Green building

Constantin

I agree that heating via radiant in itself will not lead to an efficient building. While radiant floor heat is very efficient due to the low temperatures involved, it is but a part of the system. If the envelope isn't right, then you can be all-radiant, and still not green. After all, snow-melting systems are radiant floor heating systems, yet not a very good use of energy in most instances.

GH

GREEN BUILDING - Buildinggreen.com

Had a conversation with the people at building green about
radiant heat and what I thought was obvious about radiant.
THEY the "STAFF" at buildinggreen shot me down like a dog.
They told us """ RADIANT HEAT IS NOT an efficient means of
heating""". WoW any IDEAS

Weezbo

Just because you paint a building Green doesnt make it ..

Efficient ..*~/:)

Gordy

Specific ?

Did you state hydronic radiant heat, or electric resistance cable radiant. Constantin is totally right in his post.
Also more than anything radiant heat has to do with a more COMFORTABLE enviroment inside the envelope.Radiant heat is an efficient means to heat in the way it transfers the heat to the envelope by not directly trying to heat the air.
I will have to say though in comparision in fuel bills for the heating season my non green 50's dwelling is cheaper to heat than some comparable F/A structures of the same era, and square footage.
One needs to define efficient here. Of course a passive solar, solar or geo thermal or a combination of all would be more efficient in the green sense.
Gordy

S Ebels

What did they say..........

Specifically, What factors did they say makes RFH non-green?

An what did they say WAS green?

I'm having difficulty imagining something more green, healthy and comfortable than RFH. Were they considering the petroleum products used to make Pex compared to the mining operation used to make steel for duct? In other words, are they looking at the whole picture from raw materials to complete heating system?

It would really be interesting to compare systems based on production costs of the entire package start to finish. You'd want to consider things like total system life, ability to be recycled, health care costs that are inadvertently brought about or reduced by said system, envirinmental impact and a host of other factors.

It's probably take more time than I have to read through it all but it would be neat to see.

GMcD

Green building opinions

This is an example of the "myth and legend" approach to forming their opinions. I recall an article they published some time ago denigrating radiant slab heating due to the "inefficiency" of trying to control a large thermal mass, and all the start-up energy required to get it "cycling" to meet loads. I guess all of Europe is doing it wrong- using radiant slab systems for low energy green buildings. While I find a lot of the material at BuildingGreen is good stuff and well researched, one has to keep in mind that their "green building" concept is not just an energy issue, it also includes all the building materials and other "stuff" that goes into a building - cradle to cradle materials, embodied energy, etc. They need to be challenged on the human comfort part of "sustainable/green building". Time for some letters to the editors there?