• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

The Evolution of Energy Efficiency in the IRC: Are We on the Right Track?

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,051
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
DALL·E 2023-10-26 21.53.32 - Photo-style Image_ A modern residential house stands majestically...png
The International Residential Code (IRC) has seen significant shifts in its approach to energy efficiency over the years. As building officials, architects, engineers, and builders, we've observed and adapted to these changes, ensuring our residential structures not only comply but also promote sustainable living.

However, with the increasing emphasis on green building practices and the pressing global issue of climate change, it's crucial to evaluate and discuss: Are the current energy efficiency standards set by the IRC sufficient? Do they strike the right balance between cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and practicality?

Here are a few points to consider:
  1. Material Innovations: With the introduction of new insulation materials and techniques, how well does the IRC accommodate these advancements?
  2. Climate Adaptability: The IRC is a global standard, but how well does it adapt to various climatic conditions? Should there be more localized adaptations?
  3. Cost vs. Long-term Benefits: While some energy-efficient solutions might be costly upfront, they offer long-term benefits. How do we educate homeowners and builders about this trade-off?
I'm eager to hear your thoughts, experiences, and suggestions. Let's collaborate to ensure our residential structures are not only compliant but also at the forefront of sustainable living.
 
1. Material Innovations. They are addressed in section R104.11. The resistance of building officials to approve a product that does not have an ICC ES Report IMHO is a problem.
R104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.

2. Climate Adaptability: IMHO it should not even be a consideration in the codes.

3. Cost vs. Long-Term Benefits: Long term benefits are not beneficial for the contractor or homeowner unless that long term benefit can be calculated into their mortgage payment. Most homeowners do not reap a long-term benefit vs. construction and mortgage cost for energy-efficient solutions. Just look at the payback period on some systems. 15 to 20 years granted that is calculated on today's energy cost which nobody can predict future energy cost which could reduce the payback time.

Among homeowners who sold their homes in the second financial quarter of 2022, the average tenure was 5.87 years or 5 years, 10 months, and 13 days.
 
As energy codes get tighter the cost of meeting each increment increases, but the benefit of each increment decreases.

Heat transfer through a floor, wall, or roof/ceiling is based on the U-value of the assembly. The U-value is the reciprocal of the sum of R-values. An assembly with R-19 insulation blocks 95% of the heat transfer. Doubling the insulation R-value to 38 only blocks an additional 2.5%.
 
An assembly with R-19 insulation blocks 95% of the heat transfer.
Is that transfer by just conduction, or conduction, radiation, and convection?

When I first read the op, I wondered how much better performance could be achieved by just better workmanship. Then I wondered how much else in the code was over design and redundancy to make up for less than good workmanship.
 
Energy efficiency is an ethos. It is applied to every decision that is made for the masses. The foods we eat, transportation, working conditions, education, the built environment, materials for everything from bean bag chairs to toothpaste tubes, and yes, the building codes.

Rightly so as they say. Buildings are a huge opportunity to save energy. Thing is, you aren’t saving anything any more than you save at Walmart. You spent money so how did you save money…. you now have less of it. When it comes to energy we reach out to the scientific community for guidance. Unfortunately, grant whores have a loud voice.

“To scientists, conservation of energy does not mean saving energy. Instead, the law of conservation of energy says that energy is neither created nor destroyed. When people use energy, it doesn't disappear. Energy changes from one form of energy into another form of energy.”


Here I want to tell you about a friend of mine. His name is Abram. Abram emigrated to the USA from Syria. And as you naturally assumed, Abram owns a liquor store. I asked Abram what he did in Syria. He said that in the mornings he protested and in the afternoons he was an accountant. I asked what he protested in the mornings to which he replied, “The cause of the day. Anything and everything.”

Does that bring a Greta to mind. For sure you have witnessed the scowl on a young face, felt the condemnation and scorn from a disenfranchised protester. Where’s the science in that? Well it is masked, hidden behind a loud chant. The truth is not the problem… it’s morning.


The planet Earth is not so large that local happenings can’t have an effect over the globe. Take for example the supposed asteroid destruction that wiped out the dinosaurs. Lucky thing that, for we got oil as reparations. If it hadn’t been for Dino the Dinosaur we wouldn’t have Diner’s Club cards or the great Pacific plastic gyre.

Argument aside, humans are destructive. We are animals in the basic connotation of the word. What we do to the environment can have profound consequences. Damming rivers for example. Dam must have come from the first time a person saw a beaver’s handiwork.

