Reply #41: A week or so ago [View All]

[troubleinwinter]

there was an article posted on several threads, with great enthusiasm.

A so-called "green housing developement", in the area of Silicon Valley of Northern California. Well, they had solar.

They started at $1,000,000 and 3,600 square feet.

Just slapping some solar on a huge house does not indicate 'green' at all. It's newly regarded by developers as a marketing gimick. The mayor of a small city in northern California tried to lean on developers to build green. All they wanted to do was to make 5% of the homes solar-ready, and advertise them as "green".

There is, however, a strict industry certification called 'LEED' which utilizes design, building materials fabricated in an environmentally better way, bottom-to-top, including handling construction waste in an evironmentally safe manner.

A "green" label may be nothing more than a marketing gimick. We need to stay alert to this ploy and fight it.

But, YES, I think solar, wind and efficiency are the direction. I doubt 3,600 square feet is the most efficient.

Here is a small house that is well insulated by thick mud. It is warm during winter snows and wonderfully cool in the hot baking summers:





We won't move into mud hogans, but 3,600 sq ft homes as a 'starting point' need to be rethought. I doubt many DUers grew up in 3,600 ft homes. More reasonable sizes and better insulation methods and materials (rather than electricity and gas to heat and cool). Smaller homes, permitting larger gardens for growing food.