Energy Efficiency in Homes: An Introduction and Study Proposal

It is no secret that homes across the country are wasting large amounts of energy. In the winter, heat slips out of poorly sealed windows, under cracks in the door, and through un-insulated attics. In the summertime, the sun beams into the house, causing air conditioning to be turned up. Hall lights and televisions are left on for hours, and these inefficiencies begin to add up.

The proposed study is a “a potential case study that would enable policy makers, energy providers, and advocates in Chapel Hill and Carrboro measure the impact of energy efficiency.”

Topic: Impact of energy efficiency

Site: 4 neighborhoods in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, North Carolina

Method: Survey and follow-up interviews – gauge residents’ attitudes toward energy use as well as their knowledge of energy efficient improvements and available assistance programs

Analysis: Survey responses would be tabulated and analyzed with statistical software

Expectations:

1. Renters would be less concerned about rising energy costs and less likely to have taken any measures to reduce these costs than homeowners.
2. Some positive correlation between an occupant’s low income and efforts to reduce heating bills, as those with less money would be more concerned with keeping their costs as low as possible.
3. Expect slightly more people who heat their homes with oil or natural gas to pursue improved energy efficiency.
4. The percentage of people who took measures to improve the energy efficiency of their homes would be significantly less than those who claim that their energy costs create a financial hardship.

http://gradschool.unc.edu/funding/gradschool/weiss/energyefficiency.pdf

PREPARED BY MEMBERS OF THE
2005-2006 WEISS URBAN LIVABILITY FELLOWSHIP AT UNC-CHAPEL HILL http://www.unc.edu/depts/grad/Weiss/weiss.html

LEIRAN BITON, RAPHAEL GINSBERG, BRANNON INGRAM, HEATHER JANKOWSKI, ABBY PARCELL, AND BRIAN TURNER

Lu, J., Sookoor, T., Srinivasan, V., Gao, G., Holben, B., Stankovic, J., … & Whitehouse, K. (2010, November). The smart thermostat: using occupancy sensors to save energy in homes. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (pp. 211-224). ACM.

Continue reading →

GREEN REMODELING Make Your Home More Energy-Efficient

Phelps, Megan E. Mother Earth News 258 (Jun/Jul 2013): 60-64.

The article above focuses on retro-fitting homes for cheaper energy bills and more beautiful living spaces.

Five energy experts break down remodeling options to turn your current home into the house of your dreams, with some smart green options. Many green remodeling projects can be done on a tight budget – you just have to start thinking through the possibilities.

Almost all the experts suggested the same starting point: get a through home energy rating. This will help illuminate what’s possible for your home and help you set priorities. This rating is rarely more than $500 and gives you measured data on what’s going to make the most difference in your home in terms of energy repair.

It is important to clearing define your priorities. Are you trying to lower your energy bill? Are you trying to gain more space? Are you looking for new flooring or walls?

One thing people don’t understand well is the concept of a holistic approach. A house is an connected system – by looking at the house as a complete system, you can greatly increase energy efficiency.

When doing a retrofit, the major tasks are usually air sealing, adding insulation and upgrading the heating and cooling system. Air sealing is especially affordable – a homeowner can do that with some caulking and weather-stripping for about $100. Another good solution is adding insulation in the attic. Ventilation is also a key part, as moisture can get trapped in walls and accumulate and create a lot of damage.

Don’t rush to replace windows! Prioritize window renovations; sealing up existing windows is often a better option than installing new ones. Plus, new windows tend to be less durable. If you really want to install new windows, place them on the South side of the home to gain valuable heat in the winter.

Heating and cooling a home can be very expensive. One way to help heat and cool your home is by incorporating passive solar design principles. Natural ventilation is one of these principles, suggesting the careful placement of windows and skylights. Skylights are a terrific option because they are located at a high point in the room, which allows warm air to rise out while drawing in cooler outdoor air through an open window.

Green remodeling doesn’t have to be too expensive. Help lower your energy bills by making a few simple, yet affordable, changes.

Found at: http://0-search.proquest.com.books.redlands.edu/docview/1366352614/fulltextPDF?accountid=14729

Buys, L and Barnett, K and Miller, E and Bailey, C (2005) Smart housing and social sustainability: Learning from the residents of Queensland’s Research House. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 3(1):pp. 43-57.

The article above, focuses on smart housing in Australia. One fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions in Australia are generated by everyday household activities. In order to cut these emissions, more consumers need to be aware of the impact of housing on the environment and be familiar with sustainable housing alternatives. One problem that is harmful to the progress of sustainable housing is consumer resistance, based on perceptions of eco-housing as being less aesthetically pleasing and less economically attractive than traditional homes.

