Building Technology

In his speech last Tuesday, President Obama defended the reputation of insulation, stating “See, I told you, insulation’s sexy.”  His assertion that insulation is a hot and sexy building material is based on the cost-effectiveness of insulation for both new construction and retrofits.  And when he stated that “if you saw $20 bills just sort of floating through the window up into the atmosphere, you’d try to figure out how to keep them,” he equates properly insulating a house with saving energy and money.   And we agree—without question, insulation saves energy and money.  Not only is insulation one of the least expensive and best methods of saving money on your utility bills, it also improves your house’s thermal comfort.  So while the Building Technologies Program doesn’t claim expertise at sexiness, we applaud the spirit and message of Obama’s speech.

And insulation is also a key component in the federal government’s energy efficiency strategy.  As the US seeks to reduce energy consumption from buildings in both the residential and commercial sectors, the concept of retrofitting or weatherizing existing building stock has come to the forefront of government policy.  Vice President Biden’s recent report, titled Progress Report: The Transformation to a Clean Energy Economy, backs up the message of the cost-effectiveness and job creation potential of weatherization.  According to the Progress Report, the $5 billion appropriated for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) will weatherize 500,000 houses by the end of 2010 and, combined with private investment, will weatherize 1 million houses by 2012.

In addition to increasing weatherization funding to $5B, ARRA has also increased the percentage of funding that can be used for training (to 20%), raised the WAP qualification cutoff from 150% of the poverty line to 200%, and increased the total per-house weatherization allotment from an average of $2500 to $6500.  This $5B is a good investment not just for the receiving families, but also in terms of job creation.  While the Progress Report fails to provide numbers on how many jobs weatherization should create, it does provide data on the expected job creation from other ARRA energy measures.

Weatherization’s Role in Job Creation

The ARRA cost per job created ratio is a valuable tool for determining which measures are likely to produce the most jobs at the lowest cost.  For example, while public sector investment in energy manufacturing facilities is very capital intensive and yields only one job for every $135,294 invested, renewable energy generation and advanced energy manufacturing is expected to yield one job per $92,490 invested.  By comparison, over the past several years the WAP received $250 million in public funding, directly creating 8000 jobs and weatherizing 100,000 homes annually.  This results in a job creation ratio of one job for every $31,250 of government investment—a highly efficient investment to job ratio. As the budget increases to $5B and the retrofit goal increases to 500,000 houses under the stimulus, the program can be expected to continue as one of the most efficient job creating programs in the clean energy sector.

Assuming that the current weatherization employment was scaled up directly with the additional funding, the additional funding would be expected to produce 160,000 new jobs.  However, several factors will limit weatherization job creation well below this point.

First of all, as more money is spent per house (from $2500 to $6500) houses will be retrofitted with more expensive, less labor intensive measures such as new high-SEER HVAC systems and EnergyStar rated windows.   And so while performing $6500 in retrofits will require more labor than $2500, it will not require over 250% more labor.

Second, as money spent on training and technical assistance increases from 10% to 20% of the budget, less money will go toward directly retrofitting the houses.  However, the higher training and technical assistance appropriation is essential as the nation currently lacks the qualified weatherization professionals necessary to meet the higher weatherization goals.  And without qualified retrofit professionals and specialists, weatherization money will be wasted as installation is not done properly and the program’s full energy efficiency benefits are not realized.

And finally, while the current $5B appropriation is theoretically enough to weatherize the 500,000 house goal at an average cost of $6500, additional program expenses for scaling up operations and state-level training are likely to decease the money available for weatherization wages.

Assuming a ratio of houses retrofitted per job created similar to the 2009 WAP ratio (12.5 houses/job), the program could be expected to create 48,000 jobs.  However, this number is likely to under predict the job creation potential of weatherization as additional retrofit professionals will be needed on each house in order to perform the more extensive retrofit.  Accounting for the additional workers needed to blow interior insulation and replace or repair HVAC systems, doors, and windows, a more realistic ratio would be 9 houses per job.  This yields an estimate of about 70,000 jobs created at $71,429 of government investment per job.  Even this fairly conservative job creation estimate demonstrates the relative cost effectiveness of the WAP and energy efficiency retrofits as compared with other clean energy sector investments.

