What Is Your Idea Of A "green" Home?

[thailandlover]

There seem to be so many different definitions and standards defining what makes a "green home" that I wonder what ThaiVisa members consider green, and if they were going to build their ultimate green home what would they include?

[juehoe]

My criteria would be:

1) Climatic-response design and layout. like orientation and shading

2) Small footprint and sealed surfaces or compensation with green roofs or permeable paving

3) Low energy-comsumption for cooling: natural ventilation, insulated space where A/C is needed

4) Use of environment-frendly and local materials for building and furniture

5) Fair salaries for the craftsmen, fair working hours

[H2oDunc]

The ouside of the house painted green is the only green house I understand. The rest is a crock of horse s#^t

The way CO2 has been turned into a poison and a pollutant will go down in history as the biggest con ever in the history of the world. Without CO2 there would be no life on this planet. Plants breathe the stuff. If you are growing things and want to improve production then you add more CO2. I had a friend back in the UK who grew a certain crop. By adding CO2 to the growing room he improved his production by 70%. Look at the plants and fauna that thrive right beside the roads. According to the looneys they should all be dead and the place a desert!

This whole manmade global warming thing is also totally ficticious! The world has not warmed at all for over a decade and has over the last few years actually cooled but that does not stop our great leaders and the tree hugging nutters from telling you different. I don't do green and never will! What i do do is care for the enviroment and the seas. A totally different story altogether!

[jaapfries]

There seem to be so many different definitions and standards defining what makes a "green home" that I wonder what ThaiVisa members consider green, and if they were going to build their ultimate green home what would they include?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion, a "green home" is a dwelling which has as many environmentally friendly and energy-efficient atributes as is reasonable and affordable. There's little point in installing an entire PV-Collector (Photovoltaic) roof, since the ROI (Return On Investment) period would be well over 30 years; hence making this option not worthwhile from an efficiency point-of-view.

However; things such as Solar Hot Water, are affordable and easy to install and will save the home-owner between 25%~35% on his monthly powerbill, whilst reducing some 2 Tonnes of CO2/annum. Proper thermal insulation in walls and ceilings are an absolute must and the placing of 'shade-trees' is always very beneficial.

A simple and inexpensive Undergrond-Cooling System (if you have enough space under your garden) is a cert' - and re-cycling all the water used in the household (except the toilet, of course) for use of garden-irrigaton, only makes perfect sense.

Recycling your household refuse can produce great compost for your garden, whereas separating your tins, card-board, plastic etc. items can be of great benefit to the old chap, or lady, who are scufling through your street, looking for these items to make their meagre living from.

You know; this entire matter is very much up to the individual's phylosophy-of-life: If you're a "Waste-Not-Want-Not" type of person; if you find it "fun" to work with nature, whilst getting a financial gain at the same time, then you think like me.

Curently there is a rather unique villa project under construction, where an admirable number of eco-attributes are being implemented in the design of the homes, named The Winery Villas, located on a beautiful hillside, with sweeping views oiver a sprawling green valley, just ouside of Pattaya-City. There's actually a list of Green Attributes on their web-site; just PM me if you would like the website address.

Edited October 28, 2009 by jaapfries

[wilsongbrown]

http://lauriebaker.net/work/work/baker-on-...chitecture.html Laurie Baker Architect

Depends on which hemisphere you live in to a large extent, but Laurie Baker's principals for architecture in the tropics - designing using natural air flow for cooling is a very good start. And it's a much healthier, and much more a pleasant living environment than energy guzzling, germ infested air con units.

Imagination is what seems to be lacking and prejudice the main impediment to a healthier, more ecologically sustainable way of living.

[lovelomsak]

A green home to me is an earth house.

They have many advantages. They have natrural insulation, storm proof winds and rain cannot destroy them, they cannot burn down,the plants growing on them helps prevent flooding by absorbing the rain instead of flowing it away. Materials are easy to get and inexpensive.

Disadvantages are there will likely be some curved walls due to structure strength needs.

[lovelomsak]

A green home to me is an earth house.

They have many advantages. They have natrural insulation, storm proof winds and rain cannot destroy them, they cannot burn down,the plants growing on them helps prevent flooding by absorbing the rain instead of flowing it away. Materials are easy to get and inexpensive.

