An Example by the Franny Eanet/Aaron Lamperti Family

The story of how and why we built our house, and why we chose to build off-grid and straw bale begins in California. Franny spent a year as Co-Director of the Campus Center for Appropriate Technology at Humboldt State University in Arcata. She was one of three student directors responsible for the operation of the house and educational programs there. That house had photovoltaic panels, solar hot water, a composting toilet, attached greenhouse, greywater marsh, veggie and herb gardens, windmill, and many other green features. Having been lucky enough to get all that hands on experience, she was eager to continue living sustainably. A few years later, when we made the decision to move back to Vermont, where Aaron grew up, we decided to build our own house.

We began researching alternative building methods and looking for one that was well-suited to our cold and sometimes damp climate. An architect friend suggested we look into straw bale construction, which we were already considering due to its high insulation value, low cost due to being (essentially) agricultural waste, relative simplicity as a building material, and overall ‘organicness’ (i.e. no synthetics to deal with in the long term or off-gas in the short).

We built off-grid as much to avoid having to run power lines as anything, but we would have installed solar panels to generate most of our power and hot water regardless since this is more sustainable. If the grid were available to us, we would be intertied, not off-grid. Sustainability is our priority. We’ve learned that it’s actually pretty easy to live a low-impact lifestyle without much sacrifice. Being off the grid has made our household a lean machine. We get by on much less power than a typical American household: we use approximately 2 kWh/day compared to more like 20kWh/day for a more typical house (this figure comes from the US DoE http://www.eia.doe.gov/
cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html).

Some of the things we regularly do and have integrated into our routine so that they don’t seem burdensome include: compost, recycle (and reduce, reuse), carpool, compact fluorescents (although we are waiting for LEDs to come down in price because of the mercury in CFLs), heat with wood, have all electronics on power strips so when they’re off they draw no power (a necessity for us because we’re off-grid), buy local, buy organic (local AND organic when possible), buy recycled, grow some of our own food, use low-toxicity soaps, body-care products, paints and other household products, buy in bulk, buy shares in summer and winter CSAs, harvest our own firewood, minimize commute distance, bike to school/work when we can, scavenge/
glean/share/free­cycle.

In writing this, we started thinking about what keeps people from making lifestyle changes, big or small, which will result in less ecological impact, lower embodied energy, smaller carbon footprint, a conserver lifestyle, or whatever you want to call it. It seems like one reason is that people don’t think it really matters, or that what one person or family does makes a difference (Wrong! Nothing could be more important or empowering). Another reason is that people seem to think it will be too time-consuming or difficult, and they are already very busy. The third is that it will be expensive or will not pay for itself very quickly, and everyone is pretty stretched financially these days.

While it’s impossible to argue with how busy people are or the state of the economy, most of the strategies we employ are minor and take little time once they are integrated into your routine. Yes, it takes longer to hang the laundry on a clothesline but only a few minutes longer then throwing it in the dryer. The finances we see as a choice like any other. Some people eat out a lot; others buy lots of fancy clothes or travel. We like to do all of those things, but we choose to spend some of our disposable income on energy efficient appliances and recycled or low-impact building products. In doing so, not only are we getting what we want at a lower ecological cost but we are also helping to bring down the price of what now may be seen as an alternative but which in the future will be the norm. In the time we have been in this house, many of the things that were ‘alternatives’ and therefore a little more expensive have become much more common and accordingly no more expensive than other options.

Pros: All these things have worked out well, so they are all pros.

Cons: These have more to do with our lack of experience and the lack of standards in building with straw (for example we have had some moisture issues due to poor detailing during construction). We don’t like having to use a generator in the winter months when insolation is at a minimum, although we can and do. A grid intertie would be better for this reason, too.

We are broadly happy with the house and our decisions, although we would change a few things if we did it over. Better details in certain areas. Maybe a grid intertie if available, although off grid works fine. We are happy with our relatively green and sustainable home and believe it is not much different (i.e. ‘it’s normal’) to live in one