No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Abstract
Data in this report cover fuels and their use in the home, appliances, square footage of floor space, heating equipment, thermal characteristics of the housing unit, conservation activities, wood consumption, indoor temperatures, and weather. The 1982 survey included a number of questions on the reasons households make energy conservation improvements to their homes. Results of these questions are presented. Discussion also highlights data pertaining to: trends in home heating fuels, trends in conservation improvements, and characteristics of households whose energy costs are included in their rent.
Residential thermostats have been a key element in controlling heating and cooling systems for over sixty years. However, today's modern programmable thermostats (PTs) are complicated and difficult for users to understand, leading to errors in operation and wasted energy. Four separate tests of usability were conducted in preparation for a larger study. These tests included personal interviews, an on-line survey, photographing actual thermostat settings, and measurements of ability to accomplish four tasks related to effective use of a PT. The interviews revealed that many occupants used the PT as an on-off switch and most demonstrated little knowledge of how to operate it. The on-line survey found that 89% of the respondents rarely or never used the PT to set a weekday or weekend program. The photographic survey (in low income homes) found that only 30% of the PTs were actually programmed. In the usability test, we found that we could quantify the difference in usability of two PTs as measured in time to accomplish tasks. Users accomplished the tasks in consistently shorter times with the touchscreen unit than with buttons. None of these studies are representative of the entire population of users but, together, they illustrate the importance of improving user interfaces in PTs.
This study represents the most elaborate assessment to date of US residential sector electricity improvements. Previous analyses have estimated the conservation potential for other countries, states, or individual utility service territories. As concern over greenhouse gas emissions has increased, interest has grown in estimates of conservation potential for the US residential sector as a whole. The earliest detailed estimate of US conservation potential is now out of date, while more recent estimates are less detailed than is desirable for engineering-economic estimates of the costs of reducing carbon emissions. In this paper, we first describe the methodology for creating supply curves of conserved energy, and then illustrate the subtleties of assessing the technical conservation potential. Next we present the data and forecasts used in this assessment, including costs, baseline thermal characteristics, energy use, and energy savings. Finally, we present the main results and conclusions from the analysis, and discuss future work. 102 refs., 7 figs., 16 tabs.
Duct leakage is a major source of energy loss in residential buildings. Most duct leakage occurs at the connections to registers, plenums, or branches in the duct system. At each of these connections, a method of sealing the duct system is required. Typical sealing methods include tapes or mastics applied around the joints in the system. Field examinations of duct systems have shown that taped seals tend to fail over extended periods of time. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has been testing sealant longevity for several years. The accelerated test method developed by LBNL is being used as a basis for an ASTM Standard under sub-committee E6.41. LBNL tests found that typical duct tape (i.e., fabric backed tapes with rubber adhesives) fails more rapidly than all other duct sealants. LBNL has also tested advanced tape products being developed by major manufacturers. The results of these tests showed that the major weaknesses of the tapes that fail are the use of natural rubber adhesives and the mechanical properties of the backing.
Average energy consumption per U.S. household has fallen by just under 20% in the last ten years. Much of this drop occurred after 1979, when gas and electricity prices as well as oil prices rose in real terms. The response of households to higher prices has involved physical modifications on and in the home and changes in behavior. Many actions have been taken by households, but the most important single factor has been a significant reduction in indoor temperatures. The greater energy efficiency of new homes and appliances has also helped to depress residential energy demand, although improvements have levelled off in the last few years. There are signs that the momentum of energy conservation is less now than it was 2 years ago, but it appears that energy prices will be high enough to discourage households from returning to former energy-using practices. Along with the continued replacement of homes and appliances with more efficient models, and other factors such as the migration to wanner regions and the movement to more apartments and smaller homes, this will probably keep U.S. residential energy consumption at about its present level through the 1980s.
This study assesses the energy savings and cost-effectiveness of individual retrofit options and packages of measures in single-family buildings, based on analysis of metered energy consumption and actual installation costs. We present results for 14 individual shell, heating system, and water heating measures, as well as 21 electric utility weatherization programs. The data on individual retrofit measures represent 32 retrofit projects, ranging in size from three to 30 000 houses. Most of the retrofitted homes are located in cold climates in the United States and use natural gas for space heating. Installation of additional ceiling and wall insulation was quite cost-effective, with normalized annual consumption (NAC) savings ranging between 12–21% in 10 retrofit projects, and average cost of conserved energy (CCE) values between $1.60–6.50/ GJ. Retrofit technique (interior vs. exterior insulation) and basement condition (unconditioned vs. conditioned) strongly influenced the level of energy savings in homes that installed foundation insulation, although payback times were generally quite long. Window replacements were found to have small NAC savings (2–5%) and were not cost-effective (CCE > $15/GJ). Flame retention burners for oil furnaces produced significant savings (19–34 GJ/year for the three studies in our data base) and had CCEs of less than $2.70/GJ. Several retrofit strategies that improve the efficiency of gas furnaces produced annual savings of 7–20 GJ/year (4–14% of the NAC), with CCEs that were comparable to current gas prices ($5–7GJ). Condensing furnace replacements saved 31–41 GJ/year in the three US studies and appear to be marginally cost-effective, even if a worst-case analysis is used that attributes the entire cost of the retrofit to energy efficiency. Data on packages of weatherization measures are drawn from 21 Pacific Northwest electric utility programs. The principal retrofit measures were various types of insulation and water heating retrofits. Median electricity savings were 4020 kWh per year (16% NA savings) with a median CCE of 5.4∉/kWh.
The lack of identified exposures in 2 of the 11 cases of bioterrorism-related inhalation anthrax in 2001 raised uncertainty about the infectious dose and transmission of Bacillus anthracis. We used the Wells-Riley mathematical model of airborne infection to estimate 1) the exposure concentrations in postal facilities where cases of inhalation anthrax occurred and 2) the risk for infection in various hypothetical scenarios of exposure to B. anthracis aerosolized from contaminated mail in residential settings. These models suggest that a small number of cases of inhalation anthrax can be expected when large numbers of persons are exposed to low concentrations of B. anthracis. The risk for inhalation anthrax is determined not only by bacillary virulence factors but also by infectious aerosol production and removal rates and by host factors.
A residential energy-use model was developed to estimate energy budgets for household laundering practices in the United States and Canada. The thermal energy for heating water and mechanical energy for agitating clothes in conventional washing machines were calculated for representative households in the United States and Canada. Comparisons in energy consumption among hot-, warm-, and cold-water wash and rinse cycles, horizontal- and vertical-axis washing machines, and gas and electric water heaters, were calculated on a per-wash-load basis. Demographic data for current laundering practices in the United States and Canada were then incorporated to estimate household and national energy consumption on an annual basis for each country. On average, the thermal energy required to heat water using either gas or electric energy constitutes 80% to 85% of the total energy consumed per wash in conventional, vertical-axis (top-loading) washing machines. The balance of energy used is mechanical energy. Consequently, the potential energy savings per load in converting from hot-and-warm- to cold-wash temperatures can be significant. Annual potential energy and cost savings and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are also estimated for each country, assuming full conversion to cold-wash water temperatures. This study provides useful information to consumers for conserving energy in the home, as well as to, manufacturers in the design of more energy-efficient laundry formulations and appliances.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.