Disadvantages are there will likely be some curved walls due to structure strength needs.

forgot one thing a very small footprint on the globe.

[rfukata]

A green home to me in terms of the 'tropics or tropical' climate would be like the ancient Polynesians -

live outside in the jungle/forest with a simple Fale/Hale like grass structure, hunt wild pigs, raise cows/fowls,

fish as needed, build water wells and irrigation for vegetation, dig a UMU, and bathe in the river/ocean.

[pieter73]

Easy paint your house green.

The total energy costs of everybody reading this is higher than you can save

Pieter

(Owner of Green Energy Software co. Ltd)

[sbk]

http://lauriebaker.net/work/work/baker-on-...chitecture.html Laurie Baker Architect

Depends on which hemisphere you live in to a large extent, but Laurie Baker's principals for architecture in the tropics - designing using natural air flow for cooling is a very good start. And it's a much healthier, and much more a pleasant living environment than energy guzzling, germ infested air con units.

Imagination is what seems to be lacking and prejudice the main impediment to a healthier, more ecologically sustainable way of living.

Great link wilsongbrown, I've never heard of her but she sounds like she's got the right approach for the tropics

For me, a green home here in thailand would be one that relies on environmentally friendly materials, tries to use water wisely, ie water storage for gray water, etc, utilizes natural energy; solar, wind. and most importantly, the residents attempt to compost and recycle as much as possible.

[maccaroni man]

Here's a video of a house on Samui.

btw it is for sale if you like it pm me.

[moe666]

Double the cost of a regular house and you have a green house.

[Cuban]

Thanks thailandlover this is something I have been thinking about in the past few days, so will comment here rather than waste a little bit of server space creating a new thread.

> 5) Fair salaries for the craftsmen, fair working hours

Fair Trade - but not green.

> Solar Hot Water, are affordable.... ....25%~35% on his monthly powerbill

> .....and the placing of 'shade-trees' is always very beneficial.

Depending on the location of the house and the mind set of those inside: Out here in the rural wilds we only heat water for tea/coffee etc. However I want solar hot water for washing clothes and dishes - the 'however' to that is that I would like to see saving in the amount of washing liquids and powders used - but getting that message across to the Thai mindset (never accept new ideas) will I feel be difficult.

...and re-cycling all the water used in the household (except the toilet, of course) for use of garden-irrigaton,

Looking at the big picture I intend to tackle that water as well, washing up water goes into the kitchen garden. from washing clothes goes into the rice fields.

Recycling your household refuse can produce great compost for your garden, whereas separating your tins, card-board, plastic etc. items can be of great benefit to the old chap, or lady, who are scufling through your street, looking for these items to make their meagre living from.

Food scraps go into animals, the best recycling for other rubbish is to be reused for it's original purpose only the last resort is weeky collection for recycling (we were paid 50 Baht the other day for a very small amount of glass and paper etc) other wise buring.

There's actually a list of Green Attributes on their web-site; just PM me if you would like the website address.

I'm sure others would be interested - post it in the thread please - uses less energy than those single use PMs!

And it's a much healthier, and much more a pleasant living environment than energy guzzling, germ infested air con units.

When I moved to Thailand I accepted I would live without aircon, I now live full time with only a fan. On some recent nights I even turn that off when the temperature drops down to 25-26 degrees C.

Now for what some will consider non-green, I gather and burn wood for cooking. I see this as a green solution compared to using the large bottle gas cylinder we have, that will never be replaced within my lifespan. But I do encourage new tree and branch growth and don't consider the particles released into the air bad when compared to the Chinese coal fired power stations.

The other big change I have adopted on a personal level is learning to ride a motorbike, most of the world's developing nations rely on two wheels to move everything. Going from someone that shared in the amusement of those emailed images with multiple people, hens, pigs, huge fish and wardrobes transported by motorbike to someone that understands the needs I think I am a greener and wiser person for it.

[Lancelot]

How about a traditional Thai house built of wood, elevated about eight feet off the ground? A few modifications, like orientation to capture prevailing winds, white roof to reflect heat and solar water heating and that should do the trick

[PattayaParent]

Now for what some will consider non-green, I gather and burn wood for cooking. I see this as a green solution compared to using the large bottle gas cylinder we have, that will never be replaced within my lifespan. (1) But I do encourage new tree and branch growth and don't consider the particles released into the air bad when compared to the Chinese coal fired power stations.