Smog. Smog is an ugly word. Heat islands, now some are painting the roads white. Ocean pollution…. when it rains we are told to stay out of the surf for a few days…. the hormone estrogen is a constant. Mercury in tuna. We used to play with the stuff and now we are eating it. There’s lead in toddlers and not enough of it in criminals…

….and then we were on a road trip going north on the 5 freeway. Wendy was the first to notice…she’s always first and sometimes I never get a whiff… This I noticed. So strong it must have been making her sick. Cows! For as far as I could see. Pens with shoulder to ass cows. The leaders of the cows were standing atop mounds of the byproduct of too many cows.

Humans did that to other humans. Your nose burns…eyes water. There is certain to be a military application. Could be that Greta was here and never got over it. There needs to be a code section for “Crowds of Cows”. A picture of that place could serve as the definition.

Isn’t that a more immediate environmental concern? Go there once and for life you will know that it is not a healthy place to be. Where’s the protest over this? Can I get some Syrians here?

California has a grizzly bear on the state seal. The people killed all of the grizzly bears. A few other things that you can’t find in California: a new house without a solar array, a shower head that lets water come out, toilets that flush the first time. Soon there will be no natural gas allowed in a dwelling, fossil fuel powered cars will be fossils.

Is there room for the cult of climate alarm in the building codes? On the face of it, sure, why not. …. But they got carried away with it. Once you have a proper perspective of the relative amount of chemical impact that petroleum has on the environment, killing the industry is draconian. The Green Code is akin to swatting flies with a shotgun. It works until it doesn’t.

There is no room for dissent. Question the premise and be labeled a climate denier. Called crazy, equated with terrorism. MAGA. When the last GTO sputters to empty they will come after cement…. That as they strip the earth for the elements to make batteries that exist forever, unless they catch fire…then they just flame for a long time.
 
Last edited:
The planet Earth is not so large that local happenings can’t have an effect over the globe. Take for example the supposed asteroid destruction that wiped out the dinosaurs. Lucky thing that, for we got oil as reparations. If it hadn’t been for Dino the Dinosaur we wouldn’t have Diner’s Club cards or the great Pacific plastic gyre.
A lot of your post is opinion, but the above claims are incorrect.

A single volcanic eruption can cool the whole planet for a year or more, if it injects enough aerosol high enough into the atmosphere to block I believe on the order of 1% of incoming sunlight. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

Fossil fuels derive from prehistoric plankton and terrestrial plants, not dinosaurs. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

Cheers, Wayne
 
The planet Earth is not so large that local happenings can’t have an effect over the globe.
That would include a volcano.

Fossil fuels derive from prehistoric plankton and terrestrial plants, not dinosaurs.
Lizards and all. Kinda tough to fit in Dino if all you got is daffodils. And now that you mention it, it's all opinion on both sides of the issue.
 
And now that you mention it, it's all opinion on both sides of the issue.
Not sure what issue we're talking about, but relevant to the topic of the OP, not at all. Any given scientific conclusion is far more credible than any political opinion.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Any given scientific conclusion is far more credible than any political opinion.
The so called scientific conclusions are subject to intense debate. Scholars on both sides have points of interest however, compelling reasons for taking one or the other as correct just aren’t there. Trusting men to interpret the limited information that’s available as a doomsday scenario has been shown to be ill advised. An indication of the worth of the climate cult’s position is the characterization of any other position as nothing more than politics. In other words the cult shouts the opposition down with the idea that they are the protectors of an infantile population.

As to relevance to the OP….climate change, global warming.…that is the engine that drives the Green Code, the energy code, the drastic measures forced upon us. An unproven hypothesis is leading the nation to shoot itself in the foot. You do understand that the same great minds think that they can tell you all about a rock that’s, according to them, hundreds of light years distant. They like the sound of their own voices.
 
Last edited:
You can promulgate lies all you like, they are still lies. No further comment required.

Wayne
I wouldn’t expect you to conflate opinions and lies. I have an opinion of the scientific conclusions that you allude too but I find them not lies. Lies are told with the knowledge that’s they are untrue. You wouldn’t do that. I suspect that a great many adherents of the Climate Cult are similarly situated. That in no way exonerates a injustice perpetrated on mankind in a misguided effort to save us from ourselves.

Digest the actual, available data. Take particular note of the infinitesimally small proportions of the supposed offending compounds. Beyond the scope is the unrealistic, ascribed impact. It’s all hocus pocus. How’s that for a scientific explanation. There’s no need for the scientists to lie when the “truth” they espouse is fantastic.

The grander the scheme the greater the likelihood of success.

I was in Colorado when an employer absconded with the payroll. Being less than sophisticated, I lived paycheck to paycheck….. one paycheck short. I went to the welfare office and asked for some of my money back. I was in a construction worker‘s paradise and would have a paycheck in a week … but without food I might not last a week. The welfare office told me to piss up a rope.

