That really sounds to me like a serious fire hazard. In a basement would be even more of a worry. Fibreglass bats would seem safer and better acoustically.
Bob.

Exposed foam panels can be a fire hazard. Better cover with drywall soon.
Your USB hand warmers sound cool (pun intended) but there is a current limit
on USB ports. You may damage your computer.

I do like the crystal warmers you find at hunting/sports stores. You place them in the
microwave to recharge them. When ready to use, you hit them against the wall and
it starts a chemical reaction.

Our furnace is variable speed and usually you hardly know it is running,
but this past month it was going full speed with -40 F temps!

No need to run the gloves off of the computer's USB port though. There are several places that sell 4-AA cell battery holders with a USB (power only) port. You can also get transformers that plug into the wall and provide USB power. They're intended for USB-enabled media players, but they'll work for the gloves too.

I put a cigarette lighter receptacle on a buddies computer (heavy smoker).

You can do a lot more than light cigarettes with it, all kinds of 12 volt auto heat accessories come to mind!

Lots of good ideas here.

Still, I can't help shed a tear over how few homes in this country are even remotely energy efficient.

The average home in Minnesota uses THREE TIMES more energy than the equivalent home in Sweden.

Why? Because here it's 99% "same old" but in Sweden it's been a continuous concern for three centuries, always on people's minds ("the Protestant work ethic: if you're not suffering, it's because you're not working hard enough" :O).

See for example this site on tile stoves. This 17th century invention was introduced by a Swedish Government Energy Savings Taskforce to deal with the then energy crisis all across Europe: there wasn't enough firewood to go around for a rapidly growing population. An open fireplace has about 10-30% efficiency, but better alternatives were soon developed.

With a tile stove, people could start a fire in the early evening and let it go full blast for 1-2 hours, then an air valve was shut nearly completely and the stove would heat a whole home until the next morning. From a couple of logs (or later also coal).

Of course this requires some thinking when it comes to insulation of walls for starters. This was originally accomplished with four-foot thick walls, but for the last 100 years or so nobody could get loans for a home that didn't have competent insulation. In the 1970s, dual-pane windows were abandoned; from then on it was either triple-pane or "vacuum windows" (two panes with the air pumped out in between). I grew up with the latter, and even when it was -37F outside, I could hold my hand against the inside of the window and it would be warm.

Many homes use heat pumps, with a pipe going 100 ft. into the ground and returning with nice free earth warmth. The only energy used is for the small electrical pump, and this is sufficient down to about -8F. Below that, add-on heating is needed. You can imagine their heating bills: about equivalent to running a few 60W lightbulbs.

There are now also some experimental homes in Sweden (and I think also in Germany, a country that's really really worried about its energy supply) that have no heating whatsoever, but are still cozy in winter. This is accomplished with air heat exchangers and soaking up heat from whatever daylight is available (which may be 11:59 am-12:01 pm in northern Sweden in winter :O), and a slew of other tricks.

At the end of the day, it's a question of whether we are prepared to pay now vs. pay later. A house that uses 65-100% less energy for heating will cost a bit more, but of course the owner makes it back over the years, and doesn't have to worry about OPEC at all.

In California, we have the same problem, but primarily for summer cooling rather than winter heating, and with an enormous load on the electrical supply.

Windows are virtually always "guillotine-mounted" single-pane windows, where you can often see out through the gaps. Many homes have flat roofs with no attic or insulation, so after a hot day every room in the house is nuked by re-radiation from the new hot ceilings.

I just read in the paper about poor people in Alaska who now have to choose between buying food for their children or paying $200/week for heating. Many of them have starved, because without heat you don't survive very long there in winter. They said they were waiting for 500 gallons of oil from Hugo Chavez, how is that for depressing? I suppose the governor told the residents to take a chill pill.

With a comprehensive energy savings program, this country could bankrupt OPEC within a few years. Just look at what the current reduction in consumption has done for oil prices and the ambitions of various unfriendly potentates...

I propose a first slogan for the program: "Fill, baby, fill!"

