Home Energy TechTips

To follow up on my last post regarding the positions the two presidential candidates are taking on energy and the environment, I am going to share some information that I recently read in Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum’s book, That Used To Be Us: How America Fell Behind In The World It Invented and How We Can Come Back. 

“If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” –Dick Cheney

The above statement relating to nuclear weapons, according to the authors, is the stance that we as a country should take when it comes to climate change.  Americans disagree on global warming on many levels, some say it doesn’t exist, some say it does, some think it is a natural occurrence, some think it’s man-made, etc..  The point however, is that whatever particular position you may take on the issue, doing something about it will benefit the country regardless of the ultimate outcome of the situation.  Like homeowners in Kansas buy insurance on their homes for tornadoes, something that is not certain but possible, so too should the country invest in “insurance” for global warming.

By investing in and gradually building an economy based on clean power, our response to climate change will not only provide “insurance” but will eventually become profitable.  If we make investments in energy efficiency and global warming turns out to be less harmful than expected, what would happen?  The result would be a transition period of higher energy prices, but lower energy bills.  As new technologies providing clean power and greater efficiency achieve mass production, these prices would fall as well.  In a 2009 report, Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, the McKinsey found that if serious but affordable investments ($520 billion) were made in energy-efficiency measures through 2020, it would yield gross energy savings of more than $1.2 trillion, saving more than twice what it would cost.

Going further, clean energy is almost surely going to become the next great global industry.  Even if global warming didn’t exist, the fact that the world population is increasing means that global demand for oil, coal, and gas will increase and become more expensive.  By investing in the clean power industry and new technology to develop it, we could position ourselves to be a leader in the next big global industry. Currently China ($54 billion) and Germany ($41 billion) are ahead of the U.S. ($34 billion) in private investment and financing of clean energy.  A major reason for this is they both use domestic policy to create internal demand.  By setting higher efficiency standards for buildings, cars, and power plants in the U.S., we would trigger innovation by American companies, positioning ourselves to compete globally and bettering our country as a whole.

To summarize, let’s begin taking climate change seriously, whether you truly believe in its effects or not.  Raising efficiency standards and investing in clean energy will not only provide us with “insurance”, but will save us money and help boost our economy.  We all know we could use it!

Liza Bowles and Phil Sapone of Newport Ventures were in Montour Falls to discuss the benefits and drawbacks to adopting and implementing more stringent building energy codes.  Members of the local news media were on hand to listen in as this is a topic that has gained widespread interest throughout the area.  As part of the discussion, Newport detailed a community’s options for a more advanced energy code, including several green building and voluntary energy efficiency programs.  In addition, Newport discussed the benefits of using third-party verification under these options and some lessons learned from Long Island, where a number of communities have already implemented more stringent energy codes.

Click here to see a brief video on Newport’s discussion of advanced energy codes from YNN Elmira-Corning.

On March 21^st Newport Ventures completed a blower door test at the Pratt Zadock Museum.  The objective was to test the “air tightness” of the building.  Part of the reason a blower door test was deployed was to determine the possibility of reducing the buildings energy loses through leaks in the buildings envelope. Upon arrival to the site it became evident that a typical blower door test could not be conducted due to the deteriorated condition of the building caused by the flooding from 2011.

With the first floor walls opened up to the sheathing and siding the typical “air barrier” that exist in buildings had been removed.  Other areas of concern for not conducting a standard blower door test was the existence of 6 chimneys open to the inside along with an open ceiling to the vented attic space.

It was decided that we could conduct a blower door test on the rear half upper portion of the front building. The upstairs portion where the museum had displays set up was chosen for such a test.  The area tested equaled 720 square feet with a ceiling height of 7 feet 8 inches.

The result of the test was 1078 CFM@50 that translates into 11.7 ACH@50 Pascal’s. The result of this test only gives the infiltration rate of a small portion of the entire building.  Based on a visual inspection of the building the overall infiltration rate would most likely be higher if the entire building was to be tested for infiltration.

The Pratt Zadock Museum will re-open in the future with a more energy efficient building than what existed prior to the flooding of 2011.

Figure 1: Interior view of an exterior wall after lath and plaster were removed.

Figure 2: Blower door installed in an upstairs portion of the museum.

Figure 3: The other side of the blower door. Typically located in an exterior door for testing.

Figure 4: View of the "opened" ceiling looking into the vented attic space.

When it’s attached to ducts that look like this!

In existing buildings, the energy upgrades which are easiest to apply often aren’t the right ones to do.  Or at a minimum, some upgrades should be done in tandem with other measures.  Otherwise the true impact of an upgrade can be considerably less than you’d think.

Take this attic duct system as an example (see picture).  It is not well insulated – just buried in some spots under blown-in insulation.  It’s also not air-sealed with mastic, which seals up openings at the joints which are part of all duct systems.  So the duct loses heat (or gains it in the summer) through conduction, and directly blows heated (or cooled) air into the attic through leakage.  We can assume that a duct system like this loses roughly 40% of the energy it’s supposed to transfer to the living space.  Not a pretty picture.

If we have an old furnace supplying this duct system and replace it with a 90 AFUE unit when the old unit is ready for replacement – that’s a good thing right?  After all, the new furnace is about 90% efficient which places it among the good furnaces in the market.  But we also need to remember that the existing ducts – which deliver the heated air – are only 60% efficient (they lose 40% of the energy they carry).  So the overall system efficiency for the furnace + the ducts will be 0.90 * 0.60, or just 54%!

This doesn’t mean the high efficiency furnace is a bad selection – in fact it’s a very good choice as long as the ducts are also addressed. Attic ducts like this can be accessed for air-sealing with mastic, and also insulated with duct wrap or by having spray-foam applied to them.  This would make the ducts closer to 80% efficient.  Ducts which are inaccessible can also be air sealed with an aerosol sealant system that seals the leaks from the inside-out.

So the best results in improving home energy performance are gained by looking at an entire system.  By using this approach contractors and homeowners alike can make strategic upgrades which deliver the most impact.

Newport Partners recently exhibited a how-to disaster building guide at the 2012 Washington Home and Garden Show.  The guide is the result of a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development research project to develop strategies to make homes safer from natural disasters.  Each of the 14 strategies addresses at least one natural disaster type, including damage realized from high winds, wind-driven rain, floods, and earthquakes.

The project was also featured at the show’s Innovation Avenue, where the most innovative and exciting products and services were on display.  Sasha Andreev, host of HGTV’s Curb Appeal, profiled the guide during his on-stage presentations at the show!

Newport distributed strategy factsheets, with in-depth descriptions of cost and benefits, along with more information on best practices and links to related resources, and flyers promoting the project’s website, SaferStrongerHomes.com.

Matt Evans and Jamie Lyons of Newport are in Austin, TX attending the RESNET Conference.  Check back next week for highlights and other important information from this event.

All of us at Newport are deeply saddened by the passing of Dr. Subrato Chandra.  For those of us who knew him well, we have lost a great friend and feel a deep personal loss.  The building research community has lost one of its brightest stars.  His contributions have made a significant impact on the built environment.