| Many contact me concerned about physical sustainability, peaking of oil or natural gas supplies, or pollution associated with coal-fired electricity. Addressing these concerns is typically less about cost or prescriptions, more about the styles and scales of how and where we live. Solving sustainability and pollution problems requires focusing on the VOLUMES of our resources, energy and pollutants we use or are responsible for. These volumes are growing steadily both because of our increasing populations and our ever-expanding per-person consumption. Growth is even outpacing potential reductions from implemented efficiency and renewable energies. Achieving real reductions either individually or as communities is not only possible, but also critical to ending this trend. There are many competing marketing, advertising, advocacy and political programs which are currently clouding this issue such that many consumers are being distracted or misled about what physical sustainability or pollution reduction actually means or how they can participate. There are wide varieties of solutions, but none are typically enough by themselves. Knowing better what to aim for helps us evaluate how much, how many and what combinations of changes (or prescriptions) we need in our own lives as well as in our communities and workplaces. |
| Start by looking at this chart published by USDOE's number-crunching wing, EIA. As in my surveys, EIA converts all household energies to BTUs for easy comparisons. EIA also breaks down household data according to income. How do you and your household fit into this data? |
|
 |
| Maybe most important in this table is the 36 million average BTUs per person per year. Interesting that this is almost exactly what my household used in 1999. By 2006, we'd gotten our total household's conventional energy usage down to more than one-third less, 22.8 million per person per year. The reduced energy volume was 13.2 million BTUs per each of our household's two persons, or 26.4 million BTUs overall for our household. I could list here all the many measures (conservation, efficiency, solar, etc.) we implemented, but the most significant information is the reduced volume, not the measures themselves. In my 2005 survey, the range of per-person household energy consumption was 12 to 107 mBTU, with the average being 42.3. |
| Designers often focus on energy usage per conditioned floor area. In the above table, the national average for this is 46.7 BTUs per square foot per year. My household in 2006 was down to 46.5% of that, 21.7 BTU per square foot per year. In my 2005 survey, the range of per-sf household energy consumption was 14 to 148 BTUs per year, with the average being 48.6. Energy engineers often reference household energy consumption to heating and cooling degree days because so much energy consumption in typical homes relates to heating and cooling. The above table does not reference climate, but my surveys do. Refer to this criteria below. |
| Household transportation energy is neither a part of the above chart nor my surveys. But understanding energy impacts of our households is impossible without adding transportation energy. It's relatively easy for household members to track and total their vehicle fuel use. For instance, years ago I was using almost 500 gallons of gasoline per year, but nowdays I'm using less than 200 per year. This is a reduction of 300 gallons per year. However, another family member has increased annual usage volume from about 400 gallons to about 900. So even though my own transportation fuel volume is down 60% per year, our household volume has increased by about 22%. |
| These examples illustrate how to describe energy volumes and progress (if any) toward reducing them. In such descriptions, we do not measure or count which energy efficiency, conservation or alternatives measures we have implemented or which marketing programs (i.e. LEED or EnergyStar) we participate in. Instead, we measure and count the actual volumes associated with our physical usage and demands, comparing them with our past and other references within our region. For instance, while designing a new home or building, compare its designed performance with the performance of our prior structure, including performance per person. If we don't plan like this, it's easy to end up with a new design which may appear more efficient than minimum energy codes, but uses more energy per person than where we were before. This is common when a new design is bigger, more luxurious or more automated than what we had before. It's also common beyond house design, as when we're replacing products like TVs, computers, lightbulbs or cars. If you need to enlarge, improve or increase the numbers of something, make sure you consider the resulting energy and pollution performance per person served, not just per square foot or per new product data. |
