|
trends
in energy
When Wall Insulation Doesn't Save
Wall insulation clearly saves heating energy, but does it save cooling
energy as well? Sometimes yes, sometimes no is the conclusion of a recent
study in Florida, which clarifies the variables that determine wall insulation's
usefulness in a warm climate.
The study, conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and
the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC), focused on concrete block houses
on slab foundations. Block construction is common in warm climates, especially
where termites are a problem. As FSEC's Danny Parker points out, half of
Florida's six million residences are built of concrete blocks and have
little or no wall insulation.
Mark Ternes and his colleagues at ORNL had performed field tests on
wall insulation for eight masonry homes in Phoenix, Arizona in 1993 (see
"Cooling Benefits from Exterior Masonry Wall
Insulation," HE Mar/Apr '94, p. 33). They found some energy savings,
but wanted to test the insulation effects in the more humid Florida climate.
In the latest study, ORNL and FSEC tested two homes in Cocoa, Florida.
The researchers retrofitted occupied single-family homes with exterior
wall insulation. They hired contractors to install commercial exterior
insulation and finish systems (EIFS) like those typically used on commercial
buildings. In Arizona, they had fabricated the insulation systems on-site,
using polystyrene foam board, wire lath, and stucco. In both studies, the
insulation typically raised the thermal resistance of the walls from R-3
to R-13.
In Phoenix, where temperatures climb over ll0°F in the summer and
rarely drop below 80°F in July and August, the added insulation slowed
the heat gain through the walls and reduced the measured air conditioning
requirements. On average, energy consumption dropped 9%.
The houses studied in Florida had more complicated results. Summertime
temperatures are less extreme there, especially in coastal areas. For a
significant portion of the daily cycle, in the evening and overnight, the
outside air can be cooler than the desired indoor temperature (see Figure
1).
These evening hours overlap with times that residents are typically
home and active. Internal gains from people and appliances become a significant
load for the cooling system. This heat generated inside the house can be
passively transferred out into the environment, but only as fast as the
walls and windows will allow. "During this period," Parker explains, "the
most poorly insulated building possible will lower the required degree
of air conditioning, because it will lose internally generated heat to
the outside most quickly." Added insulation actually traps unwanted heat
and impedes natural cooling.
The researchers determined that whether insulation saves cooling energy
depends significantly on the interior thermostat setpoint. If residents
set their thermostat at 73°F, rather than at the 79°F setpoint
shown in Figure 1, the outside air would be warmer than the desired inside
temperature virtually all the time. Heat would only flow inwardly through
the wall under these conditions, and slowing it down with insulation would
be helpful throughout the day.
 |
| Figure 1. This graph shows the avaeage daily June
temperatures in Orlando, Florida. In this example, the residents kept their
thermostat set to 79º F. Although wall insulation saved energy during
the day (when outside temperatures were higher than inside temperatures)
it prevented the heat from escaping during the evening and nighttime hours
(when it was cooler outside than in). |
The study found exactly this. The researchers monitored the two Florida
houses, one with a setpoint of 73°F and another with a setpoint of
79°F. Although the cooler house used more air conditioning energy than
the warmer house, the insulation saved 9%-14% of its preretrofit use. By
contrast, the air conditioning energy use in the 79°F home actually
increased by 5% after adding wall insulation!
Ventilation (by opening windows) could add to natural cooling at night.
However, when the researchers modeled the effects of open windows, they
found that it would not completely overcome the negative impact of the
wall insulation unless ventilation was forced, as with a whole-house fan.
Also, according to Parker, "many people in humid regions air condition
their homes around the clock and never ventilate. Ventilation is possible,
but only if interior humidity of 80% or even higher is acceptable."
Even in the hotter Phoenix climate, adding wall insulation may not becost-effective.
ORNL had modeled a proto-typical house in Phoenix with a central gas, forced-air
furnace and air conditioner to estimate the combined heating and cooling
savings attained through additional insulation. For an average retrofit
cost of $3,900, the simple payback was calculated to be 32 years at 9.4e/kWh.
Ternes explains, though, that "the simple payback is reduced to 12 years
if the homeowners were planning to restucco the house anyway and only the
insulation cost of $1,500-$1,900 is considered."
Parker cautions that "what is true of walls is not true of ceilings.
Ceiling insulation in cooling climates is often exposed to very hot temperatures
due to attic heat collection, often up to 130°F in the height of summer."
Thus it is more universally desirable than wall insulation.
On the other hand, the retrofits all slowed daytime heat gain through
walls, reducing peak cooling demand. This can be a major benefit, primarily
to electric utilities but also to customers with time-of-day rates or those
who have an opportunity to downsize their cooling equipment. The 15% demand
reduction found by both studies is comparable to reductions achieved by
replacing old air conditioners with high-efficiency units, which is often
supported with utility subsidies.
Another benefit not captured in the analyses is the improved comfort
resulting from lower interior wall temperatures after adding insulation.
Lower radiant wall temperatures may allow residents to raise their setpoints
comfortably, thereby saving energy. Ternes reports that "several occupants
observed marked improvement in the comfort of rooms on the south and west
sides of the house that once overheated unbearably."
Optimally, says Parker, we would have "dynamic walls where thermal resistance
is adjustable throughout the daily cycle during the cooling season." Though
some energy researchers have experimented with creative ideas, such as
movable insulation and vacuum insulation, no practical system has as yet
been developed.
In the absence of such a breakthrough, people who design and retrofit
homes in hot climates will do well to examine the specifics of their situation
in light of these studies.
--Doug Johnson
Doug Johnson is a freelance writer based in San
Francisco, California. |