It was nothing short of daunting trying to put "eco-friendly" and efficient items in the home. When starting this project, this wasn't even something we considered looking at, but since our home was so efficient we decided to at least see how much more efficient/sustainable we could make the home based on the products we chose and if there would be any extra costs or conveniences sacrificed.
You could see how this trend of "going green" really hit a peak in in the early 2000s in terms of companies testing the waters on profitability. Many websites listed links that are now defunct emphasizing different green products. Marketing "green" products obviously didn't have the profit that was hoped, as we found it difficult to assess how sustainable/efficient a product was. One thing is for certain though; if a product could save you money during its use, this was well advertised with objective comparisons.
Appliances
Cooktops:
Induction heat is relatively new and awesome for efficiency. It is up to 60% more efficient than gas or electric burners due to more direct transfer of heat with less loss. Induction tops heat just the pot size rather than a whole element making you use just the right amount of energy. They are decently expensive, running about $1000.00 for a quality top but are one technology that really was head and shoulders above the others for energy efficiency and energy use reduction so it was a no-brainer to go with one of these.
Oven:
Ovens have steadily improved in their insulation technology, even heat distribution and ways of cooking to decrease overall cook time. But of course, with classic American/Canadian thinking, they've also steadily increased in size. The salesman told me that wall ovens initially came out in 24" and 27" sizes. Now, the industry standard is 30" and available all the way up to 36". What's more is that people are buying double 30" ovens which takes up a huge amount of space. Logically, the bigger the oven, the longer it takes to heat and more the more energy is used. I cook a lot and wasn't willing to sacrifice my ability to once a year have 20 people over and cook a 45lb turkey with a separate oven for my potatoes. Demanding and unnecessary? Maybe. But I'm pretty average I think when it comes to expectations people have. That's why I picked a combo microwave/convection oven with lower full size 30" oven. Then something crazy happened. Through a miscommunication, the kitchen was built to accommodate a 27" oven and it was essentially not possible to change this. I literally reached my breaking point, found a corner at work to cry in, took the afternoon off as stress leave and called Braden to cry/yell about how I needed a 30" oven. Major first-world problem here. After some convincing, I took a look at the 27" oven. I called my mom up who brought her ultimate "test pan" which she used to pick her oven (note: most 30" ovens could not accommodate this massive pan when she went shopping). I tried out the "test pan" in this fancy 27" oven and to my absolute amazement, it fit!!! The oven's interior dimensions were actually bigger than my current 30" oven at home, heated way faster than a 30" oven and fits a huge turkey roaster. It is also a combo oven, so it has a smaller top oven which doubles as a microwave. This top oven had convection technology, but was tiny and the perfect size for for everyday cooking for two people. Its big enough to cook your potatoes in while the turkey is cooking in the big oven. It can also use the microwave and oven technology to cook things faster. I think the lesson learned here is that a quality oven can be extremely efficient and that a combo oven is a much more practical and efficient choice than two full-size double ovens. As an added advantage, by combining a microwave and an oven, you save lots of space. You can look at the combo oven we bought here: Kitchen-aid oven.
Fridge:
For fridges we bought the Consumer Reports magazine which lists all the new fridges in a graph showing usable interior dimensions, features and cost/year to operate (ie the Energuide rating system). We picked a Kitche-naid fridge offering water filtration, ice making, one of the largest usable freezers and costing approx $56/year which was under many fridges significantly smaller than it. Do you pay for this? Ohhh yeah you do. But as an average consumer expecting all these features, we paid more for efficiency.
Dishwasher:
Typically the more you spend, the quieter the dishwasher gets and the more efficiently it uses water. We picked based on the Energuide rating and the features using the Consumer Reports Guide for durability and ease of repairs as well. Make sure to scrape your dishes rather than rinse them so save water!
Laundry:
This was one appliance where an "eco" setting was an optional feature. It basically tweaked your desired settings to reduce water and energy use. Many of the units were capable of very effectively using cold water washing, used high efficiency detergent (that fancy "HE" logo) and had Energuide ratings to compare to. We picked an incredibly efficient washer/dryer which is also insanely quiet.
Overall, you'll spend more for efficiency, but if you have your product for at least 5 years, I would say you will ultimately recoup most of the extra cost.