| Deciding how low we can go with our demand for resources, energy and pollutants is somewhat easier than figuring out what's ultimately sustainable. After all, what is sustainable changes regularly based on changes in population and other conditions outside our control or scrutiny. Energy consumption and pollution is at least to some extent region-specific and easy to observe. Most of us are surrounded by potential lessons in how to perform better or worse. People within similarly cold areas will likely use more energy for heating, but some will be using less than others. People living within similarly hot areas will also likely use more energy for cooling, but some less than others. People getting most of their electricity from coal-fired generation will likely have greater responsibility for carbon emission, but some using less electricity will be less responsible. We can learn from these lessons. My household energy surveys only include data from around the Ohio valley, where heating duration is generally 5 times cooling and where most electricity is coal-fired. The repeating lowest energy and carbon scores among some households in my surveys include some good energy volume targets which appear achievable more broadly in the Ohio valley region. |
| Recommended Low Energy Volume Targets For Ohio Valley Residences: |
| For best overall performance, aim for all the criteria below, not just one or the other... |
| Per-person household energy: 30 million BTUs or less per person per year, 17% below the national average, is being achieved by about half my 2004 and 2005 survey participants, so that would appear relatively easy. I recommend aiming for 25 million BTUs (mBTU) or less per person per year, which is 30% lower than the national average. That level is being achieved by about a fourth of my 2004 and 2005 survey participants, including persons in both new and older homes. |
| Per-square-foot household energy: 30 thousand BTUs (kBTU) or less per sf per year is being achieved by almost a third of my 2004 and 2005 survey participants, including both new and retrofitted older homes. This suggests it is possible to achieve a one-third reduction from the national average of 46.7 kBTUs per sf per year, at least in the Ohio valley. 30 kBTUs per sf per year corresponds to about 5 BTUs or less per square foot per degree-days (heating + cooling). Among households in my surveys, this score ranges from around 2 for the most efficient new homes to the mid-20s for unimproved older homes. My current retrofitted home is currently about 4. The current average heating + cooling degree-days for Greater Cincinnati is 6212, but this fluctuates +/- 30%. To evaluate specific years, use actual degree-days for the specific years. |
| Per-person carbon emissions: 9 pounds of CO2 per person per day has been proposed as "sustainable" by a couple sources I've seen. So far only one of my surveyed households has ever achieved that, because of the dominance of high-CO2 coal-fired electricity in this region. However, over 40% of surveyed household are down to no more than triple that level, or 27 pounds of CO2 per person per day. This includes several homes relying on coal-fired electricity for their primary heating systems, including mine! Aiming Ohio valley households for 27 pounds or less CO2 per person per year would be 25% less than my 2005 survey average of 37 pounds CO2 per person per year. The range for this value in my 2005 survey was 8 to 84. My household scored 34 in 1999, 28 in 2003, 27 in 2004-2005, 23 in 2006. In other words, my household's demand for CO2 emissions has been reduced by one-third, which is great, considering that Kyoto only demands 7% reduction! |
| Per-person water use: A recent EPA report shows average residential water use to be about 69 gallons per person per day, but over 50% of my survey participants are reporting water use below 50 gallons per person per day, about one-fourth less. |
| Per-driver vehicle oil: Several sources describe average oil use per US driver as ranging from 800 to 900 gallons per year. Other sources report that USA is importing 60% of its oil, so 40% must not be imported. To demand no imported oil, limit use to 340 gallons per driver per year, which is 40% of 850. As with other household energies, to get your average fuel volume per driver, add up all drivers' fuel usage within the household, then divide by the number of drivers. |
| Converting a household's varied energy consumption to BTUs and CO2 demand requires totaling usage of each energy type for an entire year, then using the following table. Homeowners can do the calcs themselves, or submit their data to my home energy surveys and I'll do it for free as part of my ongoing studies. If designing a new home or involved in a major remodeling project, there are several estimations methods available, including computer software. If looking for assistance, hire me to analyze and recommend how to achieve substantially lower energy and pollution volumes in your project. |
| Energy & CO2 Conversions Used in My Surveys for Ohio Valley Conventional Energies |
|
|
| E-mail: johnfrobbins@insightbb.com |