Posted By ICFHybrid on 21 Nov 2013 07:15 AM

Utility companies don't care about energy efficiency, the bigger and more inefficient system you put in, the happier they are because they get $$$ each month from your high utility bill.

They actually do care as the cost of building new generating capacity is higher than that of utilizing existing. That's why you see so many promotions involving energy efficiency and most of them originate with the utility company

That's dead-right, at least in many areas, but not everywhere. (eg Georgia Power is a statewide monopoly that still makes money on the marginal kwh sales, and even bigger money on the capital assets, which is why people are up in arms there over a rate increase designed to pay for their not-yet-built new nukes.)

The traditional business model of the utility industry, was to sell lots of kwh and were allowed a generous guaranteed profit by the rate-setting regulatory authorities on their hardware assets (both power generation & distribution assets), but that has been changing for a long time. It was a good way to incentivize grid expansion in 1913, with the policy goal to bring most of the country on-grid, but it also incentives waste.  The bond-failure of the Washington Public Power Supply  in 1982 was a watershed moment- they were building close to a dozen nukes without a market for the power output of said nukes!

In many states there is financial decoupling of revenue and kwh sales, and power-purchasing choice- (willing buyers and sellers of power effectively "rent" the grid capacity from the grid operator, with separate charges for grid & generation costs showing on the bill), and regulators allow a higher profit to the utility for investments in efficiency whenever that's cheaper than the cost of the new power plant that they didn't have to build. That efficiency pool is cheap & deep, and the more the utility is allow to invest in customer site efficiency, the more their shareholders reap, even as the cost to the customer is falling.  The details of how this all works varies pretty dramatically from state to state, or even by utility. 

In the Pacific Norhtwest in the NEEA territory (most of WA/OR/ID) there is a substantial subsidy for mini-splits as retrofits for folks already heating with electricity (which are many, the legacy of promoting the use of electricity to have a load for the very substantial hydroelectric projects in that region.)  The NEEA paid for rigorous field measurements of the impact of  retrofit mini-splits on both peak and average power use to be able to determine how much efficiency could be bought by subsidising them, and at what subsidy point it was more profitable than new-generation (of any type.)

But everywhere in the US it's a very dynamic and changing situation, and with the advent of widely available distributed generation in the form of photovoltatics that have a lifecycle per-kwh cost lower than the residential retail rates, some utilities with more rigid business models are in danger of hitting a "utility death spiral", as third-party PV owners cut power purchasing deals with the homeowners ("no money down"), taking a big chunk out of the revenue stream, leaving all of the grid-maintenance costs to the other rate payers.  With fewer rate-payers to pay for the cost of the grid, the regulators allow them a rate hike, which is paid by the non-PV ratepayers, further incentivizing others to pony up the money for PV or, cut a deal with a third party PV supplier, which then puts the cost of the grid on few rate payers... it starts slow, but can ramp up pretty fast, especially now that rooftop PV is all but certain to be under $2/watt in the US in very short years. (This year's US average is about $5/watt, but it's consideraly cheaper than that in some areas.)

This problem has only hit critical proportions in a few US locations at this time, but both CA and AZ have recently amended the net-metering laws in order to take the edge off the severity of the transition, but not all utilities are going to be able to handle this. TX is a hotbed of innovation in distributed power, and  many local utilities are currently struggling to make it all work and still keep the grid going, while others are handling it more smoothly.  The total market for power in TX is expanding (unlike much of the US), but even in the face of expanding base-load growth, the raw kwh being provided by fossil fired plants is falling, due to the rapid expansion of wind. PV is starting to cut into peak-power generation too, and it's not clear that new generation of the traditional sort will ever make better financial sense than distributed power and smarter/better grid management techniques.  TX has a serious peak-capacity shortfall, but has been able to meet peak demand in recent years by improved demand-response, where the grid operators pay customers to shed load (some automated, some not so much) to be able to meet peak demand.

