What’s the most low maintenance green exterior?
I’m guessing low maintenance = green because you don’t need to paint and maintain it as often, like vinyl siding.. Ive seen some new rusted raw steel houses that looked good, except for a few careless hand prints..
Frankly other than resale value, I don’t really care if my new house doesn’t look the “status quo”, because I’m inside.. I would be alright with corrugated galvanized steel because it’s my retirement house and one day climbing a ladder might become impossible.
Why do most people need to keep up with the Jones’s? Is it our better half’s that demand the “status quo” and we obey? lol. Why cant society accept alternatives that are low maintenance and green?
Sorry my question turned into a rant.
Thanks!
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
stucco....or glass
Mike,
Steel siding is definitely low maintenance but does have higher embodied energy than wood. Fiber cement also has high embodied energy. Both usually contain recycled content.
Wood is great but comes with maintenance unless your into the weathered-blackened-barn look.
My personal favorite is pre-painted LP smartside. Painting is needed probably once every 12 years or so? Made from wood and treated with borate.
I also like vinyl. Martin Holliday has written a lot about vinyl and whether it is really "green". I personally believe it is (ish) and it is certainly low maintenance.
Great question- look forward to hearing others' thoughts.
I like fiber cement because it lasts. No chance of critter damage, you can get it now prefinished with a 30yr paint warranty (so probably 15-20 years at least will be ok). Durable stuff if you install it right. In terms of “greeness”, my thinking is the longer it lasts, the less materials go into reside projects, so overall fewer resources used over the life of the house.
Bill
on my first house I used locally sourced and milled wood on the lower section and galvanized steel corrugated panels and window trim on the upper. Idea being maintenance on the lower half is pretty easy, but I'll never have to touch the upper story again. I happen to think steel siding looks pretty good if you get the trim details right.
I am a fan of red cedar.
Personal knowledge of 50 years with virtually no maintenance.
Depends on the climate. I have red cedar here that is 15 years old and on its last legs. Cedar doesn't do so well in wet humid places. Also depends on the quality of the wood, old growth lasts better.
Yes. I think this depends on climate and type of cedar. Here in the southeast, eastern red cedar is abundant, it’s fairly rot resistant, but the carpenter bees love it. White cedar seems to hold up well everywhere and gets my vote for the “greenest” siding. Low embodied energy, no paint needed, and simple/clean end of life.
The northeast is not what I would call dry, I really cannot envision cedar having a problem in 15 years. Hell, I have had white pine last that long unfinished.
You can't beat the durability of brick veneer. Well detailed, it will outlast any siding.
EIFS also holds up quite well. You can except for some colour fade from the sun and can be more easily damaged in high traffic areas than other siding. Properly installed, zero maintenance.
The one nice benefit of EIFS is that it is installed over rigid insulation, changing this thickness is not a big up charge. Bumping up the rigid insulation is a cheap way to get a very high performance wall.
Flawed assumptions here:
Low maintenance does not equate to being green.
For the majority of Americans their home is their most valuable asset. This perceived value is why people maintain their property.
Galvanized steel looks like shit if it's not maintained. The more unique a property the smaller the potential pool of buyers.
People "keep up with the Jones's" in a variety of ways. It can be done via virtue signaling. " I drive a Tesla and live in a 2,000 sqft $1 million passive house. Look how green I am!"
Depending on your climate. Stone, Stucco, Adobe, Brick, Wood, can all be low maintenance and/or green.
Just so I understand, do all Tesla owners living in a passive house have suspect motivations, or just some?
Per my cousin who lives near Stanford Univ there's a lot of that type of thinking going around.
>Low maintenance does not equate to being green.
True, but all other things equal a more durable product is greener than a less durable one.
I wouldn't even say that. For example, concrete is more durable than wood in all climates, yet the embodied energy in concrete is significantly higher than wood.
>".I wouldn't even say that. For example, concrete is more durable than wood in all climates, yet the embodied energy in concrete is significantly higher than wood."
True.
But if it's embodied energy is higher it violates the "...all other things equal..." premise. (At least that's how I parse English.)
[But if it's embodied energy is higher it violates the "...all other things equal..." premise. (At least that's how I parse English.)]