Quick Recommendations:
1. Reducing energy use is going to be your best bet in terms of finding sustainable products as it was near impossible to figure out how sustainably things were manufactured and most places were not knowledgable on manufacturing standards.
2. Buy quality items you will keep for a long time. We found many appliances, countertops, cupboards were designed for a 3-5yr use cycle and not conducive to repair. This is simply wasteful. We focused on companies making quality products that were easy to repair and designed to last.
3. Design neutral. We designed a very traditional style house where the longer the product is meant to last, the more neutral it is. We hope this will mean we don't change the product simply because it is out of style or we got tired of the look.
4. Use the Energuide system for appliances. Most appliances have an Energuide label stating the cost to use the product over a year. This offers at least some objective comparison of an appliance's efficiency
5. Consumer Reports or similar magazines offered real-world testing and in particular, talked about how long the appliances lasted and how easy it was to repair, which is key for sustainability.
6. The Good Guide website offers reviews on many home products, including appliances, and gives a numerical score for sustainability based on Health Effects, Environmental Impact and Social Impact (ie whether the company gives back to the community). It was the best resource for choosing products for more than just their cost to operate. You can also learn about certifications for products beyond Energuide. It is an excellent website that I can't recommend enough!!!
7. Buying smaller may not save you money. The 27" oven we bought was only a $300 less than the 30" oven. This is frustrating and likely a reason people keep buying the biggest and best oven. Laundry on the other hand had bigger savings when it came to buying smaller, but wasn't necessarily more efficient so the cost to run the product was the same for less laundry being done.
Cool Sites:
1. Smeg: A European oven company which showcases the different, and much more sustainable, approach to kitchen appliances. They make smaller, high quality appliances built to last! We couldn't find this anywhere in Canada, but I hope to see companies move toward this approach.
2. Houzz: A design website that recently featured and article on sustainable appliances. A good read for sure.
Happy Appliance Hunting!
Ali and Braden
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Measuring your home's efficiency
As you now know, our house is based off passive house design. If you're reading this because you're interested in sustainable design, you may also be aware of other approaches, such as a straw bale house (article on one built in Saskatchewan here), the Earthship homes (short video on one in Manitoba here), homes using geothermal energy, and more. Regardless of what approach you choose, including if you are retrofitting your current home, having a standardized way to measure your home's efficiency, and compare designs and technologies, will be beneficial. One reason is that certain grants depend on measuring efficiency (although sadly none right now apply where we live). For us, an energy efficiency rating was part of the package in obtaining our energy efficient house design. It will give you an idea of exactly how much more efficient your home will be given your investment.
There are a few popular choices for measuring efficiency. I'll talk a bit about LEED, R-2000, Energuide and EnergyStar certifications.
R-2000
This is a widespread proven home efficiency certification system with homes that are built way above code requirements in many areas. With the R-2000 system, the home is either certified as R-2000 or it isn't. Builders need to be licensed to build R-2000 homes and homes need to be a certain level of efficiency for their climate and location. The houses must have safe heating, ventilation, conserve water and will have certain chosen features from a list of options for improving air quality and being environmentally friendly.
Potential downfalls that we heard about were that R-2000 was developed over 25 years ago and with current technology, we can shoot for much more than R-2000 certification. Another downfall is that the certification system does not have levels of efficiency in the sense that once it meets criteria, doing more to further improve efficiency in the home is not something that will be measured. Others state that the whole concept of creating an airtight home is flawed and based off old technology and can lead to moisture problems, however the R-2000 certification has been updated to address this.
LEED
LEED stands for "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design". It is a system of standards developed by the US Green Building Council in 1994. Several versions have come about since then. The main points from my understanding are that LEED in Canada is still mainly for commercial projects and the standards are sometimes the same regardless of where you live. It is also based off a points system whereby a given technology or product placed in the home is worth so many points. Products that have high point values may only be beneficial in Arizona and be inappropriate for use in the prairies so that has to be kept in mind. The other obstacle is that you need a LEED certified provider to build the home and I am not aware of any in Saskatchewan for residential. I found the LEED website in Canada confusing to say the least. I had a hard time finding any information for building a home. While this standard is well publicized and there are levels of certification to suit your style, I just don't feel that its nearly established enough in the Prairies for residential homes. If anyone has any experience with LEED I'd love to hear about it.
