Insulating Your Home

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) on average, more than half (51% in 2015) of a household’s annual energy consumption is for space heating and air conditioning. Though, seasonal heating and cooling needs vary significantly by geographic location, home size and structure, and equipment and fuels used. Nonetheless, heating and cooling your home uses more energy and costs more money than any other system in your home.

I live in climate zone 4 and made my decisions on insulation based those factors in 2008. My brother who just bought new home (from the 1950’s) lives in climate zone 5 in the Boston area. He is looking to add insulation to his home.  So, I am reviewing the choices in 2021. For the insulation project, the attic and accessible areas of the basement and crawl spaces were inspected for adequate insulation.

from DOE

For my home built in 2004 with duct work for my heat pump in the attic, I followed the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork,underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated withcellulose (in the attic) and fiberglass batting insulation in the basement andfloor. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. I have a separate garage with no living space above it, I used it to test Icynene foam insulation.

My total electricity bills for the following 12 months were 27% less than I paid in the 12 months before I added the additional insulation to the house, and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume use December through March both years) was reduced by 25%. Also, the overall comfort in the bedroom over the garage and the master bedroom has been vastly improved. I was very surprised at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home. The payback on this project was under 4 years, unbelievably good.

I used blown in cellulose for several because it was inexpensive, but also because it is inert and I was adding insulation to a home that already had some blown in cellulose. There was no off-gassing from urethane based foams, no fiberglass fibers to get into the air handling system. When I insulated my home in 2008 various foams on the market were changing due to the removal of some foaming agents from the market. I was concerned about having a negative impact on air quality that would be extremely difficult to remedy. Todaythe Environmental Working Group says: “spray foam containing a chemical knownas methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, or MDI, which can cause asthma and lungdamage in exposed workers. Spray foam can also contain the toxic flameretardant TCPP. If mistakes are made during installation, sprayed-on insulationfoam is difficult to remove.”

For loose-fill insulation, each manufacturer must determine the R-value of its product at settled density and create coverage charts showing the minimum settled thickness, minimum weight per square foot, and coverage area per bag for various total R-values. This is because as the installed thickness of loose-fill insulation increases, its settled density also increases due to compression of the insulation under its own weight.  Thus, the R-value of loose-fill insulation does not change proportionately with thickness. The manufacturers’ coverage charts specify the bags of insulation needed per square foot of coverage area; the maximum coverage area for one bag of insulation; the minimum weight per square foot of the installed insulation; and the initial and settled thickness of the installed insulation needed to achieve a particular R-value.

Spray foam comes in two types- open-cell foam or closed-cell foam. Closed cell foam has the highest R-value of any insulation, up to R-7 per inch, but can be expensive; open-cell foam insulation values are around R-3 to R-4 per inch of thickness. Closed cell can also serve as a moisture barrier. Spray foam insulation should be installed by a professional, since it is tricky to do right and almost impossible to undo. In order to spray in insulation into an attic that has some existing insulation, all the old insulation would have to be removed, or the new spray in insulation would have to be applied to the roof deck and knee walls. This can trap moisture between the roof shingles and foam mass. It could prevent mold in the attic, but allow rotting of the roof elements. 

Before insulating, seal any air leaks and make roof and other necessary repairs. If it is located in a conditioned part of the house, also remember to insulate and air seal your attic access. Insulate and air seal any knee walls -- vertical walls with attic space directly behind them -- in your home as well. If the air distribution system is not within the conditioned space but within the attic, insulating the rafters will enclose the distribution system. Finally, the DOE advises if you live in a hot or warm climate, consider installing a radiant barrier in your attic to reduce summer heat gain.

According to the U.S. EPA:

• Spray foam application generates isocyanate vapors and aerosols.
• Research data indicate that inhalation exposures during spray foam insulation will typically exceed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) occupational exposure limits and require skin, eye and respiratory protection.
• Vapors and aerosols can migrate through the building if the installation area is not properly isolated and ventilated.
• After application, vapors may linger in a building until properly ventilated and thoroughly cleaned.

These days, foam insulation is growing in popularity, especially in colder climates where higher insulation values are required by code. Available foam insulation materials include:

• Cementitious
• Phenolic
• Polyisocyanurate (polyiso)
• Polyurethane.

Polyurethane is the most commonly used right now according to DOE. Some less common types include Icynene foam (what I used in my garage attic) and Tripolymer foam. Icynene foam can be either sprayed or injected, which makes it the most versatile. It also has good resistance to both air and water intrusion. Tripolymer foam—a water-soluble foam—is injected into wall cavities. It has excellent resistance to fire and air intrusion.

Foam insulation products and installation usually cost more than traditional batt or blown in insulation. However, foam insulation has higher R-values and forms an air barrier, which can eliminate some of the other costs and tasks associated with weatherizing a home, such as caulking, applying housewrap and vapor barrier, and taping joints. When building a new home, this type of insulation can also help reduce construction time and the number of specialized contractors, which saves money for the builder so it is often used in new construction.

