Jump to content

      



























Photo

Would you pay more for environmentally friendly construction?


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#21 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:28 AM

Having just returned from California I was suprised by the amount of solar panels on houses and electric cars I saw. While I am not sure I am sure that its partly because of regulations but there is also a lot of services for electric cars and quite a few eco alternative stores. That said on the flip side they don't seem to recycle anything certainly don't split their waste and public transit is non existent. Victoria's bus system puts San Diego's to shame.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#22 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:52 AM

I'm not arguing that in some circumstances it makes sense to use lower power devices. If your power source is a temporary generator, you'd be wise to lower your energy demands. If your power source is a big waterwheel or nuclear, then does it really make sense for thousands of people to be buying $10-$50 light bulbs full of junk?

Not only are the bulbs wasteful when you throw them away, but think about the resources consumed by the 10 different factories making parts for the silly things.


I've said it here in the past, incandescent are NOT inefficient for 8 months of the year here, they are 99% efficient, as they provide heat to augment our heating systems. And they are only on when we are home or in the room, or should only be, just like our heating systems. It's only when you measure their output of LIGHT that they seem poor. And that's a factor in Arizona when you are blaring your air conditioner 20 hours a day. Here, or anywhere east of here, that light bulb works great for heating too.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#23 Dimitrios

Dimitrios
  • Member
  • 316 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:42 PM

I've said it here in the past, incandescent are NOT inefficient for 8 months of the year here, they are 99% efficient, as they provide heat to augment our heating systems. And they are only on when we are home or in the room, or should only be, just like our heating systems. It's only when you measure their output of LIGHT that they seem poor. And that's a factor in Arizona when you are blaring your air conditioner 20 hours a day. Here, or anywhere east of here, that light bulb works great for heating too.


Yeah, I'm not sure I buy that argument. We design lighting systems to provide light. Heating systems are designed to provide heat. Those ceiling-mounted light fixtures aren't doing anything to heat your home. They're heating the ceiling a bit - pretty much the last place you're interested in getting heat. Same for track lighting, pot lights, and chandeliers. Desk lamps and floor lamps, ok, maybe they're providing a bit, at least if you have a fan circulating the air around.

It does make sense to hold CFLs (and those whose policies forced them on consumers) to task for making sure they do what they're supposed to. I've had them for years, and don't believe I've ever had to replace one. Are they not long lasting anymore?

#24 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:57 PM

Are CFL's overrated?

Something marketed as an environmental savior actually contains mercury.

If each household breaks 3 bulbs per year either by accident or indirectly by sending them to a landfill, then between 300 kg and 9000 kg of mercury to the environment in the United States alone.

http://www.science20...overrated-77526

#25 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:05 PM

Those ceiling-mounted light fixtures aren't doing anything to heat your home. They're heating the ceiling a bit - pretty much the last place you're interested in getting heat. Same for track lighting, pot lights, and chandeliers.


That's absolutely not true. Yes, the optimum place for a heater is near the ground, but heating from above happens. I mean, by your statement, you are almost suggesting that heat does not rise, so baseboard heating somehow stops at human-body level. Electric radiant heat ceiling panels have been used for decades.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#26 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:18 PM

Those ceiling-mounted light fixtures aren't doing anything to heat your home.


They help to heat the upper floors of your home, and if you have the right fixture they will collect the moths for you.

#27 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,856 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:23 PM

It does make sense to hold CFLs (and those whose policies forced them on consumers) to task for making sure they do what they're supposed to. I've had them for years, and don't believe I've ever had to replace one. Are they not long lasting anymore?


I haven't kept records, but CFLs seem to last about 3 times longer than an incandescent bulb in my experience. That's a lot less than is promised.

#28 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:35 PM

The mandate to shift to CFL's is a business one. Any extra power get's sold to California anyway so we are not reducing. We need to through away a lot of tooling etc that efficiently cranked out incandescent bulbs not to mention inventory probably being disposed of. Right now there is no real infrastructure to recycle them so we have a toxic waist problem coming up soon. You dropping them off at the store and never seeing them again is not recycling...
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...end-finish.html

#29 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:13 PM

Florescent lighting is cheaper over the long term we just don't like the colour. If you go to any developing country you will be lucky to find an incandescent. It has been this way for years.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#30 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:14 PM

Florescent lighting is cheaper over the long term we just don't like the colour. If you go to any developing country you will be lucky to find an incandescent. It has been this way for years.


Do they like the colour?
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#31 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:17 PM

They like having light when it is dark. Personally having traveled a lot in tropical developing countries. I find florescent lighting on a warm evening very romantic.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#32 Urbanistco

Urbanistco
  • Member
  • 172 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:03 AM

I remember in university I took an energy engineering class. We did analysis on whether or not replacing bulbs to LED or other environmentally friendly ones was worth it. Long story short, in cold climates that are supplied by coal power or natural gas heating, it was more environmentally friendly to keep old light bulbs due to the additional heat they provided versus making up the shortfall through natural gas furnace (full lifecycle ie: fracking) or coal supplied electricity.

