2005, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org).

Reprinted by permission from ASHRAE Journal, (Vol. 47, No. 6, June 2005). This article may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without ASHRAEs permission.

Reducing House Energy Costs by 40%

By Don Fugler, P .E., Member ASHRAE, Rob Dumont, Ph.D., Member ASHRAE, and Tom MacDermott, Associate Member ASHRAE

he Kyoto Protocol1 requires participating nations to limit growth

of greenhouse gases, or reduce them, with the GHG production

of 2010 to be compared to a baseline of 1990. The next several years will be a challenge for countries that are not meeting goals. In Canada, the federal government has accepted the national challenge posed by Kyoto and is looking for ways to reduce GHG emissions. This article describes a Canadian research pilot project on achieving major energy reductions in housing.
The pilot project had a somewhat more ambitious goal than that set by government policy makers dealing with Kyoto requirements. In a report published in 1996 by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation,2 the consultant used a slightly longer timeline (1988 to 2030). He calculated what sort of residential retrot measures would need to occur so
32 ASHRAE Journal

that total residential greenhouse gases would be lower in 2030 than they were in 1990, despite a signicant growth in the number of houses and people. In one scenario, all new houses would need to be built better than the current R-2000 energy efciency guidelines.3 Moreover, a high percentage (80%) of the existing stock would require extensive
ashrae.org

energy retrotting consisting of a 40% reduction in delivered fuels and electricity supplied to these houses. A 40% reduction in delivered energy sounded like a laudable, if somewhat improbable, goal. The research described here shows how ve houses in the mid-Canadian province of Saskatchewan approached this 40% goal. In Saskatchewan energy efciency is seen as a means of self-defense. Think North Dakota, only colder. Midwinter temperatures of 40C (40F) are common. Houses in Saskatchewan are typically the tightest in Canada, as any winter wind whistling through the envelope is apt to kill nearby plants.
About the Authors Don Fugler, P .E., is a senior researcher in the Policy and Research Division of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., Ottawa. Rob Dumont, Ph.D., is section leader and Tom MacDermott is associate research engineer at the Building Performance Section of the Saskatchewan Research Council in Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

June 2005

A 40% reduction in delivered energy sounded like a laudable, if somewhat improbable, goal. The research described here shows how ve houses in the mid-Canadian province of Saskatchewan approached this 40% goal.

The Canadian research was a little different in that both the delivered natural gas and electrical energy were monitored, and it was the annual use that counted.

A productive low income weatherization program has existed for the last two decades in American housing. Much of the weatherization experience and knowledge comes from people who have been energy retrotting houses across the United States, some in climates as severe as Canada. Heating season savings of 15% to 30% in natural gas are achieved by the best programs.4 The Canadian research was a little different in that both the delivered natural gas and electrical energy were monitored, and it was the annual use that counted. The houses volunteered for the retrot were not selected as being high potential savers: all houses had attic insulation; all houses had some wall insulation; three of ve houses had basement wall insulation; all had at least storm windows; and three of ve already had setback thermostats. The houses represented typical Canadian housing stock and its potential for retrot. The research agency of the consultant was large enough to nd ve homeowners within its ranks to participate in the study. Homeowners nanced the retrots themselves, based on advice provided by the research team. They were given a small honorarium in exchange for the disruption of their lives by the team doing testing and monitoring. While the ve houses may more or less represent Canadian stock, it is likely that the families selected from a research establishment are more willing to
June 2005

participate in an energy retrot than most other Canadians. The retrot measures considered had to be commercially available and have a simple payback of less than 15 years. The installed measures could not compromise the health or safety of the occupants, or degrade the indoor environment in the pursuit of energy conservation. Preretrot characterization included house airtightness testing by blower door, testing of existing furnace and water heating efciency, compilation of the performance of various electrical appliances within the house, and full documentation of house conditions to permit modeling by the HOT2000 simulation program.5 All homeowners had to provide full utility records and permit the collection of utility data during the research period. The HOT2000 modeling for each house allowed for consideration of what measures would be necessary to achieve the 40% target. In retrospect, as homeowners managed the retrot work themselves, it would have been prudent to have set a goal somewhat higher than 40%, so the target would be achieved even with partial implementation of measures. Table 1 outlines some of the more common retrots recommended for the ve houses. The D and G house nomenclature is derived from the house selection process, and has been kept only for congruence with the full report.6
ASHRAE Journal 33

Measure Condensing Furnace Power Vented Water Heater Chimney Basement Wall Insulation Attic Insulation Windows Air Sealing New Major Appliances Refrigerator Disconnect Refrigerator In Basement Stove Clothes Washer (Front Loading) Dryer Dishwasher

D1 No Induced Draft Furnace 75 kBtu/h Input 22.0 kW, 80% 85% Efcient NoInsulate Tank Leave As Is Yes No Add Acrylic Pane In Living Room

G1 Yes 60 kBtu/h Input 17.5 kW YesInsulate Tank Eliminate Yes Yes Add RSI 3.3 (R19) to Flat Part Add Acrylic Pane Yes