Bottom line, whatever you think the business model of electric utilities is (or was), it won't look very much like the 20th century versions in most of the US by 2020 (it barely resembles it now, in the decoupled-power states.)

Yes and being in NEEA territory there are no rebates for 3 heads because the power companies here see no benefit to them. I can see a place for mini splits and do have homes heated exclusively by them that we have installed but we run into issues with as others have mentioned, bankers who don't want to loan because rooms have no permanent source of heat. I can see why others would design to cover the entire load of a home but in my area it just doesn't make sense from a comfort standpoint when a builder only builds a code minimum home and needs a source of heat in bedrooms. Yes I am in a mild climate in portland oregon but here we design as a supplementary system 90% of the time, its what is incentiveized and makes the most sense from a cost perspective.

Single wall head 15K BTU is about $4-5K depending on install, two wall head 18K BTU outdoor with two 9K indoor is about $6-7K and these receive up to $1,500 from local utility plus $1,500 from state plus federal tax credits so out of pocket cost can be very minimal. Now a three head system can be in the $7,500-8k range and it no longer gets the utility rebate and since most of the homes we are doing are retrofit(not just my company but in the state) their heat loss is higher than the 18K BTU of a two head system so hence why I call them supplementary(Yes we could use a 24K of 30k outdoor that is meant for 4 ports and just put in larger ports but once again, not cost effective). Could that 1,400 sq foot home drop their heat loss to less than 18K BTU's yes, but it would take new windows and added insulation at a cost of $10,000 or more, they are better off using backup resistance heat thats already in their home 10-25% of the time because at our electric rates of $.07 to $.11 per KWh using a cadet heater 25% of the time will never pay back the savings of upgrading beyond what they have for how long they plan on living at the home for, and once interest is factored in... So just some reasons why I say supplemental, its how our area is.

its what is incentiveized and makes the most sense from a cost perspective.

I have noticed, somewhat tongue in cheek, that the true Green solution is not always the one that the accountants like. Just because one thing is incentivized over another doesn't make it the right choice.

Posted By SkyHeating on 22 Nov 2013 08:02 PM
... when a builder only builds a code minimum home

In the Dallas area I see little to no use of mini-splits, when employed as the stand alone cooling/heating source, in anything other than very highly efficient structures.  I think the arguments opposed to mini-splits carry significant weight when the rate of heat gain/loss for the structure is anywhere close to the capacity of the mini-split.

I see it similar down here for geo.  Geo works very well for larger homes and/or those that have a high heat gain/loss, and for commercial structures.

Best regards,

Bill

The key operative phrase is indeed "...in a code minimum home." Yes, with retrofits into a code-min houses mini-splits are mostly (but not always) auxiliary.

But the "...its what is incentiveized and makes the most sense from a cost perspective" part is a fairly dubious proposition in the context of "...in a code minimum home."

Code minimums are well below what "...makes the most sense from a cost perspective" in any realistic lifecycle perspective independent of energy costs (unless you presume a sub-20 year lifecycle), and in a net-present value calculation taking it to Net Zero Energy using PV and mini-splits isn't a bad investment in an OR climate, using discount rates appropriate for long term investments. Utilities do long term NPV math every day, but projecting the discount rates of the home-buying public on all things energy/efficiency related it's deep into double digit percentages- if it doesn't pay off on a simple basis in under 2 years, they're not interested. But the IRR of a Net Zero home is high, as is the comfort level, and anybody building their "dream house" to live in for the rest of their lives would be foolish to build at code-min, from a value-of-money point of view.

Code minimum doesn't "pay off" within the 6-7 year average time US-Americans stay in one home, but something like half of homeowners in the US have had the place at least 10 years, and a quarter have held it for 25 years or more.

It's arguable that on a green building forum code-min building structures shouldn't be the presumptive model, even if that's what you primarily deal with in your bread & butter business.

To reinforce what Dana said, how long you intend to stay in a house greatly effects how far you should go in making it energy efficient. At least financially and based on the fact that most buyers don't give enough credit to lower utility costs (you might get lucky and find the exception).

