- replacing all your incandescent bulbs with CFLs
- installing a low-flow showerhead to save hot water
- weather-stripping around doors
- turning down the heat at night (or installing a programmable thermostat that will turn it down automatically)
- washing your lightly soiled clothes in cold water only
So, today I bit the proverbial bullet and called up New Jersey Home Energy Solutions, a vendor that had been passing out coupons at our local "Earth and Health Fair" last spring. I talked to the proprietor, who informed me that yes, my half-price coupon was still good—but then he added that perhaps I might not want to use it. He explained that if I opted for a full-scale home energy audit, he'd be legally obligated to carry out a whole bunch of tests, most of which wouldn't actually tell us anything likely to bear fruit in terms of energy savings. So he suggested that I let him come over first and do a free "walk-through," examining the various parts and systems in the house to see which areas might be most likely to benefit from improvements—and then, based on the results of that, I could choose to have further tests if they were likely to be helpful. (I'm still not sure why he told me this, since it seems like he had nothing to gain by it—in fact, he'd just cost himself 200 bucks—but maybe he just finds the energy audits to be a time-consuming and not very profitable part of his job.)
So, realizing that my energy evaluation might turn out to be an even better bargain than I bargained for, I said sure, come on over. Within ten minutes he showed up and started off the walk-through by asking to see last January's utility bill, to get an idea of what we currently pay for heating. (Not a lot compared to most people in our area, apparently.) Then he proceeded to examine our ancient boiler, inspect the windows, admire the Shepard Fairey print hanging in our downstairs room, praise the job we'd done insulating the attic four years back, and finally offer the following conclusions:
- If we hadn't already added insulation to the attic, his first suggestion would be to go up there and seal up all the cracks in that area to stop air infiltration before adding more insulation on top. But to do that now, he said, would require removing all the insulation we'd already installed, which wouldn't be cost-effective.
- Likewise, if the downstairs room weren't finished, we could try to stop air leaks from the bottom rather than the top by sealing up cracks around the ceiling joists. But taking out the ceiling to do that, once again, wouldn't be worth it. The unfinished portion of the basement could benefit from a bit of sealing, but he quite candidly admitted that that was a job we could pretty easily do ourselves with a tube of that foam-in stuff from Home Depot. (Side note: Not Lowe's. We're currently boycotting Lowe's over their decision to cave in to pressure from right-wing groups and pull their ads from a TV show about a Muslim family in America. Other sponsors have also announced that they won't be renewing their ads, but their stated reason was because the show, frankly, isn't very good. That, I have no problem with. But Lowe's admits that the reason they dropped their sponsorship is that the show as a "lightning rod" for anti-Muslim sentiments, and they didn't want to get singed. Well, if they're worried about losing business, they can worry about losing mine.)
- Although our boiler is ancient—probably original to the house, which we think was built around 1970—we're unlikely to benefit from replacing it because our heating bills are so low as it is. He notes that since it's a gas boiler, not an oil one, as long as it's kept tuned up there's no reason it can't run as efficiently as a basic gas boiler of modern vintage. Newer high-efficiency boilers, which include condensing units to recover lost heat, can do better—but because they're more complex, they're also more repair-prone. So he said there was no reason not to keep this boiler running until it reaches the end of its natural life, by which point (a) some of the bugs in the new high-efficiency models might be worked out, and (b) they might be the only available replacements, due to tightening federal efficiency standards. So actually, the longer we can keep this old boiler running, the better our chances of being able to replace it with a reliable high-efficiency one when it finally dies.
- As it turns out, we did the right thing when replacing our water heater a couple of years back by going with an old-fashioned, but reasonably efficient, tank heater rather than an on-demand heater. With hard water like we have here, he explained, the on-demand heaters need to be flushed yearly with acid to keep running at peak efficiency—a procedure that costs about $150, which, he pointed out, is more than we probably spend on all the hot water we use in a year right now.
