Two years ago I reported dramatic reductions in my home energy use on this blog. Between 2007 and 2009 I cut my gas usage by 34% and my electric usage by 55%. Needless to say I was pretty pleased with myself for this achievement and none too shy about spreading the news. I was also happy to share because I believed that my experience could serve as a model for others seeking to lower their energy bills and that my savings were replicable.
My message? That behavior change had incredible power to drive down energy usage. This wasn’t what I anticipated when I first began to work at reducing our home’s energy use: I had expected that efficiency upgrades (insulation, air sealing and better equipment) would have a much bigger impact on our energy use than conservation (things like turning lights off, adjusting thermostat settings, or washing our clothes in cold water). Of course, I was practicing and preaching the virtues of making sustainable choices all along, but I didn’t really think these would have a big impact. Boy was I surprised when I began to evaluate our savings in light of the actions we had taken!
By way of illustration, consider our summertime electricity use. Between June-September of 2006 we consumed just over 1200 KWH each month. Between June-September of 2011 we used 600 KWH each month: half of what we consumed 5 years prior.
Can you guess how we did it? Yes, we insulated our attic, which allowed or air handler to run more efficiently (just think how much 
harder an air handler has to work if it’s located in a 100 degree attic, as opposed to a 78 degree home). But, no, we didn’t install a more efficient HVAC system. And, no, we didn’t even seal our ductwork. Mostly we just turned the AC off and ran fans instead (except on the hottest days; even I’m not crazy enough to suffer through several days of 90+ degree heat without using central AC). So… we cut our summertime electric bill in half simply by flicking a switch–oh, and “investing” in fans, like this ceiling fan we put in our bedroom.
Pretty simple, right? Well, yes and no. Take another look at that chart. Do you notice that the trend line started to edge back up slightly after bottoming out in 2009? Although we used slightly less electricity in the summer of 2011 than in the summer of 2010, in both years we used more electricity that in the summer of 2009. At the same time, we’ve also been backsliding a little on gas usage, and our total energy use (in BTUs) was slightly higher in 2011 than in 2010.
What happened between 2009 and now? Not much, other than our two new entertainment systems. While these systems use more electricity than our old-school TV did, we don’t use them all that much and power them down completely when we aren’t using them (we keep vampire power to a minimum in our house). So they don’t account for much of the uptick.
I suspect that this uptick is mostly due to a loss of focus. We just aren’t paying as close attention to our energy consumption now that we’ve achieved such marked reductions. And we’re slipping back into some bad habits: we’re leaving lights on more; we’re more likely to bump up the thermostat when we’re chilly; we’re using our clothes dryer more.
So what does this mean? First, that the power of behavior cuts both ways. Just as behavior change can result in dramatic reductions in energy use, backsliding can easily erode those savings. It reminds me of lifestyle changes: who among us hasn’t achieved weight loss or exercise goals only to watch them slip away as bad habits return to roost?
Which leads right to my second point: behavior change sounds simple. After all, most of us know what’s required in order to lose weight, be stronger, or cut our energy bills. We may even be successful at achieving these goals in the short-term. Yet as time goes on, many of us fail to sustain our achievements and end up back where we started. In short, behavior change is much harder in practice than it is in theory.
Which leads to my third point: behavior change alone won’t get us where we need to go. We can’t just tell people to conserve and expect them to do so. We can’t even teach them how to conserve and expect them to do so. We need to do a lot of other things too like:
- design and engineer our infrastructure to facilitate conservation
- sett goals, create support systems (Weight Watchers for energy use?), provide rewards for success, and perhaps even penalize people for failure.
- reevaluate and aggressively realign our political and economic systems to prioritize the public good over corporate profits, and the welfare of future generations over short-term and myopic fixes to immediate problems.
Lacking a holistic vision, policy and strategy, behavior change is likely to fail in the long-term. We may succeed in the short-term but soon enough we’ll be back to consuming calories and carbon-based fuels we can no longer afford.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
The holiday season can be stressful for lots of reasons: too much spending, too much eating, travel delays and family tensions. For the eco-conscious, another stress is also part of the mix: the stress that comes from trying to buy green gifts. We do our best: giving experiences or services, buying second hand, or giving homemade. But at some point almost all of us step foot (literally or virtually) into the marketplace of the new. And when we do we come face to face with the fact that consumer culture and sustainability are antithetical. I know it’s discomfiting, but, yes, “buying green” is a contradiction in terms.