(2) The other big change I have adopted on a personal level is learning to ride a motorbike, most of the world's developing nations rely on two wheels to move everything. Going from someone that shared in the amusement of those emailed images with multiple people, hens, pigs, huge fish and wardrobes transported by motorbike to someone that understands the needs I think I am a greener and wiser person for it.

1. Coal fired power stations can produce a lot less polution than some idiot burning green wood in his back yard. Not to mention the un-green damage being done when chopping down trees for firewood.

2. So you'd rather have 1 million people each riding a motorcy than have them riding a bus? Not to mention that the majority of the world's developing nations rely on 2 stroke rahther than 4 stroke motorcy?

[canopy]

It would not be surprising if burning wood is worse for the environment than gas and I see no way this can be justified as being green. There are real green alternatives like using a solar cooker or changing to a raw food diet.

On a related note, it is apalling how some who use wood to warm their house point fingers at those making big log houses as being environmentally insensitive. Ironies like this is why there are so many green bashers.

It is important to understand the life of the forest is the dead tree, not the live one. Burning them robs the forest of habitat and nourishment that is critical in newing the flora and fauna.

[yabaaaa]

There seem to be so many different definitions and standards defining what makes a "green home" that I wonder what ThaiVisa members consider green, and if they were going to build their ultimate green home what would they include?

A hole dug in the ground with your bare hands (no shovels or spade) after you had walked with no shoes to Thailand from your country of choice, anything else aint green.

[Absingjul]

The ouside of the house painted green is the only green house I understand. The rest is a crock of horse s#^t

The way CO2 has been turned into a poison and a pollutant will go down in history as the biggest con ever in the history of the world.

Burning coal and NG produces more than just CO2. NOx, SOx, lead, mercury, cadmium, etc.

[taurus88]

There seem to be so many different definitions and standards defining what makes a "green home" that I wonder what ThaiVisa members consider green, and if they were going to build their ultimate green home what would they include?

I don't think a complete green house is within my capablities. However, I do hope to install a solar panel for general heating like for water heater and if the power generated is sufficient, drive my air-con. Can someone suggest where & who can I contact for such installation.

[juehoe]

> 5) Fair salaries for the craftsmen, fair working hours

Fair Trade - but not green.

OK - "Fair Trade" is not "green" but sustainable.

[michaelbutcher]

http://lauriebaker.net/work/work/baker-on-...chitecture.html Laurie Baker Architect

Depends on which hemisphere you live in to a large extent, but Laurie Baker's principals for architecture in the tropics - designing using natural air flow for cooling is a very good start. And it's a much healthier, and much more a pleasant living environment than energy guzzling, germ infested air con units.

Imagination is what seems to be lacking and prejudice the main impediment to a healthier, more ecologically sustainable way of living.

Great link wilsongbrown, I've never heard of her but she sounds like she's got the right approach for the tropics

For me, a green home here in thailand would be one that relies on environmentally friendly materials, tries to use water wisely, ie water storage for gray water, etc, utilizes natural energy; solar, wind. and most importantly, the residents attempt to compost and recycle as much as possible.

Seems as though you didn't bother to follow the link to educate yourself on the great architect Laurie Baker who recently died - he was a man.

[Cuban]

1. Coal fired power stations can produce a lot less polution than some idiot burning green wood in his back yard. Not to mention the un-green damage being done when chopping down trees for firewood.

2. So you'd rather have 1 million people each riding a motorcy than have them riding a bus? Not to mention that the majority of the world's developing nations rely on 2 stroke rahther than 4 stroke motorcy?

No buses on regular routes in the countryside. A milion people wanting to go from/to the same place at the same time sounds like factory-city living, a Quaility Of Life choice that some have moved on from. Everyone craves indepentance, that's why they want personal television sets rather than watching the state provided news on mass screens, why they want motorbikes, cars and pickups. It would be better for the planet if we cut the world population by about 50% or more and uninvented international travel for the masses.

