[Greenbuilding] What R-2000 is not (was re: please rant: thar she blows)

[Christophor Faust]

Dear Rob,
   
  I think I covered the R2000 problem/non-sustainable junk in another e-mail, but your question "Speaking of which, it would be interesting to hear what Christophor has 
designed/or built that would give some indication that he is capable of 
creating a better, more sustainable alternative to R-2000 or Super-E homes." is deserving of an answer.
   
  I have designed and built the two most all around sustainable buildings on the planet.  Either one will and does outperform every LEED Platinum and R2000 effort, irrespective of location or budget, ...by a lot, and most times by an order of magnitude.  I have about six years of major university research data to support a functionally sustainable deficit of 160W/m^2-yr whereas a pretty good number for an R2000 home is something like 20,000W/m^2-yr, or 12,500% more.
   
  Does 125 times better count?
   
  AOF  


Rob Tom <ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca> wrote:
  Christophor Faust cfathause2 at yahoo.com


> Is there any amount of insulation that might improve a rejection model's 
> design performancebeyond one of there days within the human comfort 
> zone? How about R=100,000,000.?

>> R2000 & Super-E homes are non-sustainable junk

Initially, I just assumed that Christophor was a troll so I wasn't going 
to bother feeding him but since Mike has already initiated a dialogue...

My first question to Christophor would have been :

"Do you know what R2000 or Super-E homes are ?"

But it would have been a rhetorical question because it is obvious that he 
does not.

For other Murricans who may not be aware, R-2000 was a performance 
standard that was developed in the 1980's with an eye to making healthy, 
resource/energy-efficient, better-built homes.

At its heart was the HotCan computer program which evolved into the 
HOT2000 program, a tool that enabled designers to model the performance of 
their designs in order to evaluate them against the performance targets 
set out by the R-2000 performance standard. If the design didn't measure 
up, then it was a relatively simple matter to make adjustments and 
revisions at the design stage to improve performance.

Once the house was built, actual performance would be verified and once 
verified, the building would be certified as being a R-2000 house. But if 
Christophor had simply Googled "R-2000" I suspect that he would have 
learned the above for himself.

Over two decades later since the advent of R-2000, I think that it would 
be reasonably safe to say that over 95% of the housing stock currently 
built in the USA would not meet the R-2000 performance standard.

One notes that nowhere in the above is it mentioned that R-2000 houses 
need to use any particular materials or systems of construction, which is 
to say, that Christophor could use earwax and navel lint to built his 
R-2000 house if he felt that it would be sustainable, but if he did, it 
would only qualify as being an R-2000 home if upon testing, it was 
verified to meet the performance specs.

Speaking of which, it would be interesting to hear what Christophor has 
designed/or built that would give some indication that he is capable of 
creating a better, more sustainable alternative to R-2000 or Super-E homes.
-- 
=== * ===
Rob Tom
Kanata, Ontario, Canada

winnow the chaff from my edress in your reply


_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
List info: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org


       
---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.