The Sustainable Home Blog

“…it’s clearly much too easy to qualify for a label and time for

Energy Star to raise the bar.”

Energy Star is arguably one of the most successful government programs of our time. The program was created in 1992 by the US Environmental Protection Agency and began life as a voluntary labeling program designed to promote the use of energy efficient products.

The results achieved by Energy Star since its inception have been remarkable. In 2006, the program saved 170 billion kWh or nearly 5% of the total U.S. electricity demand, and helped to avoid 35,000 MW of peak power, the equivalent of 70 new power plants! Americans purchased more than 300 million Energy Star products last year across 50 product categories including appliances, heating & cooling equipment, consumer electronics, office equipment, and lighting.

In the process, Energy Star has become a rock star “mega brand” like Pepsi, Oprah, and Michael Jordon. More than 65% of the American public can identify the Energy Star label and one out of four households knowingly purchased an Energy Star product in 2006, and more than 60% of those households credited the label as an important factor in their decision.

Government is not supposed to know anything about marketing and “branding”, but I would argue that getting the Energy Star label on their products is in many cases much more important than the manufacturer’s own label. I can imagine many consumers saying, “I don’t care if it’s an Amana or a Maytag, does it have an Energy Star label?”

However, just purchasing a product that has the Energy Star label does not mean you’re getting the best. Here’s the rub. Energy Star is still part of the government, which means it’s not independent AND subject to political pressure. Even more so, now that it’s no longer flying under the radar. Take refrigerators as an example. You would think you could go to the Energy Star website and search for “best 22 cubic foot refrigerator”, and the Energy Star would just tell you that it’s an Acme Model 54785. Well, it’s not that easy. For one, if Energy Star did make it that easy, two dozen U.S. Senators would be getting calls from the CEO’s of all of the Acme company’s competitors.

So, to be politically correct, Energy Star publishes a list of qualified refrigerators that can be downloaded in pdf or xls format. Unfortunately this is a very large and cumbersome file that requires knowledge of the Excel’s “sort” function to analyze the data and make any kind of intelligent decision. Given the effort required, most of us will just go down to the store and purchase the lowest cost refrigerator that has an Energy Star label in color we want and call it a day.

So what’s in the list? I downloaded the March 2007 list and this is what I found.

• There are 1644 products listed including side-by-side, top freezer, and bottom freezer models, and plain old freezers are thrown in just to make it more confusing

• 1,216 (74%) of the products listed just pass the minimum requirement to be awarded an Energy Star label. [the minimum requirement is to be 15% more efficient than a specified “baseline”]

• Only one manufacturer surpasses the baseline standard by more than 50%. More on them later.

If I break down the data by configuration (side-by-side, top freezer, bottom freezer) this is what I find.

• There are 823 side-by-side models [obviously the most popular and unfortunately the least efficient] and 86% of those just meet the minimum requirement
• Based on a measurement of kWh/cu.ft./year the best side-by-side scored 19.34 and worst scored 29.0. So the best is 33% better than the worst.
• There are 284 top freezer models and 80% of those just meet the minimum requirement
• Based on a measurement of kWh/cu.ft./year [and excluding anything under 15 cubic foot] the best top freezer scored 19.27 and worst scored 25.68. So the best is 25% better than the worst.
• There are 314 bottom freezer models and 53% of those just meet the minimum requirement
• Based on a measurement of kWh/cu.ft./year [and excluding anything under 15 cubic foot] the best bottom freezer scored 16.03 and worst scored 29.07. So the best is 45% better than the worst.

At this point I had to conclude that one, there is wide variation in efficiencies within the family of Energy Star certified refrigerators; two, that a lot of CEO’s are telling their engineering design staff to “just do the minimum to get us an Energy Star label”; and three, it’s clearly much too easy to qualify for a label and time for Energy Star to raise the bar.

Because I’m not subject to political pressure, just who makes the most energy efficient 22 cubic foot refrigerator? Here are the “Best in Show” for each configuration:

And that company that blew the rest of manufacturer’s out of the water on energy efficiency. It’s small company in Northern California called Sun Frost.

“Indoor air pollutant levels are 25-62% greater than outside [pollutant] levels”
California Air Resources Board

“…levels of about a dozen common organic pollutants [were found] to be
2 to 5 times higher inside homes than outside, regardless of whether the homes were located in rural or highly industrial areas”
EPA - Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) study

What? There’s more pollution inside our homes than outside? How can that be?

For one, our building codes tend to be reactive and just haven’t caught up with this problem.

Let’s start with explaining the HOW. To maintain healthy indoor air quality, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) recommends a ventilation rate of 0.35 air changes per hour for new homes. That means over eight complete air changes of the interior volume of air in your home every day.

However, our codes have given builders a free ride on this requirement for years, assuming that homes will achieve this ventilation standard either via “drafty” construction and the high infiltration of outside air or for newer homes with somewhat tighter construction by the opening and closing of windows. Its no surprise then that during all or part of the year, either category of home (tight or drafty) can experience sub-standard ventilation and increased levels of indoor air pollution.

