The Bigger Picture on Energy Efficiency Upgrades

[valuman]

This isn't meant to be preachy. That's not what I'm about, so please don't take me that way. That said, I don't understand when people post about being green, then do what is purported to be a thorough cost analysis in order to determine whether an energy upgrade is a good decision or not. I tend to think more in terms of the big picture and whether I can afford to make changes that reduce my energy usage, not whether I'm going to see any immediate cost savings.

For example, I paid more for a TDi Jetta because I want to burn less fuel, not because I want to save a few bucks on fuel. Why? Because I see the oil industry as extremely destructive to our world, environmentally, economically and from a national security standpoint. My company provides me with a Prius, not because it's an overall lower cost of ownership, but because it's in alignment with our mission and will hopefully provide a long term gain in the big picture.

What is the path to sustainability? It's not oil and I'll do what I can to reduce the amount of oil products I consume.

 

[BrotherBart]

Oil companies provide what oil users demand. They don't make anybody use it.

I retired from an oil major. And loved when protestors showed up at our headquarters. In cars.

 

[sesmith]

It all goes hand in hand. Just the title you chose would imply that an upgrade, being more energy efficient might have a payback. To get the general public to buy in, there has to be some sort of benefit, than just being able to say you did a "green" thing. So I'm always glad to read when someone does a cost analysis and can justify their choice with some sort of payback that makes sense. Others are then more likely to do the same thing.

There are also personal choices when it comes to these upgrades. I know of people who have put up solar panels, but could have dropped their energy usage and made more of an impact on their footprint, by doing other things with their money first, like improvements to their insulation and / or heating system. These are the things that no one sees. In a case like this, maybe a thorough cost and payback analysis would have helped the bigger picture.

Your example of the TDI, is one that some here might argue with and say you should have gone electric or hybrid. In our case, we just replaced our Toyota Yaris with a VW Golf TDI. Fuel economy did play a major factor in the purchase, but for us, it was mainly comfort and driving experience. The Yaris was very efficient, but long drives were just no fun. There is no comparison between a Golf TDI and a Yaris, driving and comfort wise. The golf will probably cost more to maintain, and less in fuel. I suppose, it can be argued that it is a "green" car, but there's more to buying a car than just a moral stand. The average car buyer needs more to go that way, like high fuel prices and a car that they want to buy.

 

[valuman]

I can see where you're coming from, especially since you worked in the industry, BrotherBart. The challenge I have with that is, our economy and infrastructure are petroleum powered. The demand was created over decades and supplied by local, then regional companies who competed to supply us with product. Today's market is very different, with only a small handful of oil companies and consortiums controlling the supply and wielding massive financial muscle in the world of policy. Because of that combination we don't have many, if any practical options to petroleum.

Taking the bus is a perfect example of this. While it still burns petroleum, it's much more efficient than driving alone in a car and quite likely the only viable option for many who are trying to reduce their use of it. My driving a TDi is a similar example, it's the best option for me. If I had other choices, I might select one, but I don't at this point in time.

I hope I haven't stepped across any lines here. My hope is to have a considered discussion, not an argument. I really appreciate this board and want to stay within the bounds of civility without causing any moderation headaches. I'll leave it to the management to decide if this is a discussion that can be had without escalating into something unpleasant.

 

[valuman]

It all goes hand in hand. Just the title you chose would imply that an upgrade, being more energy efficient might have a payback. To get the general public to buy in, there has to be some sort of benefit, than just being able to say you did a "green" thing. So I'm always glad to read when someone does a cost analysis and can justify their choice with some sort of payback that makes sense. Others are then more likely to do the same thing.

There are also personal choices when it comes to these upgrades. I know of people who have put up solar panels, but could have dropped their energy usage and made more of an impact on their footprint, by doing other things with their money first, like improvements to their insulation and / or heating system. These are the things that no one sees. In a case like this, maybe a thorough cost and payback analysis would have helped the bigger picture.