Liquid foam insulation materials can be sprayed, foamed-in-place, injected, or poured. Foam-in-place insulation can be blown into walls, on attic surfaces, or under floors to insulate and reduce air leakage. Closed cell installations can yield a higher R-value than traditional batt insulation for the same thickness, and can fill even the smallest cavities, creating an effective air barrier. You can use the small pressurized cans of foam-in-place insulation to reduce air leakage in holes and cracks, such as window and door frames, and electrical and plumbing penetrations. In the end the type of insulation you used is your decision.

Thermal Radiation Barriers

During the dog days of summer when the temperature passes 100 degrees Fahrenheit here in Virginia my split system heat pump struggles to try to cool the master bedroom. I have both draperies and window films, have retrofitted insulation in the attic, sealed the ducts, regularly service the heat pump and blower, but still the best my system can do on those hot days is 78 degrees Fahrenheit in the southern facing master bedroom, though other rooms are several degrees cooler. Before I consider equipment solutions and additional ducts, which will have to wait until the current system serves its useful life, I have been looking at radiant barriers and interior radiation control coatings as a possible method to shave a couple of degrees off the maximum daily temperature.

Radiant barriers and radiation control coatings have low Emittance, typically below 0.25. Infrared Emittance is measured between 0 and 1 with highly polished stainless steel at less than 0.1 and wood and sheetrock approaching 0.8-0.9. Infrared Emittance measures the ability of a warm or hot material to shed some of its heat in the form of infrared radiation. A material with an emittance of 1.0 emits about 3.4 watts per square meter, for each degree F above ambient temperature. Radiant barriers are designed to work in your attic to prevent some of the heat from the roof from being transferred into the attic space. The idea is to have the radiant barrier or coating not allow all the heat from the roof to move into the attic space. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL, found in field experiments that radiant barriers installed in the attic could reduce air conditioning bills in the hottest parts of the country. For homes that had both air-conditioning ductwork in the attic and were located in the Deep South, radiant barriers were found to reduce utility bills by as much as $150 per year using average residential electricity prices (for the late 1990’s) and an average size house with a single peaked rectangular rood. For more moderate summers, like those in Atlanta and Baltimore, annual energy savings were about half those of their southern neighbors. In the northern climate zones, the savings drops further, going from about $40 to $10 per year as you go from Chicago to Fairbanks, Alaska.

If there were no ducts or air handlers in the attic, the savings were found to be much less, and a radiant barrier may not be worthwhile from a cost benefit basis, but ORNL states that a radiant barrier may still help to improve comfort and to reduce the peak air-conditioning load on occasion. In northern climates where winter heating is the largest cost, radiant barriers can potentially reduce indoor heat losses through the ceiling during winter nights, but they may also reduce beneficial daytime heat gains due to solar heating of the roof. ORNL had no data measuring the heating benefits, but climate, orientation of the home, level of attic insulation, number of winter sunny days and other factors, can determine if the net winter effect of a radiant barrier to be positive or negative. The measured and tested benefit field studies were performed with air conditioning. It is to be noted that the field testing showed that the radiant barriers produce less energy savings when used in combination with high levels of insulation since the fraction of cooling load that comes from the ceiling is larger when the amount of insulation is small.

ORNL’s field testing showed that a new application of a radiant barrier on the attic floor, does work better than applying the radiant barrier to the roof rafters. Most of the field tests have been done with clean radiant barriers, and laboratory measurements have shown that dust on the surface of aluminum foil increases the emittance and decreases the reflectivity. This means that dust or other particles on the exposed surface of a radiant barrier will reduce its effectiveness. Radiant barriers installed in locations that collect dust or other surface contaminants will have decreasing performance over time. Though initially better, the attic floor accumulates dust resulting in the radiant barrier losing its effectiveness. Predictive modeling results, based on the ORNL testing, indicate that a dusty attic floor application will lose about half of its effectiveness after about one to ten years. Applying the radiant barrier to the floor of the attic is also not effective when a large part of the attic is used for storage, since the radiant barrier surface must be exposed to the attic space to work and applying a radiant barrier with the reflective surface touching the insulation is not effective.

In addition a radiant barrier installed on the attic floor directly on top of insulation can create a condensation, moisture and ultimately a mold problem. During cold weather, water vapor from the interior of a house moves into the attic through bathroom and kitchen vents and other openings. In most cases, this water vapor is not a problem because attic ventilation allows the vapor to dissipate. But, during cold weather, a radiant barrier on top of the insulation could cause water vapor to condense and even freeze on the barrier's underside. A radiant barrier used in the attic floor application must allow water vapor to pass through it. Some allow water vapor passage through holes or perforations, while others are naturally permeable.

