We had been looking for a panel product that would fit the bill in either a paper or cement based material. There are many recycled paper wall surface panels on the market but none that we could source were structural; meaning meant to manage the load and wear and tear of foot traffic. For concrete, many companies produce a structural concrete panel however they all use these as underlayment in construction, and cover these with graphics of logos and specifications making them useless for a finished floor application.

Recently while speaking with a carpenter friend, he recommended a new product called Finex that’s manufactured in Canada — presumably in Quebec. Finex is a structural panel designed to go on both walls and floors and is produced for exactly our use — outdoor applications like decks! The great thing is the deck requires no exceptional preparation from the typical with exception of the 4lbs. per square foot weight tag it comes with. Lads, that means approx. 130lbs per 4′x8′ sheet of back splitting panel slugging.

I’ll save the details of the application specs but the short is that it cuts like a concrete panel and is screwed down to the wooden joists using stainless screws.

How did it turn out? Well, in some ways better than expected but that outcome was saved by the design considerations of trim, fascia and stonework. As for the product itself, it’s not for everyone. Our aesthetic was ideal for this product as out interior floors are concrete and so a inside outside flow was achieved well – almost a perfect match in colour to our surprise.

The downside was in the inconsistency of the surface appearance that occurred during the purchase, application and sealing of the material. I’m sure floor finishing experts will agree that the finish of the floor isn’t entirely credited to the flooring material, rather it’s the handling, finishing products and experience level of those applying it. After our carpenter friends did an exceptional job applying the sheets, the finishing meant me…

Though some of the material arrived cracked, we had enough to sort through it and chose the best. During application, the Finex recommends using a construction sealer/caulk between the panels to seal the specified 1/8th gap. They say be generous and allow the product to ooze out. Wow, this is not good.

The issue is that the Finex is surprisingly porous and so the rubberized caulking adheres so well to the surface that it’s nearly impossible to remove. After it cured, I tried blades to no resolve and resorted to sanding which helped. Once all the caulking looked as though it were removed, the surface was sealed using a waterborne water sealer to resist staining the porous concrete surface. At this point, and now whenever the surface is wet with rain, the places where the caulking was removed glows with a blotchy white stain.

All is not lost, I believe there is a further solution in either a re-sanding or potentially additional coats of sealer — or both likely.

Never the less, the end result was a cool and beautiful looking deck surface that is tough as nails, fireproof, waterproof, rot proof and will hopefully last a lifetime. I would recommend this product to anyone who is seeking the modern outdoor patio look that we achieved or is chasing a sustainable outcome as we were.

There were many more details in the application; tips and learnings that I could share if anyone is interested in the product.

Finex Concrete Panels — http://gofinex.com/english/welcome-Finex.html

The landscape plan we developed hopes to maintain our goal of energy conservatism and sustainability but as usual with a large degree of pragmaticism. To follow LEED landscaping to the letter, we would have had to be way more diligent with our plant and material selections than we could as DIY’ers as well as provide the signature of a landscape architect for full points. In our case, we’re happy to use native (central Canada and Ontario, not exclusively Southern Ontario) hardy and drought resistant plantings along with locally sourced stone, screenings and soil as well as recovered mulch from local saw mills and fallen trees.

In addition, we designed the landscape to coordinate with our roof water run-off and site drainage so as to avoid site storm water run-off into the city municipal sewer system. We integrated berms, plantings, kitchy catch basins and mini-creeks or French trenches to keep water moving away from the foundation but with the goal to have it absorbed by plantings and the natural water table. We filled the catch basins and trenches with drainage tubes and covered with river rock for filtering, evaporation and simple clean aesthetics.

The main thing we wanted was a natural easy unstructured feel of the yard to balance the purposely structured building. This unstructured format will also be forgiving of a more wild result when the grasses and native plants start to mature and get slightly unruly – allowing us the grace to not use too much energy in maintenance.

