Green improvements can give your home a market edge November 2, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy, green building.add a comment
Green is “an additional power play,” says Michael Kiefer of Green DC Realty in Washington, one of a growing cadre of environmentally conscious realty professionals. “In a market where not everything sells, you need to differentiate. If you can stand out there alone, you really need to do that.”
Via the LA Times >>>
You can turn your place into at least a pale shade of green for, say, no more than $500. Or you can go all-out by spending thousands. It doesn’t cost all that much to switch out the lightbulbs or install water-saving devices. And although it is far more expensive to replace outdated appliances or leaky windows, it may prove more costly in today’s market not to make those kinds of improvements.
If the idea is to stand out from the crowd, the articles says, here are some things you can do to be green, from the easiest to the more complex:
* Lightbulbs: In permanent fixtures, replace your regular bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. CFLs use only one-fifth the energy of regular bulbs and last about 12 times longer.
* Water: Switch to low-flow shower heads and faucets, and adjust the float in the toilet tank. Wrap your water heater in a blanket of insulation and insulate the pipes that distribute hot water to your fixtures.
* Thermostat: Replace your dial-type thermostat with an electronic one that can be programmed to change the temperature when you are asleep or not home.
* Doors: New front and back doors not only dress up the place but also help save energy.
“New exterior doors and windows that are energy-efficient are a great investment,” says Fritschen, often increasing the value of the home by the same amount as they cost to buy and install.
* Appliances: If your refrigerator and stove are old, they will probably be the first things the buyer jettisons after moving in. So do yourself and the buyer a favor — replace these appliances now. And go the extra mile by upgrading to energy-efficient models. You’re likely to get back what you pay and then some, Fritschen says.
* Flooring: If the linoleum floor in your kitchen is worn through, consider replacing it with something made from a renewable source, such as bamboo or cork.
* Recycled materials: Using salvaged or recycled materials can be a winner for both your wallet and the environment.
People powered light switch needs no wires October 1, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy.Tags: energy, Light switch
add a comment
Via ecogeek.org …
EnOcean (a company that specializes in pulling power from ambient sources) has figured out a way to have the light switch be powered by you. That is, every time you flip the switch, a tiny generator creates a tiny charge. That tiny charge powers a tiny remote control that sends out a tiny signal that can be received by the light. All from the “power” of your flipping. Pretty cool.
The first adopters of the technology will be folks looking to retrofit old (possibly historically significant) buildings. But peel-and-stick, no-wiring-needed electronics are needed everywhere…and having them be self-powering is a true green innovation.
440,000 tons of chicken manure = power for 90,000 homes September 23, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy.Tags: energy, Renewable Energy
add a comment
The world’s largest biomass power plant running exclusively on chicken manure has opened in the Netherlands. The power plant will deliver renewable electricity to 90,000 households. It has a capacity of 36.5 megawatts, and will generate more than 270 million kWh of electricity per year.
The biomass power plant will utilize approximately 440,000 tons of chicken manure, roughly one third of the total amount produced each year in the Netherlands. Many European countries, including the Netherlands, suffer under an excess of different types of animal manure that pollute the environment.
Connecticut program helps homeowners go solar August 18, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy.Tags: Alternative energy, Connecticut, energy, Renewable Energy, Solar, solar power
add a comment
Image via Wikipedia From a post at ecogeek:
Under a new program, Connecticut will be providing low interest loans to anyone of “moderate or low” income. Residential solar systems will be installed for free, and then the residents will pay a flat low rate, presumably in exchange for the power the panels generate. While the upfront costs of solar panels (often more than $30,000) are out of reach for most homeowners, they actually promise to save money over the life of the panels. So the state is absorbing the up-front costs of the panels for anyone who makes less than 150% of the median income of their area.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=cef9ef29-5ad1-401d-93a9-91ec646a3187)
Does it cost more to NOT build green? August 7, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy, green building, waste reduction.Tags: Energy conservation, Energy Star, green building
1 comment so far
From Green Building Elements
comes the “Costs of NOT Building Green“:
Despite the narrowing gap in cost between green building and traditional “to-code” building, most builders and home buyers still perceive the green option to be significantly more expensive. The reality is that due to increased builder education and an influx of affordable green building products, a building can be built green within the same budget as a non-green building. According to Clark Wilson, CEO of Austin based Green Builders, Inc., “It’s our job as builders to find those green products that don’t drive up the price of the home.” For an informative breakdown on how green buildings cost from 0 to 2% more than non-green buildings, check out “The True Costs of Building Green” from the folks at Buildings.com.