#33 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 12:15 PM

So much of our modern green movement is simply marketing and branding to increase consumption.

I would pay more for a well built house that would last indefinaty if upkept. That by its very nature would be "green" building. A good design with good quality windows and a solid envelope will get you most of the way efficiency wise as well.

Reclaimed materials is probably next in line as far as true low impact building goes...

Some of the other choices are probably more about your personal health and air quality than the environment. Living inside a brand new degassing house? Well, I know there are some who are concerned about this...

#34 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 12:35 PM

So much of our modern green movement is simply marketing and branding to increase consumption.

I would pay more for a well built house that would last indefinaty if upkept. That by its very nature would be "green" building. A good design with good quality windows and a solid envelope will get you most of the way efficiency wise as well


What about roofing? It's the only part of the home guaranteed to be toast within 15-30 years. Guaranteed.

Yet there are materials (metal, slate) that will last 50-300 years. And metal is not only highly recyclable, but your new shingle/tile or sheets can be made from almost 100% recycled material.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#35 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:34 PM

I haven't kept records, but CFLs seem to last about 3 times longer than an incandescent bulb in my experience. That's a lot less than is promised.


Was the CFL lightbulb switchover just one big tax grab?

By Stephen Hume, Vancouver Sun columnist


“As a Canadian, I feel that I have been scammed by the manufacturers of those CFLs and ripped off by the Harper government that had promoted them, had outlawed incandescents, and had collected tax on all of those very expensive CFL bulbs.

Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz2QZPAUJrO

#36 Dimitrios

Dimitrios
  • Member
  • 316 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:49 PM

So much of our modern green movement is simply marketing and branding to increase consumption.

I would pay more for a well built house that would last indefinaty if upkept. That by its very nature would be "green" building. A good design with good quality windows and a solid envelope will get you most of the way efficiency wise as well.

Reclaimed materials is probably next in line as far as true low impact building goes...

Some of the other choices are probably more about your personal health and air quality than the environment. Living inside a brand new degassing house? Well, I know there are some who are concerned about this...


Well, it's a really good question. We've gotten to the point in sustainable/low impact living debates where you have to debate tradeoffs between energy and materials issues. So all that reclaimed material sounds great, but top-end LEED homes with the highest R-values and lowest consumption of energy for heat and light use very modern materials (though I agree with the degassing concern; partial solution - avoid synthetic carpeting & high-VOC paint).

It's a similar debate to maintaining a car in top-notch shape for 20 years (but still guzzling gas at 15 MPG) vs buying new every few years; at some point, you do need to cut your losses on the old 1989 Grand Wagoneer and start from scratch. That Prius/Volt/Leaf may look like a yuppie toy, but at 50-70 MPG or more, it does command a lot of respect. I'm not sure that anyone thinks this way when it comes to houses, but I guess that's the difference between $25k for a new car vs $700k for a new house, at the low end.

I remember reading that Canadians on the whole are quite environmentally-minded, except for energy use for heating (cold climate) and transportation (big country, car culture).

[and a propos of nothing, having outed myself as a public employee, I should add that I'm home sick today, recovering from a stomach flu, and therefore able to surf VV during the day...]

#37 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:57 PM

That Prius/Volt/Leaf may look like a yuppie toy, but at 50-70 MPG or more, it does command a lot of respect. I'm not sure that anyone thinks this way when it comes to houses, but I guess that's the difference between $25k for a new car vs $700k for a new house, at the low end.


See, when the extra cost for a Prius is $10k or whatever over its gas-only equivalent, or 25% of the cost of the whole vehicle, that's a big jump.

But in a new home, where a geothermal system might cost an extra $10 or 15k, and the home is $700k, and you are going to amortize it all over 25 years, you'd think more would go for it. But maybe your builder says "do you want a $10k heating system or a $25k heating system?" and then it's look like double the cost for that component of the home.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#38 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,328 posts

Posted 21 March 2022 - 02:49 AM

This sounds like a good program.




Central Saanich offering interest-free loans for heat pump conversions

The loan is to be repaid over 10 years with a portion added to the annual property tax bill.

Central Saanich is offering a program to encourage homeowners to switch out their oil heating systems for heat pumps.

The program provides a $12,000 interest-free loan to help homeowners purchase a heat pump. The loan is to be repaid over 10 years with a portion added to the annual property tax bill. Homeowners can also take advantage of available rebates.

https://www.timescol...ersions-5179425

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 21 March 2022 - 02:49 AM.

  • Mike K. likes this

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users