Citation
Towards Hyper-Efficiency and Carbon Neutrality in Industrialized Residential Construction

Material Information

Title:
Towards Hyper-Efficiency and Carbon Neutrality in Industrialized Residential Construction
Creator:
Fenner, Andriel Evandro
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (216 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Design, Construction, and Planning
Design, Construction and Planning
Committee Chair:
Kibert,Charles Joseph
Committee Co-Chair:
Srinivasan,Ravi Shankar
Committee Members:
Knowles III,Harold S
Porter,Wendell A

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
carbon -- carbon-emissions -- carbon-neutral -- energy-efficiency -- hyper-efficiency -- industrialized-construction -- manufactured-construction
Design, Construction and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Design, Construction, and Planning thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
Rapid and far-reaching transitions in all societal sectors are required to limit the increase of anthropogenic carbon emissions and, consequently, the devastating effects of global warming. In the built environment, energy use has been found to be the dominant source of carbon emissions. In the process of increasing energy efficiency, hyper-efficient and carbon-neutral concepts have been gaining significant attention. With the exception of the manufactured housing industry, the U.S. federal government has promoted energy efficiency in the residential sector for decades. Due to outdated energy conservation codes, manufactured homes are very inefficient, with the energy expenditure per square foot being the highest among all residential building types. Investing in energy efficiency strategies is a significant decision because of the high initial costs. This is particularly important for low-income buyers or householders. Thus, the main purpose of this study is to conduct a more detailed analysis of the energy performance of manufactured homes in the State of Florida and investigate the opportunities for reaching hyper-efficiency and carbon-neutrality while improving the life-cycle affordability of homeowners. After conducting a comprehensive analysis of the energy use, carbon emissions, and construction-related costs for different measures using parametric energy modeling simulations, this research narrowed down a set of potential measures to be implemented in manufactured homes in the State of Florida. The optimized modeling showed that these measures are the most energy efficient, cost-effective, and carbon preferred options. The proposed models, both the hyper-efficient model and the carbon-neutral model, proved to be more life-cycle affordable for all locations and loan options compared to the standard manufactured homes built in accordance with the HUD Code. Due to the relatively high cost of photovoltaic panels, the hyper-efficient model is economically preferable compared to the carbon-neutral model. However, when forecasting photovoltaic panel costs for 2030, it can be observed that the initial construction costs of the hyper-efficient carbon-neutral home decrease significantly, reaching surprisingly low simple payback periods. Overall, most optimal hyper-efficient features can be achieved without major manufacturing challenges. The costs of materials were commonly reported by manufacturers as a major challenge. However, benefits from single measures, just as shown in the parametric simulations, would greatly help manufacturers and dealers to better use energy efficiency as selling strategy and better understand the potential benefits of upgrading their homes. Lastly, the industry survey provides the state-of-the-art of experts perceptions around the energy efficiency of manufactured homes and additional measures that could be improved in the industry. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2019.
Local:
Adviser: Kibert,Charles Joseph.
Local:
Co-adviser: Srinivasan,Ravi Shankar.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Andriel Evandro Fenner.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
LD1780 2019 ( lcc )

UFDC Membership

Aggregations:
University of Florida Theses & Dissertations

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

TOWARDS HYPER EFFICIENCY AND CARBON NEUTRALITY IN INDUSTRIALIZED RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION By ANDRIEL EVANDRO FENNER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 201 9

PAGE 2

201 9 Andriel Evandro Fenner

PAGE 3

To my parents, whose hard work and continuous support allowed me to obtain a doctoral degree

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr Charles J. Kibert for his continuous support, his patience, inspiration, and for his compassion in sharing his valuable knowledge and expertise during the years of my four years helped me in many dir ections. I could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor for this chapter of my life. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank my dissertation committee: Dr. Ravi Srinivasan, Dr. H al Knowles and Dr. Wendell Porter for their insightful comme nts encouragement, and hard questions which incented me to widen my research from various perspectives. Also, would like to express my sincere gratitude to Jim Ayotte from the Florida Manufactured Housing Association, manufacturers, industry experts, Ashi sh Asutosh, and everyone who somehow contributed to this research. I thank my incredible Powell Center fellows for stimulating a teamwork culture, initiating discussions, for the endless supports, and for motivating each of us in pursuing our ambitious goa ls. I am grateful to be a member of the Powell Center family! Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents and sister (Otvio, Renilda and Andreia), for their unconditional love and uninterrupted support. Their commitment to my education makes me prouder than my own graduate degree. Next, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Ruan Oliveira for his continued support and keeping me sane.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 20 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 20 Problem Statement and Justification ................................ ................................ ...... 21 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 22 Research Contributions ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 Limitations and Scope of Work ................................ ................................ ............... 23 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 Overview of Concepts and Definitions ................................ ................................ .... 25 Industrialized Construction Definition ................................ ............................... 25 Carbon Neutrality Definition ................................ ................................ .............. 27 Hyper Efficiency Definition ................................ ................................ ............... 29 Energy Efficient Buildings ................................ ................................ ....................... 30 The Hi storical Context of Energy Efficiency ................................ ...................... 30 Residential Energy Efficiency ................................ ................................ ........... 33 Review of Energy Efficiency Strategies for the Residential Sector ................... 37 Building envelope insulation ................................ ................................ ....... 38 High performance windows ................................ ................................ ........ 39 Thermal mass ................................ ................................ ............................ 40 Daylight harvesting ................................ ................................ .................... 40 Lighting power density ................................ ................................ ............... 41 Water heating systems ................................ ................................ .............. 41 Heating, ventilation, and air condit ioning ................................ ................... 45 Thermostat setting ................................ ................................ ..................... 46 Renewable generation ................................ ................................ ............... 46 The Energy U se of Affordable Homes in Hot And Humid Climates .................. 47 Affordability of Net Zero Energy Homes ................................ ........................... 48 Cost efficiency of net zero energy affordable homes ................................ ....... 49 The Manufactured Housing Industry ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Definition of Manufactured Construction ................................ .......................... 54 The Evolution of Manufactured Housing ................................ .......................... 54

PAGE 6

6 The Current State of the art of the Manufactured Housing Industry ................. 56 Manufactured Housing as an Affordable Option ................................ ............... 59 Sociodemographic of Manufactured Homes and the Confoun ding Influence of Homeowners on the Energy Consumption ................................ ................ 60 Codes and Policies for the Manufactured Housing Sector ............................... 65 HUD Code ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 65 ENERGY STAR program ................................ ................................ ........... 66 Section 413 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 .................. 68 Hyper Efficient and Carbon Neutral Manufactured Homes ................................ ..... 72 Research on High Performance Manufactured Homes ................................ .... 72 Financing Schemes for Manufactured Housing ................................ ................ 75 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 77 3 RESEARCH METHODS ................................ ................................ ......................... 79 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 79 Hypothetical Argument and Research Questions ................................ ................... 79 Step 1: Identify the Combination of Energy Efficiency Measures that Can Achieve Exemplary Energy Performance for Manufactured Homes Under the HUD Code ................................ ................................ ............................... 81 Simulation baseline models ................................ ................................ ....... 81 Energy efficiency upgrades ................................ ................................ ........ 81 Building energy optimization software ................................ ........................ 82 Building energy optimization simulation ................................ ..................... 83 Step 2: Identify the Costs and Benefits of Achieving Hyper Efficient Manufactured Homes in the HUD Climate Zone 1. ................................ ....... 84 Energy savings and associated costs ................................ ........................ 84 Cost analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 84 Carbon emissions ................................ ................................ ...................... 85 Step 3: Identify the Costs and Benefits of Achieving Carbon Neutral Manufactured Homes ................................ ................................ .................... 85 Step 4: Identify if Hyper Efficient and/or Carbon Neutral Manufactured Homes Can Improve The Life Cycle Affordability for Homeowners Seeking for Affordable Homes ................................ ................................ ...... 86 Step 5: Identify the Feasibility of Implementing Hyper Efficient and Carbon Neutral Measures and Research the State of the Art Perception of Expects Towards Energy Efficiency Of Manufactured Homes ...................... 87 Baseline Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 88 Baseline Model E laboration ................................ ................................ .............. 88 Baseline Model Validation ................................ ................................ ................ 90 Baseline Model Results ................................ ................................ .................... 92 4 ENERGY MODELING RESULTS ................................ ................................ ........... 96 Parametr ic Energy Efficiency Simulations ................................ .............................. 96 High Performance Walls ................................ ................................ ................... 96 High Performance Ceiling ................................ ................................ ................ 97

PAGE 7

7 High Performance Floors ................................ ................................ ................. 98 High Perfo rmance Windows ................................ ................................ ............. 99 Building Envelope Infiltration ................................ ................................ .......... 100 Domestic Water Heaters ................................ ................................ ................ 101 Heating, Cooling, and Air Conditioning ................................ ........................... 102 Home Appliances ................................ ................................ ........................... 104 Lighting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 105 Optimized Simulations ................................ ................................ .......................... 106 Optimal Parametric Measures ................................ ................................ ........ 106 Optimal Models ................................ ................................ .............................. 109 Baseline Vs. Hyper Efficient and C arbon Neutral Manufactured Home ......... 114 Life Cycle Affordability of The Hyper Efficient Carbon Neutral Manufactured Home ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 117 PV System Cost Forecast ................................ ................................ ..................... 123 5 INDUSTRY SURVEY ................................ ................................ ............................ 126 Hyper Efficient Carbon Neutral Manufactured Home Survey ............................... 126 Part I: Manufacturer Challenges ................................ ................................ ........... 126 Walls ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 126 Floors ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 128 Ceilings ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 129 Structural Insulated Panels ................................ ................................ ............. 130 Windows ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 131 Infiltration ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 132 HVAC ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 132 Water Heater ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 134 Appliances and Lighting ................................ ................................ ................. 135 Photovoltaic Panels ................................ ................................ ........................ 135 Additional Notes ................................ ................................ ............................. 137 Part II: Market and Potential Strategies ................................ ................................ 137 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ 138 Factors that Affect the Decision to Purchase a Manufactured Home ............. 140 Energy Performance of Manufactured Homes ................................ ............... 141 Factors That Could Improve the Attractiveness of Manufac tured Homes ...... 146 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................................ ......................... 149 Conclusion #1: Life Cycle Affordability of Hyper Efficient Carbon Neutral Manufactured Homes ................................ ................................ ........................ 149 Conclusion #2: Challenges of Implementing Hyper Efficient Carbon Neutral Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 151 Conclusion #3: State of the Art Perception of Experts Towards Energy Efficiency of Manufactured Homes ................................ ................................ .... 154 APPENDIX

PAGE 8

8 A PARAMETRIC SIMULATIONS ................................ ................................ ............. 156 B PARAMETRIC AND OPTIMIZED MODELS ................................ ......................... 192 C HYPER EFFICIENT AND CARBON NEUTRAL MANUFACTURED HOMES SURVEY: PART I ................................ ................................ ................................ 197 D HYPER EFFICIENT AND CARBON NEUTRAL MANUFACTURED HOMES SURVEY: PART II ................................ ................................ ................................ 203 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 208 BIOGRAPHICAL S KETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 216

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Architecture 2030 Challenge site energy use intensity baseline and goals. ....... 37 2 2 Comparison of the major types of domestic water heating systems. .................. 42 2 3 Implications of standards for the purchase of residential water heaters. ............ 44 2 4 Energy measure package for a low income net zero energy retrofit in California. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 51 2 5 Comparison of site built and factory built housing. ................................ ............. 54 2 6 Proposed building thermal envelope insulation prescriptive requirements and average manufactured home purchase price increase under the proposed rule by climate zone. ................................ ................................ ........................... 71 2 7 Performance based U factor alternatives to R Value requirements. .................. 71 2 8 Cumulative energy savings over 30 years analysis (2017 2046) and respective CO2 emission savings. ] ................................ ................................ ..... 72 2 9 Comparison of thermal insulation requirements for different codes. ................... 74 2 10 Typical challenges and potential strategies for manufactured homes. ............... 74 2 11 Main differences between a site built home mortgage and chattel loan. ............ 76 3 1 Energy cost input data for BEopt software simulation. ................................ ....... 84 3 2 Carbon emission rates associated with electricity production in the State of Florida ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 85 3 3 Residential solar photovoltaic system costs benchmark per Watt in the State of Florida by Q1 2018 and U.S. cost reduction roadmap by 2030 for the residential sector ................................ ................................ ................................ 86 3 4 Building characteristics used for the development of the energy baseline model. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 88 3 5 Thermophysical and equipment proprieties of the assessed manufactured home and calibration adjustments for the baseline model. ................................ 89 3 6 Site consumption per end use and respective modeling errors (MMBtu/year) ... 91 3 7 requirements for manufactured homes in the State of Florida and calibration adjustmen ts. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 92

PAGE 10

10 3 8 Construction cost, energy use, and carbon emissions for the Gainesville baseline models. ................................ ................................ ................................ 93 3 9 Construction cost, energy use, and carbon emissions for the Miami baseline models. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 94 4 1 Comparison of construction cost, energy use, and carbon emissions between the baseline model and the hyper efficient and carbon neutral manufactured home ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 115 4 2 The incremental construction cost of the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home ................................ ................................ .......................... 116 4 3 Initial construction cost and energy comparison among baseline, hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home, and PV cost forecast for the year 2030. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 124 A 1 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different wall options in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ ..................... 156 A 2 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different wall options in Miami, Florida. ................................ ............................. 157 A 3 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different wall options in Tallahassee, Florida. ................................ ................... 158 A 4 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different ceiling options in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ ................. 159 A 5 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different ceiling options in Miami, Florida. ................................ ......................... 161 A 6 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different ceiling options in Tallahassee, Florida. ................................ ............... 163 A 7 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different floor options in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ .................... 165 A 8 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different floor options in Miami, Florida. ................................ ............................ 166 A 9 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different floor options in Tallahassee, Florida. ................................ .................. 167 A 10 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different window options in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ ............... 168

PAGE 11

11 A 11 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different window options in Miami, Florida. ................................ ....................... 169 A 12 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different window options in Tallahassee, Florida. ................................ ............. 170 A 13 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different building infiltration levels in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ 171 A 14 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different building infiltration levels in Miami Florida. ................................ ......... 172 A 15 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different building infiltration levels in Tal lahassee, Florida. ............................... 173 A 16 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different water heater systems in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ ..... 174 A 17 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different water heater systems in Miami, Florida. ................................ ............. 175 A 18 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different water heater systems in Talla hassee, Florida. ................................ .... 176 A 19 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different HVAC systems in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ ............... 1 77 A 20 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different HVAC systems in Miami, Florida. ................................ ....................... 180 A 21 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different HVAC systems in Miami, Florida. ................................ ....................... 183 A 22 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient appliances in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ ....................... 186 A 23 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient appliances in Miami, Florida. ................................ ............................... 187 A 24 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient appliances in Tallahassee, Florida. ................................ ..................... 188 A 25 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient lighting in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ ............................. 189 A 26 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient lighting in Miami, Florida. ................................ ................................ ..... 190

PAGE 12

12 A 27 Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient lighting in Tallahassee, Florida. ................................ ........................... 191 B 1 Range (minimum and maximum) of energy, carbon, and life cycle costs savings for optimal parametric simulations in the State of Florida. ................... 192 B 2 Optimal energy efficient measures for Gainesville, FL with different heat pump systems. ................................ ................................ ................................ 194 B 3 Optimal energy efficient measures for Miami, FL with different heat pump systems. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 195 B 4 Optimal energy efficient measures for Tallahassee, FL with different heat pump systems. ................................ ................................ ................................ 196

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Four levels of prefabrication in construction ................................ ....................... 26 2 2 Technical toolbox for carbon neutral homes ................................ ....................... 28 2 3 Average retail prices of electricity in the U.S. per sector, 1960 2011 (Cents per Kilowatt hour, including taxes) ................................ ................................ ...... 31 2 4 Total energy consumption by sector 1949 2017 in the United States ................. 34 2 5 Evolution of the residential and non residential energy codes (1975 2015) ....... 36 2 6 Example of the least cost approach graph ................................ ......................... 53 2 7 The proportion of manufactured housing to total new built houses ..................... 57 2 8 Manufactured housing shipments ................................ ................................ ....... 57 2 9 U.S. Manufactured Housing Shipments by State ................................ ................ 58 2 10 The average sales price of site built and factory built homes from 2012 2017 in the U.S ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 59 2 11 Percentage distribution of householder income within each residential sector ... 60 2 12 Percentage distribution of householder age within each residential sector ........ 61 2 13 Site energy consumption and energy expenditure for U.S. households ............. 62 2 14 Percentage of household energy insecurity in 2015 ................................ ........... 63 2 15 Comparison of ENERGY STAR certi fied factories to total shipments of manufactured homes in selected States ................................ ............................. 68 2 16 Comparison of different standards regarding climate zones organization. ......... 70 3 1 Flowchard of the relationships among stepts for the research. .......................... 80 3 2 Typical floor plan of a HUD manufactured home ................................ ................ 88 3 3 Life cycle cumulative costs for baseline and carbon neutral models. ................. 95 3 4 Detailed life cycle affordability analysis for a conventional loan in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 95

PAGE 14

14 4 1 Benefit to cost ratio of for the best performers on th e parametric energy simulations. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 107 4 2 Minimum and maximum energy savings and life cycle costs savings for best performers on the p arametric energy simulations. ................................ ............ 108 4 3 Optimized energy simulations with selected measures from parametric simulations. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 109 4 4 Energy, initial and life cycle costs, and carbon emission savings versus simple payback period for optimal energy efficient measures in Gainesville, FL. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 111 4 5 Energy, initial and life cycle costs, and carbon emission savings versus simple payback period f or optimal energy efficient measures in Miami, FL. ..... 111 4 6 Energy, initial and life cycle costs, and carbon emission savings versus s imple payback period for optimal energy efficient measures in Tallahassee, FL. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 112 4 7 Frequency of energy efficiency measures for models located on the optimal line. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 113 4 8 Cumulative life cycle cost comparison between the baseline and hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home ................................ .................... 119 4 9 Detailed life cycle affordability analysis for conventional loan models in T allahassee, Florida. ................................ ................................ ........................ 120 4 10 Life cycle maintenance costs for conventional loan models in Tallahassee, Florida. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 121 4 11 Life cycle electricity costs for conventional loan models in Tallahassee, Florida. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 122 4 12 Life cycle loan costs for conventional loan models in Tallahassee, Florida. ..... 122 4 13 Cumulative life cycle cost comparison between the baseline, the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home, and PV cost forecast for the year 2030. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 125 5 1 Demographic information of respondents. ................................ ........................ 139 5 2 Likelihood of manufacturer home customers, where 1 is very likely and 5 is least likely. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 139 5 3 Age likelihood of customers of a manufactured home in the State of Florida. .. 140

PAGE 15

15 5 4 Factors that affect the decision to purchase a manufactured home, where 1 is most important and 5 least important. ................................ ........................... 140 5 5 Percentage of homeowner complains about the energy efficiency of manufactured homes. ................................ ................................ ....................... 142 5 6 Percentage of customers that ask about the energy efficiency of manufactured homes when buying a home. ................................ ..................... 143 5 7 Percentage of respondents that use energy efficiency as a selling point for manufactured homes. ................................ ................................ ....................... 143 5 8 Main reasons for not using energy efficiency as a selling point. ....................... 144 5 9 The option that would mostly be selected by manufactured homeowners. ....... 145 5 10 Energy efficiency mea sures could be improved in manufactured homes. ........ 146 5 1 1 Measures that could be improved to increase the attractiveness of manufacture d homes, where 1 is most important and 5 least important. .......... 147

PAGE 16

16 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACH Air Changes per Hour ASHP Air Source Heat Pump ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers BTC Benefit to cost ratio CFM Cubic Feet per Minute DOE U.S. Department of Energy EEM Energy Efficient Measures EER Energy Efficiency R atio EF Energy Factor EIA Energy Information Agency EISA Energy Independence and Security Act EPA E nvironmental P rotection A gency EPBD Energy Performance of Building Directive GBC G reen B uilding C ouncil GHG G reenhouse G ases HERS Home Energy Rating System HPML H igher P riced M ortgage L oans HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I ECC International Energy Conservation Code IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRR Internal Rate of Return LCAM L ife C ycle A ffordability M odel

PAGE 17

17 LCC Life cycle cost MHCSS Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard MHI Manufactured Housing Institute MSHP Mini Split Heat Pump NPV Net Present Value NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory NZE N et Z ero E nergy PPMOF Prefabrication, Preassembly, Modularization and Offsite Fabrication RECS Residential Energy Consumption Survey RESNET Residential Energy Services Network SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating SIP Structured Insulated Panel TDV T ime D ependent V aluation

PAGE 18

18 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida i n Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy TOWARDS HYPER EFFICIENCY AND CARBON NEUTRALITY IN INDUSTRIALIZED RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION By Andri el Evandro Fenner August 2019 Chair: Charles J. Kibert Major: Design, Construction and Planning R apid and far reaching transitions in all societal sectors are required to limit the increase of anthropogenic carbon emissions and, consequently, the devastat ing effects of global warming In the built environment, energy use has been found to be the dominant source of carbon emissions In the process of increasing energy efficiency, hyper efficient and carbon neutral concepts have been gaining significant attention. With the exception of the manufactured housing industry t he U.S. federal government has promoted energy efficiency in the residential sector for decades Due to outdated energy conservat ion codes, manufactured homes are very inefficient with the energy expenditure per square foot being the highest among all residential building types. Investing in energy efficien cy strategies is a significant decision because of the high initial costs. T his is particularly important for low income buyers or householders. Thus, the main purpose of this study is to conduct a more detailed analysis of the energy performance of manufactured homes in the State of Florida and investigate the opportunities for r eaching hyper efficiency and carbon neutral ity while improving the life cycle affordability of homeowners

PAGE 19

19 After conducting a comprehensive analysis of the energy use, carbon emissions, and construction related costs for different measures using parametric energy modeling simulations, this research narrowed down a set of potential measures to be implemented in manufactured homes in the State of Florida. The optimized modeling show ed th at these measures are the most energy efficient, cost effective and carbon preferred options T he proposed models, both the hyper efficien t model and the carbon neutral model, proved to be more life cycle affordable for all locations and loan options compared to the standard manufactured homes built in accordance wi th the HUD Code Due to the relatively high cost of photovoltaic panels the hyper efficient model is economically preferable compared to the carbon neutral model. However, when forecasting photovoltaic panel costs for 2030, it can be observed that the ini tial construction costs of the hyper efficient carbon neutral home decrease significantly, reaching surprisingly low simple payback periods Overall, most optimal hyper efficient features c an be achieved without major manufacturing challenges. The costs of materials were commonly reported by manufacturers as a major challenge. However benefits from single measures, just as shown in the parametric simulations, would greatly help manufacturers and dealers to better use energy efficiency as selling strategy and better understand the potential benefits of upgrading their homes. Lastly, t he industry survey provides the state of the the energy efficiency of manufac tured homes and additional measures that could be improved in the industry.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Dealing with climate change and its consequences will likely be the greatest long term challenge of modern life. As suggested by the recent Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) report [1] rapid and far reaching transitions in all sectors of society are required to limit global warming to 1.5C. In essence, anthropogenic carbon emissions will need to dec rease by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050. In the built environment, energy use has been found to be the dominant source of carbon emissions [2] In the process of increasing energy efficiency, hyper efficient and carbon neutral concepts have been gaining significant attention. In this research, hyper efficient is referred to a building that consumes considerably less energy than current standard practices while being life cycle affordable C arbon neutral buildings are referred to as hyper efficient buildings that use renewables to offset the remaining energy use of the building. Carbon neutral buildings offer several benefits [3] to include that (1) they transition the industry to comply with the IPCC recommendations and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) ; (2) they are less vulnerable to changes in the energy price s; (3) and they offer an opportunity to improve the life cycle affordability of manufactured homes and decrease monthly operation costs of owning the building. Although carbon and energy efficiency research have increased substantially in the last few years, there are still ma ny outstanding issues of energy access and affordability. Investing in construction, and particularly in energy efficient strategies, is a significant decision because of the high initial costs. This is particularly important for low income buyers or house holders.