And at a household level…

The WAP program metrics show that under the $2500/house program households save on average $350 annually on their utility bills, representing a 23% reduction in total utility bills.  This reduction is especially important for low-income families as this sector pays, on average, 16% of their income toward utility bills, as opposed to a national medium of 4-5%.  A key to reducing energy use is to decrease space heating and cooling needs as they together account for on average over 1/3 of a house’s energy use.  And the key to reducing heating and cooling loads?

Insulation.  See, just like President Obama told us, insulation could be a seriously sexy building material.

A few fun facts about insulation and using it in retrofits

What is referred to as insulation is a term for any material that significantly slows down or retards the flow or transfer of heat.  Insulation is measured in terms of its R-value, which is a measure of resistance to heat flow/conductivity.  This equation [DT/Q_A or, in the US, 1 hour* ft²*°F/Btu] measures only conduction, to which 25-40% of air infiltration is attributed in an average house.  The other two means of air infiltration, convection and radiation, make of the remaining 60-75% of air infiltration in a given house, but are not generally considered when looking at the insulating properties of a material. The higher the R-value, the greater the resistance of the material and the better it insulates.

Insulation is classified primarily by form and by material.  Insulation forms, for example, include rigid, semi-rigid, loose-fill, batt, flexible, reflective, and foamed in place.  And common insulation materials include mineral fiber, organic fiber, and foam glass.

While not all types of insulation are appropriate for retrofitting, many interior and exterior/sheathing insulations can be effectively applied.

Surveying the retrofit case studies from the DOE Building America program, the most popular forms of insulation for retrofitting or weatherizing buildings include blown interior and rigid exterior insulations—specifically blown cellulose and polyisocyanurate rigid insulation/board.  Additional types of insulation utilized include fiberglass bat, sprayed polyurethane foam, spray and rigid foams, and rigid insulation integral to both house wraps and siding.  In all cases, the needs of the particular climate must be taken into account, but some form of insulation is almost always the most cost effective retrofit solution.  For example, in Pasadena, “if you have 300 square feet of glass and you replace it, you go from R-1 to R-3 [which is the typical R value for new windows].  For a fraction of the cost, you can take the 2,000-square-feet of ceiling surface area and increase it from R-6 or R-10 to R-38 at the place where it really matters, in the attic.”  (quote courtesty of Andrew Durben at HartmanBalkwin )

The chart below breaks down the cost savings and types of insulation used in six Building America retrofit cases.

Over the opening days of the Copenhagen Climate Negotiations, which began this Monday, each country has been asked to consider how it can contribute to the 25-40% carbon emission reductions climate scientists believe to be necessary to keep climate change below the 2C mark.  Key issues at stake for the 170 nations represented include commitments to national and international carbon reduction emissions, financing of clean technologies and carbon emission reductions, and technology transfer to non-industrialized nations.   Leading up to the Copenhagen climate summit, deforestation has been primary focus of discussion as deforestation accounts for one-fifth of global carbon emissions and halting deforestation involves large financial investment, but no fundamental consumer behavior changes.  And with a Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) agreement, developed nations would pay developing countries to not cut down their rainforests by treating the standing forest as a valuable commodity.  Such an agreement, if properly financed and implemented, will be necessary to meet global carbon emissions goals and avoid the numerous ecosystem and climate hazards associated with deforestation.

However, in order to meet national greenhouse gas abatement goals and make the economic and structural changes necessary to avoid or mitigate large-scale climate change consequences, industrialized countries must reduce both their total energy consumption and energy intensity.

Consuming 40% of all energy in the US and Europe and 30-40% worldwide, the building sector is one of the least energy efficient sectors and one in which efficiency investment has been generally highly fragmented, relying n the US on individual owners to finance energy efficiency new construction and retrofits.  Yet for many countries, especially the US and the European nations, cutting buildings sector consumption is not only essential to meeting these goals, but is also one of the most cost effective energy saving measures available (see the table from McKinsey, below). Furthermore, analysis by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) indicates that market-driven reform can reduce building energy use by 60% by 2050, but will require a concerted and immediate effort on the part of industry, government, code and standard making bodies, and labor in order to achieve.