In my experience, there are a few different ways to deal with this stress: you can repress the knowledge that consumption is unsustainable, you can try to minimize or offset the damage, you can try to assuage your guilt, or you can do some combination of all three. Around the holidays, I tend to do some combination, especially as–with each passing year–I am confronted with ever more brand-conscious wishlists from my kids.
Consider if you will my son’s Hanukkah wishlist this year. Is there anything on this list that I can give without shopping? Anything that I can buy secondhand or make myself? Unfortunately, no. But also consider what’s not on his list: the kindle, the iphone, the Xbox. These are all things he has asked for but has been told he isn’t getting (at least for now). See, here I am, employing one of the strategies of the eco-conscious shopper: assuaging my guilt! I’ve also relied a lot on the repression method, in which I simply take off my green hat and hand over my credit card.
And what about minimizing or offsetting the damage? Well, this year I decided to tie gift purchases, as much as possible, to sales and donations of unused or underused stuff. So, for example, in order to put the FIFA 12 wii game on his wishlist, my son had to clean out his existing video game collection. The result? A $64 credit at Gamestop, which was more than enough to cover the cost of his new video game. The Judy Moody books on my daughter’s gift list? The shelf space and money for those will come from the Rainbow Fairy books she has outgrown.
Recommerce–a fancy name for trading-in–has long been a staple of the car market but has recently caught on much more broadly. Perhaps the hottest recommerce market right now is electronics, in which companies like Boston-based Gazelle are offering consumers, who are ever-voracious for the fastest, hippest, and most-tricked out gadget, the opportunity to resell their “old” devices. Gazelle also commits to responsible recycle any devices it cannot resell.
There are, of course, lots of reasons to resell our unused stuff (not least of which is the money). The question for me is: is environmental responsibility one of these reasons? In other words, if I resell some of my old stuff before I buy new stuff, am I undoing some of the environmental damage caused by my consumption?
Without question, it’s better for the environment from an end-of-life perspective when we resell our goods rather than trash them. To the extent that recommerce helps keep goods out of the landfill or the incinerator, it’s an environmental plus. But what about at the other end of the lifecycle? Does recommerce minimize the environmental impacts associated with harvesting natural resources, and manufacturing and distributing the goods we make from them? I think that the unfortunate answer to these questions is no. And even more unfortunately, I suspect that recommerce actually reinforces our consumption of new products, and in so doing may in fact undermine its waste-reduction benefits. For no matter how much waste recommerce may reduce, its financial success depends on our continual consumption of the new. Otherwise there would be nothing to resell.
Which isn’t to say that I won’t keep reselling my stuff. But it is to say that when I buy new–whether I resell something old first or not–I’ll have to lean heavily on another of my eco-conscious shopping strategies: repression.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
What a terrific time I had at Build Boston this year! I attended several extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking presentations and met some of the pioneers in green building and energy efficiency.
Who knew that Massachusetts’ progressive energy policies would make building net-zero homes (homes that produce as much energy as they consume) so affordable? Carter Scott of Transformations, Inc. did! His experience has shown that the simple payback for a photovoltaic system on a home with decent solar orientation is as little as 6-7 years.
Who would have thought occupant choices could have such a large impact on overall energy consumption? Through his thoughtful retrofit of his own home, Marc Rosenbaum of South Mountain Company has shown that small decisions–such as thermostat set points–make a big difference in energy use.
Who would have thought that a simple spreadsheet could do a better job predicting household energy use than a complex modeling program? Michael Blasnick’s work indicates that detailed energy modeling does not have a good track record projecting actual energy consumption, particularly in older homes.
I was also honored to give a talk entitled Green That Means Something with Jonathan Kantar of Sage Builders, LLP. If you weren’t able to attend the talk, you can view our slideshow on slideshare. Of course the slides (of which “A Historic Opportunity” is one example) only tell a small part of the story, so here’s the main gist:
Jonathan and I set an ambitious–and somewhat audacious–agenda for our talk: to provide a set of sustainability goals for single-family homes and a road map for achieving those goals. This agenda grew out of our experiences trying to build and remodel homes that are part of the solution to environmental challenges–challenges such as climate change, water scarcity and indoor pollution.
It also grew out of our awareness that conventional design and building practices often exacerbate these challenges, or at the very least do little to help solve them. Far too many residential building projects miss the boat on durability, energy efficiency, water conservation, and indoor health.
