One of 20 solar-powered homes on display at the Mall in Washington D.C. This one is from the University of Kentucky. Credit: Mike Miskelly

The Solar Decathlon judges these houses in, of course, ten categories.

• Architecture — 100 points
• Market Viability — 100 points
• Engineering — 100 points
• Lighting Design — 75 points
• Communications — 75 points
• Comfort Zone — 100 points
• Hot Water — 100 points
• Appliances — 100 points
• Home Entertainment — 100 points
• Net Metering — 150 points

There are some interesting differences this year, compared to the last contest in 2007. Instead of charging a plug-in hybrid vehicle, as they did in 2007, teams now have to power a home entertainment system. The sponsors of the contest realized that electronic devices, like TVs, make up an ever-bigger share of a typical home’s electricity draw. That’s happening right now, while a plug hybrid car in most every driveway or garage is a thing of the future. A second new feature is that today’s solar houses are connected to the grid. The category “net metering” was not in the last contest. Teams earn points by sending more energy, created by sunlight, to the grid than they use from the grid. The ultimate goal for those of us the home performance field is that all homes become “net-zero” energy homes, or “net-positive,” meaning that the produce as much or more than the grid supplies them over the course of a year. A big problem with solar energy, as well as another renewable source, wind, is that power is created intermittently. Energy storage is necessary, and it is often expensive and not very efficient. With net-zero energy homes, the grid itself provides the storage capacity. When I lived in a Catholic religious community (Holy Cross Priests), the economics of community life were simple—take what you need and give what you can. Same for a net-zero energy house.

I wanted to take a look at the Team Germany (Technische Universität Darmstadt) home, the winners in 2007, but the house was in the process of being judged. Judges don’t announce when they will be visiting a house and which category they will be judging. Teams must keep, for example, the shower water in their solar homes at a precise temperature and flow rate all during the contest. No one knows when a judge will come to the door with a thermometer and flow gauge.

We walked by every house, and stopped at two—with the smallest lines snaking there way out front. (The Solar Decathlon expected as many as 250,000 visitors this year—looks like they made it.) We took a tour of the Iowa State and the University of Kentucky homes. I was partial to the simplicity and the day-lighting scheme of the Iowa house, which made use of simple pine siding and clerestory windows. Mike was more impressed with the Kentucky house, which had some pretty nifty fold up furniture and other creative uses of space. A member of the Kentucky team told us they were inspired by Shaker furniture. The house had wooden chairs, designed in Kentucky and made in Italy, that folded up to be hung on the walls, with decorative features that makes them pleasing to the eye. The Iowa house was made specifically with an older couple in mind. It has a simple layout and it is easy to move around in. Both the Iowa and Kentucky houses had big open showers in the bathrooms, with tiled floors and drainage. Energy efficiency and luxurious (though low-flow) showers can go hand in hand!

As of this writing (Wednesday), Team California, (Santa Clara University and California College of the Arts) is in the lead, with Illinois (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) in second, Team Germany in third, and Team Ontario/BC (University of Waterloo, Ryerson University, and Simon Fraser University) in fourth. The categories of Net Metering, Engineering, and Lighting Design have yet to be judged.

Updates soon!

Cooper and me saving energy on the couch

Professor Temple Grandin says that dogs are genetic wolves that have co-evolved with humans for 100,000 years, maybe more. Hence dogs and humans have complementary advantages and deficits. Humans used to have a better sense of hearing and smell, now dogs are better than us at those. Humans walk upright and have better vision and organizational skills, so dogs depend on us to see things and try to find them. Both are social creatures. So the lesson is that Nature has bundled the hardware and software for these skills and abilities between the two species. Unbundling them carries certain risks, so you should try to live with a dog if you can.

I agree that dogs and humans are a pretty good combination. Michele and I have had a dog for about a year now. Cooper is a medium-sized Labradoodle, which is a Lab and Poodle mix. He's a great dog and we love him a lot. He's heartbreakingly cute and cuddly. He has a Lab's great disposition and a Poodle's smarts. We think he's the best dog ever.

But, along with being a good partner, is Cooper an energy efficient addition to our household? Are pets, and dogs in particular, a step in the right direction in the battle against global warming and the fight for energy security? Is Underdog more than a cartoon?

I think "bundling" ourselves with animals is a good idea for lots of reasons, but here is why I think dogs are energy efficient:

1.)   Dogs add warmth in the winter and stay outside most of the time in the summer, so they don't add much to a house's cooling load.

2.)   Dogs add fur in the winter and cool themselves using their tongues. Try that, humans!

3.)  When he has nothing to do, Cooper lays down flat as a pancake and barely moves, thereby conserving energy.

4.)  Dogs are great alarm systems and don't even need batteries.