Energuide
Vereco used the Energuide rating system. For one, it was easy- there are companies that are certified to provide these ratings locally. Two, we love the 0-100 rating scale with benchmarks for homes built to code. 100 is the top score and requires the home to be airtight, insulated, ventilated and not require any purchased energy. See below for the table comparing ratings. It is simple and easily readable for the average person. Forms are available that provide projected energy costs, projected consumption and projected green house gas emissions. They will also provide some comparisons based on electrical vs natural gas heat and a percentage and dollar value amount of savings. A comparison for us was made between the equivalent home built to Saskatchewan building code standards and then to our home with all passive house features built in. We think this is a system that anyone could use for any house whether new or retrofitted.
EnergyStar
I'll say just a quick word on EnergyStar. This system is relatively new, being implemented in 2012 and developed by the Environmental Protection Agency in the US. You need a certified builder for your home and to receive certification your home must be on average 20% more efficient than an equivalent home. I don't have much more information on this system and because it is so new I think it will take time before we start to see these types of homes. I feel this system has major potential though because it aims for moderate, cost-effective gains using a system that is already highly recognizable to people from the rating system being used everywhere in the appliance industry. There are also already several builders in the city certified to build these homes.
Conclusion
So you have choice- even on the praries! We really feel what's most important for the average person is that deciding to evaluate efficiency is important if you want to improve on a budget or for resale of the home. You should know where your home excels and where it doesn't and evaluation systems will help. It was awesome for us to see our efficiency rating laid out so we could see what our money bought. This helped us decide against solar panels initially because we observed that it was the least cost-effective option currently and our money would be better spent elsewhere for now. From discussions with Vereco (our house design company) our house would far exceed R-2000 standards which is why they go with the Energuide rating. From my reading, the house would also be above EnergyStar certification as well.
There are a few popular choices for measuring efficiency. I'll talk a bit about LEED, R-2000, Energuide and EnergyStar certifications.
R-2000
This is a widespread proven home efficiency certification system with homes that are built way above code requirements in many areas. With the R-2000 system, the home is either certified as R-2000 or it isn't. Builders need to be licensed to build R-2000 homes and homes need to be a certain level of efficiency for their climate and location. The houses must have safe heating, ventilation, conserve water and will have certain chosen features from a list of options for improving air quality and being environmentally friendly.
Potential downfalls that we heard about were that R-2000 was developed over 25 years ago and with current technology, we can shoot for much more than R-2000 certification. Another downfall is that the certification system does not have levels of efficiency in the sense that once it meets criteria, doing more to further improve efficiency in the home is not something that will be measured. Others state that the whole concept of creating an airtight home is flawed and based off old technology and can lead to moisture problems, however the R-2000 certification has been updated to address this.
- More on R-2000 here
- Here's a article stating why we shouldn't do R-2000 homes
- Here's an article on the man behind R-2000, who lives in Saskatoon
LEED
LEED stands for "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design". It is a system of standards developed by the US Green Building Council in 1994. Several versions have come about since then. The main points from my understanding are that LEED in Canada is still mainly for commercial projects and the standards are sometimes the same regardless of where you live. It is also based off a points system whereby a given technology or product placed in the home is worth so many points. Products that have high point values may only be beneficial in Arizona and be inappropriate for use in the prairies so that has to be kept in mind. The other obstacle is that you need a LEED certified provider to build the home and I am not aware of any in Saskatchewan for residential. I found the LEED website in Canada confusing to say the least. I had a hard time finding any information for building a home. While this standard is well publicized and there are levels of certification to suit your style, I just don't feel that its nearly established enough in the Prairies for residential homes. If anyone has any experience with LEED I'd love to hear about it.
