Automative Systems in Homes Would Improve Greenhouse Effect

Automative Systems in Homes Would Improve Greenhouse Effect

Introduction

Environmentally friendly buildings generally take two factors into account: energy-saving features and renewable resources. The most widely regarded benchmark is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system, or LEED, from the U.S. Green Building Council. By its definition, a green home uses less energy, water and resources and creates less waste, like greenhouse gas emissions. A home can qualify if it meets minimum criteria under a points system, with credit given for features such as energy-efficient water heaters and insulation, water-efficient toilets and fixtures, and use of materials like nonrare wood and long-lasting siding. (Gille, 1999)

Automotive Systems in Homes would Improve Greenhouse Effect

Higher-end green homes tend to be the most energy-efficient, since some of the latest technologies can be pricey. Solar hot-water heaters use the sun to warm up the water; a solar panel runs from about $1,000 to $1,500, and a standard water heater is generally needed for backup. Rooftop catchments systems collect rainwater for toilet, bathing and irrigation purposes. Though they can be as simple as a used barrel, more extensive systems run $500 to $10,000.

It's still not easy to go green. In 2005, architect Phil Bernstein set out to expand his family's 2,500-square-foot home in New Haven, Conn., by another 1,500 square feet. Mr. Bernstein and his wife wanted to use green design -- like double-pane windows and expanding-foam insulation -- as much as possible, but ran into problems. They had a hard time finding kitchen countertops made of recycled material, for one. "We found some in Seattle, but we decided it would defeat the purpose to have a truck spewing carbon emissions bringing them all the way here," Mr. Bernstein says. (Gille, 1999)

The couple also wanted to use an alternative to mahogany for their cabinets that didn't come from endangered forests. They found one called Lyptus -- a hybrid of two species of eucalyptus trees -- but when the cabinets arrived, they were pink. Mr. Bernstein worked with his builder for three months to find the right dye for the wood.

The project is now months behind schedule, and has cost $500,000 so far -- $300,000 over budget, in part because of the complications in going green. That's far more than Mr. Bernstein, who is also a vice president at software maker Autodesk Inc., would expect to recoup on a home he values at about $800,000. "If we sold this house, we would lose our shirts," he says. "It's like one homeowner against the world."

Experts say green features generally add anywhere from 3% to 5% to the total cost of a new-home project. A photovoltaic roofing system easily runs $30,000 or more on a large house. Although government subsidies can halve that cost, the payback in energy savings can take as long as a decade(Gille, 1999).

Yet the cost-benefit aspect of installing green technology is improving. A decade ago, a similar photovoltaic system cost $60,000. A tankless heater recently installed at a ...