Now that green building is an affordable option, it’s time to change the way we frame the affordability debate. Too long have supporters of green building been on the defensive, forced to justify the costs of building more energy efficient, healthier, more sustainable homes. Instead of focusing on the costs of making your building green, let’s talk about the costs of not building green.
Energy
With the help of the EPA’s ENERGY STAR program, advances in energy efficiency have resulted in savings of 40 to 60% over non-green buildings. Add in the water savings from low-flow fixtures, tankless water heaters, very efficient appliances, greywater systems, water-friendly landscaping, and rainwater collection systems and it’s clear how wasteful a non-green building can be.
Health
Paints, adhesives, and caulks can all contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs,) the greatest causes of indoor air pollution in the home, which have been tied to increased asthma rates. Wood products in the home can contain urea-formaldehyde, a known carcinogen that is banned in Canada and Europe and soon will be on its way out in California. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory studied indoor air pollution in homes and “found moderate to strong increases in respiratory and allergic health effects among children in homes with higher concentrations of selected VOCs.”The potential health risks of non-green buildings are reason enough for many to choose to build green.
Sustainability
Third in the green trinity is sustainability, the environmental cost of your building project. Green builders start by significantly reducing waste on building sites. While building materials that are not recycled or made from renewable materials might seem less expensive, the cost to the environment must be considered. And it’s not just the sustainability of the product that should be considered, but the company’s manufacturing process as well. Companies that have earned the Cradle to Cradle certification represent the height of sustainability.
Read More at the Source Page >>>
Do “green” home improvements increase resale value? August 6, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy, green building.Tags: energy, green building, residential building
add a comment
Low Impact Living: The Bottom Line — Green Home Upgrades & Home Values
From green building elements.com
With many cities experiencing a real estate “slump”, homeowners around the country are looking for ways to stand out from the slew of homes on the market, while improving their home’s resale value. Other homeowners are planning for the future: a future of ever-rising energy prices. Regardless of your situation, you may be asking yourself if green home improvements increase the home’s value. The answer isn’t as straight-forward as some might hope.
According to a post at building elements.com the first thing to remember about real estate value is “location, location, location.” Like any home improvement, the return on your investment will depend on the value of your house and others in the neighborhood, as well as the local market. Other factors like the quality of the workmanship, and how soon you move after making the improvements weigh in as well. Here are some points to consider:
· Green amenities and features may not appeal to everyone, but energy- and money-saving green features will.
· If you’re building a new house, or diving into a significant remodel, you might want to consider getting it certified as green. At resale, certification can provide buyers interested in all kinds of green benefits assurance that they are getting what they paid for.
Nationally, the US Green Building Council, developers of the LEED rating system, have put forth a new residential certification called LEED for Homes. LEED certified homes use less energy, water and natural resources, and their construction creates less waste, among other benefits. LEED is probably the most well-know certification standard in the US, mainly due to its widespread commercial acceptance. Other nationwide programs include the Environments for Living certification, which includes an energy usage guarantee, and the EnergyStar program, which focuses on home energy efficiency.
· Many green homeowners dream of living “off the grid”, meaning that they can supply all of the energy needed to power their home. Solar can be all or part of this equation. Technologies are improving with promises of more affordable solar on the horizon. But for now, residential solar installations are still expensive. State and federal tax incentives can help. For the past three years the US government has offered homeowners a 30% tax credit on solar projects (including photovoltaic systems and solar hot water heaters) up to a maximum of $2,000 per project. However, this incentive is set to expire at the end of the year and may not be extended. Some states provide tax breaks and rebates for solar installations, so take a look at the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) to find out what you may qualify for. Thirty-five states, including Virginia, offer net metering.