- Some information on LEED here
Energuide
Vereco used the Energuide rating system. For one, it was easy- there are companies that are certified to provide these ratings locally. Two, we love the 0-100 rating scale with benchmarks for homes built to code. 100 is the top score and requires the home to be airtight, insulated, ventilated and not require any purchased energy. See below for the table comparing ratings. It is simple and easily readable for the average person. Forms are available that provide projected energy costs, projected consumption and projected green house gas emissions. They will also provide some comparisons based on electrical vs natural gas heat and a percentage and dollar value amount of savings. A comparison for us was made between the equivalent home built to Saskatchewan building code standards and then to our home with all passive house features built in. We think this is a system that anyone could use for any house whether new or retrofitted.
- More on this from the Government of Canada website
- A list of service providers in Saskatoon here
Our home with passive design
|
Equivalent
home built to code
|
Savings
%
|
|
Energuide Score*
 |
87
|
62
|
N/A
|
Total
Energy Consumption in eKWhs/yr
|
15,930
|
53, 289
|
70%
|
Total
Energy Cost in $/yr
|
$233
|
$106
|
54%
|
Green
House Gas Emissions tonnes/year
|
287.70
|
784.50
|
63%
|
EnergyStar
I'll say just a quick word on EnergyStar. This system is relatively new, being implemented in 2012 and developed by the Environmental Protection Agency in the US. You need a certified builder for your home and to receive certification your home must be on average 20% more efficient than an equivalent home. I don't have much more information on this system and because it is so new I think it will take time before we start to see these types of homes. I feel this system has major potential though because it aims for moderate, cost-effective gains using a system that is already highly recognizable to people from the rating system being used everywhere in the appliance industry. There are also already several builders in the city certified to build these homes.
Conclusion
So you have choice- even on the praries! We really feel what's most important for the average person is that deciding to evaluate efficiency is important if you want to improve on a budget or for resale of the home. You should know where your home excels and where it doesn't and evaluation systems will help. It was awesome for us to see our efficiency rating laid out so we could see what our money bought. This helped us decide against solar panels initially because we observed that it was the least cost-effective option currently and our money would be better spent elsewhere for now. From discussions with Vereco (our house design company) our house would far exceed R-2000 standards which is why they go with the Energuide rating. From my reading, the house would also be above EnergyStar certification as well.
- A summary article discussing differences in standards in Saskatchewan is here
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Passive House
Hey all,
Since I recently attended an amazing lecture on Passive House Design by Stuart Fix (Professional Engineer, certified Passive house Designer) I'll explain our house in terms of its passive house design features, as this principle of building is what our home is based off of.
But first, you are probably wondering what "passive house design" is! In a nutshell, passive house design focuses on creating a superbly insulated, airtight home which takes advantage of solar gains.
Amazingly, this concept had its foundations in Saskatchewan way back in 1977. The Saskatchewan Conservation House was built in Regina by the Saskatchewan Research Council (Pictured below).
This house featured incredibly thick insulation (R40 in walls and R60 in ceiling- the same as our house) and triple glaze windows facing south with shutters angled to block sun in the summer and was very airtight. It had one of the first ever heat recovery ventilation (HRV) systems. When a building is airtight, it's like living in an insulated ziploc bag- good in the sense that hot air can't escape the bag, but you'd get sick building syndrome if you tried to stay there because there would be no air exchange! HRV systems essentially exchange air in the home with the outside air in a controlled setting and recover the air's heat that would normally be lost if air was just leaking out of the home. Although this home saw some success, the ideas laid out did not catch on in North America. Part of this was due to the fact that building code did not require it (and the build philosophy has always been to build to the minimum standard) and partly it was due to the fact that this home required new expertise to build. Lastly, with the oil crisis of the 1970s being largely behind them, it once again became cheap to run a house and efficiency fell by the way side. If you'd like to read more about this click here:
The Saskatchewan Conservation House: the birthplace of Passivhaus | News | Ecohome
http://www.passivehouse.ca/first-passive-houses-2/
Flash forward 20 years to the 1990s, when a man by the name of Dr. Wolfgang Feist in Germany developed the Passivhaus Standard. This is a set of requirements on space heating of the home, overall home energy requirements, air tightness and home comfort. These requirements are again all attained by making an airtight, superbly insulated home which takes advantage of passive solar gain. The European Union passed a resolution calling on all members to adopt the Passive House Standard by 2016. This is affecting how Europe builds homes. These standards are a great ideal to strive for, however they were based off what could be attained in Europe. Our frigidly cold climate on the prairies means that achieving these standards is much more difficult and expensive than in Europe. In Canada, we have 2 institutes- www.passivehouse.ca, which is for purist folk who abide by the rules set to the German standard, and www.passivebuildings.ca, which is for the pragmatic house builder. This is where our house comes in. Ronn at Vereco homes has designed houses which are incredibly energy efficient and affordable. Nearly all the sustainable technology (except our radiant floors and future solar panels) will pay itself off in a few years. This includes the extra thick insulation, getting a builder to build it so that its airtight, the HRV system, the upgraded glazed windows and the drain heat recovery system). He has done extensive research and graphed out what will pay off. This approach is great for the average Joe in that the technology/design can be attainable to all. This is why I feel that it applies to anyone making modifications to homes or building new homes. I will go into the different ways to measure a house's efficiency in the next post (think LEED, R-2000, Energuide, Passivhaus, etc!). For now, here's a look at some up-to-date construction photos : )
Since I recently attended an amazing lecture on Passive House Design by Stuart Fix (Professional Engineer, certified Passive house Designer) I'll explain our house in terms of its passive house design features, as this principle of building is what our home is based off of.
