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.
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.
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).
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.
Could you point to the part of the article that gave you this impression? You picked up on something I can't find in the either the content or the tone. That is, I can't find any part of the article that suggests people should be "forced to live in smaller homes" or even shaming people for choosing larger homes.
It's not only about the energy the house uses once built, but also about the energy and materials used to build it, the energy and materials used to fill it with stuff, the encouragement a larger space has on consumption, the using up of valuable space selfishly so other people can't use it, etc. etc. etc.
>having energy prices take into account whatever externality Vox is specifically concerned about
You can't fix everything with money. At some point, people are going to have to use vastly less resources, and simply making it more expensive is not the solution.
> You can't fix everything with money. At some point, people are going to have to use vastly less resources, and simply making it more expensive is not the solution.
Your two ideas presented as facts, but they're opinions, and they seem heavily loaded with a particular vision of the world.
I'd say the opposite: Money drives everything better than other kinds of decisions, and raising taxes on polluting products is our only solution. Be it a carbon tax or emitting permits traded at the stock exchange, there are many forms, that's called internalizing the negative externalities.
Isn't 99% of worldwide procurement fixed with money? What matches a producer of coffee in Columbia with a consumer in Germany? Money. What ensures we pay thousands of researchers, engineers and technicians for years until we build those A380 planes in Toulouse? Money. Claiming it doesn't fix everything is getting blind to 99% of the world. I agree some people do some volunteering and that's out of the money economy - or is it? We've often demonstrated that volunteering biases the actions in favour of those who provide the volunteering, which can go from "Let's build wells in Africa" with a political impact in favour of EU, and as far as "Let's bring some freedom to Irak!". It doesn't remove any goodness from the people who donated their money and time, it just highlights that volunteering provides sometimes pleasure, sometimes pride, sometimes power to the one who provides it, and those aren't exactly orthogonal to money.
Claiming that something more expensive isn't the solution is another one. European cities are rather compact and people use public transports. Guess what, our petrol is 2x more expensive than in US because of taxes. I see nothing more efficient than adding tax on what pollutes the earth and removing taxes on what's neutral.
When I'm told by organic ecologists not to buy some sort of fish because they're brought over by plane from Angola, and they're cheaper than Atlantic ones, that's just too much info to process. If the fish from the close Atlantic is more expensive, it means we've spent more money for the fishing boat and the fishermen. Maybe the boat then consumes more petrol. Maybe the fishermen will buy bigger houses and 4wd cars. If the Angola fish is cheaper, maybe people are paid less, so there's an efficient use of all resources. So maybe the cheaper fish from Angola, after being brought over by plane, remains as less CO2-polluting than the one from closer Atlantic. Besides, as a consumer, given the uncertainity, I don't want to artificially choose the Atlantic one without being sure it consumes less CO2.
So, kerozen, gas, petrol, transport should be taxed proportionally to their polluting effect, so that the price of food, toys, hardware matches the amount of resources it takes to build them. Then only we can compare whether locally-produced products are better for the environment than long-distance ones, and whether a middle-class American family can really afford big houses in low-density residential area.
So, making it more expensive through tax sound like the solution to me.
Ah, humans have deforested vast swaths of the earth, hunted hundreds of species of animals to extinction, severely over fished the oceans, polluted a huge amount of fresh water, just to name a few.
Is it even a discussion that humans need to use less resources? I thought this was all widely accepted basic stuff.
Look, I'm no fan of what we're doing to the environment, but none of the problems you bring up would actually result in a need to scale back consumption (as in a physical inability to continue). Wood is one building material among many. Extinct species and overfished oceans don't impede our ability to raise animals for consumption (which is where a vast majority of the meat we consume comes from). Ditto farming. Pollution can be (is) filtered from water sources at miniscule cost. Energy production is cheap and diversified, even beyond fossil fuels (nuclear and increasingly practical wind&solar). Water can be desalinated and pumped long distances for a pittance (I'm speaking in absolute terms here.)