PAGE 21

21 With the exception of the manufactured housing industry, t he U S federal government has promoted energy efficiency in the residential sector for decades. Manufactured homes are the primary provider of single family affordable housing in the U.S [4] They are built entirely in a factory i n accordance with the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard (MHCSS) administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) The HUD Code, as it is usually known was implemented in 1976 but has not been upgraded regularly as has been the case with conventional building codes. The last major revision to the HUD Code was made in 1994 as a result of natural disasters o n the Southeast coast, which raised concerns over manufactured housing quality [5] Due to outdated energy conservation codes, manufactured homes are highly inefficient with the energy expenditure per square foot being the highest among all residential building types [6] In 2015, manufactured homeowners spent on average $1,750 annually on energy, which is more than any other residential building type [6] In 2012, the energy expenditure for manufactured homeowners was 5% of the average household inco me and 30% more than the average American household [6] Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) [6] over 55% of manufactured homeowners suffer from some type of energy insecurity and over 40% reduce or sacrifice food or medicine expenditures due to energy costs. Problem Statement a nd Justification Recently, t he U.S. g overnment has recognize d that the energy part of the H U D code is obsolete. The first attempt to improve energy efficiency was the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Section 413 that mandated the U.S.

PAGE 22

22 Department of Energy (DOE) should lead the development of energy efficient and feasible standard s to be impleme nted by the manufactured housing industry [7] After several missing deadlines, the DOE submitted the first draft of the proposed energy efficiency standard in 2015 to the HUD [8] This new standard has not yet been approved by the HUD. However, a lthough th is new standard is expected to increase home efficiency over the HUD baseline code the proposed energy performance of manufactured homes will still l a g similar st andards for conventional residential construction Concepts developed via research, such as ENERGY STAR program and zero energy homes applied for manufactured homes have also gained attention in the last decade. However most of this research was conducted in the Pacific N orthwest [9 13] The literature indicated that no research on this issue has been conducted in the HUD C limate Z one 1, which encompass es the State of Florida, one of the top three States in annual manufactured home shipments [ 14] Furthermore, no research evaluated the feasibility of achieving carbon neutral ity for manufactured homes. Research Objectives The main purpose of this study is to conduct a more detailed analysis of the energy performance of manufactured homes in the State of Florida and investigate the opportunities for reaching hyper efficiency and carbon neutral ity in the manufactured ho using industry The initial questions that were motivating this research are as follow s : What combination of energy efficiency measures can achieve exemplary energy performance for manufactured homes under the HUD code in the State of Florida ? What are the costs and bene fits of improving the energy efficiency of manufactured homes under the HUD code ?

PAGE 23

23 What are the costs and benefits of achieving carbon neutrality for manufactured homes under the HUD code ? Can hyper efficient and/or carbon neutral manufactured homes improv e the life cycle affordability for homeowners seeking for affordable homes? What are the technical barriers of implementing hyper efficient and/or carbon neutral manufactured homes in the State of Florida? What is the state of the art perception of expe r t s towards the energy efficiency of manufactured homes? Research Contributions The contribution s of this research are as follows: Develop ment of a set of recommendations to improve energy efficiency and reach carbon neutrality of manufactured homes in the State of Florida affordably that could be used either by manufacturers or by future HUD Code updates; Articulation of the technical compl exities in implementing hyper efficient and carbon neutral measures in current manufactur ing facilities ; Identify measures that could increase the attractiveness of hyper efficient carbon neutral homes to customers seeking for affordable homes. Limitations a nd Scope o f Work Th e scope of work of this research is limited to a couple of aspects : (1) a lthough th ere are a significant number of manufactured homes prototypes, this study will be limited to energy simulations on a typical double wide manufactured home since it corresponds to most annual shipments in the United States. Energy simulations will be conduc ted on selected cities in the State of Florida that can represent the entire climatic characteristics of the State ; (2) a lthough it is known that homeowner behavior largely influences total energy consumption this research will use hypothetical set of residential occupancy patterns for energy use simulations due to limited studies and empirical data on specific behavior practices of manufactured homeowners ; and (3) t he carbon

PAGE 24

24 neutrality will be limited to net z ero carbon equivalent emissions from the energy operational phase by balancing the total amount of emissions through renewable energy production

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Overview o f Concepts a nd Definitions Industrialized Construction Definition Currently, there is no widely and commonly agreed upon definition for industrialized construction. Kamar [15] reviewed the definitions of industrialized building construction and concluded that the term is often interchangeably used with other terms such as offsite and prefabrication For example, t he International Council for Research and Innovation in Build ing and Construction [16] defines industrialization as the process of using mechanical power and tools, computerized systems, standardization, prefabrication, rationalization, and mass production, whil e Warszawski [17] defined it as the process of investing in production methods that improve the efficiency and quality of the final product. For the purpose of this research, industrialized construction will be limi ted to the process of manufacturing components of a building or complete volumetric sections in a controlled environment which could be either on site or offsite, transporting the complete or semi complete components to the construction site, and installing the components with minimal site works. The scope of the defined industrializ ed concept ranges from the production of individual components and assemblies to the complete building, as suggested by Tatum et al. [18] and shown in Figure 2 1 However, the focus of the dissertation will be only on manufactured homes, a subsection of the volumetric industrialized residential construction. As shown by Tatum et al. [18] industrialized construction can be classified as non volumetric or volumetric. Non volumetric prefabrication includes single elements or sections that are transported to project site for installation and assembly, such as

PAGE 26

26 precast concrete, cold steel pan els/structures, Structured Insulated Panels (SIPs), panelized walls, and prefabricated trusses. Non volumetric prefabrication methods eliminate the assembly of different elements in the factory and prevent waste of spaces in transportation, however, the pr ocess to connect the elements in the construction site increases the complexity of the construction. Volumetric prefabrication includes manufacturing and assembly of free standing building units in a protected factory environment. Examples of v olumetric re sidential construction include modular, manufactured, and park homes. Modular construction has been widely used in the past decades for housing, commercial educational, and high rise buildings comply ing with local building codes for their proposed use as any conventional building [19] On the other hand, m anufactured construction has been restricted to housing units built on a permanent chassis under the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements during both the manufacturing and construction process [4] Similarly p ark models are a type of manufactured home built on a trailer which is much smaller than a typical home designed for short term use and generally for recreational purposes Figure 2 1. Four levels of prefabrication in construction. Source: Adapted from Tatum, Vanegas, and Williams [18]

PAGE 27

27 Carbon Neutrality Definition sect or has seen an increase in the number of terminologies and stand ards about carbon emissions arbon neutrality and carbon free are two main concepts around the arbon neutrality is defined as achieving net zero carbon equivalent emissions by balancing the total amount of emissions through strategies such as sequestering, off setting, or buying carbon credits Carbon neutrality compensation usually focuses on the combination of energy efficiency, renewable energy and/ or forestry projects. Howev er, compensation through stored biomass might be a problem as there is no guarantee the permanence of sinks [20] Thus, energy efficiency and renewable energy are preferable compensation methods. On the other han ero carbon or carbon free is defined as a case where no carbon is emitted in the process in the first place, thus there is no need to offset carbon emissions. Most building standards related to carbon emissions are currently focusing on the arbon operational energy emissions and carbon offsetting strategies. Williams [21] created a roadmap for achieving carbon neutral homes and highlighted that decarbo nization of the energy grid, building energy efficiency, and behavior changes are considered the main elements, as shown in Figure 2 2 For the purpose of this study, the same above mentioned carbon neutral definition will be used, focusing on the operatio nal phase of the building as it still represents the majority of the carbon emissions of the sector.

PAGE 28

28 Figure 2 2. Technical toolbox for carbon neutral homes. Source: Adapted from Williams [21] However, as building s become energy efficient, the focus on carbon will shift to other building life cycle phases and widen the scope for consideration to, for example, the effect of building location on commuting energy and carbon Thus, the embodied emissions and commuting emissions are very likely scopes to be integrated by building carbon footprint standards in the near future [2] Up to now, v ery few standards and/or organizations have introduced or indicated the use of other life cycle stages in addition to the operational phase The World Green Building Council [22] called for the dual goal of all new buildings to operate at net zero carbon from 2030, and all buildings to operate as close as possible to zero carbon by 2050 by prioritizing low carbon intensity strategies rather than carbon offset strategies. The GBC has also indicated that this may incorporate embodied emissions in the future. The 2006 UK Code for Sustain able Homes [23] referred net zero emissions as to the operational energy, while the 2010 version [24] was absent on providing a definition The Canada Green Building Council

PAGE 29

29 (CaGBC) [25] is now requiring embodied emissions from structural and envelope materials for reporting purposes, indicating future plans to establish emission targets. The City of Vancouver [26] has indicated future targets for embodied emissions and occupant travel while considering operational emissions. Zuo [27] conducted a survey of prac titioners to identify the definition and potential factors contributing to or impeding the achievement of carbon neutral buildings. The interviews showed that there are various and contradicting definitions of carbon neutrality. Additionally, it showed th at embodied material emissions will be essential in the future in which f requently used building materials, e.g. concrete and steel would need to be addressed with more emphasis. On the other hand, c onstruction techniques were not perceived as the main op tion to reduce carbon emissions. Hyper Efficiency Definition In the construction sector, improving the energy performance of the built environment is one of the first ways to reduce the overall energy demand and respective GHG emissions. Several countries have been increasing their efforts to achieve ambitious performance goals, mostly related to carbon emissions, energy performance, and renewable energy options. Regarding the built environment, short and long term policies are being introduced mandating m ore strict requirements for the energy efficiency of buildings. In this process, hyper efficient buildings have been gaining significant attention. Although the literature shows a wide range of definitions, for the purpose of this research hyper efficien t building is defined as a building that on site energy based, consumes considerably less energy than current standard practices. Thus, h yper efficiency is achieved by outstanding climate responsive strategies and the adoption of

PAGE 30

30 specific thermo physical proprieties of building components and building equipment that reduce energy consumption For this research, the DOE/HUD standard will be t he baseline model and the aim is to decrease energy consumption by half or more while still keeping the manufactured homes affordable. Changes in occupant behavior are based on energy conservation strategies leading to energy savings [28] and thus, not part of the hyper efficien cy definition. Hyper efficiency may, most of the time, be the optimal method to achieve carbon neutrality as the costs to offset the remaining energy with a renewable energy system can be sign ificantly lower. However, it is important to note that, when accounted for in the total cost of construction, high performance materials may represent a significant share of the cost Thus, in terms of construction costs, an optimal solution is required be tween hyper efficiency and renewable energy systems. Energy Efficient Buildings The H istoric al Context of E nergy Efficiency Historically, energy efficiency concerns were mostly a response to the cost of energy. Until recent decades, the energy was inexpensive in the U S and hence energy efficiency was not a prime consideration. Around the 1970s the price of oil was less than $1/gal and, consequently, the cost of energy was low relative to the income of most people [29] Figure 2 3 shows the average retail cost of electricity per sector since the 1960s With the adve nt of higher energy prices i n the late 1970s energy efficiency started to become a factor for early d esign. The passive design movement, or climate based design, also started to get momentum. In the 1980s building codes started to encourage higher insulation values and better windows for construction. In the early

PAGE 31

31 1990s the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began the ENERGY STAR labeling program for computers, w hich quickly was expanded to include office products, HVAC equipment, home appliances, and eventually to buildings and industrial plants [30] Figure 2 3. Average retail prices of electricity in the U.S. per sector 1960 2011 (Cents per Kilowatt hour including taxes). Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration [29] More recently, there has been much debate about climate change and whether human activities are causing these changes. Although there are diverging theories, w hat is certain is that GHG concentrations have increased significantly in the past years and that reducing our dependence on highly emiss i ons, nonrenewable energy sources could reduce overall GHG emissions [31] In the construction sector, i mproving the energy performance of the built environment is crucial to reduc ing overall energy demand and GHG emissions. Thus s everal countries have been increasing their efforts to achieve ambitio u s performance goals, mostly related to carbon emissions, energy

PAGE 32

32 performance, and renewable energy options. S hort and long term policies are also being introduced mandating more stri ct energy efficiency requirements for buildings. In this process, hyper efficient buildings and net zero e nergy ( NZE ) concepts have been gaining significant attention due to their several benefits [3] which include : (1) fewer GHG emissions than conventional buildings because either the building consumes less energy or some or all of the consumed energy comes from emissions free sources ; (2) the buildings are not as vulnerable to changes in the availability of energy ; (3) the buildings help reduce the demand for utility scale electricity production or transmission projects ; (4) and might offer an opportunity to decrease monthly operation costs of owning the building improving the life cycle affordability of ho meowners. However, t he current literature on NZE building is still missing a shared framework and a consistent concept at the international level [32] For example, the U.S. Department of Energy defines NZE building an energy efficient building where, on a source energy basis, the actual annual delivered energy is less than or equal to the on site renewable exported energy Task 40 defines NZE buildings whose energy consumption are fully offset by renewable energy generated on site [33] In Europe, over than 20 different terms have been used across European countries for defining NZE buildings [34] The recast of the Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD) very high energy efficient buildings that generate the remaining low amount of energy usage from on site or nearby renewable sources [35] The State of California has its own definition which takes into account the time dependent valuation (TDV) of grid supplied electricity and the natural gas fuel supply for buil a n NZE building is one where the net of

PAGE 33

33 the amount of energy produced by on site renewable energy resources is equal to the value of the energy consumed annually by the building, at the level of a single project [36] non constant value to a unit of energy consumption or production as a function of the hour of the year and climate zone. For example, ele ctricity consu med or generat ed at night has a lower economic value than the electricity consum ed or generat ed during the day T orcellini et al. [3] also define NZE as: Net zero site energy: a site NZE building produces at least as much energy as it uses in a year when accounted for at the site. Net zero source energy: a source NZE building produces at least as much energy as in a year, when accounted at the source. Source e nergy refers to the primary energy used to generate and deliver energy to the site. Net zero energy costs : In a cost NZE the amount of money the utility pays the building owner for the energy the building exports to the grid is at least equal to the amou nt the owner pays the utility for the energy services and the energy used over the year. Net zero energy emissions: a net zero emissions building produces at least as much emissions free renewable energy as it uses from emissions producing energy sources. Although the NZE definition differ s in specifics, the general purpose is to promot e major improvements in building energy performance and mitigate built environment contributions to climate change by shifting to renewable energy sources [37] Residential Energy Efficiency In the United States, the residential sector account ed for 20.4% of the pri mary energy consumption and associated GHG emissions in 2017 ( Figure 2 4 ). However, the residential sector has historically been the major consumer of electricity consum ing

PAGE 34

34 around 37% of the U.S. total electricity production in 2017 [29] Even though the impacts of the residential sector are immense, the residential sector is also perceived to have the highest economically feasible mitigation potential among all sectors by combining existing knowledge and technology [38] Figure 2 4. Total e nergy consumption by sector 1949 2017 in the Uni ted States Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration [29] Thus, t he U.S. federal government has promoted energy efficiency in the residential sector for decades through several strategies Home rating systems and strengthening the statewide energy codes have been the main examples. Home energy ratings date back to the early 1980s when the U.S. residential mortgage industry sought to establish a method of incorporating energy efficiency ass ets into home values. These efforts culminated in the establishment of the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) in 1995 and the develop m e nt of the Home Energy Rating System (HERS). The HERS index has become a popular way of quantifying the efficient attributes of homes, in which 100 is considered the reference value. A typical resale home should

PAGE 35

35 score 130 or less. The ENERGY STAR certification program for newly constructed single family homes developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Energy Efficient Mortgage program to help homebuyers to finance energy efficiency measures by the U.S. Federal Housing Administration are other strategies. But perhaps, improving b ui lding energy codes is the primary policy instrument influencing the energy efficiency of new buildings. A significant policy making change was the Waxman Markey climate bill (H.R. 2454) that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009, requiring al l states to endorse residential building codes that are 30% more stringent than the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) s tandard by 2014, 50% more efficient in 2017, and 5% increase efficiency every three years until 2029 [39] The IECC standard is the main building energy performance code adopted worldwide. In the U.S., 47 states have adopted the IECC code and amended it in accordance with local practices and laws. Figure 2 5 shows the historical ener gy use intensity evolution of the IECC codes for the residential sector and the ASHRAE codes for commercial buildings. More recently, several organizations have also been pushing the limits of sustainability by encouraging net zero energy goals in the residential context The U.S. DOE Zero Energy Ready Home [40] is a program to recognize builders for their leadership in increasing effi ciency, improving air quality, and making homes zero energy ready and built upon the ENERGY STAR requirements and proven best practices in the construction industry. Zero Energy Ready Homes m ust meet all the minimum program requirements, be verified and fi eld tested in accordance with HERS Standards, and meet all applicable codes. It is estimated that the costs implications of a DOE Zero

PAGE 36

36 Energy Ready Home relative to the 2009 and 2012 IECC baselines for climates zones 3 and 5 range from $3,896 to $7,291, de pending on the climate zone and the energy source [41] Figure 2 5. Evolution of the residential and non residential energy code s (1975 2015) Source: Rosenber et al. [42] Additionally Architecture 2030 is an initiative that aims the reduction of GHG emissions in the construction sector. The organization has developed targets to reach carbon neutrality for the operation phase by 2030. T he t arget may be achieved by innovati ve design strategies, application of renewable energy technologies, and purchase of a maximum 20% of renewable energy [43] Table 2 1 shows the baseline energy use intensity, the Architecture 2030 goals for 2015 and the average performance of the residential sector in 2015. It can be noted that, a lthough the average

PAGE 37

37 energy performance of all residential sectors has increased, there is still a significant gap between the actual energy performance and the establis hed goals. The manufactured home category has had the highest increase in energy performance. However, it is not clear if the significant decrease is based on energy efficiency programs or other reasons, such as the destruction of old and underperforming m anufactured homes through severe climat ic events in the Southeast Table 2 1. Architecture 2030 Challenge s ite e nergy use intensity baseline and goals Source: Adapted from Architecture 2030 and U.S. EIA [6, 43] Residential type 2003 average and baseline EUI (kwh/sf/y) 2015 goal EUI (kwh/sf/y) 2015 RECS survey EUI (kwh/sf/y) % change Manufactured Homes 21.51 6.44 14.65 31.89 Multi Family, 2 to 4 units 17.05 5.13 15.38 9.79 Multi Family, 5 or more units 14.50 4.36 11.57 20.21 Single Family Attached 12.80 3.84 11.57 9.61 Single Family Detached 12.83 3.84 10.87 15.28 Review o f Energy Efficiency Strategies f or t he Residential Sector The following subsections will review the major energy efficiency design strategies selected from the literature as often proven to have a high impact on energy reduction from typical buildings. The strategies generally involve a combination of optimization of surface to volume ratio, optimization of solar orientation, reduction of envelope loads, systems based engineering of high efficiency HVAC components, and on site power generation [44]

PAGE 38

38 Building envelope insulation Super insulation refer s to buildings with insulation of walls and roof with airtightness levels significantly exceeding local building codes. The level of insulation is usually specified using R value or U factor. T he t hermal resistance or R Value (m 2 K/W or h.ft 2 .F/Btu) is a material property commonly used when a specified level of insulation is needed and measured the level of resistance to heat flow. Therefore, the higher the R Value, the higher the potential for insulation. The U Factor, o n the other hand, is the thermal tr ansmittance property of the material and used to specify the rate of heat transfer th r ough one square meter of a structure divided by the difference in temperature across the structure (W/m 2 K or Btu/h.ft 2 .F). Therefore, the lower the U Factor, the better the insulation property of the material. Overall, i mprovements of R Values for walls, slab and roof showed a significant increase in the energy performance of an affordable home in Philadelphia [45] However, t he level of insulation in a building highly depends on the climate in which the building is located Increasing building envelope insulation and glazing performance was found to be the most effective s ingle strategy in reducing peak electricity consumption in hot climates [46] By using thermal insulation, electricity consumption due to the building envelope and carbon dioxide emissions are anticipated to be reduced by 40% in Bahrain [47] It was found that roof insulation is the most important measure influenc ing the space heating and cooling load [48] Zhu [49] compared two identical floor plan homes in suburban Las Vegas in which one was built according to local building codes and the other used energy efficient strategies. It w as found that an insulated slab is effective during the heating season but does not contribute to energy savings during summer. The radiant barrier can reduce the amount

PAGE 39

39 of radiation striking the attic top surface and then results in a more comfortable ind oor space. On the other hand, r aising insulation levels might also have a negative effect o n the energy performance of the building. If the internal loads are high, the heat cannot dissipate from the building requiring higher cooling loads. Additionally, w hen the insulation levels increase, the wall thickness also increase s an d might affect the construction practices and reduce i nterior usable area Thus, l ow conductivity materials should be preferable to reduce space losses. The structural material can al so affect the energy efficiency of the building envelope. For example, joists inside walls and roof can often interrupt the continuous insulation and result in heat transfer hot spots or thermal bridges [50] The airtightness is another important factor for the building envelope. The Passivhaus Institute [51] for example, requires homes to have maximum 0.6 air changes per hour at 50 Pascals pressure (ACH50) for certification purpose. As a comparison, the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), which is mostly adopted, requires 3 to 5 ACH50 dependi ng o n the climate zone [52] High performance windows Openings are generally responsible for 20 40% of energy loss es in buildings [53] Therefore, efficient glazing technologies a re extremely important to achieve energy efficiency in buildings. High performance windows have reduc ed U value s allow ing the maximum entrance of natural light while still reducing the exchange of temperature. High performance windows usually have a U Factor at 1.5 W/m 2 K or lower. These levels can be achieved through two or more panels filled with inert gas and with Low E coating in addition to high visible light transmittance and low air leakage. The window using materials with low conductivity levels

PAGE 40

40 Recent technologies have also improved the efficiency of windows. Most common examples are double and triple glazing openings, aerogel glazing, smart glazing and prismatic glazing. Some studies with Near infrared switching Electroch r omic (NEC) glazing noted that up to 75% energy reduction from heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting cou ld be achieved if, at least, 39% of U.S. conventional windows would be upgraded [54] NEC glazing is an emerging dynamic window technology that can modulate the transmission of near infrared (NIR) heat without affecting the transmission of visible light. However, the increased costs are still a major concern for the implementation of NEC glazing or other highly efficient glazing systems. Thermal mass Heavy materials such as block, concrete, stone, or brick s can be used to store heat and decrease indoor temperature swings. Thermal mass store s the heat during over heated periods and release s it later during under heated periods. Thermal mass is usually not suitable for hot climates where the outdoor temperature remains relatively constant allowing the thermal mass to stor e heat during the day which cannot be release efficiently during the night [49] Daylight harvesting Daylight harvesting is a strategy to use natural ligh t when available in order to reduce artificial lighting energy consumption. Precautions should be taken to reduce glare and the accompan ying heat from natural light. Different climate zones have different sky conditions and weather patterns that need to be considered The size, shape and opening position are extremely important [55] O penings located in the surface with high solar incidence maximize heat transfer and may affect the heating and

PAGE 41

41 cooling demand of th e building. On the other hand, opening s located o n the surface with low solar incidence may increase the demand for artificial lighting Lighting power density Light emitting diode (LED), compact fluorescent (CFL), and halogen incandescent are three lighting efficient technologies that can replace incandescent, which wastes 90% of energy input in the form of heat. LED and CFL uses 75% less electricity to produce the same lighting level as incandescent with LED being most efficient while halogen incandescent uses 25% less electricity. A study revealed that reducing lighting power density was the most effective single strategy in reducing annual electricity consump tion, followed by using high efficiency appliances in residential buildings [46] Reducing the lighting power density also means reducing the heat produced from lighting systems, which might result in lower cooling loads in summer and higher heating loads in winter. Water heating systems Water heater s usually account for a significant share of the total energy use of a home. According to the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey [6] heating domestic water accounted for 20% of the total energy consumption of homes in the U nited States Thus, selecting an efficient system can save a substantial amount of energy. Table 2 2 summarizes the main characteristics of typical water heaters used in the residential sector