Due to the above factors it is usual to install a radiant barrier to the interior of the attic roof, but that installation may cause other problems. The testing showed that radiant barriers can cause an increase in roof temperatures. Roof mounted radiant barriers may increase shingle temperatures by 2 to 10 degrees F. Radiant barriers on the attic floor may cause smaller increases of 2 degrees F or less. The effects of these increased temperatures on roof life, if any, are not known, but should be considered with asphalt shingles. Attic ventilation helps to cool your attic in the summer and to remove excess water vapor in winter and should not be blocked by a radiant barrier. After installing a radiant barrier always check that existing ridge vent systems are not blocked by a radiant barrier and there is free flow of air, check the soffit vents to ensure that they have not been covered with insulation or the barrier, and check gable vents to make sure that they have not been blocked.

The attic is a system consisting of many components that work together. Radiant barriers are only a small element and possibly the least important. The radiant barriers reduce radiant energy transfer. Insulation on the attic floor reduces conductive and convective heat transfer. The duct insulation reduces conductive and convective heat transfer at the duct surface. Duct sealing reduces the energy losses caused by increased air exchange between the inside and outside of your home. Attic ventilation in the gables, ridges or soffit can reduce the amount of energy that enters the attic from the outside. Overall, as you can see in the chart above, derived from the ORNL research, shows that the most energy savings come from having adequate insulation and sealed and insulated ducts in the attic, not the radiant barriers, and radiant barriers are most effective with less insulation in the air conditioned south. Nonetheless, that small savings might improve comfort on a very hot day. Finally if you install a radiant barrier make sure the product label indicates that emittance is less than 0.25 as measured by ASTM C1371 and the product is designed to work in your attic.

A New Round of Rebate Funding for the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy

The Virginia Energy Efficiency Rebate Program was originally launched in late October 2009 by Governor Kane. Utilizing a portion of the stimulus dollars that Virginia received to support the purchase of energy efficient products and upgrades for Virginia homeowners and commercial businesses. Energy efficiency improvements under the program included upgrading heating and air conditioning equipment, adding insulation, replacing leaky windows, and other improvements to reduce energy consumption. Homeowners were eligible for rebates for up to 20 % of the costs of qualifying products and projects, up to a maximum of $2,000.

The first round of funding totaling about $10 million was reserved in less than three weeks when the program opened. In late March 2010, Governor Bob McDonnell announced that approximately $6.5 million was available for a second round of the rebate program to make existing homes and businesses more energy efficient. Funds for the second and final round of the Energy Efficiency Rebate Program were exhausted on March 26, 2010. Over 3,000 applicants were wait-listed, and eventually approved for rebates when much of the rebate reservations were not used. The Energy Efficiency Rebate Program was closed out on April 29, 2011 after paying out $10.4 million to Virginia homeowners and businesses.

Once more, unclaimed funds remain and are now being made available to other homeowners. Approximately $5 million will be available for a new Virginia Home Efficiency Rebate Program to make existing homes more energy efficient. Energy efficiency improvements include upgrading heating equipment, adding insulation, replacing windows, and making other improvements to existing homes that reduce energy consumption and utility costs. Under this new program, homeowners will be eligible to reserve funds for rebates for up to 20 % of the costs of qualifying products or services, up to $595 whichever is less. Also a rebate is available for energy audits for the cost of the audit or $250 which ever is less. The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy opened up the reservation process at noon of June 20th 2011 and the money is likely to be gone quickly, but sign up on the waiting list. Any money not used within the time limit will become available to those on the wait list. The $5 million is simply unclaimed funds from other rounds. https://epm.virginiainteractive.org/HERebate/

Qualified energy efficient items and improvements purchased and installed on or after March 26, 2010 are eligible for the rebate if they meet all the other eligibility requirements. So if you were shut out of the last round of rebates and have an the required documentation, and used a Virginia business to purchase or perform the work you can apply. Items covered under the program are: oil furnace, gas, propane or oil hot water boiler, Insulation and air sealing, replacement windows and exterior doors, storm doors. Funding is available for homeowners to reserve funds for geothermal heat pump systems under our new Geothermal Heat Pump Rebate Program. The geothermal rebate is 20% of the cost or $2,000 which ever is less. http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/ARRA-Public/GeothermalHeatPump.shtml

These rebates are for Virginia homeowners only, not commercial facilities and the energy efficiency products and systems must be purchased from a Virginia company. In addition, these items qualify under the Federal Home Energy Efficiency Improvement Tax Credit Program The tax credit amount was reduced to 10% of cost up to $500 on qualifying items installed in 2011 and additional restrictions were added. More information on the federal tax credits, which were extended until December 31, 2011, is available at the Department of Energy web site. http://www.energystar.gov/

One of my most successful home improvement projects was my home insulation project. Following the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. My total electricity bills for the following 12 months were 27% less than I paid in the 12 months before I added the additional insulation to the house, and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume used December through March for both years) was reduced by 25%. I was very surprised at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home. The payback on this project was under 4 years, and I did not get any rebates because I completed the project in 2007.