Now, before you protest, try this little thought experiment. How often do you…
- Build an addition only after determining that it isn’t possible to meet functional needs within the existing footprint?
- Factor watering needs into site and landscaping plans?
- Evaluate building materials for potential off-gassing?
- Assess operational energy needs during the design phase of a project?
My guess is that for homeowners and residential building professionals alike, all too often the answer is NEVER. Jonathan and I set out to change this. We were also fortunate to have an engaged audience. I’ve posted several of their questions below along with our responses:
In your opinion are there any materials that are currently being widely used in homes that, in the future, are going to shown to expose occupants to unacceptable health risks?
Rachel: The short answer is yes. The building industry has a long history of relying on materials that, over time, turn out to pose unacceptable health risks to occupants and are eventually abandoned. I think that this problem is trending downward for a couple of reasons. First, the value of ensuring good indoor air quality is gaining broader acceptance. Second, materials are subject to increasingly rigorous emissions standards and testing by both government and third party organizations, and that information is more readily available and accessible than ever. This trend is increasing as market demand for safe products and transparency increases.
Why are you recommending that over the next 20-30 years we transition to using high efficiency air-source heat pumps to meet space conditioning needs?
Jonathan: The technology involved with air-source heat pumps has changed drastically over the past 5-10 years. There are now some units that truly produce three (3) times more energy (heat) than they consume. And several of these units can operate efficiently in temperatures approaching 0 deg. (F). Since these units are powered by electricity, the 3 to 1 ratio of produced to consumed energy is important. This efficiency rate, known as the coefficient of power (COP), represents the minimum amount necessary to offset the amount of energy that is lost in the production and transmission of the electricity to your house. As the COP drops below 3, then there are other heating sources that become more attractive. Of course if you have lots of solar electric power, than there is not much of a “penalty” for using electricity to handle your HVAC needs.
The case studies you shared show pretty impressive reductions in modeled energy use. Have you been able to verify these reductions with actual energy use data?
Rachel: I presented my experience at my house. While this is not always the case, my family has been able to use less energy than our energy model predicted we would. Marc Rosenbaum has also presented data on several similar homes that his company built indicating that actual energy use can differ from projections either way and that occupant behavior can significantly affect results.
As you can see, we got some great questions. And we’d love to continue the conversation! So check out our presentation and post your thoughts. And if you attended the conference: How are you building on Build Boston?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Halloween has come and gone. Costumes have been put away. Decorations put back in storage. But the phantoms live on. Long after even the candy has been consumed–and that process is endless enough–our homes will still be haunted by what is known as phantom loads, or vampire power.
Vampire power or phantom loads refer to the energy that electronics consume when they are switched off but continue to draw power. Sometimes an LED display clues you in to the presence of a phantom. Sometimes you can tell because a device remains warm even when it isn’t being used. Everything from your microwave to your mobile phone charger draws vampire power when it is plugged in but not being used. Indeed, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a typical American home has forty devices plugged in that constantly draw power. And it turns out that these loads account for a huge proportion of household electricity consumption–almost 10%!
At my house, we’ve done a pretty good job of exorcising our phantoms: we unplug our chargers; we turn off our computers and peripherals at night; we even unplug our coffee maker and toaster when we aren’t using them. But there is one phantom that had proved very difficult to eliminate: the one that haunts our home entertainment system.
Two years ago I caved to pressure from the sports watchers and video gamers in our family (you know who you are…) and gave my OK to a relatively fancy AV system. Up until then we had an old-school television with a simple cable box and dvd player. The biggest energy user in this system was the cable box, which we knew drew vampire power because it remained warm after we turned it off. We expelled the vampire from our old system by plugging all the components into a smart strip. The smart strip automatically and completely shut down the cable box when we turned the television off. There was a functional trade-off to this solution, however: we had to wait roughly 15 minutes after powering the system back on for the channel guide to show up.
But then, in 2010 we replaced our old system with this. Now for some of you this looks like a pretty simple system, but to us, it was loaded: a wii, an HD cable box, Apple TV, blu ray, and surround sound speakers. Oh, and the 54″ flat screen TV. You can guess what happened to our vampire, right? It returned!
