Recognizing Success
20
Recognizing Success Energy Use & Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canadian Homes 1990 – 2010 Canadian Renovators’ Council, October 2012
description
Recognizing Success. Energy Use & Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canadian Homes 1990 – 2010 Canadian Renovators’ Council, October 2012. Three Part Report:. CHBA’s Annual update on Residential Sector performance. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Recognizing Success
Recognizing SuccessEnergy Use & Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canadian Homes
1990 – 2010
Canadian Renovators’ Council, October 2012
Three Part Report:
• CHBA’s Annual update on Residential Sector performance.
• Closer examination of how new homes have changed based on CHBA/CanmetENERGY analysis.
• Future potential for energy retrofitting.
Residential Share of Canada’s GHGs
1990 20105.9%
94.1%
7.3%
92.7%
Source: NIR/EC 2012
Sector Changes in GHG Emissions1990 - 2009
Residential Comm./Instit. Industrial Transportation Agriculture Electricity Generation
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1990 1995 2000 2005 2009
Emis
sion
s (M
TCO2
Equ
ivila
nt)
Source: CEUD 2012
Trends in Stock and Energy Use1990 = 0
1995 2000 2005 2009
4.7%7.9% 8.8%
10.9%10.2%
17.8%
27.2%
35.6%
12.6%
20.5%
34.5%
48.1%
Total Residential Energy Use Number of Households (units) Area of Households (m2)
Source: CEUD 2012
Energy Intensity Trends1990 = 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2009
-6.6%
-10.4%
-18.9%
-25.5%
-4.9%
-8.3%
-14.4%
-18.2%
AREA (GJ/m2) UNIT (GJ/Household)
Source: CEUD 2012
Efficiency Trends by House Vintage
1990 1995 2000 2005 2009-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
-24.7%
-20.2%-19.2%
-8.6%
Pre-1946 1946–1960 1961–1977 1978–1983
How Have New Homes Changed?
Comparing “Apples to Apples”
• Total stock trends are useful, but they don’t tell us much about how new homes have changed over time.
• Existing home energy performance is a ‘moving target’.
• When comparing old and new homes, what do we learn if we base this on the ‘as built’, rather than ‘as found’ specifications?
Our “Apple”• 2,100 sq. ft. two-storey home in Ottawa
circa 1973 (Four-Square).• Initial “As Built” specifications from
CMHC/HUDAC costing studies of that time.• Additional specifications generated by
CanmentENERGY, OBC 2012, R-2000 (2012).• Only envelope and mechanical
specifications altered to those ‘typical’ of new construction in each period.
• ‘As Found’ specifications from initial (pre-grant) ERS evaluation.
• All data generated using HOT2000 V. 10.51
• ‘As Built’ = ERS 41• ‘As Found’ = ERS 63 = 28.7% improvement• ‘Post ecoENERGY Grant’ = ERS 72 = 44.5%
improvement• Same home built to 2012 OBC would consume
66% less energy than mid-1970s spec.
1961 - 1977 1978 - 1983 1984 - 1990 1991 - 1997 1998 - 2005 2006 - 2011 2012 (OBC 2012)
R-2000 (2012)
343.2
246.1
199.9
175 166.6
137.7116.8
76.3
280.8
183.9
137.5114.8 106.7
78.160.3
29.4
"Same House/As Built" Energy Consumption Trends From 1961(NRCan Archetype #4, Ottawa, Ontario)
Total Home Energy Use (GJ/year) Space Heating Energy Use (GJ/year)
Ener
gy C
onsu
mpt
ion
(GJ/
Year
)
EnerGuide Ratings & Percentage Efficiency Gain
Vintage ‘As Built’ ‘As Found’ Post ecoEnergy
1961 - 1977 ERS 41 ERS 63 (+28.7%) ERS 72 (+44.5%)
1978 - 1983 ERS 57 ERS 66 (+20.8%) ERS 74 (+38.9%)
1984 - 1990 ERS 65 ERS 69 (+11.5%) ERS 75 (+28.2%)
1991 - 1997 ERS 69 ERS 69 nil ERS 76 (+21.4%)
1998 - 2005 ERS 71 ERS 71 nil ERS 76 (+17.6%)
2006 - 2011 ERS 76 ERS 76 nil ERS 78 (+8.6%)
2012 OBC ERS 79
Some ‘Low Hanging Fruit’ Remains
Low (AFUE 60%) Mid (AFUE 78%) High (AFUE 90%+)
2850
106218
593
2,382
1,657
Single Home (D&A) Type of Gas Space Heating Equipment in Use
- 1990 & 2009
1990 2009
Sing
le D
etac
hed/
Attac
hed
Hom
es (0
00s)
Filling Out the Household Picture: a 69’ Chevy Impala in the driveway
So How’s Detroit Doing?
1969 Chevy Impala 2012 Chevy Impala
15.8% Improvement in 43 Years
1969 2000 2012
16 17 18
24
2830
1921 22
EPA Fuel Efficiency Ratings, Chevrolet Impala 1969 - 2012(expressed in MPG - US)
City Highway Combined
. . . and the Impala’s a ‘success story’Manufacturer/Model EPA 1978
(with 2008 correction)EPA 2012
Ford/Mustang 23 mpg/Combined 23 mpg/combined
Honda/Accord 26 mpg/combined 27 mpg/combined
Toyota/Corolla 29 mpg/combined 30 mpg/combined
On “Apples to Apples” Basis:
15.8% Increase in ‘Combined’ Fuel Efficiency
66% decrease in total energy consumption (ERS 41 to ERS 79)
78.5% decrease in space heating energy consumption
Questions/Discussion?
