|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Kevin Matthews
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 679
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JWmHarmon
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 134
Location: Ohio
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:40 am Post subject: 1970's revisited - looking forward to 21st Century |
    |
|
Many of the energy saving ideas from the "energy crisis" of the 1970's could be put into practice today in 2009.
Passive solar orientation of the building envelope requires some additional preparation and a commitment to improving energy efficiency. It does not necessarily add to the expense of a building.
Additional insulation adds to the expense. Achieving the goal of increased energy efficiency and reduced energy use will require thoughful consideration.
The use of solar shading, recapturing waste heat, building to decrease energy demand may require new technologies or new applications of existing technologies.
Those of us stuck in "the way we've always done it" may be overshadowed and left in the dust by those who take on a commitment to reduce energy consunption.
We also will be faced with buyer (and bank) reluctance to invest in up-front capital expenditures.
Those who can deliver a superior product at a competitive price will have an advantage over those who persist in building as we have always done.
We are in a time of transition. There will be winners and losers and lobbyists who have vested interests in protecting current markets and investments.
_________________
When building or manufacturing always ask, "How will we recycle that?" - JWmHarmon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2444
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If we where truly committed to reducing energy use by 80% over the next 40 years. We would have to be far more aggressive than this bill. Which I am sure will contain plenty of loop holes that the wealthy and poor can be exempted from.
| Quote: |
While the bill sets the above energy conservation targets, the actual standard set by the bill is the "maximum level [DOE] determines is life-cycle cost justified and technically feasible." |
This looks to be the ultimate loop hole. This means climate change is a less important issue than economic factors. We could for example immediately cut energy consumption by 50% on many new houses simply by drastically reducing size. This has nothing to do with the ROI of adding more insulation.
As a percentage of our built environment, total energy use by new buildings over the next 40 years is fairly small. It will be extremely expensive to retrofit existing structures. Not to mention that population is still increasing by about a million or so per year. New buildings would need to account for these realities if we where going to make any major reduction on total energy usage.
I do not agree that solar or wind power makes anything zero energy or carbon neutral. It certainly reduces it some but it does require energy to produce and maintain solar panels and wind turbines.
The next 40 years will certainly be an interesting period of time for kids born today. Oil shortages starting in about 20 years or so will be the real disaster not climate change. How economically feasible will solar panels be when oil is $300 a barrel?
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2444
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that in order to cut energy consumption by 80% in forty years we would have to take measures which most people would consider draconian.
for example:
Maximum of 500sq. ft. for two occupants plus 175sq.ft. for each additional occupant on all new houses in addition to extremely high efficiency standards.
This would drive wealthy people into older houses where we could then require any remodel has to bring a structure up to new energy code which would aim for the maximum possible efficiency.
We also need to account for the fact that a lot of our energy consumption occurs beyond our borders in countries which manufacture a lot of the stuff we consume.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JWmHarmon
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 134
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:24 am Post subject: 1950's house size - 2009 house size |
|
|
csintexas writes: "to cut energy by 80%... we would have to take measures that most people would find draconian... Maximum 500 square feet for two people plus 175 square feet for each additional occupant..."
For a family of five this would be a house of 1025 square feet. For a family of six, this would be 1200 square feet. 500 Square feet would be like a 10X50 mobile home, many of which are seen in "trailer parks" across the USA.
While living in such houses might seem draconian to people in 2009, these smaller house sizes were typical of many of the homes built in the 1950's. They were considered adequate then.
I do volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity. Our houses are typically around 1200 square feet. Our partner families appreciate these houses because they are so much better than what they were living in.
Sarah Susanka encourages us to live in smaller houses, determining what we actually need, and not do "what everyone else does."
Do we really need 5000 square feet of living space for two people? Why do people think 5000 square feet is appropriate? If we did want 5000 square feet, could we build it to consume a net energy use of zero?
These are challenging issues that will be dealt with in the next few decades.
_________________
When building or manufacturing always ask, "How will we recycle that?" - JWmHarmon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2444
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Do we really need 5000 square feet of living space for two people? |
Absolutely not, people around the world live in much less. Also we will still have this existing stock of large houses that as long as they are maintained and can be made more efficient will always be here. Nevertheless I can just hear all the people who will be crying about it and asking why they should have to give up luxury for no better reason than to insure future generations also have some.
(people tend to be very selfish)
Now that I think about it further I would guess that in many large cities it is not uncommon for two people to occupy 500 sq.ft.
I think many people believe technology will fix everything -after all it has in the past hasn't it? I just don't see where the hydrogen is going to come from to run the cars of the future without the extreme expense of separating water. Also it is starting to look like the 250+ years of coal supply we have heard about may actually be much less.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2444
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would also point out that if this measure turns out to accomplish our goal of 80% reduction of total energy use faster than expected we will be better off and we can then ease the restriction a bit. (Also if we invent new technologies that make larger houses possible)
Some areas of the country are also particularly well suited to passive design and house size could vary a bit depending on climate conditions. (Although transportation cost and water usage are also factors that needs to be considered)
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2444
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No one seems to have much expectation that this bill will accomplish anything -particularly by the time it gets through the Senate (if it does)
If it does I guess the question is: Is this at least a step in the right direction?
Many people may just assume that this will fix something or actually accomplish something (other than creating more government bureaucracy)
but it doesn't look likely that any reductions would actually be made any time soon. People may simply go back to sleep feeling they have done their part.
What is the true cost of going about reducing energy cost in such a convoluted manor? Has LEED actually accomplished anything meaningful?
http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/mis2014leed2014ing/
After watching California for a while my faith in humanity has been shaken. -I see them as the direction we are all headed.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