Fortunately, with some nagging I was able to get the av company to install a single switch that would allow us to power the system down completely. Of course, in order for this solution to work we have to remember to flip the switch. Mostly we do remember and we live with the delayed reboot time. But sometimes we don’t and then the vampire returns with a vengeance, especially if we go a few days without using the system.
According to a recent study published by the Natural Resources Defense Council, vampires in av systems have become increasingly common and increasingly bloodthirsty, with set top boxes (i.e., cable boxes and dvrs) consuming 2/3 of their power when they are off. That’s right, 2/3 when they are turned off. In fact, the typical set draws more electricity than the typical refrigerator (446 v. 415 kwh annually).
Now, these results were startling even to me, and I was already familiar with the problem of phantom loads! The question is: are they enough to convince people to live with the functional compromise of completely powering down their systems? I’d say they would for some people. But for many others they won’t. And even people, like me, who are willing to power their systems down won’t always remember to.
Which is why we need the cable companies to provide products that offer functionality and energy efficiency. Fortunately the Energy Star program is currently phasing in stricter performance standards for Energy Star certified set top boxes, as well as incentives for manufacturers to add a deep sleep mode in which the device would draw less than or equal to 15% of power it uses in on mode. But in the meantime, here’s another very simple, very cost-effective solution you could try: an electronic timer! This is a picture of the one Jonathan Kantar of Sage Builders set one up in his home. It cost $20. Assuming you are going from a system that is always on to one that is on 6 hours a day, I’d estimate that this investment would pay for itself in less than half a year.
Which isn’t a bad deal to make, even if it is with a vampire.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
A guest blog by: Joanna Hamblin
When the weather turns a bit cooler and the leaves start to turn colors in New England we know that soon enough we’ll need to bag them or call in the landscapers for back-up. As more elaborate power equipment is deployed for yard work, one alarming trend has been spreading faster than you can say fall foliage. The issue here is with leaf blowers, and as many observers will attest to, they are no longer being used for just fall and spring leaf clean-up – they are in the trailer of landscaping crews year round. Take a look at yard work, and it often consists of mow, edge and blow.
Why does that matter, you ask? The problem with blowers is that they serve up a 1-2-3 punch of health and environmental hazards. In other words, they do more harm than good via; 1) Noise 2) Air-pollution and 3) Toxic dust. Let’s look at each issue;
1) Noise. The noise decibels of leaf-blowers are often quite high, especially for back-pack models that are gas powered and exceed 75dBA at 50 feet. High noise levels have been linked to decreased levels of health and happiness and increased levels of stress and blood-pressure.
2) Air-pollution. Exhaust pollution and particulate matter emitted from two-cycle engines as well as the toxic dust picked up by the high-velocity blowers are a significant threat to public health and safety. They are considered criteria pollutants and are often precursors to smog formation. Air pollution created and exacerbated by blowers is unhealthy for people with weak or compromised pulmonary functions due to asthma, allergies and other health conditions.
3) Toxic dust. Picked up by the high velocity blowers, dust containing particles from tail-pipe emissions, asphalt and road debris and mold spores is picked up in the air, delivering a toxic cocktail to workers and people who are nearby. The plume of dust is often carried wide and far by winds covering nearby surfaces and ending up in our homes during open window season.
Are you worried, thinking that blowers do more harm than good? Would you like to ensure healthy air and peace of mind? Take a look what Cambridge (MA) has done to address the problem. Many other cities nationwide have also passed similar measures to prevent a tragedy of the commons from happening in their communities; Montclair (NJ) Los Angeles, Santa Barbara (PDF, page 12) and Laguna Beach (CA) and other cities. I’m curious which East coast city/town will be next? Newton, Dedham, Brookline? How does your municipality rank?
On another front let’s also pose the question to government regulators as well as the blower manufacturers about what they are doing to ensure product and public safety. The toughest challenge, however, may be in learning how to talk about blower use with our neighbors to gain grassroots support. Openly discussing the health effect of blowers on our kids, leading by example by not using/allowing blowers on your property and writing in your local blog/paper may be a constructive way to vocalize your opinion and to advance understanding of the issue. Lastly, due to the complexity of the issue, developing a multi-thronged approach that addresses all facets of the problem will be necessary. Education, advocacy and opening new lines of communication will certainly help bridge that gap. What do you think is the best way to address the leaf-blower issue?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Yours is a point of view where real intelligence shines through.
Comment by Lizabeth — December 13, 2011 @ 12:38 am