The check list we achieved
+ minimal costs for max results (cost means more money through the wasteful industrial engine)
+ native species of plantings (creating habitat for native wildlife & suit local conditions to avoid artificial support)
+ low energy and efficient use and distribution of site rain water (gravity waters our plants)
+ drought resistance (but the plants don’t need it)
+ low mechanical maintenance (no grass to mow or trim, no fertilizers, no watering from municipal)
+ encourage or restore water table (moist soil is more absorbent and adds to natural plant moisture evaporation cycle)
+ minimized hard surfaces on site (most of our hard surfaces are porous or have cracks for drainage into site)

In the end, we have a natural and pro looking landscape design that works in conjunction with the house and ecology in a practical and achievable way without breaking the bank — though it did my back.

Resources

Native Plant Species Planning — Jason Pepetone (email)

Native Plant material — www.connon.ca

Stone — www.limberloststone.com

That said, this is where it ends. In the new home construction market, the incentive cupboard is mostly bare. No way you say. Way. Believe it or not, the majority if not all of the incentives are directed toward the retrofit market, as well as non-profit and commercial – quietly avoiding new homes. Tough question why but the official answer is that the retrofit market has more to gain than the new homes market being that older homes are less efficient, new homes are built to a better standard, so incentives aimed at old homes will be more effective, shooting fish in a barrel. Also, retrofits are a more significant proportion of the voting population… Did I say that.

That said, if the majority of homes that can make a difference are legacy, and new ones represent an insignificant amount, what difference will it make in the grand scheme of things to include them too? How much more would it really cost or what’s it take extra to incentify the few new homes? Strange enough to wonder if there is another reason.

I think if you were to really think about it, you could consider that with time in the equation, putting tax money into an old home to plug this leak and that will bring it up to a moderate, though better, energy standard than it was. Obvious. This will be likely good for another 10-15 years before the next or subsequent owner decides it’s time to reno and improve once again – but likely not before. So, the chance of energy improvements on this legacy before another decade is slim.

On the other hand, putting tax money into a new standard home that could take it from marginally better – and I mean only marginally in many cases with some builders (http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2009/new_home_nightmares/main.html) – to much better could mean a home that far exceeds legacy standards for the next 25 to 30 years before a reno is required or desired. This equates to almost twice as long. Over simplified logic but logic at that. Because this is at least arguable, it leaves me wondering why new homes could be left out at all when they stand the greater chance of reversing our negative trend of destructive consumption on our planet and resources.

Never the less, this is the case and it’s not about to change.

Enough complaining. There are a few incentives that exist for new green homes worth pursuing. The difficulty in finding and interpreting these is another discussion but with the help of Google and some assistance from our geothermal equipment supplier we were able to locate the following incentives, tax rebates or rumours. I’ll certainly let you know how it goes.

It seems the incentives for new homes are focused around Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Insulation, and of course appliances which include all items installed that become “property” of the home — requiring install rather than furniture — ie. Refrigerators, dishwashers, ovens, HRV’s and built-in fans, AC units, etc.

For us, we will pursue the straightforward — geothermal, appliance and HRV credits or tax deductions. It’s a long shot if insulation has a chance since the wording in the website is very convoluted. For clarity on geothermal, I contacted our Canadian heat pump manufacturer as I believed they should know and happily they turned out to be very helpful.

Randy Waylett – National Sales Manager of Northern Heat Pump says:

“Ontario Government:  http://www.mei.gov.on.ca.wsd6.korax.net/english/energy/renewable/index.cfm?page=geothermal
Ontario Government should match the amount received from the Canadian Government program – $4375 ??

Canadian Government:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/retrofit-homes/retrofit-qualify-grant.cfm?attr=4
Should qualify for rebate of up to $4375 for the geothermal system installation – both retrofit and new system construction

The Ontario Government has been matching the Federal Government rebates which used to be $3500 for the Fed Government program and $3500 matched by the Ontario Government program for a total of $7000.

Please see http://www.mei.gov.on.ca.wsd6.korax.net/english/energy/renewable/index.cfm?page=geothermal and click on Financing A Geothermal System.