But first, you are probably wondering what "passive house design" is! In a nutshell, passive house design focuses on creating a superbly insulated, airtight home which takes advantage of solar gains.
Amazingly, this concept had its foundations in Saskatchewan way back in 1977. The Saskatchewan Conservation House was built in Regina by the Saskatchewan Research Council (Pictured below).
The Saskatchewan Conservation House: the birthplace of Passivhaus | News | Ecohome
http://www.passivehouse.ca/first-passive-houses-2/
Flash forward 20 years to the 1990s, when a man by the name of Dr. Wolfgang Feist in Germany developed the Passivhaus Standard. This is a set of requirements on space heating of the home, overall home energy requirements, air tightness and home comfort. These requirements are again all attained by making an airtight, superbly insulated home which takes advantage of passive solar gain. The European Union passed a resolution calling on all members to adopt the Passive House Standard by 2016. This is affecting how Europe builds homes. These standards are a great ideal to strive for, however they were based off what could be attained in Europe. Our frigidly cold climate on the prairies means that achieving these standards is much more difficult and expensive than in Europe. In Canada, we have 2 institutes- www.passivehouse.ca, which is for purist folk who abide by the rules set to the German standard, and www.passivebuildings.ca, which is for the pragmatic house builder. This is where our house comes in. Ronn at Vereco homes has designed houses which are incredibly energy efficient and affordable. Nearly all the sustainable technology (except our radiant floors and future solar panels) will pay itself off in a few years. This includes the extra thick insulation, getting a builder to build it so that its airtight, the HRV system, the upgraded glazed windows and the drain heat recovery system). He has done extensive research and graphed out what will pay off. This approach is great for the average Joe in that the technology/design can be attainable to all. This is why I feel that it applies to anyone making modifications to homes or building new homes. I will go into the different ways to measure a house's efficiency in the next post (think LEED, R-2000, Energuide, Passivhaus, etc!). For now, here's a look at some up-to-date construction photos : )
 |
| The front of our house faces West and features triple glazed "Zone D" windows which will actually contribute to the homes' efficiency rather than be a weak point. |
 |
| The South side of our home features angled shading which blocks sun in the summer and allows sun in in the winter when the sun is lower in the sky. Note that 9/16 windows are south facing in order to get maximal solar gain. We have 25ft of lot on the South side next to the home in order to ensure light reaches the home. |
 |
| The front of the house as it currently stands! Solar panels will eventually go on the angle roof awnings. |
 |
| View of the house from the back. |
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Ways to efficiently heat a home
One of the questions I've been getting asked a lot is "How are you heating your home? Is it Geothermal?"
Being highly uneducated about this in the beginning, I didn't even know what geothermal heating was. But after much research, I can safely say that no, our house is not going to use geothermal energy, but instead will use radiant heat. We didn't go with geothermal heat for a few reasons. One is that the initial cost is incredibly expensive at about $40,000- $50,000. The main cost comes from needing to drill about 125ft deep into the ground and run piping from there to the home. Once installed, you basically have free heating/cooling. The other reason is that we did not feel we needed it. Our home will have a super high efficiency boiler system with radiant in-floor heat and the electrical wiring rough-in for solar panels. Our roof is angled such that it will suit 2 rows of solar panels which have the potential to have our home heated entirely by solar power. This option allows us to buy the solar panels a few years down the road when they are more cost-effective and efficient (and when we have the money!).
