Going green proves to be an expensive – though admirable – endeavor

Although making a house more earth-friendly is appealing to many homeowners, the initial cost to do so as well as the extended time period to recoup those costs may mean doing less harm to the environment is the first and possibly only satisfaction homeowners may have by doing so.

The Wall Street Journal recently took a look at the costs and estimated payback period of going “green,” quoting Canadian consulting firm Enermodel Engineering’s estimate that homeowners could spend 5 percent to 10 percent more for green materials and construction than for standard materials and construction. And the firm said it could take a minimum of 10 years to recoup costs for the most extreme green measures, such as extremely efficient furnaces and water-thrifty faucets.

Here’s a look at how much some green building materials cost compared with standard materials:

• Mythic low-odor interior latex paint that doesn’t emit volatile organic compounds: $35-$42 gallon, versus $20-$32 for standard interior latex paint;

• Weathershield 3-by-5-foot double-hung windows with coated Zo-e-Shield glass to block UV rays and save energy: $417 each (uninstalled), versus $345 for standard windows of the same size;

• BioBased soy-based foam insulation under floor or above ceiling: $2650 per 1,000 square feet, compared with $800-$1,000 for standard blown-in insulation;

• Sunslates solar-electric glass-faced tiles: $15,000 per 100 square feet installed, versus $1,200 for standard fiber-cement tiles.

On the other hand, some other green products have more immediate paybacks. According to EnergyStar.gov, purchasers of an Energy Star-rated refrigerator will recoup their costs over those of a standard refrigerator in 4.3 years. And compact fluorescent light bulbs – which sell for about five times the price of incandescent bulbs – pay back the extra cost in about four months.