Posted on

NewWood – A Revolutionary Idea

As a stark contrast to the Numi toilet I recently panned, I’m totally excited about the concept behind NewWood. Starting with a nuclear power plant in Washington that was never completed or brought online, some very resourceful entrepreneurs have come up with what just could be one of the most revolutionary ideas to come along in a very long time.

Taking a mix of 50% recycled wood and 50% recycled plastic, they have started production (just within the last few days) on a 4×8 sheet that could replace much of the way we currently make plywood and sheet goods for underlayment, etc.

We spoke with Steve Pottle, from NewWood and are getting some samples. Our primary thought is to use them in our kit homes endeavor for developing countries, World3Homes. We had been looking for a sheet good that was durable, insect and moisture resistant, flexible for earthquake resistance, lightweight and economical. So far as we can tell, NewWood fits the bill on all counts.

What excites me about NewWood is the wood comes from wood waste that would have gone into the landfills, like some construction demolition waste, so it’s appropriate to be taking that material and reusing it in buildings. The plastic comes from plastic bottles and bags that may or may not get recycled (there seems to be plenty of it to go around). And the factory is recycled, too — a nuclear power plant never finished that was going to be a manufacturing facility that never started in an area of Washington with chronic unemployment.

The other thing about NewWood that I appreciate is NewWood itself is 100% recyclable. When it has served its useful life, or someone remodels, NewWood can be broken down and recycled again and again.

That’s truly forward-thinking. Once I get my sample and we have a chance to try it in our first World3Homes prototype, I’ll revisit this and let you know how it performs. Oh, and thanks to Preston Koerner from JetsonGreen; that’s where I first heard about NewWood.

Posted on

Kohler Numi Toilet

Unbelievable. Technology is going to save us once and for all. For a price.

As seen in USA Today, a new customizable “smart toilet” is being brought to the US market the end of this month. Called the “Numi”, Kohler’s new toilet is billed as “a perfect blend of technology, performance, and design.” It comes complete with “adjustable heated seat and foot warmer too, plus an integrated stainless steel, self-cleaning bidet wand with a dryer. A motion-controlled seat and lid can automatically open when you approach and close when you split. Tripping a bar of light on the floor to the side of the toilet automatically raises the seat, while the toilet automatically flushes when walking away.”

It comes in white or biscuit and has a remote control that can be programmed for up to six individual users. And it can be yours for only $6,300. So while it may be a perfect blend of technology, performance, and design, cost obviously isn’t part of the “blend.” It is dual flush with 0.6 or 1.28 gallons per flush, so there is one redeeming factor with this toilet.

But that’s the only one.

Posted on

The Carpet and The Dust Mite

For many years, the concept of wall-to-wall carpeting was marketed to us for our homes. The truly cool, hip homes had carpeting everywhere. Soft, warm and conducive to walking around barefoot, carpet was the status symbol of the 1970s and 1980s.

I remember the house I grew up in. It had linoleum in the bathrooms, kitchen and family room and wood flooring in the rest of the house. I guess in the early 1960s in Oregon, wood floors were cheap. Well, inexpensive at least. When I was in Junior High (Middle School for those of you younger than 45), my parents decided to join the “wave” and carpet the whole house. I resisted. I liked my wood floor. It was a beautiful, warm reddish-brown. And it was easy to keep clean. Not that cleaning my floor was anything I ever really did (I was 13, after all). So, after much prodding and stubbornness on my part, I convinced my parents that while they were going to carpet the rest of the house, they should leave my bedroom the wood floor. And I won.

So the entire time I lived at home (which was until I finished college and got married), my bedroom had a wood floor. I’d like to say I was smart and ahead of my time and all that, but really I just liked the wood floor.

Since then, I have learned that carpeting is probably one of the dirtiest, hazardous-to-your-health aspects of our homes. We spend almost 90% of our time indoors, so the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) of our homes is very important. And in a study “Allergy-Resistant Housing – Principles and Practice”, common allergens in the home list dust mites, pollen, pet dander and fungi and molds high on the list of importance related to the effects these things have on our health. Dust mites feed on human skin flakes and live and breed predominately in our carpets. Pollens get tracked in on our shoes and clothes and can easily be transferred to our carpets.

Cleaning carpet is an interesting concept. Most vacuum cleaners just stir the dirt, dust and mites around. Have you ever seen a vacuum when you first turn it on have that “puff” of dust and dirt go flying around? Think about that for a minute then tell me if you think it’s really doing any good, serious cleaning. We have a central vacuum system in our current home so at least the dirt goes outside our home into a canister in the garage.