5.)  Dogs eat stuff that humans throw away. They will clean your plates if you let them, saving water and energy.

6.)  Because dogs need to be walked, they cause their owners to exercise, reducing their owners' appetite and therefore their food intake (that's how it's supposed to work).

7.)  Dogs give you unconditional love and so you don't have to drive your car to visit family and friends.

Anybody want to weigh in on cats?

Who's more energy efficient with the dishes– you or your dishwasher? Image: Ronan_tlv

Now as a regular morning coffee drinker who uses a kettle and a gas stove to heat water for coffee (not instant– yuk! I use a coffee filter cone and PEET's coffee, of course) instead of the microwave, since our microwave is an old piece of inefficient junk that takes forever to heat water, I thought that buying a new microwave would make me a more energy efficient coffee drinker. But I was wrong!

Jennifer Mitchell-Jackson, while a graduate student at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, measured the energy use of an average microwave oven, an electric stovetop, and a gas stovetop to heat up a mug of water. Turns out that an electric stove uses 25% less electricity than an average microwave oven to heat a mug of water. A gas stove is less efficient and uses more energy than a microwave oven, but depending on the cost of gas, it might cost less to heat a mug of coffee with gas compared to the microwave.

It is more efficient to wash dishes by hand than it is to use a dishwasher. True or false?

How many arguments has that one caused! The research to dispel this myth came from Germany. Rainer Stamminger, a professor of household and appliance technology and his colleagues at the University of Bonn, gathered more than 100 volunteer dishwashers with varying skill levels and dishwashing styles in a laboratory, and measured the amount of water and energy each used to wash big stacks of dirty dishes. He then washed similar dirty dishes in dishwashers and measured the dishwashers’ water and energy use.

His conclusion: The machine is more efficient than the hand. In general, the dishwashers used much more water and somewhat more energy than the dishwashing machines. Some test subjects used 53 gallons of water to clean 12 place settings! But there is a wide variation in the styles and economics of hand dishwashing.

Clearly, a new, efficient dishwasher is best. But if you can’t afford one, or like to spend a lot of time with your hands in soapy water, Stamminger and company have some suggestions:

• Remove large dish scraps with a fork or spoon.
• Do the dishes soon after a meal before the food has dried on the plates (get your dinner guests involved).
• Do not pre-rinse your dishes under running tap water (same goes for dishwasher use).
• Use a hot-water sink for washing and a cold-water sink for rinsing.
• Use just the amount of detergent recommended by the manufacturer.

And put that coffee mug in the dishwasher when you're done.

Dave Robinson is the "anti-flipper." Credit: Tom White

The cab driver is a renter, and when I told him that the conference he was driving me to was about residential energy efficiency, health, sustainability, and affordability, he complained that his landlord is not interested in making his rental home energy efficient, since the landlord doesn't pay the energy bills. We call this a split incentive. The split incentive facing the imaginary bankers in the back seat of my driver's cab-he wants to keep the bailout money for himself but he's supposed to use it to help people struggling in a down economy-may not end up putting a fat wallet in the cabbies back seat.

I met a man here who can handle a split incentive pretty well. David Robinson is a retired contractor who recently started doing what he calls Energy-Wise Renovations of foreclosed homes. He is buying clusters of homes in rundown neighborhoods in the South Bay, and retrofitting them with measures such as R-50 insulation in the attics, air sealing, and Energy Star appliances. But he is also creating some pretty stylish kitchens, redoing hardwood floors, and installing granite countertops, crown molding, and wainscoting in these homes. "You can't sell a home on energy efficiency alone," says Robinson.

Robinson is having no problem selling these houses for 20% above market prices, and he's still giving the homebuyers, and the neighborhood, a very good deal. "I believe that there is a wonderful and huge opportunity in bank-owned foreclosures-millions of them-and we must rescue all those wonderful opportunities from the normal house flippers who would turn them into a rental and lower the values and miss the opportunity for deep energy reduction. I buy all foreclosed homes and don't feel bad about beating up the bank to get the really good deals."

Robinson is looking for former or current realtors, and financial backers. He wants to teach them his method and therefore accelerate the process of converting our housing stock to affordable, efficient, and sustainable housing, and to make a good living doing so. If you want to know more, call him at (605) 475-4800.

I have nothing against solar panels, but they do seem to illustrate our collective love of gadgetry. Why else would we leap (or at least dream of leaping) to spend $5,000-$10,000 on solar panels when many of us could make a significant dent in our utility bills with a trip to Home Depot? Small things, like weather-stripping your doors, or making sure you have a well-insulated attic, can make a big difference in how much heat or AC your house consumes.

If you qualify as low-income (in this case, that's less than $44,000 for a family of four) you can get help with this project. If you live in California, you'll find your local participating agency here (or by calling 1-866-675-6623). Elsewhere, begin by contacting your state agency, found here. The Weatherization Assistance Program has received a 10-fold budget increase under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, so now's a great time to apply.

