Compare superinsulated structures with conventional structures, and see the savings of a superinsulated home.
We've retired to the North Carolina coast and plan to build an energy-efficient home there. We're receptive to just about any type of structure but do want something that'll offer significant energy savings in relation to our initial investment. Is superinsulated housing actually cost-effective in the climates typical of the Southeast?
Definitely. A superinsulated home can be cost-effective on the cold plains of central Minnesota, in the moderate mountain climate of western North Carolina, or in the warm ocean climate of Cape Hatteras. Essentially because it can contain, as well as keep out, both cold and heat, much as does a vacuum bottle.
Table I briefly summarizes the construction and insulation differences between a conventional and a superinsulated house, though the recommended insulation levels would depend on the regional costs of labor and materials, as well as on the climate.
Table 2 shows heating and cooling savings for a typical superinsulated home (if the design, construction costs, and materials costs are the same for each example) in the locations I've mentioned.
In a nutshell, winter heating needs can be reduced in a superinsulated structure by more than 80 percent in Minnesota, and by 94 percent to 97 percent in the North Carolina locations. The same dwelling designed for the Minnesota climate can cut air-conditioning needs by 60 percent.
— Michael Scott, a superinsulation pioneer