Follow this blog:
RSS

Solving the next energy crisis, a million houses at a time

By | April 5, 2012, 4:06 AM PDT

Did you know that U.S. energy security is as easy as weatherstripping your house?

Our houses last about a hundred years. Taos Pueblo has lasted a bit longer. (Webecoist)

It’s time to update how we think about national energy issues. And better architecture is the key.

I learned so this week at the BEST3 conference, a tidy affair that draws a few hundred architects interested in better building walls and roofs. Held in Atlanta, the conference also brought attendees — including yours truly — to the fabulous High Museum for roast pork, beers and a peek at Picasso.

The BEST3 Conference on building enclosures, held in Atlanta this week.

Sitting in Richard Meier’s serene lecture hall, we heard remarkable insights from keynoter R. Christopher Mathis, an Asheville, North Carolina-based consultant on building performance.

Architects make power plants disappear

With the zeal and conviction of a revival camp preacher, Mathis proves a few audacious claims, including this one: “A 30% improvement in U.S. building efficiency would reduce energy bills by $75 billion in 15 years and eliminate the need for 80 new nuclear power plants over the next 20 years.”

Eighty power plants? Yes. “And 30% is easy,” he adds.

Chris Mathis can solve the next energy crisis -- and create jobs in the process. Photo from BEST3 by Adam Sullivan

Our appetite for electricity is huge, and it’s not getting any smaller. About 68% of the generating capacity is coal and natural gas, and Mathis describes the 7,000-feet-long trains, filled with nothing but Wyoming coal, that take three days to arrive at a power plant in the Southeast. The mile-and-a-half of coal cars are all tipped and unloaded in about an hour, and all the coal is burned — in just eight hours.

Nationally, about half of all our electricity is gobbled up by buildings and houses. That’s twice as much as industry, and almost twice as much as the transportation sector.

New windows = 300 coal power plants!

Mathis has a few solutions up his sleeve, and the implications are astounding.

It’s pure math. For example, we’ve got about 120 million homes with about a billion old windows, most of which are old single-pane and double-pane versions that don’t even meet today’s minimum codes.

“And window solar gain is the single largest contributor to home cooling loads,” says Mathis. In 1973, less than half of our new homes had air-conditioning; today an astounding 91% of new dwellings have AC. Mainly thanks to the “crappy windows” we use.

More of this? ... (courtesy EIA)

The solution?

Replacing windows only in existing homes — not with the best windows, but the minimum code-compliant products — would cut AC by at least a ton, saving a total of at least 60 million kilowatts. That’s the equivalent of about 300 coal-fired power plants. The ones that use a mile-and-a-half long train delivery of dirty coal, three times a day.

... or more of this? (Courtesy Superior Remodeling, New Prague, Minn.)

Mathis has many more ideas like this, all of which save energy for as long as our houses stand — “about a hundred years” is his mantra — while creating jobs and goosing the economy. He emphasizes that existing houses and buildings should be the biggest focus. “They are 99% of our problem,” he says. “The big gorilla in the corner.”

Millions of little power plants?

In Mathis’s home state of North Carolina, a utility proposed a new, $17 billion nuclear power plant. Mathis showed up at the public hearings and showed how $5,000 worth of energy-efficiency upgrades to each of the state’s 4 million homes would save twice as much power as the new nukes would generate.

“Our existing homes and commercial buildings are essentially millions of little ‘power plants’ we have already built but we haven’t turned on,” Mathis quips.

But the nukes plant would employ about 500 people, argue its backers. Mathis says, so what? North Carolina would create hundreds of thousands of jobs installing insulation, air sealing, replacing windows, sealing leaky ducts, and the like.

Energy angels in Atlanta

Mathis is an important national resource, an North Carolinians are lucky to have him.

Here’s a quick shout-out to some of the other backers and organizers of BEST3: The event is organized by NIBS and the Building Enclosure Councils, an offshoot of the AIA, but it’s really the result individual champions like Wagdy Anis, FAIA, and David Altenhofen, AIA, as well as the folks who organized the BEST 3 program.