G2 Yes 60 kBtu/h Input 17.5 kW YesInsulate Tank Eliminate No Yes Add RSI 3.3 (R19) Add Acrylic Pane Yes

G3 Yes 60 kBtu/h Input 17.5 kW YesInsulate Tank Eliminate No Yes Add RSI 2.8 (R16)

G4 Yes 90 kBtu/h Input 26.4 kW YesInsulate Tank Eliminate YesUninsulated Portions Yes Add RSI 2.8 (R16) Yes YesOld One Used 1164 kWh/Year

Yes Yes No

No

Yes

No YesUsed 1121 kWh/Year

No Yes

No

No Yes

No Yes

New New Existing Ones Use 1472 kWh/Year and 867 kWh/Year. Replace With EE Unit Approx. 500 kWh/Year Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Freezers

Compact Fluorescent Lighting Water Conservation Measures Toilet Dams Low Flow Showerheads Other Install Efcient Exhaust Fans Other Items LandscapingRedirect Surface Water Away From House

Yes Yes Yes Switch to Intermittent Furnace Fan Operation, Consider Intermittent Furnace Fan Controller

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Consider Intermittent Furnace Fan Controller For Summer Use Yes

Table 1: Recommendations for common retrots for the ve houses.

The homeowners did follow through on most recommendations. The predicted performance of some retrot measures far exceeded the energy savings actually realized. Air sealing is a case in point. Two of the ve houses (D1 and G3) were very airtight, at less than two air changes per hour at 50 Pa (0.2 in. w.g.) (ACPH50) during the blower door test. No improvement to airtightness was recommended for these two houses. The other three houses ranged from 6.26 to 7.71 ACPH50. One cut its air leakage rate in half through diligent retrot effort, but the other two houses only had marginal improvements in airtightness. The lack of a robust weatherization industry in Canada, unlike parts of the United States, means that the expertise needed for competent air sealing is uncommon.
34 ASHRAE Journal

A do-it-yourself hot water tank insulation before the retrot. ashrae.org

Other shortcomings were due more to volition than expertise. At least one homeowner preferred the convenience of computers constantly running to the energy savings of turning them off during periods of non-use. Some of the retrots brought their own energy penalties. Mechanically vented water heaters, while helping to eliminate chimneys, had high electrical power consumption. A replacement furnace had a circulating fan that required twice the power of the fan in the old furnace. These inefciencies had not been predicted in the modeling exercises. Figure 1 shows the comparison of natural gas consumption of house G1 prior to and following the retrot work. The change in slope allowed
June 2005

35 Natural Gas Consumption (m3/day) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 y = 0.351x + 0.4179 R2 = 0.9711 10 15 20 25 30 35 Heating Degree Days Per Day (C days/day) 40 Preretrot Post-Retrot Linear (Preretrot) Linear (Post-Retrot) y = 0.6682x + 0.2669 R2 = 0.9739

ciency furnaces contributed 52 to 101 W when the burners were on. The furnace circulating fans were sometimes higher and sometimes lower in consumption than the fans in the replaced Figure 1: Sample calculation for natural gas consumption. furnaces. House G1 reduced the circulating fan high cycle consumption from 703 to 323 W. House G3 saw a reduction of calculation of gas reductions per degree day and permitted 420 to 230 W. However, in House G2 the consumption increased normalization of the ndings to a standard year. from 290 to 380 W and in House G4 the furnace circulating The weather during the year following retrot was milder fan consumption jumped from 360 to 800 W with the furnace than most. Curiously, the incoming water temperature to the replacement. House D1 and G3 ran their fans continuously for house and water heater was 3C (5C) colder than normal. No ventilation purposes, despite the high energy costs that this adjustment was made for the water temperature. practice entails. Table 2 shows the electrical and natural gas savings realized The water heaters originally located in the houses had in the project. The combined energy savings plus costs and pay- instantaneous efciencies ranging from 74.1% to 82%. The back calculations are shown in Table 3. One house reached the power-vented water heaters that replaced these units had slightly 40% savings goal on total energy savings. The rest ranged from higher efciencies on average, 71.9% to 83.8%, but they also 24% to 31% improvement. The gas consumption savings were contributed to an increase in electrical consumption with steady normalized to account for variations state blower motor consumption of House Preretrot Post-Retrot Savings in weather during the monitoring 65 to 95 W. Gas (Annual Cubic Meters) period that deviated from historical The sidewall vented water D1 4082 2842 30.4% averages. The data tabulated is from heaters, combined with highG1 4158 2286 45.0% the degree day correction. Data efciency furnaces, meant that the G2 4365 3100 29.0% modication by the control house existing chimneys could be sealed, G3 3480 2524 27.5% method showed even greater relative adding to the airtightness of the G4 6552 4855 25.4% energy savings. house, likely reducing winter air Electricity (kWh/Year) In Table 3, costs do not include change rate, and reducing the risk of D1 9728 8847 9.1% labor contributed by the homcombustion spillage. However, from G1 6130 5985 2.4% eowner, which was extensive in an energy consumption viewpoint, G2 8454 7155 15.4% some cases. the power vented water heaters G3 12 732 7541 40.8% made marginal contributions to G4 7945 7440 6.4% What Worked savings, if any. A shortage exists The substitution of high- Table 2: Gas and electricity savings. of inexpensive, energy-efficient efciency furnaces in four of ve houses for the original con- equipment for residential water heating. Instantaneously red ventional gas furnaces produced substantial and predictable units could be investigated for future retrots. savings. Preretrot instantaneous furnace efciencies ranged The other reliable saving opportunity, besides furnaces, was from 75% to 77.8%. The four high-efciency furnaces had replacement of old electrical appliances with new, efcient units. measured efciencies at the furnace of 90.9% to 92.6%. House The original refrigerators consumed between 1100 to 1700 kWh D1 had a mid-efciency furnace installed, and its measured per year. The efcient units purchased were rated around 400 to efciency was 78.8%. 600 kWh/year. Similar savings were realized with freezer replaceFurnace electrical efciency did not improve in a consistent ments. House G3 replaced two old freezers with one new one, way. The motors providing the power venting for the high-ef- dropping annual consumption from about 2300 kWh to just over
June 2005 ASHRAE Journal 35