Your example of the TDI, is one that some here might argue with and say you should have gone electric or hybrid. In our case, we just replaced our Toyota Yaris with a VW Golf TDI. Fuel economy did play a major factor in the purchase, but for us, it was mainly comfort and driving experience. The Yaris was very efficient, but long drives were just no fun. There is no comparison between a Golf TDI and a Yaris, driving and comfort wise. The golf will probably cost more to maintain, and less in fuel. I suppose, it can be argued that it is a "green" car, but there's more to buying a car than just a moral stand. The average car buyer needs more to go that way, like high fuel prices and a car that they want to buy.

Absolutely! For the vast majority, the choices need to be practical and provide their own justification for the time, effort and money invested. A lot of folks go solar because they want to continue to enjoy the way they use electricity without depending upon generation sources they have no control over. It seems that you and I both chose our vehicles for the combination of efficiency and driving experience. I drive a lot of miles and I want to make that as enjoyable as possible without throwing money out the window along the way.

 

[jebatty]

It's complicated, for sure. One fact is that the world now, and always has, thrived on energy. Cheap and plentiful oil for a long time has been that energy source. Other new energy sources, primarily wind and solar, are becoming that cheap energy source. Good for all of us. A second leg of a multiple leg stool is marketing with the powers of better understanding what motivates human behavior, and then changing that, or manipulating that, for profit, for image, for "being the right kind of person." A third leg is the power of big money to manipulate the political and economic system for its benefit. All of these are interrelated.

All of this operates within natural systems, environmental, climate, weather, temperature, rainfall, drought, flood, extinction, new species, disease, viruses, etc. These ultimately will determine the outcome of human impact, or regardless of human impact.

One thing not well accepted, or better yet rejected, is that humans are part of and not external to these natural forces. Humans will rise and fall with nature, she will have her way, and all inputs, including human inputs, will drive nature in her continual quest for stability and her handling of instability, and in this quest the ultimate impact on humans, or on cockroaches, is irrelevant. Will humans adapt? They will try. Will they succeed? Time will tell. The cockroaches likely will adapt better than humans.

 

[woodgeek]

Hmmm. I would politely counter the OP that the choice between cheaper and greener is a false dichotomy. If we list the 'defenses' of the fossil-fuel status quo, reasons to just keep using FF, it is a mixture of...

1. We don't need it (Peak Oil or AGW are not real)
2. We have no choice (Renewable Energy 'doesn't work' or there 'isn't enough')
3. We can't afford it (RE is just too expensive, or RE+storage is just too expensive, so RE is always a niche)
4. We don't want to live with less (given the above, RE advocates will force lower consumption, tiny dangerous cars, etc)

I would say that '1' and '2' are on the ropes these days, even slim majorities of folks on the right think AGW is 'real' and ~80% of Americans think we should build more solar and wind.

'3' is in a state of flux in 2015. A lot of economists have been reporting estimates for the cost of switching the economy to a mostly RE basis (say 80% lower CO2) that include zero cost in the uncertainty range (within the error bars). Notably, zero cost even without subsidies or externalities like lower health care costs! Consensus is not there yet, but it seems likely that when health externalities are included, CO2 mitigation in the energy sector will be negative net cost to the economy. Even if the estimates are incorrect and the costs are net positive, the worst case maximum estimates of cost are quite manageable (like 1% of GDP).

Once 1-3 are debunked.....'4' ceases to have any traction as a 'scare tactic'

----------------------------------------------------------

In my own case, like most people I make lots of life decisions that involve energy and money. Some things do a lot to save CO2 (a concern of mine) and save me $$ at the same time with good ROI, say >10% per year. Some things I do are still green but end up costing me more money than alternative choices or have an ROI of <10% per year.

Since I am investing any extra cash I have for my retirement or my kids college, and expecting to earn 10% or so per year, I see anything with and ROI<10% as costing me money (opportunity cost).

On this board, I will tend to 'crow' about green moves that save stupid amounts of $$, i.e. > >10% ROI. Maybe others will make similar moves. Or maybe I will learn from others' experience.

Conversely, if I make some other green moves that save <10% ROI, I might post them here, or I might not, but I don't 'crow' so much as I see it just as a personal choice to spend money, that I don't expect others to emulate or learn from.