Now the Federal Government program has been increased to $4375 and I am assuming the Ontario Government is still matching?? You should check with your installing contractor of the heat pump system who will need to certify the system through the Canadian GeoExchange Coalition (CGC) in order to qualify for these rebates. They should be familiar with the process required and all the paperwork that needs to be filled out in order to get the rebate monies, etc.

Regards, Randy

CGC website:  http://www.geo-exchange.ca/en/geoexchange_financial_support_grants_rsc70.php“

In addition to Randy’s advice, I located:

Geothermal
Retail Sales Tax – 3.4% of Invoice
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/english/refund/windgeo/
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/english/notices/rst/44b.html

$8750
http://www.homeperformance.com/ontario-rebates-toronto-hamilton-london-barrie-orillia
http://www.homeperformance.com/ontario-geothermal-rebate-grants-for-geothermal-heating

Real Property – Appliances, lighting, room A/C
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/english/notices/rst/68.html

HRV
$750
http://www.homeperformance.com/ontario-hrv-rebate-grants-for-heat-recovery-ventilator


To sum up, finding and understanding whether we qualify for grants or rebates has been tedious at best. Many many hours have been spent and up until recently, we have been sure there were none. Though our supplier, 4 Seasons could be educated in this area of understanding, as most certainly it would help them to sell a unit or two, they haven’t offered assistance in this perspective as I can guess is similar with other suppliers for various practical reasons; mainly that information just isn’t available to them any more than it is to you and me.

So the short of it is, do your homework, ensure your supplier is qualified and certified by the CGC to do the work, as is 4 Seasons, and inquire if the supplier is willing to do the paperwork for you or provide guidance as part of the deal up front – you don’t want this to be an additional cost as it can be time consuming.

Last note, the grass is never greener over there for me but the US have a leg up on us with a 30% rebate on the geothermal bill – wow:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index#c6

There were some very good and telling questions – many of which were impossible to answer however in such a short time. For example, we are often asked “what does building LEED cost above building regularly?”. A good question but a philosophical one as I’ve highlighted in previous posts. See Rationalizing Building Sustainably or Sustainable Building is Upside Down.

Another great question was were there any hurdles or impedances with the city? Ikes. Again, the answer is deep but in short – some very small practical issues. Yes there were a couple of situations which were unusual and unreasonable. For example when we submitted our finished plans to the city for approval, we were told we couldn’t use cork flooring in the kitchen…

When we asked for a reason, we were told that it wasn’t durable enough for the kitchen — no further explanation. No consideration that it is recycled, recyclable or even that the subjective judgment didn’t take into account the user and their habits for wear. Never-the-less we adjusted the plans to not show cork and resubmitted. Now this seems like no big deal. But think this through. How much time did this cost us and how much money aside from time delay — Branthaven had to do the paperwork to submit twice, go down to the city twice, and have an architect redraw the plans for us and reprint multiple sets, twice. I would estimate that this arbitrary and uneducated off hand conclusion by the city cost us $1000 or more dollars.

So what. In the grand scheme of things this issue is tiny – compared to the mounds of paper and plans, compared to the overall budget. But, if you consider that every dollar we have to make has an exponential negative effect on the ecology and resources than it was more like tens of thousands or piles of carbon footprint. But I think the greater issue is in what the situation represents.

What it represents is a general lack of understanding or engagement by the city. That this person practices in the city without an education on sustainability in even a basic sense is challenging. That this person, independent of the standards within the city, can affect a project that is looking to make change and improve our community is addidng difficulty to an already tedious endeavor. And also that their is no process internally at the city to connect planning, engineering and permitting to understand the needs and differences in LEED or Green builds so that they can have a more communicative and proactive involvement with this leading form of construction within their own fence. This is the real issue – the city is not engaged and doesn’t yet have a process for change management with regard to LEED or sustainability. They suffer, like most of the industry, from ignorance and a passive resistance to change – leaving it for someone else to deal with, the next shift, on another day.

To reach sustainable goals, we all have to get involved, all absorb the R&D costs and do our part. This can’t exclude the city, or any of us.

Well, presuming those are both the same thing and I don’t believe they are entirely, you have to decide first on your philosophy around EXTRA cost. Oh no you say, here he goes. Wait. I’ll break the argument into multiple parts over a series of posts.

