
US homes have gotten huge – offsetting the gains from energy efficiency - jseliger
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/10/9705824/home-size-efficiency
======
DannyBee
Errr, the numbers on the graph don't match the headline, at all.

This is partially because they compare two very different percentages, and
expect them to cancel each other out, but they don't ;)

Let's take [https://cdn3.vox-
cdn.com/thumbor/Nal5V8NG4BaEYnFL2lbcskLtaUE...](https://cdn3.vox-
cdn.com/thumbor/Nal5V8NG4BaEYnFL2lbcskLtaUE=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale\(\)/cdn0.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4251055/FT_15.11.04_residentialEnergyIntensity_310px2.png)

In 1970, we have 150 btu/sq ft and let's be generous and say 1500 sq ft.

So we have a home using 225000 BTU.

Now, we have 101.8 btu/sq ft, and 1864 sq ft. That's 188264 BTU.

17% is not nothing, nor is it "offsetting the gains".

Note, you can't use the 101.8 number for the new housing graph, since it's an
average over all homes.

(In fact, you can't really just multiply any of these numbers and have
sensible results, but hey, it's a news story!)

You'd have to find an average new housing btu/sq ft, which they don't provide.

Also note: Greater energy efficiency is entirely possible. You can easily
halve the heating energy requirement, for example, by using ground source heat
pumps in most places (my GSHP was a 46 SEER , 5.3 COP unit).

But this has high monetary cost to retrofit (When done during construction,
and factored into the price of a house, it basically costs "not a lot more").

Or you could use per-room mini-splits, or whatever.

It's just that people don't care, and so the only thing that forces higher
energy efficiency in most cases is building code changes, not consumer demand.

~~~
monochromatic
Also no mention of the fact that larger homes tend to be multiple stories, and
thus they have less surface area per square foot. So insulation efficiency
tends to go up as home size increases.

~~~
iofj
It's a fun example of Jevon's paradox though. The more efficient the
insulation ... the more heat is needed to warm houses (because people don't
consider the cost of heating anymore is the reason usually given).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

------
13thLetter
The fetishization of "energy efficiency" in this context is weird, like the
old joke about a machine whose only specification is that it should run
noiselessly. Houses don't exist to be energy efficient; they exist so that
people can live in them. If those people want big houses and can pay for them
-- as well as the additional energy they require to operate, of course -- why
shouldn't they have them?

If there's an argument here at all it's for having energy prices take into
account whatever externality Vox is specifically concerned about, not for
forcing people to live in smaller homes.

~~~
Spooky23
I agree. Energy efficiency is a big scam -- I had the bad fortune of buying
Maytag appliances in 2006. The company was going bankrupt, and their strategy
to meet energy quotas was to undersize motors... Leading to dead appliances.
Ditto with things like boilers who routine service requirements eat up most of
the efficiency savings.

Light bulbs are worse. Shopping for a bulb is like buying a car.

And the focus on stupid efficiency gimmicks that save minimal resources (an
efficient washing machine saves $30/year) distracts from more useful retrofits
like insulation, windows, solar hot water, etc.

~~~
jschwartzi
My favorite efficiency gimmick is the low flow faucet. The flows are cut in
half, yes, so you have to run the faucet four times longer to clean the same
amount of stuff, and because the flows are not strong enough to move debris
out of the sink, you also have to run the faucet to clean the sink after you
finish cleaning other stuff.

~~~
Frondo
Most low-flow faucets are just awful. Twenty years ago, I was lucky enough to
find my favorite showerhead ever, for $5, and it's an extremely low-water-use
showerhead.

It's just a simple hunk of metal, but it forces a very small amount of water
out at a high velocity, mixed with enough air to give it a really vigorous-
feeling cleaning action.

I've been hauling that from apartment to apartment for two decades. Love it,
and it uses so little water!

------
jseliger
This can be read effectively in tandem with "The Efficiency Dilemma: If our
machines use less energy, will we just use them more?" at
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/20/the-
efficiency-...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/20/the-efficiency-
dilemma), which is about the Jevons Paradox.

~~~
nathancahill
Interesting. The same applies to CPU and memory resources too.

~~~
foobarian
And low flush toilets.

~~~
pasbesoin
I am generally for efficiency and conservation, but goodness, how I hate those
things.

I understand some models these days may have two flush modes of differing
volumes -- I guess, for #1 and #2 respectively. Or for waif vs. lumberjack.
Maybe those work better.

But otherwise, those damned "low flow (volume)" toilets just end up too often
taking extra flushes, none of which work very well, and keep one standing
around as well as a plunger at the ready next to the unit. OR, you're the next
person, after someone who doesn't take such care, and you find you have to
hold it a bit longer while you deal with their lingering... "surprise".

~~~
Rapzid
The outflow in other countries is much bigger and you very infrequently end up
with a clog. I knew a guy a ways back who moved from the UK and complained
about the pipe sizes. Now I live in NZ and I can tell you, they are too small
in the US!

------
bkjelden
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
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
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
" 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
The post is even a reply to a situation where the gain in efficiency is
obvious.

------
zurn
In comparison to other first world countries the housing square footage is
very high but peanuts compared to residential energy consumption. For example
USA has 77 residential m2/capita and Germany has 55 m2/capita (50% more), but
USA electricty consumption is 4.5 MWh/a/capita vs Germany's 1.7 MWh/a/capita
(165% more).

[http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-
electricity...](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-
consumption) vs [http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-
house](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house)

------
ars
The relationship between energy use and size of a home is hardly linear.

The area goes up by the power of two compared to circumference (which is what
matters for heating/cooling).

> US homes have gotten huge — offsetting the gains from energy efficiency

Quite the opposite, I actually see the data in reverse - energy usage per
square foot goes down BECAUSE houses are larger! Since energy usage is pretty
much constant (per family), if you increase the size of the home your ratio
looks much better.

They should actually measure energy per person to see if energy usage went
down.

I suppose a second refrigerator would consume more energy but I don't agree
that a larger home and a second refrigerator necessarily go hand in hand.

~~~
Retric
Lighting would generally increase in a larger home fairly close to 1:1 per
square foot. Water heating would more or less ignore home size, so it's fairly
complex change.

~~~
tw04
I can't speak for others, but I can tell you as someone with a larger home,
who can afford a larger home, I've also replaced almost all of my lights with
LEDs because I can also afford it and see the long-term benefits both from a
power savings perspective, as well as a longevity perspective. I'd imagine my
lights use less power than the average household.

~~~
eitally
Ditto, and replaced a tank water heater with a tankless.

------
ilaksh
Here is my idea for a radical way to reverse that trend:
[https://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/](https://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/)

------
josephpmay
A great example of why looking at the data alone leads to false conclusions

------
dogma1138
That's a good thing (the size not the energy thing) people need space, Europe
could use a wakeup and start making bigger living spaces a 2 bedroom flat in
London is the size (or smaller than) of some studios in the us and most 1 bed
apartments.

~~~
roel_v
How mich bigger is an nyc apartment compared to its Londen equivalent?

~~~
dogma1138
Some people I know that live in NYC, Seattle, Valley complaining that their 1
bed/studio is "small" even tho it's larger or the same size as my 2bed in
London. The average British household size has shrunk now to 76 sq/m which is
800 sq feet[0], the average US home is over 2600 square feet.

People don't understand that this isn't apples to apples when people from
Europe and the UK specifically (which has 30-50% smaller housing than many
other European countries) and the US complain or talk about small housing, but
literally apples to watermelons.

[0][http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/10012254/Average...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/10012254/Average-
one-bedroom-new-build-no-bigger-than-an-underground-train-carriage.html)

