"Green" design, what do you think

I do have to agree with you on trying to eliminate teh federal government's involvement, but do you believe in more local government or better yet the utility co.'s incentive programs. The problem is that the systems are not economically viable w/o incentives, which I know should not be forced, but sustainability is mutally benificial and new technology does require a certain amount of investment.

Your points concerning high wattage appliances are well taken.
That is why I made the point of commenting on them as a separate concern.
I of course, realize that things like Air Conditioners, Electric Heaters, Stoves, Furnaces, all utilize high amounts of energy, and in such instances, must be handled differently.

Try this alternative.
Don't use electricity for these devices, use Natural gas.
High efficiency Gas Furnaces are rated in the 90% to 98% efficiency rating nowadays.
Much more efficient than any electric furnace.

Much more efficient than any electric furnace.

I dunno about that; electric heat pumps can have useful-heat efficiencies exceeding 100% [as a side effect of operation, they cool the outside, but this is not generally a problem]. To be sure, this over-100% efficiency is marred by costs for capital, maintenance, and repair; and by the fact that production of the electricity to run the heat pump is not 100% efficient. Still, at least in the winter, heat pumps may be a sensible alternative to direct heating.

Economic incentives from utilities are already being used where really needed. They are peak demand charges and, so-called, ratchet-rates.

Such economic realities, driven by the costs of production, yield such new thinking as the "off-peak" production of ice and the realted ice storage and harvest systems tied into the chillers on building. The chiller makes ice during off-peak hours then shuts down during peak hours, keeping the facility from adding to the peak demand and staying out of the ratchet rate impact for the buyer of electricity. The building cooling system "harvests" the ice for cooling and the occupants have little knowledge that the system is beyond-typical. Thus real world economic forces, coupled with inovation, yield advancement. That is what makes sense and will be self sustaining development in this field.

Schemes of "planned outcome", fueled by games with my money, are the work of socialists.

I have heard of such systems, and also of systems that use a similar method, but with evaporative cooling and lower nighttime temps to cool water then using that to boost the cooling systems. But these systems are on a much larger scale, what about small projects and resdential. As there are over 100 million homes in the U.S., small broad ranging changes in consumption would help the situation greatly. I do agree with you on your point of letting the market determine the value of such systems and their use, but how do you help change values?

Many homes, and buildings are built in such a temporary fashion that they do see as much value in these longer term investments. Building are no longer designed/built to last for long(100+ years), either the quality of contruction and materials is poor, or the building was designed for on narrow purpose and is not suitable for much else. For instance the new Sprint headquarters, the build quality looks decent, but what in the hell will that be when Sprint moves? (which has already become an possible issue.)

Don't get me wrong, I am not at home stewing about the environment, I just see sustainble design as better, more complete design, that is financially rewarding, if you can convince cleints for more intial invesment on DESIGN, and then maybe technology. The proper design of a building is much more important than the systems, they are there only to slightly modify the lighting/temp/air circ. of a space. A couple of hundred years ago there were buildings that were "comfortable" before these technologies came along, but we have ignored some of those techniques. As a young designer, I see that I can make some difference, so I want to start my career off in the right direction.

A trend for residential the last decade is moving toward the use of earth coupled heat pumps. A single well drilled with a buried loop gives 55 degrees for use in heating and cooling. The tecchnology is simple and the first cost is reasonable. The use of some of this as opposed to air-to-air equipement also gives a longer service life to the equipment as it doesn't have to adjust to the extremes of temperature.

My parents are preparing to build a new home with a geothermal heat pump system, and radiant floor heating, which work nicely together. These techniques are definitely not the norm though, which is why I would like to know the best way to encourage their use, as many people/businesses/builders are hesitant to try new things. I thought the ground temp was closer to 60-63 for the KC area. I plan to stay heavily involved in the designing of the house and systems, as it will be a great learning experience and a good portfolio piece.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.