My last posting as part of the ongoing Deep Energy Retrofit #DER conversation regarded a definition of DER. I made the argument for using a threshold of 30% savings. The specific conversation is in regard to historic homes. There have been several Bloggers involved in this conversation and others reading. You may read my first post HERE.
Sean at SLS Construction has a post that he is maintaining as a startingpoint and links to updates in the conversation. John at Birmingham Pointe is the Preservationist among us? He actually owns and restores these treasures of times past! Peter Troast of Energy Circle has been involved!
Most recently Sean posted some definitions about Historic, home ownership and compliance width various agency requirements! After reflecting on the discussion It is time for me to pick up the pen for the next post!
During an energy audit of a existing home, I see any number of things related to the efficient use of energy. As I make my list of observations for further examination, I have learned to keep several parameters up front. These would be, in no specific order, Budget, desired outcome, safety, durability, and comfort. I also find it Imperative to remember that I am not in charge, the homeowner is in charge.
There are a number things that I routinely run into during an audit, that are not the most energy efficient. Some are predictable because of the construction techniques used during construction, or the type of construction, or the era in which it was built. Is the house timber framed? Wood stud? Brick clad? Is the house a craftsmen style from the early years of the 20th Century? Masonry Block? Post WWII tract type? Each of these have unique features as well as common improvements that relatively small changes will save some insignificant amounts of Energy. The improvement I can see and model may seem like a no brainier to me, but to the homeowner it becomes almost an insurmountable problem.
One of my first audits was a 1960 ranch with full basement. The homeowner is a young couple and he works construction. Their goal was to get plan of work for him to complete during his down time on the winter. One of the fastest returns for their money was to put some insulation on the basement walls. No problem with blowing into the finished walls. When the recommendation also included 3 inches in the storage areas on the bare walls, my easy to install efficient improvement ran right into the homeowners impression that giving up 3 inches of storage would be a major problem!
Anyone working in the energy improvement field must keep in mind: You must meet the needs and perceptions of the homeowner or nothing happens! You can have the best ‘fancy dan’ plan with all sorts of neat figures , printouts and scientific backup, if you don’t meet the homeowners need, your plan is worthless.
Another audit was a very large home, 2 story, full basement, 3 bedrooms, 6500 sf! I spent a full day on this audit. Presented the plan over 2 hours, and another 4 hours in follow up field work. The comfort concern was the 2nd floor rooms on each end of the home were hot in the summer and cold in the winter. I fixed up a ‘fancy dan’ plan for him. Dropped his $6,400 annual energy bills to $3,200. Solved his comfort problem with a recommendation to increase the return air in the effected rooms. Estimated cost for the additional returns was $200.00
He cherry picked the added attic insulation, because he could see the problems. He did it fast, and soon. It met his real need which I finally discovered on the 4th visit. He really didn’t think his energy bills were that high.
Therefore, anyone wishing to complete a DER for a home, must have the Home Owners Approval, and that approval meets the perceived needs of the homeowner – it will not necessarily meet the perceived needs of the ‘Energy Guy’ writing the plan. You should think of this as “Rule #1”, when all else fails remember Rule #1.
The Second Point of this post is about the Deep in a DER. Deep Energy Retrofits should meet some type of savings across the board. The Twitterverse lit up last night when @EnergyVanguard was Tweeted for people to give him a percentage.
Let’s look at Retrofit.
The implication is certainly not a rebuild, or a gut rehab. That would involve taking most of not all the exterior walls back to the studs or other type of internal framework and then rebuilding. If a DER was a Rebuild or a Gut Rehab, why would it be called a Retrofit.
Could you substitute reduction for retrofit? – Yes. What about rework? Remodel? Restore? All of those work for me. They also all imply that the work is more of an improvement to the structure instead of a rebuilding of the structure.
Now that the “R” in DER has been established as improving as opposed to rebuilding, we can move on. “E” of course is Energy. Which leaves “Deep”.
Asking how deep is deep reminds me of the wood turning question about gouges: “How sharp is sharp?” We have established some limits on Deep.
We know the structure is not going to be rebuilt, we know the structure is not going to have major removal of visible material, only for the purpose of installing energy efficient components, such as insulation.
We also can use ‘Deep’ as meaning not shallow. Therefore Deep must involve a plan of systematic improvements that total to deep. This plan will only be implemented as the home owner has the money/time/desires. This may be over a period of years. If a deep plan cannot take place over a longer period of time, then I must send you back to read ‘Rule #1’!
So, deep means more than doing one or two things. It means having a plan. A plan of improvements that can be phased over a period of years, if need be. A DER would not just involve equipment change out or windows, as most sales types would lead you to believe. And deep doesn’t mean rebuild. It therefore falls in the middle.
In the middle means a 50% maximum reduction. Not being a one or two item improvement plan also means that it should be at least 30% reduction. Which leaves reduction in what.
We are talking about historic homes. These homes have history and therefore we know what the energy costs are. The reduction must be calculated from historical that applies to that home. Trying to bring in code becomes an exercise in futility. We have already ruled out rebuilding. We also need to remember ‘Rule #1”. How does this work out.
If we start with a home built in 1800, with a historical usage of $5,000 annual energy usage, what are we talking about in reductions of usage? 30% would end with a $3,500 annual usage, and 50% would be $2,500. If you look at a reduction from code, then you introduce an additional step. You first have to arrive at a code usage; then make the reduction. So, if the code usage on this home comes in at $3,200, we have range of $1,700 – $2,250; if the code usage comes in at $4,000 the range would be $2,000 – $2,800.
That means we define our DER as:
- A 30% or more reduction in usage compared to historical.
- It means the DER is a plan that uses the concept of the ‘House is a System’. It must address the construction of the actual structure. It cannot just consist of generalities. Timberframe is different from Balloon Framing which is different from a 50 year old American Suburban ranch.
- It allows various parts of the plan to be implemented in phases.
- And last, but really first – we acknowledge ‘Rule #1’. The home owner is in charge.