Getting to Zero

As promised we have gotten back the results of the thermal modeling from our mechanical engineers, which was a simulation designed to test our energy conservation and generation assumptions.

The great news is that Jim and his team have designed a very efficient "high performance envelope", basically put roofs, ceilings, walls, windows, doors, external floors and soffits are components of the building "envelope". A high performance envelope means that each component is designed to minimize the transfer of thermal energy which in turn creates an energy efficient or "tight" building.  That is very important since we first want to conserve or minimize the amount of heating and cooling required to make the building comfortable which in turn reduces the amount of energy that we need produce to cover those requirements, while meeting our objective of NET ZERO.

But in order to provide addition energy savings we are investigating a new technology for the interior walls and ceilings in the house, called "Phase-Change Wallboard".  Phase-change materials (PCMs), usually a paraffin that can be embedded in gypsum (wall) board, form a class of building material that functions as a storage medium. Materials undergoing a phase change (freezing, melting, condensing, or boiling) store and release large amounts of heat with small changes in temperature. PCMs offer an order of magnitude increase in heat capacity, and for pure substances they discharge their heat with almost no change in temperature.  This is extremely cool (in the great sense, not the cold sense) because it allows the thermal storage of our building to become part of the building's structure, permitting substantial energy storage without changing the temperature of the building. Because the heat is stored within the building where the loads occur rather than externally, additional fans or other air movement is not required.

The real challenge came when we looked at the other side of this coin, energy generation.  As you may remember from our December 29th post, the roof area was redesigned to accommodate the solar PV array, providing about 850 square feet of usable space.  The simulation indicates on a conservative basis that while the area on the roof would be sufficient to power the main building, it would not provide the necessary KW's to provide any heating or cooling for the garages and workshop, any equipment usage (i.e. power tools) or electric vehicle charging stations. So it's back to the drawing board for us to find about a 25% increase in renewable power generation.

Since the heating/cooling and power generation are joined at the hip, we needed to revisit the entire process to get those gains that we need to get to NET ZERO.  So this morning we met with our team of mechanical engineers Imtiaz Mulla and David Goldstein of Plus Group Consulting Engineering to revisit our current plans.   What a great education I got today.

Our options seem to be:

1. Re-design roof to accommodate 25% more PV panels.

2. Re-design the entire building, to create additional higher elevation roof space, much like "Option 1", in our original designs.
3. Evaluate the addition of wind turbines to supplement the PV's

4. Evaluate the addition of a geothermal heating system to reduce the heat generation and therefore the load on the solar output.

5. Evaluate other heat collection options to reduce the heat generation and therefore the load on the solar output.

The team decided:

Option 1: No way to ascetically add that much more area to the roof without "disfiguring" the building.  - NO

Option 2: While definitely possible, I rejected a previous design that "spread" the building across the lot more evenly.  We all love the design and don't want to re-think it again, not to mention the delay and cost associated. -NO

Option 3: This weekend, I feel in love with the idea of supplementing the PV's with wind turbines, there are some very cool ones out (check out this one from Helix Wind, it's functional sculpture).  But as in many love affairs it fizzled fast, it seems that while advertised performance of this technology in small applications look great, the actual output has been less than promising.  BuildingGreen.com has a great article on wind that presents the pro's and con's of wind.  - NO

Option 4: While geothermal technology has been implemented successfully across the world, especially in Germany, it seems very complex and expensive.  The expense is driven by the cost of drilling, in most case at least 1,000 feet at a cost of over $20/foot.  Geothermal ground loops can be installed in a variety of ways, depending on the region, climate, cooling/heating requirement, excavation costs and soil conditions. The three most popular loop configurations are vertical, horizontal and pond loop.  - NO

Option 5: As the discussion progressed it became apparent that the application of some new technology, could potentially solve our problem, while adhering to my "keep it simple" mantra. - YES!

So it was decided that we would investigate a different HVAC system, one based on using the sun to heat water through coils, rather than the original plan of using the south facing thermal solar wall to generate warm air that would be fed directly to the building ventilation system.

