US homes have gotten huge – offsetting the gains from energy efficiency
vox.com
vox.com
This is partially because they compare two very different percentages, and expect them to cancel each other out, but they don't ;)
Let's take https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Nal5V8NG4BaEYnFL2lbcskLtaUE...
In 1970, we have 150 btu/sq ft and let's be generous and say 1500 sq ft.
So we have a home using 225000 BTU.
Now, we have 101.8 btu/sq ft, and 1864 sq ft. That's 188264 BTU.
17% is not nothing, nor is it "offsetting the gains".
Note, you can't use the 101.8 number for the new housing graph, since it's an average over all homes.
(In fact, you can't really just multiply any of these numbers and have sensible results, but hey, it's a news story!)
You'd have to find an average new housing btu/sq ft, which they don't provide.
Also note: Greater energy efficiency is entirely possible. You can easily halve the heating energy requirement, for example, by using ground source heat pumps in most places (my GSHP was a 46 SEER , 5.3 COP unit).
But this has high monetary cost to retrofit (When done during construction, and factored into the price of a house, it basically costs "not a lot more").
Or you could use per-room mini-splits, or whatever.
It's just that people don't care, and so the only thing that forces higher energy efficiency in most cases is building code changes, not consumer demand.
If there's an argument here at all it's for having energy prices take into account whatever externality Vox is specifically concerned about, not for forcing people to live in smaller homes.
Light bulbs are worse. Shopping for a bulb is like buying a car.
And the focus on stupid efficiency gimmicks that save minimal resources (an efficient washing machine saves $30/year) distracts from more useful retrofits like insulation, windows, solar hot water, etc.
It works both ways. Some vacuum cleaners had higher power rating labels to make buyers think the machines were more powerful.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021886
Disposable washing machines are definitely bad for the environment though.
That doesn't explain what they will do with a washer, but it demonstrates that even a small operation is relatively sophisticated in what it is up to, and appliances are generally worth enough for them to deal with.
Still, a washing machine should last 10 years not 5. And many of them would, if manufacturers didn't build in obsolescence. Washing machines often have a bearing in the drum that fails. That bearing can be replaced if the drum is contained in a shell - "tub" - that opens. Many of the tubs on the drums are now molded shut, which means this cheap bearing can't be replaced, the whole tub needs to be replaced, which means the machine gets scrapped.
http://www.washerhelp.co.uk/forums/topic/1178-whats-wrong-wi...
http://www.ukwhitegoods.co.uk/help/buying-advice/washing-mac...
It's just a simple hunk of metal, but it forces a very small amount of water out at a high velocity, mixed with enough air to give it a really vigorous-feeling cleaning action.
I've been hauling that from apartment to apartment for two decades. Love it, and it uses so little water!
Could you point to the part of the article that gave you this impression? You picked up on something I can't find in the either the content or the tone. That is, I can't find any part of the article that suggests people should be "forced to live in smaller homes" or even shaming people for choosing larger homes.
It's not only about the energy the house uses once built, but also about the energy and materials used to build it, the energy and materials used to fill it with stuff, the encouragement a larger space has on consumption, the using up of valuable space selfishly so other people can't use it, etc. etc. etc.
>having energy prices take into account whatever externality Vox is specifically concerned about
You can't fix everything with money. At some point, people are going to have to use vastly less resources, and simply making it more expensive is not the solution.
That's some claim. Care to back it up?
Ah, humans have deforested vast swaths of the earth, hunted hundreds of species of animals to extinction, severely over fished the oceans, polluted a huge amount of fresh water, just to name a few.
Is it even a discussion that humans need to use less resources? I thought this was all widely accepted basic stuff.
tl;dr: Malthus was wrong. Slightly more detailed explanation of the cultural phenomenon behind the assumption you're citing:
http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hicks...
Edited: to clarify, I think the 'need to use less resources' meme originates from the bottom-left of the flowchart, left-environmentalism. It's wrong.
Edited: here come the downvotes ... can we at least make an attempt to discuss this, instead of just disagreeing by downvoting???
His mistake at its root was: humans as a creative, efficient, effective problem solving species.
There isn't an example yet where humans have failed to think their way out of a massive, species sized problem. And as a whole sum we're getting better at solving problems, faster, rather than worse.
There will always be human created solutions to stave off every big disaster. There isn't a realistic example of an inbound disaster that we can't obviously take care of with our brains, or for which there aren't already solutions.
We long since have invented multiple cheap energy sources that will continue to stave off 'disaster.' Nuclear, solar, wind - those alone will take care of the future, even if we don't figure out more advanced energy production. In 50 years, solar will be extraordinarily cheap; it already is cost effective.