Posted By jonr on 25 Nov 2013 12:11 PM
To reinforce what Dana said, how long you intend to stay in a house greatly effects how far you should go in making it energy efficient. At least financially and based on the fact that most buyers don't give enough credit to lower utility costs (you might get lucky and find the exception).

Yep- the lifecycle costs count, which is why code-minimums are a necessity in a highly transient society.  Code min is nowhere near the lifecycle limits of better grade houses expected to last a century, but are pretty much guaranteed to be more than "worth it" in under 25 years (sometimes MUCH sooner, in high-utility/fuel cost areas.)  Ask any Mainer heating with oil in a 75 year old clapboard clad stick built what they're paying every year in heat what it would be worth to pay up front to cut the heating costs by a half to 2/3.  (I know people in ~1200' houses spending north of 4 grand a year in heating oil.)  A llot of tract-housing seems to be built for 40-50 year anticipated lifespans, but there are plenty of well maintained 1940s tract developments out there in no danger of seeing the wrecking ball any time soon.

In Japan (where homes are often heated with mini-splits) the resale market for single-family "used homes" is lousy, and the presumed lifecycle of a house is about 25-30 years before it's a knock-down.  And they're built accordingly- 10mm fiberboard exterior sheathing (flexes nicely in earthquakes) and 2.5" thick batts are the norm for wood-framed buildings.  There are some CMU houses with ~R6 continuous insulation, but also many built with NO wall insulation.

Heating those low-R Japanese houses with mini-splits isn't exactly the same comfort level that people have come to demand in N. America, but it's not terrible, and usually cheaper than heating with (also ubiquitous) kerosene wall furnace type space heaters.

European houses are built to the other extreme, intended to last centuries, and are quite a bit more expensive than the N-American average.

How far you "should" go when building a new home is a loaded argument, with many competing values and assumptions.  IMHO building crap just because you don't intend to live there (very long) is a pretty lousy way to frame it.  More than a waste of future energy resources, it's a waste of materials.  Some have tended to use the lifecycle energy cost of PV solar as some sort of benchmark as to where to stop, but until/unless the storage for said PV is also included, it's a fairly narrow and squishy model.  PV pricing is a moving (and still rapidly falling) target, not exactly what you want in a benchmark, and not exactly relevant.  From a  financial point of view, under the current most common net-metering rules building the house to where it can be heated/cooled with mini-splits with a PV array that fits on the roof is a neat trick, and financially viable in MANY instances on an NPV basis at the current $4/watt and falling installed price, it's not necessarily the most important aspect.  

As PV gets ever cheaper, the value of PV to the grid, and the grid costs all have to be factored in- the crude-justice of net-metering doesn't pay for maintaining and operating the grid, even if the value of that PV to the grid is still substantial.  The net metering deals will change.  (Already has in parts of TX, AZ and CA.)   Whether that means in the future you "should" be spending more or spending less on the building envelope than the typical circa 2013 Net Zero house isn't exactly clear, but there's no really great argument that the current code-minimums are the be-all, end-all of what "makes sense".

"A llot of tract-housing seems to be built for 40-50 year anticipated lifespans, but there are plenty of well maintained 1940s tract developments out there in no danger of seeing the wrecking ball any time soon."
That's because they were built in the 40's. I wouldn't expect 50 years out of some of today's junk.

Posted By joe.ami on 26 Nov 2013 09:00 AM
"A llot of tract-housing seems to be built for 40-50 year anticipated lifespans, but there are plenty of well maintained 1940s tract developments out there in no danger of seeing the wrecking ball any time soon."
That's because they were built in the 40's. I wouldn't expect 50 years out of some of today's junk.

I hear you!

Some of the post-1975 "starter homes" are barely worth repairing after 25 years given the methods & materials of the original build.  The quality of codes and code enforcement/inspection varies by quite a bit.

"I hear you!