Unfortunately, not a lot of knowledge about what everyday living in sustainable houses might be like, until now. The articles traces an Australian family who lived in a “research house” for a two year period, where they monitored product performance and household economies in a sustainable house.

Smart Housing involves design that reduces a house’s impact on the environment and the community by conforming to sustainability principles. There are three key concepts of Smart Housing that make a house socially sustainable, a) heath and well-being, b) safety and security, and c) Universal Design. Universal Design not only minimizes energy consumption, but maximizes living comfort by orienting the house to improve airflow and natural light, insulating ceilings and walls, and designing an open floor plan with flat reduce-slip flooring. Smart Housing also incorporates “future-proofing”, providing features in the original construction phase, that can be adapted, and not requiring costly modifications in the future.

The study reported favorable perceptions about the livability of the house from the research family. The family stated that they felt safer when living in a spacious, airy and secure sustainable home. They were able to give feedback to enable product improvement and help assist other consumers looking to make the move to sustainable housing. The next challenge is to make the consumer society more aware of the essential need and enjoyment of living in a sustainable home.

Pahl, G. (2005, Feb). Choosing a LOG HOME. Mother Earth News, , 92-94,96-100,102,104-105. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.books.redlands.edu/docview/210572877?accountid=14729

The article above discuss how demand for log homes is up , with more and more people viewing them as an attractive and more sustainable alternative to conventional housing. “Recent consumer surveys shows that log homes are one of the fastest growing segments of the building industry…” according to the Log Homes Council of die National Association of Home Builders.

There are two different types of log homes, manufactured and handcrafted. Manufactured log homes are produced in a mill, where wall logs are sawed and shaped to a specific size and uniform profile. These wall logs are then shipped off to whatever place the house will be made upon. Handcrafted log homes use whole logs that are produced by artisans. Logs are individually selected for placement and structure and are usually hand peeled from freshly cut logs, the more “green” option.

“People are using logs because they have made a conscious decision to build with a healthy wood product that is renewable, and they understand there is probably a premium to pay for that building style,” says Robert Savignac, executive director of the International Log Builders’ Association (ILBA) in Lumby, British Columbia.. “Most people view the handcrafted home as an individual, more custom-oriented product as opposed to one that is cookie cut from a standard plan.”

Besides being unique and sometimes hand crafted, log homes are somewhat energy efficient. A log home is not necessarily more energy efficient – but can be highly competitive. Modern log walls incorporate a variety of sealing strategies that can help avoid drafty walls. Log walls are better than framed walls for controlling heating and cooling loads over the year. The wood’s thermal mass value has the ability to absorb and later re-radiate heat. Another important aspect is the home’s orientation to the sun. There is an importance of the placement and type of windows to take greatest advantage of solar heat gain.

Log homes can help reduce emissions and cut back on the carbon being emitted into the atmosphere. Locally sourced timber reduces the transportation energy cost, as most lumber is shipped from regions outside the 500-mile distance criterion of LEED standards. In addition to using local logs, you can also ask if the timber came from sustainably certified sources.

Not everyone should be living in a log home, but you can replant trees, while it’s pretty hard to replant concrete or steel. Logs are an answer to the green building concerns that many people have today – both for environmental responsibility and for healthy lifestyles.

Green Houses

Sustainable Development: Growing Green Communities

Carol Potera
Environmental Health Perspectives , Vol. 113, No. 5 (May, 2005) , p. A300
Published by: Brogan & Partners
Article Stable URL: http://0-www.jstor.org.books.redlands.edu/stable/3436224

The article above, written by Carol Potera, discusses the new sustainable development movement of green communities. Nonprofit Enterprise Foundation of Columbia, Maryland, announced to the world that their company planned to build 8,500 environmentally friendly, affordable homes through a new Green Communities Initiative (GCI). This initiative committed $550 million, over the course of five years, to developers to build housing unties that promoted health, conserved energy and natural resources, and were located near public transportation, jobs, stores, schools, and social services.

The first recipient of funding through the Green Communities Initiative were the Denny Park Apartments, that were being built in Seattle, Washington. The Denny Park Apartments were built by the Low Income Housing Initiative (LIHI), which actively works to develop and manage affordable housing units in Seattle. The Denny Park Apartments were built with numerous energy-saving features, including:

1. Located along an east-west axis – this allows the housing units to capture more natural light through oversized windows, in turn reducing energy bills.

2. Central gas boiler – this boiler supplies hot water and heat to all the units. Architect Brian Sweeney, manager of development for LIHI, states, “Gas is more efficient and less expensive than electricity in Seattle.”