The US could spend a trillion dollars and put another 500 nuclear reactors into place and guarantee our energy security for another hundred years (or perpetually if the plants continued to be used). We've already solved the mess of nuclear waste, now it's merely a matter of time to deploy the technology - less than 20 years. And yes, even with $7 billion plants, nuclear is still cheap energy, and it's going to get even cheaper.
Costs might fluctuate a bit, we might take the usual tragedies of the commons to horrible extremes that significantly mess with the planet and make it significantly less nice to live on, but I have yet to see an argument for unsustainability that didn't rely on either silly extrapolations or silly assumptions about our inability to adapt. If you've actually got one I'd love to see it -- more ammunition in the fight for the environment -- but I have to say I've seen a lot of bad arguments along these lines and by this point I honestly expect more of the same.
Hardly. Your mistake is that unlike animals humans don't [just] consume resources, they create them.
So there isn't a need to use less, instead you simply create more. Don't forget that it's not possible to "use up" matter - it's always still there, a little effort and you can use it again.
Resources aren't created equal. We cut down trees that regulate air, humidity and temperature on the planet and replace them with smartphones, that mostly lie unused on benches and in warehouses in Shenzhen.
> Don't forget that it's not possible to "use up" matter - it's always still there, a little effort and you can use it again.
The key here is that "little effort". Ignoring the fact that we neither can (because of tech level) nor want (because of market economy) recreate the important resources we're depleting, you absolutely can use up energy from a practical standpoint. Yes, total energy is conserved, but as it reaches higher and higher entropy levels, it becomes less and less usable, until it's just thermal waste.
Your two ideas presented as facts, but they're opinions, and they seem heavily loaded with a particular vision of the world.
I'd say the opposite: Money drives everything better than other kinds of decisions, and raising taxes on polluting products is our only solution. Be it a carbon tax or emitting permits traded at the stock exchange, there are many forms, that's called internalizing the negative externalities.
Isn't 99% of worldwide procurement fixed with money? What matches a producer of coffee in Columbia with a consumer in Germany? Money. What ensures we pay thousands of researchers, engineers and technicians for years until we build those A380 planes in Toulouse? Money. Claiming it doesn't fix everything is getting blind to 99% of the world. I agree some people do some volunteering and that's out of the money economy - or is it? We've often demonstrated that volunteering biases the actions in favour of those who provide the volunteering, which can go from "Let's build wells in Africa" with a political impact in favour of EU, and as far as "Let's bring some freedom to Irak!". It doesn't remove any goodness from the people who donated their money and time, it just highlights that volunteering provides sometimes pleasure, sometimes pride, sometimes power to the one who provides it, and those aren't exactly orthogonal to money.
Claiming that something more expensive isn't the solution is another one. European cities are rather compact and people use public transports. Guess what, our petrol is 2x more expensive than in US because of taxes. I see nothing more efficient than adding tax on what pollutes the earth and removing taxes on what's neutral.
When I'm told by organic ecologists not to buy some sort of fish because they're brought over by plane from Angola, and they're cheaper than Atlantic ones, that's just too much info to process. If the fish from the close Atlantic is more expensive, it means we've spent more money for the fishing boat and the fishermen. Maybe the boat then consumes more petrol. Maybe the fishermen will buy bigger houses and 4wd cars. If the Angola fish is cheaper, maybe people are paid less, so there's an efficient use of all resources. So maybe the cheaper fish from Angola, after being brought over by plane, remains as less CO2-polluting than the one from closer Atlantic. Besides, as a consumer, given the uncertainity, I don't want to artificially choose the Atlantic one without being sure it consumes less CO2.
So, kerozen, gas, petrol, transport should be taxed proportionally to their polluting effect, so that the price of food, toys, hardware matches the amount of resources it takes to build them. Then only we can compare whether locally-produced products are better for the environment than long-distance ones, and whether a middle-class American family can really afford big houses in low-density residential area.
So, making it more expensive through tax sound like the solution to me.
So this concern hasn't translated to fixing the situation despite environmentally conscious people being all for it for decades. Fixing the pricing would make people live in smaller homes. Time for more regulation?
I understand some models these days may have two flush modes of differing volumes -- I guess, for #1 and #2 respectively. Or for waif vs. lumberjack. Maybe those work better.
But otherwise, those damned "low flow (volume)" toilets just end up too often taking extra flushes, none of which work very well, and keep one standing around as well as a plunger at the ready next to the unit. OR, you're the next person, after someone who doesn't take such care, and you find you have to hold it a bit longer while you deal with their lingering... "surprise".
I bought the TOTO CST743S from Amazon. It's low flow and works amazingly - much better than the full flow one it replaced.