Some of the post-1975 "starter homes" are barely worth repairing after 25 years given the methods & materials of the original build. The quality of codes and code enforcement/inspection varies by quite a bit."

You know when I started inspecting I used to be disgusted with code minimum builders. After awhile, I had to figure if consumers weren't going to research the most expensive purchase in their lives then shame on them.

After awhile, I had to figure if consumers weren't going to research the most expensive purchase in their lives then shame on them.

Yeah, and then I go back to thinking about the builders who are supposed to be the "professionals" in this whole picture.

Or, possibly, the code inspectors, who consumers think are doing something that protects their interests in this regard.

""After awhile, I had to figure if consumers weren't going to research the most expensive purchase in their lives then shame on them.
Yeah, and then I go back to thinking about the builders who are supposed to be the "professionals" in this whole picture.

Or, possibly, the code inspectors, who consumers think are doing something that protects their interests in this regard."

You took that line out of context. The one before it said "You know when I started inspecting I used to be disgusted with code minimum builders."

What the ignorant expect is that "codeworthy" means quality when in reality it is a minimum standard. Those that meet "minimum" pass. Tommyboy earned a D on his history exam and "passed" therefore he must have had a quality education right?
Only the ignorant think that code inspectors can enforce quality and that tract house or spec builders produce anything other than volume with as little invested as possible. The ignorant blame inspectors. Thus my second line that you quoted.......

Posted By joe.ami on 01 Dec 2013 10:05 AM
... Only the ignorant think that code inspectors can enforce quality ...

Often times elected officials of municipalities don't know to otherwise think this.

Best regards,

Bill

Exactly. You indicted the builders and then the code officials and then moved to placing the shame on the homeowners.

"And then, I go back to thinking about the builders... and the code officials", who are the professionals.

In a way, I feel for the builders. It wasn't too long ago that if a batt of big, fat R-19 fiberglass appeared on their building site, they had the real estate agents all prepped to sell a "green" energy-efficient home, and now, there are actual standards.

Not that it does much good. I just went to another open house for a "Green, Executive home". 4800 sf with all "EnergyStar" appliances and two big, fat propane furnaces. Maybe the guy's brother-in-law sells the propane.

"Exactly. You indicted the builders and then the code officials and then moved to placing the shame on the homeowners."

Don't think I indicted the code officials. That was you. Frankly I'm still disgusted by code minimum builders, but those who create a market to keep them in business share some of the responsibility.

That said, someone who makes a 6 figure purchase without research can still be a victim, in fact they raise their chances of being a victim exponentially. Folks these days will read consumer reviews on a toaster oven but for some reason they think all houses are equal.

Would inspectors be glad to tell home shoppers what to look out for if asked (without naming specific builders)? You bet. If not asked there is little else an inspector can do but enforce the bare minimum standard (though some of us spend many hours blogging to help raise consumer awareness among other things).

"... Only the ignorant think that code inspectors can enforce quality ..."

Bill my point with this statement is literal (with ignorant meaning "uneducated"). In the context of "someone making the most expensive purchase in their lives should do some research".
Many elected officials are very aware of the limits of code or any law enforcement official's authority.

Posted By Lbear on 20 Nov 2013 09:34 PM

Posted By SkyHeating on 20 Nov 2013 12:47 PM

If you ask any utility in my area they call them a "supplementary system" as they are not the full source of heat since they can not be properly sized and sized for full load heating on the coldest design day.

Utility companies don't set code or standards. Utility companies don't care about energy efficiency, the bigger and more inefficient system you put in, the happier they are because they get $$$ each month from your high utility bill.

Mini splits are used as the primary heat and cooling source in thousands of homes without any issues.

Here in Va electricity is fairly cheap but I still wanted to save some money. The power company still wants you to use power. When you dont they see it as an excuse to sell it for more money. I signed up for smart cooling rewards last summer to get the fall check. Well, they immediately installed the unit bypassing the on off switch on the compressor at the outdoor unit. Not a big deal as they were only suppose to "cycle" during events from 2-6pm on weekdays. Both my wife and I are at work during those times and I was really only concerned with the dog who stays in the livingroom anyway. I assumed the heat would be gained faster from the attic.