 

[semipro]

What is the path to sustainability?

Warning, some rambling and scattered thoughts below.

Some see it as complex; so complex that many throw their hands up in the air and claim "it doesn't matter" or the "science isn't final". Like politics though, IMO its worth investing the time to get closer to the truth rather than allowing others to try and do it for you.

E.g., one might say that your choice to drive a TDi, while using less FF, also created more pollution and disease than the alternatives. A really detailed life cycle analysis where the indirect effects and unintended consequences are quantified may reveal that your choice resulted in more adverse impact (and possibly use of FF) rather than less.

Like litter on the roadside, it only takes one jackwagon with trash flying out bed of their pickup truck to really have an impact, in effect negating the efforts of the many others that somehow keep their trash in their vehicle as they drive by. Likewise, the efforts of us peons will have little impact compared to, say, the US military.

IMO, if you can just get individuals (and entities) to care enough to at least try and do the right thing you've won. Using ROI as justification rather than moral admonishment is one way to achieve this.

Edit: Related interesting read on who is investing in rooftop solar. BTW, its not the people that can most afford it.
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...rise-of-rooftop-solar-among-the-middle-class/

 

[valuman]

E.g., one might say that your choice to drive a TDi, while using less FF, also created more pollution and disease than the alternatives. A really detailed life cycle analysis where the indirect effects and unintended consequences are quantified may reveal that your choice resulted in more adverse impact (and possibly use of FF) rather than less.

I'm not following this. AFAIK, burning fewer gallons of low sulfur diesel in a modern engine is less polluting than burning more gallons of gasoline. That said, I'm always willing to learn new things, so please feel free to educate me.

IMO, if you can just get individuals (and entities) to care enough to at least try and do the right thing you've won. Using ROI as justification rather than moral admonishment is one way to achieve this.

If you're saying that in order for us to change our energy sources on a mass scale, there must be a viable business reason to do so, from both the consumer and supplier point of view, I totally agree. I believe that exists now for many consumers as well as some companies and the adoption rate would be higher if the true cost of continuing to base our energy use on petroleum products was more fully articulated.

 

[semipro]

I'm not following this. AFAIK, burning fewer gallons of low sulfur diesel in a modern engine is less polluting than burning more gallons of gasoline. That said, I'm always willing to learn new things, so please feel free to educate me.

First, let me say I don't know the answer to the question I posed about your choice of TDi. I'm merely say that without life cycle impact quantification its very hard to know the ultimate impact of your choice.

That said, the nature of compression combustion versus spark combustion results in differences in efficiencies, operating characteristics, and exhaust emissions. Diesel engines may emit less carbon than otto cycle engines per mile but they typically emit more, harder to treat and manage, exhaust emissions. Also, the newest diesel technologies require the use of urea exhaust fluids that require increased user maintenance as well as production.

Europe is reconsidering their long-standing support of diesel vehicles because of these and other factors.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/627c6812-7faf-11e4-adff-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3SOkYX6VD
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...racks-down-on-Britain-over-air-pollution.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fumes-worse-petrol
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/353na4_en.pdf

As an analogy, I had a very "green" friend who rode a motorcycle because he believed the GHG, carbon, and other environmental impacts would be less than his driving his car. He was astounded to find later that every motorcycle sold in the US released more air pollution (mass-per-mile) than every car sold. This is because of the relatively low tech design of motorcycle engines compared to cars. This was true even of fuel-injected motorcycles with catalytic converters. BTW, he got rid of the motorcycle. I"m not sure he made the right decision though.

Edit: I should have added early on that exhaust emissions are dependent upon much more than just quantity of fuel burned. E.g., you can burn less fuel and still create more emissions. Carbon emission can be estimated solely on fuel used but carbon is just one of many emissions.

 

[semipro]

I believe that exists now for many consumers as well as some companies and the adoption rate would be higher if the true cost of continuing to base our energy use on petroleum products was more fully articulated.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[DBoon]

The essence of your question implies that most people make rational, ROI-driven decisions, and the fact is that few people do, even if they think they are. Economists are finally only beginning to realize this (about 50 years too late).

