155 comments on Advice to President Obama: Grasping the Building Energy Bull by the Horns
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
155 comments on Advice to President Obama: Grasping the Building Energy Bull by the Horns
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”
—James Bryce (1909, 35)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Thanks again Will for sharing your expertise in this area with our readers.
I was surprised to see that 48% of our energy consumption is in buildings - that fact alone suggests we can reduce consumption pretty sharply if necessary. Two related questions:
1)how much of that 48% is 'already built'? (e.g. how does the 48% breakdown into fixed vs marginal)
2)Is there a reason that big cities keep their skyscraper lights on most of the night? How much energy does this use - is the only reason for the janitors to be able to clean/see? If so it would seem enormous energy saving could come from an 8pm-4am lights out curfew. (of course, the natural course of things this WILL happen, but not in planning only when the power shortages arrive...)
I would interpret the 48% to be what is used in a given year by people in buildings of any sort, other than that which is considered industrial use. I am not certain to what extent the building of buildings actually gets into that number.
Thus, it would include computer usage, lighting, elevators, and air conditioning in office buildings. It would include cooking in restaurants, and all of the medical equipment in hospitals. In homes, it would include heating, air conditioning, cooking, computer and TV usages, hot water heating, clothes dryers and a lot more.
Will, do you have any breakdown of this?
It will vary widely based on;
- Location (heating and/or cooling in Anchorage vs. Miami, for example)
- Type (residential, government, commercial, industrial, municipal)
- Sub-type (hospital vs. town hall, steel foundry vs. cell phone manufacturer, etc)
Some examples include;
Nate asked:
"how much of that 48% is 'already built'?"
That represents the current mix of energy use among sectors, so that would be 'already built'. If all sectors drastically reduce energy by the same percentage (unlikely), that mix would stay the same.
Yes, it is very important for people to realize how much energy our buildings use.
The problem is that not much new building is going up, and it takes much more skill and cash to retrofit than to do it right the first time. This article talks about $100,000 for superinsulating a home, and I've heard similar figures from specialists in the field. Insulating all the houses that need it would be a major expense, but then we are after all in the days of near-trillion-dollar bailouts spent on much stupider things (as we now see, to pad the year-end bonuses of the very bankers that drove the nation's and the world's economy off a cliff, for example).
http://news.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2009_01_17_Mass__...
Superinsulating would greatly reduce the peak load in the hottest days of the summer, generally the times of the highest use of electricity. Since el. generating capacity has to be built to handle such peaks, lowering how much is needed at these times is a big part of what we need to do. (For this same reason, PV is an important part of the equation, even though it's EROEI is not as good as large-scale wind)
In the winter, of course, superinsulation could hugely reduce dependence on natural gas, heating oil, and inefficient use of el. for heat. For those of us in the far north, it could be a matter of life and death, as shortages in heating fuels start cropping up.
In addition to super insulation, roof fans to reduce attic temperatures (which can reach 120 degrees F or more on a summer day) by bringing in relatively cooler air can drop 15 to 20 percent of electricity used for AC. From personal experiece, it is nice to have these on a switch or reasonalby accessible breaker, as the bug population gets out of hand unless they are periodically "roasted".
Agreed, there are many techniques available such as this to reduce energy consumption. Such vents can be solarPV-powered, solar chimney-powered, 'breeze'-powered, etc.
AC is a luxury that should be banned outright - maybe except in all-glass office buildings.
AC is a luxury that should be banned outright - maybe except in all-glass office buildings.
You obviously don't live in a desert climate.
While there are building techniques that can achieve some measure of passive climate control in true deserts (much of Southwestern US, Mexico), no passive system can adequately cope with 100F+ heat. Then there's the problem of cooling inefficient pre-existing housing stock. Even if the law mandates strawbale, cobb & earthship construction going forward, can we replace tens of $Trillions worth of perfectly good structures overnight (and tear-down historic buildings as well)? I don't think so.
Do we dare to question how smart it is/was to locate gigantic cities and sprawling suburbs containing millions of people in them in the middle of deserts? Especially when people living there can't conceive of doing so without deeply cooled artificial environments and pools in every yard?
People lived in the deserts long, long before AC, just not in huge numbers.
Perhaps its time to get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat. And the heat is going to be increasing considerably.
"can we replace tens of $Trillions worth of perfectly good structures overnight (and tear-down historic buildings as well)? I don't think so."
Agreed. That's why I mentioned retrofits. But even that is going to be a hefty bill.
There are cheaper ways to do it--spray on insulation--but it leaves a surface that people describe as like "living inside a tennis ball"--not everybody's cup o' tea. But then perhaps a tennis ball is better than an oven, a freezer, or ... a coffin?
Dohboi: living inside of a tennis ball? Never heard that one. I live in an extremely cold place and insulated my last addition with spray foam between the joists and rafters. The results were astounding. I would never insulate any other way again. R35-40 walls and floors and R60+ roofs are really amazing and comfortable and utterly silent. An unexpected bonus is that spray foam between two sheets of cladding makes for an extremely rigid massively strong panel structure.
