I had a letter to the editor published in today's New York Times, commenting on a recent Op-Ed piece, "This Old Wasteful House," by Richard Moe, director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In his article, Mr. Moe enumerated several compelling arguments for improving the energy efficiency of older homes.
My letter suggested another benefit of weatherizing older homes - namely that older homes are often located in traditional neighborhoods that are less automobile-dependent than newer subdivisions. It's brief, so I have reprinted it below.
As Richard Moe asserts, weatherization can greatly reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions.
Homes are responsible for 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States — and not only aging middle-class homes. I have observed energy audits of luxury homes built in the last 20 years that show serious deficiencies in thermal protection.
Air-sealing and insulation can pay for themselves in as little as two years, and continue to pay dividends in the form of lower fuel bills.
Another advantage of upgrading our aging housing stock is that unlike the vast tracts of suburban sprawl that characterize new residential construction, older homes are often located in compact, walkable communities.
Revitalizing such neighborhoods strengthens a pattern of development that is far less dependent on the automobile and is therefore more sustainable.
My assertion that weatherization can pay for itself in as little as two years prompted an email from a reader asking me to provide a URL that "explains/expands on/defends this comment." Here is my response.
Here are two. The calculations on the Dept. of Energy web site [the 2nd link] are for
insulation only and do not take into account sealing air leaks.
Insulation slows conductive heat loss. But more heat is lost through
convection - air movement through numerous small gaps in a home's
thermal envelope. The most effective method of saving energy is to
first seal air leaks and then add insulation. Many homeowners can do
the air sealing themselves at a very low cost, resulting in an even
quicker payback.
Also, the Dept of Energy calculations, which show something like a
5.6 year payback, are based on a typical home built after the 1973 oil
embargo, when insulation standards for new homes became more stringent.
Richard Moe's article specifically addressed older homes, which are are
more poorly insulated (if at all) and which are often extremely leaky.
So the answer to the payback question will always depend on the age and
condition of the home.
http://74.125.93.104/search?q=
http://www.energysavers.gov/
