Enforcing Bad Codes

[conarb]

The Journal of Light Construction has an article about Energy Saving Myths, all things enforced by our Nazi Energy and Green Codes.

Tip 1: Install a programmable thermostat.

Tip 2: Caulk and seal, baby! Caulking windows and weatherstripping is another common energy-saving recommendation. But as a building scientist, I know that window and door leaks aren't nearly as important as air leaks in basements and attics. The big air leaks occur at the home's top and bottom due to stack effect. A more complete explanation is beyond the scope of this article, but basically, wall air leaks don't matter that much without pressure (namely, wind) acting on them. The savings? Not worth the investment of time spent caulking and foaming.

Tip 3: Install new windows.



Tip 4: Get new light bulbs. ¹

We need to get rid of these counterproductive Green and Energy Codes, all they do is line the pockets of the manufacturers who buy them

¹ http://www.jlconline.com/building-performance/why-energy-saving-tips-suck_o.aspx?dfpzone=building.building_science

 

[Glenn]

I think the details matter. Here are my personal experiences.

Windows: I have a 1958 house. When I bought it it still had single pane aluminum windows. The windows would become frozen over with a sheet of ice from the freezing condensate. You could sit on the couch and literally feel a breeze blowing on your neck. I put new double pane, low E vinyl windows in. No more condensate. No more ice. No more breeze. You won't convince me that those changes don't contribute to my energy usage.

Weatherstripping: My back french doors are garbage. The factory sweep at the bottom broke apart. I had to install an aftermarket sweep that is one peice of plastic. The gap above the threshold to the door is about one inch. The door has a metal peice that extends from inside to outside and runs down the seam between the two panes. It leaks so badly that I sealed the less used door leaf shut. The replacement sweep broke off so there is a one inch by 28 inch open hole to the exterior. The metal part freezes up with ice down the whole length. I don't have the $$$ for a new door. There is a TON of air that moves through that gap. I am certain a new door will have a big affect on that room. I know that a new sweep at the bottom certainly would.

This is my take. You can't say its a short drive or a long drive to Denver unless you consider where your leaving from. The "before" must be considered before the value of the "after" can be determined. This article makes assumptions that the before isn't as bad as it really is out there.

Occupant comfort and perception affects behaviour. A cold breeze below the door or through a window might not relate to much actual energy costs when you crunch numbers...but if the occupant is prompted to click up the heat, that sure will.

 

[conarb]

Occupant comfort and perception affects behaviour. A cold breeze below the door or through a window might not relate to much actual energy costs when you crunch numbers...but if the occupant is prompted to click up the heat, that sure will.

Glenn:

The problem is that we have a country of many climates and we are enforcing a code that is mandating certain materials that are counterproductive in many climates. The author of that article is a professor in a university in Cleveland, a city not known for it's "moderate" climate. I think "clicking up the heat" is more a male vs. female thing.

 

[Keystone]

It may be a sign of the awakening or a sign of budgets being squeezed;

- One state level builder as of this year ceased its use of energy raters

- One national builder is in the process of making the switch from countinuous wrap 2 by 4 wall construction and energy rater to continuous wrap 2 by 6 wall construction but the fate of the energy rater is up in the air.

 

[Keystone]

There are many sides to this conversation, making a house to tight which in turn forces the use of additional equipment. One item I am in agreement with, a perimeter wrap can do more for you than increased wall depth.

 

[Min&Max]

We used to have a passive air exchange system in every home that cost nothing. Now we seal it up tight and mechanically bring fresh air into the house at no small cost. I have no problem advocating for a reasonable energy package for each home but we are now far beyond that.

 

[conarb]

As to Tip 2: Caulk and seal, baby! Caulking windows and weatherstripping is another common energy-saving recommendation. But as a building scientist, I know that window and door leaks aren't nearly as important as air leaks in basements and attics. The big air leaks occur at the home's top and bottom due to stack effect. A more complete explanation is beyond the scope of this article, but basically, wall air leaks don't matter that much without pressure (namely, wind) acting on them. The savings? Not worth the investment of time spent caulking and foaming.

Oregon, home of the most violent of the Green Hippie organizations is seeing through the myths:

Originally Posted by Oregon Live

Oregon's utility regulators are struggling to determine whether ratepayers should continue to subsidize some of the most common and popular home weatherization measures, even when those measures are no longer considered cost effective for homeowners.

But the fact is, strictly from an energy savings standpoint, most forms of insulation and air sealing don't pencil out as a good investment for owners of existing homes heated with natural gas. The payback simply isn't there. In many cases, it's not even close.

The nonprofit Energy Trust of Oregon, which funds rebates for conservation and efficiency measures from a monthly surcharge on customers' gas and electric bills, determined two years ago that the weatherization measures in existing homes weren't meeting the cost-effectiveness test. Its evaluations showed that energy savings were lower than expected and costs were higher. Low gas prices were also reducing its forecast of avoided costs.

Fundamentally, the rules demand that the benefits, in the form of avoided costs from energy savings over the life of a specific measure – say 45 years for insulation - exceed its total cost.

