Keeping Down with the Joneses

1044$/yr/2700sf =.3867$/yr/sf

Nice idea, but you're using the wrong measure. I'm all for encouraging Americans to compete to use as little energy as possible, but we should be encouraging each other to live in smaller houses, not in bigger houses that use less energy per square foot. Your measure would be like telling the auto companies they could produce heavy cars that use lots of gasoline as long as they, uh-oh, that's what our President and our Congress are doing now, isn't it? Never mind . . .

I much prefer the 'bigger is better' approach.  Instead of competing for who has the bigger SUV or swimming pool, how about who has the bigger solar array or wind turbine?  Who's house can help supply the most clean, reliable energy to the grid.

On the other hand, if you are going to do this whole square foot thing, do it in Watts / Square foot.  Hydro costs vary from place to place.  Watts are watts.

Rich

 

B. Marshall-Jones, no question cooporation beats competition....on a small scale.  The only large scale attempts at this have produced communism & socialism.  Maybe I'm just ignorant of the examples of where whole industries or countries have successfully used cooporation to be competition.

As for the cost/sq ft, wouldn't Kw/sq ft be better since everyone pays different rates?  I would be paying a lot less/sq ft if I weren't paying the markup for 100% wind.  My 31 yr. old house in 2007 - 12,815 kw/3026 sqft = 4.23 kw/sq ft. annual.  Is this good (I'm not trying to be competitive)?

I want to thank everyone for their comments.  The approach, energy cost per square foot, is not designed to get people to build smaller houses.  It is designed to start a conversation, and a scoring system that will energize Americans to save more energy in the homes they have. Using actual measures of energy rather than costs is a good idea, and I certainly agree that disaggregating gas from electricity and home heating oil is a very useful distinction.  As this concept matures, we will factor in how many people are in the house, and even when they are in the house.  On competition, I personally agree with Krisnamurti that competition is bad.  But, it is here and we can use it to the benefit of mankind in this instance.  You know, how many people would watch the superbowl if they did not keep score.  38 cents is a great annual energy cost per square foot.  Thanks for posting that John Koontz. 

Howdy Paul,

Take another look, cooperation is not a wishful theory. It is working in a huge way. Here are some very good resources. Change always meets resistance by the status quo... to be expected. Once folks see how well it works they are instantly on board.

Look through this article and visit the supporting links at the bottom. When a new body of thought includes ways divide us rather than unite us we typically have a gut reaction as to which is most attractive and productive.

http://empowured.net/competition-vs-cooperation/

It sounds good in theory, but doesn't have a chance of working.  The main reason that free markets work is that you are rewarded for doing things that the markets want and punished for doing things it doesn't want.  The markets are us (consumers) and the choices we make.

You could always tax excesses (too many sq. feet; driving an SUV; driving too many miles, etc.).  But who defines this level?

In cities, people rent out rooms to pay taxes. Retrofitting to improve efficiency can run into code and cost issues.  One can do code-noncompliant things, if rich enough to deal with consequences if squealed on.  Code changes are coming, but change on the ground will have happened first.  

To make big change, cooperation strategies may work as well.  It would be possible to form groups of five where one gets the first loan with the four next in line functioning as loan-managers/cheerleaders for the first guy.  Project2 gets to go after Project 1 is up and running.   I believe this strategy comes from the Grameen bank model. 

I don't have to run figures to know my heat efficiency is poor.  I would do better with the cooperation strategy than with competitive strategy.   

 

 

continued post...

While the "spirit" of your points are well taken and I agree with most of them, it still promotes a lack of common interest and pits one against the other to see who will win. When you poke your finger in the eye of a wealthy person that can afford a large solar array to power their larger than average home with the judgement that they are wrong for having "more" than everyone else you are making "more" bad and "less" good. We need everyone to cooperate and help one another. Two perfect examples would be the solar Habitat for Humanity projects (funded by many folks) one one hand and Larry Hagman's solar powered ranch on the another (funded by one and also used to promote other's to move toward energy independence).

Peace,
Bruce Marshall-Jones (yes I am a real "Jones")

Howdy Todd,

Thanks for the nice article. I would like to add that the model of competition has been the bane of our culture for quite some time.

"Which works better, competition or cooperation? The answer, without equivocation, is cooperation. Although most people are surprised by this, scientists have repeatedly verified it in hundreds of studies since the late 1800s. Yet big business, the educational system, the health-care community, and most parents continue to encourage competition, almost totally neglecting the power of cooperation." -P. Buffington
link: http://empowured.net/competition-vs-cooperation/

That being said, I agree that the waste and unconscious use of all our natural resources including energy is in a sad state. But it is getting better and your article brings more awareness to the issue. Well done.

Peace,
Bruce Marshall-Jones

Our utility may be interested in a version of this idea.  I agree with the article in general and the comments made.  My suggestion would be to use a common denominator for energy, BTU's and not use dollars.  Then a simple metric would be something like BTUs per square foot per person.  A utility could provide a simple calculator on their web site that would convert customer's electric kWh use to BTU's and the customer would just have to input square feet and number of residents.  For commercial buildings this concept is already in use for energy comparison and is called EUI (Energy Use Index).

Sustainability is the real issue. Active renewable energy systems are energy intensive to manufacture. Putting gigantic RE systems on homes to compensate for unconscious waste and inefficiency is more of the brain dead thinking that got us into the mess we are facing.

Thanks for an article that points out the fallacy of "more is better". I like to compete with others to see how little we can use, not how gigantic our solar system is... for example our home is zero energy (including HVAC) with 4.5 kW of solar PV and SDHW. Lets see you do better than that... please.

Todd

"Instead of competing for who has the bigger SUV or swimming pool, how about who has the bigger solar array or wind turbine?"

When oh when will we stop equating bigger with better? The whole point of this great article was to emphasize that as a culture we need to shift from our perspective that wealth is synonymous with waste. That means smaller, more efficient cars and homes are to be lauded, not the unconscious wasteful among us that obviously do not care about leaving a habitable planet for future generations.

continued below

 

 

I suggest the total be separated into two categories, electricity and natural gas (or whatever energy source is used for heating purposes).  Then specify energy units per sq.ft. such as kilwatt hours/sq.ft. for electrical and therms/sq.ft. for heating.  This will provide consistent values for all localities regardless of the dollar cost.  One can always convert to dollars if the need arises.

Cost per person appears to be the most fair.   Having more financial resources should mean that you can afford to consume less energy and natural resources than others, not more.

How about cost per person rather than square foot? American's insatious lust for bigger and better homes has changed what was once perfectly acceptable--living in 500-700 SF per person or less. Now people can't be happy unless they have about 1000 sf to call their own. Wasting space means wasting energy no matter how you slice it...

Competition isn't bad. Competition is built into our genes. It is what drives evolution. You can't find answers with our heads in the sand. Competition is a good idea.

America is not alone. Every modern industrialized nation is based on competition. The Chinese are now buying SUVs simply because they are now a status symbol they can now afford. Change status symbols. Bad and good are relative terms.

 

Herb,

While I agree with the concept of conservation, I have a very distinct problem with it.  Here in Ontario they have been on a very aggressive campaign of conservation.  As the years have passed it has been apparent that things are starting to sink in.  Energy efficient appliances, CF bulbs, etc.  No sooner do we start to see some significant gains to our own pocket books via a smaller electrical bill, the utilities file for a rate increase to claw it all back.  Seems their revenue is down because everyone is conserving.  The only way I see to beat them is to buy a huge solar array, sign up for a $0.42/kWh SOP contact and have them pay you to use your electricity.

Rich L

Amen.