3. Ventilation fans – running continuously reduces humidity and mold growth, a big problem in Seattle’s moist climate.

4. Energy efficient lighting and occupancy sensors.

The building itself was constructed with many sustainable and healthy building materials, including the following:

1. Metal roof and metal siding – this eliminates petroleum-based products, such as asphalt roofing shingles and oil-based exterior paint. These materials will not have to be replaced for an estimated 50 years.

2. Interiors – used caulks, paints, adhesives, and other construction materials that have very low levels of volatile organic compounds, ensuring healthy indoor air.

3. Carpets – carpets are made from recycled plastic products.

4. Rainwater – rainwater run off will be caught off the metal roof, will be purified by gravel filtration, and then recycled to irrigate the landscape, including a communal garden for the tenants.

Although green building can cost about 2% more to build, the self evident long-term energy and health benefits are passed on to the tenants, and the community. More grants are being award to different cities around the US through the Green Communities Initiative. This initiative isn’t interested in one aspect of being green, but bringing a certain level of greenness to every project. GCI prides itself on having a high level of criteria, that includes meeting standards for water conservation, healthy indoor air, using environmentally friendly materials, good operations and management, and ideal location. Dana Bourland, senior program director at the Enterprise Foundation says, “Our goal is to transform the marketplace and shift the way we build to achieve health, environmental, and economic benefits in communities” , something everyone should be able to agree with.

Therapeutic Community in a California Prison:

Treatment Outcome after 5 years 

Zhang, Sheldon X., Robert E. L. Roberts, and Kathryn E. McCollister. 2011. “Therapeutic       Community in California Prison: Treatment Outcome after 5 years.”

Crime and Delinquency 57(1): 82-101.

The article above discusses the research topic, “Outcomes of Therapeutic Community treatment participants in the California Prison system”. This article covers research that was conducted while studying a group of inmates who participated in a prison-based therapeutic community in a California state prison, with a comparison group of similar offenders. The article goes about answering the question, “Do therapeutic communities help participants lower return-to-prison patterns, if not, what are the new arrests and types of offenses?” The research took place during the enrollment in the therapeutic community (TC), as well as 5 years after their initial prison release.  The study followed the inmates for 5 years after their initial release in order to record return-to-prison patterns and new-arrests and types of offenses. The type of data that will answer the basic research question are reports of acts, behavior and events, economic data, and self identification.

Therapeutic communities are beginning to become increasingly popular options among correctional facilities with drug-involved offenders. Therapeutic communities are typically drug-free residential settings that rely heavily on peer influence and group processes to promote abstinence and pro-social behavior. Research findings on therapeutic communities in prison have been mostly positive. Inmates who completed the TC treatment and entered into aftercare showed the most positive outcomes at 12 and 24-month intervals.

After treatment, TC participants were offered one of three treatments in aftercare: residential, sober living with mandatory drug-free outpatient services, and drug-free outpatient services. Many studies have found that the highest rates of successful outcomes accrued to those who completed post release aftercare programs. Because most aftercare programs are voluntary, it appears that inmates’ innate motivational factors play an important role in post release treatment participation and successful reintegration into the community.

The rate of return-to-prison among participants was examined in two follow-up periods: the first year following release from prison and the period between the inmate’s release and the end of data collection, averaging just less than 5 years and 4 months. The research was conducted by the following:

1. In-depth interview – yielding data on each participants demographic background, educational and employment histories, criminal and substance abuse histories, psychological functioning, relationships with family and friends, health status, and health service utilization.

2. Detached observation and participant observation – 4 additional years post in-depth interviews.

3. Public records – arrest records maintained by the California Department of Justice and the prison inmate data maintained by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Used to determine whether or not participants were reincarcerated, and if so, under what circumstances and offenses.

With the data analysis conducted by the following:

1. Interview data is used to separate the inmates into the control group and the experimental group. The information is to place similar individuals in both of the groups.

2. Bivariate associations (correlations) – to determine whether or not TC communities help participant’s lower return-to-prison rates.

3. Frequency counts (numbers and percentages) – to determine what percentage of TC participants and comparison participants were reincarcerated and if so, for how long.

More than half of ALL study participants were returned to prison within 12 months of release. Treatment participants who received aftercare upon release were roughly 10% less likely to be incarcerated during the first year. More than 72% of both groups were reincarcerated at least once by the end of the 5-year observation period. As a group, the TC participants and the comparison participants had almost identical reincarceration rates.

Over both follow-up periods, TC participants who received aftercare were rearrested at a rate lower than that of those who did not. None of the observed difference in either observation period reached any statistical significance.