As I recall, the comment was about a spray on insulation that becomes itself the new inner wall surface of the building. I think the "tennis ball" part was partly inspired because it was a small geodesic structure. I'll see if I can track down the source. Thanks for all the comments, everyone.
Might want to keep an eye on those timbers that have foam sprayed on them: my engineer tells me it causes them to rot. One house he inspected at rotted every timber with foam on it by the time it was 5 years old! And that was in Fairbanks AK, which is a very dry environment (and cold! -18 here right now...going to be very hard to get those 'net zero' buildings here). I suppose you could keep the moisture out with proper vapor barrier, but it is still taking a chance. Of course there is a place here that is made of *all* foam (between Fairbanks and Anchorage), but that turned out to be a big mistake because they could never use it due to the outgassing of formaldahyde--even after 20 years it is still a problem.
Here in N. Nevada, we have record low humidities. Last year I think it was measured at 4%.
In these dry areas AC is pretty much extravagant, because the lowly evaporative cooler (swamp cooler) works so well.
Ours will drop the temperature as much as 25 degrees below ambient (that's with wood-straw pads, not artificial which work less well.)
I'm guessing the swamp cooler uses 1/3 the energy of AC, but am not sure.
The disadvantages are they do use water, need new pads every so often, and must be drained in winter.
During summer, it turns on very early in the morning via a simple timer, and keeps the house quite cool until mid-afternoon.
On really hot nasty days we do supplement it with small window AC units, and also use them when the humidity rises too much.
An of course we open windows in the cooler evenings to get that cold night air into the house.
We've made thermal curtains for our windows, and use these summer and mostly winter.
We really should make some shutters for our West facing windows, as it seems that is the most heat-introducing area.
Outside shutters keep the heat from getting into the glass.
My kid had a large sliding patio door facing west with no trees or shade in his little condo. I calculated that his heat gain in the afternoon was about the same as having a 1500 W electric heater on in the house. We put up a bamboo type shade on the outside of his window and it greatly helped.
A friend has a stall in a large windowed building and sells antiques. He says the AC goes all day during summer, and suggested to the managers that they install a ceiling exhaust fan(s) to get rid of that tremendous heat at night, and get that cool air inside.
They don't want to spend the money to put in such a system, but instead are willing to pay those huge summer power bills.
Being handy, he offered to put a system in, but still they don't want to outlay the money....
Now perhaps he should approach them again and say, "listen, I'll put the system in, and pay for it upfront, if you will give me half of the savings over the next (undetermined) amount of time." He could probably make a handy profit, and help our collective energy use.
IMHO, the solutions are building underground and bermed, planting deciduous on south walls, painting roofs white, and using nighttime cooling.
And of course liberal use of swamp coolers if your area is suited for it.
Swamp cooler are a great assist to existing AC systems.
They'll allow using AC as an assist, instead of vice-versa.
Great replys here, thanks, I learned a bunch.
A BTU saved is a BTU earned.
These are the sort of projects that should have the stimulus money thrown at them. Imagine a large south facing window being fitted with a horizontal sun shade with a few hundred Watts of PV mounted on top being used to power a ceiling fan indoors.
Using composting or other forms of dry toilets can save enough water to use swamp coolers, and the night time breeze can be used to make ice for cooling during peak times.
In the eastern USA high ozone on hot summer days can be deadly to asthmatics like me. I had a very close near death experience on one of those days back in the 1990s. Just a few years ago thousands of vulnerable people died in France do to lack of A/C. It could be reasonably estimated that 100 times as many were sickened enough to be life threatening.
Houses in climates that need A/C generally use less energy overall than houses in colder climates. So I guess you would have us ban heating as well. What about banning refrigerators while you're at it. They consume as much energy as A/C.
I am new to posting comments but have greatly enjoyed reading the Oil Drum for quite some time. I live in Tucson and often hear the comment that large cities should not be built in hot deserts. But as Paul alludes to, from a heating/cooling perspective it is not clear why it would be better to build a large city in Minneapolis, Chicago or Edmonton. I'd be interested in links to studies that quantitatively analyze the average total energy of heating/cooling as a function of latitude. But in any case, perhaps the more pertinent issue with Tucson, Phoenix and Las Vegas is how we use our limited water resources.
I forgot where I saw the actual numbers on this. I remember I found them by searching such things as "energy consumption typical house" and looking at utility websites.
For design purposes see "Cooling Degree Days" and "Heating Degree Days" as "maps".
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html#51overview
NOAA keeps changing their website, but you can find this somewhere on the National Climate Date Center NCDC website.
Water indeed is a major limiting factor in the West and Southwest generally. (Though I'm glad to hear that CA has recently got some relief from their drought. No. China, on the other hand, seems to be in fairly dire straits.)
And water will become ever more scarce as GW really kicks in. And remember that in an oil depleted world, if you can't grow crops in your region from rainfall, it will become more and more difficult to truck all the food you need in from wetter regions.
You can get into a really warm sleeping bag and otherwise dress for the cold. But to escape the heat, there are only so many layers you can take off before you can't go any further ;-}
But of course, just as super insulation and geothermal can help in the north, similar techniques can protect from the heat. But most structures built in the last fifty years in the south were built on the assumption that AC would be forever available.