Energy Efficiency and the Passive House

The past year has been one of weather extremes. The winter of 2009-2010 in Virginia saw more snow than had fallen in over a quarter of a century. The summer saw almost seven weeks of days near 100 degrees. Nonetheless, Virginia has a moderate climate and I benefit in the winter by having my roof absorb heat and the southern open orientation of my house. Throughout the summer the same southern orientation results in extra load on the air conditioning/heat exchanger, but provides the optimal conditions for my solar photovoltaic panels. (My husband enjoys the cooler months when he is allowed to open the southern drapes to experience the full beauty of our setting.) My most successful sustainable living project to date has been the insulation of my attic which effectively thermally isolated the attic from the rest of the house. According to the US Department of Energy heating and cooling account for about 56% of the energy use in a typical U.S. home, making it the largest energy expense for most homes.

To further improve the energy efficiency of my home I have been saving up to install a ground source heat exchanger (commonly called a geothermal heat exchanger) when my existing system reaches the end of its life or just before the 30% federal tax credit expires whichever comes first. This past spring, the O’Neill home in Sonoma, CA became California’s first certified Passive House, and the first certified to the new retrofit standards. A Passivhaus or Passive House in English is simply a very well-insulated, virtually air-tight building that is primarily heated by passive solar gain and by internal gains from people, electrical equipment, etc. Energy losses are minimized. Any remaining heat demand is provided by a small heat exchanger. Though the standard was developed in cooler climates and at this time tends to work best at passive heating avoidance of heat gain through shading and window orientation is also part of the standard and helps to limit the cooling load. An energy recovery ventilator provides a constant, balanced fresh air supply. Overall, a Passivhaus is reported to have an R-value of 60.

Though the concept was first pursued in New England in the 1970’s, the first Passivhaus were built in Darmstadt, Germany in 1990 and the standards were developed out of those projects. The Passivhaus standard includes an airtight building shell measured by blower-door test; an annual heat requirement ≤ 1.39 kWh/sqft/year; and primary energy ≤ 11.16 kWh/sqft/year. In addition, there are some recommendations that vary with climate. Worldwide the estimated number of passive houses ranges from 15,000 to 25,000. Passive houses incorporate high performance triple-glazed windows with solar films and argon gas, super-insulation, an airtight building shell, limitation of thermal bridging and balanced energy recovery ventilation make possible extraordinary reductions in energy use and carbon emission. The result is home that reportedly saves up to 90% of space heating costs, and reportedly provides excellent indoor air quality. If every building in America was a Passivhaus we could reduce our energy use by almost half.

The O’Neill home in Sonoma cost $500/sqft to retrofit, my house cost less than one fifth of that to purchase and came with acres of land. It is fair to say that I will never spend $500/ft sq to retrofit my home as a certified Passivhaus nor for that matter a LEEDs certified home. (About 39-percent of the points for LEED certification are energy related.) However, I think that despite the currently fashionable push into renewable energy, the real progress in reduction of energy use will be in insulation, strategies to reduce thermal bridging, and passive house techniques. Modifying our transportation behavior and reducing the energy used in our homes and buildings could change our national energy use significantly and it is within our control. Now that I have taken care of the attic insulation retrofit, I suspect that thermal bridging on the exterior walls combined with air leakage are the primary locations of heat loss and gain for my home and many others. To maximize the effectiveness of any future planned energy use improvement projects, I plan to investigate and incorporate (if possible) some of the design principals gleaned from the new Passive House retrofit standard and US Department of Energy recommendations in my next energy project.