Notes Preretrot data May 22, 1997 to June 9, 2001 Post-Retrot data Feb. 17, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2002 Normalized Consumption = slope 6077 HDD + intercept 365 days Pre = 0.6682 6077 + 0.2669 365 = 4158 m3 Post = 0.3510 6077 + 0.4179 365 = 2285.6 m3 Savings = (1 Post/Pre) 100% = 45%

Basement wall being insulated with the header in the midst of having foam board applied.

For houses without high-efciency equipment, saving 40% on energy bills or greenD1 26.5% 4,420 8.4 house gas production can be achieved. G1 39.9% 8,240 12.5 These research results suggest that the G2 26.9% 9,415 16.5 recommended saving opportunities should G3 30.8% 7,245 9.7 be in the 50% range for the 40% goal to be G4 23.9% 7,225 11.5 realized for most homeowners. Table 3: Retrot costs and payback. The projected costs for such retrots will be $5,000 to $10,000 ($Can), and possibly more 400 kWh. The cheapest and ostensibly if the homeowner contracts out all the labor. easiest savings were simply to unplug the The return on investment typically will be beer fridge in the basement and save better than found in mutual funds or bonds of the 1100 kWh that it used annually. Such the last several years. The ve homeowners in savings are more certain if the appliance the Saskatchewan project were satised with is actually thrown away or recycled, rather the savings realized and the ancillary benets than just unplugged. Substitution of com(e.g., more habitable basements). pact uorescent lights (CFL) for com- New HVAC and laundry equipment. Easy savings can be achieved through the monly used incandescent bulbs should replacement of inefcient furnaces and major reduce energy consumption but the individual xtures were not appliances, particularly refrigeration equipment. Savings on water monitored. Some premature CFL failures occurred with one heating equipment were more elusive. Computer modeling needs purchased brand. to account for the electrical energy consumed by the motors on Savings from house or water heater insulation, air sealing, gas appliances. This data may be hard to obtain from conventional door replacement, low ow showerheads, and other improve- sources but is critical in the projection of electricity use. ments could not be specically attributed. This small project does not have enough data on the effects of wall or attic re-insulation, or on envelope tightening to quantify these effects. It is likely that retrot work spurred by the EnerGuide for Houses program7 will lead to contractors having more experience and skills in these domains, which will be more effective. Homeowners may benet from documentation that disaggregates electrical loads, showing the impact of choices such as maintaining a second refrigerator, continuous running of the furnace circulating fan, or keeping electronic equipment such as computers in constant operation. Electrical savings in this pilot ranged from negligible to substantial. The gas savings was more consistent.
House

Total Savings

Total Cost, $Can

Simple Payback, Years

Lessons Learned

References

Advertisement formerly in this space.

1. 1997. Full text of the Kyoto Protocol is available at www.emissionstrategies.com/GHG/kpeng.htm. 2. Cooper, K. 1996. Residential Retrot Potential in Canada. SAR Engineering report for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 3. NRCan. 2004. Details on the Natural Resources Canada R-2000 program can be found at http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/ new-homes/r-2000/About-r-2000.cfm?attr=12. 4. Berry, L. and M. Schweitzer. 2003. Meta-evaluation of National Weatherization Assistance Program Based on State Studies, 1993 2002. Oak Ridge National Laboratory report (ORNL/CON-488) for the U.S. Department of Energy. 5. NRCan. 2004. Download the HOT2000 computer simulation program at www.buildingsgroup.nrcan.gc.ca/software/hot2000_e.html. 6. Dumont, R.S., et al. 2003. Case Studies of Major Home Energy Retrots. Saskatchewan Research Council report for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 7. NRCan. 2004. Details on the EnerGuide for Houses program can be found at http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/energystar-energuider2000.cfm?attr=4. ashrae.org June 2005

36

ASHRAE Journal