Enter a new technology, Hybrid Solar Panels or PVT's.  PVT's make more effective use of valuable solar roof space. This ‘technological convergence’ effectively more than doubles the per square foot solar power output of PV alone. This is accomplished by passing water under the PV producing hot water as a byproduct, in effect, a solar co-generation process.  We then can store that hot water for use in the heating/cooling system.  Another benefit leverages the fact that PV solar panels grow less efficient as they get hotter, the water passing through the panel cools the underside of the PV panel therefore lifting effective output.  For more information I encourage you to read a very good executive summary on this technology, it's pros & cons and challenges from the PVT Form, sponsored by the European Union.

Finally under this new scenario we would eliminate the heat pump and cooling compressors originally specified and replace them with a much more energy efficient system using a new device called an "Absorption Chiller". With this device, it is now possible to cheaply produce cold from warm temperature flow.  Using solar generated heat this is more environmentally friendly and cheaper to operate than conventional compression chillers, in fact there is no freon or alternative refrigerants. This is a viable option for generating cold from heat supplied from the Hybrid Solar Panels and with applying very little electrical energy.  Another positive from my perspective is that it contains so few moving parts susceptible to wear and tear, maintenance of the unit is very limited.  So Imtiaz and David are off working through the details and will re-run our thermal energy model to see if this combination of technology and engineering will help us reach our goals.

Green is The New Red, White and Blue!

Happy 2010! Sorry for the large gap between postings, but planning activity is ramping up as we prepare for a spring kick-off. On the progress front we’ve refined the design a bit and added tongue and groove cedar to the fourth floor and some other portions of the exterior. Our mechanical engineer is working on the thermal model and as soon as we have the results we will tune the amount of insulation and glazing to meet our zero energy target. We are looking at a variety of energy production options, their cost and incentives, as well as how the building needs to be insulated etc. Our next few posts will be interesting ones.

I could not be more excited about this project and how it’s progressing. One of my personal objectives for Redhook Green (and this blog) is to show by example that a net zero energy building is viable in a place like NYC, and that it can be built cost effectively (with some support available from the government) using new designs and building methods. But why isn’t it happening faster? There are lots of good common sense reasons to adopt some or all of the ZEB strategies, it makes sense, it can save money, it’s the right thing to do, but that does not seem to be enough. It’s like eating healthy and staying fit, many of us just never get around to it.

So each of us that have developed a 'sense of urgency' need to evangelize this issue with our friends and family. I am talking about a serious dialog. What exactly will resonate with folks from different walks of life will vary, but there is one that will fit, be creative. There are at least three major 'roman numeral' level talking points that should be the basis for nearly all compelling “why renewable energy NOW” discussions. We need to get beyond the belief that we can recycle our way out of this problem!

I. The continued warming of the planet based on quickly increasing carbon dioxide levels requires real action and sacrifice on each of our parts.
II. Dependency on oil from “friendly countries” (aka petro-dictators) like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia or Venezuela.
III. The United States needs to take a leadership position in the world market place of renewable energy technology as we did with computing and Internet over the past 25 years.

For most, one or a combination of these positions are generally enough to get people to think.  For one of my friends, who does not buy into the urgency of climate change, but who is a true patriot, oil dependency and American Industrial Supremacy resonated loud and clear. He by no means is he alone in his disbelieve in climate change, in fact the Gallop Poll says that a record-high 41% now say that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated.  As recently as 2006, says author Lydia Saad in her Gallup Poll article, "significantly more Americans thought the news underestimated the seriousness of global warming, than said it exaggerated it".  

Thomas Friedman, author of "Hot, Flat and Crowded" said in his NY Times article "We will need to find a way to reknit America at home, reconnect America abroad and restore America to its natural place in the global order — as the beacon of progress, hope and inspiration. I have an idea how. It’s called “green.”   

So, once you convince someone on why "Green is The New Red, White and Blue", what's next?  I admit it's not easy yet.  The simplest way to think about what can accomplished is in the areas of conservation of energy (use less) and alternative ways to generate it and what resources there to help cover some of the costs.  Unfortunately there is no Whole Foods of renewable energy and sustainability to just walk around and soak up a new lifestyle, that green-ish lifestyle that I aspire to.  There is no REI-like super-store of trusted gear where you can take your solar panels for a ' test ride' or a place to 'try on' the newest home insulation products for yourself.    And were can companies who are innovating go to showcase their newest products?  Who do you go to to build a multi-year plan  to conserve and/or generate clean power.   How do you maneuver the many government programs, regulations, tax breaks and subsidies? And once you do establish the plan, where will you find contractors that have been trained on really maximizing conservation and energy production options?