PAGE 42

42 Table 2 2. Comparison of the major types of domestic water heat ing systems Source: U.S. Department of Energy ; Willem, 2017 [56, 57] Type Storage Tankless Heat pumps Solar Tankless coil and indirect Costs $ $$ $$ $$$ $$ Life expectancy 10 15 years 20+ years 10 15 years Around 20 years 10 11 years Pros Lower purchase costs Provides a constant supply of hot water; Higher efficiency (8 34% more efficient than storage) Higher efficiency (2 3 times more efficient than storage units) 50% more efficient than gas or electric heaters Lower installation and maintenance costs Cons Higher standby heat losses Limited flow rate of hot water, reducing simultaneous and multiple uses (2 5 gall per minute) Performance is dependent on location; Release cold air increasing the load on space conditioning during heating months May require a backup system for cloudy days and high demand days Inefficient for most homes, especially in warmer climates Solution Increase storage insulation Install two or more tankless units connected in parallel or a separate unit for appliances that use more water Switching to regular resistance mode will stop cold air release, but will reduce the efficiency Install a solar system with storage water unit Fuel types Electricity, propane, natural gas, fuel oil Electricity, natural gas, propane Electricity, geothermal energy, natural gas solar Electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, propane System Releases hot water from the top while cold water enters from the bottom Heats water instantly when hot water tap is turned on and cold water enters the unit. Moves heat from one place to another, heating water Circulates water in solar collectors exposed to the sun space heating system to heat water The selection of the optimal water heater for a house requires the assessment of the following criteria [56] :

PAGE 43

43 Fuel type, availability, and costs: the type of fuel directly affect the annual operational costs, size, and energy efficiency of the model. This criterion also directly affects the total carbon emissions of the home. Energy efficiency: The higher the efficiency of the unit, the lowe r the operational costs Total costs: Total costs should be evaluated through the life cycle, accounting for initial costs, annual operation, maintenance, and replacement Size of the system: As important as selecting an energy efficient water heater, it is also important to properly size the unit depending on the system selected. The e nergy efficiency of water heating systems is mainly derived from its energy factor (EF). The EF indicates the overall energy efficiency of the product and shows the amount of hot water produced per unit of fuel used over a typical day. The EF includes the following criteria [56] : Recovery efficiency: indicates the efficiency of transferring heat from the energy source to water Standby losses: indicated the percentage of heat loss from stored water per hour compared to the heat content of the water (products with storage tanks) Cycling losses: indicated the heat losses as water circulated through storage tank, inlet, and outlet pipes. Table 2 3 shows the implications of the federal standard for different water heaters as 2015 [58] As can be noted, gas and oil fired water heaters are expected to have lower payback periods and thus, are considered more cost effective. The literature has also been suggesting that mixed fuel homes would be a better strategy to achieve highly efficient or net zero performance homes due to the cost effectiveness and the need for smaller PV arra ys [59 62] However, mixed fuel NZE homes do not adequately

PAGE 44

44 align with the goal to achieve carbon neutrality homes as the emissions from those fuels may not be considered when sizing the photovoltaic system. Table 2 3. Implications of standards for the purchase of residential water heaters. Source: U .S. Code of Fe deral Regulations, 10 CFR 430 [58] Product class Energy conservation standard Average baseline installed cost ($) Average installed price increase ($) Average life cycle costs savings ($) Med ian payback period years Gas fired storage water heater 0.62 (40 gallons) 1,072 92 6 2 0.76 (56 gallons) 1,261 805 77 9.8 Weighted 1,079 120 18 2.3 Electric storage water heater 0.95 (50 gallons) 554 140 10 6.9 2.0 (56 gallons) 729 974 626 6.0 Weighted 569 213 64 6.8 Oil fired storage water heater 0.62 (32 gallons) 1,974 67 295 0.5 Gas fired instantaneous water heater 0.82 (0 gallons) 1,779 601 6 14.8 Carbon emissions of water heating systems have also been a constant point of disagreement among researchers. Hong and Howarth [63] estimated the GHG emissions from the use of different water heater systems using different types of fuel. The study showed that directly using natural gas as the main fuel for water heaters, which is sometimes preferred due to its less adverse impacts on the climate, could result in higher GHG emissions than using electricity generated from coal and/or natural gas. In another study, the Washington Gas Light Company [64] studied the operating costs and carbon emissions fo r different types of fuel as for 2015 and found that water heaters using direct natural gas are the most costs effective and resulted in fewer carbon emissions. Most of the discrepancies can be explained by the carbon footprint baseline of the grid to whic h the water heater is being compared to. Nevertheless,

PAGE 45

45 additional studies are required to better understand the contribution of water heaters to both energy, cost, and carbon performance. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Heating, ventilating an d air conditioning (HVAC) systems usually use around 40% of the total energy of homes [65] Therefore, implementing highly efficient HVAC systems could have extreme potential to reduce building energy consumption. Integrating HVAC systems with proper climate based design could have even more savings. Increasing the efficiency of the HVAC system was able to decrease the overall EUI by 40% for a net zero energy affordable house in Philadelphia [45] In the U.S., most residential units use the central furnace to provide heat, which can be powered by electricity, natural gas, or fuel oil. Annual Fuel Utilization efficiency (AFUA) is the measure of the heating efficiency of furnaces Greater efficiency is achieved through electronic ignition, eliminating the need for pilot light burning all the time, new combustion technologies, to name a few. Regarding cooling, it is estimated that using high performance cooling systems can reduce electricity use in the residential sector by 20 50%. Cooling efficiency in dicator include s the Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), Coefficient of Performance (COP), a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER). EER and SEER use the ratio of cooling output in Btu/h our to the input electricity in watts EER use s the maximum cooling load c ondition, while SEER uses typical weather conditions at the specific location. On the other hand, COP is dimensionless because it is the ratio of cooling output to the input electricity using the same energy unit. Typical EER for residential central coolin g units is equal to 0.875 SEER. A more detailed method for converting SEER to EER uses this formula: EER = 0.02 x SEER2 + 1.12 x SEER. A SEER of 13 is approximately equivalent to a COP of 3.43, meaning that 3.43

PAGE 46

46 units of heat energy are removed from ind oors per unit of work energy used to run the heat pump. Heat pumps are an excellent alternative for conditioning buildings in climates that require moderate heating and cooling energy. Basically, heat pumps remove heat from cool spaces and release the heat into warm spaces. This unique characteristic of moving heat instead of generating heat minimizes significantly the costs of operation. Air source pumps, which exchange air between the building interior and exterior, are the most used pump. However, advanc es in geothermal research are producing heat pumps much more efficient ly which can be used in even more extreme climates since geothermal energy is the only source that can be generated continuously regardless of the external temperature. Some recent heat pumps also recycle the heat waste from the system and reducing building electric use [66] Thermostat setting T he t hermostat is an essential tool to improve occupant thermal comfort as well as controlling energy consumption more efficiently. The U S DOE recommends setting the thermostat to 20C (68F) in winter and 26C (78F) during summer [40] Studies have shown that d iverse thermostat strategies resulted in significant energy savings, with savings of up to 30% for heating systems and 23% for cooling systems [67] A few examples of thermosta t strategies include change of setback period, of set point, and setback temperature. Renewable generation Residential buildings can usually achieve zero electricity demand with proper design and photovoltaic systems The number of residential photovoltai c systems has

PAGE 47

47 increased substantially in the last years mostly due to the falling PV prices, increasing electricity prices, and growing incentives for renewable energy Some studies have shown that the practices of increas ing electricity rates to recover l osses due to renewable energy producers also increases the attractiveness of non solar c u st o mers to adopt PV systems [68] This feedback cycle has been a major concern for utility companies. However, PV electric ity output in residential projects sometimes has a small effect for homeowners because most energy is produced during the daytime when users are usually at work [46] Therefore, costs savings would mostly come from selling the excess of electricity to the provider during the day The Energy Use of Affordable Homes in Hot And Humid Climates Parker [65] collected data from ten similar single family conventional homes in the State of Florida aiming to understand how energy is used in low income housing. The author collected 15 minute data on all sites and on seven electrical end uses The a verage total electricity consumption in the group totaled 43 kWh/ d ay. H owever, energy use was quite variable among the group, osci llating from 21 to 59 kWh /day and a standard deviation nearly half the mean value. The energy use r ange among typical 3 bedroom home was 21.1 to 38.7 kWh /day C ooling was responsible for 40% of the annual electricity use. The a verage annual air conditioning energy use totaled 13.6 kWh/ d ay but data r anged from 4.7 to 24.4 kWh In a similar study [69] the average a ir conditioning energy use averaged 22 kWh/day, varying from 9.3 36.4kWh/day Both studies showed that the selected thermostat setting played a n important role in determining the cooling energy use suggest ing a 25% increase in space cooli ng energy for each degree centigrade below 27 o C. Also, e ach kWh of added internal appliance energy use was found to increase

PAGE 48

48 cooling demand by 2%. Space heating represented 4% of total annual energy consumption or an average of 1.6 kWh/ day [65] The author also found that the use of air conditioning in homes not always appear rational with homes demanding heating and cooling on the same day. The remaining energy use was due to domestic hot water ( 8.04 kWh / d ay ) l ighting and plug load ( 8 kWh/day ) dryer use ( 3.7 kWh/ d ay ) range/oven ( 1.9 kWh/ d ay ) and washing machine ( 0.3 kWh/day ) Only water heating and lighting/plug loads showed an intrinsic seasonality to their use while the other end uses showed random fluctuations [65] Affordability o f Net Zero Energy Homes Most net zero energy or nearly net zero projects focus on the high end residential market s with premium pricing strategies that often rely on codes, standards, regulations, and incentive packages intended to attract adopters willing to afford the premium prices. However, t he benefits of highly efficient homes could be especially important for m iddle to low income residents. The idea that highly efficient homes can be a solution to the energy use and household expenditure GHG emissions, and affordability issues is an attempt to tackle multiple current problems of housing with one single solutio n. The cost of housing is usually the largest expense in the household budget. The proportion of annual income that is spent on housing usually ranges from 25 45% of the total income [70] A home is said to be affordable when no more than 30% of a [71] However, the initial cost of highly efficient homes has remained a challenge for the market adoption of new homes. Also, the h ousing burden of old homes often sets the family budget too low to afford energy efficient upgrades and te chnologies, such as photovoltaics. For example, the expected

PAGE 49

49 existing quality of living ongoing. In fact, the average nominal retail price of electricity in the residential sector increased from $0.02/kWh in 1960 to around $0.11/kWh in 2010 [29] Fortunately, highly efficient and net zero homes can be successfully applied to through careful life cycle analysis and d esign strategies Thus, there is a need to expand the focu s to cost efficient co nstruction options to significantly increase NZE market penetration. Additionally, there is potential to reach net zero cost homes, homes as a no more expensive than a traditional home of comparable size and comfort, when evaluated ov er the course of a 30 year mortgage [44] Cost efficiency of net zero energy affordable homes Thomas [72] assessed 19 NZE and near NZE homes in New England and provided a broad analysis of energy performance, specific insights into the energy technologies, design, and occupant behavior. The author found that the vast majority of homes achieved an energy densi ty (kWh/person) at least half as low as the baseline. T he median construction cost for the 19 homes was $ 155/ft2 vs. $110/ft2 for the US average, while the cost savings from monthly energy cost averaged 84% below the average for homes. Additionally, their estimated CO 2 emissions averaged 90% below the baseline house. R esearch has also been suggesting that mixed fuel homes would be a better strategy to achieve highly efficient or net zero performance. Wei [62] assessed t he cost effectiveness of full ZNE single and multi family homes in California as a function of technology and potential future economies of scale. It was found that full ZNE mixed fuel single family homes can be more cost effective than the 2019 Title 24 compliant

PAGE 50

50 homes under the time dependent valuation (TDV) Brand [61] also found that mixed fuel ZNE designs require smaller PV arrays to achieve net zero on an annualized basis for one and two story home designs under the TDV approach Under the same conditions, all electric homes required PV systems that were 8% larger than the mixed fuel homes. Young [60] found that mixed fuel ZNE homes required smaller PV systems, carry a lower in cremental cost, and offer higher TRC values than all electric designs using the TDV metric. On average, mixed fuel ZNE costs were $2,200 less than all electric ZNE packages a difference of around 9% Leslie [59] found that a 2.93 kW PV system would be needed to offset site electricity on a highly efficient mixed fuel affordable home in California while an all electric home would require a 4.60 kW system. While the TDV has been shown to have an impact on the incr emental costs to achieve NZE homes, concerns have been expressed that the TDV metric may not adequately align with the goal to reduce GHG emissions [73] Morrissey [74] also f ound that larger investments in building thermal efficiency are most cost effective as means of net present value over longer timeframes (25 40 years) and the expected increase in energy prices. Some programs have also show n that a combination of energy ef ficient measures, energy incentives, and low interest rates over longer periods of time increase life cycle affordability of homeowners. While the total investment is relatively higher for high efficient buildings, monthly costs could be lower than in typi cal homes [75] Zhao [76] evaluated technical and financial models for scalability of deep, near zero energy retrofits, in existing low income multifamily housing ( Table 2 4 ) Near zero was defined as at least a 75 % reduction of both electricity and gas consumption. The

PAGE 51

51 energy measures package was predicted to save an average of 125 Therms/yr/unit of natural gas, corresponding to about $212/yr/unit (averaging $0.88/therm). The occupants of each residence would be expected to save about 902 kWh/yr/unit or about $93/yr/unit for electricity. Overall, the literature has suggested that a dvanced affordable efficiency measures usually include [45, 59, 77] : Tight, well insulated building en velope with low framing factor Ducts in conditioned spaces Right sized and efficien t space conditioning and water heating systems Efficien t hot water distribution system and fixtures High ly efficien t lighting and energy efficient appliances PV array proper ly sized and configured Table 2 4. Energy measure package for a low income net zero energy retrofit in California. Source: Adapted from Zhao [76] Measures Baseline Energy efficient package Savings Smart thermostat No Yes 5 14% Ceiling/roof insulation R7 batt R7 batt, R17 blown in 17 35% Cool roof No Yes Not provided Air leakage 10 ACH50 7 ACH50 30% Lighting 100% incandescent 100% LED 55% Ducts 32% leakage 7.5% leakage, R22 Not provided Solar hot water No Yes 70% High efficient boiler No 0.95 EF Insulated Hot water pipes No Yes Not provided PV system No Yes

PAGE 52

52 Life cycle affordability costs In recent years, several studies conducted an economic assessment of energy efficiency measures by examining the costs and benefits associated with its implementation. Studies usually focus on economic evaluation methods such as the Net Present Value (NPV) Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and discounted payback period [77] Life cycle cost (LCC) assessment is a valuable financial approach for evaluating and comparing different approaches in terms of initial cost against operational cost benefits over a determined period of time. The aim of LCC is to find cost reduction strategies, even though init ial investments are necessary and help to recognize that initial design decisions can have a significant impact in the long run [38] LCC can be used to inform designers and clients about different investments, a ssess the financial benefits of energy efficiency measures, and to help during the decision making process Initial and future expenses can be combined in the life cycle costing analysis by considering the time value of money, which reflect the future chan ges in inflation and using the suitable discount rate over the life timeframe. Thus, t he net present value is an important factor when comparing different alternatives [78] The LCC theory foundation was properly developed by Flanagan et al. [79] along with subsequent studies that summarized essential decisions and activities for a LCC a nalysis [38] as shown below : Defining alternative strategies to be evaluated specifying their functional and technical requirements

PAGE 53

53 Identifying relevant economic criteria discount rate, analysis period, escal ation rates, component replacement frequency and maintenance frequency Obtaining and grouping of significant costs in what phases different costs occur and what cost category Performing a risk assessment a systematic sensitivity approach to reduce the overall uncertainty The decision about energy efficiency strategies is usually based on the ratio of money invested to cost of energy saved. As further measures are implemented, the cost of construction usually increases. On the other hand, the savings f rom reduced energy consumption can also become more significant. Figure 2 6 shows an example of the least cost approach. Starting from the base case, total annual costs are decreased by employing energy efficiency measures, where point 2 is the minimum ann ual cost option. It is important to emphasize that the points on the least cost curve represent the potential performance that can be achieved by homes that are fully optimized with respect to energy cost performance. From point 3 to 4, a residential PV system is used to offset the remaining energy load. The optimal point, however, is still subject to debate [44] Figure 2 6. Example of the least cost approach graph. Source: Anderson [80]

PAGE 54

54 The Manufactured Housing Industry Definition o f Manufactured Construction Manufactured construction is a process of producing either building components or complete volumetric buildings in a protected factory environment. These structures are built o ff site and transported to the site for assembly. In the residential sector, man ufactured construction comprises of modular and manufactured homes. Modular homes are similar to conventional site built homes and are governed by site built building codes (Figure 2 5) On the other hand, manufactured homes are built on a permanent chassi s and built in accordance with a federal building code adopted and administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and known as the HUD Code. Table 2 5. Comparison of site built and factory built housing. Source: Adapted from Steven Winter Associates [71] Most typical characteristic Site built Modular Manufactured Construction location On site Factory settling Factory settling Pre site construction low 70 85% Up to 90% Quality of work Low middle high High Foundation Permanent (concrete or concrete blocks) Permanent (concrete or concrete blocks) Permanent or temporary. Usually concrete piers Applicable codes Local or State Local or State Federal HUD Code Design variations wide Moderate to narrow Moderate to narrow Code inspection local Third party in a factory with local for site work Third party in a factory with local for site work The Evolution o f Manufactured Housing Manufactured homes evolved mainly from the concept of temporary housing of the post war era and the rise of the automobile industry. Beginning in the late 1920s, automobile trailers that could be towed by the family car were being produced in

PAGE 55

55 factories. Ho use trailers later became an important source of temporary housing for war plant workers and the federal construction projects that occurred after the war. In response to the huge demand, Elmer Frey developed a 10 foot wide house trailer and named it a mob ile home. By the 1970s the mobile industry was producing a significant portion of the single family homes in the U S and was serving a broad market, not only itinerant construction workers [81] However, the gr owth of the manufactured construction also was accompanied by concerns about their durability. Since they were not legally considered as buildings, their construction was regulated as vehicles. The pressure to improve safety culminated in the Mobile Home C onstruction and Safety Standard Act of 1974, which required the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to promulgate and enforce the safety codes. The HUD Code became the only federal regulation for building construction to be used in the U nited States By the 1980s a large number of homeowners were using mobile homes as permanent buildings under permanent foundations. At this time, the mobile home term was dissociated and used for trailers, while the housing units became known as manufactu red homes [4] Current technological advances in the industry are allowing builders to offer a variety of designs, which now includes two story models. Advanced in transportation technologies have also enabled factories to i [4] Although the industry has been advancing its construction systems, the manufactured housing still has a negative stigma mostly due to the historical concerns about their durability and performance [82 84] Other categories that need to be currently addresse d to improve public acceptance

PAGE 56

56 are the low cost housing stigma negative impressions about poor design, aging units, and the idea of trailer parks [84] The Current State o f t he art of the Manufactured Housing Industry In 2017, the proportion of manufactured homes reached to roughly 6% of the U.S. housing market [6] but history has shown that the proportion of manufactured homes to new built single family homes sold per year has oscillated significantly over the years ( Figure 2 7 ) [81] Gavin [85] dem onstrated that the manufactured housing is in the declining stage of its product life cycle as a result of changes in the U.S. residential construction sector and the increas ing popularity of other off site construction practices such as modular and panel ized construction. Although the number of shipments is in its historically lowest levels as shown in Figure 2 8 the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) [4] predicts continuing expansion in the long term as a result of the advances in manufacturing processes and the critical need for affordable housing. In addition to that, it is expected that t he changes in the construction sector will force manufacturers to look for strategic advancements in order to be competitive in the residential market C urrently, eight states concentrate more than 50% of the total shipments in the U.S ., as shown in Figure 2 9 Texas had the highest number of purchased homes in 2017 with 17,676 manufactured homes, followed by Alabama and Florida with 6,046 and 5,855 homes respectively [14] These three states concentrated roughly 32% of the manufactured housing market in 2017. Except for Michigan, all other states are located in hot or mild climates and mostly, prone to hurricanes and /or sea level rise.

PAGE 57

57 Figure 2 7. The p roportion of manufactured housing to total new built houses. Source: Adapted from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey [81] Figure 2 8. Manufactured housing shipments. Source: Adapted from the Manufactured Housing Institute [14] 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 (Thousands of Units)

PAGE 58

58 Figure 2 9 U.S. Manufactured Housing Shipments by State. Source: Adapted from the Manufactured Housing Institute [14]

PAGE 59

59 Manufactured Housing a s a n Affordable Option The manufactured housing industry is one of the major providers of affordable single family housing in the United States [4] The affordability of manufactured housing can be attributed due to the less strict building codes than traditional residential construction and the controlled environment and assembly line techniques that remove on site problems. In addition to that, manufacture r s benefit fr om purchasing large quantities of materials, products, and appliances resulting in high savings in the construction. In 2017, the average price for manufactured homes was $48,300 for single section homes averaging 1,087 s quare f eet and $92,800 for double section homes with 1,733 s quare f eet These values include typical installation costs. On the other hand, site built homes averaged $293,727 for 2,645 s quare f eet In average, the price per square feet of site built homes is between 108% and 150% higher for double and single section manufactured homes. Figure 2 10 The a verage sales price of site built and factory built homes from 2012 2017 in the U.S. Source: Adapted from the Manufactured Housing Institute [14] $$50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Avg. Manufactured Homes Single section MH Double section MH Avg. Site-built homes

PAGE 60

60 Sociodemographic o f Manufactured Homes and t he Confounding Influence o f Homeown ers o n t he Energy Consumption Due to lower construction prices, manufactured homes are an exceptional option for low income families. Over 70% of the families that live on manufactured homes have an annual income less than $40,000, in which more than 40% h ave an annual income of $20,000 or less ( Figure 2 11 ). The majority of manufactured householders is within 65 74 years old ( Figure 2 12 ). Figure 2 11 Percentage distribution of householder income within each residential sector. Source: Adapted from the U S EIA, Residential Energy Consumption Survey [6] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $79,999 $80,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $119,999 $120,000 to $139,999 $140,000 or more Percentage (%) Annual household income ($) Apartment (5 or more unit building) Single-family attached Single-family detached Apartment (2-4-unit building) Manufactured Homes U.S. Average

PAGE 61

61 Figure 2 12 Percentage distribution of householder age within e ach residential sector. Source: Adapted from the U S EIA, Residential Energy Consumption Survey [6] Although manufactured homes are considered an affordable housing option, its life cycle affordability is still being ques tioned. Due to the outdated energy conservation codes and perhaps, lack of homeowner energy conservation literacy manufactured homes are highly inefficient, having the highest energy expenditure per square footage among all residential building types as shown in Figure 2 13 [6] In 2015, manufactured homeowners spent on average $1,750 annually on energy, which is more than any other residential building type. In 2012, the energy expenditure was 5% of the average household income and 30% more than the average American household [6] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Younger than 25 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years or older Percentage (%) Age distribution Apartment (5 or more unit building) Single-family attached Single-family detached Apartment (2-4-unit building) Manufactured homes U.S. average

PAGE 62

62 Figure 2 13 Site energy consumption and energy expenditure for U.S. household s Source: Adapted from the 2015 Residential E nergy Consumption Survey [6] The high energy expenditure of manufactured homes consequently impacts the household financial scheme. Energy Consumption Survey [6] manufactured homeowners have the highest levels of energy insecurity among all categories. It is estimated that o ver 55% of manufactured homeowners suffer from any type of energy insecurity O ver 40% reduce or sacrifice food or medicine expenditures due to energy cost s, and over 30% alrea dy received a notice to disconnect or stop energy delivery due to late payments as shown in Figure 2 14 In summary, while the initial costs of manufactured homes might be relatively cheaper compared to other housing options, the low energy performance of these homes makes them highly expensive over the long term.

PAGE 63

63 Figure 2 14 Percentage of household energy insecurity in 2015. Source: Adapted from the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey [6] It was also found that manufactured homeowners are less likely than site built homeowners to perform major energy efficient upgrades due to socioeconomic characteristics of the sector. If renovations are required, manufactured homeowners are 60% more likely to perform self work, which might increase energy operational costs or can potentially cause hazards [86] The following shows the major characteristics of the manufactured housing industry that may impact energy consumption in the U nited S tates [6] : Number of household members: The majority of manufactured homes have 2 members (35.29%), followed by 1 member (25%), 3 members (16.2%), 4 members (11.7%), 5 or more (11.7%).