Part 1 – Quality vs. Sustainable

Really, this is a good question. I’ve known many people who’ve either had a custom home built for them or have purchased a new production home and have in all cases been at the helm of the selections of materials from the guts to the finishes. The burden of choice.

In all cases they had to come to terms with the level of perceived quality that they wished to balance — costs versus return of enjoyment. This can be apposing scales where you pay too little and there is product failure or you pay to much and there is buyer’s remorse. However, in most cases, they chose perceived quality and they paid. That said, and cynicism aside, was there a possibility that the products were actually of good quality? Of course. In any product is there a guarantee that it is of best quality? No. But chances are that the highest quality is also the most costly to produce and therefore the most costly in market. So if you combine perceived quality with price…

If anyone has been through the selections process, they’ll know that there is no shortage of choice out there. All choices come with differentiation; imported, efficient, trendy, inexpensive, beta, designer, sustainable etc. — all are attributes associated with the product or the buyer but not what defines its use. Sustainable is only an attribute in the end no matter how intrinsically important we may believe it is.

The long point I’m heading to is that one of the key features of a sustainable product is in its quality. Sure, measuring sustainability is a complex matrix that includes cost of manufacturing on the environment, human health, geographic location relative to build site, economic disparity and so on. But a big component is still quality in performance and longevity of use. So, if quality accounts for a large part of the cost of a product or material, how much of the cost of the material is locked up in the purely sustainable portion. As likely none as much as it may be all.

In all practicality, I’m guessing next to none. My guess and philosophy is that beyond quality, the cost impact on sustainable goods is being absorbed by the manufacturer and our economy for now, perhaps not purely altruistically but rather in a muddle of  R&D minus grants plus pollution controls less tax breaks plus worker safety and process reporting etc. minus cheap fuel and money. In the end, the most practical cost basis for pricing sustainable goods is cost of material in, plus, labour and overhead — the same as making any decent quality product in a domestic market.

So, to sum up, we believe that because our house is built of quality and long living products and materials first, with a focus on sustainable best practices as a decisive differentiator between a myriad of product choices, sustainability had little bearing on final cost. Choice and an open market based on competition regulates this naturally.

In any event, one industry that has thus far maintained a high level of local in its diet is home building. As a matter of cost, labour practicality and standards, the majority of a home is or can easily be quite local.

But, just how local does local have to be? For us consciously, we want to support our community first; hiring a Burlington builder with families in this town that use an extended team of local contractors was important. Materials are also often local too, at least in highlight, such as drywall from CGC Inc. of Oakville, lighting from Contrast, metal products from Bailey and KN Crowder, wood products from Goodfellow or Turkstra with local mills, concrete from local manufacturing and the list goes on. But as holes develop we begin expanding out from there so taking care of Canada makes sense to us. Canadian white cedar and other woods from Quebec, stone from local and northern Ontario quarries and so and so forth outward.

The issue is that to be sustainable, we need to encourage or support a local economy, design to consume conservatively and use restraint over the urge to pursue choice before common sense. Strangely though, to qualify for a category of LEEDs, the pinnacle of sustainable best practices, much of the materials we choose have to be sourced within a few hundred miles so as not to negatively effect the environment via a high carbon cost. The balance is tricky. It may be closer to source from a US firm in NY State than from a company in Ontario, and in fact, it is reported that sometimes less fuel is consumed in the transport of some foreign goods to our market by ship than via truck a province away. This adds complication to the decision for sure as it pulls us away from the Canadian community.

In the end though, with a little homework, a protractor and your concious you can make a good decision on what products and materials will best suit your sustainability philosophy – to be pramatic or dogmatic is up to you as long as the winner is a sustainable outcome that benefits the ecology and future generations.

Small irony in all this. We recently bid on a large interactive project for a leading Niagara home builder. In the end, we lost the job on cost, with the labour going to India. Apparently, much of the costing decisions home builders have to make these days is no different than other categories — downward cost pressure from consumers and their lack of awareness of the inherant benefit of supporting community is chasing even this last vestage of local, off shore.