The sponsors this year for the biennial meeting included a gaggle of companies that would benefit handsomely if Mathis’s vision of a more energy-efficient future were to come to fruition. Among the backers were Sto Corp. (a client of mine) as well as Soprema, Inc.Georgia-Pacific GypsumVaproShield Inc., DuPont / TYVEK and Atlas Roofing Corporation, among others.

Think about it: Would you rather have nice new windows with keep your house comfy, or a nice new power plant you can look at out of your crappy old windows?

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

C.C. Sullivan

About C.C. Sullivan

C.C. Sullivan is a columnist for SmartPlanet.

C.C. Sullivan

C.C. Sullivan

Columnist, Architecture

C.C. Sullivan is principal of a marketing and advertising agency by the same name focused on the shelter, construction and architectural markets. Formerly, he was chief editor of the magazines Architecture and Building Design & Construction, and launched the Home of the Year awards with Metropolitan Home. He holds a degree from Yale University and previously worked for the architects Tai Soo Kim, Emery Roth & Sons, and Angel Fernandez Alba (Madrid).

Follow him on Twitter.

C.C. Sullivan

C.C. Sullivan

In addition to working as a journalist, C.C. Sullivan owns a marketing consulting business by the same name and is a partner in SullivanMumford LLC. (A list of clients can be found here and here.) In the unusual event that his writing mentions a company or organization for which he currently provides or previously provided any editorial or marketing services, he will disclose that fact. He will also do the same should he cover any companies in which he holds stocks or other investments.

He writes for SmartPlanet, but is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
17
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Well,I want to share something very important solution .
I am inventing a real non-Perpetual gravity engine which works on principle of mechanical resistance,this could be one important step towards solving energy crisis.
For more information,please see,

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/realfreeenergy/
Posted by Aman16588
5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Good to see people trying new ideas!
I still don't get how your design will return the weight to the start position after it has fallen down.
Also, do you use a magnet for this design?
Posted by casualjoe
5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
More info.
I've seen your introduction but it marvels me. Can you allow me more details? Please send me anything you can afford without prejudicing your patent application as I am interested to follow this issue. My e-mail address is paul.mallia@hotmail.com Thank you . Regards
Posted by paul mallia
Updated - 6th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
How it works?
Works on the concept of weight resistance as is discussed in example in my blog,but knowledge of classical or structural machenics is necessary to understand the example described.The actual machenism will be out once document is published in the official gazette.

And it is not perpetual.My engine is a energy converter,converts gravitational energy into electrical energy.
It doesnot use magnetic energy as fuel,but a magnetic fuelled engine is possible and it is not perpetual which is misconception by most people.
Posted by Aman16588
Updated - 6th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Good Ideas but...
(not the 'free energy' scam but the article - I'm sure that first blog offers plans for sale but can't produce a working copy that could solve the energy crisis)

I too believe that MUCH energy can be saved by utilization of higher efficiency home items. However, we are talking about having the individual home supply the cost of this upgrade and - although a very good idea - there are MANY homeowners that are simply trying to afford their current mortgage and haven't the extra $5000 to sink into this investment. Yes it would [should] result in a direct savings for the homeowner but the savings are realized over time - which has some reluctant to layout initial costs.

The nuke facility would create jobs as well as the sector to provide and install the home upgrades. These are two vastly different types of work and require much different training so it is really hard to compare 'job creation' between these two examples. I also feel that the non-nuke job (position) number is quite exaggerated. I just cannot see "hundreds of thousands of jobs" in North Carolina alone being created to upgrade housing efficiency. You have to consider that many of these companies already exist and have employees, and unless there is a drastic building surge there will not be a large increase in job creation. Additionally since you are designing for the targeted '100-year' home then the job creation would be temporary (albeit longer term) due to the fact that at sometime most, if not all, homes will be then efficient. You can't sell efficiency to a home that is already upgraded unless the newer upgrade can save the owner gobs of money.

Finally my hope is that the removed products, during this upgrade phase, will be utilized in some type of recycling project so that the benefit of the efficiency gain can be fully realized. If the removed materials just end up in the landfill then the gain of efficiency also serves as a loss for overall material use and the associated energy needed to create it. Yes it takes energy to recover the recyclable material, but it too creates jobs, reduces fear of toxicity due to burying and leaching, and you don't need to find additional 'publicly acceptable' space to create a landfill (dump).