I lived in a fairly large, brand new home for a couple years, and my energy bills were way lower than my friends who lived in smaller, older homes. Some of this was a much better insulated and tighter sealed house, some of it was more efficient HVAC units. IIRC, the air conditioner installed with the house had roughly twice the SEER rating of my parents and parent-in-laws units from the late 90s. And this was in a fairly mild northern climate - you can get units with even higher ratings, and if you're in a locale such as Arizona, Nevada, Texas, etc, I think you'd be more or less priced into doing so.
Summer electricity bill in Texas for my previous 1600 sqft house, about $100-$150 month for cooling from Texas ambient to 74 F.
For our new 3200 sq ft house, we cool to 73 F, for the same cost!!!!
That is the difference between a late 70's house, and modern construction, which is foam-filled up the wazoo.
You also mention foam filling, and by proxy, sealing. Many high efficiency homes achieve their efficiency by becoming effectively Tupperware® containers. Which isn't good for the occupants (unless living in Mordor is a goal). Air exchangers are required, muting the gains on efficiency.
God not this again. Active ventilation in 2015 (actually, in 2005) has heat exchangers that recoup most of the heat and do not nearly negate the efficiency advantages and improved comfort of a sufficiently air-tight house. Please review all the literature from the last 20 years which will tell you exactly this.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity... vs http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house
The area goes up by the power of two compared to circumference (which is what matters for heating/cooling).
> US homes have gotten huge — offsetting the gains from energy efficiency
Quite the opposite, I actually see the data in reverse - energy usage per square foot goes down BECAUSE houses are larger! Since energy usage is pretty much constant (per family), if you increase the size of the home your ratio looks much better.
They should actually measure energy per person to see if energy usage went down.
I suppose a second refrigerator would consume more energy but I don't agree that a larger home and a second refrigerator necessarily go hand in hand.
Unless you are really bad at turning off the light I would disagree. You light where you are, and that doesn't change.
When a home gets larger they add rooms - unless you are in them you don't light them, so energy usage from lighting does not go up with home size.
Also, having a lot of living space makes it hard not to stealthily accumulate junk. I had always prided myself on not doing this, but when we moved we ended up filling an entire 8'x30' dumpster with crap we no longer had room for and didn't really need.
Smaller housing means smaller kitchens which makes home cooking less pleasant and likely, not to mention that small apartments might have a kitchen which isn't fitted with more than a microwave a small fridge and a hotplate or a tiny stove. This leads to people using takeaway or eating at restaurants which isn't good for you, even if you go to the fanciest place you can think off the chances off that the food there is just as caloric and "healthy" as your run of the mill fast food. A 2-3 course meal at a good restaurant tends to have 1.5-2 times the calories that a super-sized McDonlands meal has, you can easily eat up 2000-3000 kcal in a restaurant with that nice appetizer, big juicy steak, and desert. Home cooking on the other hand results in many cases in much smaller caloric intake, and the act of cooking it self has quite a few positive mental and physical effects on it's own.
Smaller housing means less family/entertainment space which means you usually can't invite many people in, which means you do your socializing outside usually again in restaurants/bars which is while plenty of fun and pretty acceptable also has a negative impact.
Smaller housing means you are more likely to deffer having children or decide to upgrade your relationship status, smaller housing also makes many people feel like they do not get enough privacy at home even if they are very intimate with their partners which adds to stress.
Smaller housing means usually means poorer air-quality, less light (smaller windows, less of them etc.) and general feeling of claustrophobia which can lead to depression even if you do not feel that it does.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg because there are many more factors why people need their space, that doesn't mean you need to live in a 7 room house, it just means that the rooms you have need to be of sufficient size, and the overall design of the apartment needs to be more open and brighter.
I honestly can't fathom why people actually argue that it's fine to live in a small apartment, I've seen places in London that have a folding bed and if the fridge is open you can't open your "front door". This is 5th Element level of quarters and we are openly accepting it, yes that 20 sq/m flat in IKEA looks extremely cool if it was a hotel room, or a dormitory it would be more than acceptable but for people to live in such place for any length of time is not something we should approve off not to mention push towards.
Is there a reason for the patronising comment? I was actually being honest and asking what would you refer to as a "shoebox" in sq/m or sq/f because as I said often when I had discussed flat sizes with friends that live in the US they didn't realize that a spacious 2 bed flat in London is the same size as a spacious studio or 1 bed in NYC.
So if you are willing to be serious for a second what is the floor space in your little apartment that you love so much?
And I personally don't know if I should laugh or cry every time some one links me a "tiny house" video which turns out to be larger than my flat (and the flats of most people I know that don't live in a detached house) which costs about 3800$ a month in rent...
Although, London is probably worse because we are allergic to building upwards to the degree every other capital does.
People don't understand that this isn't apples to apples when people from Europe and the UK specifically (which has 30-50% smaller housing than many other European countries) and the US complain or talk about small housing, but literally apples to watermelons.
[0]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/10012254/Average...