With the evolution of solar’s efficiencies, cost reductions, and net metering, payback periods for the original homeowner can now be in the single digits. But what about when you sell your home? Can you recoup that investment? Since residential solar installations are still relatively rare, it’s difficult to say. To answer the question, appraisers are using this rule of thumb: half of the cost of a solar installation can be recouped at selling time. Or you can look at it from the energy savings perspective: according to The Appraisal Journal, every $1 decrease in energy costs results in a $10 to $25 increase in home values. If this holds true, eliminating a $1200 annual electricity bill translates into at least a $12,000 increase in home price.
Town 100% wind powered July 25, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy.Tags: energy, Wind
add a comment
From CleanTechnica.com, “Missouri Town Powered Fully by Wind”. The town of Rock Port, in Missouri, is another of the growing number of towns and cities laying claim to be powered entirely by a renewable energy. And though the small town only boasts a population of 1,300, it is the first community in the United States to be powered entirely by wind power.
“That’s something to be very proud of, especially in a rural area like this – that we’re doing our part for the environment,” said Jim Crawford, a natural resource engineer at the University of Missouri Extension in Columbia. “We’re farming the wind, which is something that we have up here,” Crawford said. “The payback on a per-acre basis is generally quite good when compared to a lot of other crops, and it’s as simple as getting a cup of coffee and watching the blades spin.“
image from Pixdaus: God Gave Us Pics!
Another benefit for the community is the tax that the wind energy developer that built the turbines must pay. Wind Capital Group, based out of St. Louis, has to pay more than $1.1 million a year in country real estate taxes. “This is a unique situation because in rural areas it is quite uncommon to have this increase in taxation revenues,” said Jerry Baker, and MU Extension community development specialist.
An additional bonus is that landowners can lease part of their property to wind turbines, reaping further profits from the renewable energy source. Add on top of that the savings to rural electric companies, and at least 20 years worth of electric service (the turbines lifespan), and all up, Rock Port Missouri has hit gold – so to speak.
Go to Source Page at CleanTechnica >>>
Home buyers want energy efficiency July 12, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy, green building.Tags: green building, residential building
1 comment so far
“Greater energy efficiency drives consumers to choose a green-built home,” according to a survey by the National Association of Home Builders. With the cost of fuel skyrocketing, and consumers looking to fuel efficient cars to help at the pump, it is no surprise that they would also be looking for energy efficiency from their buildings.
According to the survey, which polled 800 registered voters about how important certain features would be in their decision to build a green home or remodel their current home to be more green, 64% said that energy efficiency would be the most important feature, the healthier environment of green homes came in second at 55%, and 49% percent believed it would be the right thing to do for the environment.
Read more at Green Building Elements >>>
How will rising fuel costs impact transportation plans and land use decisions? July 1, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy.Tags: energy, fuel costs, land use, transportation
add a comment
Over the next four years, we are likely to witness the greatest mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highways in history. By 2012, there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways than there are today—a decline that dwarfs all previous adjustments including those during the two OPEC oil shocks.
Oil Shock: Analyst Predicts $7 Gas, “Mass Exodus” of U.S. Cars
Oil at $135? That was just the opening skirmish in the “peak oil” wars. The latest smart money? $200 oil in 2010, with gasoline at $7 a gallon. And that is going to turn Americans into car-shunning Europeans once and for all—poor Americans, at least.
That’s the latest gloomy forecast from Jeff Rubin at Canadian brokerage CIBC World Markets, who just a few months ago figured $200 oil would be a thing of the distant future—like 2012. <CONTINUED>
Suburbia strained by expensive fuel June 30, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy, land use.Tags: energy, gas prices
add a comment
People tend to deal with pain at the pump with short-term fixes—driving a little less, experimenting with bus lines and the like. But it takes the expectation of sustained high gas prices to drive a shift as permanent as moving house. When we fiddled with this toy to calculate how expensive life is in those deceptively cheap suburban digs, we didn’t think its findings would come true so soon.
Breaking Point: Pricey Gas Drives People to Move
Posted by Keith Johnson
Higher gasoline prices appear to have definitely broken the camel’s back. People aren’t just driving less—they are actually moving to save gas money each month.
On Wednesday, a survey of 900 Coldwell Banker agents showed a remarkable 96 percent said that rising gas prices were a concern to their clients, and 78 percent said higher fuel costs are increasing their desire for city living. <Read More>