Is your point about 2/4 stroke based on the oil burnt or the ease of repair and cheaper original build costs in terms of the machine and the green impact that building vs running a motorbike of 2/4 stroke design - I see there are arguements on both sides.

Collecting dead wood from a forest floor for cooking vs open cast mining or deep pit mining - transporting coal, burning it, transporting the energy via milions of tonnes of plastic sheathed electric cable? Who's the idiot? Same with gas.

There are real green alternatives like using a solar cooker or changing to a raw food diet.

Unfortunately you have wondered off into the realms of fantasy. Solar cookers don't work on cold cloudly days or at night - those strange times that humans like to eat warm foods.

It is important to understand the life of the forest is the dead tree, not the live one. Burning them robs the forest of habitat and nourishment that is critical in newing the flora and fauna.

Gathering wood for direct burning or making charcoal (do I hear evil hissing?) seems to have worked for this village for the last 200 years.

It's nice eating a meal (meat, vegatables and spices) that I know has been grown, raised and killed within a 5km radius of my house.

(No left overs - vegatable off cuts go to the pigs, meat to the dogs and rice scrappings to the chickens.)

What was the enviromental impact of your last meal?

[Mopfog]

Read Plan B by Lester Brown for some thoughts on sustainable living. Also, watch 'The Garbage Warrior', which focuses explicitly on the building of sustainable living houses.

http://www.garbagewarrior.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Plan-Rescuing-Planet...e/dp/0393325237

[Naam]

http://lauriebaker.net/work/work/baker-on-...chitecture.html Laurie Baker Architect

Depends on which hemisphere you live in to a large extent, but Laurie Baker's principals for architecture in the tropics - designing using natural air flow for cooling is a very good start. And it's a much healthier, and much more a pleasant living environment than energy guzzling, germ infested air con units.

Imagination is what seems to be lacking and prejudice the main impediment to a healthier, more ecologically sustainable way of living.

natural air flow can't cool if the air is hot (as it is usually in tropical hot countries). only poor people have germ infested aircon units because they can't spare a few Baht to have the units cleaned on a regular basis.

[gregb]

It would not be surprising if burning wood is worse for the environment than gas and I see no way this can be justified as being green. There are real green alternatives like using a solar cooker or changing to a raw food diet.

Your bias about biomass is understandable though misguided.

Biomass is a 100% solar solution, except without any exotic technology or nasty chemicals associated with production of solar panels. Solar cookers are great, but what do you do when you have a holiday meal to prepare and it is raining? If you have a little bit of land area, burning biomass is extremely green, both literally and figuratively.

Any issues you report with unburned tars and ash from traditional wood burning are easily dealt with using a gasifier. A simple downdraft gassifier is a device so simple that any Thai welder can build one using scrap parts if he understands some basic physics. Gasification technology has been around for over a century, people have just forgotten about it because natural gas and liquid fuels have been ubiquitous.

Several NGOs are building small, coffee can style gassifier stoves for cooking in rural villages in India and Africa. They are extremely clean, and are being produced at costs less than $25. You can even build wood gassifiers to run your car. Not nearly as convenient as pulling up to a filling station, but it is a proven technology in use on internal combustion engines for over 80 years.

In the end, the only truly green solutions are ones that don't use products of the industrial economy, and the only realistic low tech solutions except for wind or microhydro (which are intermittent) are all biomass based. Either oils, alcohols, or buring biomass directly. All of these can be produced on farm in a closed cycle, with the ash being mixed with compost and returned to the land.

The only way to get more green than burning biomass is to go back to nomadic tribes wandering in a forest. That hasn't worked for over 5000 years though, and I don't expect it to start now.

BTW, I have a simple definition of a green home that works in every culture. It is any home that can constructed, maintained, and lived in without any inputs from the industrial economy and where all wastes are recycled to the local environment. It's very hard to do that 100% today, but we can get pretty close.

Edited November 9, 2009 by gregb

[stevejones123]

natural air flow can't cool if the air is hot

You don't understand how things work. It's not the airflow that's doing the cooling it's your body. Your body is in fact acting as an air conditioner. It sweats. The liquid then evaporates. Evaporation uses heat and that heat comes from your body which thus cools down. However a given amount of air can only contain a given amount of water vapor, which is why you often find yourself covered in sweat that has not evaporated. Airflow increases the amount of air that flows over your body, thus increasing the amount of sweat you can evaporate, thus increasing the cooling of your body that is providing the heat for the evaporation.

