[Greenbuilding] simple energy-less home

[John Salmen]

I can understand that you would get exasperated if people are talking about
dollars and units of energy as if they were equivalent as physical
measurements but think of it in terms of meaning or semantics. We need to
attach some meaning or significance to a btu for it to have relevance
otherwise it is simply phenomena. 

What difference would it make if I used 1 or a 100 btu if there was no
consequence attached. You could say using more is bad and using less is good
but that is imperfect language as it lacks pragmatics - as demonstrated even
in this forum.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org]
On Behalf Of John Straube
Sent: May-25-13 9:58 AM
To: Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] simple energy-less home

BTU and kilowatts are directly connected to a physical event.  You would
need to take a physics course to understand how, or do a wiki search on BTU.

I remaining amazed, shocked even, that members of a green building list
seems to think dollars measures energy.  I am really trying to understand
how.  Perhaps it is because most people dont have experience with travel or
time.

A PassivHaus house started this discussion-- based on it using $100 per
month or something rather than telling us how much energy.  That $100 is
almost useless as measure of energy used, or pollution produced.

Let consider some examples so you might understand my exasperation:
If you are using electricity in Long Island NY, you are paying around 27
cents per kWh for electrical energy (same as many parts of Europe, Japan) If
you are using natural gas in Ontario, you are paying around 3 cents per kWh
of energy.  
That is a factor of 9 difference I can pull out of my head based on
consulting work. There are wider variations.   So, if someone states "This
green building strategy saved $X" these geographical price variations render
the previous statement almost useless, as one would not have even a rough
estimate of the energy involved. Like we don't have even a rough estimate of
the Maine house's energy use.

It gets worse.
Fixed charges may consume more than half the monthly bill in a low-energy
building, and ten percent or less in a high-energy building.  This results
in a further distortion in the order of a factor of two or three!

And then we look at history (time).
When I look at solar house articles from the 70's and early 80's many
articles quote "This approach saved $Y" or "this house used only $Z".  Today
that information is useless.  The house articles that quote "The passive
solar features of the home reduced heating energy use by 7 million BTU" are
still useful and valid.  Because BTU is a measure of energy, and $ is not.  

Dollars are NOT a functionally relevant unit for discussion about energy use
in houses.  Except your house from this month to last month.  This year to
last year already becomes a suspect use because of inflation and certainly
over a period of ten years we are typically already talking factors of 2.
And you can't compare your house energy bill with the low energy house next
door because of the fixed charge effect.

Money matters when people are trying to make decisions about .. money.  how
much money should I spend versus how much do I need to invest.  Perfectly
valid approach if that is your goal.  the information is very regionally
specific, and valid for only a short time, but perfectly fine for the goal.


If the concern is "green building" aka, pollution, resource use, etc. then
energy is a pretty darn good (not nearly perfect) metric.  Dollars are
essentially useless because, from the above, to say something "saved $X of
energy" could be 1 energy units, or 20 Energy units.  
With that low level of precision, there is little to no hope of advocating
for green buildings on the broad scale I believe we need.


On 2013-05-25, at 10:44 AM, Steve Satow <naturalbuilding at shaw.ca>
 wrote:

> 
> On 2013-05-25, at 7:27 AM, Topher (and various others) wrote:
> 
>>> Dollars are not a measure of energy use.
>> 
> Well, given that kWs or Btus or litres or degrees or minutes and just
about every other form of measurement not associated with a natural event
(such as the rotation of the earth or circling of the Sun) are arbitrary
concepts invented by some person or persons for convenience at some time in
the past, I don't see why it isn't just as valid for the majority of the
population to adopt dollars as a unit of measurement for energy?
> 
> It may not be as accurate and therefore as useful for scientific purposes,
but no less functional.
> 
> Just a thought! :)
> 
> Steve.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address 
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page 
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.b
> ioenergylists.org

Prof. John F Straube, P.Eng.
www.BuildingScience.com




_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener
gylists.org