PAGE 64

64 Children under 18 years old: over 66% of manufactured homes do not have a child under 18 years old. Ownership of housing unit: 73.5% own the manufactured housing unit, while the remaining lives on a rented status. Ethnicity: 85.3% is considered not Hispanic or Latino. Race of household: 72% of households are white, not Hispanic or Latino ; 11.7% are white Hispanic or Latino ; and 10.2% are black or African American. Data about Asian, American Indian, and other races are withheld as relative standard errors was greater than 50% or there were fewer than 10 cases. Number of weekda ys someone is at home: 66.1% of homeowners are at home 5 days a week, followed by 0 days (11.7%), 2 days (8.8%), and 1 day (5.8%). Homeowners affect the energy use of a building due to the ir irregular and spontaneous behavior. Thus, it is difficult to estimate the ene rgy consumption relative to occupant behavior. In addition to that, the lifestyle of manufactured homeowners may significantly affect the energy consumption of the home and impact the achievement of net zero energy and carbon neutral homes. While several e xisting studies have examined occupant energy behavior in homes [28, 87 91] few have foc used on the specific case of behavior in low income housing, where unique demographic and socioeconomic factors come into play. One of the few studies is from Nahmens et al. [92] which aimed to identify and ra nk low income occupant behavior impact on energy consumption on Louisiana homes The author found that cooling set point during summer, energy saving practices/behaviors, occupant behavior with respect to indoor environment quality, lighting electrical ap pliances, and heating set point a re the factors that most influence energy consumption. These factors were able to explain most of the variations in energy consumption by low income occupants. However, t he findings are somehow predictable and similar to conventional homes

PAGE 65

65 Overall, t he ene rgy consumption associated with household behavior varies significantly among conventional home studies thus reliable margin errors are still unknown. In addition to that, very few studies were conducted for affordable homes in hot and humid climate zones Thus, the respective energy consumption associated with behavior characteristics of manufactured householders is still un known Codes a nd Policies f or t he Manufactured Housing Sector HUD Code The Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards [5] also known as and construction, strength and durability, transportability, fire resistance, energy efficiency, and quality contro l. The HUD Code is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, using either state agencies or independent third party inspection agencies for enforcement. The HUD Code is unique since it is specifically designed for compatibility with the factory production process. The HUD the area where it will be sited. It is the federal counterpart to nationally recognized private sector model building codes su ch as the Building Officials and Code (SBC), and the International Code The HUD Code became mandatory for manufactured homes since 1976, however only a few and not significant changes have been made to the code since then. In the last decade the U S Government started to recognize the multiple

PAGE 66

66 problems with the HUD Codes and a few legislations were proposed. In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 [93] requiring each state to provide timely updates to the HUD Code and the program. With the devastating consequences of hurricane Katrina and Rita in the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005, the Congress authorized a one time grant to fund a competition for design and d evelopment of high Emergency Supplemental [94] Since the energy efficiency standards have not been updated since 1996, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Section 413 [7] mandated the U.S. Department of Energy to lead the development of energy efficient and feasible standard for the manufactured hous ing industry. The first draft of the new energy efficiency standard was released only in 2014, but the department could not reach any conclusion yet and the standard is still not approved. In 2009, the Congress introduced the Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing Act of 2010 [95] that aimed to assist low income owners of old mobile homes to finance the purchase of new ENERGY STAR qualified manufactured homes. The legislation would help reduce energy use and GHG emi ssions of the sector, boost production of manufactured housing, and improving communities and the quality of life of homeowners. However, no recent studies aimed to evaluate the effects of these recent measures. ENERGY STAR program ENERGY STAR is a volunt ary labeling program developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is designed to identify and promote energy efficient products and services [30] Computers and monitors were the first products to receive the label when the program started in 1992. Today, the program

PAGE 67

67 covers major appliances, office equipment, lighting, home electronics, new homes and commercial spaces, and industrial building plants. For the residential sector, the ENERGY STAR label means that a home is designed, manufactured, installed, inspected and verified to use at least 15% less energy than homes designed to minimum standards. T he use of ENERGY STAR qualified products and appliances within the homes offers an exceptional opportunity to reduce energy consumption even more. The requirements for manufactured homes differ from those for site built homes. A m anufactured home can earn the Energy Star certification by either verification of ENERGY STAR features on the factory and on site by a certified third party home energy rater, or by supervision of the facility plant by Quality Assurance Provider (QAP). The latest involves a plant c ertification process to confirm that the facility plant has incorporated ENERGY STAR requirements and is able to produce homes that achieve all the program requirements. An on site inspection certifies that all ENERGY STAR requirements have been met. Alth ough highly encouraged by the HUD, certified ENERGY STAR manufactured homes make up a small percentage of the market. Only a few states were able to achieve high market penetration. Figure 2 15 shows the comparison of ENERGY STAR certified factories with t he percentage of the total U.S. manufactured home shipments in the last 8 years in selected states. The following States together concentrate over 90% of the total U.S. manufactured home shipments. With the exception of Alabama, the top 10 S tates with a hi gh volume of manufactured home shipments have low penetration of

PAGE 68

68 ENERGY STAR certified factories. Texas, for example, has only 8 certified factories out of 20, while Florida has 1 out of 7, and Louisiana has none [14, 96] Figure 2 15 Comparison of ENERGY STAR certified factories to total shipments of manufactured homes in selected States. Source: Adapted from Manufactured Housing Industry and the Systems Building Research Alliance [14, 96] Section 413 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 As discussed before, in 2007 the U.S. government implemented the Section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), requesting the U.S. Department of Energy to lead the effo rts towards a new energy efficient building code for manufactured housing [7] In 2010, the DOE published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, initiating the process of developing energy conservation standards and soliciting information and data from industry and stakeholders. The comments were grouped on the following main areas: climate zones; the basis for the 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 North Dakota Washington Colorado Missouri Oregon Illinois Virginia West Virginia New Mexico Indiana Ohio Arizona New York Pennsylvania Arkansas Oklahoma Georgia Tennessee Kentucky South Carolina California Michigan Mississippi North Carolina Alabama Florida Louisiana Texas % of total manufacture home shipments in the last 8 years % of ENERGY STAR certified factories (%) % of ENERGY STAR certified factories % of total manufactured home shipments in the last 8 years

PAGE 69

69 proposed standards; specific building thermal envelope requirements; enforcement of nergy conservation standards; and the need and scope of the proposed rule. The EISA required U.S. DOE to establish energy conservation standards for cases in which [DOE ] finds that the [IECC] is not cost effective, or a more stringent standard would be more cost effective, based on the impact of the [IECC] on the purchase price and on total life DOE published the firs t draft of the energy conservation standard for manufactured housing based on the negotiated consensus recommendations of the manufactured housing working group. The recommendations included an update to the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IEC C), the cost impacts on the final product, life cycle construction operational costs, design and construction techniques, and construction and safety standards [8] A major change proposed is regarding the climate zones established by the HUD. The HUD Code divides the U.S. into three distinct climate zones using state lines for the purpose of setting its building thermal envelope requirements, while the IECC uses eigh t different climate zones using county lines in addition to three possible variants (dry, moist, and marine) within certain climate zones ( Figure 2 16 ) After life cycle cost analyses, it was recommended to use four climate zones respecting the most cost e ffective building thermal envelope requirements. It was perceived that, while IECC is more precise, any loss of accuracy in addressing climate differences is negligible compared to the impracticality of designing, constructing, planning, and

PAGE 70

70 shipping manuf actured homes in states with multiple climate zones. Also, several manufactured factories stock homes as inventory for dealers that not exactly know the final destination of the home [8] Figure 2 16 Comparison of different standards regarding climate zones organization. Source: Adapted from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, International Energy Conservation Code, and U.S. Department of Energy [5, 8, 52] The proposed standard will also provide two approaches to ensure that the building thermal envelope would meet more stringent energy conservation levels: a prescriptive option and a p erformance based approach with maximum U factor. The prescriptive approach would establish specific component R value, U factor, and SHGC requirements, providing a straightforward option for construction planning. On the other hand, the performance based a pproach would allow manufacturers to use a variety of different materials with varying thermal properties as long as the building thermal envelope can achieve a required level of overall thermal performance. Overall, the DOE determined that allowing manufa cturers to choose between two pathways for compliance would realize cost effective energy savings for homeowners while providing for flexibility within the manufactured housing industry [8]

PAGE 71

71 The proposed standard will also establish a maximum ratio of 12% for glazed fenestration area to floor area, arguing that any value greater would use more energy due to the greater glazed fenestration U factor related to other building components [8] Table 2 6 provides the proposed minimum thermal envelope prescriptive requirements and the respective preliminary average purchase price increase associated with the proposed rule under each of the proposed climate zones. The percentage of price increase is generally higher for the single section units. Table 2 7 shows the maximum U factor values for each component and the building thermal envelope. Table 2 6. Proposed building thermal envelope insulation prescriptive requ irements and average manufactured home purchase price increase under the proposed rule by climate zone. Source: U.S. Department of Energy [8] Climate Z one Ceiling R value Wall R value Floor R Value Window U factor Skylight U factor Door U factor Glazed fenestratio n SHGC % price increase 1 30 13 13 0.35 0.75 0.40 0.25 4.5 5.3 2 30 13 13 0.35 0.75 0.40 0.33 4.4 5.1 3 30 19 19 0.35 0.55 0.40 0.33 3.2 4.5 4 38 30 30 0.32 0.55 0.40 No rating 3.4 4.8 Table 2 7. Performance based U factor alternatives to R Value requirements. Source: U.S. Department of Energy [8] Climate Z one Ceiling U factor Wall U factor Floor U factor Building thermal envelope Single section Multi section 1 0.0446 0.0943 0.0776 0.087 0.084 2 0.0446 0.0943 0.0766 0.087 0.084 3 0.0446 0.0628 0.0560 0.070 0.068 4 0.0377 0.0628 0.0322 0.059 0.056 The proposed rule also would produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHG associated with electricity production at the site and upstream reductions ( Table 2 8 ). The higher percentages of energy savings and carb on emissions are for multi section manufactured homes [8]

PAGE 72

72 Table 2 8. Cumulative energy savings over 30 years analysis (2017 2046) and respective CO2 emission savings. Source: U.S. Department of Energy [8] Climate Zone Single section Multi section Total CO 2 emission savings % Energy savings % Energy savings (million metric tons over a 30 year lifetime) 1 25.3 29.9 60.5 97.6 2 25.4 30.6 3 26.0 28.1 4 25.4 26.5 Hyper Efficient a nd Carbon Neutral Manufactured Homes Research o n High Performance Manufactured Homes High performance housing has the potential to improve life cycle affordability. T here has been a significant effort to establish high performance goals, either by federal, state, or local law or by the home buyer, architect, builder or manufacturer lately However, achieving high performance housing that is affordable for low to middle income households requires planning, creative and innovative design, and efficient implementation [47] As mentioned previously, ENERGY STAR standard exists for HUD manufactured homes, but it is a very different standard from the modular and stick built homes as the ENERGY STAR HUD standard does not meet even the minimum standards set forth in the IECC 2009 cod e [75] McWilliams [97] compared the overall performance of manufactured homes with ENERGY STAR and the DOE ZER home standards for the U nited S tates It was found t hat, on average, the ENERGY STAR home saves 39% over the HUD baseline standard home, while a DOE ZER home saves 54% over the baseline. While the savings might look like substantial, it is important to note that HUD baseline is highly inefficient. The incre mental costs of $4,500 and $9,200 per

PAGE 73

73 manufactured home would be needed to achieve ENERGY STAR and the DOE ZER standards respectively. If an incentive covering two thirds of the incremental cost could be applied, the average incentive cost per kWh (saving s weighted across all climate zones) would be $0.11 for the ENERGY STAR program and $0.17 for the DOE ZER program. States with temperate and warmer climates would require higher incentives. In this scenario, the State of Florida would require an incentive of $0.31/kWh to achieve DOE ZER standard. The higher incentive is mainly due to the higher construction costs with relatively lower energy savings. In another study [13] the NREL found that the retail incremental dir ect costs could exceed $20,000 above the ENERGY STAR energy package for high performance zero energy manufactured homes in the northwest region of the U.S. with energy savings reaching 50% over the HUD code baseline. In 2014, DOE certified the first DOE Z ero Energy Ready Manufactured Home in Russellville, Alabama [98] The home met and/or exceed ed the HUD codes, local code as a site built home, and ENERGY STAR requirements. Although the home was predicted to have an except ional energy performance, further research and detailed performance of the home after occupancy was not found in the literature. In addition to that, building costs were not released. Table 2 9 shows the thermal building insulation requirements among diffe rent standards and additional strategies applied to the DOE Zero Energy Ready Manufactured Home. A HERS rate of 57 was achieved without the use of photovoltaics. Also, no additional information was found about the PV system required to achieve net zero status.

PAGE 74

74 Table 2 9. Comparison of thermal insulation requirements for different codes Source: Source: U.S. Department of Energy [98] Building element HUD Code IECC 2012 Energy Star 3.0 U.S. DOE Proposed HUD code 1 st DOE ZER Manuf. Home* Ceiling R 12 R 38 R 32.5 R 30 R 54.6 Walls R 9 R 13 + R 5 rigid R 13 R 13 R 13 + R 5 rigid Floors R 9 R 19 R 22 R 13 R 28 Windows U value 0.47 0.31 0.35 0.27 Air infiltration ACH50 3.85 HVAC SEER 22, HSPF 12 Hot water 0.93 EF *IECC hot humid climate zone 3A, U.S. DOE proposed HUD code climate zone 2. However, the available research falls short of helping manufactured home builders to meet higher energy efficiency standards and specifications without major production line process changes and without compromising the manufactured homes. Table 2 10 shows typical challenges for increasing efficiency in manufactured homes and possible strategies [75] Table 2 10. Typical challenges and potential strategies for manufactured homes Source: Adapted from Schneider [75] Challenge Strategy Long and narrow footprint yielding poor surface area to Minimize heating/cooling loads via higher insulation levels, reduce thermal bridges, increase airtightness, triple glazed windows Lot orientation is usually not in the east west axis reducing the potential for passive solar design. The m anufacturer does not usually know the site specifications prior to manufacture. Optimize glazing area, U Factor, and the solar gain coefficient for all orientations Limited storage/mechanical room space Right sized mechanical room; ductless mechanical systems Increase R value for walls, roofing, floors Find maximum insulation thickness that can be accommodated without significantly impact construction and reduce the floor area

PAGE 75

75 Financing Schemes f or Manufactured Housing Lending institutions that provide conventional long term real estate mortgages and government insured financing plans usually require homes to become part of the real estate by being tied down permanently on approved foundations. Due to this reason, the most common method of financing a manufactured home is through a chattel loan [11] Nationally, over 75% of manufactured homes are considered personal property and are financed via personal property loans or chattel loans, while only 17% of manufactured homes are titled as real estate and can potentiall y secure conventional mortgage financing. The percentage of personal property homes is even higher in the South of the U nited S tates where it reaches over 82% [4] While some federally insured mortgage programs can be appli ed to manufactured homes that are set on permanent foundations, many lenders refuse to treat the manufactured homes as part of the real estate, even when the home buyer owns the land on which the home is placed [11] From 2001 to 2010, over 65% of borrowers who owned their land financed manufactured homes through chattel loan [99] ability to finance and the costs of financing as the chattel loan carry higher interest rates and shorter amortization schedules compared to conventional loans. One illustration of this difference is the fact that a large number of manufactured homes are c lassified as higher price d mortgage loans (HPML) compared to conventional loans, meaning that loans have higher annual percentage rates over the average offer rate. Over 68% of manufactured homes are classified as HPML while around 3% are site built [99] Table

PAGE 76

76 2 11 shows the main differences in financing homes through conventional mortgage and the chattel loan from data collected from an industry survey [1 00] Table 2 11. Main differences between a site built home mortgage and chattel loan. Source: Adapted from Hewes [100] Type Conventional mortgage Chattel loan Loan term 2 5 30 years 10 20 years Fixed Interest rate 4 6.5 % 7 10.75 % Down payment 3.5 20 % 5 20% Currently, 32% of manufactured homes installations are located in housing communities [4] These developments provide access to infrastructure without the capital to purchase and develop the land However, lease cost can be very high, sometimes reaching $650 per month and exceeding mortgage costs of homeownership. Additionally, tenants do not have the right of the land and it is not uncommon to landowners to sell the property and force tenants to move [12] In addition to that, manufactured homes residents spend an average of $1,750 annually on energy, which is more than any other residential building type [6] The chattel mortgage system significantly offers an obstacle to purchase very high performance homes as the interest rates can have a market impact on the cost effectivenes s of an energy efficient upgrade. Relatively small increases in the purchase price, even though might increase energy efficiency, can lead to significant increases in the loan payment. While the most motivated home buyers will still choose to invest in hig h efficiency manufactured homes, upfront costs will likely dissuade the average customer [11] Therefore, it has been noted that financial mechanisms are as important as energy efficient strategies in terms o f life cycle affordability of manufactured homes.

PAGE 77

77 Lately, electric utilities are implement ing programs to increase building energy efficiency to manage load as a public service or because the state wide public utilit y commission mandates them as part of a cost effective electricity resource portfolio. However, very few states, and mostly i n the northern region, offer rebates for energy efficient manufactured homes. Also, most of the rebates are for ENERGY STAR factories. Rebates amount vary from $550 to $1 ,200 given directly to the home manufacturer or retailer [96] The U S lower and negotiable i nterest rates than conventional loans [101] Summary The U.S. federal government has promoted energy efficiency in the residential sector for decades, except for the manufactured housing industry. Manufactured housing is still perceived to be the best approach to delivering unsubsidized single family afforda ble ho mes in the United States Although manufactured homeowners pay a relatively low initial price for the housing unit, the outdated HUD Code very often make owners to have a very high energy expenditure. In addition to that, other major problems include poor indoor air quality, low levels of durability, depreciation of homes, and vulnerability to severe weather events. Although most research on energy efficiency focus es on the high end residential markets with premium pric es, it has been suggested that h yper efficient carbon neutral homes could be a potential solution for several problems of the manufacturing housing industry, such as energy use and household expenditure, GHG emissions, and affordability issues In addition to that, i t has been

PAGE 78

78 noted that improving the efficiency of manufactured homes could overcome the [11] Research on high performance manufactured homes ha s also gained attention in the last decade. However, most research was conducted in the Pacific N orthwest [9 13] The literature indicated that no research on this issue has been conducted in the HUD C limate Z one 1, which encompass es the State of Florida one of the top three States of annual manufactured home shipments and one of the States with an incredibly lo w number of ENERGY STAR manufacturer certifications in the country. Furthermore, no research has attempted to provide guidelines to achieve carbon neutral manufactured homes

PAGE 79

79 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS Research Design This dissertation aims to verify the feasibility of achieving hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured homes in the State of Florida while considering the whole life cycle affordability of manufactured homeowners and the impacts on the manufacturing fac ilities. Th is research method uses an experimental approach which seeks to understand how d ifferent variables influence an outcome. The e xperimental approach is a section of the quantitative type of research aiming to test objective theories by examining the relationships among variables that can be measured and/or analyzed through statistical procedures [102] In this case, the experimental approach will help to understand the effects of applying different energy efficiency measures in the final energy consumptio n of a model, the relative life cycle costs the operational carbon footprint, and the impacts on manufacturing and selling the building. Independent and dependent variables will be influencing the outcome of the work. Energy efficiency measures are considered independent variables as they cause, influence or affect the outcome. On the other hand, specific data about the construction and sit e are considered dependent variables as they depend on the independent variables. Hypothetical Argument a nd Research Questions This dissertation tries to formulate the hypothesis that hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured homes have the potential to improve life cycle affordability of homeowners seeking for affordable single family homes while helping the industry to

PAGE 80

80 comply with recommendations to mitigate climate change The research questions that are leading this dissertation are as follows: W hat combination of energy efficiency measures can achieve exemplary energy performance for manufactured homes under the HUD code in the State of Florida ? What are the costs and benefits of improving the energy efficiency of manufactured homes under the HUD code ? What are the costs and benefits of achieving carbon neutrality for manufactured homes under the HUD code ? Can hyper efficient and/or carbon neutra l manufactured homes improve the life cycle affordability for homeowners seeking for affordable homes? What are the technical barriers of implementing hyper efficient and/or carbon neutral manufactured homes in the State of Florida? What is the state of t he art perception of expe r ts towards the energy efficiency of manufactured homes? Figure 3 1 and t he following sections will describe the methodology used for this research Figure 3 1. Flowchar t of the relationships among steps for the research.

PAGE 81

81 Step 1: Identify the Combination o f Energy Efficiency Measures that Can Achieve Exemplary Energy Performance f or Manufactured Homes Under t he HUD Code Simulation b aseline model s For this research, two baseline models will be developed for a traditional double section manufactured home in the HUD climate region 1 : a baseline under the HUD code and a baseline under the 2015 DOE/HUD standard Double section manufactured homes were selected as they represent the majority of manufactured homes s old in the State. The DOE /HUD standard will be used as the main reference model for optimization purposes as the standard is most likely to be implemented soon Models from the HUD code will be used at the end of the optimization cycle as a way to compare energy savings Energy consumption using energy models will be simulated in the three geographically diverse cities in the State of Florida (e.g. Miami, Gainesville, and Tallahassee). These cities not only have a large percentage of manufactured homes but also can represent the differences in climatic conditions and solar potential within the State. Energy efficiency upgrades According to the literature review and analysis of the energy measures in the manufactured housing industry, the following e nergy eff icient upgrades could show significant improvement i n energy performance: Thermal and air barriers along the building envelope, which includes: a) A dvanced insulation for walls, floors and ceilings b) Advanced windows c) T ight envelope Domestic hot water improvement

PAGE 82

82 Advanced h eating, cooling, and air conditioning systems Building energy optimization s oftware Building energy optimization involves finding the optimum minimum annual cost that balances investments in efficiency versus energy savings. However, b uilding energy simulations are often used for trial and error evaluation s building design Some of the methods are extensively time consuming and usually not feasible. In recent years, several computer programs were developed to a utomate building energy optimization and evaluate several options while performing enough simulations to explicitly account for interactions among a combination of design options. BEopt is a computer program designed by the NREL to optimize energy efficie ncy models along the path to ZNE for the residential sector. BEopt calculates the life cycle cost of building efficiency measures, including capital and operating costs [62] BEopt software has several advantages: (1) it finds intermediate optimal points along the entire path considering the minimum cost building designs; (2) discrete rather than continuous building options are evaluated, reflecting realistic construction options; (3) multiple near optimal design can be i dentified at each particular energy savings level, providing design alternatives; (4) users can select from built in options or define their own custom operations (design, parametric, optimization modes) [103] BEopt uses DOE 2 and TRNSYS simulation engines at whole building simulation engine to run hourly and sub hourly simulations. While DOE 2 is used to calculate appliance and lighting energy savings based on energy use intensity factors and schedules input, the TRNSYS is used to calculate water heating loads and annual electrical energy production from the PV system. TMY2 weather data is used for all simulations [103] O t her public data sources include the National Residential Efficiency

PAGE 83

83 Measures Database for default costs and lifetimes of all measures, the U.S. Utility Rate Database for energ y costs, and the 2014 Building America House Simulation Protocols for occupant behavior which includes thermostat setpoints, number of occupants, hot water usage, appliance usage, plug loads, and schedules. All default values can be customized accordingly to each project and local characteristics. Building energy optimization simulation The building energy optimization simulation will consist of two parts First, p arametric simulation s will be used to shortlist Energy Efficient Measures (EEM) based on indi vidual building component simulations. The chosen method involves simulating all categories individually (wall type, ceiling type, window glass type, HVAC type, etc.) and identify the most effective option at each category in terms of energy savings, life cycle costs, and carbon savings. This step is highly important for two main reasons: (1) to understand the individual contribution of different measures compared to the baseline regarding energy savings and cost effectiveness and, (2) to facilitate the sim ulation of most efficient packages. As mentioned earlier, building simulations can be highly energy and time intensive. Shortlisting the number of measures for package simulation will facilitate automated building energy optimization and reduce simulation time. The second part consists of optimized simulation s. The most energy efficient, cost effective, and carbon preferred options are selected based on the results from the parametric simulation. The optimization mode of BEopt software will use the search e ngine to simulate multiple options altogether to select the best combination of measures. The least cost method will be used to determine the most effective energy efficiency, cost effective and carbon preferred package. T he building design is then held co nstant and photovoltaic solar is implemented in order to reach carbon neutral status

