Reality’s Ugly Head threatens Green!
September 7, 2009
Einstein calculates the Savings
The world is jumping on the Green bandwagon–it takes hours a day to stay up with the tripe being put out about Green everyday. All this hype will doom Green, or as I like to say, Sustainable, High Performance Green Building to failure unless its goal is to reduce energy consumption and the resultant positive affect on the consumers wallet–meaning they can see the results in their pocketbook.
“A new national study of green consumers contradicts several long-held stereotypes about them: The environment is not their top concern, their kids are not influencing them to be green, and while many know what they should do to save the planet, they often don’t do it.” The study was conducted by the Shelton Group of Knoxville, TN
It’s a fact! The major problem facing the Green, High Performance, Sustainable Building Movement is recognizing consumers demand practicality in embracing the concept. They are willing to listen, in this scary economy, to any proposal that might save them money, but the good for the soul feeling about saving the planet isn’t the motivator. Consumers still shop their pocket book and unless academia, environmentalists, and those with higher purposes come to realize this the movement will become another in a long line of failures.
The study showed a whopping 73% of respondents saying that the most important reason to reduce energy consumption was “to reduce my bills/control costs. Are you kidding–why is this shocking? In the real world people are concerned about what something costs them and what they can expect from that expenditure. It is called a benefit. It doesn’t matter if it is a TV, a car or a “Green product.” The rational purchase decision is based on what one expects to get from the purchase.
The irreverent, brilliant, entertaining building scientist/realist Joe Lstiburek stated it best when he entitled an Insight article on www.buildingscience.com, dated: November 2008:” Prioritizing Green: It’s The Energy Stupid.” He pays credit to architect Edward Mazia for saying it first. No matter who said it, cost effective, common sense, energy conservation has to be Numero Uno in the Green World. Put specifically it means “How much money can I save by doing it?” Whether it is for maintenance or utility bills including Heating, Cooling, Hot Water, Water and Sewer Bills, there has to be a justification and that directly relates to the Green Dollar.
It is a fact. What follows is copied from an EcoHome (www.ecohomemagazine.com) article regarding the study.
Suzanne Shelton, whose Knoxville, TN firm, Shelton Group, conducted the study states: “Most green advertising is created as if there’s one pool of green consumers and they’re all motivated by ‘Save the planet!’ messaging,” Shelton says. “We need a revolution in this thinking. Not all green consumers are the same, they’re not all motivated by the same messages, and they’re not all inclined to buy only green products.”
Released Aug. 21, the Green Living Pulse study polled 1,007 U.S. consumers who at least occasionally buy green products (77% of the population) and found there is no typical “green consumer.”
The study discovered six myths about this group:
Myth 1: Green consumers’ top concern is the environment. When asked to identify their top concern, the economy, by far, is No. 1 (with 59% calling it their top concern) and the environment falls far behind (8%).
Myth 2: Green consumers’ main motivation when reducing their energy use is to save the planet. When asked the most important reason to reduce energy consumption, 73% chose “to reduce my bills/control costs” and only 26% chose “to lessen my impact on the environment.”
Myth 3: Green consumers are all-knowledgeable about environmental issues. For example, the survey asked, “From what you have read or heard about CO2 (carbon dioxide), please place a check beside any of the following statements you think are true.” Almost half (49%) chose the incorrect answer, “It depletes the ozone layer.”
Myth 4: Green consumers fall into a simple demographic profile. While the study detected some demographic tendencies, it found that green consumers aren’t easily defined by their age, income, or ethnicity.
Myth 5: Children play a big part in influencing their parents to be green. Only 20% of respondents with children said their kids encouraged them to be greener by, for example, promoting recycling and turning off lights.
Myth 6: If buyers just knew the facts they’d make greener choices. The study showed that knowledge does not always lead to eco-conscious behavior. Individuals who answered all of the science-related questions correctly did report participating in a significantly higher average number of green activities, such as driving a fuel-efficient car or lowering their thermostat during the winter; however, the 25- to 34-year-old age group consistently answered the questions correctly, yet, on average, this group’s green activity levels were lower than those of older respondents. “Because green consumers are being stereotyped, and these myths we tested are embraced by marketers as facts, many green messages are falling on deaf ears,” Shelton says. “If these messages were better targeted, more people would be buying green products, conserving electricity, and doing more to save the planet.”
This study reveals the reality of the situation. Anyone can throw oodles of money at a situation, but only when it is cost effective, with direct benefit to the consumer, will it succeed. This “Green” industry best remember it has to crawl, then walk and eventually run or it will go the way of the late 70′s energy revolution.
80 Year Paybacks? Is that Sensible?
September 6, 2009
Last week I again had the pleasure of renewing my acquaintance with one of the most progressive, practical builders I have encountered. It is pure pleasure tapping his brain power. I am forever amazed at how much knowledge he has regarding energy efficiency in building and his utilization of building systems in his pursuit of cost justified, profitable construction of sustainable, energy efficient building. His name is Duncan McFarland and he builds with Structurally Insulated Panels in the area of Wintergreen,Virginia I think the one issue that he and I totally agree on is: Builders have to make a profit building energy efficient/sustainable housing. That builders have to understand the costs involved, make rational decisions regarding these costs, so as to make a profit when employing energy saving/sustainable building techniques. It has to be a cost vs. value vs. profit decision. It also means that not only does a builder have to understand the costs involved, but has to communicate and educate his buyers to the advantages of having houses built this way. Usually these advantages are related directly to cost savings, putting money in the buyers pocket, and healthy/comfortable living environs.
One issue Duncan brought up was cost effectiveness of heating and air conditioning systems in a home built to tight thermal envelope standards. These standards usually involve the correct installations of windows, doors, insulation, air barriers, drainage planes and HVAC systems.
When he talked about the cost differences involving the upgrading of equipment from the old 10 SEER standard to the new 13 SEER requirements, the cost effectiveness was dramatic. He explained that upgrading to a 13 SEER Heat Pump can run approximately $4000.00 from the previous 10 SEER system. The 10 SEER system had been costing approximately $50/month to operate. The savings from installing a new 13 SEER unit into a new EarthCraft/Energy Star home, the type he had been building, were about $4/month. That is a pay-back of approximately 83 years. Now how do you sell that to a homeowner or builder.
Of course today 13 SEER is mandatory. The point is in an existing house or a new house being contemplated by a builder, upgrading the Compressor/Heat Pump unit, with a leaky thermal envelope and duct system is throwing money away. Only those with deep pockets and “Green at any cost” can justify a payback of 83 years.
The point here is it is all about a building and houses systems operating together as a team. Do a thermal envelope and HVAC supply system correctly and the effects of the efficiency of a new upgraded component are minuscule. The same holds true for installing a high efficiency HVAC unit into a leaky duct system. What are you going to save by upgrading to a 13 SEER system if your ducts leak 15-40%(not abnormal). Can anyone justify spending $4000 to save $4/month? Not in my world.
This substantiates what I have always believed. Builders, Developers, Affordable Housing producers, home-buyers and building owners are better off spending their money cost effectively on upgrading their thermal envelopes and duct systems, with the resultant instantaneous savings, reasonable payback times, then they are by jumping ahead to the glamorous, expensive, big ticket items of higher efficiency HVAC systems, windows and doors. The home buyer has to see the savings and the builder has to see the profit. How can that happen utilizing the above scenario?