Passive Homes Save Energy

It may be possible to heat your living space by hosting a dinner party. With cutting-edge, well-insulated “green” homes, you may not even need a furnace or boiler, just your body heat.

“It’s like living in a glass thermos,” says Dr. John Eckfeldt, a physician who built a passive home in bitter-cold Isabella, Minn. Eckfeldt notes the temperature inside remains comfortable even as he watches snow falling outside.

In these homes the windows never feel cold, nor do the concrete floors, even though they don’t have in-floor heating. The homes also are super quiet because of insulation.

The technology started in Europe, where thousands of such homes have been built. Now it’s starting to catch on in the United States as consumers seek to cut energy bills.

Passive homes don’t require expensive solar panels or wind turbines. Instead, they focus on old-tech building science that is capable of reducing energy use up to 90 percent.

Blast From Past?

These homes are different from passive solar homes of the 1970s – south-facing windows for heating, thick walls and roofs, as well as efficient appliances and lighting.

The secret today is in superior insulation and air sealing. A mechanical system brings in fresh air, and it is heated or cooled as needed.

“It’s growing exponentially,” says Tom DiGiovanni, who heads the Passive House Alliance, a nationwide nonprofit group established last year to promote the standard.

Proponents say the passive standard’s prime tenets – insulation and air sealing – also can be used by owners of traditional homes because windows are becoming more affordable and building codes are demanding greater efficiency.

“It could be mainstream in five years,” says Nate Kredich, vice president of residential market development for the private U.S. Green Building Council, which has its own “green” rating system. The group, comprised of community of leaders, is working to make green buildings available to everyone within a generation.

By The Numbers

Passive homes cost 6 percent to 12 percent more than other types of new homes, but they recoup their investment in lower utility bills in seven to 12 years, according to DiGiovanni.

“The biggest extra cost is the windows,” he says, noting U.S. companies only recently began making triple-pane types. California’s Serious Materials makes ultra-efficient dual-pane windows which some U.S. passive homes have used.

“It’s innately reasonable,” says architect David Peabody, who designed the first passive homes in Washington, D.C.

He says the extra cost was about 8 percent, but the annual utility bills for the 4,200-square-foot homes are projected to be about $750.

U.S. households spent an average of $2,639 on energy for homes that size in 2005, the most recent year for available data.

Home Designs Limited

Most passive homes have limited windows and a boxy shape. Homes with curves and larger footprints require extra insulation and sealing, adding cost. Huge curved windows with upscale finishes can cost $450 per square foot.

John Semmelhack, a passive house consultant from Charlottesville, Va., says the criteria are very stringent. This is especially true if the owner is trying to achieve the top rating from the U.S. Green Building Council.

Regardless of location, passive homes cannot have a heating or cooling load above 4,755 BTUs per square foot. This is about one-tenth that of homes built to current building codes.

Passive homes also must be airtight, with meticulous sealing of ducts, joints, and hairline cracks.

To avoid overheating, the house must have exterior shading, ventilation and a cooling system. Generally, only a small solar panel is needed to meet the requirements of a “zero energy home.”

The Green View

WMB believes passive energy homes may provide many opportunities for manufacturers and suppliers to meet consumer demands, from materials to design.

As energy costs – particularly those for heating fuel oil – continue to jump at alarming and unpredictable rates, the consumer market will benefit from growing availability of passive homes.

It’s time to think inside, not outside, the box!

TechMan

Going Green Requires 2-Way Trust

“Going Green” is a slogan thrown around these days in business, government and schools. Green products may be environmentally friendly, but they may not work as well and could cost twice as much as “traditional” items.

In tough financial times such as these, finding ways to cut costs, hike productivity and increase revenue requires improvisation and innovation. In some cases, it’s not an issue of product choice but a matter of budget survival. Striking a balance is difficult.

A recent PR firm poll of 304 executives at Fortune 1000 companies underscores reasons why green products aren’t developing a wider foothold in cultural acceptance and making a stronger impact in our fragile economy.

Some 78 percent of respondents to a recent Gibbs & Soell survey identified “not enough return on investment” as a barrier to businesses going green. Some 71 percent of respondents also said “consumers’ unwillingness to pay a premium for green products or services” was an obstacle.

The poll, also involving 2,605 consumers, found just 16 percent of consumers believes most or all businesses are committed to going green. So what gives?

“Greenwashing” is still a fear on both sides, according to Tonya Garcia, blogging for mediabistro.com. Consumers are on the lookout for companies painting a false picture of their efforts, and companies are afraid to tout their sustainability efforts for fear of being called out, Garcia says.

“Given the general level of distrust of companies that exists right now among mainstream consumers, any greenwashing story that hits the general press undermines all companies who have a sustainability message,” Ron Loch, Gibbs & Soell SVP for greentech and sustainability, told Adweek.

Garcia says perhaps the solution is better corporate engagement with audiences on sustainability programs.

WMB’s solution is a simple one: Back up claims for green products with solid results and keep prices competitive with more mainstream, traditional alternatives. Give consumers a win-win – cost-effective and good for the environment.

For example, if you claim your cleaning product is eco-friendly, clearly explain in your advertising and labeling how that works so consumers can check you out. Mean what you say and say what you mean comes to mind.

The problem is that some companies jack their price while assuming, incorrectly, that consumers will pay more to help the environment. “Going Green” doesn’t equate to “Going Stupid.” That’s why ROI falls short; savvy consumers know a good deal when they see one.

Why not have your company, as part of corporate responsibility, produce eco-friendly and reliable products as a matter of regular business? It’s a two-way street if you want consumers to buy into what you offer as “Going Green.” Sincerity sells and, generally, keeps them coming back.


Long before the nightmare BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Procter & Gamble was advertising its Dawn dishwashing liquid as eco-friendly with images of it being used to clean birds.

While one might argue such images is nothing more than corporate self-serving, the timing of that campaign suggests otherwise.

“For over 30 years, Dawn has been doing its part to help save wildlife. From donating funds to important conservation projects to giving Dawn dishwashing liquid to clean wildlife affected by oil spills, Dawn knows there are lots of ways to get involved with the cause,” according to P&G.

“When you buy a bottle of Dawn and activate your donation online, one dollar, up to $500,000, will be donated towards the International Bird Rescue Research Center and the Marine Mammal Center.”

That's corporate responsibility.

The P&G ads, pre-BP spill, worked on several levels: friendly for the environment and gentle enough for wildlife, so it must be good enough for you and your family. Bravo! No rocket science, just a straightforward product pitch. Refreshing!

As WMB sees it, we’ve come a long way since the first Earth Day in 1970. Most of us recycle our trash at home and in the office; we seek energy-efficient appliances; and, of late, we’re more aware of driving fuel-saving vehicles (in large part because of higher gasoline prices).

The thing to remember, from corporations to consumers, is that anything worth accomplishing, for example a cleaner environment, requires tradeoffs and compromises by all parties.

In WMB’s view, measurable progress is not incompatible with ROI but is impeded by greed.

As for me, I practice what I preach at writenowworks.com.

If you like this post, please share it with family, friends and colleagues!