37 replies to this topic

[mat]

Interesting article in the NYT about Berkeley offering low interest loans to homeowners for solar panel installations. The cost of the loan would be added to property taxes, and amortized over 20 years - if I read it correctly the max. would be $22000.

I think this is a great idea - not only would homeowners actively participate in sustainable energy, save on power costs but it would instantly create a green energy industry in the CRD to install and maintain the systems.

[Newlywednotnearlydead]

While a nice thought, I'm willing to bet that there would be much greater energy savings by giving people low-interest loans to insulate their house with high-r value insulation and replace oil or baseboard heaters with a heat pump.

Also, we can't even maintain regular electricity to Sooke in the winter, I have serious doubts about the ability of our crappy grid to handle reverse metering. I'd rather see a large windfarm built up island that was properly integrated into the power grid.

[G-Man]

You can already have reverse metering in BC.

[victorian fan]

There are many incentive and grants offered. Federal, Provincial, Municple and the CDR.

Link to the federal ones:

http://www.oee.nrcan...rant.cfm?attr=4

[Bernard]

Other than the Burrard Thermal plant, all the power we produce in BC is green and sustainable. All our new power coming online is among the greenest in the world.

Paying people to install solar panels is not going to help much.

What we need to do is to get people to stop using oil or natural gas to heat their homes.

[VicHockeyFan]

Other than the Burrard Thermal plant, all the power we produce in BC is green and sustainable.

That we PRODUCE, that's true. But we also import electricity most of the year, and that would mostly come from coal.

Interesting maps and graphs here:

http://www.canelect....er_EN_Final.pdf

[mat]

I would agree that most of the energy BC produces is 'green' and mostly sustainable, but look at the PDF on the North American Energy market from the previous post - (Thanks VHF). BC imports energy (Exp 5,173 Imp 12,209 Net loss -7036). We also export a huge amount of coal, mostly to China and Japan, but some to coal powered electrical plants in Washington and Montana, some of that power is exported back to us. In that sense we are far from 'Green'.

While home owner energy grants are a step in the right direction offering $500 to help offset a $10 000 plus heat pump, or $30 for a $400 installation of 5 individual thermostats for baseboard heaters is not a real incentive. We should be aiming for not only total regional energy independence, but the ability to earn money with a good percentage of export cash (green and sustainable, of course). One way of attaining that goal is real incentives to not only retrofit homes for energy savings, but actual production - solar especially. New panel designs, batteries and control modules mean that even in rainy, cloudy Victoria a household system is viable.

The Berkeley loan program is a far better way to get this going quickly, rather than peanut grants from the Fed. and Prov.

[Bernard]

We import overnight and export during the day. At night some of the power you use is not only coal, but nuke.

We are on target to be producing more than we need over the next five years.

BC based, we would make a much bigger difference getting natural gas and oil out of homes.

[mat]

Daily fluctuations in import/export rates noted, but BC actually does far more gross export around hydro seasonally - when water stocks are high we produce power, not for domestic needs, but for the US.

I would love to get rid of my oil furnace and water heater, maybe move to electric as then we could plug directly into a solar/thermal system to offset costs.

[VicHockeyFan]

While home owner energy grants are a step in the right direction offering $500 to help offset a $10 000 plus heat pump, or $30 for a $400 installation of 5 individual thermostats for baseboard heaters is not a real incentive. We should be aiming for not only total regional energy independence, but the ability to earn money with a good percentage of export cash (green and sustainable, of course). One way of attaining that goal is real incentives to not only retrofit homes for energy savings but actual production - solar especially. New panel designs, batteries and control modules mean that even in rainy, cloudy Victoria a household system is viable.

See, I agree with that. I see no reason the national building code can't be increased far beyond the requirement of R20 walls, R40 ceilings and R2 windows. I'm not sure what the added costs are except on the windows, but surely when 3/4 of this country is in a major deep-freeze part of the year, we could do better.

I also firmly believe if we were required to put a little LCD-display device next to the thermostat, or in a central part of the home that read in in real dollars per hour the cost of our current electricity consumption, in dollars, not kW/h, people would try hard to conserve. Switching off a few lights would show an immediate saving. Surely the device could be made for less than $100, then all you ever have to do is plug in the prevailing kW/h rate. It'd be a real simple thing.

[mat]

VHF - judging by your posts I guess you are far more politically 'conservative' than me, but we do agree on many points. Just not how to attain them.

Joke subsidies for insulation, or re-fit to another energy source (note how the grant for conversion to natural gas is far higher than electric) really only benefit the companies who install and supply that source.

Unless the US declares war to occupy the sun, that is a free source - it will not solve all our energy needs, but if CRD homes could generate on average 25% of their electrical needs from their own homes through solar panels we would meet our carbon pledge with loads to spare.