More Thoughts on Sustainable Living, Energy Use and Ecological Impact

Last spring Dr. Chu, US Energy Secretary, advocated for "white roofs everywhere". He said lightening roofs and roads in urban environments would offset the global warming effects of all the cars in the world for 11 years. Unfortunately, I’ve discovered that blanket statements like that need to be more closely examined before blindly accepting them even from Nobel Prize winning physicists working for the government. Both Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Con Edison performed studies of different roofing materials. Livermore Lab only looked at the reduction in energy used for air conditioning probably because their Lab is located in California.
Con Edison divided their training center's roof into three parts: a traditional dark roof section, a section painted white, and a green section with plants growing on it. An energy-efficiency study by Columbia University was designed to help researchers understand how each kind of roof performs. The green and white roofs were found to perform equally well in preventing the “heat island effect,” in which conventional dark roofs absorb sunlight during the day and radiate heat back into the atmosphere at night which is postulated to create along with asphalt pavement the increased temperatures associated with urban and suburban areas.
However, the green roof is beneficial in summer and winter as well as reducing rain water runoff. The green roof reduces summer heat gains by up to 84% and winter heat losses by up to 37% compared to a black roof. The white roof reduces summer heat gains by up to 67%, but reflects heat in the winter when it is desirable to maintain heat. In a cold climate, a dark roof can lower heating costs by soaking up the winter sun. White-roof advocates counter that, in the continental United States, the "winter penalty" is just 10 percent of the overall savings because the roof is covered with snow for much of the winter, but many locations with freezing or near freezing temperatures do not have significant amounts of snow throughout the winter.
Green roofs are clearly the better choice for energy consumption year around. The obvious problem is green roofs only work with flat roofs, my house has a traditional peaked roof so a green roof is not really and option. I can not even imagine my neighbor’s reactions to a white reflective roof glaring at all drivers from the end of the cul-de-sac. Another problem I did not even imagine is maintenance requirements for a green roof. I went to see the Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. building in Gainesville, VA which was one of the first LEEDS certified buildings in Virginia and was dismayed to discover that weeding and replanting after extreme weather was necessary. WSS actually utilizes its interns to weed the roof. I can barely keep up with the hand weeding of my garden (because I do not use weed killers or other chemicals, I dig out the weeds in my beds).
Living in a moderate climate (last winter not withstanding) my roof does not spend the greater part of the winter covered in snow and I might benefit by having my roof absorb heat in the winter. Though, throughout the summer a dark roof would results in extra load on the air conditioning/heat exchanger. One of my goals in the insulation of my attic was to thermally isolate the attic from the rest of the house. For the insulation project, the attic and accessible areas of the basement and crawl spaces were inspected for adequate insulation. Then following the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. My total electricity bills for the following 12 months were 27% less than I paid in the 12 months before I added the additional insulation to the house, and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume use December through March both years) was reduced by 25%. Also, the overall comfort in the bedroom over the garage and the master bedroom has been vastly improved. I was very surprised at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home. The payback on this project was under 4 years, unbelievably good.
My solution to the roof question was to begin to fill the southern roof span with solar panels. I have covered about 60% of that span with solar panels (so far). The goal is to test their production and function and save up more money for more panels down the road, though my estimate is that the savings from the solar panels will be about the same as from the insulation project. The problem is they cost (before rebates, tax credits and sale of SRECS) ten times as much. A more cost effective next step would be to convert the entire house heating and cooling to “geothermal” heat exchangers, though in truth, I have yet to find any models to estimate my cost and savings from that conversion.
Other recommendations for sustainable living or energy efficiency are based on a set of assumptions that may not be true for all situations. People’s patterns of living are starting to diverge. As an example we live, work and relax from home. I leave the house a few times a week to purchase supplies, pray, and volunteer. I rarely go more than 10 miles from home and drive (my little hybrid) only a few thousand miles a year. My water supply and waste disposal are private and sustainable. According to research performed in Dutchess county the average daily aquifer recharge (from rain and snow only excluding septic recycling) for Soils types C, C/D and D prevalent in this part of Virginia are estimated 326-583 gallons per acre. It is essential in a sustainable system that the groundwater level be maintained with recharge and adequate surface water is supplied to maintain the ecology even during drought years. My property totals more than 10 acres and our total indoor and outdoor household water usage was clocked during the early summer at between 100 and 150 gallons a day. We do not water our garden; trying to plant only what will thrive in the natural environment unaided. Virginia gets plenty of rainfall and it seems silly to plant anything that requires irrigation. Thus, not only is my septic system non-consumptive, the recharge rate vastly exceeds our water usage (and hopefully our neighbors since our water supply is dependent on total demand and recharge of the aquifer). I have an alternative septic system and I am incredibly careful of its operation, management of the load and maintenance.
Yet, with that I use a large amount of electricity for entertainment, to store my meat bought in bulk and the wine put up for the next decade. Thought my refrigeration units are energy star, there are several of them. Our home theatre is an LCD which is far more energy efficient that plasma, but less energy efficient than the now available LED TVs. It may be an LCD, but its large. Sustainable living is about thoughtfully using the earths resources. A fun place to start thinking about the sustainablility of your life is to go to the energy star home page and measure your home energy score.

Conservation is Smarter than Carbon Offsets

Recently, as we headed towards the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, the Wall Street Journal reviewed carbon offsets in its Cranky Consumer Column. In an article called “Reducing Emissions, and a Guilty Conscience” they reviewed five different companies selling carbon offsets. They evaluated the companies for price and the bells and whistles of their carbon calculators, social media savvy and general feel good aspects of their offerings. I question the actual effectiveness of the programs (not Nancy Matsumoto’s fun article). Many of these so called projects would take place anyway.

The world's biggest carbon offset market, the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism (CDM), is run by the UN, administered by the World Bank, and is intended to reduce emissions by rewarding developing countries that invest in clean technologies. According to David Victor, of Stanford University, as many as two-thirds of the supposed "emission reduction" credits being produced by the CDM from projects in developing countries are not backed by real reductions in pollution. In fact, in the February 2010 Harpers’ Magazine spelled out inconsistencies, questionable practices, and potential fraud in the CDM market raising the possibility emission reductions credits are increasing CO2 emissions behind the guise of promoting sustainable development. Even when a CDM credit does represent an "emission reduction", there is no global benefit because offsetting is a "zero sum" game. Voluntary Carbon Standard or Climate Action Reserve are two of the certifications utilized for carbon offsets. This verification utilizes the CDM standards as the underlying structure to certify that the carbon reductions are“additional and real.”

