Tired of paying an arm and a leg for electricity, heating oil, natural gas, etc. to power your home? The good news is that you can slash your residential energy consumption (not to mention your carbon emissions) dramatically. Here are a few ideas.
1. From the Washington Post, here's an idea if you're building a new home:
Passive solar design means orienting your house so that it takes advantage of the sun's light...Better that the house's longest side faces a southern exposure. Put your windows on this side, and allow the winter's sun to help warm the house at a cost of zero dollars. Also, with the right awnings or shades on the windows, the high summer sun will be blocked.
That's free energy right there, just by orienting your home to take maximum advantage of the sun. Too difficult, you say? Well, mankind's been doing this pretty much forever; see here for an example.
2. Also from the Washington Post, build your house with a "tight building envelope" and save a fortune:
...the house's skeleton is built with two exterior, parallel walls, 3 1/2 inches apart, using inexpensive two-by-four lumber. In a double-wall system, the outside wall is covered with plywood and then siding, such as vinyl or brick. The inner wall is covered with drywall, just as it would be in a standard house.The space created between the walls is then filled with three layers of insulation. Generally, it's R13 formaldehyde-free fiberglass insulation, resulting in an R40 exterior wall. The R value indicates the degree of insulation, and the higher the number, the better-insulated the house. Exterior walls in a standard American house are typically insulated to an R13 level. The first and third layers run vertically, and the middle layer runs horizontally.
This doesn't change the design of the house, but it does tighten the envelope considerably. McKechnie estimated this will increase the cost of the house by only about $4,000 but will lower the heating and cooling energy cost by 40 to 50 percent.
3. Again, from the Washington Post, get a solar hot water heater:
A [solar heated] water system requires only a couple of solar panels and heats water throughout the year. Given the tax incentives, this system earns back the cost in three to seven years and then keeps going.
4. From MSN Money, replace your light bulbs:
CFL's use up to 75% less energy than standard incandescent bulbs and last up to 10 times longer, according to Home Energy Saver.
5. Also from MSN Money, replace your old appliances with Energy Star models:
Among household appliances, the refrigerator is likely your biggest energy consumer, especially if it's more than 15 years old. It can account for up to 9% of your energy costs alone. Again, use the Energy Star site for a list of energy-efficient models if you're looking to replace yours.
Look at getting a more energy efficient heat pump (or even a geothermal heat pump) as well, next time yours needs replacing.
6. Two more good ones from MSN Money: 1) "Programmable thermostats can reduce energy wasted heating or cooling a house when no one is home or everyone's asleep;" and 2) Ceiling fans' "effect is equivalent to lowering the air temperature by about 4 F (2 C), and using less energy than air conditioners in doing so."
7. From EnergyGuide.com, plant trees!
...Carefully positioned trees can save up to 25% of a typical household's energy for heating and cooling. Computer models from the Department of Energy predict that just three trees, properly placed around the house, can save an average household between $100 and $250 in heating and cooling energy costs annually...Studies conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found summer daytime air temperatures to be 3-¦ to 6-¦F cooler in tree-shaded neighborhoods than in treeless areas
That's amazing!
8. Also from EnergyGuide.com, apply some window film:
Sunlight entering through windows can greatly increase the cooling load in a building. Interior window films can be used to reduce the heat gain through glass without eliminating visibility. Typically, installing a reflective window film over clear glass will reduce cooling costs by 5% to 15%. Also, take the opportunity to check for cracks around your windows, and seal them with appropriate caulk or weather stripping.
9. Another simple but excellent suggestion from EnergyGuide.com: shades and awnings:
Exterior shading devices can reduce heat loss in the winter and heat gain in the summer generated by sunlight shining through glass. These can be in the form of insulating shades, shutters, drapes, solar screens, and awnings. Many of these devices, such as awnings, enhance the facade of the building and improve energy efficiency.