Case in point (and I went through this with my wife before she bought a TDI, so I'm not picking on you):

burning fewer gallons of low sulfur diesel in a modern engine is less polluting than burning more gallons of gasoline.

It's not necessarily less polluting, and it's not necessarily more efficient on a miles/BTU basis (diesel has 140,000 BTUs/gal, gasoline 120,000 BTUs/gal. A Golf TDI that can get 52 mpg on the highway is about the same as a gasoline-powered car that can get 44 miles/gal, and a Prius hybrid would be better yet. However, at the end of the day, she bought what she liked, and feels good about the decision, and the efficiency is good (though not the best). Frankly, I'm thrilled I don't have to drive a Prius - it is about the least enjoyable car to drive ("soul sucking" is how one non-automotive publication described it). I like the Golf, but my 2002 Saturn still gets me 47mpg in the summer and 40 mpg in the winter, so I'll be hanging on to that for a while longer.

Another case in point - friends who replace a 35 mpg car with a new Prius hybrid (let's imagine that is a $15,000 purchase after trade-in). For $15k, they are saving 100 gallons of fuel a year, for perhaps 10-12 years (life of vehicle). For $4k, I upgrade my oil boiler and save 100 gallons of oil a year for likely a 25 to 30 year period. My purchase is a much better investment, from an ROI perspective, but I don't drive my oil boiler to a friend's house and show it off and get "enviro cred points" for buying it. It is just a dull, boring oil boiler and nobody wants to hear about that, while everyone loves to see the new car, and the green bonus points go to the person with the Prius - that is the entire marketing strategy of the Prius. To most, I look like like part of the problem.

At some point, if you are making rational ROI choices, you have to decide what to do first - there is never an "infinite" pile of money to apply to green improvements. I would love to be carbon-neutral. But I am not in a financial position to do that now, nor is it practical with my existing work situation. So I pick and choose the best things I can do first, while at the same time making sure I can enjoy my remaining years, and if a Golf TDI is a bit of a backslide, compared to other choices that can be made, that's just the way it is. Installing a 5.3kW solar system and a mini-split to heat a house that I am remodeling is a good investment, and pays off given the oil savings, and my long-term plans for the property and life. Trading in my existing car for something even more efficient (to save 100 gallons of gasoline a year) would seem to be better to most people (and a more public statement of my greenness), but it doesn't make my ROI cut - I post green, then do an ROI, and fail to act.

 

[sesmith]

On the cars, the epa has just published their 2015 guide:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2015.pdf

Besides fuel economy, it also has a relative scale for CO2 emissions, so you can compare cars. As far as modern diesels are with emissions, I do know that the 2015 vw golf tdi meets California LEV III standards, which won't even be required there for several years. There is no indication from the tailpipe, that you are behind a diesel vehicle. The car does come with a pretty complex exhaust and emission system, though.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

The payback is 90% of what matters to me. Instead of an ultra efficient condensing boiler, I chose to insulate and air seal. I'd rather the boiler I have not turn on. If you want to call it green, go ahead. I'll call it fiscal responsibility. I estimate that summer electricity will be around 100 to 150 kWh per month, and my family's standard of living is higher than before I started my campaign against the electric company. Call it green if you want, but saving the earth wasn't my motivation for lowering the electric bill.

 

[woodgeek]

Nice thread.

In the end most people do what they do because everyone else does it too. Monkey see Monkey do. Once a nebulous need to retool our electrical grid/supply/cars/homes reaches a tipping point in the larger culture, and it is clear that the changes are win-win-win-win for costs/air pollution/AGW/sustainability then the necessary changes will become ubiquitous and inevitable. Eventually the new infrastructure will get associated with 'progress' and health and cost savings, and the old infrastructure will be seen as a dead end, or a bad investment, or a money pit.

Folks will expect cars to drive quietly and smoothly with a ton of torque (like an EV), homes to be comfortable all seasons and have great IAQ (like a super-insulated home with all electric or direct vented heating units and active ventilation), appliances will all be ultra-low energy consumption, etc.

Will people still be buying all this stuff to be 'green'...Nope. People will be buying it all to conform, and because anything else will be generally seen as foolish/out of style/wasteful/dangerous/etc.