- There's no good reason to replace our windows, which he said were in good shape and snugly installed. In fact, he noted, replacing windows is almost never cost-effective unless the old windows are totally shot.
- While we can't block air coming into our house from the bottom or escaping out the top, we can do a bit to keep it from leaking into the living areas by sealing off gaps around the baseboards (for which he recommended a water-based caulk) and insulating our electrical outlets. So those are two fairly cheap fixes that might help a bit with our day-to-day comfort, even if they don't make a big dent in the fuel bill. (He noted that most of the small do-it-yourself projects that home energy auditors recommend, such as weather-stripping around doors, are recommended because they're easy to do and have a low up-front cost—not because they make a big difference in fuel bills. They can make a big difference in comfort, he added, because they stop the drafts that are easy to feel—but the bulk of heat loss is through the multitude of smaller air leaks that are harder to feel and more costly to eliminate.)
4 comments:
Wow, what fantastic information! Thanks for sharing it all.
A home inspector I know has the theory that many modern houses are actually sealed up TOO tight, not allowing for enough air flow and making our inside air stale and possibly unhealthy. Any thoughts on that?
Another thought: I have some CFLs and some regular lightbulbs, and I'm really torn about the CFLs because of the toxic materials used to make them. And the fact that it's standard advice to use them, but then very few people seem to know that they are toxic waste when they burn out and you have to dispose of them properly.
"A home inspector I know has the theory that many modern houses are actually sealed up TOO tight, not allowing for enough air flow and making our inside air stale and possibly unhealthy. Any thoughts on that?"
That's one of the reasons that when they have to do so many tests as part of a home energy audit. Before they can recommend additional air sealing, they have to confirm that your indoor air quality is okay.
"Another thought: I have some CFLs and some regular lightbulbs, and I'm really torn about the CFLs because of the toxic materials used to make them. And the fact that it's standard advice to use them, but then very few people seem to know that they are toxic waste when they burn out and you have to dispose of them properly."
I haven't found disposing of the CFLs properly to be burdensome. They have collection bins at IKEA and at Home Depot; it's easy for us to just drop them off whenever we're passing by. We did once break one, but cleaning it up isn't as difficult as you think: just open a window first, then pick up the big pieces using gloves or a rag, and then use a damp cloth or paper towel to sweep up the small bits. Dispose of it with hazardous household waste.
Another point to consider: if your home's electricity is generated by burning coal, the amount of mercury emitted in order to power a standard incandescent bulb is more than the amount in a CFL. And the mercury from coal plants is entering the atmosphere, while the mercury in CFLs stays trapped so long as the bulbs are properly handled throughout their life cycle. (Of course, around here our power comes mostly from nukes, which have a completely different set of issues.)
However, it's also worth noting that prices of LED bulbs are coming down, so before long it may be possible to have the best of both worlds (low lifetime cost and low toxicity). LEDs are already cost-effective for really high-use applications because they use so little power and have such a long lifetime.
We live out in the middle of nowhere, which makes it much more of a pain to find a proper place to dispose of CFLs. And you wouldn't believe how many people I talked to who had NO IDEA they couldn't just throw them in the trash. That's what's most scary to me. It's not that I'm completely anti-CFL, I just worry that most people don't know the whole story about them.
Our power is hydroelectric, which is fairly green, especially in comparison with coal. (At least, I assume. I haven't actually done a lot of research on it. But most things have to be better than coal.)
LEDs sound pretty good, I agree.
Here's a page with some more options for CFL recycling:
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflrecycling.html
And here's some more information about how to drop off your bulbs at Home Depot. (Even if you only go there once a year, you can just save up your bulbs for the trip--it's not like they burn out that fast.)
http://www6.homedepot.com/ecooptions/index.html
As for your neighbors not knowing about the mercury in the bulb--well, I guess the best you can do is just keep getting the word out.
Post a Comment