Costs might fluctuate a bit, we might take the usual tragedies of the commons to horrible extremes that significantly mess with the planet and make it significantly less nice to live on, but I have yet to see an argument for unsustainability that didn't rely on either silly extrapolations or silly assumptions about our inability to adapt. If you've actually got one I'd love to see it -- more ammunition in the fight for the environment -- but I have to say I've seen a lot of bad arguments along these lines and by this point I honestly expect more of the same.
> Is it even a discussion that humans need to use less resources? I thought this was all widely accepted basic stuff.
Hardly. Your mistake is that unlike animals humans don't [just] consume resources, they create them.
So there isn't a need to use less, instead you simply create more. Don't forget that it's not possible to "use up" matter - it's always still there, a little effort and you can use it again.
> Hardly. Your mistake is that unlike animals humans don't [just] consume resources, they create them.
Resources aren't created equal. We cut down trees that regulate air, humidity and temperature on the planet and replace them with smartphones, that mostly lie unused on benches and in warehouses in Shenzhen.
> Don't forget that it's not possible to "use up" matter - it's always still there, a little effort and you can use it again.
The key here is that "little effort". Ignoring the fact that we neither can (because of tech level) nor want (because of market economy) recreate the important resources we're depleting, you absolutely can use up energy from a practical standpoint. Yes, total energy is conserved, but as it reaches higher and higher entropy levels, it becomes less and less usable, until it's just thermal waste.
... while at the same time tapping into vast new resources, and making great strides to end poverty and disease, while sending life expectancy and living conditions soaring in most of the world. World population is trending towards stable, and population growth in developed countries is trending downwards.
tl;dr: Malthus was wrong. Slightly more detailed explanation of the cultural phenomenon behind the assumption you're citing:
His mistake at its root was: humans as a creative, efficient, effective problem solving species.
There isn't an example yet where humans have failed to think their way out of a massive, species sized problem. And as a whole sum we're getting better at solving problems, faster, rather than worse.
There will always be human created solutions to stave off every big disaster. There isn't a realistic example of an inbound disaster that we can't obviously take care of with our brains, or for which there aren't already solutions.
We long since have invented multiple cheap energy sources that will continue to stave off 'disaster.' Nuclear, solar, wind - those alone will take care of the future, even if we don't figure out more advanced energy production. In 50 years, solar will be extraordinarily cheap; it already is cost effective.
The US could spend a trillion dollars and put another 500 nuclear reactors into place and guarantee our energy security for another hundred years (or perpetually if the plants continued to be used). We've already solved the mess of nuclear waste, now it's merely a matter of time to deploy the technology - less than 20 years. And yes, even with $7 billion plants, nuclear is still cheap energy, and it's going to get even cheaper.
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.
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.
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!
Most low flow faucets have rubber flow restrictors inside them. They are designed to be removable for places with low water pressure. So just remove them even if you have normal water pressure.
White goods are pretty well recycled in the US. I took a little refrigerator and dehumidifier, which both contained freon, to the scrap yard in a small town. They have their accepting set up so that they charge a recovery fee on the freon (which then they sell, but whatever). The scrap value of those appliances was less than the freon fees, but the paymaster worked it out so that I got 50 cents back or whatever.
That doesn't explain what they will do with a washer, but it demonstrates that even a small operation is relatively sophisticated in what it is up to, and appliances are generally worth enough for them to deal with.
Still, a washing machine should last 10 years not 5. And many of them would, if manufacturers didn't build in obsolescence. Washing machines often have a bearing in the drum that fails. That bearing can be replaced if the drum is contained in a shell - "tub" - that opens. Many of the tubs on the drums are now molded shut, which means this cheap bearing can't be replaced, the whole tub needs to be replaced, which means the machine gets scrapped.
The lifecycle of a durable good should be more durable. I'm on my 3rd or 4th fridge since 2004. My parents still have the fridge they installed when their house was built in the late 80's.
> 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
So this concern hasn't translated to fixing the situation despite environmentally conscious people being all for it for decades. Fixing the pricing would make people live in smaller homes. Time for more regulation?
I have toilets that use a pint (or less) per flush[1], and do not suffer from clogs or other issues. Part of the problem is the design of the toilet, where you need the water in the holding tank to "flush" everything past the elbow.
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".
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!
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.
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.