Graph demonstrating the cost effectiveness of buildings energy efficiency (McKinsey)

Looking at energy use in the residential sector as a case study, according to the 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey 59% of houses in the US were built before 1980 and in the vast majority of cases have not been substantively renovated or retrofitted. These hugely inefficient houses feature little or no insulation in the attics, walls, and foundations, inefficient HVAC systems, leaky ducts, poor air sealing, outdated windows and doors, and are often expensive to operate due to high energy waste rates, especially during peak heating and cooling periods.

US households spend on average just over $1800 annually on house energy consumption, with over 40% of that energy consumed in maintaining thermal comfort through space heating and air conditioning. However, energy consumption reductions of up to 50% have been proved cost effective in both the retrofit and new housing market by focusing on insulating and air sealing to reduce heating and cooling costs.  In the retrofit market, the efficacy of energy efficiency retrofits in decreasing annual operating costs of a building through energy savings is supported by analysis of the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program.  Independent reports conclude that for every $1 spent to weatherize a house (up to $5000 under the current program), the occupants save $1.67 in utility costs, a savings achieved through measures such as adding insulation, air sealing, installing airtight doors and windows, and occasionally upgrading HVAC equipment and ducts.

In the new homes market, Habitat for Humanity affiliates across the country have succeeded in building affordable housing units that are up to 50% more energy efficient to operate (achieving HERS scores in the low to mid-50s), feature materials with low embodied energy, and are cost-effective, saving the families hundreds of dollars per year in operating costs. (To see case studies on high performance Habitat building, see upcoming FAS report titled “Habitat for Humanity High Performance Building Guide”.)

The US Federal Government has begun to address the need for improved energy efficiency in the building sector through legislation in areas such as:  investments in weatherization (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), commercial and residential energy efficiency tax credits (among others, the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008), federally backed energy efficient mortgages, and setting energy use goals and standards for federal buildings (the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Executive Order 13423 of 2009).  However, all current US energy legislation will save only a fraction of President Obama’s recently announced target of 17% energy savings by 2020.  My comparison, the European Commission has just tentatively approved an “Energy Performance of Buildings Directive,” which mandates that all new construction be “near zero energy”; this directive is estimated to have the potential to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions by 70% of their energy savings target of 20% by 2020.

In order to fulfill any promises that are made at Copenhagen over the coming days and weeks, the US will need to set an ambitious buildings energy efficiency target akin to that approved by the European Commission.  This target must be supported by both public and private action and investment, including:  government legislation, incentives, and workforce training; private sector financial investment and the development of a strong, competitive, energy efficiency market; technological innovation both from industry and the national labs; and the rapid development and deployment of high performing building energy codes and standards.

The House and Senate came to an agreement on a final, compromised version of the stimulus package yesterday. As of this afternoon, the final language hasn’t been released yet, so I dont know the specifics as to what made the final cut, and what funding levels will be. Once the language gets released I’ll post an update with some thoughts.

Stay tuned…

Today, the Structural Insulated Panel Association (SIPA) published a story in their quarterly newsletter about  FAS’s presentation at the 2008 ASCE AEI Conference. More information about the conference and presentations, including pdf files of the presentations, can be found here.

You can sign up for the newsletter here, and more information about SIPA can be found on their website at www.sips.org

In mid-November, Joe Hagerman and I traveled to China to speak at the US China Green Energy Conference in Beijing, and to meet with officials from Sichuan University and the town of Mianzhu regarding rebuilding housing after the Sichuan Earthquake. (more…)

So its been quite a while since I’ve given this blog the attention it deserves. And that’s unfortunate, because we’ve been up to some quite exciting stuff in the past few months, including (among other things): a trip to china about building a demonstration there in the wake of the Sichuan Earthquake, some exciting talks about developing a home energy retrofit plan that would save energy and create jobs, some interesting meetings regarding indoor air quality in manufactured housing, exciting updates on FAS’s research on the seismic capacity of SIPs, as well as some very exciting news in the world of building research.