-Perhaps the assumption that "..all other things equal.." is itself faulty? What does that even mean with regards to exterior cladding?
If you have an unlimited budget local natural stone seems to me to be the clear winner.
Wrapping your house in oil/vinyl may not seem green at first glance. If you wrap your house in cement siding or masonry every bit as much oil was burned making the cement and transporting the heavy siding to your home.
I do not feel bad about choosing vinyl siding.
EIFS (fake stucco) could be a good choice if you can find a very good installer. If your installer takes some very subtle shortcuts we see a lot of very new building with rotten moldy walls.
Walta
It’s worth pointing out that many, if not most, plastics in North America are using natural gas as a feedstock and not oil.
Oil in the US is almost exclusively used for transportation. There is essentially no oil-fired electrical generation (yes, a few plants exist, but not many and they’re all relatively small). Yes, oil was used to transport whatever siding you chose, but most likely very little oil was used to make it. It’s unusual to have oil-fired industrial furnaces, coal and natural gas fired furnaces are much more common.
Yeah, something still got burned, but it’s good to be accurate. Natural gas is also a MUCH cleaner burning fuel than oil which is a plus.
Bill
A lot of oil is still burned in the northeast for heating.
In 30 years it will probably seem as ridiculous as burning whale oil for light.
IMHO ou won't see much change away from heating oil in the next 30 years.. Even at $4.00 a gallon, its cheaper than electric resistance in most of the north east.
Lots of people would/could afford to switch to natural gas, its much "greener" but the "environmentalists " fight tooth and nail to prevent any pipelines, or distribution upgrades, so it is only available to a tiny fraction of those who could use it
You aren't going to heat most houses in the north east with mini splits, unless doing a DER first.
PV has issues once you get away from the coasts, and into snow country.. It takes days to over a week for the panels to clear after a good snowfall.
>IMHO ou won't see much change away from heating oil in the next 30 years.. Even at $4.00 a gallon, its cheaper than electric resistance in most of the north east."
Even at the high cost of New England electricity, operating costs of cold climate air source heat pumps cost less than half what heating with #2 oil at 80% efficiency does, which is why the installers couldn't keep up with demand the last time heating oil hit $4/gallon.
With rebate incentives for cold climate heat pumps for homes currently heated with oil in several New England states it gets easier & easier.
In the Hudson Valley geothermal retrofits by Dandelion Energy (a google spinout with access to low-cost capital) have an even lower operational cost, and excellent financing options even at low or no money down.
>"Lots of people would/could afford to switch to natural gas, its much "greener" but the "environmentalists " fight tooth and nail to prevent any pipelines, or distribution upgrades, so it is only available to a tiny fraction of those who could use it"
RGGI signatory states New England would not meet their intermediate term (let alone long term) emissions commitments if home heating of gas increases with new infrastructure. Both oil AND natural gas use has to shrink, whatever the relative merits of those fuels to one another.
Natural gas burned a combined cycle generator delivers more heating BTU/ccf to a home heated with a cold climate mini-split. Currently the New England grid is currently only about half gas-fired- the rest being primarily lo-carb existing nuclear & renewables (including hydro). The current connection queue in the ISO-New England grid operator is currently 95% non-hydro renewables, and storage, 5% gas, and that isn't likely to change given state committments.
The last major pipeline push in Massachusetts (half the population of New England) attempted to put the cost & financial risk onto the electric ratepayers with a promise of lower retail rates, but it was shut down by analysis done for the state Attorney General's office that showed despite early-years electric rate declines the pipeline would become a stranded asset well before it was paid off if the state's RGGI commitments were to be met, saddling the ratepayers with payments and higher rates or decades to pay for pipeline capacity that would not be used.
[edited to add]
When the cost of the capitalization of the new pipeline infrastructure necessary to get people off oil in Connecticut is factored in, the levelized cost of a gas-burner is only ~10% less than air source heat pumps under high price assumptions and lower under low price assumptions, per this somewhat dated (but still relevant) bit of analysis from RMI published in 2013. See Figure 2, page 6:
https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2013-05_HeatPumps.pdf
Since that time air source heat pumps have gotten marginally more efficient, but condensing gas-burners were already pretty much maxed out. I suspect re-running the numbers today would make heat pump solutions the lowest levelized cost in almost all scenarios that include capitalization costs of the gas grid expansion.