10. Finally, if you want to invest more money, you might want to look into a green roof or solar panels.
Those are just a few ideas, I'm sure there are many, many more. The point is, you can do a lot to combat the rising cost of energy, even if you don't have a lot of money to invest (e.g., trees, awnings and shades, programmable thermostats, passive solar are all inexpensive or free).
In a nutshell, the phantom load is the electricity consumed by a device when it is turned off.
Here's a local article
"In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
I installed one of these and it's already made me turn off more lights and consume less electricity in the house.
Ok, yes, all of these ideas are helpful for people in certain situations. But I feel compelled to be contrary and cantankerous and point out the fact that for the people getting hit the hardest by rising energy prices, everything but the lightbulbs are non-starters. No offense intended, Lowell. I just like to highlight the discrepancy between popular ideas about how people should save money and how these are not real options for most of those who really need to do it.
Both the rural poor and the formerly middle class of any area generally have no money. The idea of a solar hot water heater paying for it's self in a few years is moot, because we don't have a thousand dollars or whatever to pay for it in the first place. The money is literally not there, and if it magically showed up in the mail one day then we would use it to go to the dentist or get our engagement rings back from the pawn shop. Investing in tomorrow isn't an option for us, because dealing with today usually leaves nothing left over.
Here are some of the things that I've been doing to save money on energy, which may come in handy to other formerly middle-class people in my situation.
- Duct tape gaps between the window AC unit and the off-square window frame. You'd be surprised how much cooler the room gets.
- When you run out of heating oil in the middle of winter, constantly run laundry through the washer on 'hot,' keep the drying humming along too, and find things to bake in the oven (never go to sleep with the oven on, though). This can keep the house just barely warm enough to avoid having to stay in a motel until pay day, when you can place a small order for heating oil provided that you are willing to go without groceries for the next 2 weeks.
- Sometimes off-road kerosene is cheaper than heating oil. It's all basically diesel fuel that your furnace can burn now and then without trouble. When this is the case, blend 20 or 30% kerosene in with the heating oil to stretch your supply a little. Going with 100% kerosene requires replacement of the furnace's nozzles if you are going to do it on anything but a very temporary basis.
- Vote for Democrats. Because Republicans fundamentally believe that the government should do nothing to advance the cause of economic justice in this country. They believe in unregulated 'free' markets in which gasoline costs over $4 a gallon and in a tax system where billionaires and large corporations pay a tiny fraction of their income in taxes compared to the middle and lower classes.
Virginia has a Weatherization Assistance Program that it primarily funds through an allocation from our federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) grant. According to the Virginia Energy Plan, they weatherize 2,000 homes a year at about an average cost of $2,800. This program mostly focuses on the elderly and disabled poor. Also, according to the VEP, they think that level progress is sufficient and there are no plans to expand this program.
In order to really get EEC programs going, the state is going to have to subsidize it. And for middle and low-income families, the state is going to have to pay for the full cost. Maybe they could do a mix of loans and grants so that some of that cost was recouped. But otherwise, you are right, and these efficiency gains won't be realized by most Virginians.
But for Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria, where median incomes are so high, the residents here need to put their money into action. Not that there aren't middle class and poor folks around here. But there are a whole lot of upper middle class folks in single family homes that could be doing a lot more. And ultimately the usage issue is emanating from NoVA.
Make it easy to participate in as in the public volunteering, which I assume most people like to do. Also, just by getting something like that up and running, it would in a marketing sense, inform others who can afford to do so, get acquainted with and get it done for themselves.
Helping people get Energy Smart should be a serious priority.
I purchase the vast majority of my beef from a local free-range farm. Free-range reduces impact on the environment, cost considerably less, nearly 50%, and it is far better tasting than industrial raised beef you get from any grocery store or chain. More than 90% of feeding is from pasture, and less than 10% is grain. Result, nearly no costs from farming and transportation.
PS - how about looking into dynamic pricing model before another post in favor of decoupling revenues from sales.