I think a loan program through property taxes to install solar, insulate homes and retrofit older furnaces and water heaters is the best way to go - and that is a real conservative program - no grants, the home owners pay.

However, with the current credit crisis there is no money to borrow - stick to oil!

[VicHockeyFan]

I think a loan program through property taxes to install solar, insulate homes and retrofit older furnaces and water heaters is the best way to go - and that is a real conservative program - no grants, the home owners pay.

Well, that sounds good, how about a program like deferred property taxes that seniors can get now. Until you sell the home you can defer your taxes by the amount of the grant.

[davek]

See, I agree with that. I see no reason the national building code can't be increased far beyond the requirement of R20 walls, R40 ceilings and R2 windows. I'm not sure what the added costs are except on the windows, but surely when 3/4 of this country is in a major deep-freeze part of the year, we could do better.

I think there are some good reasons not to pursue energy efficiency through government mandate.

First, government regulations are difficult to remove once in place, which is very destructive because they always have unintended (and often perverse) consequences. In this case, forcing people to invest in insulation means there is less to invest in the heating and cooling systems, for which one might get a bigger bang for the buck. So why mandate insulation at the expense of other energy saving methods? Even if it is a better choice today, it might not be tomorrow.

Second, there is more to calculating energy savings than just looking at the R-value of something. The energy and resources used in the manufacture, installation, and disposal of a product will often exceed the energy and resources saved by the product. Thanks to the law of diminishing returns, it may very well be that R-40 walls are worse for the environment than R-20. If one were to do a cost-benefit analysis, it could even be that in some areas of the country R-20 is excessive. In terms of deciding what is optimal for the environment, price is usually the best guide.

The fact is, people don't need regulation to pursue energy efficiency. Just as consumers consider mpg ratings when buying cars, they also concern themselves with the energy consumption of the homes they buy or rent. Since building codes are minimum requirements, anyone who wants to exceed them may, and some do. Most don't because it doesn't pay. That is, they cannot demonstrate to the potential customer that paying for the extra insulation will result in equal or better savings.

[VicHockeyFan]

I think there are some good reasons not to pursue energy efficiency through government mandate.

First, government regulations are difficult to remove once in place, which is very destructive because they always have unintended (and often perverse) consequences. In this case, forcing people to invest in insulation means there is less to invest in the heating and cooling systems, for which one might get a bigger bang for the buck. So why mandate insulation at the expense of other energy saving methods? Even if it is a better choice today, it might not be tomorrow.

Second, there is more to calculating energy savings than just looking at the R-value of something. The energy and resources used in the manufacture, installation, and disposal of a product will often exceed the energy and resources saved by the product. Thanks to the law of diminishing returns, it may very well be that R-40 walls are worse for the environment than R-20. If one were to do a cost-benefit analysis, it could even be that in some areas of the country R-20 is excessive. In terms of deciding what is optimal for the environment, price is usually the best guide.

The fact is, people don't need regulation to pursue energy efficiency. Just as consumers consider mpg ratings when buying cars, they also concern themselves with the energy consumption of the homes they buy or rent. Since building codes are minimum requirements, anyone who wants to exceed them may, and some do. Most don't because it doesn't pay. That is, they cannot demonstrate to the potential customer that paying for the extra insulation will result in equal or better savings.

I'm pretty sure that increased insulation, over the long term (say 30-50 years, at the most) will always be more cost-effective than energy purchases. The problem is that most will never own the same home that long, but I suggest we can expect most homes to live to be 100 or more, don't you think? That's the reason for regulation. Cars are a different story, they do not last so long.

[davek]

I'm pretty sure that increased insulation, over the long term (say 30-50 years, at the most) will always be more cost-effective than energy purchases.

I think that you are forgetting that increasing insulation also requires energy purchases. As insulation is added, there arrives a point at which more energy is consumed in its manufacture and installation than it will save. For example, going from R-12 to R-20 may result in an energy savings of 50%, but going from R-20 to R-28 will only save an additional 15% (Don't use these numbers as gospel. I have pulled them from that vast repository of knowledge known as my ass). At some point, spending $1000 on the HVC system will save more energy than spending it on insulation. The builder knows which path leads to greater energy savings, and at which point one ceases to be superior to the other, because it pays for him to know. Since builders are free to add more insulation but don't, it is a good bet that they cannot achieve sufficient savings to sell the customer on the extra cost.

There are also the unintended consequences caused by regulation. For example, thicker walls for thicker insulation consume more wood, which consumes more energy in manufacture and transportation. I'm not saying more insulation is a bad idea, but as in almost every case, the market will know better than government.

The problem is that most will never own the same home that long, but I suggest we can expect most homes to live to be 100 or more, don't you think? That's the reason for regulation. Cars are a different story, they do not last so long.