But the wake up call or realization or whatever you may want to call it came the first time we had the carpet professionally cleaned. The extractor water was black. And I’m thinking “I’m walking on this, laying on this to watch TV, breathing this.” And while we have some wood floors in our home, most is still carpet. The other thing we’ve noticed is when we dust mop or simply sweep the wood floors, there is an incredible amount of dust and dirt. And my wife and I think “this is also throughout our carpets…”

You may notice in my posts that we are designing a new, smaller home. We are also targeting a LEED Platinum rating. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is a third-party rating system for sustainability and healthy buildings. One of the LEED emphases is hard-surface flooring. They, too, recognize the health benefits to not using carpet.

So as we are designing our new home (view the Lawrence Street House posts), we’ve committed to using all hardwood floors. Everywhere. We will have no carpet. If we have rugs, they will be throw rugs that can be removed and cleaned periodically. And we will have a healthier home.

Posted on

Simple Sometimes is Really Good

OK, so a few days ago I dissed on the one-cup coffee makers with all the disposables. Now for something truly sustainable and amazing. It’s the Niagra Stealth HET (High Efficiency Toilet). Made by Niagra Conservation, the Stealth toilet is a single flush, using only 0.8 gallons. Most of the new dual flush toilets are 0.9 and 1.6 gallons per flush, depending on whether or not you are flushing #1 or #2. This toilet uses air-assist to achieve the results and seems to work very well.

I haven’t actually used one or seen it “in action”, but all indications are that it’s pretty amazing. It recently received recognition as one of the Top 10 Green Products for 2010 by the Environmental Building News organization.

It also is simpler, with less moving parts. It uses air and vacuum in the filling to help the efficiency of the flush, is quiet and retails for about the same as a good quality standard toilet: $300. It currently comes only in white. But it may the future of HE toilets.

Posted on

Easy Doesn’t Always Mean Simple

My wife and I were out and about today and visited Bed Bath & Beyond. As we wandered through the store we came upon one of those product demos for a Krups Nescafe Dolce Gusto Piccolo 15 Bar Single Serve Beverage Maker (whew!) in Titanium/Black. I had been talking about doing some product reviews and had some thoughts mulling around on different products I could comment on.

But this one tipped the scale for me. As we listened to the demo, we saw how you could take individually-wrapped “capsules”, insert them into the machine, flip the lever and, viola! have an espresso or cappuccino in just minutes. For regular espresso, only one capsule is needed, but for a cappuccino, it takes two. And, of course, the pods are disposable.

By now, you may have sensed where I’m going with this. To enjoy the easy brewing of an eight ounce cappuccino, I will throw away, two capsule containers (plastic, I think, but not recyclable since they are contaminated with food waste) and for every eight cups, will consume a small cardboard box (which at least is recyclable). And the cappuccinos will cost me about $1.13 each (for just the capsules).

There are many ways to brew coffee and espresso without disposing and filling landfills. I have an espresso machine that has a metal reusable portafilter. Nothing disposable in it. And my coffee grounds make a great addition to the compost bin (if you’re so inclined).

For regular coffee, there are the cone filters that are washable and reusable. Single cup and for the brewers. And at $1.25 per cup for the Krups Nescafe Dolce Gusto Capsules, you’ll pay for the cost of a $10 reusable filter in a few days and even a fancy, durable $300 espresso machine in several months. I’ve had mine for two years and it’s still going strong.

Does this take more time? A little. Is it less money? A lot. Is it better all-around? Absolutely.

Posted on

The Lawrence Street House – Sidewalks and Urbanite

Our lot is 60 x 150 feet. The 150 foot side has a fairly new sidewalk, but the 60 foot side on Lawrence Street, I think may have the original sidewalk from 1940. It’s worn, broken, heaving and needs to be replaced.


Now, we could chop it up, haul it to the dump and contribute to the roughly one third of the local waste stream that comes from construction debris or (and here’s where it gets good), we could reuse those chunks as part of our landscape plan.


It’s called “urbanite” and a good description can be found at http://tinyurl.com/yk4rmzr. So we’re working with our landscape architect on this and as Rex, from DLA’s office said “I built a patio at a previous house that way and really liked it. Saves disposal and hauling energy of the old plus new material extraction and hauling energy!”