The article I believe is good. Its a good place to start the thinking process and is pointed in the right direction. It does have some issues with exaggeration (coal usage and job numbers) but overall good. I hauled coal by ship for seven years and if a coal plant was consuming over TEN-THOUSAND TONS of coal in an eight hour period then it would run out of fuel before the next delivery was completed. It usually took us several days to load 25,000 tons and at its best we discharged in over 24 hours - and it was a minimal ten days transport to deliver the lot (we were a small bulk ship for specialized trade). One more thing about jobs - how much do you think the pay differs between someone working in a highly (federally) regulated nuclear facility as opposed to someone paid as a general laborer to install insulation and windows?

my $0.02 - add yours...
Posted by marinechief@...
5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Change the Codes & Allow Solar Power
Two things that should be done before we do the "pie in the sky approach" as the speaker has presented:

1. Change the building codes in all states to allow the proper insulation in the side walls and ceilings in all new construction. We keep building new homes with old insulation requirements.

2. Have all states enact legislation to give grants to homeowners for solar installations that are capable of generating surplus energy over and above the homeowners demand. Require the power company to purchase the homeowner generated replacement energy and the surplus generated energy. This would eliminate or delay the need to construct new power generation facilities. Now this is something that could create jobs now and into the future.

For years we have gone through the replace the windows, seal the cracks, change the light bulbs scenarios. What has happen? We now have home that are so tight that they are unhealthy! But there is a solution----spend more money to purchase a device that exchanges our unhealthy inside air with fresh outside air. The same air we prevented from entering our homes, because of the hullabaloo generated by the same companies the speaker wants to do the work again "to make jobs."

I think the speaker needs to bring to the table hard facts instead generalities.
Posted by rgoeken1@...
Updated - 5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Roast Pork?
It is hugely encouraging that people are working on this stuff, but it is distressing that meat was on the menu. Meat production is bad for the planet and wastes energy. I hope next time they get together they consider whether or not their own choices are making the energy problem worse.
Posted by atoms
5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Upgrade cost
Sounds good until you find out the upgrades cost more than 10 years of your power bill.
So you all buy first to get the costs down to where I can afford it.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by rdworshak@...
5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Energy efficiency windows
Concur on the high cost of retrofitting. The curse of energy conservation proposals has been their frequent exaggeration of benefits and downplaying of costs. The speaker refers to "a billion old windows, most of which are old single-pane and double-pane versions that don???t even meet today???s minimum codes." What does he mean, "don't even meet today's minimum codes?" The codes are updated every three years or so. No society could afford to retrofit every existing house every three years just to keep up with the ongoing flow of code updates. Most people will be money ahead to do the low cost things like checking weather stripping, trying a degree or two less heat in winters, and turning off lights in unoccupied rooms.
Posted by marvinlee
5th Apr 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
been there done that
We admittedly didn't upgrade, we built appropriately to start with.... our 1500 sq ft award winning home with 2 to 3 of us living here consumes less than 10% of the Australian average electricity consumption, and we have everything one could expect (except a swimming pool).

We also generate ~ 5 times as much solar energy as we consume, and receive $300 quarterly cheques from the utility........ plus we NEVER have to endure blackouts!

http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/powering-up-for-the-collapse/
http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/the-power-of-energy-efficiency/

I can never work out why no one else builds like this...
Posted by Damnthematrix
5th Apr 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
Hmmm,...
...or is it the problem that only 4.8% of all money invisted by the EU in energy goes to green-power, the other 95.2% are going to coal and nucleair power plants... Ain't that a little, well, backwards?
Posted by wompai
5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Energy Efficiency
This subject has been dealt with in great detail in a book:
"Factor 4"
ISBN 1 86448 438 1
Published 1997
I must have read it about a dozen times.
It is the rare instance where any of the proven and documented results
have been implemented.
Energy efficiency is more talked about than implemented.