[end edit]
>"You aren't going to heat most houses in the north east with mini splits, unless doing a DER first."
That's just rong.
MOST homes in New England actually CAN be heated with mini-splits. Actual heat loads are lower than most people think. A 3 or 4 ton ducted cold climate minisplit can handle the existing heat loads of the majority of houses in southern New England (where the vast majority of that #2 oil is being burned) without a DER.
Houses heated with oil fired hydronic boilers are more expensive to retrofit that those heated with oil-fired hot air, furnaces. But due to limitations on the smaller-end of oil burners most oil furnaces are 3-4x oversized for their actual loads, and have adequately large ducts to be able to use high efficiency heat pumps.
Electric resistance hasn’t been a cost effective way to heat a home for decades and the utilities don’t try to push it as an option either.
You most certainly CAN heat a “regular” (non-DER) home with minisplits, you’d just need more of them and/or larger ones. It’s not accurate to think that minisplits can only handle low loads like you’d find in something like a pretty good house. It’s about the energy. If your home is twice as lossy (less insulation, more air leaks, etc), you just need twice the input energy to maintain the same temperature compared to a tighter and better insulated home. That might be one heat pump of twice the capacity, two heat pumps of the same capacity, or, in some cases, the same heatpump with twice the operating hours compared to the better insulated house.
I have to disagree with Dana about the natural gas issues though. The state “commitments” are politically motivated, and often pushed through by activists and non-technical people with a poor understanding of the complexity of these issues. It’s an attempt to legislate away physics, which is destined to fail. I expect we’ll see energy shortages in that region (some have already occurred) at some point in the future as a result of these state commitments. Maybe I’ll be wrong, but I doubt it in this case.
Bill
To Trevor's comment about pv in snow country, it does take a while for the snow to slide off. But production is pretty low in winter anyway. I figure I lose maybe 3-4% of potential annual production due to snow and ice.
In reply to Stephen:
Sounds like someone needs to come up with a squeegee-style snow rake to clear off those solar panels in the winter :-)
Bill
Mike Kolder, I hear you, brother! For those of us building the houses that we will live in during our declining years, future maintenance is a serious consideration. Especially exterior maintenance that requires climbing a ladder to repaint/do other repairs. For me, that means building with exterior materials that will last until I croak with zero maintenance required. At this stage in my life, I'm willing to trade off some "greenness" for that benefit. So the question is what are the "greenest" materials that offer that benefit. It's a compromise. I think that I have a responsibility to the next generation, but I still have to get through my life. I've settled on vinyl.
>"I have to disagree with Dana about the natural gas issues though. The state “commitments” are politically motivated, and often pushed through by activists and non-technical people with a poor understanding of the complexity of these issues. It’s an attempt to legislate away physics, which is destined to fail."
At the ground level sure, it's not always well understood. But the view from 30,000' is pretty obvious:
You can't fix global warming by continuing to pull fossils out of the ground and setting them on fire for energy.
In MA this isn't a partisan issue. Former Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matt Beaton (R) under Governor Charlie Baker (R) drove much of the current energy infrastructure policy that is currently in place, including offshore wind initiatives, a push for transmission lines to import hydro from Quebec, grid storage, etc., all of which needed to pass cost & efficacy analysis. Some of it they got wrong in the negative sense, such as the speed at which the transmission lines could be built, others they got wrong in the positive sense, such as the surprisingly low contract cost of offshore wind, with the initial bids coming in at what was projected for the third investment tranche coming in the late 2020s. Many other aspects of energy policy moves are are still TBD.
But there is no "need" for increased gas grid capacity to get homes out of the #2 oil burning biz, and it's not the cheapest path either (even when ignoring the greenhouse gas emissions.) It's more cost-effective to go with heat pumps than extending the gas distribution grid, and it happens to be an option that comes with a more favorable impact on lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
Natural gas isn't in the rear view mirror just yet, but it's not exactly the road ahead either (as the GE gas turbine group has discovered the hard way.) In the ISO-New England region the forward looking view looks more like this:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/wind-solar-and-storage-take-up-95-of-iso-new-england-interconnection-queu/573680/
You’re probably correct that there is sufficient existing grid capacity available to support a significant amount of additional load in the winter such as you’d get with a big transition to heating with heat pumps. Load on the grid is usually highest in the summer due to air conditioning demand, and there is typically surplus capacity in the winter. That’s the normal operating situation across most of North America, and is reflected in lower on and off peak wintertime electric rates if you’re on a variable rate.