If the world needs to stop eating meat in order to save the planet, that is going to be a monumental mountain to climb. The diets of most of the world's countries contain meat. The people, worldwide, who are not eating meat are doing so primarily because they cannot afford it. For example, as the Chinese have become wealthier, the country's demand for meat imports has increased.
Meat is delicious too. Kale, yuck. Venison, yum! =)
I should say, the local free-range beef producer I buy from, has had his sales increase substantially. The season's first slaughter is now book nearly 6 months in advance, up from just 30-days two years ago. This encourages the micro-consumption model, which supports the rural economy - it encourages rural America to remain rural and not sell out to developers. RK has had a diary or two about vertical development v. suburban sprawl, and this concept is in sync with this, all at the free-market's doing. Organic produce farming are also part of their booming business.
Is policy now 0% carbon emission on total output in the future, or are we still requesting a significant cut (60,70, or 80%) in carbon emissions based on 1990 levels? I didn't think so. So for a less extreme view, there is much to be gained thru a micro-consumption model, other than the macro industrialize society we are currently in.
Such is the economics behind utility rates. Profits based on sales v. decoupling revenues from sales is about the equivalent to your non-vegetarian v. vegetarian mandate. However, dynamic real-time pricing model for our future rates, is similar to micro-based consuming economy, in that it marries the best of both worlds, encourages we use less money and consumes less energy, and that reduces GHG emissions. Decoupling and macro-consumption models are old school. Dynamic pricing and micro-consumption are true progressive solutions.
Dynamic pricing (real-time pricing) for the grid we will have not too far in the distant future, is the most sensible model, because it will give incentives to customers to reduce their energy consumption and encourage customers to shift more of their electricity consumption from peak to off-peak hours. This has the net affect of decreased infrastructure build-outs, decreases the price per kwh, which ultimately leads to decreased GHG emissions than without. Dynamic pricing will give incentives to the utility also, because for one, it will allow them to serve more customers without having to build out the grid as much - more usable capacity, w/o increasing capacity! Dynamic pricing will make EEC goals of 30% energy reduction by 2030 possible with the potential to exceed. The smart grid investment DVP is proposing, is the first step for Virginia towards this future. Btw, decoupling has been around for a long time. Its been tried in states and removed. Currently, I know CA has it. It didn't give the utilities to incentive to implement DSM, however, so Arnold had to mandate it in 2006. I think OR and HI are both entertaining the idea, but most utility regulators appear they'd rather wait for the smart grid and implement a pricing scheme based on real-time signals. The power of EEC will then unfold.
Even with low home prices, in the $100,000 range, an investment of $4,000 represents less than 5% of the value of the home in exchange for a 40% to 50% savings in heating/cooling consumption. That's huge for a minimal percent of total investment. Take home prices in the $400,000 range and we're talking a mere 1% of value for an incredible savings.
Short term it would cost the home owner more, but given the increasing costs of energy this sort of investment would pay for itself within a decade - and beyond that would produce a huge payoff for the home owner. Seeing as most homes are around for many decades this investment will pay for itself many times over. For those who aren't don't plan to stay in that new home for decades - the extra savings in energy costs would add a premium to the resale value of their home (compared to other less efficient homes) and they'd easily get their money back.
And as I said above, this is low hanging fruit to separate the politicians who pay lip service to environmental causes and those who take real action. Given the minimal cost and significant long term financial and environmental benefits, mandating that all new home construction use a double-wall system should be an easy law to support.
It's time for our leaders to step up and this really is a no-brainer.
Now, by the way, the insulation approach is not one that I'd recommend if one can afford it. I would use a spray foam insulation (or recycled jeans) which would have far (FAR) fewer air leaks, better fire protection, and lower health risk.
When I first moved in, summers were a bit tough - the house would get rather hot, and the AC would struggle. The tree fixed it so that the ground floor really didn't get much extra heat load in the summer (and the tree would drop leaves in the winter, so I would get some passive solar heat when it is desirable).