" 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Led's are 15% more Efficent than florecent lights so they don't make that big of a difference. Also, exterior lighting tends to be far more common on large homes pluss decorative lighting like christmass lights. So, on average things do track closer to 1:1 than you might think.
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.
Last year we moved from a huge house in the boonies to a shoebox in a prime location. We still don't miss having the extra space. We spend 99% of our time at home in the family room just like we did before, and the small house is much easier to maintain.
Also, having a lot of living space makes it hard not to stealthily accumulate junk. I had always prided myself on not doing this, but when we moved we ended up filling an entire 8'x30' dumpster with crap we no longer had room for and didn't really need.
What's a shoebox(my 2 bed flat in central London is 53 sq/m I've seen plenty of sutios in NYC that size (~500-550 sq/f))? There have been plenty of studies that show that small apartments lead to actual physical and mental health issues.
While I can accept your anecdotal case that you are very happy with your "shoebox" size apartment it doesn't mean it's good, beneficial or something that should be acceptable.
Smaller housing means smaller kitchens which makes home cooking less pleasant and likely, not to mention that small apartments might have a kitchen which isn't fitted with more than a microwave a small fridge and a hotplate or a tiny stove.
This leads to people using takeaway or eating at restaurants which isn't good for you, even if you go to the fanciest place you can think off the chances off that the food there is just as caloric and "healthy" as your run of the mill fast food.
A 2-3 course meal at a good restaurant tends to have 1.5-2 times the calories that a super-sized McDonlands meal has, you can easily eat up 2000-3000 kcal in a restaurant with that nice appetizer, big juicy steak, and desert.
Home cooking on the other hand results in many cases in much smaller caloric intake, and the act of cooking it self has quite a few positive mental and physical effects on it's own.
Smaller housing means less family/entertainment space which means you usually can't invite many people in, which means you do your socializing outside usually again in restaurants/bars which is while plenty of fun and pretty acceptable also has a negative impact.
Smaller housing means you are more likely to deffer having children or decide to upgrade your relationship status, smaller housing also makes many people feel like they do not get enough privacy at home even if they are very intimate with their partners which adds to stress.
Smaller housing means usually means poorer air-quality, less light (smaller windows, less of them etc.) and general feeling of claustrophobia which can lead to depression even if you do not feel that it does.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg because there are many more factors why people need their space, that doesn't mean you need to live in a 7 room house, it just means that the rooms you have need to be of sufficient size, and the overall design of the apartment needs to be more open and brighter.
I honestly can't fathom why people actually argue that it's fine to live in a small apartment, I've seen places in London that have a folding bed and if the fridge is open you can't open your "front door".
This is 5th Element level of quarters and we are openly accepting it, yes that 20 sq/m flat in IKEA looks extremely cool if it was a hotel room, or a dormitory it would be more than acceptable but for people to live in such place for any length of time is not something we should approve off not to mention push towards.
>Oh, by "shoebox" I meant a house where the servants' quarters aren't even in a separate wing. I guess our definitions are a bit different.
Is there a reason for the patronising comment? I was actually being honest and asking what would you refer to as a "shoebox" in sq/m or sq/f because as I said often when I had discussed flat sizes with friends that live in the US they didn't realize that a spacious 2 bed flat in London is the same size as a spacious studio or 1 bed in NYC.
So if you are willing to be serious for a second what is the floor space in your little apartment that you love so much?
Sorry, that wasn't intended to come across as patronizing. My house is just over 1400sq/f, which is on the smaller side by American standards. I think a lot depends on whether you have a family. As a bachelor I lived comfortably with a roommate for years in a 600 sq/f apartment, but I wouldn't want to do that with kids and a dog. In short, I don't think we're really in disagreement.
Yeah 1400 sq/f is almost double the average household size in the UK unfortunately...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535136/Average-Brit...
It's quite a shock especially for Americans who move to the UK many to London then going to see flats just to get a reality slap when a 2 bed flat is the size of their old garage in the burbs..
And I personally don't know if I should laugh or cry every time some one links me a "tiny house" video which turns out to be larger than my flat (and the flats of most people I know that don't live in a detached house) which costs about 3800$ a month in rent...
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.
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...
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.