3 ms·

Anecdotally, I have a hard time buying the stat that homes today are only 31% more efficient than they were in 1970. I lived in a fairly large, brand new home

Anecdotally, I have a hard time buying the stat that homes today are only 31% more efficient than they were in 1970. 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.

watmough 11y ago
I completely agree and have a solid anecdote. 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.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  So, then, your anecdote completely exemplifies OP's thesis: a house double the size and much more efficient uses the same energy. Vive la différence? 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.
  - roel_v 11y ago
    " 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.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      The post is even a reply to a situation where the gain in efficiency is obvious.

watmough 11y ago

I completely agree and have a solid anecdote. 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.

nickbauman 11y ago
So, then, your anecdote completely exemplifies OP's thesis: a house double the size and much more efficient uses the same energy. Vive la différence? 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.
- roel_v 11y ago
  " 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.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    The post is even a reply to a situation where the gain in efficiency is obvious.