WAP won't replace your TV, but you might consider doing so yourself. Televisions tend to be the third biggest electricity user in the house (after heating/AC and refrigerators). But they don't have to be. All the new features — plasma screens, HD, widescreen — can be (and are, in some models) achieved using less electricity. The California Energy Commission is proposing new TV standards that would cut electricity use by a third.

James Sweeney, who heads the Stanford University Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, calculates that collectively – with current, affordable technologies, and without sacrificing our quality of life – Americans could cut our energy use by 30 percent.

Here's the kicker: To produce that same amount of electricity, we'd have to increase solar and wind by 60-fold. That means, for every solar panel and wind turbine in the country, we'd have to build 59 new ones, plus all the power lines and roads they'd entail. Or, to consider another non-fossil fuels alternative, that's four new nuclear power plants for every existing one.

Listen to the Let's Weatherize! radio report online, and watch our Weatherization Slideshow.

Stanley Jevons first described the take back effect in 1865, so this is nothing new. Jevons observed that new efficient steam engines decreased coal consumption, which led to a drop in coal prices. But the lower prices meant that more people could afford to use coal, and so coal consumption increased.

The "Snackwell Effect" takes it's meaning from the habit of people on diets who eat lots of low-cal snacks that add up to many times the calories of a regular snack. The example given in both articles mentioned above is a West Virginia couple that bought an energy efficient washing machine to replace their old inefficient one. Their energy bills were no different after the conversion. Turns out they were doing more loads of laundry, even washing one piece of clothing in one load, because they were lulled into complacency by their energy efficient purchase.

I asked Jim McMahon, the head of the Energy Analysis Program at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), about the Snackwell Effect and appliance energy use. I recently heard him speak about the great efficiency gains made between the first energy crisis brought on by the Arab oil embargo in 1973, and today. Those gains are significant; refrigerators today use about half the energy on average than they did in the 1970s. "This effect [Snackwell Effect] has been studied for a long time, [it was] formerly called the rebound or take back effect," he says. One 2001 study concluded that for every gain in energy efficiency, about 10% is taken back by an increase in energy use. Greater air conditioner efficiency, for example, may mean that people lower their thermostats, since they expect their energy bills to be lower, and this eats into the efficiency savings. "I think that there are a number of energy-using devices where consumers do not exhibit the Snackwell effect, such as refrigerators or televisions. In those cases, in my view, the usage behaviors are unrelated to the cost of energy, at least for most households in the United States," says McMahon. He does admit that more study is needed in this area. A 10% take back effect is significant, but certainly not a barrier to serious energy efficiency improvements.

Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez, a sociologist, studies human behavior and energy use for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). "The relationship between energy efficiency and energy consumption is not as straightforward as it may initially appear and as some people like to portray it."

The trends show that: 1) residential energy consumption increased by roughly 57% between 1970 and 2005; and 2) residential energy consumption per capita increased by only 7%".

According to Ehrhardt-Martinez, a bigger problem than the 10% of energy lost due to the take-back effect-or the Snackwell Effect-is the proliferation of energy using, albeit more efficient, devices in American homes; lifestyle choices, such as the dramatic increase in the size of homes while families got smaller; population increase; and the "invisible" energy, such as standby power or phantom loads, that is hidden from consumers. "However," says Erhardt-Martinez "if we were able to combine efficiency improvements with better lifestyle choices (i.e. smaller, more energy efficient houses), smart purchasing behaviors, and improved information mechanisms that allowed consumer to actively manage their energy consumption, then we could have a much more dramatic impact on both household level consumption as well as state and national level consumption."

Watts in your kitchen?

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which develops product testing for the Energy Star program, recently reached an agreement with LG, one of the world's largest manufacturer's of appliances and consumer electronics, over some LG refrigerators that failed to live up to the Energy Star label.

DOE allows manufacturers to test their own products. Some LG refrigerators were tested with their icemakers turned off and earned the Energy Star label, meaning that they are among the most energy efficient refrigerators on the market. But consumers don't generally turn their icemakers off. The LG refrigerators in question, with French doors and through-the-wall ice and water dispensers, can use up to twice as much energy than is reported on the refrigerator labels.

If you own one of the notorious refrigerators–go to the LG special web site to find out–then LG will send someone out to make some modifications, and hand you a check to cover all the hidden energy charges for the life of the refrigerator. Home Energy's Senior Executive Editor Alan Meier estimates that LG will be spending around $150 million on home visits and energy rebates.

Is LG the only manufacturer to circumvent performance standards? Probably not, so we are watching the news for more DOE settlements.