My own read of things is we can’t “fix” global warming regardless of what we do. There are too many natural processes at work contributing to cyclical climatic changes to be able to say with any certainty what would happen if we stopped all combustion tomorrow. I know there is stuff out there that says otherwise, but there is plenty that goes both ways. There really isn’t any guarantee here.
I think it’s best to focus on efficiency as much as possible which is a positive no matter how you look at it (lower cost, fewer resources used, lower emissions). I have never liked looking at everything in terms of “carbon”. I’ve also never liked the idea of “carbon offsets” because it lets people push policies and pay extra to feel good without actually changing anything about how they do things themselves.
I agree it’s a good idea to try to transition away from oil-fired heating. That is a positive in multiple ways (lower emissions, lower cost, less dependence on foreign resources). I’d like to see costs for heat pumps come down, and I’d like to see contractors become more knowledgeable about the systems so that they get sized and installed correctly allowing people to see that heat pumps can actually get the job done without trouble.
The tricky part is how to make this all happen...
Bill
>"My own read of things is we can’t “fix” global warming regardless of what we do. There are too many natural processes at work contributing to cyclical climatic changes to be able to say with any certainty what would happen if we stopped all combustion tomorrow. "
The quality of the models on the cyclical aspects of climate are better than you might think. That's a canard long promoted by some elements of the fossil fuel industry. The basic physics of where the temperatures stabilize at given greenhouse gas levels at this distance from the sun are also well understood, and can't be denied, even if there are second order effects (such as absorption of CO2 out of the air in into the oceans) skewing the most simple minded models.
While we don't know "...with any certainty what would happen if we stopped all combustion tomorrow...", with high specificity & precision we DO know with quite a bit of certainty that it would be a large step in the right direction, as long as the replacement energy sources were low carb and otherwise reasonably low impact. (Clearing forests for the biomass energy need not apply. :- ) )
Energy is just the most obvious and immediate aspect of climate change. Agriculture is in serious need of reform too. eg: Somehow mowing down gazillions of hectares of deep rooted perennial prairie grasses to grow shallow rooted annual crops isn't sustainable over the long term, and is releasing a lot of previously sequestered soil carbon, etc.
>"I agree it’s a good idea to try to transition away from oil-fired heating. That is a positive in multiple ways (lower emissions, lower cost, less dependence on foreign resources). "
Most #2 oil in the US is from domestic oil extraction & refining- not exactly a foreign resource. (The US is a net exporter of oil, and a large exporter of #2 refined goods.) But it's a dirty and expensive resource- the human-unhealthy local emissions at the home from burning oil are substantially higher than natural gas, though still quite a bit cleaner than wood burners.
>"I’d like to see costs for heat pumps come down, and I’d like to see contractors become more knowledgeable about the systems so that they get sized and installed correctly allowing people to see that heat pumps can actually get the job done without trouble."
No kidding! The fact that even the smallest oil burners are typically 2x or more oversized for the space heating load of a code-minimum 2500' house in New England makes it more difficult for oil burners provide optimum comfort too. As with heat pumps, it's at least POSSIBLE to right-size a gas furnace for a typical single family home, not that it happens as often as it should. Too many people have come to believe they really NEED a 100-150,000 BTU/hr burner in the basement to stay warm, and can't quite fathom that grotesque oversizing is a major source of comfort problems with hot air heating systems.
Nate Adams has made a business out of telling people they just blew 5 grand on oversized equipment and need to downsize if they're ever going to get comfortable:
http://www.natethehousewhisperer.com/home-comfort-101.html
>”Most #2 oil in the US is from domestic oil extraction & refining- not exactly a foreign resource. (The US is a net exporter of oil, and a large exporter of #2 refined goods.)”
True, but the exact mix of foreign to domestic supply depends a fair bit on the price per barrel of oil, and that market price is set globally. While we (the US) don’t necessarily NEED to import oil now, we still pay for it based on the global market price regardless of the source. It would be a Good Thing if the price was under more local control.