Because one quick fix is to inject high-"R" insulating foam into the walls.

depending on where you live, you could put a small wood stove in the basement to keep things warm. A small wood stove could heat your whole basement with ease. I had one of these in my trailer. Heated the whole trailer with the help of a ceiling fan & a wall mounted fan. I fall/chunk/split the wood myself so it cost me no more then ~$200/300 a year to heat my house plus in the winter we dried out clothes by hanging them next to it, ~100gal of LP lasted us ~1.5 years). Most wood stoves now a days allow burning of the gasses emitted from the wood stretching the heating time a little longer.

In our new place we have a wood furnace in the basement with a single vent that goes to the basement. It' between 50-60f down there all winter (even when it was ~-10f outside for a few days). Basement's just a block wall & a bilco door to the outside. I had to hang a blanket infront of that to keep most of the heat in. :D

The foam insulation "room" is a good idea. Fire needs an ignition, and if there's nothing in the basement to catch it on fire then there's no worries! A hot water tank/dryer/etc. shouldn't be an issue as they're a) vented outside of they're gas or b) contain no explosive parts. :D

Another idea for your basement... get a "warmer" chair! I have something like this I picked up @ work when it was being tossed out. I put wheels on the bottom & now I have an AWESOME and WARM chair to sit in! :D

EDIT: BTW, having an energy efficient home isn't necessarily good. You pretty much seal the whole thing off so you never get fresh air. Maybe in some places this isn't good (always like the line "in NYC you open a window and stick your head in a building to get fresh air"), but you should open your windows every once in a while. Remember, there wasn't a need for CO detectors until homes became sealed up!

Regardless of what you choose to do, just do what ever it takes to keep yourself warm & comfortable, even if it means spending the cash. Believe me, when you get older, you'll wish you had done something as simple as staying warm. You have know idea how your body will react later on as you get older.

Most wood stoves now a days allow burning of the gasses emitted from the wood stretching the heating time a little longer.

The gasses emitted by the wood are what generates the heat, but simple stoves have huge losses. Great pleasure from watching the fire though.

Recent stoves allow you to watch the fire through glass doors, but they control the combustion to take it to 90%+ efficiency.

And in Sweden, they are now also selling "WIDESCREEN!" fireplaces. No kidding, you can choose 4:3 or 16:9 for your stove. Not a joke.

The sealed homes turned out to be a really bad idea, although primarily because of the 3,000 chemicals in use in U.S. households (it's significantly less in Europe because of EU regulations that are now benefiting us too, just try to find any pro electronics without RoHS markings [EU's Restrictions on Hazardous Substances]).

The next step from sealed homes was taken a decade or so ago, with heat exchangers using outgoing warm air to heat incoming fresh cooler air (or in warmer climates, using outgoing cold air to cool incoming fresh warm air).

...in NYC you open a window and stick your head in a building to get fresh air

I remember the first time I went to NYC in July, on a really hot, humid, and smoggy summer's day in 1970.

I got off the bus from Boston, the door opened, I exited onto the sidewalk, and I gasped for air. After a short delirious zigzagging walk caused by oxygen deprivation, I headed into an airconditioned store. As soon as I entered, I nearly passed out from the onrush of fresh oxygen. Not a joke at all.

I hailed a Yellow Cab to my fairly cheap hotel two blocks over, got myself installed, and decided to test something. I took a clean white handkerchief out of my suitcase, opened the window (yes, you could in those days!), and waved the white hankie outside for 30 seconds before pulling it in, now with large amounts of soot all over it.

Sigh.

The gasses emitted by the wood are what generates the heat, but simple stoves have huge losses. Great pleasure from watching the fire though.

Most stoves now a days are all 90+ efficient (I never believe that # though, from experience. Expect ~30% less efficient then what it says). That stove I linked to heated ~900sq/feet no problem on ~15x15x8 foot of wood a year (I don't know how many chord, just volume that was used). The new furnace heats ~3000sq/feet with (an estimated) 2x that amount. It's not an energy efficient one (those cost ~$7500 and up!) but I figured out how to load it & i can get a stable 72f in the house (not basement, not really worried about that) all day/night with relatively little wood.

Something else to consider is an edenpure heater. I know several people who have them &, shockingly, they work AS ADVERTISED! They apparently really don't heat up, really aren't a fire hazard, and really don't raise the electric bill much at all.

