. Here’s a sample of some possibilities to
protect yourself.

Buy a highly energy efficient home now

Don’t repeat the mistake of American auto manufacturers. Asian manufacturers
foresaw the market shift from gas guzzlers toward hybrid vehicles and highly
efficient cars. It takes a long time to turn a large business around, and
American automobile manufacturers are still ill prepared. It’s time to buy a
“hybrid home” now so that when the next energy shock occurs you won’t be
left holding the bag with an unsellable house.

A hybrid home, like a hybrid car, uses 50% or less energy than a home
built to the current building code. Hybrid homes also make use of simpler
solar thermal systems to provide free domestic hot water to the home, or at
the very least are “solar ready”, featuring a conduit running from the
basement to the roof to accommodate future solar thermal and solar electric
installations.

New homes built with an ENERGY STAR label should be your minimum choice.
A home with a LEED certification is better, and is just beginning to
come to Canada. A LEED Gold certified home is usually a hybrid home
with added environmental features such as healthy indoor air quality and
water conservation.

For buyers of existing homes, make sure you look for homes that have had
an ecoENERGY audit with an EnerGuide rating. An EnerGuide rating of 78
should be your minimum, or be prepared to spend money to increase it
through renovations. ENERGY STAR and R-2000 homes come in around 80,
and a hybrid home is typically an 84 on the EnerGuide scale. One or two
points on the EnerGuide scale can represent a big difference in the home’s
relative energy consumption.

Seek out townhomes, row homes, and triplexes in urban areas

Picture this: The price of oil triples again and gasoline reaches $5/L, with
spikes up to $7/L. Lineups at the pumps abound. This could happen within the
time span of several months. Overnight that subdivision with an hour or
longer commute into the city by highway becomes a liability as the cost of
commuting becomes very high, if there aren’t outright shortages of gasoline.

Many home buyers may not want to live in a green condo high-rise, but would still
consider affordable compact low-rise developments closer to the city. These
denser forms of housing cost less to heat, becoming more attractive to
purchasers in the face of doubling or tripling heating bills.

Anyone not already living in a green building will be left with an
unsellable home. The question now isn’t “can I afford to buy green?” it is
“can I afford not to?”

David Elfstrom is an engineer in Toronto, specializing in energy
efficient home design and HVAC system design with integrated solar technologies.
Email: david@elfstrom.com

If anything was largely affected by LEED it was our preconceptions of our landscaping. It was our original intention to approach the landscape design in a logical and practical way with regard to conservative design, native planting, local availability, and elimination of thirsty water use. Our criteria didn’t impact the look of the design though as we still had idyllic pictures in our mind of wild meandering gardens using native species; as if the original Burlington ecosystem hadn’t been scrapped clean to make room for farms followed by subdivisions and our house simply shot up out of the wild kingdom without harming a thing.

Well of course this isn’t the case, the damage is done and we can’t restore our ecosystem in Burlington starting at our small portion of an acre. What we can do though is lesson the negative impact our manufactured landscape has on the ecology. Replacing a dynamic diverse landscape with a designed and manufactured one lacks diversity and creates the need for artificial sustenance – support at the cost of dollars, energy and ecology resulting from investment in non-native species that need assistance to survive outside their natural range; excessive watering, fertilizing and feeding and pesticides to support an artificial arrangement that wouldn’t survive together naturally. Therefore rethinking how we design the built environment has to be the number one objective.

So in giving the LEED points more thought, we arrived at a new outlook: modern restraint and a natural conservatism coupled with the idea that perhaps if we aren’t to replicate nature with a faux version, we can at least look at the landscape as a system in the same way we did with the house.

This is the shift in thinking from the landscape as being an aesthetic to being a mechanism for reducing impact of our built environment while also facilitating various functions for the home. LEED requirements are not restrictive or leading toward our solution, rather we are taking an approach that suits us while also providing LEED points.

So the objective is to create a landscape plan with the following goals:

Reduce
- eliminate municipal water consumption for landscape; plants and maintenance of hardscapes
- reduce negative impact of watershed from property; water run-off into municipal sewers and erosion
- eliminate introduction of non-native species of plants
- discourage undesirable plants from growing using sustainable techniques; eliminating the need for chemical treatments or excess labour to maintain
- reduce the need for unnecessary plantings of greenery for sake of aesthetic
- reduce the heating of landscape and hardscapes from the sun; lessoning the need for air conditioning or irrigation

Promote
+ encourage self sustaining landscape; plantings allowed to grow with little to no maintenance and landscape materials chosen to age gracefully without maintenance or replacement
+ welcome more trees to the lot; design the aesthetic in such a way that trees are an asset or necessity not a liability or problem
+ utilize the positive attributes of trees and greenery for the system where they are most useful – provide shade and natural cooling in summer and sunlight accessibility in the winter
+ encourage wildlife to do what they wish with the landscape; without creating scenarios where wildlife is positioned as a problem such as birds over cars, nests in undesirable places, bees becoming aggressive around nesting areas, squirrels digging up flower bulbs

With these goals and criteria in mind we’ve been working on a landscape plan. We enlisted the assistance of the good people at Terra Greenhouses with regard to material selections and helping locate information on native species. Since part of our logic was to ensure all plants were easily found locally as well as being native, we we’re pleased to find out that Terra, like other garden centres, tend to have a resource for such plants.

We were also pleasantly surprised that Terra not only new what we were looking for with regard to our goals but most importantly, they respected our interests and shared a common desire for responsible landscaping practices.

So now with a plan in hand and a good handle on plants, trees and landscape materials we can finalize the drawings to submit to Branthaven as well as to the LEED people. A final note about LEED points and landscape design. LEED awards points for engaging a certified landscape architect or the like. For obvious reasons this is a recommended option for people who are thinking of undertaking a LEED project or simply wanting to landscape in a sensible and sustainable manner. Like other professional services, Certified Landscape Architects provide a great deal of value and experience especially when considering changes in common thinking which they stay abreast of. More often than not, these professionals will save you money in one way or another and make their services worth while as well as add that extra intangible higher level of execution that turn a good project into an amazing project.

Plan to be posted soon.

Sustainability in general asks the consumer to consider a change in thinking. It sounds easy but in reality, the shift in thinking is a major shift for most people.

Sustainability asks – “pay now”, while the current culture says “pay later”. Think about it. Over the decades our culture and economy has slowly shifted to a platform of pay later. The concept of credit, mortgages, conspicuous consumerism, waste disposal or even our health system suggests you can do what you want today for free and pay later – no money down, no interest.

The problem with paying later is it’s always with interest — at tomorrow’s dollar too! It’s entirely unpredictable as well as exemplified by climate change.

So sustainability says “pay now” — at today’s dollar, predictably.

How does this apply? Well in particular if you apply the thinking to costs of sustainable products and services such as geothermal heating in the home, it makes it seem a lot more attractive.

Matt Irvine of NextEnergy says “we ask our clients to consider that when they purchase our Geothermal solutions they are buying a lifetime of heat and fuel”. Though the cost to do this compared to conventional heating seems high – 2 to 3 times higher — once purchased the cost to operate in todays dollar is practically free when compared to tomorrows dollar and diminished environmental impact.

Buying a conventional heating system asks you to pay for heating and fuel at tomorrows dollar plus increasing environmental impact. When added up, the conventional system costs much much more in the long term. When you think about it as a pure business decision, scenario 1 is responsible. Scenario 2 is irresponsible.