I went to a supermarket with a paper bag…double bag actuallu]y.. I filled the bags, steaks and a carton of Marlboro. As I reached for the cigarettes I made eye contact with a cashier. She was pretty and I winked with a smile. The boldness was exhilarating. That was a life lesson about more than just mere theft. In that moment I was transformed from a follower to the followed…. I earned the right to question the bold … I became one of them. Thankfully I didn’t choose a life of crime…. To be honest it could have gone either way.

I see the fallacy of Climate Change and Global Warming... honestly, it’s hard not to. I can be trusted for this.

Come on Wayne, nobody cares what I think so can’t I have a little fun with it? You skipped a few steps when you called me a liar. Full of shlt comes to mind. Deranged even, but a liar?
 
Last edited:
I feel that you skipped a few steps when you called me a liar.
On the topic of climate change, we have the truth as espoused by the vast scientific majority, and we have disinformation as espoused by the those whose political or economic interests are harmed by the truth. There is no significant debate on the core scientific conclusions, that idea is disinformation. Disinformation is lies.

My previous post would have more artfully used the term disinformation than lies. If you took that post to be me calling you a liar, that was not my intention, and I apologize.

But when disinformation is spread, it is either because the spreader knows it is disinformation, and that is lying. Or it is because the spreader has been deceived. Please don't be deceived, and please stop spreading disinformation.

Cheers, Wayne
 
we have the truth as espoused by the vast scientific majority
The theory accused of being fact is based on a postulation. Hardly a solid beginning and the foundation hasn't improved. While there is evidence that the temperature has increased, there is zero evidence as to causation.
 
Last edited:
The theory accused of being fact is based on a postulation.
That is an inaccurate assessment of the scientific state of the art.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the scientific consensus born out by a thorough review of the totality of the data that is presently available. You can do your own research if you like, but if you honestly review all the available data (may take you months or years), with the necessary understanding of the basic physics involved, you will reach the same conclusion.

Please don't listen to those telling you otherwise; they are spreading disinformation.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Anthropogenic Global Warming is the scientific consensus born out by a thorough review of the totality of the data that is presently available.

Anthropogenic is the postulate. There is evidence that the climate is performing as it has since the beginning. Mankind has devised methodologies intended to pinpoint climactic conditions of the past. Counting tree rings, analyzing ice cores, stone and soil are followed to the usual conclusion. Tree rings are understood to tell a colorful story. One can know the temperature, precipitation, the constituents of the atmosphere, and lotto numbers going back hundreds of years. All that from the width of a tree ring.

There is a claim that the sea levels have risen 6 to 8 inches in the last 200 years. Sea level is measured from space. A satellite bounces a radar pulse off the surface of the water and times the return to get a measurement. Care to guess what that gizmo cost? What did they use 200 years ago, rocks? Might there be another force behind the rise in sea levels? The Earth's crust is not static.

The crux of it all is a rise in climate temperature which is estimated to be 1.8°(F). It has been published by some trustworthy entity that the average temperature of humans has gone down by 1°(F). Is there a correlation between these?

Given time and access to enough data, facts can be generated to support any number of conclusions. Connections can be created where none existed prior to investigation.

For example: Currently in the news is a story about snow crabs. Global warming is blamed for the disappearance of snow crabs from the Bering Sea. Of course the story includes disclaimers with words like could be and might when speculating that other species, a collapse of food sources, physical stress....ya that last one was a head scratcher.... Apparently the increase in water temperature caused the crabs to have a need for "greater caloric intake" which wasn't there to be had. Now how in the Hell would they know any of this stuff?

You harp on spreading disinformation with alternate facts backing you up. There are truths sprinkled in with the voodoo. If I were to believe in the perils of global warming, I would not follow the ridiculous path that we have been put on.
 
Last edited:
Given time and access to enough data, facts can be generated to support any number of conclusions. Connections can be created where none existed prior to investigation.
Ah, this makes things clear. You don't believe in science. I do. End of story. I'm not interested in further debating whether the scientific method is valid.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Ah, this makes things clear. You don't believe in science. I do. End of story. I'm not interested in further debating whether the scientific method is valid.

Cheers, Wayne
From opinionated to a Luddite. I'm surprised that you hung in there this long. It's not all science that I do not trust.... I do believe that finding fossilized pollen deposited with a stegosaurus tooth is noteworthy; I just can't build a swamp around it. Scientists have needs and scientists expect the rest of us to fulfill those needs with a faith in science. An accurate understanding of the concept of faith has it's drawbacks.
 
We should probably outlaw private jets and houses over 4000 ft before we make me put dimmers on my LED lights in my 1400ft 1952 house....To save all the electricity 27 LED bulbs save when dimmed...
 
We should probably outlaw private jets and houses over 4000 ft before we make me put dimmers on my LED lights in my 1400ft 1952 house....To save all the electricity 27 LED bulbs save when dimmed...
Twenty-seven LED in a 1400 sq.ft. House? Is that even legal?
 
Top