It was a tough decision on whether to go with a radiant heat or electric radiators. Essentially, any efficient furnace or boiler could have been used to heat our home via electric radiators, forced air or radiant heat. This is because our home's efficiency is based on the building envelope being extremely well insulated, and as such will require little energy to heat. Our builder, Evermore homes, says everything comes back to having a super insulated building envelope and I firmly believe that this change alone would make Saskatchewan homes incredibly more efficient even if every other thing was kept the same with the home build.
Forced air was out of the question from the start. It provides an uneven heat (ie hottest where the vents are), heats air (which rises to the ceiling, causing the hottest place in your home to be near the roof, not where you are) and requires your furnace to cut in several times throughout the day to keep the house temperature stable (ie the temperature can fluctuate quite a bit). It is a very inefficient heating system when compared to forms of radiant heat.
Electric radiators are a very efficient and very inexpensive option, with prices similar to forced air. If you are ok with flat panel radiators on the wall they can provide a more even heat source. In our Vereco home, the included base heating type was with electric radiators as this is a step up in efficiency from the forced air option.
The ultimate option, and our major upgrade on this home, is radiant in-floor heat. In this option, tubing is run underneath the flooring (or concrete if in the basement) and is hooked up to a boiler system which heats the water to run through the home. There are several major advantages. First, it heats the home where you are (ie the floor) and is warm underfoot. This allows the home to be set at a slightly lower temperature (say 20 deg instead of 21) without you noticing because the heat is right where you are instead of at the ceiling where forced hot air rises to. It also heats everything attached to the floor such that standing by windows is not draughty in the winter and walls are not cold. Because there is no air being blown around, it also creates a healthier home with less dust. Radiant in-floor heat also provides a very consistent heat if you have flooring that absorbs heat well. For example, a tile floor has a high thermal mass, meaning it absorbs lots of heat and will give that heat off slowly and evenly over time. Carpet has a very low thermal mass, meaning it will not absorb heat well and thus can't give it off over time. Therefore, placing tile throughout our home will mean that when the boiler kicks in and achieves a 21 degree temperature, the house will stay like this for a long time as the tile will give this heat off for longer. Essentially, carpet is not an option for the thermal mass aspect and hardwood is out because it is not a floating floor and would have to be stapled in through the tubing which carries the hot water to the floor! Laminates, cork and tile will be our choices and we will pick something out which matches our budget and is environmentally-friendly.
The disadvantages are that in-floor heat is expensive- about $30,000 to do right with a very high efficiency boiler. The other thing is that Braden and I could find very little information on people doing this in Saskatchewan and as such it will be trial and error to see how much difference our flooring choice really makes in terms of providing a consistent heat. Our project is especially unique because our home will be more well-insulated than 99.9% of homes in Saskatoon and we aren't sure if this would make up for whatever flooring choice we made. This WILL for sure affect how responsive our home is to temperature changes. Because the home is so well-insulated and the floors will hold heat for long periods of time, there is no such thing as changing the homes temperature quickly in response to say a cold weather snap or warm up in the spring and fall. The home will take a while to adjust given its insulating properties.
There is much to be decided upon still, including the exact boiler we will use and we will keep you posted on this as we start to make decisions on our home. The company that produces the tubing for the heat is Uponor (http://www.uponor.ca) and has set the benchmark for quality tubing from my research.
Want to know more about heating systems in a fun, interactive way? This is the BEST website I found for it and is a great way to learn about the different options and why radiant is so energy efficient:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/2111
Also, we have now begun the process of picking out things for inside the home and will talk about our experience with finding efficient and eco-friendly products!