What has been a lot of effort has been sourcing for a few reasons that simply shouldn’t be.

1. Communication
Ironically, finding suitable suppliers of sustainable goods and services is tricky when you have a criteria of sustainability. This criteria seems like it should have minimal effect on products; locally produced or sourced, energy efficient, eco-conscious, excellent quality, affordable and available but it is limiting by cutting down on the selection pool on suppliers.

Now the difficulty isn’t with locating the goods themselves. In fact, there are countless helpful resources for materials and suppliers, be it online or in print, that point you in the right direction toward piles of info to absorb and decisions to make in order to narrow the menu. However, once you’ve chosen the product or service, the hard part starts.

Getting the suppliers to react, to reply to emails, to quote or return phone calls, is often tiring. Basically, the service of sustainable goods and construction materials in general isn’t where it should be in our region.

Perhaps it’s a case of a good run in a busy economy, or because of shortages in availability, or because of limited technical ability behind technical online faces or pure lackadaisical attitudes but whatever the reason, this symptom of a greater problem makes the task of finding the right fits for our home the most time consuming task.

In the end, many suppliers of sustainable products are just too hard to deal with. No, not more than other suppliers but when you consider that their products can cost more and may have more limited availability, adding hard to deal with in the mix doesn’t make convincing the average altruistic but tentative consumer or builder that much easier.

2. Knowledge
The next experience from some suppliers once located is equally confusing but more easily explained. That is that some of the suppliers we’ve dealt with simply don’t fully understand what they are supplying or have an arms length understanding of sustainability and where their products fit into the criteria of the category. For them, it can be just another product in a supply chain and without personal or corporate sustainable beliefs and practices, it is just another product.

Furthermore  and almost more importantly, there is a general lack of relationship between the products they supply and other products that will cohabitate with theirs in the sustainable home. Essentially, their is a subtle lack of graciousness to acknowledge their roommates and to lead you in the right direction toward others. There is a general lack of time available to educate the consumer or builder as to the benefits of sustainability beyond the product, and certainly little time to share in the knowledge base of what other products may be available either in a competitive set or otherwise.

If sustainability is to be as successful as we need it to be in the short time we have to reach goals for our ecology, this frontier has to participate beyond selling a product. The pressure against them is a building industry that is hesitant to change and is looking for every reason to stick with status quo and worry about change and new suppliers the next time. And you can’t blame them, it isn’t easy to change sometimes.

In the end, we’ve managed to locate most everything we needed to suit our design and along the way we’ve dealt with many suppliers who stood out as being communicative, helpful and resourceful. Along with Branthaven, our builder, it’s these partners that have made the overall build successful — providing quality products and services and a positive learning experience while also creating an atmosphere of  sustainable community.

Some of these partner suppliers that come to mind so far:

+ Stüv Fireplaces – 80+% efficient wood stoves
+ Schreiber Roofing – TPO Roof system
+ Pella Windows – Energy Star FSC Windows and Doors
+ Jarvis Insulation – Closed Cell Foam Insulation
+ ALD – Energy efficient lighting calculations and design specifications

Though the top of mind costs do appear to be significantly higher from the invoice – 10% to 25% for LEED qualified materials and technologies, my observation and experience is that in general these solutions are also significantly better – quality + performance + longevity — and I believe this is worth weighing.

What has kept the costs per LEED point down however has been the design. Instead of looking at sustainability as something we can buy our way through using LEED as a structure, designers should first review the power of good, simple and logical thinking as a first go to solution. To the credit of the LEED program in recognizing this, many points can be gained by utilizing intelligent design solutions in the home in lieu of tech to reduce everything from excess materials dependency, energy waste, material redundancy and material waste – all equating to less costs at end of build and over time.

With this in mind I feel the cost of build for LEED is and can be lower than often quoted. If anyone is considering a LEED build, I believe it’s worth the extra costs for LEED certification because if you are building for a sustainable goal independent of LEED, the $2+K for process is essentially the only additional cost, and for some, possibly well worth the label that defines the result.