Coursedesign:

Welcome to the USA.

While existing older residential homes are generally pathetic on energy efficiency and insulation, new residential construction minimum requirements, depending on building code used, are far better than they used to be. Homes built to the 2004 or better International Residential Code are approximately 45% more efficient than one built in the 1980s or earlier. A Energy Star Certified home is the current top rating in the US.

New commercial construction is regulated differently than residential, and is actually very good on energy conservation, exclusive of inefficient ornate architectural features.

My primary occupation is engineering consulting for national commercial clients and I have a current LEED certification project.

Jeff9329, I think the average USA home size, plus basement(where common) is larger that most world houses in seasonal climates, don't you think?

I was wondering if you think if Dave tries the foam idea that he maybe "safer" using foil covered foam, especially around heating "elements"?

Apit:

I believe US homes are much larger, but don't have hard data. Here is the US data:

Growth in the average size of new single-family homes went from 1,750 square feet in 1978 to 2,479 (+40%) in 2007.

Homes started in the third quarter of 2008 averaged 2,438 square feet, down from 2,629 square feet in the second quarter.

In a survey of builders this month 89% are building or planning smaller homes than they had been.

Kermit Baker, chief economist of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), also sees the shift toward smaller houses. He says it was obvious with high-end buyers even before the economic downturn and he expects it to continue with them.

Im not so sure about Daves situation without more info. I would only go for a permanent solution. Most basements are partially below grade with poured concrete walls. If the basement is totally unfinished and has exposed concrete walls, you would have quite a bit of work to do to finish it. A 6" poured concrete wall is R-0.48 (about the same as a piece of 1/2" plywood) and a 8" block wall is R-1.1. You can't do anything until those walls are insulated.

I would also evaluate the Radon levels before staying in a basement for long periods of time. You can probably find some data for the area online. Some areas are no problem, some will kill you over a period of years.

Welcome to the USA.

Thank you. I'm a naturalized American who has lived here for 26 years, and travelled 38 states.

I have seen more commercial buildings than most people will see in four lifetimes, and it has certainly been my observation that they are vastly better built in so many areas than residential homes.

As for the size of homes, this country has quite a large population of 650-800 sq.ft. single family homes. Of course not everybody even notices those homes when seeing a growing number of McMansions nationwide.

I don't know what's the average size of a family home is in Sweden, but my possibly incorrect observation was that most single family homes I saw (traveling from the southern tip to far north of the arctic circle) ranged from 1,000 sq.ft. to 2200 sq.ft. There were very few homes smaller than 1000 sq.ft, but in the major cities home sizes started growing in the 1970s, and accelerated to make room for more dustables.

If we were to say compare "middle class homes in urban areas," I believe the average square footage of American and Swedish homes is the same.

But the difference in energy usage is huge. Virtually all homes built after 1974 or so had thermostatic mixers installed on bathtub/shower faucets: you set the temperature you want, and that's what you get, much faster than with the manual tweaking in 99% of bathrooms here, which wastes a lot of water.

The triple pane windows, the very aggressive insulation that is a requirement to get a house loan, efficient heating (my parents threw out their oil heater and hooked up to the city's heat plant. Insulated pipes in the street distribute very hot water to all subscriber homes, for home heating via radiators. The hot water is produced in an industrial plant that uses fast-growing energy forest in pellet form to provide a local OPEC-free energy source.

I suspect today's 2004 standard here is probably equivalent to the Swedish 1974 standards, and our Energy Star certification is probably close to Swedish 1990's standards.

I'll try to get some soource facts on this, but I have little doubt about the outcome, because energy savings have been taken seriously in Sweden for more than 300 years, and in modern times the Swedish government has been particularly super aggressive since the first oil shock in 1974.

I love this country (obviously!), but energy is one of two areas where this country is waaaay behind.

The other is the banking system. I have done business with European bankers, and they were totally shocked when they came to the U.S. and saw how things are done here.

Before they went, they saw on TV a country that could put a man on the moon years before that was reasonably possible, then looking behind the curtain they saw a banking system that looked much like it did in the 19th century. They told me that many third world countries are way ahead of the U.S. when it comes to banking.