Lots of good questions, a few of them I am seriously focusing on as I move through the maze myself.  Standby for some answers.  Please post your thoughts, I'd really love to hear from you.

So Much Confusion, So Little Time

Since the press release last week, publically announcing Redhook Green, there has been so many questions, comments, criticisms and confusion regarding the project that I thought I would devote a few posts to clearing up some of them.

There seems to be a general lack of clarity on the relationship between “Zero-Energy Building (ZEB)”, “Carbon-Neutral”, and “Sustainable” when it comes to construction as a whole and specifically as it relates to this project.  Each of these very important strategies are tools in helping the way we live fit more cohesively with the needs of others and our planet in general, but practicality needs to play a role as the various objectives are weighed and implemented.  For me they include feasibility, environmental impact, upfront cost, long term cost, availability and reliability.

There are three primary concerns relating to the energy consumption of Architecture:

1.  Energy to construct

2.  Energy to heat and maintain

3.  The total of both over the lifespan of the structure

From my simpleminded perspective, a net zero energy building is a great place to start.  It seemed to me if we could design a home that based on the nature of it’s construction, could consume significantly less electricity heating and cooling and then generate the power we needed using the sun and trade the rest for times we can’t, we would have to be a great start.  I like the fact that it’s reasonably easy to measure success here, if I sell ConEd as many kilowatts of electricity as I buy, then I am net zero energy.  Cool.  Right?

Next if you do a search on the web for a definition of “carbon-neutral”, in many cases it defaults to the ZEB definition and discusses renewable sources.   As I understand it, a building that is carbon-neutral uses no fossil fuels in its operation, creates no direct greenhouse gases, and, as a result, does not contribute to global warming. Also power drawn from the utility grid but it must be “clean,” produced by wind turbines, photovoltaic, or other renewable energy system. So, a building that is both Carbon Neutral and Net Zero Energy produces at least as much renewable energy as it uses each year.   But (big BUT) most definition neglects to discuss a very important use of energy that must be taken into consideration for a true carbon neutral structure.  That is embodied energy or as I mention above the energy to construct.

The Wikipedia defines “embodied energy (or emergy) is defined as the available energy that was used in the work of making a product. Embodied energy is an accounting methodology which aims to find the sum total of the energy necessary for an entire product lifecycle. This lifecycle includes raw material extraction, transport, manufacture, assembly, installation, disassembly, deconstruction and/or decomposition. “   Basically all the materials used in the house consume energy during manufacturing, delivery and installation on site.  Would you imagine that aluminum requires more energy than steel to be manufactured?  Or that recycled aluminum and steel use half of the energy to fabricate (just a few fun facts from a discussion with Jim)?  There is embodied energy in any processed product, from a drinking cup to a car. In embodied energy terms, buildings represent a huge, relatively long-duration energy investment.

Material	Unit	Energy Coefficient Mj per unit
Timber, rough	m3	848
Timber, air-dry, treated	m3	1,200
Timber Glulam	m3	4,500
Timber, kiln-dry, treated	m3	4,692
Timber, form work	m3	283
Plywood	m3	9,440
Building paper	m2	7.5
Gypsum board	m3	5,000
Glass	kg	31.5
Structural steel	kg	59
Aluminum	kg	145
Fiberglass	kg	150
Asphalt, strip shingle	m2	280

It seems to me that as the operating energy required for buildings declines, the embodied energy they represent becomes a more significant percentage of the total energy buildings use. In coming years more efforts will probably be directed toward measuring and reducing the amount of embodied energy in buildings.

So as you can see, this all gets very difficult to measure accurately. Measuring embodied energy is still in an early phase, but is very important.  But from my perspective for this project (right now) while I think that it is an important objective to build carbon-neutral buildings,  it might be less practical to get 100% there.  Remember ability to execute is everything!  So we move forward to reach our net zero goal while keeping our carbon footprint to a minimum via the materials we choose and construction methods employed (modular really helps).

If you want to learn more about what you can do, or how much embodied energy is used in different popular products visit, WattzOn.  It is an early stage online tool to quantify, track, compare and understand the total amount of energy needed to support all of the facets of your lifestyle with the goal of helping you find ways to reduce your personal power consumption.