Where does all this pollution come from? Basically it comes from three primary sources:

• The material’s used to build our homes
• Stuff given off by our home’s heaters, fireplaces, stoves, and appliances
• Stuff we bring into the home

Many of the materials commonly used in construction contain VOC’s or Volatile Organic Compounds that can “out-gas” over time and pollute our home’s air. These can be found in range of products including:

• Sealants and caulk
• Glues and adhesives
• Paints, primers, and sealers
• Certain kinds of insulation
• Certain kinds of Carpet
• Engineered wood products like particleboard, OSB, or plywood that are bonded together with Urea Formaldehyde (UF) or Phenol Formaldehyde (PF). Many of these products can be found in furniture, kitchen cabinets, and floor systems like cork or artificial wood laminate floor systems.

Many of our homes use gas or propane as a fuel forced air furnaces, water heaters, and stoves and ovens. In addition, many homes use wood fireplaces or stoves for supplemental heat. What most of us are unaware of, is that combustion gases, including carbon monoxide, and particulate by-products can be back-drafted from the chimney or flue into the living space if a combustion appliance is not properly vented or does not receive enough supply air. Back-drafting can be a particular problem in tightly constructed homes.

And then there is the stuff we bring in or let into the home either knowingly or unknowingly. Here are just a few examples:

• Biological contaminants include bacteria, molds, mildew, viruses, animal dander and cat saliva, house dust mites, cockroaches, and pollen.
• Formaldehyde from tobacco smoking, household products, and the use of unvented fuel-burning appliances, like gas stoves or kerosene space heaters.
• Organic chemicals are widely used as ingredients in household products. Paints, varnishes, and wax all contain organic solvents, as do many cleaning, disinfecting, cosmetic, degreasing, and hobby products. Fuels are made up of organic chemicals. All of these products can release organic compounds (VOC’s) while you are using them, and, to some degree, even when they are stored.
• Methylene Chloride is included in many paint strippers, adhesive removers, and aerosol spray paints. Methylene chloride is known to cause cancer in animals. Also, methylene chloride is converted to carbon monoxide in the body and can cause symptoms associated with exposure to carbon monoxide.
• Benzene is a known human carcinogen. The main indoor sources of this chemical are environmental tobacco smoke, stored fuels and paint supplies, and automobile emissions in attached garages.
• Perchloroethylene is the chemical most widely used in dry cleaning. In laboratory studies, it has been shown to cause cancer in animals. Recent studies indicate that people breathe low levels of this chemical both in homes where dry-cleaned goods are stored and as they wear dry-cleaned clothing. If dry-cleaned goods have a strong chemical odor when you pick them up, do not accept them until they have been properly dried.
• According to a recent EPA survey, 75 percent of U.S. households used at least one pesticide product indoors during the past year. Products used most often are insecticides and disinfectants. It is important to remember that the “-cide” in pesticides means “to kill.”
• Paradichlorobenzene is a commonly used active ingredient in moth repellents. This chemical is known to cause cancer in animals. The EPA requires that products containing paradichlorobenzene bear warnings such as “avoid breathing vapors” to warn users of potential short-term toxic effects. Where possible, paradichlorobenzene, and items to be protected against moths, should be placed in trunks or other containers that can be stored in areas that are separately ventilated from the home, such as attics and detached garages. Paradichlorobenzene is also the key active ingredient in many air fresheners (in fact, some labels for moth repellents recommend that these same products be used as air fresheners or deodorants)!

All of these sources of indoor air pollution can be eliminated or at least mitigated with a few simple steps.

1. Specify VOC free construction materials
2. Provide outside air for combustion appliances, and outside ventilation for gas stoves
3. Wire bathroom exhaust fans to humidistat controls to mitigate sources of mold and mildew
4. Read labels and understand what you bring in the home may be a source of pollution (non-toxic alternatives)
5. Install a energy efficient whole house ventilator (more) to provide out of sight, out of mind 7/24 fresh air to your home at all times.

In 1661, activist John Evelyn wrote his anti-coal treatise FUMIFUNGIUM: or the Inconvenience of the Aer and Smoake of London Dissipated, in which he pleaded with the King and Parliament to do something about the burning of coal in London. “And what is all this, but that Hellish and dismall Cloud of SEACOALE?” he wrote, “so universally mixed with the otherwise wholesome and excellent Aer, that her Inhabitants breathe nothing but an impure and thick Mist accompanied with a fuliginous and filthy vapour…“

It would take nearly 300 more years before any real reform would be passed. In 1952, a four-day coal emissions fog killed roughly 4,000 Londoners. Four years later, the English Parliament would enact the 1956 Clean Air Act, putting an end to the burning of coal to heat London’s homes. It was the beginning of serious air-pollution reform in England, and beginning of the end of London’s famous “pea-soupers”.

At this point you’re probably wondering what any of this has to do with my home? Well here is the thing, we are not that far removed from seventeenth century London, we’ve just done a better job of making our coal pollution less visible and its impact more indirect.