For instance:
It has recently been calculated that if only all the incandescent light bulbs
used in Japan were to be replaced with LED's
all their nuclear power plants could be shut down because they would
no longer be required.
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/6/24
Will it happen? Highly unlikely!
Posted by kwickset@...
5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
What about the embedded energy in replacement windows?
Replacement windows do an okay job at heat loss in winter (which is due to air transfer), but blinds (yes, BLINDS) will do the same for heat gain, which is radiant; proper weatherstripping that you can do yourself for a couple of hundred dollars will do 80% of the job for heat loss. On top of that, even in cold climates, most replacement windows will not pay for themselves in the life cycle of the product (10-15 years at best).

After consideration of the embedded energy in replacement windows, which are made of PVC, aluminum and glass, products with high energy use in their manufacture, any energy savings is a wash at best. And that's without considering the effect of PVCs in landfills (assuming that the glass and aluminum are recycled and don't become part of the landfill).

Thanks, but I'll keep the 19th century wood windows in my house and turn down the heat.

This article by Walter Sedovic and Jill Gotthelf spells it out pretty well:

http://www.state.il.us/hpa/PS/images/replacement_windows.pdf
Posted by jimbonix
5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Is mixed and add in a negative personal experience. Here...
Yes, when building new homes, I agree. The new technology is amazing. I Support it. But it is difficult to justify paying a used car salesman who claims that 15,000 Dollars worth of windows that will cost 22,500 over 5 years is worth installing on a home that dropped from 180,000 to much less than that in five years. The whole house must be built green to begin with. And, the government rigs these green home incentives to be worthless to the average home owner. It is like organic food. Stamp a seal on it and pay extra for what. Oh, just wait 40 years and you will be in great shape, financially and physically, If you don't die first. And in case you do leave this world too soon, your kids are financially responsible for your idealistic efforts. All I am saying is that there is just as much business, political, and the house always wins in green energy as there is in coal and oil. Analyze your situation and values wisely. Sometime better to be dirty and living well than clean, green and in the gutter. Is the cynically side of me. I have more than one. Seriously though. If this was not true, then see how many of these windows are installed in my neighborhood in the next two years. These green and blue sales reps march around the neighbor hood like ants. Those that can afford these windows can afford gates. Solving two problems. I have heard people crap on Jehovah's Witnesses for knocking on their doors and disturbing their peace. I would talk to a Jehovah's Witness any day over these sales people after my third encounter. At least Jehovah's witnesses give you free reading and I have never been verbally assaulted by one. Yes I am a jerk.
Posted by Toro En Vuelo
5th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Old Windows are Not Evil
There are so many better places to start improving energy efficiency in older homes than adding millions of windows to landfills. Unless the windows are irreparable (metal windows from the 1980s for example), installing new storm windows is a much more economical and less wasteful way to deal with energy loss through windows. Coupled with weatherstripping, old windows can perform on par with new. And you won't be discarding the old, or using more resources for constructing and transporting the replacement windows. http://www.state.il.us/hpa/PS/images/replacement_windows.pdf

There are many other ways to improve energy efficiency in older homes that make a lot more sense.
Posted by HistoricShed
6th Apr 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
All this is great but energy companies aren't helping.
We live in an older home and have done the upgrades to cut energy consumption every year for 15 years but our power company gets an energy hike every 6 months. They are collecting money for removal of dams that will never be removed because of major flooding issues down stream, which is why the dams were build to begin with. Our latest hike is for new wind turbine farms 3 states away that the government gave them money for to begin with but because they might need the money they got another hike. Our bills keep rising ($.14 per kilowatt now) and the energy company is making record profits, while we pay more and more for less energy used. So, its easy to talk efficiency and consumers conserving energy but until the energy companies start really rewarding the consumer by put their profits into new technology, we the consumer will continue to lose. After all, there is only so much money we have to spend on upgrades and conservation before we go broke trying to conserve energy.
Posted by red bandit1
8th Apr 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Don't "Necessarily" replace all the windows
I have quite a few windows in my 85yr old home, sadly very few original, but rather than replace them without thought, I'm looking at the solar gain and heat loss on an individual basis. There are many factors to consider in making a home energy efficient, one of which is not, thankfully, listening to the solar upstart who wanted to make it into an 'igloo cooler' a few years ago. These terra cotta block homes retain heat and slowly release it, also . There doesn't seem to be much interest in looking at aspects of systems that worked in the past unless they can generate a whole new stream of money...
Posted by terrefirma
16th Apr 2012
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!