A few weeks back, I mentioned that I had an energy audit performed on my family's home and discussed some of the issues found by that process. Then yesterday I presented a simple energy balance model for the house. Today I want to continue the story by discussing a model for what the house might look like after the $19k (give or take) in energy upgrades that we are discussing with our energy efficiency contractor (Snug Planet).
Recall that the model yesterday looked like this:
This shows both the inflows and outflows of energy during the heating season (here taken to be October-March) in millions of BTU. My estimates for after the work look like this:
I have kept the same scale so that you can see visually that this represents roughly halving the energy consumption of the house during the winter. It's first worth saying a few words about what's not changing:
Next my assumptions for how the work would reduce the outflows:
The next question is how the inputs will change in response. My first assumption is that the electricity usage of the house during the winter will fall to 80% of the summer level - this is somewhat of a guesstimate based on replacing the heaviest energy using appliances and figuring that usage of the baseboard electrical heat could be eliminated. The other terms (solar gain etc) are unchanged. So then the firewood usage would fall from 3 1/4 cords to 2 cords.
Under these assumptions, and with a 15 year 3% on-bill recovery loan, in the first year, we would pay $1570 in loan payments but save $2165 in energy costs. Obviously, the exact numbers are sensitive to final project cost and what does or doesn't go into the project. But the larger point is that this project does have the potential to work as advertised: we would save $500 in the first year and the amount of saving would (on average) increase in each following year as inflation increased energy prices but not our loan payment. Finally after fifteen years the loan would be fully paid off and we'd just have energy bills half as large as they would otherwise have been.
One interesting aside I wanted to make: in our case we rely on wood and renewable electricity so this operation will not really save fossil fuel emissions. However, if instead we were using our standard utility electricity offering and natural gas or coal, then this would reduce the operational carbon emissions of our house by a factor of two, and cost negative money. Since I'm sure our house is not atypical in this regard, I think this raises questions about the pricing of carbon offsets.
Links:
[1] http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/03/sanity-checking-energy-improvement_09.html
[2] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9SM7O1ffUsg/T1nuD24acEI/AAAAAAAAChs/2HZzlAPjmQI/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-03-09+at+6.48.04+AM.png
[3] http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/02/experiencing-energy-audit.html
[4] http://www.snugplanet.com/
[5] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mm0rgPEkk6s/T1imYtc5JoI/AAAAAAAAChk/cMJ-9XPbuM4/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-03-08+at+7.29.57+AM.png
[6] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/high-cost-deep-energy-retrofits
[7] http://livingindryden.org/2004/01/auditing_the_results_of_my_ene.html
[8] http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Home/About/Statewide%20Initiatives/On%20Bill%20Recovery%20Loan%20Program.aspx