I shortly found out that Dominion does not do this for any concern about the environment or concern about stress on the grid. Va has plenty of capacity. They purely do the cycling so they can sell the extra power to other states at a higher rate. The cycling wasnt a few minutes at a time and instead switched my compressor off for as long as 30 minutes for 6 hour periods only on the hottest days. They also did some "emergency" switching as late as 9pm. My house got to the upper 90s several times. What made it worse was that they didnt cycle things on and off like they should and my attic air handler completely warmed up to attic temp and simply pumped 100deg air into the house while the fan kept turning but the condenser didnt run.

So- your power company will screw you the first chance they get to save or make money. Don't even let me get into their unsafe storage of spent nuclear fuel. All the people watching doomsday prepers fail to understand that in the event of a grid failure and massive incident crippling the infrastructure we will all simply die of radiation poisoning since the pools will melt down without constant cooling. Yet the .gov keeps giving them passes and wavers. Hell, it would be tragic if the power went out at my house for a week and I lost all the stuff in my freezer. If the power goes out at one of these reactors for a week everyone will die and the earth will become uninhabitable for a billion years. 


Not to bring doom and gloom or hijack, I actually wanted to weigh in on the split systems.

Very soon I will be putting one of these in a 3000 sqft addition with one large open room and one smaller room. I am concerned about putting only one large air handler in the room and was thinking two smaller ones on opposite sides. If these things do everything they say I want to add a system to my existing house making my two two ton heat pumps backup or supplemental only. I think I have been able to design where I want the refrigerant lines so that they can be easily replaced in the future. I have a 24"x24" box down the center of my house that use to contain the ducts for my old Trane which had a duct go from the attic to the crawl. I split the systems up into up and down so the ducts came out. This will be plenty of space to run line sets through as well as condensation lines.

So reading this I take it that people are getting good results with simply one wall mounted unit in a very large room? I was concerned about significant air flow and cold spots in a 25x25 room connected to a 14x25 room with no walls between.

If the power goes out at one of these reactors for a week everyone will die

Maybe it would be worthwhile to look into some of the redundancy and back up planning that takes place at a nuclear power station before we all start making plans to check out.

So reading this I take it that people are getting good results with simply one wall mounted unit in a very large room?

It would depend on your construction, i.e. insulation and sealing, and, of course, your heat loss analysis. The more you reduce the possibility of "cold spots" from bad insulation or poor window and skylight choices, the easier it is to heat large spaces with less power. I believe I saw that some of the wall mounted units even have sensors that "look" around a room and direct the air flow toward the places that need it, although pushing air 25 feet would be a stretch. If you have high ceilings like cathedral or vaulted, you will also need some sort of a fan to mix the inevitable stratification of warmer and colder layers.

How much stratification or other variation within a room are we talking about? Data I've seen is typically < 2C within a room without any attempts to reduce it. In a well insulated house, even the adjacent room is fine as long as there are no closed doors.

The vaulted ceiling room I'm in right now measures at .5C (air temp, top to bottom). A larger effect is mean radiant temperature, where people feel cold (ie, think that air temp is lower) when they sit near cold surfaces (like windows).

How much stratification or other variation within a room are we talking about?

Depends on the height of the ceiling and how much insulation/sealing you have up there. Just want to clarify that we are talking about spaces substantially higher than an average room, like you get when you are talking about a two story difference. A few days ago, with the outside temps at 20F, we measured 65F at 5' above the floor and over 90F up by the atrium ceiling, which is 25' higher. That's why we have a Big Ass fan in there.

That's quite a bit compared to what I have seen in homes that were open for two floors. It would be interesting to know how the cost of the fan + electricity + the cooling effect of air movement compares to just leaving it alone (or using a little more ceiling insulation).