More to come, including my thoughts on sustainability.

It's Out In The Open

At 8:00 AM today, this release hit the wire, unveiling our very ambitious project to a larger group.  The reaction has been great and I have been getting a bunch of press inquires.  

New York City’s First ‘Zero Energy Building’ Coming to the

Red Hook Section of Brooklyn

Innovative Facility To Be Completed by Summer 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE New York, NY – December 03, 2009 Designs for New York’s first sustainable zero-energy, live/work building are nearing completion, with ground-breaking scheduled for February and completion planned for summer 2010.  This structure is expected to become a distinctive new addition to the Red Hook section of Brooklyn.

As defined by the US Department of Energy, “a net zero-energy building (ZEB) is a residential or commercial building with greatly reduced energy needs through efficiency gains such that the balance of energy needs can be supplied with renewable technologies.”  Basically the ZEB concept is the idea that buildings can meet all their energy needs from low-cost, locally available, nonpolluting, renewable sources such as solar or wind power.

This approximately 4,000 square foot facility will house a studio/workshop, offices for a digital business, garages and an apartment, as well as outdoor green space. The form of the house is inspired by the shipping containers stacked along the adjacent waterfront. Modular units, proportioned similarly to shipping containers are stacked and shifted to create a variety of terraces and overviews to take advantage of the areas amazing harbor views.

The project, called ‘Redhook Green’ is the brainchild of New York technology and media entrepreneur, Jay Amato. 

“I’m thrilled that Redhook Green will become a very visible symbol of the continuing reinvention of one of New York City’s oldest neighborhoods,” said Mr. Amato.  “But I’m even more excited that I could practically illustrate the movement towards zero-energy building to the world’s greatest city.  Bringing to bear exciting new building materials, improved wind and solar technologies and more energy-efficient HVAC and home appliances, as well as state of the art sustainability strategies, Redhook Green will be a powerful answer to the question of what urban centers can do to reduce our dependency on foreign oil via renewable resources and to significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

With a long history as a shipping port and industrial district, Red Hook – not quite two miles across from the Battery at the tip of Manhattan – is thoroughly urban. In the evenings, however, it is as quiet as a remote and leafy suburb, bounded by water on three sides and the elevated Gowanus Expressway on the remaining side.  While other Brooklyn waterfront neighborhoods like Williamsburg and Dumbo have developed an image of youthful urban chic, Red Hook remained a gritty industrial district until the recent addition of Fairway, IKEA and the New York Water Taxi. Now, Red Hook's eclectic mix of artists and industrial businesses has created a neighborhood dubbed "Residustrial" in 2008 by artist and resident John P. Missale.

Award winning New York firm, Garrison Architects, located in Dumbo, Brooklyn, is the chief designer overseeing Redhook Green. Garrison has assembled a unique group of designers, engineers, and manufacturers to innovate for this project.

"Jay Amato’s Red Hook project draws from several promising trajectories – abstract modernism, modular construction, and zero energy consumption.  By combining state of the art approaches to all three in one structure we have moved the potential for affordable, ecologically sound, urban dwellings several steps forward," said James Garrison, Principal in Charge of Garrison Architects.

Simple and cost effective sustainability strategies are used to conserve and produce energy, conserve resources, and create a healthful environment. This sustainability approach was developed though an extensive research project that included digital energy modeling, detailed life cycle cost analysis of construction components and their related maintenance and replacement costs. Here are a few of its features:

·       8kw annual photovoltaic generating capacity, grid connected.

·       8kw annual comprehensive household energy budget including heating and air conditioning.

·       High performance building envelope that eliminates thermal bridging and achieves an average thermal resistance of R50.

·       Wall and roof systems vented to eliminate moisture build up and use “smart” moisture barriers to allow air movement in warm months.

·       Integrated south facing thermal solar wall generates warm air that is fed to the building ventilation system.

·       Heating and cooling provided by high efficiency electric heat pumps.

·       Whole house heat exchange ventilation system insuring air quality and recovering energy from conditioned air.

“In my entire career building and leading businesses, nothing has given me more satisfaction than developing this project,” added Jay Amato. “We are transforming what is essentially an empty space into a structure that can serve as an example of how we can live and work responsibly. This is truly gratifying.”