Buildings, both residential and commercial, account for about 40% of primary U.S. energy consumption, 72% of U.S. electricity consumption, 55% of U.S. natural gas consumption, and significant heating oil and propane consumption in the Northeast. According to the Department of Energy, while industrial use of electricity has been flat for about 15 years, electrical use to power commercial and residential building has grown by more than 50% since 1985. U.S. resources and investment have been deployed to build the infrastructure required to generate, transmit, and distribute electricity to serve that growth. Reducing the peak electricity demands for air conditioning and heating could alleviate peak demand on the electrical grid, potentially without the need for a smarter grid. Buildings present one of the best opportunities to economically reduce energy consumption and reduce green house gas emissions. A recent study by McKinsey & Company study performed for the Department of Energy found that reducing the consumption of energy in buildings is the least costly way to achieve large reductions in carbon emissions.

What I think the United States needs is a new way to think of reducing our nation’s energy use. I propose forming a series of local not for profit corporations to educate and facilitate all homeowners achieving the easiest steps: Installing an energy saving thermostat, replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs and the most effective improving the home insulation. This should be performed according to the guidance from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Building Envelop Research performed for the US DOE Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This guidance recommends additional insulation in most the attics, crawl spaces, eves, and duct work. In addition, there are recommendations for insulation under floors, of pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and other areas. The insulation needs to be installed correctly, but is one of the most effective energy saving steps a homeowner can take. If every home and building in the United States were properly insulated and sealed we could significantly reduce the national energy use. These steps reduce energy consumption immediately and more or less permanently. The final steps in home conservation; the replacement of single pane windows or the addition of storm windows, and the replacement of inefficient furnaces and air conditioners and old refrigerators and other appliances with energy efficient models can be accomplished with incentive programs or loan programs. The cash for clunkers program attempted to remove from the roads the oldest and most inefficient cars, and now there is the energy star appliance program, but like many government programs they are blunt instrument and with unintended consequences. Mostly only people intending and able to afford these purchases are encouraged to move forward. Yet the cheapest of the strategies insulation, sealing a home, and installing an energy saving thermostat and compact fluorescent bulbs is the most underutilized.

As Ms. Matsumoto points out it is difficult to assess the quality of projects funded by these carbon offset firms as well as determine with any consistency the size of a personal carbon footprint which in the case of Ms Matsumoto ranged from 7 to 23 tons depending on whose tool she was using and what assumptions the models used. All the carbon offset retailers evaluated in the article were verified by a third-party either the Voluntary Carbon Standard or Climate Action Reserve. This verification helps ensure that the initiatives are "additional," meaning the carbon reduction would not have occurred without the project, and are "real," meaning the emissions reductions are properly quantified and audited, however, these certifying organizations suffer from the same problems as the CDM since they use the CDM as the underlying structure to determine the assumed carbon savings based on various models and assumptions. What you are doing with your carbon offset dollars is making these projects more profitable for the project owners, paying fees to brokers, project auditors and marketing people. Really, I would rather my money and efforts go to supplying education and low or no interest loans to homeowners to reduce their energy consumption. Insulation projects have a very short payback period and could be financed by a not for profit who takes half the energy savings until the project is paid for. The homeowner gets part of the savings, a more comfortable home and we all reduce our national energy consumption. Instead of paying for farm and landfill methane capture projects with our carbon offsets we would be better served to spend our dollars to reach down to make home insulation desirable and affordable to all homeowners. Let the large farm and landfill projects which would probably get done anyway, find other sources of financing and lets tackle educating and funding through loans and grants the insulation and sealing of all homes in the United States.

Reducing My Energy Consumption

I have been systematically making small changes to my home to reduce my energy consumption. I started with the easiest steps; lowering the thermostat in the winter and raising the temperature in summer, purchasing energy star eligible appliances and choosing an LCD TV over a plasma (an LED TV is even more energy efficient, but was not available at the time). The next simple step was to change all the incandescent light bulbs for florescent bulbs and when I installed additional lighting it was florescent fixtures. (Though, I warn that the clothes in my closet look oddly colored in florescent light.) The next project was to install solar films on the windows and patio door and drapes and curtains on all the windows. These were small steps, but I learned over the years that small steps do add up.

The following year, after servicing the heat exchanger and furnace to ensure they were working properly, and appropriately sized for the house, and inspecting the attic and accessible areas of the basement and crawl spaces for adequate insulation, I turned to the Building Envelop Research of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for guidance. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory performs their Building Envelop Research for the US Department of Energy, DOE. The DOE publishes their guidance in their “Insulation Fact Sheet,” which is available on the blog home page. Following the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, wall end caps, knee walls, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage ceiling was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. I was actually surprised at the winter energy savings and pleased with the improved comfort in the master bedroom and bath.