 

[valuman]

Will people still be buying all this stuff to be 'green'...Nope. People will be buying it all to conform, and because anything else will be generally seen as foolish/out of style/wasteful/dangerous/etc.

This shows really good insight to the American mindset. I've been saying for years that we'll eventually get to the point where not having a solar system on your home will be cause for some handwringing and that people will be bragging about how their solar system is bigger than yours. I guess that would be on the other side of the "tipping point."

 

[woodgeek]

I hope that rooftop solar doesn't become de rigeuer. I live on a N face of a hill covered in 100 yo trees and can barely see blue sky from my yard. And I would like to sell my house someday.

Since I think the suitable rooftops are a little inadequate for the amount of solar most folks need, I think we will see industrial solar. It will be interesting to see how this scales....will there just be a small number of enormous projects in rural areas, or will there be smaller projects integrated into neighborhoods, like brownfields, or mall roofs or big box parking lots, or will we see both? Will the projects be owned by investor owned utilities, or will some be co-ops that folks can buy shares in? Who knows?

That is, when solar penetration is high, and we can buy it at a reasonable price from the grid, the 'green cachet' of rooftop solar might become small to non-existent.

 

[jebatty]

Recognizing that many do not have immediate funds for their private solar, and that many sites are not well situated, MN also encourages community solar projects, relatively small to medium scale solar where individuals can buy into the output. Several of these are now being built and interest is high. Some of the major MN utilities are buying into these projects as well and otherwise encouraging them, and also utility scale solar is moving forward at a pace which likely will increase, regardless of current incentives. Solar is increasingly cost effective at all levels.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

With Teslas battery ideas, it's entirely possible that hoses can be partially, or even fully off grid, quite easily. It all comes down to cost. I really like the idea of individual houses on their own system.

The back of my house faces South. My 9/12 pitch even places it close to the optimum angle for collection. I'd be a great candidate. If I ever went solar, I'd probably set up a new electrical panel and move circuits over to the new system while keeping the old as a fail safe.

It would drive the utility crazy changing out meters left and right thinking I was stealing power somehow.

 

[valuman]

Since I think the suitable rooftops are a little inadequate for the amount of solar most folks need, I think we will see industrial solar. It will be interesting to see how this scales....will there just be a small number of enormous projects in rural areas, or will there be smaller projects integrated into neighborhoods, like brownfields, or mall roofs or big box parking lots, or will we see both? Will the projects be owned by investor owned utilities, or will some be co-ops that folks can buy shares in? Who knows? .

I'm not a big fan of utility scale solar arrays, but they're being built now in many places. I think community solar is a great solution for those folks who's homes won't work for a rooftop, or small ground array. 150- 200kw can be built on 1.5 acres, sited for maximum production and minimal footprint. Then those who can't do residential solar can simply buy a membership in, or a portion of those community arrays and have the kWh produced by their share applied to their electric bills. They'll also see a quick, or possibly an immediate ROI, depending on the specific business model being used.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

I always liked the idea of solar shingles. Every house will eventually need to be reroofed. If the cost of a system could be lowered due to the new roof being put on I think many more would bite on it. If a new roof was going to cost $10k, and a solar shingle roof $15k I'd be thinking long and hard and crunching numbers to see how long that payback period was. Even if the payback didn't happen, it might work out to a really cheap roof.

 

[DBoon]

I really believe that people likely fall into 4 categories on this topic - you have to know how a person thinks to understand what they really want.

My four categories are people who do the following:

1. Just make improvements or investments because the technology seems cool and they like cool technology, or they are on a "mission" (e.g. carbon-neutral, reduce oil consumption, etc.).
2. See improvements or energy reductions as "investments" and will do the math to understand the ROI or the energy usage impact, and the best ROI to tackle first.
3. Have some "belief" or "feeling" that they are paying too much, and make a purchase or have some work done to mitigate the cost, perhaps based on what a salesperson tells them, without ever really knowing or learning whether there was a real savings or not.
4. Want to be acknowledged by a wider community for a "contribution", so make purchases that advertise their "contribution" to the public before anything else.