At a dinner party six years ago in Sweden, I asked the guest next to me about the use of checks in Sweden. His face turned into a very contorted question mark, before he turned to his wife and asked her, "Honey, what were checks used for? I can't remember."

His wife said, "Gee, ummm, that was, what, 10 years ago? Hmmm, I can't remember either."

Companies in Sweden stopped sending out invoices to be paid by check some time in the late 1950s. Think Perry Mason, the early years.

They just semi-retired the Giro system used to pay bills, after 60 years of 100% reliable service, never had a lost transaction. How does it work? Tear off the standardized bottom third of all incoming bills, sign each and put them all in one single postage-free envelope together with a personalized pre-printed giro sheet, and drop the envelope in the mail or in special late-pickup boxes in every reasonable-size town; all the bills would be paid the next morning at 08:00 a.m., no exceptions.

In Stockholm, you could even drop off payments by 05:00 a.m., and they would be absolutely, positively paid by 08:00 a.m. that same morning.

Since many years, the majority of Swedes (regardless of social classification) now pay their bills by home computer, and in a better way than the non-standardized clunky ways we do online payments here with each vendor individually. Hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted time every year...

Now if you wanted me to say what is better here than in the other 44 countries I have travelled in, I could do that too, and that list would be way longer.

But it would be nice for us to pay more attention to energy and banking. I think it will happen, because it has to happen.

Heat!!! - you can have some of ours - this week we are having 4 to 5 days above 104F!! Ship over some of your cold to the bottom of Australia, were melting.

Very interesting about Sweden using triple pane windows in the (fairly recent) past. I wonder if they were clear or had krypton gas?

A dual pane window with a LowE2 coating and argon gas will outperform - energy considerations - a triple pane window made with clear glass.

But the real advantage of a triple pane is that since there is that extra glass layer the manufacturer has the ability to coat two different surfaces with the LowE2 coating.

As a general rule, triple panes come in two varieties - one version has a relatively narrow space between the lites - kind of like taking a wide dual pane and dropping another lite between the first two.

Then there is the triple pane with a wider spacing between the lites - kind of like taking two "standard" dual panes and removing a lite from one and slapping the remaining parts together.

The narrow airspace version works best when two surfaces are LowE2 coated and krypton gas is used between the lites. Krypton gas performs at its energy-saving best in a narrow space of about 1/4" or so...which happens to be the typical space between the lites in a narrow triple pane.

In this configuration it is possible to get an R-10 on the window. But, this is a center-of-glass measurement and is not necessarily indicative of window performance as a whole. Still, this configuration is very energy efficient and works really well...the downside is that this version can be expensive.

The wider triple pane version would generally have an airspace of about 7/16" between each lite. Again, the advantage is in the LowE2 coating on two separate lites. In this case, argon gas would be the most cost effective fill - rather than krypton. Argon is cheap and plentiful and at the 7/16" spacing is almost as good as krypton in performance numbers - not quite as good - but the slight insulating advantage of krypton in this configuration doesn't offset the additional cost of krypton.

The wider version of the triple pane (argon fill) may be a bit lower than the narrower version (krypton fill) in center-of-glass R-value at about 8.5 or so. But, as a generalization, the wider version may outperform the narrower version if both use argon or air infill between the lites.

And as a comparison, a dual pane with LowE2 and argon will get to about an R-6 center-of-glass.

On Jan 1, 2010 the new IRC & IBC codes will take effect requiring much better windows on US homes. Proposed for 2015, another standard kicks in with the Energy Star recommended standards.

Bottom line: The US is slowly catching up with the high end EU countries.

Bottom line: The US is slowly catching up with the high end EU countries.

makes a lot of sense: 50 independent countries in europe that got pretty much a fresh start in urban development after the 40's vs a single country that's got ~1/3rd the population of all of europe but ~the same surface area as the entire continent and has the same basic infrastructure for 100+ years.

For the US to catch up we'd need to tear down pretty much the whole country & rebuild from the ground up.

On the plus side, odds are in 40-60 years we'll be far ahead of europe due to the fact we would take their advances & advance them some more while they can't because they'd have the same current problem we do.

However, all the europeans (minus 1) whom I know who lived in the US for an extended time (1+ years) prefer it over here.