To view a chronicle of Redhook Green, design plans, technology and project status, visit: www.redhookgreen.com

For more information, contact: 

Laura Landers

PersonalScreen Media LLC

information@personalscreen.com

917-720-8953

Tamara Gruber

Garrison Architects

info@garrisonarchitects.com

718-596-8300

Zero-Energy Building - A World Wide Movement to ZEB

I need to develop a press release to announce this project.   My goal is drive awareness of Redhook Green in an effort to obtain technological, equipment and product support from green-minded manufacturers of appliances, electronics, and furnishings, just to name a few.  I discovered there was no concise way to describe the movement towards lower or zero energy building, so I decided that I needed to give it a try myself.  

 As the United States moves to reduce its dependency on foreign oil via renewable resources and to significantly reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, automobiles have typically been the favorite targets of the press and politicians, but in reality buildings have a huge impact on energy use and the environment. According to the Energy Information Agency, commercial and residential buildings use almost 40% of the primary energy and approximately 70% of the electricity in the United States.

 There is a perfect storm of sorts brewing in the world of new construction.  As building technology improves, architects have developed exciting passive designs to reduce energy needs in order to maintain temperature throughout the sun's daily and annual cycles while reducing the requirement for active heating and cooling systems. Next add to that the ever-improving performance of wind and solar generation while continuing to drive lower costs to implement. And finally, manufactures are engineering more energy efficient HVAC and home appliances to reduce consumption and increase efficiency. The intersection of these phenomena’s is the Zero-Energy Building.

As defined by the US Department of Energy, “a net zero-energy building (ZEB) is a residential or commercial building with greatly reduced energy needs through efficiency gains such that the balance of energy needs can be supplied with renewable technologies.”  Basically the ZEB concept is the idea that buildings can meet all their energy needs from low-cost, locally available, nonpolluting, renewable sources such as solar or wind power. That building can generate enough renewable energy on site to equal or exceed its annual energy use. A zero energy building typically uses traditional energy sources such as the electric and natural gas utilities when on-site generation does not meet the need. When the on-site generation is greater than the building’s loads, excess electricity is sold to the local utility via the power grid. By using the grid to account for the energy balance, excess production can offset later energy use.

 There is a growing trend to for governments around the world to embrace the concepts of zero-energy buildings; a few examples include California and the European Union.

 Every two years, the California Energy Commission (CEC) releases an Integrated Energy Policy Report, in which it makes recommendations for energy policy in the state, including changes to the energy efficiency portion of the building codes. In its 2007 report, CEC recommends adjusting the code to require net-zero-energy performance in residential buildings by 2020 and in commercial buildings by 2030.   There are only a few examples of ZEB building in the U.S. according to the Department of Energy's Zero Energy Buildings Database that features profiles of commercial buildings.

 The European Union has taken a huge step toward zero-energy building.  Earlier this month an agreement was reached by representatives of the European Parliament and the Council, aiming to extend the scope and strengthening the current directive to upgrade the national building codes and by launching an ambitious policy of nearly zero energy buildings, so that all new buildings will be nearly zero energy as of 2020.

 In the EU buildings are responsible for 40% of energy consumption and 36% of CO2 emissions. It is estimated that, by strengthening the provisions of the directive on energy performance, they could achieve a reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 70% of the current EU Kyoto target. In addition to this, these improvements could save citizens around 300€ per annum per household in their energy bills, while boosting the construction and building renovation industry in Europe.  Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said: "Energy performance of buildings is key to achieving our EU Climate & Energy objectives for 2020, namely the reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions and the achievement of a 20% of energy savings. By this agreement, the EU is sending a strong message to the forthcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Improving the energy performance of buildings is a cost effective way of fighting against climate change and improving energy security, while also boosting the building sector and the EU economy as a whole."

 So what do you think?  Let me know, any edits, upgrades or thoughts would be greatly appreciated!  BTW, if you know of any companies that might like to participate in this exciting project, please forward them this blog or my email at jay@redhookgreen.com

Ready, Set, Go!

So what do you think I woke up one morning and decided I want to buy a green-ish house?  Well, kind of, but it was slightly more deliberate than that. 

What exactly did I want? What did I hope to accomplish?  I thought about the various types of places I’ve lived and extracted what I loved, liked and hated about each of them. I reviewed past floor plans (yes, I have them all) and I then visualized the various attributes that would be important in making this new structure a long-term place to work and live.