I can't see this is a problem. My understanding is that people tend to 'over-buy' fuel efficiency in vehicles, and I suspect they do the same in houses, but I take your point. If adding extra insulation adds an amount to the house price that will take 50 years to recover, then I think that that's not much of a savings, and that given fluctuating market conditions, that 50 year calculation is likely to be incorrect. So naturally consumers look for a shorter term investment that will offer more certain returns. I think this is good for both the environment and the economy.

Incidentally, I have heard more than once that the expected life of a code-built house is 50 years. Given the number of 100 year old pre-code houses I've seen, it may be that building codes have created an energy drain.

[G-Man]

Or that we haven't given the newer houses 100 years to survive yet

It is an interesting idea.

I think that basing your investment on return is not always the motivation for these things. I will improve my insulation as I redo parts of my house. Not because of a financial savings but it will mean less energy usuage from my home which all in all is better for the environment. It is about choices not just the dollar.

[Bernard]

I wish I could remember the study name, but here is the gist of it.

If something takes more than seven years to pay for itself through reducing your costs,such as better windows, solar panels or whatever, very few people will invest the money for the savings.

If the payback is three to seven years about 1/4 of the people will do it.

If the payback is 18 months to three years, about 60% will do it.

If the payback is less than 18 months about 80% will do it.

The numbers are from memory, but it points out is that potential savings are not very strong motivators for people. There are people that will not do something even though the payback is very short.

Reducing the payback period certainly helps increase the number of people taking part. Payback can be reduced by increasing the cost of energy or reducing the costs of changes. Increasing energy prices is the cheapest and most effective way to change how people and business react.

If the government were to dramatically increase the tax on home heating oil and natural gas, then a lot of people would go out and buy weatherstripping and lower the thermostat. More people would also chose the greener home heating sources such as electricity.

[VicHockeyFan]

I wish I could remember the study name, but here is the gist of it.

If something takes more than seven years to pay for itself through reducing your costs,such as better windows, solar panels or whatever, very few people will invest the money for the savings.

If the payback is three to seven years about 1/4 of the people will do it.

If the payback is 18 months to three years, about 60% will do it.

See, that is my point. People can't think long-term, because very few people will own the same home for 25 years even.

The builder knows which path leads to greater energy savings, and at which point one ceases to be superior to the other, because it pays for him to know. Since builders are free to add more insulation but don't, it is a good bet that they cannot achieve sufficient savings to sell the customer on the extra cost.

Well, let me tell ya - I know builders. I sold to them for 10 years. And 95% of them want the cheapest product, when it comes to things most homeowners don't know about, care about, or will see. 95% of purchasers will not ask if he has set his studs at the required distance apart, what r-value the windows are, whether he has used the correct thickness of drywall on the exterior walls, what type of insulation the house has, how the plumbing is arranged, how the perimeter drainage works, or even what type of shingles are on the roof. Where the builder will spend extra money is making the kitchen and bathroom nice, and adding nice trim around windows etc.

There are exceptions of course, such as Dockside Green. But it being such an international example of good practices, it gets an awful lot of media attention, and will bring in those 5% of buyers that ask those types of questions. High-end custom-built homes are often an exception too. But I would venture they only account for 5% of homes (or less) in this country.

[mat]

VHF I agree (yet again) - which is why most home owners end up doing much more than re-decorating. Once the walls are opened...it becomes new studs, new wiring, new pipes, new insulation etc.

As to Bernard - no matter what the time frame, if the city came to me and said I could borrow $8000 at a fixed rate, over 20 years, and simply added to my property taxes to install solar panels that would generate 70% of what we use asa household - I would say yes. There is little 'fear' over moving from say Oil to Gas or electric, or even installing solar - it is cash. For a homeowner to invest in a green energy plan it will be cash that counts.

[davek]

The rejection of long-term investments in home energy efficiency is not indicative of an inability to think long term. People make long-term investments all the time, and some people feel they will get a better return if they invest their money in stocks, or a small business, rather than extra insulation. Some builders think they serve society better by building cheap, inefficient housing that consumers want, rather than the homes that wannabe social engineers think they should have. Some prefer to invest in efficient cars, rather than efficient homes.

Should all these people be forced to forego their preferences because others think their own personal preferences are superior, or will lead to superior outcomes? I have seen what happens when government is given the power to force people to sacrifice for the greater good, so I am opposed.

Should these people be forced to forego their preferences because they are stupid/ignorant/selfish? If that premise justifies forcing builders to add extra insulation, it justifies forcing people to do anything. Again, I have seen what happens in these cases, and I am opposed.

Using government force is beneficial in a very limited number of areas. Energy efficiency is not one of them.