Blue House Energy , Energy Efficient Stuff
Special Offer on Building Science Basics, Canadian Version
The Canadian version of Blue House Energy (our sister company) Building Science Basics is $100 off the regular fee from now until the end of March. Catch a good deal and learn the fundamentals of building science at your own pace! Follow this link to the course description and shopping cart thingy.
Was rummaging around in a bunch of market research when I came across this item, from April 2013, which makes me shed many tears. Here’s the headline (go read the article if you want to cry, too):
Shelton Group Study Shows Decline in Energy-Efficient Product Purchases and Home Improvements.
I’m not weeping in angst because energy-saving habits have declined in the last three years. I’m weeping in frustration that the extent of what counts as ‘energy efficiency’ is so focused on minimal impact issues like replacing light bulbs and purchasing high-efficiency appliances, unplugging chargers and un-used appliances. Let’s look at the impact those ‘energy efficiency measures’ have on a relatively standard issue household.
I like the idea of LEDs and high-efficiency appliances and shutting off stuff you’re not using. Of course I do!!!!! So I’ve posted a bunch of info about energy efficient lighting options in the last few weeks. But those are band-aid solutions to real energy savings. It doesn’t change the amount of energy used in the house in a significant manner. It doesn’t change the financial load for the homeowner or renter. The telling part of the article is this statement: “and more than 40 percent of those who’ve actually done something are frustrated because they aren’t seeing the reduction they expected on their utility bills.”
No kidding.
In Canada, electronics and lighting account for 4 percent of overall household energy use. Appliances account for about 14 percent. Space and water heating account for 80 percent of the overall energy use. Eight-Oh. Four-fifths. Mostly All.
In the US, with a mixed bag of climate zones and space conditioning needs, appliances and lighting account for anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of the overall energy use. Space heating and cooling, and water heating accounts for 70 to 80 percent of the overall energy use. Still Mostly All, if you ask me.
What stands in the way of significant reductions in energy used for space conditioning and hot water usage? Like 50 to 90 percent reductions.
Off the top of my head…
- Not a silver bullet option offered at a big-box store
- Not easily packaged in a direct install program
- More expensive than a few cups of coffee
Simplistic, I know. The primary stumbling blocks are always cost and complexity. Low cost, simple measures are thought to be easier to accomplish. But are they? What if we took another look at measures that take the whole house into consideration and put big savings in small affordable phases? I’ll give some examples of what we’ve been looking at with our clients in the next few blog entries.
Just saw this ‘bombshell’ update on one of the LinkedIn groups I belong to: LEED buildings are not necessarily more energy efficient than other buildings built in the same time frame (read more at http://lnkd.in/bksHRbh). This is not too surprising, as the points required to gain any level of LEED certification are broadly distributed across a big spectrum, and a building can reach enough points for certification in many other areas.
When LEED for Homes (LEED-H) first rolled into Canada, the energy benchmark for points was ***below*** the R-2000 standard at the time (2009 LEED for Homes standard was ERS76, R-2000 at the time was ERS80). In fact, the minimum requirements weren’t code compliant in Nova Scotia from Jan 2010 on. Pretty bad showing for a program with the words ‘energy’ and ‘leadership’ in the name. Part of the reason for this was the adoption of the standard US code and technical references. Details @ LEED for Homes Canada in comparison to code and other energy efficient standards in 2009 in this CHBA report.
In 2012, it was changed so that LEED-H gave a project all 8 points available under ‘energy and atmosphere’ if it gained an ERS80 rating, equivalent to the 2005 R-2000 standard (and equivalent to HERS72 in the US), and minimum code compliance in at least 5 provinces. Since then, the R-2000 standard has been boosted to ERS 86 (well, the rating system has been revamped, so that figure is not really relevant any more — but that’s another post or ten to descramble the updated ERS rating). Seems ridiculous that a LEED-H project should get full points for meeting code in most of the country. Industry capability is much higher and LEED builders are likely to be able to move way past that mark. Points should be based on how far the project gets beyond the industry benchmark for energy reduction.
We have builders who are consistently reaching Net Zero Energy in Canada. We have builders who now offer nothing but Net Zero Energy houses. We have R-2000 builders who hit ERS86 or better. We have BuiltGreen builders in Alberta and Ontario rockin’ the low-energy house. In 2012, ENERGY STAR for New Houses builders provided 20% of the new housing stock offered in Ontario. All of these programs step far beyond code compliance. LEED-H could be providing a much more impressive leadership position on energy.
Now that I got you all excited about the savings to be had with lightbulb choices a couple of days ago, I think you need more details about lighting choices check out this blog entry from the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance (CEEA). Lots of info about everything you need to know about lightbulbs post-January 2014.
I posted this on FB the other day, but then got to thinking more about the comparison for cost-effectiveness. So being the wonk that I am, I had to go all OCD on it.
So to recap:
David Dodge at Green Energy Futures posted this infographic
which came from this report (and yes, I read the whole thing…so you wouldn’t have to).
Gordon Howell, PV Engineer in Edmonton, added in a FB comment: the lifetime energy consumed in operating these bulbs:
Incandescent: 1330kWh
CFL: 330kWh
LED: 310kWh
The LED consumes only 23% of the energy consumed by the incandescent.
So, that’s pretty impressive. How does that work out for cost to use/cost to buy?
At today’s prices from Lowes.ca:
Incandescent: standard issue 60W units 8-pack for $6.47 is most common in the online offering, but there was a 24 pack for 11.98 (really?!?!). So $6.50/8
CFL: 2 pack of 15W anywhere from $5.98 for base model to $14.98 for daylight. Lets go for the daylight version, so we’re happy in the winter (we’ll buy 2 packs, just in case).
LED: 12W Soft White $18.98 to $24.98. Middling cost: $22/bulb.
I pay about $0.136/kWh.
| Purchase | kWh Cost | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incandescent | $19.50 | $180.88 | $200.38 |
| CFL | $22.47 | $44.88 | $67.35 |
| LED | $22.00 | $42.16 | $64.16 |
Well. Are you sold on energy efficiency yet?
That’s a 68% reduction in overall costs between incandescent and LED lights.
I personally don’t like CFLs because of the unresolved issue of how to dispose of them safely (I know the mercury is minimal per bulb, but it’s not minimal when it’s hundreds of thousands of bulbs and they’re broken in landfills and leaking into groundwater — because we know that there are limited CFL recycling operations, and, just like the batteries that are stacking up in the garage, waiting to get taken to the hazardous waste drop off — the bulbs are likely to get pitched in the regular garbage in a spring cleaning frenzy). And yes, it’s true, the amount of coal-fired electricity that CFLs displace reduces mercury emissions from that major source. But if the LED bulbs are available and cost-competitive, why not use them instead?
Leave A Comment