Windows are virtually always "guillotine-mounted" single-pane windows, where you can often see out through the gaps.
I recently figured this out in my own home. I could feel a draft coming through the window... and beetles crawled through that gap. (These are double pane windows... not that it matters.)

So I think it's worth checking to see if your home has these huge energy efficiency mistakes. And I suspect enough homes have these. If insects can crawl into your home, then there's probably a hole in your house that is letting heat out / cold air in.

2- It is possible that some unscrupulous homebuilders skimp on insulation... so much for building codes.

50 independent countries in europe that got pretty much a fresh start in urban development after the 40's

I'm sorry, but I have to recommend a tour of Europe to see for yourself that the amount of post-40s construction is very limited in most parts, other than in a few cities that were bombed out of existence, or where suburbs grew at the same time they grew here in the U.S.

When I lived in Stockholm, I lived for a while in a 340-year old house with a small electrical heater for heat. No problem, thanks to walls that were several feet thick.

Later, I lived in a 110-year old house, still tiptop of course, that was heated with hot water radiators, and not cold even during my last three months there, when it was 25 below every day, the snow was piled up 10 feet high in the streets every day, and it took 30 minutes to chisel the ice off my car to go to work every morning; and none of that was considered an excuse for anyone to not arrive at work at 8:13 am.

Except me, I was allowed to work whenever I felt like it, because I did the work of four people (this is actually understatement: there were absolutely no four people who could between them do what I did every day).

What pissed me off wasn't the cold or the snow or anything like it, because those things are easily handled with proper clothes.

It was the ridiculous job classifications mandated by the white collar unions. My job had a classification number, and it didn't matter that I did the work of four people, the company couldn't give me an extra quarter for a cup of coffee, without having the unions screaming at the top of their lungs. I really though this was sad, not as much for me as for the country.

When a U.S. company saw what I could do, they recruited me on the spot. In this country, capability is valued, and companies are willing and have no obstacles to pay for it. The old immigrant story repeats itself, as it has in this country for quite some time.

Another thing that really bothered me in Sweden was to see so many people spending one third of their productive time on trying to reduce their taxes. Taxes were high at that time, but you certainly got something for them. Still, after you added up the different taxes, hmmmm.

(Today, Sweden has some of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe, I think only beat by Ireland.

Waaay lower than the U.S. corporate tax rates, which are among the highest in the world. Detail: no large companies pay those high rates; major U.S. companies pay little [or nothing] in corporate taxes.)


However, all the europeans (minus 1) whom I know who lived in the US for an extended time (1+ years) prefer it over here.

Who is the 1?

Can't be me, I made a very conscious choice to live here in the U.S.

And for starters, let me tell you that for all the complaining here about our Federal Government, it is a paragon of effficiency compared to the EU bureacucracy in Brussels.

How do I know? I've had them both as customers for a long time.

On Jan 1, 2010 the new IRC & IBC codes will take effect requiring much better windows on US homes. Proposed for 2015, another standard kicks in with the Energy Star recommended standards.

That is really great. The windows have to be the #1 source of energy loss in U.S. homes.


Very interesting about Sweden using triple pane windows in the (fairly recent) past. I wonder if they were clear or had krypton gas?

I don't know, but will find out. I remember the frames were really well designed, and with some of them you could choose to swing the same window open either horizontally or vertically...

The other windows I only knew as "vacuum windows." They were totally clear, but obviously must have had some inert gas inside. That house was built in 1958, and nobody thought these windows were anything remarkable at the time (only the largest windows had vacuum panes to weigh cost vs. energy savings).


Let's be clear about why the U.S. fell so far behind in energy savings for homes, cars, and trucks.

We had a cheap and plentiful domestic energy supply, so why bother?

Then, with gas at 35-90 cents per gallon, everyone (me included) bought big thirsty V-8s. Why not? I love torque, and so what if my car got 12 mpg? Who cares when you're paying cents for the gas?

With that, consumption increased so much that we lost your energy independence, and had to go kiss sheiks on the forehead to get their oil at whatever price they wanted. Pretty soon it was necessary to support totalitarian regimes to secure more oil, and a few other details I'm sure no one wants to be reminded of.