Ali
Being highly uneducated about this in the beginning, I didn't even know what geothermal heating was. But after much research, I can safely say that no, our house is not going to use geothermal energy, but instead will use radiant heat. We didn't go with geothermal heat for a few reasons. One is that the initial cost is incredibly expensive at about $40,000- $50,000. The main cost comes from needing to drill about 125ft deep into the ground and run piping from there to the home. Once installed, you basically have free heating/cooling. The other reason is that we did not feel we needed it. Our home will have a super high efficiency boiler system with radiant in-floor heat and the electrical wiring rough-in for solar panels. Our roof is angled such that it will suit 2 rows of solar panels which have the potential to have our home heated entirely by solar power. This option allows us to buy the solar panels a few years down the road when they are more cost-effective and efficient (and when we have the money!).
It was a tough decision on whether to go with a radiant heat or electric radiators. Essentially, any efficient furnace or boiler could have been used to heat our home via electric radiators, forced air or radiant heat. This is because our home's efficiency is based on the building envelope being extremely well insulated, and as such will require little energy to heat. Our builder, Evermore homes, says everything comes back to having a super insulated building envelope and I firmly believe that this change alone would make Saskatchewan homes incredibly more efficient even if every other thing was kept the same with the home build.
Forced air was out of the question from the start. It provides an uneven heat (ie hottest where the vents are), heats air (which rises to the ceiling, causing the hottest place in your home to be near the roof, not where you are) and requires your furnace to cut in several times throughout the day to keep the house temperature stable (ie the temperature can fluctuate quite a bit). It is a very inefficient heating system when compared to forms of radiant heat.
Electric radiators are a very efficient and very inexpensive option, with prices similar to forced air. If you are ok with flat panel radiators on the wall they can provide a more even heat source. In our Vereco home, the included base heating type was with electric radiators as this is a step up in efficiency from the forced air option.
The ultimate option, and our major upgrade on this home, is radiant in-floor heat. In this option, tubing is run underneath the flooring (or concrete if in the basement) and is hooked up to a boiler system which heats the water to run through the home. There are several major advantages. First, it heats the home where you are (ie the floor) and is warm underfoot. This allows the home to be set at a slightly lower temperature (say 20 deg instead of 21) without you noticing because the heat is right where you are instead of at the ceiling where forced hot air rises to. It also heats everything attached to the floor such that standing by windows is not draughty in the winter and walls are not cold. Because there is no air being blown around, it also creates a healthier home with less dust. Radiant in-floor heat also provides a very consistent heat if you have flooring that absorbs heat well. For example, a tile floor has a high thermal mass, meaning it absorbs lots of heat and will give that heat off slowly and evenly over time. Carpet has a very low thermal mass, meaning it will not absorb heat well and thus can't give it off over time. Therefore, placing tile throughout our home will mean that when the boiler kicks in and achieves a 21 degree temperature, the house will stay like this for a long time as the tile will give this heat off for longer. Essentially, carpet is not an option for the thermal mass aspect and hardwood is out because it is not a floating floor and would have to be stapled in through the tubing which carries the hot water to the floor! Laminates, cork and tile will be our choices and we will pick something out which matches our budget and is environmentally-friendly.
The disadvantages are that in-floor heat is expensive- about $30,000 to do right with a very high efficiency boiler. The other thing is that Braden and I could find very little information on people doing this in Saskatchewan and as such it will be trial and error to see how much difference our flooring choice really makes in terms of providing a consistent heat. Our project is especially unique because our home will be more well-insulated than 99.9% of homes in Saskatoon and we aren't sure if this would make up for whatever flooring choice we made. This WILL for sure affect how responsive our home is to temperature changes. Because the home is so well-insulated and the floors will hold heat for long periods of time, there is no such thing as changing the homes temperature quickly in response to say a cold weather snap or warm up in the spring and fall. The home will take a while to adjust given its insulating properties.
There is much to be decided upon still, including the exact boiler we will use and we will keep you posted on this as we start to make decisions on our home. The company that produces the tubing for the heat is Uponor (http://www.uponor.ca) and has set the benchmark for quality tubing from my research.
Want to know more about heating systems in a fun, interactive way? This is the BEST website I found for it and is a great way to learn about the different options and why radiant is so energy efficient:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/2111
Also, we have now begun the process of picking out things for inside the home and will talk about our experience with finding efficient and eco-friendly products!
Ali
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)