Correction. Refrigerators do not consume as much electricity as A/C.
Don't forget the Cool Roofs concept. Paint those shingles white and less energy for cooling will be needed. Do the same with pavement and you go a long way toward eliminating the heat island effect. Do it on a large enough scale and you can increase the Earth's albedo and slow climate change. A big bang for the buck.
Metal cool roofs work extremely well. Asphalt shingles absorb more heat because of the coarse texture.
If this is redundant: Thomas beeat me to it...
Besides superinsulation and attic ventilation. Change the building code to encourage/require heat reflecting roofs.
This might be in conjunction with code and insurance changes to encourage metal roofs. Composite shingles last 20-25 years and are unlikely to be recycled, if they are recycled. Metal can be painted light shades and is hail resistant, dents don't count, and metal should last 50-100 years.
I have noticed flying into DFW airport, almost all industrial buildings around the airport have light colored roofs. The residential housing in the area is all dark to black. This in a geographical area where cooling is the largest energy user. The solar heating benefit of dark roofs is minimal in winter judging by my house in Tulsa, OK.
Encouraging insurance companies to come on board is because wooden shakes and composite houses suffer more damage from weather and fire than metal roofs in my observations in the local area.
I just put new metal shingles on my 70 year old farm house this last year and I get a very sizable discount on my homeowners insurance as a result of putting on insurance company approved metal shingles.
So the insurance companies are on board (At least State Farm is).
"(At least State Farm is)"
Not if you're in Florida--they just pulled out of that market.
Metal roofing is widely used along the Gulf Coast. It has much better hurricane resistance than asphalt.
My homeowners association refused to allow me to use the most energy efficient color; however I was able to get a gray with 38% reflectance, which qualified for a $500 tax credit.
I have been told that sealing out air leaks is important. This is a change that can be made relatively inexpensively and can have a quick payback.
But if you do this too successfully and don't have an air-to-air heat exchanger, your indoor air can become quickly nasty, even toxic.
I think retrofitting (making energy efficient) old houses may be difficult, and this may be a problem. What is needed and what can be done varies by region.
Sealing leaks is described by some around here in NH as the FIRST thing to do, even before insulating. It is more than just "leaks"... vertical passages in a house, from basement to attic, exist e.g. the plumbing vent pipe, electrical wiring, chimney "chases", hot-air-duct passages and the like. These passages set up an air flow called the "stack effect" or "chimney effect", with momentum and with cold air coming in downstairs to replace air we've paid to heat that is exiting upstairs. Taunton Publishing has a good book "Insulate and Weatherize" (or vice-versa!). In my old house we had all of these, plus the natural gas water heater vented freely into a chimney, sucking additional air out of the basement even when the gas was not "on". We also had a lovely old coal fireplace which we sealed by holding a dry-cleaner bag over the iron cover, allowing the air pressure in the room to press it against the cover and hold it in place, 24 x 7, just based on the chimney effect.
You have to seal a house darn good to worry about toxins. An old house, you'll probably never be successful to the point of suffocating... :-)
We built a new house that is seriously tight, and we're tightening it more. We have an air exchange system with a heat exchanger that salvages some heat and humidity while swapping bad air for new air. When it's 60 degrees inside and 20 below outside, we are so lucky we get fresh air that's between 10 and 20 above... When the sun is out, we ignore the wood stove (Jotul #3) which is our sole source of heat. Front (south) windows have a glass invented by Livermore Labs I think and probably used in Canada (and which is far better than the standard "low E" which is designed for the south and southwest and blocks 50% of incoming solar energy) and has a film of silver that reflects "far infrared" back into the house while allowing nearly 100% solar energy in. The house is about 1800' plus full basement.
If we need more room we can add a wing that is cheaper to build and not as warm - the house as it is now is a suitable "core" for winter. One idea for old houses is to identify a core within the larger house and set up a thermal boundary around that core. Give up on fixing the whole thing... I am interested in this problem and the more I learn the more difficult it all seems.
Usually, older homes are so drafty that sealing many of the main leaks might bring them to 1 air change per hour (ACH). Newer tight construction, or a really good renovation might require a heat recovery ventilator.
Remember, that for most of the year the lights are supplying beneficial heat to the building. If you turn out the lights, you will have to run the heating system more to make up the lost heat from the lights.
Would you rather have that heat come from electricity or from natural gas/ oil furnace?
Some times things are not as clear cut as they seem.
I think that's a really good point that probably about 0.5% of the population understands. Really burning natural gas for heat is wasteful since we could use that gas to do something useful before all of the energy is essentially lost. Same goes for electricity. Of course the whole thing runs backwards if you're using air conditioning.
Lighting supplies heat but not exactly useful heat as most of it is supplied at ceiling level, which is not a very useful part of the house to heat.
For those of us who heat with heat pumps, the waste heat given off by lighting displaces/offsets a portion of the heat that would be otherwise supplied by our heat pumps at one-half to one-third the cost. The net result is that this waste heat increases our heating costs because it reduces the demand for this lower cost alternative.
Cheers,
Paul