PAGE 84

84 Step 2: Identify t he Costs a nd Benefits o f Achieving Hyper Efficient Manufactured Homes i n t he HUD Climate Zone 1. Parametric and optimized simulation s will evaluate the following factors of each measure compared to the baseline : E nergy savings and associated costs For each simulation, the energy savings and associated energy costs will be calculated and compared against the DOE/HUD baseline. For energy savings, the total annual energy consumption of the manufactured home will be used, while for the energy related costs, the utility bills will be annualized considering the specific energy costs for each location, as shown in Table 3 1 Table 3 1. Energy cost input data for BEopt software simulation. Source: OpenEI [104] Location Electric company Fixed rate ($/month) Tier 1 (kWh $/kWh) Tier 2 ($/kWh) Gainesville Gainesville Regional Utilities 14.25 800 0.068 0.093 Miami Florida Power & Light Co. 7.94 1000 0.08172 0.1018 Tallahassee City of Tallahassee 7.34 0.0679 C ost analysis Under the cost analysis, this study will evaluate the initial construction costs, the simple payback period, and the life cycle costs over a 60 year period The initial construction cost r efers to t he costs associated with the building materials and building equipment in the model The simple payback period refers to the time required to recover the project investment wi thout considering the time value of money. It is often defined as the break even point i.e. the year at which initial investment is offset by the benefits accumulated which in this case will be the energy associated costs financial viability c an be assessed by comparing the payback period of different

PAGE 85

85 measures. There is no consensus on how long an investment should take to make profits, especially for residential buildings but a reasonable payback period is between 6 and 10 years for optimized models [105] The life cycle costs will be calculated by s umming the net present value of life cycle expenses associated with the loan, home maintenance, utility bills, and rebates, when applicable. Carbon emission s The grid carbon intensity is an important factor when considering carbon neutral projects. It is i mportant to note that depending on the location of the manufactured home, carbon offsets through renewable energy might be more significant than when compari ng the same home in different locations. For this research, location based carbon intensity grid da ta will be considered as shown in Table 3 2 Carbon emission rates will not directly affect the costs of the system, but rather can help understand the actual impact of energy use of manufactured homes in the State Table 3 2. Carbon emission rates associated with electricity production in the State of Florida. Source: US EPA [106] FRCC eGrid subregion Emission rates CO 2 1 .01 lb/ kWh SO 2 0. 000 4 lb/ kWh NO 2 0. 000 5 lb/ kWh Step 3: Identify t he Costs a nd Benefits o f Achieving Carbon Neutral Manufactured Homes Low carbon energy sources are one of the best options to decarbonize the grid. Thus, r enewable energy technologies will be used to reduce and/or offset the carbon emissions asso ciated with the energy consumption of the manufactured home and quantified in Step 2 Photovoltaic systems will be simulated 20 degrees tilt facing south

PAGE 86

86 using c rystalline silicon panels with an average efficiency of 17% and considering the 2018 system costs for residential installations in Florida and future estimates as shown in Table 3 3 [107] It is believed that the PV costs could be significantly different if the system would be ins talled in the factory, but the NREL benchmark will be followed for this research. The system is connected to the net metering system and us es retail electricity rate for eventual excess of electricity as usually allowed by the State of Florida unless other wise noted. Costs and benefits for the carbon neutral manufactured home will be evaluated the same way as in Step 2. Table 3 3 Residential s olar p hotovoltaic system costs benchmark per W att in the State of Florida by Q1 2018 and U.S. cost reduction roadm ap by 2030 for the residential sector Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory [107, 108] System System Costs Less aggressive pathway 2030 Visionary pathway 2030 PV Module 0.47 0.30 0.30 Inverter 0.21 0.10 0.10 Structural BOS 0.10 0.10 0.04 Electrical BOS 0.21 0.17 0.17 Supply chain costs 0.30 0.12 0.05 Sales tax 0.08 0.06 0.06 Installation labor 0.19 0.22 0.13 Permitting and inspection 0.06 0.04 0.04 Sales and marketing 0.34 0.07 0.01 Overhead 0.31 0.22 0.04 Net profit 0.31 0.22 0.18 Total 2.56 1.62 1.10 Step 4: Identify i f Hyper Efficient a nd/ o r Carbon Neutral Manufactured Homes Can Improve The Life Cycle Affordability f or Homeowners Seeking f or Affordable Homes This step includes evaluating the several costs associated with manufactured homeownership through a L ife C ycle A ffordability M odel (LCAM). The aim is to analyze the average yearly expenses of the hyper efficient and carbon neutral manufactured home The LCAM will consider construction mortgage costs for both chattel and

PAGE 87

87 conventional financing energy consumption expenditure, eventual building maintenanc e costs, renewable energy mortgage costs and rebates when applicable The project analysis will be limited to 6 0 years, using an inflation rate of 2.4% and a discount rate of 3%. The increased costs for achieving higher energy efficiency and the mortgage type will directly affect the fixed monthly payment paid by the borrower. As mentioned before, the manufactured housing sector has the highest interest rates in the market and the lower loan periods. The chattel mortgage method, e specially, offers an obst acle to purchas ing very high performance homes as the interest rates can have a market impact on the cost effectiveness of an energy efficient upgrade. In this research, the chattel and conventional loan method will be simulated using the extreme values of Table 2 11. Step 5: Identify t he Feasibility o f Implementing Hyper Efficient a nd Carbon Neutral Measures and Research the State o f t he Art Perception o f Expects Towards Energy Efficiency o f Manufactured Homes hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home survey. The survey will consist of two phases. The first part will aim to understand the technical challenges of implementing the suggested hyper efficient car bon neutral measures in current manufacturing facilities in the State of Florida. The survey will consist of structured and non structured questions for manufacturers. The second survey will aim to better understand experts perceptions around the energy e fficiency of current manufactured homes in the State of Florida and to identify strategies that could increase the overall attractiveness of manufactured homes. This survey will be distributed to a wide range of stakeholders, to include dealers, manufactur ers, and retailers.

PAGE 88

88 Baseline Model Baseline Model Elaboration Due to the lack of empirical data and local energy models, a baseline energy model was developed based on field testing perform ed by the U.S. DOE on an unoccupied manufactured home built under the HUD standards in Alabama This study gathered information on the actual whole house performance and included standard occupancy behavior A n energy model was developed and calibrated using the outputs of the measured home and s imulat ed in Mississ ippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky [10] Figure 3 2 shows the building floorplan used for the study, while Table 3 4 and Table 3 5 shows the building thermophysical and equipment characteristics for the double section manufact ured home. Figure 3 2. Typical floor plan of a HUD manufactured home. Source: U.S. Department of Energy [10] Table 3 4. Building characteristics used for the development of t he energy baseline model. Building characteristics Double section Location Columbus, Mississippi Number of bedrooms/baths 3 / 2 Average square feet 1,204 Homes size 28 ft x 43 ft Ceiling height Pier and beam height 3 ft Roof type Gable (4:12), unfinished attic

PAGE 89

89 Table 3 5. Thermophysical and equipment proprieties of the assessed manufactured home and calibration adjustments for the baseline model. Description Original proprieties U.S. DOE calibrated measures calibrated measures Building orientation South North axis Walls Material Wood stud, 2x4, 16 O.C. R Value R 11 fiberglass batt Exterior finish Vinyl, light Ceiling Unfinished attic, R 22 blown fiberglass, vented ceiling. Roofing Roofing with asphalt shingles, dark Floors R 14 Fiberglass blanket Foundation Pier and beam, 3 feet height Thermal mass Drywall: inch for walls, 5/8 inch ceiling Windows Window area 12% F25, B25, L25, R25 Window proprieties Single pane, metal frame, U 0.47, SHGC 0.73 Window interior shading 0.75 Door proprieties Wood, 20 ft 2 U 0.40 Eaves 1 f oo t Airflow Infiltration 1 4.7 ACH50 7.7 ACH50 7.7 ACH50 Mechanical ventilation 2 21.56 cfm/unit Space conditioning Central air conditioning 3 2tons; SEER 13, EER 11 2tons; SEER 13, EER 7.1 2tons; SEER 13, EER 7.1 Rated supply fan 0.34 W/cfm Installed supply fan 0.68 W/cfm Electric furnace 35 kBtu/hr 34.1 kBtu/hr 35 kBtu/hr Duct leakage 4 4.54 CFM25/ 100ft 2 average R 8 6.5 CFM25/100ft 2 R 12 6.5 CFM25/100ft 2 R 12 Space conditioning schedules Cooling 78 o F, Heating 68 o F Water heater Electric, 50gal, EF 0.90 Miscellaneous 100% incandescent Appliances and fixtures Top freezer Benchmark (434 kWh/yr) Electric cooking range Benchmark (499 kWh/yr) Dishwasher Benchmark (318 kWh/yr) Clothes washer Standard (MEF 1.41) Clothes dryer Electric (EF = 3.1) Hot water fixtures Standard Use 1 Adjusted to predict air leakage match 2 Based on flow measurement and air handling unit run time 3 Calibrated to account for higher measured cooling use during summer 4 Adjusted to predict air leakage match

PAGE 90

90 Baseline Model Validation The lack of detailed and comprehensive validation is a major issue in building energy modeling. As with any analysis study, assumptions made by the researcher are common in energy modeling. However, the accuracy of the model is essential for predict ing the physics of the system and account all the factors affecting the system. In general, there are three methods for validation: analytical, empirical, and data models [109] Analytical solutions provide a comparison to the exact solution of a problem based on specific problem parameters and inputs; however, they are limited to very simple and specific cases for which solutions exist. Comparison of models to empirical data allows for determining the uncertai nty of the experiment; however empirical data requires expensive and time consuming experiments to be conducted. Lastly, p eer models are used to validate building energy models by comparing models developed by other groups for a specific case with the same input parameters. In summary, all three methods have advantages and disadvantages and the combination of all three would be the optimal situation. B uilding energy model s also have so many combinations of parameters and applications that is impossible to completely validate a model. In building energy models, the parameters that need to be included can be divided in to the ones that are related to the actual building structure of the building and the ones related to building occupancy. Occupants affect ener gy use and add uncertainty due to the ir irregular and spontaneous behavior. Therefore, energy models can be categorized in to realistic and idealized studies. Idealized or asset based only account for the building parameters, while realistic or occupancy ba sed studies also account for the occupancy behavior [109]

PAGE 91

91 For this research, t he validation of the building energy model is restricted to the available data. First, no study had been conducted in the State of Flor ida for manufactured homes, and energy data for manufactured h omes are not available. Therefore, analytical data and data model methods cannot be used. In addition, gathering empirical data could be expensive and time consuming. Therefore, the validation process for this research will consist of comparing the results of the reproduced model with the original and calibrated model developed by the U.S. DOE [10] Table 3 6 shows the comparison of th e total site energy consumption for both models. The baseline model showed a total error of 6.62% over the original model, driven mostly by the heating end use. A possible reason for this difference may be due to furnace sizing. Althou gh energy consumption by vent fans was significant ly different the energy consumption fraction due to vent fans relative to the total energy consumption wa s insignificant. Th e validated model was then modified to comply with the HUD standards for the Sta te of Florida as shown in Table 3 7 Calibrated input adjustments were used for the energy simulations. Table 3 6. Site consumption per end use and respective modeling errors (MMBtu/year) Vent Fan Appl. Lights HVAC Fan/ Pump Cooling Heatin g Hot Water Total Author's Model 0.13 7.22 4.77 2.51 7.46 13.89 10.86 46.84 U.S. DOE Model 0.06 7.43 4.72 2.29 6.34 18.65 10.67 50.16 ERR* 116.6% 2.8% 1.06% 9.6% 17.6% 25.5% 1.7% 6.6% The model error equals (measured modeled)/measured

PAGE 92

92 Table 3 7. Changes in the baseline model required to comply with m inimum requirements for manufactured homes in the S tate of Florida and calibration adjustments Description HUD Code HUD calibrated input DOE/HUD DOE/HUD calibrated the input Walls R Value 7 13 Ceiling R Value 10 30 Floors R Value 10 13 Window U Value 0.76 0.35 Door U Value 0.40 0.40 Infiltration Penetrations should be caulked 1 10.81 ACH50 1 5 ACH50 8.2 ACH50 Cooling Not specified SEER 13 EER 7.1 Not specified SEER 13 EER 7.1 Duc ts Static pressure is at least 80% of plenum static with all registers sealed. R 8 if exposed to outside, otherwise R 4 20% leakage R 12 if exposed to outside, otherwise R 6 4 CFM25 per 100ft 2 R 8 5.73 CFM25 per 100ft 2 R 12 Water heater Not specified Uninsulated M ust be a minimum of R 3 if outside conditioned space 1 The a verage blower door airtightness in manufactured homes found in the literature from 1 991 2013 is 6.6 ACH50 [110] Baseline Model Results The relative construction costs, energy consumption, and carbon emissions were then calculated for the baseline models in Gainesville, Miami, and Tallahassee as shown in Table 3 8, Table 3 9, and Table 3 10. Carbon neutral (CN) models in Gainesville and Tallahassee required a 9.0 and 7. 0 kW photovoltaic system o n the HUD and DOE/HUD models, respectively. In Miami, the systems were 8.0 and 6.5 kW on the HUD and DOE/HUD models, respectively. As shown, a 6% increase in construction costs over the HUD baseline produced up to 25% carbon emission savings compared to the DOE/HUD baseline with a simple payback of

PAGE 93

93 around 12 years. On the other hand, the carbon neutral homes have shown simple payback periods over 20 years, wit h the best option being the DOE/HUD CN baseline model Life cycle affordability analyses were performed for each of the above models over a 60 years period, as shown in Figure 3 3 The model accounted for construction mortgage costs for chattel and convent ional financing, building maintenance costs, electricity costs, and rebates for carbon neutral models. Overall, the DOE/HUD under the conventional financing approach has shown to be the best method for each of the models, except for Miami in which the DOE/ HUD CN model has shown to have lower life cycle costs. Table 3 8. Construction c ost, energy use and carbon emissions for the Gainesville b aseline model s Measure Baseline model Baseline model Carbon neutral models HUD DOE/HUD HUD CN DOE/HUD CN Costs Initial construction cost ($) 34,791 36,943 57,831 54,863 Incremental cost ($) 2,152.00 23,040.00 20,072.00 Incremental cost (%) 6% 66% 35% Simple payback (years) 8.61 23.63 20.74 Energy Total energy use (kWh/yr) 12,726 9,894 12,726 9,894 EUI (kWh/sf/year) 10.6 8.2 10.6 8.2 Annualized energy costs ($/year) 1,114 864 139 146 kWh savings /year 2,832 2,832 Utility bill savings ($/year) 250 975 968 PV size 9.0 kW 7.0 kW Carbon CO2 emissions (Kg CO2/year) 5,850 4,540 (20) (20) Carbon Intensity (Kg CO2/year/sf) 4.86 3.77 (0.02) (0.02) CO2 savings /year (Kg CO2/year) 1,310 5,870 5,870 CO2 savings/year (%) 22% 100% 100%

PAGE 94

94 Table 3 9. Construction cost, energy use, and carbon emissions for the Miami baseline models. Measure Baseline model Baseline model Carbon neutral HUD DOE/HUD HUD DOE/HUD Costs Initial construction cost ($) 34,791 36,943 55,271 53,583 Incremental cost ($) 2,152.00 20,480.00 18,792.00 Incremental cost (%) 6% 59% 34% Simple payback (years) 11.70 22.56 21.09 Energy Total energy use (kWh/yr) 11,975 9,932 11,975 9,932 EUI (kWh/sf/year) 9.9 8.2 9.9 8.2 Annualized energy costs ($/year) 1,091 907 92 109 kWh savings /year 2,043 2,043 Utility bill savings ($/year) 184 908 891 PV size 8.0 kW 6.5 kW Carbon CO2 emissions (Kg CO2/year) 5,490 4,560 (30) 100 Carbon Intensity (Kg CO2/year/sf) 4.56 3.79 (0.02) 0.08 CO2 savings /year (Kg CO2/year) 930 5,520 5,390 CO2 savings/year (%) 17% 101% 98% Table 3 10. Construction cost, energy use, and carbon emissions for the Tallahassee baseline models. Mea s ure Baseline model Baseline model Carbon neutral HUD DOE/HUD HUD DOE/HUD Costs Initial construction cost ($) 34,791 36,943 57,831 54,863 Incremental cost ($) 2,152 23,040 20,072 Incremental cost (%) 6% 66% 35% Simple payback (years) 10.25 25.49 21.98 Energy Total energy use (kWh/yr) 13,186 10,103 13,186 10,103 EUI (kWh/sf/year) 11.0 8.4 11.0 8.4 Annualized energy costs ($/year) 984 774 80 71 kWh savings /year 3,083 3,083 Utility bill savings ($/year) 210 904 913 PV size 9.0 kW 7.0 kW Carbon CO2 emissions (Kg CO2/year) 6,100 4,600 (100) (100) Carbon Intensity (Kg CO2/year/sf) 5.07 3.82 (0.08) (0.08) CO2 savings /year (Kg CO2/year) 1,500 6,200 6,200 CO2 savings/year (%) 25% 102% 102%

PAGE 95

95 Figure 3 4 shows the detailed life cycle affordability analysis of the DOE/HUD and the DOE/HUD CN models for conventional and chattel financing in Gainesville. Overall, it can be noted that models under the conventional are more life cycle affordable as opposed to t he peer model. Also, carbon neutral models are not able to improve affordability from a homeowner viewpoint as l arge investments are needed for replacement of inverters and PV panels every 15 and 30 years respectively. Figure 3 3 L ife cycle cumulative costs for baseline and carbon neutral models. Figure 3 4 Detailed life cycle affordability analysis for a conventional loan in Gainesville, Florida

PAGE 96

96 CHAPTER 4 ENERGY MODELING RESULTS Parametric Energy Efficiency Simulations High Performance Walls Three types of walls were simulated with different insulation values: Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs), steel stud walls, and wood stud walls. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A, Table A 1 to Table A 3. Gainesville: SIPs achieved savings ranging 2 5 .1 % on both energy and carbon emissions with an incremental cost of 5 14%. Although the simple payback is high for all SIP options, the life cycle cost analysis shows an increase of 0.81 2.03%. S teel stud walls have shown an increase in energy consumption of 0.4 3.6% and incremental costs of 1.6 3.1% Simple payback could not be calculated due to negative energy savings. LCC range from 0.7 1.9% increase from baseline. Wood stud walls were the only options that p resented savings for energy, construction costs and carbon. Energy savings ranged from 0.4 2.6% with incremental costs of 0.19 0.52%. The R 19 and R 21 batt with 2x6 wood studs achieved higher performance in all categories with relatively low payback peri ods, 6.7 and 8.6 years, respectively Thus, are strong measures to be implemented in the hyper efficient and carbon neutral homes. Miami: SIPs achieved minimal energy and carbon savings (0.03 0.06%) for the Miami climate. Thus, the simple payback is sign ificantly large. Steel stud w alls have shown an increase in energy consumption of 0. 3 0 4% Simple payback could not be calculated due to negative energy savings. LCC range from 0. 5 0.9 % increase from baseline. Wood stud walls presented minimal savings for energy and carbo n, reflecting in larger payback periods compared to the locations.

PAGE 97

97 Tallahassee : SIPs achieved larger energy and carbon savings in Tallahassee, ranging from 2.1 5.7%. However, the incremental costs affected the simple payback periods (101 1 52 years) and LCC (0.95 2.2% increase). Steel stud walls presented negative energy and carbon savings, reflecting in unfeasible payback periods. Wood stud walls were the only options that presented savings for energy, construction costs, and carbon. The R 19 and R 21 batt with 2x6 wood studs achieved higher performance in all categories with relatively low payback periods, 7.4. and 9.5 years, respectively. Conclusion: Overall, the simulated walls were responsible for changes in the cooling and heating of the manufactured home, most of the time reducing the heating load while slightly increasing the cooling load. The R 19 and R 21 batt with 2x6 wood studs achieved higher performance compared to other options for each of the cities. SIP may be well suited to manufactured homes, b ut the incremental costs are still a factor to be considered. High Performance Ceiling Several insulation levels and materials were simulated to improve the efficien cy of the ceiling. In addition to that, vented and unvented attic options were simulated. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A, Table A 4 to Table A 6 Gainesville: The simulated options were able to reduce energy consumption between 0.6 4.3%, with the highest savings coming from unvented options. Overall, energy consumption decreased as higher insulation levels were used. However, the simple payback period has remained relatively high for most options, ranging from 22 to over 300 years, with un vented options taking longer to pay off. Miami : The simulated options were able to reduce energy consumption between 0.3 2.4%, with the highest savings coming from unvented options. However, the simple

PAGE 98

98 payback period has remained relatively high for most options. Only the R 38 fiberglass batt vented option was able to present savings on energy, costs, and carbon emissions. Tallahassee: The selected options showed results similar to the Gainesville climate, with slightly higher energy use savings. The simple payback periods were slightly higher as well due to the differences in energy price. Conclusion: Overall, the simulated options reflect small to moderate energy use savings for cooling, with higher savings coming from the higher insulation levels and/or unvented options. However, unvented options have shown to have higher construction costs and respective payback periods. Overall, vented attic s using R 38 and R 49 fiberglass and fiberglass batt were the preferable options. High Performance Floors T hree insulation levels of different materials were simulate d for each of the cities. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A, Table A 7 to Table A 9. Gainesville: The simulated floor options were able to provide energy savings ranging 0.4 0.09% com pared to the baseline with savings increasing as insulation level increased Simple payback periods ranged from around 30 to over 600 years. Miami: None of the simulated options were able to provide energy or carbon emission savings in the Miami climate. Energy consumption slightly increased by 0.2 0.7% compared to the baseline. Life cycle costs increased 0.16 3.3%, with higher costs coming from higher insulation levels. Tallahassee: The simulated floor options showed similar results as in the Gainesville climate, with energy savings ranging 0.5 1.2%. Simple payback periods ranged from around 30 to over 600 years.

PAGE 99

99 Conclusion: The R 19 fiberglass batt insulation was the preferable o ption for the three cities except for the Miami climate where LCC costs slightly increased by 0.16%. Although the R 30 and R 38 fiberglass batt insulation also provided significant energy savings in most simulations, the higher insulation level cannot be justified in the Miami climate. Also, t he higher construction costs of the closed and open cell spray foam made the option unfeasible for the cases. High Performance Windows Low emissivity double and triple windows were simulated with different framing materials, filling gases, and heat gain values. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A, Table A 10 to Table A 12. Gainesville: The simulated window options showed ener gy savings ranging from 1.2 2.6%, with higher savings coming from the triple panel windows. The simple payback periods ranged from 19 to over 700 years. Miami: The simulated options showed energy savings ranging from 3.9 3.6% and payback periods between 7.5 142 years. Tallahassee: Energy savings ranged from 0.4 2.5% with simple payback periods between 37 to over 1200 years. Conclusion: The simulated window options significantly affected the cooling and heating energy consumption for each of the simu lated locations. Triple panel windows showed larger energy savings, but the initial construction costs do not justify the use. Overall, the Low E double panel filled with argon with non metal frame was the preferable option for all the simulated locations showing energy savings of 0. 6 2.4 % and a payback period of 7 37 years.

PAGE 100

100 Building Envelope Infiltration Different building envelope infiltration levels were simulated considering air changes per hour at 50 Pascal. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A, Table A 13 to Table A 15. Gainesville: Improving infiltration leakage resulted in energy savings ranging from 1.6 2.8% in the Gainesville climate. The incremental construction cost ranged from 0.4 1.87%, reflecting in moderate simple payback periods (8 28 years). Overall, any suggested building leakage improvements are justified under energy, costs, a nd carbon savings. Miami: The suggested infiltration levels resulted in energy savings in the order of 0 1.9% in the Miami climate, while simple payback periods ranged from 19 to over 140 years. Building envelope infiltration levels under 3 air per change at 50 Pascal are justified in Miami. Tallahassee: Building infiltration levels resulted in energy savings in the order of 2.9 3.2% in Tallahassee, with simple payback periods ranging 7 32 years. Overall, any simulated levels are justified in Tallahassee, with preference given to higher infiltration levels. Conclusion: Overall, reducing building infiltration levels reflect in significant cooling and heating savings, while slightly increasing energy consumption for cooling/heating fans and pumps. Energy sa vings peaked over the 2.5 and 2 ACH50 for the three simulated cities, with savings decreasing at tighter options. Simple payback periods reached 11 22 years for these options.