Do you know how to spot hidden energy guzzlers in your house? If you get your gas and/or electricity from PG&E, you can compare your home energy use over time and spot those peaks and valleys that indicate something is wrong, or something is right. If your electric bills shoot up soon after buying a new refrigerator, TV, or other appliance, and it isn't due to a change in the weather, you can easily spot the culprit.

If you have an online account, login, click on the "Billing" link, and then click on "Usage History". What's really cool, at least for energy geeks like me, is that you can pull up graphs showing two years of electricity use, gas use, and electricity and gas charges. And you can pull up a graph that superimposes your gas and electricity use with a graph of "heating degree-days" and "cooling degree-days". The degree-days give you a snapshot of the load on your heating and air conditioning systems–more on that later.

Multi-trunk Magnolia sucks carbon.
Photo: Jim Gunshinan

I feel good that those new trees are sucking carbon out of the air as we speak. But a recent talk at Berkeley Labs, where Home Energy's offices are located, made me think much bigger. Vinod Khosla is the founder of Khosla Ventures and earned his chops as the founding Chief Executive Officer of Sun Microsystems. Khosla Ventures exists to “assist great entrepreneurs determined to build companies with lasting significance."

Khosla, a tall, thin, 60-ish, short-grey-haired man who looks like he runs marathons, threw out some questions on a big screen to get us all interested. “What if more coal plants meant cleaner air? What if more driving meant less carbon? What if a million year crude oil production cycle were reduced to hours? What if engines were twice as efficient, cutting world oil consumption in half?" There are companies supported by Khosla Ventures that are making progress on those “what-ifs." For example, a company called Pax Streamline is working on turbine designs inspired by natural forms that will significantly increase the efficiency of wind turbines, power plants, and HVAC systems.

Living Homes is creating cheap, prefabricated, highly resource efficient and really swell looking homes. Khosla talked about making flue gases from coal-fired power plants into cement or fertilizer (that's how coal plants will someday clean the air).

The title of Khosla's talk was “Extrapolating the past or Inventing the Future." He thinks we need quantum leap changes in the way we design car engines, the fuel we use; how we manufacture cement, steel, and glass; and the way we build buildings. He spiced his talked with phrases such as “80% more efficient," “3- or 4-fold increase in storage capacity," and “100 miles per gallon diesel."

This radical way of thinking and imagining is more possible given 1) the Obama administration coming to Washington, 2) the cost in treasure and lives for our fossil fuel dependency, and 3) the crash in the financial sector and the stock market. The same old way of doings things (think incremental steps and short-term gain) isn't working anymore. Except for tree planting. That's always good, even if having a small effect on planetary atmosphere. And I like figs.

(Go here for a video of Khosla's talk. Then go plant a tree and invent the future.)

Mackey Kitchen: Foam and Rigid Insulation.
Photo credit: Daniel Mackey

Since the 1970s and the first energy crisis, California's per capita energy use has remained about the same. Even though we all now have a lot more gadgets–computers, cell phones, DVD players–and a lot more air conditioning, energy use per person has remained the same. This is thanks to energy efficiency. But the world needs more than efficiency to deal with the present energy and environmental crisis. We need to use less energy overall. California, which has committed to reduce its CO2 emissions rate to 1990 levels by 2020, can't rest on its laurels.

California's Title 24 building codes are among the most progressive in the country. New homes built in California today are about 15% more energy efficient than the average new home. But 70% of California's existing housing stock was built before Title 24 came into being in 1980. Making new homes more efficient is not enough. To solve our energy and environmental problems, we have to make our existing homes much more efficient. Home Energy is publishing an article in its January/February 2009 issue about an old home outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that was retrofit to use 80% less energy than it did before the retrofit (way to go Pennsylvania!). This was done without a lot of fancy and expensive technology. The house is comfortable, and the occupants are energy conscious and make wise choices about its energy use. It gets down to the basics–air sealing, insulation, proper ventilation, and educated occupants.

A new program in California is reaching for deep energy savings in existing homes. Build It Green's GreenPoint Rated Existing Home program aims at "the mother lode of energy savings," California's existing homes (Build It Green also rates and labels new homes). "GreenPoint Rated Existing Home makes it possible for existing green homes and remodels to quantify their performance in the five key environmental categories of Community, Energy, Indoor Air Quality, Resource Efficiency, and Water, while providing the homeowner with a label they can trust," writes Cory Fitch, Program Associate for Build It Green. "The GreenPoint Rated label adds value to the home as homeowners gain confidence that their home is not only more resource efficient, but more comfortable and healthy as well." The program is past the pilot stage, and Build It Green is offering training to contractors and builders who want to participate in the program. As the housing market continues to slump, builders can distinguish themselves from the competition by offering green homes and green home retrofits and by participating in reputable labeling programs like Build It Green's. And saving energy and money makes more sense in difficult economic times.