Posted on

the Lawrence Street House – Rainwater, Part 3

Another area we are looking at to save water is our toilets and clothes washer. These two appliances probably use the most water inside the home as any other. And they are easy “targets” for rainwater use. That’s because they don’t need to use drinking water to be effective. Our thought is to also plumb our home to use some of the rainwater we collect to flush toilets and wash our clothes. 
We will likely have to balance the amount of rainwater we can collect with our irrigation, toilet and clothes washing demands. Our rooftop has the potential to collect far more than we can store practically, but we can’t practically store all we could collect (about 15 to 20,000 gallons), so we’re looking at where to hit that balance. I just received our irrigation estimates and, in our climate, we face the challenge of very wet winter months and pretty dry summer months. So the challenge is to know how many gallons is best overall for storage.
Plus, another challenge we’re facing is our clothes washer. Conventional wisdom (ie LEED points and marketing) says we should get rid of our 28+ year old Maytag washer that uses 40 gallons per load and get a new Energy Star washer that uses 15 to 20 gallons per load. HOWEVER, my question is what happens to our old washer (landfill or reuse?), we only run 2 to 4 loads per week (family of 2) and about half of those are  cold water, if we’re using rainwater for those cold water loads and we’ve never had a problem with our washer in those 28 years (The lonely Maytag repairman ads were right), does it make overall sense to replace our washer? Right now, we’re thinking it doesn’t. So we are probably going to forego that 0.5 point for LEED in lieu of what we feel makes more sense overall. 
I’d be interested in your opinions.
Posted on

The Lawrence Street House – Rainwater, Part 2

Our primary us for rainwater will be for landscape irrigation. We’re designing our landscape first to need less water to start with. That’s the way it is with good design in anything, reduce is the first “r”.

So we’re being strategic in our plant selection, using the concept of the right plant in the right place. We’re reducing our actual lawn area to just about 100 sq ft. Lawns are the largest irrigated “crop” in the US, and we often use clean, drinking water to do it.
Then, after we reduce, we’re going to reuse (the second “r”) our rainwater that already would have fallen onto the ground where our house will be. The landscaping that needs irrigation will largely be fed by a drip system. Drip irrigation is hugely more efficient than pop-up heads.
We’re also looking at using rainwater for two of the major water-using “appliances” inside our home: our toilets and clothes washer. More on those next time.
Posted on

The Lawrence Street House – Rainwater, Part 1

In addition to harvesting the solar on our site, we are seriously considering harvesting our rainwater. Eugene gets about 50 inches of rain each year. The rooftop of our main house is about 3,400 sq ft (remember, this includes porches and the garage), and our secondary unit has a roof area of about 1,570 sq ft.

There are several resources you can get online to calculate how many gallons of water this translates into. that’s helpful as we get into our irrigation demand and other things we might want to do with our water.
I’ve talked with the people from RainTech in Jacksonville, Oregon, just over 150 miles from here. Their system (pictured above), is called RainSpace. It’s underground, simple low-tech and just seems elegant to us. Visit their site, watch their installation video and see what we mean.
We’re hoping to use rainwater for all our irrigation and maybe even flush our toilets and wash our clothes with it. I’ll get into a bit more about that tomorrow. Meanwhile, check out RainTech, their green certifications and learn a little more about their company.
Posted on

The Lawrence Street House – Solar Electric [update]

[added revised pricing on solar hot water system and total cost; even better than I originally thought]

In addition to thinking about our landscape design, finishing the structural plans and selecting some of our finishes (more on those to come), we’ve been looking at our solar configuration(s).

Typically, you’ll do a 2 or 3 KW photovoltaic and a separate hot water system. This maximizes tax credits and utility incentives and generates a lot of electricity and hot water. Photovoltaic systems are still expensive and the cells are getting more efficient, but they’re still relatively inefficient. HOWEVER, they are still worth it in my book.
Hot water systems typically generate a lot of hot water for a relatively low cost. As a point of comparison, a 2 KW equivalent hot water system will cost about $8,000 to $9,000 where a 2 KW stand-alone pv will be in the $13,000 neighborhood. Both of those are before credits and incentives.
But our LEED rater, Eli, has a friend who is an engineering type who had a thought. This, of course can sometimes be dangerous (engineers having thoughts can be kind of like architects having an idea). But the more I’ve considered his thought, the more it makes sense to me.
What he observed is during the summer, a typical solar hot water system will heat a normal 120 gallon solar water tank up to maximum temperature, then shut off. Two “problems” with that. First, 120 gallons is more water than most people use (a typical home has a 52 gallon water heater). Second, when it shuts off, in the time of year when you get the most solar, you are basically throwing away that extra energy by not collecting it. Two very intriguing points.
So his thought is to bag the solar hot water system with its oversized tank, pumps, plumbing, etc and put that money into upsizing your photovoltaic system. So I got some preliminary pricing on upsized pv. A 2.1 KW system is about $13,500 ($1,200 net after credits), a 3.2 KW $20,000 ($4,500 net) and a 4.9 KW system $29,400 ($9,500 net). A hot water system nets out at about $4,200 after credits. So a 3 KW plus hot water system nets at about $8,700 but boosting it up to almost 5 KW (3 KW plus the 2 KW hot water) nets at $9,500. And, during the summer, we can sell the extra back to our utility and build a credit for the winter.
We’re strongly leaning toward the 4.9 KW system. We’ll couple that with a small, 40 gallon high efficiency water heater (like the Rheem Marathon). I have Eli checking to see how much energy we should actually save (which is more important to us than the tax credits) and I’ll report how that pencils out.