PAGE 101

101 Domestic Water Heaters Six different water heater systems were simulated for e ach location which included electric, natural gas, oil, propane, heat pump, and solar systems. Each system also had different energy efficiency levels (benchmark, standard, premium). The incremental construction costs for the simulated options fluctuated between 0 19%. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A, Table A 16 to Table A 18. Gainesville: The simulated water heater systems were able to achieve energy savings ranging from 0.7 25.5%, with higher energy savings coming from fossil fuel energy options such as natural gas, oil, and propane. On the other hand, energy savings not always reflected in energy costs savings. Simple payback p eriods fluctuated between 0 to over 10,000 years, with lower terms for electric and heat pump systems. Energy savings not always reflected in carbon emission savings in this category as well. Carbon emission savings range between 1.7 to 16%, with higher c arbon savings from heat pump systems. Miami: Energy savings fluctuated between 0.9 22% in the Miami climate while natural gas and oil water heater options were not able to achieve energy costs savings. Simple payback periods ranged from 0 74 years. Only oil and standard efficiency propane option were not able to achieve carbon emission savings. Tallahassee: Energy saving ranged between 0.7 25.8%, with simple payback periods fluctuating between 0 130 years. Conclusion: Only a few options were able to ach ieve energy, construction costs, and carbon emission savings for the three simulated locations: high efficiency electric models, propane models, and heat pumps. Overall, high efficiency electric models have low simple payback periods, energy and carbon sav ings. Higher efficiency propane

PAGE 102

102 models provided significant energy consumption savings while providing modest simple payback periods. Although carbon emissions slightly decreased, the use of propane fuel conflicts with the idea of carbon neutral manufactur ed homes. Heat pump models were able to achieve reasonable savings for energy, costs, and carbon emissions for all the simulated locations. Among the simulated options, solar heaters were the lowest performer. While providing modest energy and carbon emiss ion savings (11 14%), the incremental construction costs made the options unfeasible, with simple payback periods fluctuating between 63 75 year Heating Cooling and Air Conditioning Five types of HVAC systems were simulated for each of the locations: ce ntral air conditioning systems, room air conditioning systems, furnaces with different energy sources, air source heat pumps, and mini split heat pumps. Central air conditioning systems had an incremental cost between 0.33 2.67%, with higher costs correspo nding to more efficient systems. Room air conditioning systems, which are an encased assembly designed as a single unit for mounting in a window or through a wall for the purpose of delivering conditioned air to an enclosed space, have lower construction c osts due to the absence of a duct system. Construction cost savings fluctuate between 5 54 6.53%. For the furnace systems, the initial construction costs fluctuated between savings of 4.65% to incremental costs up to 2.85%. Overall, natural gas options sho wed construction savings, while oil and propane options showed both savings and additional costs. Heat pump options showed construction savings ranging 3.8 8.2%, with air source heat pumps showing higher construction savings. It is important to note that a large portion of this savings is due to the absence of a secondary heater system. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A, Table A 19 to Table A 21.

PAGE 103

103 Gainesville: Overall, high efficient central /room air conditioning system and air source and multi split heat pumps met the energy, costs, and carbon requirements for the hyper efficient carbon neutral home. Central air conditioning systems showed energy savings between 1.9 8.8%, reflecting in simple payback periods between 7 13 ye ars and life cycle savings reaching up to 0.76%. M oderate construction savings (up to 13.62%) were achieved using room air conditioning systems due to the absence of duct systems, with higher savings for conditio ning smaller area s Heat pumps showed energy savings between 1 23% and life cycle savings up to 4.5%. While mini split heat pumps showed higher energy savings, the air source heat pumps are preferable over the life cycle analysis. None of the furnace options were able to meet the three criteria at t he same time. While furnace options showed energy savings, the increased costs for the non electric energy sources made furnace options unfeasible even with moderate initial construction savings. Miami: The energy simulation showed results similar to the Gainesville climate. Overall, central/room air conditioning and the heat pump options were able to meet the energy, costs, and carbon criteria. Energy and carbon savings for the central air conditioning systems fluctuated between 2.8 13.7%, reflecting in s imple paybacks between 5 to 8 years and life cycle savings up to 1.87%. Energy and carbon savings reached up to 32.9% by using room air conditioning systems for 20% of the home area, reflecting in life cycle savings of up to 17.7%. Among the feasible heat pump options, the energy and carbon savings fluctuated between 0.7 27%, reflecting in life cycle costs savings between 4.3 11.3%. Due to the low heating requirements, furnace options

PAGE 104

104 showed insignificant energy savings. In addition to that, the higher n on electric energy costs reflected in higher life cycle costs for most of the non electric furnace options. Tallahassee : The energy simulations for the Tallahassee climate confirmed the inclusion of high efficient central/room air conditioning and heat p ump options as viable alternatives for the hyper efficient carbon neutral home. Due to the larger heating requirements, most of the HVAC systems showed lower energy and carbon savings as compared to the Miami climate, except for the furnace options in whic h reached energy savings up to 12.6%. However, as in the other locations, the higher non electric energy costs made non electric furnace options unfeasible. Conclusion: Overall, using room air conditioning in 20% of the home area is the best option. Howev er, as this alternative is far for being acceptable by homeowners, heat pumps are the most feasible energy, costs, and carbon options for the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home. Home Appliances Home appliances simulated for each of the locations included freezer, cooking, dishwasher, clothes washer and dryer. Different efficiency levels and energy sources were simulated as possible. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A, Table A 22 to T able A 24. The results show savings for individual changes over the baseline. Individual changes reflected in costs increments fluctuating between 0.27 2.59%, in which the extremes were both due to cooking options. Natural gas and propane cooking options were responsible for 0.27% initial cost savings, while electric cooking showed a 2.59% cost incremental. Energy, construction costs, and carbon emission savings did not show significant changes among the locations. While all measures were able to reduce energy

PAGE 105

105 consumption, energy costs and carbon emissions did not reflect some of the savings for non electric energy sources. Overall, o nly three measures meet all requirements for the three locations: higher efficient refrigerator/ freezer and EnergyStar clothes washer/dryer. While cooking and drying clothes with non electric energy sources provided significant energy savings and relativel y low simple payback periods, the life cycle costs are slightly higher and the carbon emissions do not align with the idea of carbon neutral homes. By implementing the possible alternatives and EnergyStar appliances, savings due to energy, life cycle cost s, and carbon emissions are expected to be around 7.6% 1.6%, and 6.2%, respectively. Lighting Different usage levels of CFL and LED lighting were simulated for each of the three locations. Detailed information can be found in Appendix A, Table A 25 to Tab le A 27. The CFL lighting incremental costs fluctuated between 0.02 0.09%, while LED incremental costs were between 0.07 0.33%. As expected, the energy savings ranged between 1.4% using 20% CFL in Tallahassee to 10.6% using 100% LED light bulbs in Miami. T he relatively low incremental costs with high energy savings reflected in relatively low simple payback periods (0.4 2.3 years). Over the life cycle, all simulated options were able to provide costs savings reaching up to 3 07 %. In addition to reduc ing the lighting load, high efficient lighting also slightly reduced the cooling load while slightly increasing heating. Due to those reasons, high efficient lighting showed higher savings in the Miami climate than in Tallahassee.

PAGE 106

106 Optimized Simulations Optimal P arametric Measures The second part of the energy simulation consists of optimiz ing the parametric measures to find the best combination of measures for the State of Florida Only the measures that achieved savings for both energy, life cycle costs and car bon emissions were selected for the optimized simulations. Figure 4 1 shows the benefit to cost (BTC) ratio for the selected parametric measures. The BTC ratio was calculated by dividing the total energy costs savings for each measure compared to the baseline by the total incrementa l costs ( loan payment and financing maintenance and replacement ) over the 60 years life cycle Generally, a measure is considered a good investment if the ratio is higher than 1. In this case, higher ratios came from the use of LED light ( 24 to 39), electric and tankless propane water heaters, and a few EnergyStar appliances. Some measures had o p posite results depending on the location. Reduced infiltration levels achi e ved higher ratios in Gainesville and Tal lahass e e, while in Miami tighter envelopes showed to be preferable. A similar trend was observed for increased insulation in walls and floors. ASHP and MSHP, as show n in the parametric simulations, did not show cost incremental while also saving energy cos ts. Photovoltaic panels showed a BTC of 0.88 to 1.08 depending on the location. The BTC considered the home to be carbon neutral, thus using a 6.5 to 7 kW in the DOE/HUD baseline. Although there are large energy cost savings, t he large investments of the s ystem turn the BTC relatively low. This shows that PV systems, as estimated in this dissertation, should not be considered as a primary option. Initial investments should focus on achieving hyper eff i ciency before considering renewable energy.

PAGE 107

107 Figure 4 1 The b enefit to cost ratio of for the best performers on the parametric energy simulations. Figure 4 2 summarizes the range of savings achieved on the preferred options for the three simulated locations. Detailed information can also be found in Appendix B, Table B 1. As shown below, energy and carbon savings were approximately the same for all the measures, except for a few domestic hot water measures which used different types of fuels. D omestic hot water, HVAC, and lighting end uses have the highest po tential for energy use and life cycle cost savings while b uilding envelope measures and appliances showed minor energy and carbon savings The same pattern is observed when comparing the life cycle cost increase of each measure in which high performance d omestic hot water and HVAC systems are expected to reduce the life cycle costs.

PAGE 108

108 Figure 4 2 Minimum and maximum energy savings and life cycle costs savings for best performers on the parametric energy simulations.

PAGE 109

109 Optimal Models Figure 4 3 shows the optimal curve for the site energy consumption versus annualized life cycle energy costs for the three locations. Although most optimized models reached life cycle energy costs relatively lower than the baseline, t here is an optimal point where annualized life cycle energy costs start becoming costlier as energy savings increase. This least c ost point was found to achieve similar energy savings for the three locations and for each heat pump system. For example, the least cost point was around 38 40% for MSHPs and 28 25% for ASHP. Figure 4 3 Optimized energy simulations with selected measur es from parametric simulations.

PAGE 110

110 Figure 4 4 to Figure 4 6 shows energy, initial construction costs, life cycle costs, and carbon emission s avings for the models located at the optimal line as well as the simple payback periods for optimal models Detailed information about the optimal models can be found in Appendix B, Tables B 2 to B 4. As it can be noted, e nergy consumption and carbon emissions savings fluctuated between 24. 3 56.7% each The MSHP models achieved higher energy and carbon savings than ASHP The most energy efficient model in Gainesville was the MSHP#18 which reached a simple payback period of 0.7 years with life cycle cost savings of around 10% compared to the baseline. In Miami, the most efficient model was the MSHP#10, with life cycle cost savings of 14%, while in Tallahassee the MSHP #14 reached 56% energy savings, 9.8% life cycle costs savings, and 0.8 years for simple payback. Figure 4 4 to Figure 4 6 also show the re lation ship between energy efficiency and construction costs For each location and HVAC system, there is a moment in which investing in energy efficiency measures may not result in significant benefits. For example, optimal models above MSHP #7 and ASHP #7 in Gainesville show minimal energy savings while the construction costs increase significantly. The same phenomena can be seen with MSHP #5 and ASHP #6 in Miami, and MSHP #7 and ASHP #7 in Tallahassee. In most simulations, these same optimal models correspond to the point where life cycle costs savings star t to decrease as a result of the incremental construction costs while energy savings becomes stagnated. W hile life cycle cost savings remained relatively constant (10 16%) for all op timal models higher LCC savings can be seen on models close to the least costs point

PAGE 111

111 Figure 4 4 Energy initial and life cycle costs, and carbon emission savings v ersus simple payback period f or optimal energy efficient measure s in Gainesville, FL. Figure 4 5 Energy, initial and life cycle costs, and carbon emission savings versus simple payback period for optimal energy efficient measures in Miami, FL.

PAGE 112

112 Figure 4 6 Energy, initial and life cycle costs, and carbon emission savings versus simple payback period for optimal energy efficient measures in Tallahassee FL. Figure 4 7 shows the frequency of the construction measures at the optimal line. Except for domestic hot water and HVAC, the optimization simulations have shown preferable mea sures for the other building components. For domestic hot water, HPWH 50 and 80 gals were the most frequent measures but presented similar frequency. For HVAC, the MSHP SEER 33, ASHP SEER 15, and ASHP SEER 19 were the most frequent measures Combining the information of the least costs method and the frequency of measures, it is possible to determine the energy efficiency measures that can be used toward the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home. For example, the R 21 wall was the most frequent measure and also the one used for most least cost optimal models in all locations except Miami, where R 21 was mostly used fo r high efficiency models. Following the same strategy, t he R 38 fiberglass batt was selected for the

PAGE 113

113 ceiling, the R 19 for floors, Low E double filled with Argon L gain for windows, and 4.5 ACH50 for infiltration. The MSHP SEER 26 was the measure mostly used for models located close to the least cost optimal models, while MSHP SEER 33 was used for high efficiency models. For ASHP the SEER 15 was mostly used for models close to the least costs point i n all locations, except for Miami where SEER 19 was preferable Since MSHP 26 achieved higher energy and life cycle costs savings than ASHP 15, mini split heat pumps are recommended. For h ot water, the HPWH 50 gal lon s was usually used in combination with MSHP SEER 26 and ASHP SEER 15, while HPWH 80 gal lon s was usually used in high efficient models Overall, the above mentioned measures matched with the optimal models MSHP #6 for both Gainesville and Tallahassee while none of the Miami optimal models matched perfectly with the one mentioned. MSHP #6 is the closest optimal model, with R 19 for walls instead of R 21 being the only measure that differs. The selected set of measures achieved significant energy life cycle costs, and carbon savings as shown in Figures 2 2 through 2 4 Figure 4 7 Frequency of energy efficiency measures for models located on the opt imal line.

PAGE 114

114 Baseline Vs. Hyper Efficient and Carbon Neutral Manufactured Home Table 4 1 shows the comparison of energy consumption, carbon emission, and construction costs of the baseline the hyper efficient and hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home. As noted in the Table, energy savings for the hyper efficient manufactured home ranged between 48 54% while the carbon emission savings reached around 50%. On the other hand, the construction costs showed a slight increas e of 1.98 % compared to the baseline resulting in a simple payback period between 1.77 to 2.1 years, depending on the location. When photovoltaic systems were incorporated to reach carbon neutrality, the construction costs increased between 23 26 % dependin g on the location The simple payback period for the carbon neutral model fluctuated between 10 14 years, in which Miami has the lowest breakpoint and Tallahassee the highest. Table 4 2 shows the detailed cost s of the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home compared to the baselines. As noted, the total incremental cost fluctuates between $8,398 $9,678 compared to the DOE/HUD baseline and $10,550 11,830 compared to the HUD baseline. As noted earlier the hyper efficient manufactured home i s slightly more expensive than the DOE/HUD baseline While mini split heat pumps are slightly more expensive than central air conditioning, the lack of ducts for mini splits generates significant savings for the overall home If PV systems are not considered, the hyper efficient improvements account for an initial construction increase of $ 718 and $ 2,870 compared to the DOE/HUD and the HUD baselines, respectively. These additional costs represent the incremental costs for manuf acturer s only and do no t reflect the incremental costs for the homebuyer. Also, s ignif ican t cost differences may occur depending on the database used for estimation.

PAGE 115

115 Table 4 1 Comparison of c onstruction cost, energy use, and carbon emissions between the baseline model and the hyper efficient and carbon neutral manufactured home Gainesville Miami Tallahassee Baseline model Hyper efficient Carbon neutral Baseline model Hyper efficient Carbon neutral Baseline model Hyper efficient Carbon neutral DOE/HU D Author Author DOE/HU D Author Author DOE/HU D Author Author Costs Initial construction cost ($) 36,943 37,661 46,621 36,943 37,661 45,341 36,943 37,661 46,621 Cost per sf ($) 30.68 31.28 38.72 30.68 31.28 37.66 30.68 31.28 38.72 Incremental cost ($) 718 9,678 718 8,398 718 9,678 Incremental cost (%) 1.94% 26% 1.94% 23% 1.94% 26% Simple payback (years) 1.98 13.5 1.77 10.2 2.11 13.8 Energy Total energy use (kWh/yr) 9,894 5,003 5,003 9,933 4,616 4,616 10,103 5,205 5,205 EUI (kWh/sf/year) 8.2 4.2 4.2 8.2 3.8 3.8 8.4 4.3 4.3 Annualized energy costs ($/year) 885 523 166 928 523 107 793 452 93 Energy savings (%) 49% 49% 54% 54% 48% 48% Utility bill savings ($/year) 362 720 405 821 341 700 PV system 3.5 kW 3.0 kW 3.5 kW Carbon CO2 emissions (Kg CO2/year) 4,540 2,290 (60) 4,560 2,290 40 4,600 2,390 (20) Carbon Intensity (Kg CO2/year/sf) 3.77 1.90 (0.05) 3.79 1.90 0.03 3.82 1.99 (0.02) CO2 savings /year (Kg CO2/year) 2,250 4,600 2,270 4,520 2,210 4,620 CO2 savings/year (%) 50% 101% 50% 99% 48% 100%

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 2. The i ncremental construction cost of the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home HUD Baseline DOE/HUD Baseline Carbon neutral Incremental to DOE/HUD Incremental to HUD W alls R 7 Fib. Batt, 2X4 R 13 Fib. Batt, 2X4 R 21 Fib. Batt, 2X6 $ 19 4 $ 405 Ceiling R 10 Fib., Vented R 30 Fib., Vented R 38 Fib. Batt, Vented $ 22 9 $ 1 15 4 Floor R 13 Fib Batt R 13 Fib. Batt R 19 Fib. Batt $ 108 $ 108 Windows (U Value/ SHGC) 0.76/ 0.67 0.35/0.44 0.34/ 0.3 $ 151 $ 84 8 Infiltration 6.6 ACH50 5 ACH50 4.5 ACH50 $ 148 $ 216 Air conditioning (AC) SEER 13, EER 11 SEER 13, EER 11 MSHP, 9 kBtuh/unit SEER 26, 10.7 HSPF $1,318 $1,318 Heating Electric Electric Emergency heat $ 0 $ 0 Ventilation 2013, Supply 2013, Supply Energy Recovery Ventilator system $35 $35 Ducts 20% leakage 4 CFM25/100sf $(2,703) $(2,483) Water Heater Electric standard Electric standard HPWH, 50 gals $ 853 $ 853 Water heater insulation Uninsulated R 3 R 3 $ 0 $ 2 9 Lighting 100% incandescent 100% incandescent 100% LED $ 12 3 $ 12 3 Refrigerator Standard Standard EnergyStar $ 10 $ 10 Dishwasher Standard Standard EnergyStar $ 80 $ 80 Clothes washer Standard Standard EnergyStar $ 72 $ 72 Clothes dryer Standard Standard EnergyStar $ 100 $ 100 Photovoltaic system 3 3.5 kW $7,680 $8,960 $7,680 $8,960 Hyper efficient Net increase $718 $2,870 Carbon Neutral Net increase $8,398 $ 9,678 $ 10,550 11,830

PAGE 117

117 Life Cycle Affordability of The Hyper Efficient Carbon Neutral Manufactured Home Figure 4 8 shows the comparison of the cumulative life cycle costs for the baseline models and the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home. As can be observed, the proposed model s, either hyper efficient or the carbon neutral model, ha ve a lower cost over the life cy cle (60 years) for all locations and loan options In average, the carbon neutral is around $48,270 and $69,290 less expensive to maintain than the DOE/HUD CN and the HUD CN, respectively. Except for Miami, the carbon neutral homes were more expensive to m aintain than their corresponding model. This is due to the solar capacity of Miami to generate electricity with a smaller system than the other locations, thus reducing the overall life cycle costs of the system. The following will provide a detailed life cycle affordability analysis of the hyper efficient and carbon neutral manufactured home. For this, the Tallahassee conventional loan model will be used as this location has the lowest energy savings and highest simple payback period a s shown in Table 4 28 Figure 4 8 shows the detailed life cycle costs per year for the baseline models and the proposed models while Figure 4 10 to Figure 4 12 show the maintenance, energy and loan costs, respectively. As it can be observed, the life cycle costs difference between models bec a me more perceptible after the year 15 with greater spikes e very 15 years due to the maintenance of air conditioning systems, windows, and photovoltaic systems if applicable. Overall, the carbon neutral models were the most expensive opt ions when compared to their corresponding model. Over the 60 years period, the proposed hyper efficient and corresponding carbon neutral models are the preferable options, followed by the DOE/HUD model and then HUD model and their carbon neutral options.

PAGE 118

118 Except for very few years in the beginning, the proposed hyper efficient manufactured home has remained the most affordable option, while the hyper efficient carbon neutral model has shown spikes every 15 years with gradual recovery, becoming the second pr eferable option over the life cycle. T he exponential growth of the electricity costs as shown in Figure 4 1 1 help ed define and understand the life cycle costs for each model, especially after the year 30 when expenses are mainly due to maintenance and ener gy costs Over the life cycle time, the energy cost of the DOE/HUD was 21% less than the HUD code home. The proposed hyper efficient home reached 55% and 43% electricity savings compared to the HUD and DOE/HUD baseline, respectively. The carbon neutral rea ched around 90% electricity savings when compared to the HUD home and 88% when compared to the DOE/HUD baseline model. Figure 4 1 2 shows the conventional loan life cycle costs. As it can be observed, the proposed hyper efficient manufactured home has a l oan similar to the DOE/HUD baseline and slightly higher than the HUD model. On the other hand, the proposed carbon neutral model has a loan 17% lower than the DOE/HUD carbon neutral and 21% lower than the HUD carbon neutral baseline, but still 24% higher than the proposed hyper efficient manufactured home. Overall, the HUD baseline model is the option with the lowest loan costs. However, the benefits of the low loan and interest rapidly fade away with higher electricity costs. Thus, as observed in F igure 4 8 the proposed hyper efficient model is the most affordable option over the life cycle due to high electricity savings while maintaining reasonable maintenance costs compared to the other models.

PAGE 119

119 Figure 4 8 Cumulative life cycle cost com parison between the baseline and hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured hom e

PAGE 120

120 Figure 4 9 Detailed life cycle affordability analysis for conventional loan models in Tallahassee Florida.

PAGE 121

121 Figure 4 10 Life cycle maintenance costs for conventional loan models in Tallahassee, Florida.

PAGE 122

122 Figure 4 1 1 Life cycle electricity costs for conventional loan models in Tallahassee Florida. Figure 4 1 2 Life cycle loan costs for conventional loan models in Tallahassee, Florida.

PAGE 123

123 PV System Cost Forecast The historical trend for photovoltaic system costs has shown a downward price trend. Solar analysts illustrate that the US PV market has had several price reduction phases, starting with a significant reduction in mo dules costs, followed by reductions i n hardware cost, market competitivity, and lastly due to reduced soft costs. However, this trend has been far from linear and making it difficult to create a reasonable forecast assumption based on historic al data. A study of the literature regarding the PV system cost forecast reveals significant discrepancies. The SunShot Initiative supported by the U.S. Department of Energy has target s to reduce around 75% percent of the cost s of PV system s between 2010 and 2020, with an additional 50% until 2030 [111] The NREL indicates that the average U.S. PV system pricing will drop by 32 percent from 2017 to 2022 [112] while a simulated bet ween 3 1 5 4 % reduction between 2017 2030 for roof replacement systems and 39 58% for new construction [108] Table 4 3 shows the costs analysis of the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home taking into co nsideration the PV cost forecasts provided by the NREL group [108] As it can be observed, the initial construction costs decreased significantly, reaching surprisingly low simple payback periods Under the less ag gressive forecast, the carbon neutral home can have simple payback periods ranging between 9.8 12.9 years, while for the visionary forecast it would range between 8.2 10.4 years

PAGE 124

124 Table 4 3. Initial construction cost and energy comparison among baseline, hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home, and PV cost forecast for the year 2030. Cost Energy Initial construction cost ($) Cost per sf ($) Incremental cost ($) Incremental cost (%) Simple payback (years) Total energy use (kWh/yr) EUI (kWh/sf/year) Annualized energy costs ($/year) Energy savings (%) Utility bill savings ($/year) PV system Gainesville Baseline model DOE/HUD 36,943 30.68 9,894 8.2 885 Hyper efficient Author 37,661 31.28 718 1.94% 1.98 5,003 4.2 523 49% 362 Carbon neutral Author 46,621 38.72 9,678 26% 13.5 5,003 4.2 166 49% 720 3.5 kW CN Less aggressive 2030 Author 45,993 38.20 9,050 24% 12.6 5,003 4.2 166 49% 720 3.5 kW CN Visionary 2030 Author 44,194 36.71 7,251 20% 10.1 5,003 4.2 166 49% 720 3.5 kW Miami Base line model DOE/HUD 36,943 30.68 9,933 8.2 928 Hyper efficient Author 37,661 31.28 718 1.94% 1.77 4,616 3.8 523 54% 405 Carbon neutral Author 45,341 37.66 8,398 23% 10.2 4,616 3.8 107 54% 821 3.0 kW CN Less aggressive 2030 Author 45,010 37.38 8,067 22% 9.8 4,616 3.8 107 54% 821 3.0 kW CN Visi onary 2030 Author 43,669 36.27 6,726 18% 8.2 4,616 3.8 107 54% 821 3.0 kW Tallahasse e Baseline model DOE/HUD 36,943 30.68 10,103 8.4 793 Hyper efficient Author 37,661 31.28 718 1.94% 2.11 5,205 4.3 452 48% 341 Carbon neutral Author 46,621 38.72 9,678 26% 13.8 5,205 4.3 93 48% 700 3.5 kW CN Less aggressive 2030 Author 45,993 38.20 9,050 24% 12.9 5,205 4.3 93 48% 700 3.5 kW CN Visionary 2030 Author 44,194 36.71 7,251 20% 10.4 5,205 4.3 93 48% 700 3.5 kW

PAGE 125

125 The PV forecasts for 2030 also shows significant life cycle cost savings over the current carbon neutral model, reaching approximately 4.5% and 9% savings for the less aggressive and visionary forecasts, respectively. Both PV costs forecasts also become m ore affordable over the life cycle than the previous simulated models. Figure 4 1 3 Cumulative life cycle cost comparison between the baseline the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home and PV cost forecast for the year 2030.