It's a controversial question, as the value of home weatherization is part of the region's energy orthodoxy, a bedrock assumption that has been drilled into Oregon consumers for three decades, heavily supported by ratepayer investments, and backed by an army of contractors who don't want to see the programs dismantled at a time of historically low gas prices.

But in a recent filing with the PUC, the Energy Trust identified about two dozen efficiency measures that no longer meet its total cost benefit test in gas-heated homes. They included the mainstays of most home energy retrofits, like wall, floor and ceiling insulation, duct sealing and whole home air sealing. Last year, the gas portion of ETO's existing homes program as a whole didn't pass the cost-effectiveness test.¹

I found this link on an appraisers' site, one had gone to a conference on the issue, two appraisers' comments:

Originally Posted by Appraisers' forum

So the rate payers pick up the ever increasing bill because the greenies just "know" the returns are magically better. Yep that's how you save energy, by making it less affordable. 'We're a public utility and were here to help you.'²

And:

Originally Posted by Appraisers' Forum

The "green" agenda is driven by ideology, junk science and global warming.²

People here have dismissed my experiences as occurring in a moderate climate, now it appears that people are awakening in Ohio and Oregon, not so moderate climates, maybe because many of the participants here are members of the quoted "army of contractors who don't want to see the programs dismantled"? Who the Hell wants to wait for a 45 year payback, especially when experiences are showing that the sealed-up insulated buildings are rotting out in less than 30 years?

You guys should refuse to enforce these totalitarian codes!

¹ http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...ates_in_p.html

² http://appraisersforum.com/showthread.php?t=202747

 

[mjesse]

Many of the State Code requirements are driven by States trying to capture Federal funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Illinois mandates each successive IECC in order to obtain funds, but they don't pass those funds to the local level for training and enforcement. "Here, enforce this on your own dime. We need that money to buy votes"

The IECC is fueled from behind by the Fed (DOE specifically) AIA, and various parties pushing the net-zero by 2030 program.

http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/zero-energy-ready-home

https://info.aia.org/toolkit2030/advocacy/aia.html

More requirements mean more sales (for green products) and more work for installers. Keep America working.

In a capitalist land, what happens to energy prices for the consumer when they are required to consume less? Energy costs rise as consumption wanes, thereby driving a consumer desire for green products, thereby driving the energy costs up more.

Get on board and make some money off this train, cuz it ain't slowing down.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I thought the whole idea for energy codes was to use less energy which then make less pollution, not to save money.

 

[mjesse]

I thought the whole idea for energy codes was to use less energy which then make less pollution, not to save money.

That was the idea for some folks, and a noble plan.

The goals have been buried, ideals refined, and laws exploited in order to fill someones pockets.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

-Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

-Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

-Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

-Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

-Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

-Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

-Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/

Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

As with many (not all) codes and regs, there is no actual rational thought or science behind them.

Sometimes, things just seem like they should work. Then margins for error are added. So in the final analysis none of it does any good, it costs a lot of money, and establishes agencies to monitor and add more senseless regulations and limitations to the equation. With no benefit. So rather than promoting building intelligently, you build politically.

The things that cost energy are small, treeless lots, no overhangs, tall blank, featureless exterior walls, tall ceilings, grand entries, no transitional vestibules, no fireplaces or wood stoves, open floor plans, lack of porches, lack of air movement, bad building materials, as well as others you may dream up.

Brent.

 

[Coder]

My idea of getting energy efficient. :grin:

View attachment 1095

View attachment 1095

/monthly_2014_09/002803-03-exterior-hut-ocean-view-daytime.jpg.6f3f39c8afdd816723dd321ef4113387.jpg

 

[fatboy]

I'm with you coder!

 

[north star]

= ( ~ ) =

IMO, ...whether we like it or not, the Energy & Green Codes are here

to stay........There's too much money being made to have them go away.

The Green & Energy Pandora is out of the box for good !

= ( ~ ) =

 

[conarb]

= ( ~ ) =IMO, ...whether we like it or not, the Energy & Green Codes are here

to stay........There's too much money being made to have them go away.

The Green & Energy Pandora is out of the box for good !

= ( ~ ) =

Unfortunately I agree, the convergence of the green (including many chemical products) and the energy (sealing up buildings) codes is a disaster. California is attempting to deal with it by mandating the removal of chemical products and increasing ASHRAE 62.2 to exhaust chemicals, this greatly increases energy costs, they deal with this by mandating really expensive HRV or ERV systems that are not that efficient (The LBL advised Building Standards not to adopt the Energy Standards until fans increased in efficiency, but they bought Panasonic's arguments that people didn't open windows anymore). The result is we are building toxic buildings with reduced service lives that actually increase energy costs, but lots are making lots of money off these scams.

I live in a toxic free half-insulated house that averages $60 a month in total energy bills (I do have efficient triple pane windows), it has never exceeded $100 a month. If I were to build this same house today I'd be sitting here in a chemical stew with fans blowing constantly and paying at least three times that much in energy bills. I was called by a woman who was sick in her green home, she had spent $6,000 installing an HRV and was still sick, she said she had called the CBO and he advised her to sell the green home and find a good 50 year-old home and remodel it "very judicially". A good CBO!