And now in January 2009, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are again fighting higher fuel economy standards. "It would cost $100 billion that we don't have!!!!!"

The true amount is obviously a fraction of that, but more importantly higher mpg might allow these companies to survive.

GM already poopooed another proposal as "totally utterly impossible," until somebody pointed out that the company actually sold such cars in Europe since years. I'll give the GM bosses the, umm, er, benefit of the doubt, that they simply didn't know what they were making in Europe.

Sadly, a lot of people think that to get good fuel economy it is necessary to have tiny cars that are crushed if run over by a bicycle.

That is so not the case. One example is my favorite grip truck: Toyota Prius. 50mpg around town, up to 52 on the freeways doing 65-ish, all roundtrips of course. So? This is a roomy 5-door Midsize car that can take 5 passengers in good comfort and safety anywhere paved, and can handle substantial baggage (9-foot surfboards, six 6-foot tables + lots of gear, or two passengers + a dozen C-stands and lots of light and grip gear.

Don't get a Prius for driving off road or on icy roads, that's not what it's designed for, and it doesn't do well (don't ask how I know!).

For everything else, it's a blast. I do 800-mile trips regularly and deem it as 95-99% as comfortable as a Mercedes E-class, and incredibly quiet at speeds up to and beyond XXX mph. Even going up the steep Grapevine (Tejon mountain pass), I pass everyone else while feeling very relaxed, knowing that I'll get "negative mpg" going downhill again.

And Santa Monica at sea level to Big Bear Mountain at about 8,000 feet: 47 mpg roundtrip with two people and plenty of baggage. Did I say the same torque as my old 350 V-8? :O) True. The marvel of electric motors...

I'll embarrass myself by saying that the original reason I got the Prius wasn't to add to the smug layer at all.

It was simply that I am a cheap bastard who likes a good deal: Consumer Reports rated the Prius #1 most reliable of all cars sold in America, based on owner's repair records. CR rated 10 areas from engine to transmission to electrical etc. and the Prius was tops in them all.

All I know for myself is that I've had the car for 3 1/2 years and I'm still waiting for the first problem. Not that I have to worry: I paid a negotiated $700 for a 7-year factory service contract that covers everything except wear parts.

And the propulsion battery has a 10-year warranty. By California law actually :O).

OK, since this thing has gone totally OT anyway, can I just say how great it is that this, "other than in a few cities that were bombed out of existence", is not the way it's done anymore. I know the Iraq war is a point of contention with just about everyone, but in 6+ years of fighting, we have lost fewer men than on many single days during a push of either of the great wars.

Dave

One would hope that an assault on a third world country would require fewer casualties than either of the two World Wars that took up close to the entire planet.

I now have a better feel for the number of casualties after volunteering at Arlington West in Santa Monica to help pack up more than 4,000 wooden crosses that show our casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Backbreaking work with the crosses, especially when very windy also. Fortunately they ran out of white crosses at 4,000, so after that there were red crosses, each representing 10 dead.

The total for U.S losses in both countries is now 4,878 dead, per icasualties.org.

And let's not forget the 50,000+ soldiers that were severely wounded, many unable to serve again ever.

At least we can feel that we got really good value for this sacrifice.

We get less oil from Iraq than before, and the sovereign country that used to be at peace is now on the brink of an all out civil war. Scientists from top U.S. and U.K. universities, individually vetted by the previous U.S. administration, estimate that 1.5 million Iraqi civilians have been killed so far in this created conflict. (Hmmm, that sounds like a larger number than what Saddam was able to accomplish over several decades, I seem to recall he only killed 110,000 so we're way ahead of him.)

I really hope we can put this Iraq BS behind us asap. We need to be known as builders, not as destroyers (as someone said recently in a somewhat related context).

I also live in North Dakota. And because of a summer tornado, I did get to start over. The destroyed house was built in 1997 and my husband and I both felt it was a very energy efficient house. The new house has triple paned, low e windows, and all the latest building materials were used, including a furnace that is able to pull heat from the outside air. We've been in the house now for a few months and so far, we have been paying the same amount for electricity that we were paying with the old house, however, that includes all electric heat. Old house was propane heat.