People in the first or second category will admit to being in the first or category. Maybe this is 10% of the overall population, at the most. Probably most people on this forum at Hearth.com are in the second category. Eaten by Limestone said it best:

The payback is 90% of what matters to me. Instead of an ultra efficient condensing boiler, I chose to insulate and air seal....If you want to call it green, go ahead. I'll call it fiscal responsibility.

.

People in the third category may think they are in the second category, but they can't or won't "do the math" and can't or won't explain the logical reasoning behind their decision. I'd estimate that this is probably 60-70% of the overall population. They may talk a little like they are in category 2, but if you are a category 2 person, you will find out in three questions or less that they are really category 3. The classic example is the person who spends a bunch of money for new windows for their house because their house is too cold, and then convinces themselves that the house is a lot warmer afterwards and that they are saving a lot of money. I know a lot of people like this. These are the people who ask you for advice to convince themselves they are doing the right thing, and then likely never take your advice.

People in the fourth category will never admit to being in this category since that is admitting to a high level of vanity or ability to be manipulated (my opinion) by marketing messages. They will describe their investment or improvement as financially driven, but in reality, the more you question them as to why they made the purchase they did, the less likely you will hear a financial justification that really makes sense and/or their reasons will keep changing. I think this is 10-30% of the population, or at least the % of the population that think this way and can afford the big ticket purchases we are discussing here (e.g. cars, solar panels, etc.).

I was faced with a similar choice as EatenbyLimestone - pay an extra $2k (or more) for a condensing boiler and save an extra 30 gallons of oil a year (maybe). Didn't seem worth it (category 2) - there are better ways to spend my money, and (unlike some things) I don't find condensing boilers so cool that I want to buy one just for the sake of buying one (not category 1). I do have a personal mission to reduce my oil usage to as low as possible (I believe I am funding unfriendly governments and peoples through my oil purchases), so this probably bumped the purchase up the ladder a bit (category 1). I had a co-worker buy a Prius, and he did it because he likes new technology, and definitely not for best MPG or efficiency (category 1). My neighbor bought a Prius and he definitely wants to advertise to the world how green he is. He can't understand that my decision not to buy a Prius and keep an older car that basically gets the same MPG as his is as good for the environment as his decision - because my decision announces me as a poor person who can't afford a newer car, doesn't care about the environment, or something similar (who knows?) (he is category 4).

 

[jebatty]

What about modifying your #4 to "Want to be acknowledged by a wider community as being the "right kind of person," so make purchases that advertise their "lifestyle" to their part of the public with whom they want to be accepted and want to impress by showing they are part of the "right people."

 

[thinkxingu]

If the OP was really concerned, he'd walk.

JK--I appreciate this has remained civil and would like to add a dimension I haven't seen discussed: there are many articles that examine the "whole" impact of a vehicle that are interesting. Specifically, though the Prius may get ridiculous mileage, the building process and materials are supposed to be more pollutive and the fix vs. disposal methods are uncertain. What happens to the batteries of these vehicles, how many other resources are used to mine and produce batteries, what happens to a Prius when it hits its end-of-life?

A couple articles suggest the Jeep Wrangler is, overall, better than the Prius as every part of a Wrangler is either reused or recycled. Ever try to find one in a junkyard?!

 

[woodgeek]

The elements in the batteries and motors are completely recyclable, and are recycled. The batt in the regular Prius is quite small, and NiMH. Not enough of the much larger Li batteries in proper EVs have worn out yet, but they will certainly get recycled too.

The 'rare-earth' elements and Li are not really rare...the name signifies that they do not show up in conventional hard-rock ore formations. Instead they show up in 'salt flats' mixed in with a lot of different salts. Not the most developed or useful or biodiverse parts of the planet. The 'mining' process involves processing brines collected at these salt flat locations. Don't envision strip mining primeval rain-forest here.

Many common metals are byproducts produced when ores are processed to score other metals. Unlike that case, when no one wants a rare earth element, no one makes any either. When the demand appears (like Li), it suddenly turns out that there is plenty to be had.