I’ll be making several posts in the coming weeks to catch things back up to speed, and you can expect more regular updates in the near year.

I just got done presenting at the ASCE AEI Conference out in Denver. Overall, I was pretty happy with how the session went well. I introduced the speakers and topic, and then John Millhone, a senior advisor to FAS, made a very good presentation about the current energy crisis, and how and why buildings need to play an important role in its solution. I think his presentation really gets to the core of FAS’s mission, and is a great preface to our work in policy and new technologies. John’s powerpoint can be found here.

Eric Tompos, the Vice President of NTA Inc., followed John with a presentation on the sources of design information for engineering SIPs, as well as the ways SIPs typically perform. Eric’s discussion taught me quite a few things I hadn’t realized about panel performance, and was huge for any designer planning to use panels. His powerpoint can be found here (with a supplementary, more comprehensive presentation that describe the methods for developing an engineered design method for SIPs in detail found here).

Khalid Mosalam, a professor Civil and Environmental Engineering out at UC Berkeley followed Eric. Professor Mosalam’s presentation explained much of the work he’s been doing in conjunction with FAS. He explained the current approach to seismic evaluation, the development of a pseudo-dynamic approach that is cheaper than large scale shake table tests, and then how that applies to SIPs and CSIPs. A copy of his presentation can be found here. That said, Professor Mosalam’s research deserves a much more in depth look – I’ll write something more significant about it soon.

I concluded the presentation with a discussion of our Pankow research – how to apply CSIPs to multi-story buildings. My presentation can be found here. The followup discussion to the presentations was good – some very interested people from all different segments of the building industry, from engineers to construction managers.

Today Google and GE announced a new partnership, teaming to develop smart grid technologies and clean energy. The concept of the smart grid is essentially bringing electricity transmission, distribution, and use into the 21^st century through the use of two-way communications, advanced sensors, and distributed computers to improve the efficiency, reliability and safety of power delivery and use. The system has not been integrated into America’s energy distribution system, but the concept offers increased reliability, efficiency and safety of the power grid, enables decentralized power generation so homes can be both an energy client AND supplier (allowing individual loads to tailor their generation directly to their load, making them independent from grid power failures), and enabling flexibility of the power consumption on the clients side.

Developing and implementing this concept will be crucial if plug-in vehicles (getting closer and closer over the horizon) are going to be a benefit instead of a detriment to the electric system. Smart power grids would allow people to conduct tasks such as recharging electric cars at times of day when demand is not high, and enable them to sell solar or other renewable energy back to utility companies.

Surprisingly, it is political and regulatory hurdles, not technological ones, that block the path to revamping the US power grid, and it is this side of the puzzle that this new partnership will investigate. FAS hasn’t done much research into smart grids, but we see it as an important upgrade in the bigger picture of improving our national energy use, and we’re very interested to see where this partnership will go.

A fact sheet on the partnership can be found here.

Tomorrow, the Center for American Progress will be hosting a panel on the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This panel will examine the impact of rising home energy costs on low-income households. It will also explore what Congress and the president can do to strengthen the ability of LIHEAP to provide vulnerable homes with needed assistance this winter while also ensuring that WAP investments reduce costs in future winters.

FAS senior advisor John Millhone (former director of the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs at the U.S. Department of Energy until his retirement in 2003) wrote a paper on these two programs, which can be found here.

I’ll be attending the panel, and will post any interesing notes here afterwards. More information on the event can be found here.

No topics have risen more quickly in recent years than procuring green energy alternatives and combating climate change. How can China and the United States work together to stop global climate change? What can the new U.S. president do to help China become more energy efficient? The Federation of American Scientists will host a symposium to answer these questions at the University of California, Berkeley, on Thursday, 25 September from 11:00 am – 12:30 pm PDT. (more…)