Buildings in the U.S. are our largest source of green house gas emissions, accounting for over 43% of our country’s CO2 totals. Our homes make up 49% of the that total or 21% of total CO2 emissions. When you look a bit deeper at the data, about 60% of those emissions can be traced back to purchased electricity from coal fired power plants. So, every time you switch on a light you’re most likely drawing power in whole or part from one of this country’s coal plants. Largely due to our umbilical cord to coal, the average home emits more than twice as much CO2 than the average car!

Before I go any further, I’d like to go on the record that this is not an anti-coal rant. I believe that coal is an important part of our energy future, but we can no longer pretend that “business as usual” coal is not harming our environment and major factor of global warming.

Let me give you an example. Where I live in the Front Range of Colorado near Denver we are home to a total of eight coal fired power plants that collectively emit 1,669 tons of sulphur dioxide, 3,849 tons of nitrogen oxides, a whopping 24.6 million tons of carbon dioxide (the equivalent of about 5 million additional cars on the road!) and some 378 pounds of mercury.

In addition, EPA researchers estimate that fine particle pollution from power plants shortens the lives of about 115 Coloradoans each year. Fine particle pollution from power plants in Colorado also causes 21,425 lost work days, 91 hospitalizations and 3,611 asthma attacks every year, 52 of which are so severe they require emergency room visits. In addition, over 750,000 children in Colorado live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant and over 50,000 those children suffer from asthma.

Coal power plants are responsible for 41 percent of the total mercury emitted by all known U.S. Sources and approximately 30% of all lakes sampled in Colorado exceed the EPA fish tissue standard for mercury. A U.S. Geological Survey found that power plant pollution is directly linked to elevated mercury levels.

Mercury is a toxic heavy metal, which, when ingested, can cause serious neurological damage, particularly to developing fetuses, infants, and children. Children can be exposed to mercury in the womb or through breast milk if their mothers ingest mercury tainted fish or by consuming contaminated fish themselves. The neurotoxic effects of mercury exposure are similar to the effects of lead toxicity in children and include delayed development and cognitive deficits, language difficulties, and problems with motor function, attention, and memory.

It’s unreasonable to think that our huge infrastructure of coal fired electric utilities will change any time soon. That will take leadership, followed by enlightened legislation and even if fast tracked one or two decades of focused effort. So the problem will have to met on both the supply and demand side, and a good deal of the demand comes from our homes.

So today in the year 2007, nearly 350 years later, we find ourselves in much the same position characterized by the “fuliginous and filthy vapour(s)” of our friend John Evelyn in seventeenth century London. Aside from our utility bill , most of us never see the effects of our dependency on purchased electricity from coal. It’s most visible pollution is hidden away from our comfortable urban and sub-urban communities, and when we do read a headline or two about global warming or a mercury contaminated waterway it seems remote and unconnected to any action we might be taking. Only by raising awareness that leaving that light on is not only costing money, but it is also contributing to the loss of lives and to the potentially devastating effects of global warming, will we collectively begin to take action to reduce demand.

One simple low cost thing we can all do, is to replace the inefficient incandescent bulb in our favorite reading light with a compact fluorescent lamp. It will start paying for itself immediately, use 1/4th the energy, and last up to 10 times longer.

(more…)

“…buildings in the U.S. are the largest energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting sector.”

I’m writing this on the same day that the U.N. Released the 2004 Report
on Climate Change. There is now very little doubt that human carbon
emissions are dramatically changing the climate and that the effects
will be devastating to millions of people around the world. I’m
probably preaching to the choir, but if you’re one of the few remaining
doubters then you might want to consider taking action and erring on
the side of caution if for no other reason than for the sake of our
grandchildren and future generations and a strategic reduction in our
dependence on foreign oil supplies.

Although much has been written on the topic, I think it’s useful and
pertinent to this blog to lay out the impact of the housing stock in
this country on the global warming problem.

For me the most compelling argument for a human cause to global warming
is the record in our polar ice packs. By taking core samples of ice and
measuring gases trapped within the ice, scientists are able to chart CO
2 levels and average global temperatures going back 450,000 years. What
this data shows is that for hundreds of thousands of years, natural
causes have caused fluctuations in global temperatures and CO 2 levels
that are consistent with each of our known “ice ages”. What is both
compelling and disturbing is that CO2 levels for the last 450,000 year
have never risen above 300 PPM and yet in last few decades have risen
to 378 PPM. Some scientists believe that if the current rate of fossil
fuel consumption continues, we could reach 840 ppm CO 2 by the end of
this century!

Figure 1. 450,000 Year Polar Ice Pack Record
Source: UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change

As the following data demonstrates, “combining the annual energy
required to operate residential, commercial, and industrial buildings
along with the embodied energy of industry-produced building materials
like carpet, tile, glass, and concrete exposes buildings as the largest
energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting sector”¹.

Figure 2. CO2 Emissions by Sector
Source: Energy Information Administration

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in the year 2005, the
residential sector contributed about 21% of the total CO2
emissions. Clearly the housing sector is a big part of the
problem and represents a huge opportunity to reduce CO2
emissions. The good news is that reducing emissions in new
homes by over 75% and in our existing housing stock by up to 50% is
well within our reach.

¹Architecture2030.org