>”Too many people have come to believe they really NEED a 100-150,000 BTU/hr burner in the basement to stay warm”
Absolutely! And often times I think a little effort with great stuff might cut the BTU number down more than people realize. You know those places: they’re those houses with nothing but a piece of plywood as an attic hatch cover, or my brother in law’s wife who likes “fresh air” (an open window) at night. I’ve been working on convincing them of the benefits of an HRV.
I sometimes use my own house for some perspective. I have two 80,000 BTU furnaces and a bit shy of 4,000 square feet here. The furnaces aren’t really zoned, and setting them up for proper zoning is a challenge due to the duct layout. I’m not done with my energy upgrades yet either (adding more exterior rigid foam and some other things). Even with all of my planned upgrades not yet done, through almost all of the winter I can use ONE of those two furnaces to easily (easily = the furnace has reasonable cycle times and isn’t running constantly) heat the entire house to 68F and have my two thermostats set up to do it that way. It’s unusual for the “bedroom” furnace to come on much if at all during the day when the “main level” furnace is doing most of the work. I’d bet I could get by with 60,000 BTU or less most of the time unless it’s really windy or exceptionally cold outside.
Not too many people would think that would work, and we have a lot of glass here too. It’s a good example of how oversized many peoples furnaces are though!
Bill
Deleted
We put white cedar shingles on our house. No finish. They eventually weather to a nice gray. No maintenance. Pretty green, renewable.
Made about ten miles from our house by Longfellow 's Cedar Shingles, Windsor ME. Cedar logs are from elsewhere in Maine. Jim Longfellow is a delightful guy and was a pleasure to work with. The shingles were better quality at a better price than any of the Canadian white cedar shingles sold in local lumber yards.
If available, local is always great.
Stephen, I'm checking out Longfellow's website right now! I'm in northern Maine. Great tip! Yes, I know your comment is a year old but still valuable.
I have used a lot of cedar siding over the years, both lap and rabbeted bevel. I have always oil primed all sides and ends before installing with 2 finish coats of paint or stain. I have had projects go 15 or more years before a recoat was needed. The oil primer prevents moisture from entering the siding minimizing splitting and cupping. Too many homes have had raw cedar siding applied with only a coat or 2 of stain or paint applied to the exposed portion, this does not hold up to the weather in Minneapolis.
Thanks for all the replies folks.
I lived on the east coast while I was in the coast guard and grew to love the look of unfinished white cedar shingles. But aren't some white cedar varieties protected lumber?
You don't see wooden homes in my home town of Vienna Austria, as Europe already harvested most of their forests.
But by the way the market's are performing lately, it maybe some time before I build.
Anyone recognize this couple?
https://i.servimg.com/u/f59/14/97/22/52/ca-tim10.jpg
First off, Please everyone stay on topic. If you want to start new thread that's great. Solar is great year round even here in the northern Great Lakes where we see lots of snow. It's your fault if the panels are not angled to the sun which means 72 degrees on winter solstice if you live near 45th latitude. Snow slides right off and easy to sweep when ground mounted (smartest). I don't think most of you with the natural gas replies have ever flown over or walked through the devastation of thousands of square miles from ND north from the extraction of "natural" gas. Walk the talk.
PK
As for siding, I love the old wood look. The barn we fixed as kids (my Mom's rosemauling studio)in the 60s at my parents house still looks really nice using a few varieties of local wood. Every 5 years we spray it down with natural linseed oil which is inexpensive and easy to use.
PK
On my 18oo's era house I resided with radially sawed spruce clapboards. These were available locally (in Granville, VT) and have a potential life of 100 years, unpainted, by their records. They are made by turning logs perfectly round and cutting each clapboard with a rig that allows the saw to cut to the center of the log, which is then rotated for the next cut. Thus every clapboard is perfectly vertical grain. Limitation is that the clapboards are a maximum of 6 feet long, and many are shorter. You get the clapboard look but it sometimes feels like putting on shingles. For a house that's as old as that one, short clapboards are actually more historically fitting. I did apply linseed oil, front and back, but found it just fed mildew so I left it to weather off to gray. No problems for 20 years, and counting.