PAGE 126

126 CHAPTER 5 INDUSTRY SURVEY Hyper Efficient Carbon Neutral Manufactured Home Survey hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home survey designed to support the development the set of guidelines to improve the energy efficiency and market performance of new manufactured homes built in the HUD Climate Zone 1, especially in the State of Florida. As mentioned before, t he survey consisted of two phases. The first part aimed to u nderstand the technical challenges of implementing the hyper efficient carbon neutral measures suggested by the energy simulations in current manufacturing facilities in the State of Florida. The second part aimed to better understand the manufactured hous ing market in the State of Florida and to identify strategies that could increase the attractiveness of manufactured homes. P art I : Manufacturer Challenges The first survey was designed exclusively to manufacturers. Manufacturers were asked about their c urrent construction practices, the challenges of implement ing specific measures, and the requirements for that measure to be standard practice in the future. The survey questionnaire can be found in Appendix C Walls All manufacturers reported using R 11 as standard practice, with the option to upgrade the home up to R 19. Manufacturer 1 reported using higher R values in the past using closed cell foam but abandoned the practice mainly due to slower construction production and higher construction costs. No manufacturer reported using

PAGE 127

127 R 21 often currently, mainly because of the construction costs. As showed by Manuf. 2, if R 21 could be offered by suppliers with a fiberglass batt type, it would not affect the manufacturing process in any way. Manuf. 1 : In the past, we used to [use R 21]. R 21 is a little t h icker, s o you need to compress it [ for 2x6 walls]. In the past, we had a closed cell foam would give you an R 6 per inch. And what we used to do was to spray the wall an inch or so, and then we would put R 11 on top of it, so we would get a wall or R 21 or higher The issue we had with using the closed cell foam is that it is really labor intensive. It took a lot of time and when you are building homes in a factory you get to move the line and do not necessarily have a lot of time. And that can only be done in cer tain stations because with the closed cell foam you are spraying and it takes a long time to do it and right after we spray it we move to the next line to put the exterior side on it and closing it up. So, it was time consuming, expensive from a standpoint of maintenance (tools and equipment we used to spray that foam on because after a while it would clog up and break down, so you would need to rebuy the guns and maintain the pumps. Also, the marketing aspects of it just was not there. We did our best to m arket the fact that we were one of few companies that offer R 23 in the walls with closed cell spray foam and people liked it, but they did not like paying for it because it is a rather expensive product versus just putting a fiberglass batt. So now we jus t offer our standard R 11 and the upgraded version R 19 and people would pick the R 19 because it is not 21 as standard practice in the future] it depends on the way you trying to get it. If you are trying to get it on a closed cell foam it will be tough to sell and because of the factors I mentioned. But it depends on the product. In our industry, we do not have a lot amount of time. We are trying to move that line every hour or 2 hours. In some cases, the line can even move every 3 0 minutes. Manuf. 2: If It would be a batt insulation R 21, it would be [affect the manufacturing process] just the costs of material and would not affect labor b ecause all our wall cavities are 6 inches It would not change anything in the factory. It would not change any production features Manuf. 3: R 21] because all of our homes are built with 2x4 and for R 21 it would need a 2x6. There are manufacturers who do offer it. We do not offer as an option primarily because the market area that we serve. We try to keep our price low, compared to the higher end market and we do that primarily because that is where the buyers are in that price range. We have our company owned retail mode there are manufacturers that sell 2x6 but that pushes the price significantly and in our approach is to keep the homes as affordable as possible

PAGE 128

128 lot of different things. We can push the price of that house up to 150 170K but the majority of people cannot qualify for that, so we try to keep the price where the majority can qualify. We can certainly do that [2x6]. Occasionally we have people come in and want a 2x6 side walls if they wanted to buy an upgraded house and spend a 125 130K for it. But the majority of our business seems to be quite a bit under that and R 21 is not that big of a buy. Floors All manufacturers reported using R 11 for floors a s standard practice and offer the opportunity to upgrade the floor insulation if the homeowners can afford it. Usually, a n R 22 is used because manufacturers can use a double layer o f R 11. This practice of having different R values seems to simplify the m anufacturing process. It reduces the need for managing different R values with both the vendor and construction workers. The construction costs are the only factor reported by the manufacturer for avoiding the use of higher R values in floors as standard p ractice in the future. Manuf. 1: Use R 11 [standard]. Not very often [ use R 19]. In Florida, people are not that concern with the insulation of the floor. Because typically, you are locating the home close to the ground with ventilation. So, people are more concern with the insulation on the walls and ceiling. It does not affect the process [to use R 19] because it is the same product. But o n floors, that is a little bit different because in floors we do not batt, we blanket it. We put a blank of ins ulation over the bottom side of the floor once we put our piping. I know in the past we have done some R 22 o n the floor, but we did it with a double R 11. We do it time to time depending on the energy calculations of the home. [The challenge] would depend on the availability of R 19 [from supplier]. Manuf. 2: For floor is R 11 and you can upgrade to R 22. Never use d R 19 because it is just the way we buy our insulation in rolls of R 11. It would not change anything [in the manufacturing process to us e R 19 ] a s long as it comes in blanket insulation. Right now our blanket insulation is 6ft. and 8 ft width. So as long as the materials are supplie d in the same fashion, it would not change anything. Manuf. 3: Use R 11. Mainly what we do is to use another layer of our R 11 to upgrade to R 22. We have an option for it Let say $ 400 additional, and of course it depends o n the size and square feet T hat does not seem to

PAGE 129

129 be a lot over a 30 year contract. But you would be surprised if you put $ 400 over here and $ 400 over there and a lot of these things that they ca n n o t see; they do n o t wan t to pay for. They would rather have a $ 400 on a side by side refrigerator with ice maker. [we] c ertainly [upgrade] and e specially for a client that is more energ y knowledgeable mainly s enior 65+ that are more aware of [energy savings] over a first time buyer. [R 19] can be sold and our people do a good job o f upgrading the insulation. It i s all price and if [customers] qualify and can afford the monthly payments. It could be [a standard practice] we just would have to figure in the price nationally. Anytime there is a change in the e nergy standards, it i s an educational process because it typically causes an increase in price. But if there are good facts and figur es that show that they would earn their money back in 6 7 years then it would be very helpful. A lot of people are primarily a concern about the amount of money they have to put down and the monthly amount. Ceilings Standard insulation for ceiling s ranged from R 18 to R 30 for these three manufacturers. Upgrades can reach up to R 33 for Manufact. 1. Upgrading the ceiling insulation to higher values showed to be problematic for manufacturers mostly due to required design changes at the roof to include rafte rs, heal, and eaves. Concerns regarding home over height and associated costs for shipping and specific height restrictions at the factory were also mentioned. Manuf. 1: We do R 22 standard and we also do R 33 for an upgraded version. Not very often [use R 38} because R 33 is the higher we go. In the manufactured homes, you also have some issues with the eaves, because at the eave point, we only have around 5 in tick so it is kind of hard. You might not even get an R 33 in the eaves. To do R 38 would be easy. It would be just the matter to know if it is worth it and show us the value of using R 38 versus R 33. Manuf. 2: I want to say that 90% of our ceilings are R 30 and use cellulose insulation. You do not have enough room at the cavity at the roof to c alculate R 38. If you would use R 38, you will need to re design the homes to include that. It would [affect manufactured process] because you would have a deeper cavity so you would need to change rafters. You would have to redesign because right now we ha ve around 295 rafter configurations that we built with. So, you need to change them [295 rafters] and get them all certified and built (rafters are prefabricated and built by a subcontractor). So that would be a major undertaking. If it would be cellulose [material to make R

PAGE 130

130 18], it would have to be deeper and would change rafters and ceiling high. Also, it would limit me on the size of the homes that I can buil d This factory was built in 1959 and do not have the capabilities of building with taller rafter s here. My bridge cranes and joist systems are maxed out. I ca no raise the ceiling 6 inches because I do not have 6 inches in the factory. Manuf. 3: We are using R 18. The ceiling is the easiest upgrade. We probably average R 22 on most of the ceiling, e xcept again, if the person cannot afford. Not often [use R 18], because we blow insulation in so we do not use any batts except when we rap our ductwork and things like that. Most of the insulation we use is blown insulation. That may also affect the thick ness of the trusses mostly at the heal because you cannot put R 38 there and pack it and force it down. If the house is over height, your shipping costs can increase significantly. And if we are sending the house to Panama City, that can cause an additiona l 3K. Per regulation we have a high limit, so if the heal has to be increase d by 6 inches then will raise the high of the house. [also] these houses do not only travel on the Interstate. They also go off roads and go underpasses which they may not be able to go under. So, there are a lot of factors when we talk about increasing the height of the house and can get pretty expensive. Structural Insulated Panels Although Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) were not on the optimal lists for a hyper efficiency c arbon neutral manufactured home, the researche r wanted to provide additional information about the use of SIPs in current manufacturing processes due to a lack of research on the area. Most manufacturers reported not using SIPs in their process due to either lack of knowledge about the product or lack of flexibility over the framing method. Manuf. 1: We never used [SIPs]. They are very difficult [to implement] because of the way we buil d We do a lot of customization, we are moving windows and doors all the time, doing wiring in interior and exterior w alls, so it is hard to implement SIPs in this process. If we were building the same house over and over, you would still need to overcome the electrical issues. And SIP do es not have the flexibility that we have [with the framing method]. If a customer cal ls us to modify a wall and the home is in the station, we can do it. With the SIPs, we cannot do it. Our industry does use SIP for carports, garages, and utility rooms that go on the site. There, it is a little bit easier to use SIP because they do not hav e windows and openings. It would be very difficult to implement SIP [as standard practice in the future] because of the flexibility and the complexity of the product. You would

PAGE 131

131 almost start a factory again and design the factory and product around those SI Ps to make that work. Manuf. 2: Do not use them here. I know other factories do, but we do not have the knowledge and machines. We do everything by hand. I do not know how they are attached or fabricated. I do not know what benefits would be for the fact ory. Personally, I do not see any gains from the factory. I know the consumer would get a better product, but what we do is also good. Manuf. 3: We do not use SIPs. We have a foam core on the outside that is basically a structural support for the resident ial lap siding that we use and it has an R value but is not big. I am not as familiar with those SIPs and the highest values that they come with. Windows For windows, one manufacturer reported using high efficien cy windows as recommended by the energy sim ulations. The two other manufacturers reported the costs of material a nd the availability from the supplier as the main factors for not using more efficient windows. Manuf. 1: Use standard U 0.33. Manuf. 2: Use standard U 0.48 and SHGC 0.58. Manuf. 3: We use insulated windows vinyl insulated window 60% of the time. On the real affordable house, we still use the metal window that does not have near as much R value. The U value we use is pretty much the standard value. I am not familiar with the manufacture r that provide the windows on how high they can go, but I am sure they can make them if the components are there. But as far as I know, there has been no demand for it. There has been talk ing in the last 3 years that eventually we would have to go away wit h the metal windows because of energy standard but has not come about yet. We do a heat loss on every house and sizing air conditioning accordingly I think more and more people are becoming energy conscious and when the economy is good, and everybody is ma king money we can upgrade those things. I just not sure if we can make a just of what we are doing to up to what it is being talked about because it affects the price.

PAGE 132

132 Infiltration For air sealing/infiltration, two out of three manufacturers performed blower door tests in their standard homes either for EnergyStar certification requirements or quality control. The engineer of record for Manuf. 1 reported that most homes are built und er 3 ACH50, while for Manuf. 2 the infiltration level reported was 3.96 ACH50. Both manufacturers stated no manufacturing challenges to improve infiltration levels other than better workforce training. Manuf. 1: We do not perform the blower door test here in the factory. But there is a percentage of homes that are tested o n the site. For modular, all homes are tested. For manufactured, there is only a small percentage of homes that need to be tested in order to keep our EnergyStar rating. Manuf. 2: We hav e done [blower door test] here. [subcontractor] came and tested the houses ... We are not EnergyStar certified. We just wanted to do [blower test] on our own. It i s not a requirement. Manuf. 3: W e do not [perform blower door test]. I do not know it can be implemented when the house i s built in sections. It can maybe be done when the home is assembled on site but that would have after the fact. Because we typically built 2 3 or 4 sections of the home and one half of that house may not have any wall. H VAC T he interviewed manufacturers stated that prepping for HVAC systems but are not currently installing the system in the factory due to lack of information from the end users. Common prep ping includes installing the required pipes and wiring. D etailed informa tion about the HVAC efficiency was not mentioned as it is out of the scope of manufacturers As mentioned by Manufacturer 2, they only provide the calculations for the retailer/homeowner according to HUD standards. Most manufacturers are also receiving mor e requests for mini split heat pumps systems. Manufacturer 2 stated having issues when installing and/or prepping for mini splits due to lack of

PAGE 133

133 communication with the retailer/homeowner who installed the system. Heat pumps were well received by Manufactur er 1 and Dealer 1, however concerns regarding the initial costs are still a factor for larger implementation. Manuf. 1: We used to [install the HVAC component] but we do n o t install anymore. We used to install the air handler inside and the compressor ou tside but it became very difficult because each house is different so that became an issue. So now we just prep and kind of let the AC go in and install the equipment where the customer wants to. Most of the home s have a package system. But we have been do ing more and more of the split system. The benefits of the split system is that it is more energy efficient, you do n o t have ducts underneath the home, and reduce the chances to get water in those ducts. It is a little bit more expensive, and you have to design a space in the home for that system. In small homes, it could take some closet space and people do no t necessarily like that. [We built with a split system ] o nly 10% of the time. [there are challenges in the manufacturing process because you have to design that closet for the air handler in the inside and you also have to prep for that wiring. It is not a big deal and we can do it. I am a proponent of spit system. I would like to see the split system in every house, but our customers are the ones who decide And when I talk about customers, I mean retailers and not necessarily the homeowners. We do a lot of home for communities; they buy a stock of units and they are the ones that get to decide how they want to put the air conditioning system on it. The package system is a lot easier and less expensive and that is why most of them install the package system. Manuf. 2: We do no t do an installation here. We just run ductwork. We set t hem up for central air conditioning and no furnace. We used [m ini splits] in the past for modular homes but we never used them on manufactured homes. You would think is less work because you have no ductwork and less wiring. It is easier in the factory, b ut it is harder to install o n the site. I t was a logistic s nightmare trying to have someone there to hook it up. The first one we did, we installed the pipes, we ran the drain lines and the co p per tubing in the factory and then it did no t work out. So, the n we started prep ing and they would have to run everything but i t did no t work out. Every dealer we sen t had a different contractor that wanted something different and if you do no t know the manufacturer of the unit, then you cannot buil d it. N ow we give them calculation according to the HUD standard and they would need to find the uni t. Manuf. 3: [HVAC] is not installed here. It is installed when the house is installed. [mini splits] can be [ installed in the factory] but we sell to a lot of people in w hich we do not have control over.

PAGE 134

134 Dealer 1 : The problem with the mini split heat pumps is the first costs, which is much higher, and because you need some means of introducing outside air. So, you are adding a lot of extra components. Water Heater For wate r heaters, the majority of manufacturers either install or prep for electric water heaters. None of the manufacturers used heat pump water heaters in manufactured homes. One interviewed manufacturer had previous experience with a modular product in which t here was a miscommunication issue. The same manufacturer related no major challenge in implementing the heat pump water heater other than additional wiring. The increasing construction cost and uncertain return of investment w ere noted by Manufacturer 1, w hile the Dealer 1 noted small changes in the floor plan to accommodate system requirements. Manuf. 1: [We use] a round 95% electric [water heaters] [Heap pump water heater] can be implemented, you just need to see the right system and what the costs are. [ It affects the manufacturing process] I would say in our affordability and what we are trying to do, it is not very effective. Somebody would have to show us the return. You have to remember that we are producing affordable houses, so we are trying to keep the costs down, so anything in addition, has to have good payback. And we also have to see how it affects our time and the complications of implementing it. Manuf. 2: [We use] e lectric water heater only. We would prep for [water heater], w e would not in stall. We did two [ heat pump water heater ] in a modular home and probably was the last two. We prep for it and [the c u st o mer] put it in, and what we prep for did no t meet their needs. It was a lack of communication. [for the modular project] we had to do some extra wiring and that is all. Manuf. 3: We currently use 30 gallons e lectric. There is very small [use of] gas in the S tate of F lorida. [We] n ever use s [h eat p ump w ater h eaters ]. We never really investigate that. So I am not sure if it could or not [ be implemented] Dealer 1 : Our manufacturers only install conventional electric water heaters. We do n o t have m any opportunities. The challenge with the heat pump water heater is that they need to have space for ventilation. Usually the water heater is in a space in the building envelope.

PAGE 135

135 Appliances and Lighting Regarding the appliances and lighting that are included in the manufacture d homes, most manufacturers stated installing refrigerators and range/cooktop. Additional items installed by some manufac turers include microwave, and dishwasher. Manufacturer 1 also mentioned installing LED light bulbs in the factory. Additional price and lack of potential benefits for energy efficient appliances are the main reasons for larger implementation. Manuf. 1: [We install] 18 cf refrigerator and range r, both EnergyStar. All LED lighting. The only exception to that is the light bulb that goes in the range. The cost has come way down [for LED] and the product is way better. We even you would never have to change a a big proponent of it. Manuf. 2: Standard we do refrigerators [ E nergy S tar], range, microwave, cooktops. We do not include light bulbs. Manuf. 3: Most of [ r efrigerator] are E nergy S tar and we do provide. I am not sure if the dishwasher is E nergy S tar. T y pically, we do not sell washer. We do not provide light bulbs. This industry is very price conscious, so you can mandate all of the kind of things, but you might not sell any home. Can it be done? Certainly! But if there is a standard refrigerator there is a lot of people that would not upgrade if they are trying to hit the price range. If there was a way to integrate all those things into a n E nergy S tar package with a proper rebates/tax deduction I am not sure i f the tax deductions would be the answer because most of these people do not pay a lot of taxes. So probably rebates on what they pay every month, like utility bills, would be more attractive. Only because of the tax bracket they are in. Photovoltaic Panels In the last section of the survey, respondents were asked about the use of photovoltaic panels in the manufacturing process. One of the manufacturers had previous experience installing PV panels in manufactured homes in the past, but none of them are currently offering the option. Common challenges noted are the lack of information about the site location and home orientation and the increasing costs of the

PAGE 136

136 system. None of the m were able to estimate the impacts on the manufacturing process, but as noted by Manufactured 1, it would slow down the process. Thus, PV panel installation could be a different segment of the process, such as an end product. Manufacturer 1 and 3 and Deal er 1 noted increasing interest in the solar shingles as they may reduce complications in the factory. However, both noted that the costs are still not on the range which most consumers can afford. Manufac. 1: We have [used PV panels] it in the past. Back then we did it in combination with the utility company T hey had heavy rebates W e have not seen that in a while, so we do no t do that right now. [Installing PV panels in the factory] is another complication that slows you down and plus, when you built a m anufactured home you do no t necessarily know the orientation that the home until you set that in the lot. A lot of time s you build homes and the retailers do no t even know the orientation of the home. So it is tough to install the panels here. We can prep for that and we have done that too. T here is also a lot of products that are coming out these days like roofing shingles that already have the solar panel already built on it. When those have a good payback we might look at something like that. It would h ave to be consumer demanded. You would have to get the payback time down to 5 10 years range. You could probably convince somebody with 8 years payback, but the shorter the better for your customers. Manuf. 2: Not familiar with them. Manuf. 3: No [have n ot used PV panels] I t could be implemented. It would probably be an end product after the house is delivered and set up because transport [PV panels] 3 5 hundred miles away on the roof probably would not be a good idea. [I am not] that familiar with them because we did not have someone interested. If they would, they would probably go to someone after the fact once the house is set up. The majority of ou r homes go to private propriety, so we do not know how the house will be si t ed. But once the house it th ere, then the solar people could go and installed on the right side. The costs [is a challenge] It would have to be done after the fact and solar expert could determine if it would be beneficial. I do no t think [ we have interest in installin g them in the future]. I have no idea what the price is and what it would take to do that. It would be to a different segment of the market. We could maybe build homes solar ready, but I am not sure what is required for that. We use shingle in our roof, so we have to kn ow how to anchor those and things like that. Dealer 1 : [Using PV panels make sense] In some markets. For instance, in California there are some subsidies for PV that they can make economic

PAGE 137

137 sense. Florida, for instance, the centralized generation and util ities have been strong for not benefit ing the individual homeowner. The laws here in Florida are not beneficial to decentralized generation and our utility rates are really low anyway, so it is much harder to make economic sense. I am interested in the Tesla solar shingles because it could be compelling if you ca n produce a home that come s with the solar in it, with no incremental costs, only what you have is that additional m aterial cost. Again, the manufacturer would probably be resistant for something like that. Additional Notes Manufacturer 3 also noted the importance of establishing rebate/tax deduction laws for the industry as a way to overcome low energy efficiency without losing consumers. Manuf. 3: [upgrading energy efficiency] would solve the energy problem but it does not solve the housing problem. All you need to do is look around how many people are renting houses/apartments because they cannot afford to buy and if to o much emphasis is place d o n things like energy efficiency, then you may cut out many people for buying a house. I think maybe other government s offer rebates back either on taxes or electric bill where they know that if they put that energy package in the ir home, they will get energy savings or tax returns. There are various ways of doing that, that would still allow the big segment of the population to buy their own home. It very easy for the DOE to say what things should be done, but they do not have to answer to all people out there. The shipments in our industry have never r ecover ed after the downfall primarily because of financing and government [problems], that puts an additional burden for people to buy a home. We typically do not sell for higher end buyers, we sell to the middle to low class, but that is a very large and growing part of the population. Part I I : Market a nd Potential Strategies The online survey was distributed by email by the Florida Manufactured Housing Association (FMHA ) to its me mbers. The survey questionnaire can be found in Appendix D A total of 561 emails were sent, with a response rate of 8.9 %. Since the population standard deviation ( ) is unknown t distribution is used to

PAGE 138

138 estimate the margin of error (ME) for individual questions of the survey, as shown in Eq uation 5 1 (5 1) In Eq. 1, is the critical value for confidence level, is the sample standard deviation, and is the sample size. After collecting the responses for each indicator, the sample mean and standard deviation for each factor were calculated. The highest sample standard deviation value for questions with Likert scal e in the survey was 1. 3 4 which, b y considering a 95% confidence level using Eq. 1. reache d The ME was calculated for all factors individually Through the course of data collection, one (1) dealer became interested in the research and was interviewed by phone The phone interview followed the perceptions. The transcribed dialog can be found below. Demographics In this section, respondents were asked abou t the ir main occupation in the manufactured housing industry (Figure 5 1). Community owners represent ed the majority of the valid responses, followed by retailers and manufacturers. It is also worth mention ing that there is only a handful number of manufac turers that build manufacture d homes in the State of Florida, thus its representativeness is reduced compared to other categories.