The issue is that when building a sustainable home, rather than conventional, the sustainable model is upside down in the order and cost of the build process. Really, it is. I don’t mean that you put the roof on before the walls but I do mean that all materials and systems have been stepped up in quality and complexity, require more attention and a particular order of completion that is somewhat different than typical.

Take heating for example – and I’m over simplifying for sake of argument. In a typical house the order is the foundation followed followed by walls, sub floors, roof deck, electrical, insulation, roof shingles, drywall starts, venting and ducts, drywall finishing and painting, flooring and lastly don’t forget to pick up a furnace on your way home honey. Done.

Now take a sustainable home – like in our case a high performance one. The first thing is to plan the heating, followed by foundation, followed by heating dig/drill, followed by walls and sub floors, finished roof system (no temporary), install heating GSHP units and HRVs, ducts, electrical, insulation, radiant floor system embedded in concrete finished floor, drywall and finishing and paint.

Subtle difference I know and in some cases this can be adjusted but the big thing is it’s different and the weight of the costs are in those few items that got loaded up front. So big deal – what’s the problem. Well the problem is:

1. Trades are used to the traditional order of things so a floor that goes in early get’s damaged – so you have to cover the floor with costly plywood coverings – wasteful too

2. Banks are used to the traditional order for their financing draws on a point system so a cost weighted toward the beginning leaves everyone scrambling to pay for the heavy upfront outlay before the bank catches up on the paperwork

3. Many systems are attached to each other determining installation order, or require trades working in isolation without overlap in the home so adjusting the order is complex or impossible – ie. insulation is a vapour until expanded so nobody but the installer is in the house – means more time, or radiant floor that will be embedded in cement requires testing during install to the subfloor and prior to concrete pour therefore the whole Geothermal (GSHP) system must be operational – not thrown down there at the last minute after the house is done when you find one on sale

In the end the outcome is a highly efficient home that looks like all the rest – it’s in the order of build and restrictions of install that can cost more due to timing and damage from trades not used to working with the new sequence.

Typical house designs treat the interior environment as one single climate zone when considering heating and cooling loads. This legacy was necessary out of lack of understanding of the interior climate but also due to limitations of heating and cooling equipment and pure cost considerations. However today there remains no logical reason to continue with this legacy idea.

The problem is that it ignores imbalances in temperatures from one end of the home to the other as well as possible passive methods for mitigating temperature fluctuations within the interior. The idea has been overcome the elements with more power – put in a large Heating and Air Conditioning system to ensure everyone is comfortable at least part of the time, in the majority of the home.

Modern house and building design looks at the house as a system or organism – using technology and design to solve inequities or imbalances in heating and cooling needs for the building. These new ideas also consider the occupants and their desires for comfort, at different times of the day, in different locations of the home by function as well as the external pressures on the interior climate which can differ from the North or South sides of the building.

From considering the home as a system – including zones for climate and passive means to control temperature – the house can achieve exceptional energy efficiency as well as occupant enjoyment.

We designed our house to accommodate various comfort zones in two ways. 

First, using radiant and ground source we have zoned different areas of the house for efficiency eg. cooler bedrooms than activity spaces. But secondly and most important, the house recognizes the different climate zones created by a North and South side. 

By locating bedrooms on the cooler North side within which occupants are naturally more forgiving of cooler winter room temps and more appreciative of cooler summer room temps and separating and insulating these rooms from the south facing windows with a hallway allows us to mitigate the interior temperature fluctuations using windows to the exterior as well as interior windows to the rooms. 

The windows to the rooms from this hallway carry natural exterior light into the spaces without the heat. A white TPO roof membrane also reflects a tremendous amount of light into the rooms but without heat gain – reducing energy load of cooling and also desire for artificial light by day. 

The heat gain in this hall during winter and shoulder months can be used to load the concrete floor, charging the radiant, as well as transfered into the rooms when necessary via their transom windows and redistributed using ceiling fans. 

In the end, controlling the house climate with a system of passive techniques and mechanical technologies will achieve a high level of efficiency and comfort for the long term  - for sustainability and the ecology.