My next project was to spend the winter saving money eating and entertaining at home, watching DVDs for “nights out” on my LCD, eliminating trips to the mall and saving up money for my next energy saving project. Back in October 2008 President Bush had signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343). The Act extends the 30% investment tax credit for residential solar Photovoltaic or geothermal heat pump installation for eight years through December 31, 2016 and removed the cap on qualified solar photovoltaic projects and geothermal projects (from the previous $2,000). This allows taxpayers to use the credit to offset dollar for dollar their federal tax liability, and to carry unused credits forward to the next succeeding taxable year. Essentially Uncle Sam was now willing to pay 30% of the cost of my next energy savings project. I couldn’t believe it.
According to the DOE heating and cooling account for 56% of the energy use in a typical U.S. home, making it the largest energy expense for most homes. So that is where I looked for my next project. A wide variety of technologies are available for heating and cooling your home, and they achieve a wide range of efficiencies in converting their energy sources into useful heat or cool air for your home. Heat pump systems provide both heating and cooling and offer the benefit of delivering more useful energy than they consume. Unfortunately, on very hot days or very cold days they do not do as effective a job as an air conditioner and a furnace. For climates with moderate heating and cooling needs, heat pumps offer an energy-efficient alternative to furnaces and air conditioners.

Higher energy efficiencies are achieved with geothermal (ground-source or water-source) heat pumps, which transfer heat between your house and the ground or a nearby water source. Although they cost more to install, geothermal heat pumps have low operating costs because they take advantage of relatively constant ground or water temperatures. However, the installation is expensive because of the need to bury coils to deliver constant temperature fluid or install a groundwater pump and injection well to supply constant temperature water to the system. Ground-source or water-source heat pumps can be used in more extreme climatic conditions than air-source heat pumps, and are more effective at cooling and heating at the extremes.
According to the heating and cooling experts and the manufacturers of the various equipment that I have, my heating and cooling system, which is a split system with a gas furnace and air conditioner for the lower level and an air heat exchanger for the upper level, should last another 7-12 years. The most sustainable approach would be to use the current system for its entire expected life despite the fact that I could probably reduce my energy consumption somewhat by changing from my current equipment to two geothermal (ground source) heat exchangers. Though geothermal heat exchangers are more expensive to purchase and install than a traditional furnace and air conditioner, they are far more efficient, reportedly consuming 25-30% less energy to operate. The most reasonable thing to do was to wait and continue using my current system even with availability of the tax credit. Thought for the next several years I will continue to keep an eye on my equipment condition.

In October 2009 Virginia announced that a portion of the stimulus dollars for the state would be allotted to its Residential and Commercial Solar and Wind Incentive Program to provide rebates to partially reimburse the costs of renewable energy systems. For residential users on the first 10 kilowatts, the rebates will be $2.00 per watt for Photovoltaic Solar systems, $1.50 per watt for small wind turbines and $1.00 per watt for solar thermal units (solar hot water heaters). The rebate is less than you might think because system capacity is defined as the installed system’s predicted peak alternating current (AC) output which is around 75%-80% of the DC rating. Combining this incentive with the federal tax credit of 30% and the sale of the renewable energy credits, REC’s, which can be sold to utilities needing RECs and suddenly, there is a positive return on the investment. It was still a big decision because even with rebates and tax credits we have to come up with the cash to pay for the system and while current prices quoted for RECs are $220-$300 per kilowatt/year and are sold in 4 or 5 year contacts there is no guarantee that the REC’s will have any value in the future.

One of the selection criteria for my home was the large southern roof span, perfect for solar panels. I was able to reserve funds from the Virginia Renewable Energy Rebate Program for a 6 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system before all the money was gone and we put the deposit down for an American made solar photovoltaic system installed by a local company. We will be installing a 6 kilowatt system that we estimate will save us approximately $1,300 per year on our electric bill. That is about twice the savings we achieved by insulating the house; however, the cost (before rebates and incentives) is more than ten times the cost of the insulation project. Even after all the rebates and incentives (assuming I successfully navigate these) this energy savings was many more times more expensive than the insulation project.

Carbon Footprint, Carbon Savings and Carbon Offsets

All resources are finite. As humans our resources consist of money, time, passion and energy. In the end, where, how and when we deploy these resources will determine our comfort and happiness with our lives. While there are some basic truths, the optimal allocation of your resources is based on your values and goals. We all should be thoughtful in our living, smarter about the ways in which we use the earths and our personal resources.

According to McKinsey and Co. it cost an additional $30-$40 above normal energy production costs to eliminate one ton of CO2 emissions by replacing traditional energy production with solar or wind power (the presumed life of the equipment was unreported). However, when a ton of CO2 was saved using LED light bulbs or energy-efficient appliances money was also saved ($108-$159 less was spent on energy for every ton of CO2 saved). The costs associated with generating power without CO2 emissions are higher than current costs. If the money is spent to reduce CO2 by replacing generating capacity there will be less money to spend on other things that matter to you or are necessary for your life, but if you reduce the use of energy less money is spent on energy and more money is available for other goals.