You can certainly live comfortably without air-conditioning in most of the tropics; I have a house in Sri Lanka and the average maximum temperature is between 29 and 31 Celsius. The average maximum temperatures for Bangkok are from 31-34, averaging 32, edging towards the uncomfortable zone.

The point is that a house built for maximum cooling without air-conditioning is going to be built on diametrically opposite principles to one built with air conditioning in mind. If you are building without air conditioning you want high ceilings (eleven foot at least), because hot air goes upwards, and lots of ventilation points. Wiht AC you want low ceilings so there is less air to cool and almost hermetically sealed so the cold air doesn't escape.

There are places in the world where you can't live comfortably without air conditioning (much of Saudi Arabia and Dubai spring to mind), and cars need it because the metal heats like a furnace and driving with the windows open is more energy inefficient, but to talk about it as a necessity, or even advisable, in most places is little more than self-justification.

[pkrv]

natural air flow can't cool if the air is hot

You don't understand how things work. It's not the airflow that's doing the cooling it's your body. Your body is in fact acting as an air conditioner. It sweats. The liquid then evaporates. Evaporation uses heat and that heat comes from your body which thus cools down. However a given amount of air can only contain a given amount of water vapor, which is why you often find yourself covered in sweat that has not evaporated. Airflow increases the amount of air that flows over your body, thus increasing the amount of sweat you can evaporate, thus increasing the cooling of your body that is providing the heat for the evaporation.

You can certainly live comfortably without air-conditioning in most of the tropics; I have a house in Sri Lanka and the average maximum temperature is between 29 and 31 Celsius. The average maximum temperatures for Bangkok are from 31-34, averaging 32, edging towards the uncomfortable zone.

The point is that a house built for maximum cooling without air-conditioning is going to be built on diametrically opposite principles to one built with air conditioning in mind. If you are building without air conditioning you want high ceilings (eleven foot at least), because hot air goes upwards, and lots of ventilation points. Wiht AC you want low ceilings so there is less air to cool and almost hermetically sealed so the cold air doesn't escape.

There are places in the world where you can't live comfortably without air conditioning (much of Saudi Arabia and Dubai spring to mind), and cars need it because the metal heats like a furnace and driving with the windows open is more energy inefficient, but to talk about it as a necessity, or even advisable, in most places is little more than self-justification.

An indebth reply but you forgot humidity - If the air is saturated yes you sweat but it doesn't go anywhere.

For me green means trees, plants, funny wildlife, I think I have a dinosaur in 'my' tree, god it is a big lizard, and there are a few funny squirrels and all sorts of other stuff. AND I with help have worked out how the tree can tell if it is going to rain. You think I am kidding?

Edited November 12, 2009 by pkrv

[stevejones123]

If there's 100% humidity then the sweat won't evaporate and there'll be no cooling.

If there's 10% humidity then the sweat will evaporate and you won't need airflow.

It's for the intermediate humidities that airflow provides cooling.

Bangkok seems to have a relative humidity some degrees higher than where I am in Lanka. That together with the couple of degrees higher temperature is probably enough to tip the scales into feeling uncomfortable with no air conditioning. I was using the AC when I was in Bangkok despite the exorbitant resale price.

[pkrv]

If there's 100% humidity then the sweat won't evaporate and there'll be no cooling.

If there's 10% humidity then the sweat will evaporate and you won't need airflow.

It's for the intermediate humidities that airflow provides cooling.

Bangkok seems to have a relative humidity some degrees higher than where I am in Lanka. That together with the couple of degrees higher temperature is probably enough to tip the scales into feeling uncomfortable with no air conditioning. I was using the AC when I was in Bangkok despite the exorbitant resale price.

Great reply - You actually did not miss the point at all - but instead you expanded on it.

Humidity after the rain in Bangkok can hit about 100%.

You are looking at two different aspects here houses and condos. For me all I can do is ask for more statement trees/green space because a condo is all we can buy - One step at a time, and yes my two weatherstations in Bangkok take second place to the rain predictions of my tree.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Trees-Predic...ing+the+weather