• Energy/Water Efficient 
• Sustainable Materials
• High-Quality 
• Factory-Built Modern Structure 
• American Made Materials 
• Simple But Exciting Design 
• Design Augments Surrounding Neighborhood 
• Kid And Dog Friendly 
• Easy To Clean & Maintain 
• Open & Light Filled Spaces 
• Interesting 
• Fun & Comfortable 
• Private & Secure 

From that list I started to think about specific "must have" appointments were necessary to meet the above objectives.

• Flexible Commercial Space For Vehicle Storage, Restoration, Stone Carving, and Workshop 
• Open Office Space
• 3 Bedrooms, 2+ Baths
• Outdoor Green Space
• Leverage Water view to see Harbor and Statue of Liberty
• Connection for Electric Car (coming soon I hope)
• Flagpole and US Flag
• Leverage Government Energy Programs

As you will see, this list will change and as what was and was not possible, became more clearly delimited by land availability, design, time, and budget options.  I will cover most of them in detail in coming weeks.  Did I miss anything?  Any thoughts on my attributes and appointments?  Please jump in real-time as we work through the project by commenting below.

Zero Energy "Factory-Built" Homes for the California Bay Area

A new a new San Francisco company, Zeta Communities is setting out to construct factory-built homes that create as much energy as they use - reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with operating buildings.  Read the San Francisco Chronicle article Startup's prefab homes aim for zero energy bills.

Dwell House

In discussing this project with friends, I always find myself trying to explain what "modular" housing actually is.  For many I can simply say it's a “Dwell House” as they are avid readers of the magazine.  For others the term modular or prefab is reminiscent of trailer homes (sometime referred to as double wides) or something (god forbid) like the famous FEMA trailers circa Hurricane Katrina.

Modular building has been around for sometime time and trace it back to Buckminster Fuller over 80 years ago. They can take on many forms including traditional looking housing. The home to the left was built in a factory by Clayton Homes, a company corporate visionary Warren Buffet recently acquired. But in this case, I will be referring to modern modular construction.

From my perspective a modern modular home is constructed using three-dimensional boxes or “modules”, and generally start with either wood or steel framing. These 'prefab' homes are built to the same code as that of an on-site construction project, but these are created in a manufacturing facility.   The interior and exterior, walls, electrical, plumbing, floors, kitchens, bathroom, roofs and stairs are all completed in the factory. The modules are typically 90-95% complete when they come off the assembly line and then prepped for transportation to the site.

After completion, the modular home is shipped in sections to the site via truck, train or barge, and then attached to a permanent foundation at the building site. Several modules can be connected side-by-side or creatively stacked to create a finished home.  The end product is a home that is typically stronger than traditional construction.  Once the home is attached, it is considered real estate and appraised against other custom site-built homes.

Some of the many benefits of modular construction include (many of which I will discuss many in future posts):

• Factory/Assembly line construction means higher quality
• Worker repetition means worker process specialization with reduced defects
• Super Energy Efficient
• “Zero Energy” consumption from the power grid and in turn a zero carbon footprint
• Lower building cost
• Shorter overall project time
• Improved time and cost predictability
• Reduced maintenance
• Exceed typical structural requirements, creating a stronger, solid home.
• Less risk of time lost to weather

A Place to Be Happy!

I currently live in a place referred to as “Triburbia” a nickname coined after 9/11 , but better known as Tribeca in downtown NYC.  I am not sure what I was thinking when I purchased my 10^th floor apartment in a 35 story luxury building, but it turns out, at least to me, to be more like living in a “vertical gated community”.   It was time for a change, but what, where, was it time to sell again?  This is my fourth major real estate buy/sell in less than 10 years?  Where have I gone wrong?   What can I learn from those projects that would insure I construct a place from scratch that would serve as my home for a long time to come?

Build a house, now that’s scary.  I have lived through contractor hell, during many gut renovations over the years, all kinds of quality problems, cost overruns and missed deadlines and did I mention the LIES?

How could I build a cool green flexible house and minimize the cost, insure quality and address the time concerns? Could I do something to reduce the carbon footprint of this home by utilizing new designs, materials, and processes?  But wouldn’t that further exacerbate the contractor issues?   Round and round I went and then I remembered an issue of Dwell magazine called the “Prefab Issue”.  That was were it all started.