When you use less energy, by insulating, changing to lower energy light bulbs, controlling passive solar heat, or using energy star appliance, less energy is used, less CO2 released and money is saved. Reducing your energy consumption is a far better utilization of resources. While solar panels and wind turbines are sexy, and renewable sources of energy sound wonderful, these technologies are still in their infancy. Geothermal generation of heating and cooling and nuclear generation of power have failed to catch on in the United States, but have advanced significantly in the past few decades in overseas locations. Conservation and energy efficiency are currently well developed technologies, effective and relatively cheaper. Use less so that we can all live within the productive capacity of the existing infrastructure. Then only expand the generating capacity in ways that do not release CO2, do not burden the earth.

Adding insulation and sealing existing homes and commercial buildings is by far the low hanging fruit and a good source of “green economy” jobs. The Wall Street Journal reports that heating and cooling buildings account for about half of the CO2 emissions in the U.S. My home was built in 2004 and is heated and cooled with a duel system; the upstairs with an air heat pump and the lower levels with a gas furnace and air conditioner. Replacing the heating and cooling systems with geothermal systems would only make sense when the existing systems reach the end of their functional life. After eliminating incandescent light bulbs, upgrading all appliances to energy star, installing reflective films on the window and installing drapery, I found that adding insulation was a good way to further reduce the energy consumption of the house. Following the recommendations of the Building Envelope Research of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, duct work, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. After six months electricity usage (as measured in kilowatts for the same six months the previous year) had been reduced by over 6% (despite relocating our workspace to the home with all its attendant equipment) and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume use December through March both years) was reduced by 25%. Also, the overall comfort in the bedroom over the garage and the master bedroom has been vastly improved. I was very surprised (and pleased) at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home.

Though I do not need to commute to a job, I still drive my (gas hybrid car) almost 4,000 miles a year. The hybrid does not make economic sense especially because I drive so little. However, it does make me happy to drive so to me it was worth the extra money I paid for it. In searching for the carbon emitted per vehicle mile I could only find the 1993 data from the Nowak study which lists 0.88-1.06 lbs CO2 per mile. This is probably high for my hybrid, which was not available at the time of the study. The same article states that each person in the US generates 2.3 tons of CO2 each year, which appears in conflict with the automobile numbers until you realize that babies and children do not have cars and city dwellers automobile ownership and use is also much less than suburban use. During the eight years I lived and owned a car in the city, I drove less than 1,000 miles a year. After reducing the energy use in my home, eliminating commuting from our lives, reducing frivolous travel I still wanted to do more.

I found the following fact: “A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs/ year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings.” The Tree Folks are the source of the above information, and are willing to sell carbon off-sets in the form of trees. I tend to think of carbon off-sets for people who want to vacation in Bora Bora or have the wedding or Oscar party of the century, but in truth they are probably for people like me who use various technologies to make their lives richer and happier. My large house comes with a big piece of land. Admittedly, most of the land is wooded undisturbed land and part of the Chesapeake Bay water shed, but I do have about 3 acres of mostly open land around the house. We planted 43 trees of moderate maturity (over 6 foot each). Using the Tree Folk data, forty-two trees absorb a ton of carbon a year and the last tree replaces a diseased tree we cut down. Beyond watering the trees in the first three weeks they were planted, they have thrived on benign neglect. I am already drawing up plans, researching native trees, and saving my nickels for another 3.6 tons of annual carbon off-sets otherwise know as another 150 trees. I may have to make that 152 trees because there are two more existing trees that are not doing well.

Trees can also reduce air conditioning and heating needs by providing shade and providing a wind shield for winter. Trees also act as natural pollution filters. Their canopies, trunks, roots, and associated soil and other natural elements of the landscape filter polluted particulate matter out of the flow towards the water shed and use nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which are contributing factors to the decay of the Chesapeake Bay water shed. Trees are pretty.

Insulation and Home Energy Use - This Stuff Really Works!

My home is heated and cooled with a duel system; the upstairs with an air heat pump and the lower levels with a gas furnace and air conditioner. The master bedroom and bedroom over the garage were uncomfortably hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Our energy bills were large enough in the first year of ownership to merit review and we wanted to reduce our overall carbon footprint. The house was built in 2004 and was acquired in 2007. After servicing the heat exchanger and furnace to ensure they were working properly, and verifying that they were appropriately sized for the house, I turned to the Building Envelop Research of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for guidance. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory performs their Building Envelop Research for the US DOE Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. I followed the guidance in their Insulation Fact Sheet. First the attic and accessible areas of the basement and crawl spaces were inspected for adequate insulation. Then following the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed.

After six months electricity usage (as measured in kilowatts for the same six months the previous year) had been reduced by 6% and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume use December through March both years) was reduced by 25%. Also, the overall comfort in the bedroom over the garage and the master bedroom has been vastly improved. I was very surprised at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home.