PAGE 139

139 Figure 5 1. Demographic information of respondents. Respondents were also asked about the likelihood of manufactured home customers according to the presented categories where 1 was most likely and 5 less likely As shown in Figure 5 2 retire ment buyers ( 1.82 ) and a second home buyer ( 2.93 ) are the most likely customers of manufactured homes. In addition to that, the majority of new customers are likely to be above 60 years old (61%) as shown in Figure 5 3 while the age distribution between 30 to 59 years old is similar. The likelihood of ne w customers being under 29 years old is the lowest among the categories. Figure 5 2. Likelihood of manufacturer home customers where 1 is very likely and 5 is least likely. 78% 12% 8% 2% Community owner/operator Retailer/ dealer Manufacturer Other. Please specify. 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 A first-time home buyer Upgrading/ replacing a current manufactured home A second home buyer A retirement buyer Mean

PAGE 140

140 Figure 5 3. Age likelihood of customers of a manufactured home in the State of Florida Factors that Affect the Decision to Purchase a Manufactured Home This section asked respondents about the ir perception o f the most important factors considered by manufacturer homeowners when buying a new home. As shown in Figure 5 4, the total costs of the home were considered the most important factor ( 1.4 ), followed by a monthly mortgage payment ( 2.02 ), monthly utility bills ( 2.26 ), and lastly the p otential resale of the home ( 2.6 ). When asked them to rank these options, the total costs of the home achieved a mean of 1.18, followed by monthly mortgage payment with 2.18, potential resale of the home with 3.31, and monthly utility costs with 3.33. Figure 5 4. Factors that affect the decision to purchase a manufactured home, where 1 is most important and 5 least important. 2% 11% 13% 13% 61% Up to 29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years + 60 years 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Potential resale value of the home Monthly utility costs Monthly mortgage payment The total cost of home Mean

PAGE 141

141 According to Dealer 1 interview, the monthly payments associated with purchasing a home relative to their ability to afford thos e payments is the most important factor. The total cost of the home is indirectly included in the monthly payments but is not the single factor affecting a decision to purchase the home. Dealer 1 : The total recurring monthly costs [ loan payment, lot rent, home insurance, and propriety taxes ] that i s what these buyers are more interested in. T hey are not interested in the total cost of the home A ll they care i s how much it will cost them by month They are looking whatever their bottom line i s, so they do n ot consider utilities. But I think there is an opportunity there. It would be meaningful i f there is a way to quantify energy savings based on features of a home, like a HERS rating or E nergy S tar. For example, w hat the costs of operating that home compared to a home without these features. Energy Performance of Manufactured Homes In this section, respondents were asked questions related to the energy efficiency of manufactured homes. Figure 5 5 shows the frequency that respondents receive complain ts about t he energy efficiency of manufactured homes from homeowners. Most respondents (37%) stated that they receive complains occasionally from homeowners, followed by no complains (31%), and sometimes (21%). A small percentage stated that do not know because have no contact with homeowners after the home is sold. 3% of respondents stated that receive complains frequently, while no respondent stated that always receive complains.

PAGE 142

142 Figure 5 5. Percentage of h omeowner complains about the energy efficiency of manufa ctured homes. The Dealer 1 interview confirmed the above mentioned results and provided insightful information about the electricity costs of some manufactured homes. It is also believed that some homeowners are not aware of the potential benefits of energy conservation measures. Dealers 1 : No a nd that what surprises me. We had a grant money to retrofit older homes for low income families a nd we had some old home with poor envelope T his grant would come in to help with air sealing and insulating and several thing s with no costs to the home owner but none of them were interested. They did no t want anything to do with it. T hey are paying over $ 150 for electric bills for a 700 800 square feet two bedroom home a nd I am just in disbelieve that they had no interested in free retrofit for their ho me I think they do no t understand what the benefits could be. The next question asked respondents about the likelihood of customers who ask about the energy efficiency of manufactured homes when buying a home (Figure 5 6). The results show disinterest in e nergy efficient features in both the survey and the interview Most respondents (34%) stated that customer s sometimes ask for energy efficiency, followed by occasionally (29%), frequently (21%), and never (16%). No respondent stated that customers always a sk for energy efficiency measures. 3% 21% 37% 31% 8% Always Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Never Do not know

PAGE 143

143 Figure 5 6. Percentage of customers that ask about the energy efficiency of manufactured homes when buying a home. Dealer 1 : No, they do n o t care y experience with these buyers is that if you start mentioning featur es like that they gloss over and lo s e enthusiasm. It is not something they are interested in. They are driven by the emotional effect of their home A lot of these people moving into a manufactured home are either moving out on their own such as millennial s, or people who have lived in multi family before that. So they have never been a single family homeowner before and I think they are excited about that a new start for them and utilities are not even in their mind. The next question asked if respondents use energy efficiency as a selling point for manufactured homes. The results show that most respondents never use it as a selling point (29%), followed by frequently (26%), sometimes (21%), and occasionally (13%). A small percentage (11%) state d that always use energy efficiency as a selling point. Figure 5 7. Percentage of respondents that use energy efficiency as a selling point for manufactured homes The interview showed a similar result and mentioned the customer disinterest as the main reason for not using energy efficiency as a selling point. Also, according to the 21% 34% 29% 16% Always Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Never 11% 26% 21% 13% 29% Always Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Never

PAGE 144

144 interview, energy efficiency as included in the homes but are not mentioned as a way to not lose customer interest in purchasing the home. Dealer 1 : I have tried, and it has not been successful. We do include measures in the home, but in terms of meeting with someone showing them the home and start talking about energy efficiency featur es the y are completely disintereste d. Followed on the previous question, respondents were asked the main reasons for not emphasizing more on energy efficiency as a selling point. Respondents were able to select all the options that apply and specify other reasons not presented. The majority of respondents stated that there is a lack of interest from manufactured homeowners (36%) and that energy efficiency is not important for a sale to succeed (34%). Around 18% of respondents also mentioned that have limit ed knowledge of the energy efficiency features and their advantages and 6% stated the incremental costs as a factor. Among the ones that entered their answers (4%), the vast majority said that they mainly resell older homes. No respondent stated that there is a problem in financing energy efficient homes. Figure 5 8 Main reasons for not using energy efficiency as a selling point. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Difficulty to finance energy efficient homes Other Incremental costs of energy efficient homes Not enough knowledge about energy efficient features and advantages It is not important for a sale to succeed Lack of interest from home buyers Percentage of respondents

PAGE 145

145 Following on the same topic, respondents were presented with three different manufactured home options (Figure 5 9) and were asked which of them would mostly be selected by manufactured homeowners. The large majority (78%) selected option B, an average home with average mortgage price and energy efficiency. Around 13% stated option A, a home with a low mortgage and low energy e fficiency, and 8% stated option C, a home with a higher mortgage but higher energy efficiency. The interview with Dealer 1 shows that homeowners would usually select option A, however, the primary decision maker for the home is the dealer/community owner which buys the home from the manufacturer. Figure 5 9. The o ption that would mostly be selected by manufactured homeowners. Dealer 1 : The first option. Let s say I had all the three home in a row next to each other, and from an aesthetic and feature standpoint they look the same. Homeowners have no idea what the utility costs are go ing to be. Even if I tell them that we have done all of these great energy efficiency measures, they still do no t know what the utility bill will be. This is a var iable, an unknow n for them. They know, concretely, what the mortg a ge payment will be S o, if you have a way to quantify and objectively compare the energy benefit s then you may be able to sell the home. From my perspective, it does not sell. But I buy hom es that I feel would be the best option for these residents, so we kind of make that choice for them. Following in the same category, respondents were asked which energy efficiency measures that could be improved in current manufactured homes. The majority of 13.51% 78.38% 8.11% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Option A: low mortgage but high utility costs Option B: average mortgage and utility costs Option C: high mortgage but low utility costs

PAGE 146

146 respondents selected envelope insulation, followed by air conditioning systems, and water heating systems. A small number of respondents selected home appliances, lighting, windows, and air sealing/infiltration. Figure 5 10. Energy efficiency measur es could be improved in manufactured homes Factors That Could Improve the Attractiveness of Manufactured Homes In the last section of the survey, respondents were asked about overall measures that could be improved in manufactured homes to increa s e its a ttractiveness. Respondents were able to rate each measure where 1 was most important and 5 least important. Improving exterior architectural appearance was selected as the most important measure with a mean of 1.46 and margin o f error of 0.21 under 95% confidence interval, followed by interior design (1.76), flexible finance options (1.78), reduced construction costs (1.86), home durability (1.95), energy efficiency (2.2), and lastly installing solar panels (3.38). Ten respondents also entered additional measures from the ones provided. Six measures were added by one respondent each as very important (c onsumer e ducation improving quality of side vinyl o verall quality of the home, cheaper selling costs, landscaping and skirting, and s upport from Federal Housing Finance Agency ). Four measures were added by one respondent each as 0 5 10 15 20 25 Air seiling/infiltration Windows Lighting Home appliances Water heating Air conditioning equipment Envelope Insulation Number of respondents

PAGE 147

147 somewhat important (f ixture qualit y the market for resale, exterior and interior colors and tankless water heaters ). One respondent also mentioned that if lenders would have support from the Federal Housing Finance Agency in the secondary mortgage market the cost of capital for the l end ers would decline to a rate comparable to site built housing. Eliminating this fina n cing disadvantage would allow more people to buy manufactured housing on the low end and on the high end (i.e. $125,000 250,000) In the interview with Dealer 1, floor p lan design optimization especially for closets as mentioned. Figure 5 1 1 Measures that could be improved to increase the attractiveness of manufactured homes, where 1 is most important and 5 least important. Dealer 1 : In the design of a manufactured h ome, when you look at floorplans, hallways is a waste of space and is hard to avoid them, especially if you have a single section home. But then you start looking at closets. For example, if you have a 5x5 walking closet and only one hanging bar across the back wall, you have no more closet space than you would have if you had a reaching closet. So, you wasted all that square footage just to make it a walking closet. Those types of space utilization features, if someone would look at it with some better eye could make use of small space way more functional. My belie f is that they are made the way they are just because it is the cheapest way to construct it. But from a feature 1 2 3 4 5 Installing solar panels to reduce energy costs Increasing energy efficiency Improving home durability Reducing construction costs Flexible financing options Improving interior design Improving exterior architectural appearance Mean

PAGE 148

148 standpoint, I know our clients are very interested in closets and the design of th home that offers the same function as a larger home, then you have cross sectional benefits for both affordability and environmentally and you have improved that home substantially. So, I believe floor plans can be better optimized.

PAGE 149

149 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH Conclusion #1: Life Cycle Affordability o f Hyper Efficient Carbon Neutral Manufactured Homes After conducting a comprehensive analysis of the energy use, carbon emissions, and construction related costs for different measures using parametric energy modeling simulations, this research narrowed down a set of potential measures to be implemented in manufactured homes in the State of Florida. The optimized modeling s hows the measures that are believed to be the most energy efficient, cost effective, and carbon preferred options The energy savings for the hyper efficient manufactured home ranged between 48 54%, while the carbon emission savings reached around 50% com pared to the DOE/HUD baseline. The construction costs for the same home showed a slight increase of 1.98%, resulting in a simple payback period between 1.77 to 2.1 years, depending on the location. For the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured homes, the construction cost increment ranged between 23 26% depending on the location, with a simple payback period between 10 14 years. The total incremental costs of the hyper efficient carbon neutral manufactured home fluctuate between $ 8,398 $9,678 compar ed to the DOE/HUD baseline. If PV systems and HVAC systems are not considered, the building improvements account for an initial construction increase of $ 2,068 and $ 4,000. These additional costs represent the incremental costs for manufacturers only and do not reflect the incremental costs for the homebuyer. T he proposed models, either hyper efficient or the carbon neutral model, are more life cycle affordable ( over 60 years) for all locations and loan options compared to

PAGE 150

150 both the DOE/HUD and the HUD bas elines T he life cycle costs difference between models became more perceptible after the year 15, with greater spikes e very 15 years due to the maintenance of air conditioning systems, windows, and photovoltaic systems. Due to the PV costs, the hyper effic ient model is preferable over the carbon neutral model. However, when forecasting the PV costs for 2030, it can be observed that the initial construction costs of the hyper efficient carbon neutral home decrease significantly, reaching surprisingly low sim ple payback periods (8.2 12.9 years depending on the forecast and location). Lastly, there are several opportunities to extend the research based on these conclusions First, the carbon neutrality section of this research could be expanded to cover the cradle to cradle of manufactured homes as well as exploring additional options to achieve carbon neutrality other than offset by renewable energy Also, as mentioned in the literature and confirmed in the industry survey, programs to incentivize the pu rchase of hyper efficient carbon neutral homes either by rebates or tax return should be developed. Additional research could also integrate PITI (Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance) and consider the above mentioned models. Additional research can u se the information provided in this research to develop and test financial alternatives. Also, t he major limiting factor encountered during the development of energy modeling was the lack of research on the impacts of household behavior in the energy cons umption of single family home s, manufactured homes and low income population Therefore, this study used a hypothetical set of residential occupancy patterns for energy use simulations. However, additional research and empirical data collection

PAGE 151

151 could be d eveloped on this matter to better understand the energy efficiency behavior of this specific population. Lastly, due to climate change and global warming, the energy performance of the hyper efficiency carbon neutral manufactured home is uncertain. Thus, a dditional research could be developed i n determining the long term effects of the proposed measures as well as researching for measures that accommodate climate change variables that could be easily used in manufactured homes. Conclusion #2: Challenges o f Implementing Hyper Efficient Carbon Neutral Measures The interviews with the manufacturer show that construction measures currently used differ from both the HUD baseline and the DOE/HUD standards. Manufacturers usually exceed the HUD baseline, but do no t reach the requirements for the DOE/HUD requirements. Thus, the costs presented in this dissertation may differ from current practices. However, as noted before, the DOE/HUD standard is expected to be implemented in the short term. Thus, this research hel ps to improve the efficiency of manufactured homes and compare the energy, carbon emissions, and construction cost estimates under the new standard. Overall, most optimal energy features for the hyper efficient and carbon neutral manufactured home could b e achieved without major manufacturing challenges. The costs of materials were commonly reported by manufacturers as a major challenge. However, as noted by most interviews, benefits from single measures, just as shown in the parametric simulations, would greatly help manufacturers and dealers to better use energy efficiency as selling strategy and better understand the potential benefits of

PAGE 152

152 upgrading their homes. The following shows the conclusions for each measure suggested. Walls: Manufacturers stated us ing R 11 as standard practice, which is below the DOE/HUD requirement, and an R 19 for upgraded homes, which is below the recommended insulation in this research. R 19 and R 21 are both energy efficient, cost effective, and carbon preferred options over the DOE/HUD baseline. However, R 21 walls showed to be optimal with higher savings through the State. Availability of suppliers is the major issue for this measure. Floors: Manufacturers stated using R 11 as standard practice, which is below the DOE/ HUD requirement, and an R 22 for upgraded homes, which is above the recommended insulation in this research. Since some manufacturers are already using higher insulation levels for upgraded models, implementing R 19 can be recommended. Ceilings: Manufactu rers stated using R 18 as standard practice, which is below the DOE/HUD requirement, and an R 30 for upgraded homes, which is as recommended by DOE/HUD but below recommended in this research. Manufacturers stated some challenges on increasing insulation le vels at the roof, such as rafters/roof redesign, transportation permits, and plant physical problems. Additionally, as shown in Table 4 29, increasing ceiling insulation is the higher building envelope improvement cost. Thus, additional research is require d to further understand the potential benefits of using higher insulation levels on the ceiling. Windows: Manufacturers reported using U values above the recommended by the HUD, but below the DOE/HUD requirements. One manufacturer reported using

PAGE 153

153 high effi cient windows above recommended in this study. Cost of material would be the only issue for this measure. Infiltration: Air sealing/infiltration from the two manufacturers that performed blower door tests show results well below the ones recommended by th e DOE/HUD and in this study. Thus, a 3 ACH50 could probably be recommended for standard practice. HVAC: Manufacturers have limited control over the air conditioning system used in the manufactured home, thus stronger emphasis should be placed towards reta iler education. Manufacturers and the dealer were somewhat receptive towards using mini splits heat pumps. As this research show s the overall costs of using MSHP is lower than conventional practices when accounting for the overall construction practice. T hus, dealers and owners should overcome the initial costs concerns. Water heater: With relatively small payback periods, water heater heat pumps could be a potential strategy for manufactured homes. However, additional research would be needed to further investigate the potential cost for adopting water heater heat pumps as for floor plan redesign. As by the interviews, manufacturers stated no significant changes in the manufacturing process other than additional wiring. Appliances and lighting: Not all r ecommended appliances are implemented in standard homes. The ones installed are currently EnergyStar or similar. Implementing all the recommended appliances would increase the costs significantly. Thus, the research recommends using EnergyStar appliances a s much as possible. Lighting, on the other hand, could be installed with minimal costs for manufacturers but increasing benefits for homeowners. Thus, could be enforced in the carbon neutral standard.

PAGE 154

154 Photovoltaic panels: One of the main components to con vert the hyper efficient manufactured home into carbon neutral seems to be far from achievable by manufacturers due to the lack of site information when manufacturing the homes On the other hand, as noted in the interviews, solar ready could be implemente d in the manufacturing process without significant challenges However, training would be required for adequate production. In addition to that, some interviews stated their interest in learning more about the costs and benefits of solar shingles and other similar products. These products could be a better alternative for manufactured homes, simplifying the construction process. Conclusion #3: Sta te o f t he Art Perception o f Expe r ts Towards Energy Efficiency o f Manufactured Homes The industry survey shows the state of the energy efficiency of manufactured homes and additional measures that could be improved in the industry As suggested by literature and confirmed in the survey, the industry in the State of Florida i s mainly driven by buyers over 60 years old with a strong focus on the total costs of the home and a moderate disinterest about energy efficienc y Although some experts mentioned using energy efficiency as a selling point, a large portion of experts menti oned the disinterest of c u st o mers and the unimportance of this factor for a sale to succeed. A possible reason could be the limited knowledge of c u st o mers about the potential benefits of energy efficiency towards their life cycle costs. However, a dditional about energy efficiency and their respective interest and reasons.

PAGE 155

155 A significant number of experts also noted that building insulation, air conditioning systems, and water heater systems could b e improved in current manufactured homes. Although the DOE/HUD standard will increase the efficiency of these measures, this dissertation shows that additional improvements could be implemented without significantly affecting homeowners and manufactur ing p rocesses In addition to that, the survey also shows other features that experts believe help improve the attractiveness of manufactured homes, such as architectural appearance.

PAGE 156

156 APPENDIX A PARAMETRIC SIMULATIONS Table A 1. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different wall options in Gainesville, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO 2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO 2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) R 13 Fib. Batt, 2x4 wood stud 16 o.c. 9,894 864.4 16.77 36943 0.00 315,183 4.54 3.6 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,701 2.0 847.6 32.18 38997 5.56 122.4 317,745 0.81 4.45 1.98 5.6 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,525 3.7 832.2 38.99 39951 8.14 93.5 317,910 0.87 4.37 3.74 7.4 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,437 4.6 825.4 42.63 40883 10.66 101.0 319,180 1.27 4.33 4.63 9.4 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,393 5.1 821.8 17.02 42121 14.01 121.4 321,595 2.03 4.31 5.07 3.6 in EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,698 2.0 847.4 32.49 39235 6.20 134.7 318,273 0.98 4.45 1.98 5.6 in EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,519 3.8 831.9 39.24 39906 8.02 91.2 317,766 0.82 4.37 3.74 7.4 in EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,437 4.6 825.2 42.89 40655 10.05 94.6 318,610 1.09 4.33 4.63 9.4 in EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,390 5.1 821.5 30.23 41621 12.66 109.1 320,389 1.65 4.31 5.07 R 13 Fib. Batt, 2x4 steel stud, 16 in o.c. 10,255 3.6 894.6 25.76 37864 2.49 NaN 321,401 1.97 4.71 3.74 R 15 Fib. Batt, 2x4 steel stud, 16 in o.c. 10,205 3.1 890.2 8.86 37934 2.68 NaN 320,967 1.84 4.68 3.08 R 19 Fib. Batt, 2x6 steel stud, 24 in o.c. 10,006 1.1 873.3 6.24 37564 1.68 NaN 317,828 0.84 4.59 1.10 R 21 Fib. Batt, 2x6 steel stud, 24 in o.c. 9,974 0.8 870.7 3.10 37634 1.87 NaN 317,642 0.78 4.58 0.88 R 25 Fib. Batt, 2x8 steel stud, 24 in o.c. 9,936 0.4 867.5 3.88 38091 3.11 NaN 318,295 0.99 4.56 0.44 R 15 Fib. Batt, 2x4 wood stud, 16 in o.c. 9,851 0.4 860.5 18.42 37014 0.19 18.2 314,824 0.11 4.53 0.22 R 19 Fib. Batt, 2x6 wood stud, 24 in o.c. 9,683 2.1 846.0 22.67 37067 0.33 6.7 312,999 0.69 4.44 2.20 R 21 Fib. Batt, 2x6 wood stud, 24 in o.c. 9,634 2.6 841.7 16.77 37137 0.52 8.6 312,597 0.82 4.42 2.64

PAGE 157

157 Table A 2. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different wall options in Miami Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO 2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO 2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) R 13 Fiberglass Batt, 2x4 wood stud, 16 in o.c. 9,933 928 36,943 0.00 320,863 4.56 3.6 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,933 0.00 929 0.25 38,996 5.56 NaN 325,710 1.51 4.56 0.00 5.6 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,927 0.06 928 0.31 39,951 8.14 9,691 327,874 2.18 4.56 0.00 7.4 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,930 0.03 928 0.21 40,882 10.66 8,728 330,070 2.87 4.55 0.22 9.4 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,930 0.03 928 0.07 42,120 14.01 73,625 332,992 3.78 4.56 0.00 3.6 in EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,930 0.03 928 0.02 39,235 6.20 112,789 326,234 1.67 4.55 0.22 5.6 in EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,924 0.09 928 0.52 39,905 8.02 5,692 327,740 2.14 4.56 0.00 7.4 in EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,924 0.09 928 0.39 40,655 10.05 9,509 329,515 2.70 4.55 0.22 9.4 in EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,927 0.06 928 0.22 41,620 12.66 21,230 331,800 3.41 4.56 0.00 R 13 Fib Batt, 2x4 steel stud, 16 in o.c. 9,971 0.38 932 3.85 37,863 2.49 NaN 323,526 0.83 4.58 0.44 R 15 Fib Batt, 2x4 steel stud, 16 in o.c. 9,977 0.44 932 3.81 37,934 2.68 NaN 323,686 0.88 4.58 0.44 R 19 Fib Batt, 2x6 steel stud, 24 in o.c. 9,962 0.30 931 2.67 37,563 1.68 NaN 322,668 0.56 4.57 0.22 R 21 Fib Batt, 2x6 steel stud, 24 in o.c. 9,965 0.32 931 2.88 37,634 1.87 NaN 322,860 0.62 4.57 0.22 R 25 Fib Batt, 2x8 steel stud, 24 in o.c. 9,965 0.32 931 2.73 38,090 3.11 NaN 323,912 0.95 4.58 0.44 R 15 Fib Batt, 2x4 wood stud, 16 in o.c. 9,933 0.00 929 0.18 37,013 0.19 NaN 321,053 0.06 4.56 0.00 R 19 Fib Batt, 2x6 wood stud, 24 in o.c. 9,918 0.15 928 0.93 37,066 0.33 132.73 321,031 0.05 4.56 0.00 R 21 Fib Batt, 2x6 wood stud, 24 in o.c. 9,921 0.12 928 0.61 37,137 0.52 317.73 321,237 0.12 4.55 0.22

PAGE 158

158 Table A 3. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different wall options in Tallahassee Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO 2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO 2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) R 13 Fiberglass Batt, 2x4 wood stud, 16 in o.c. 10,102.57 793 0.00 36,943 0.00 303,090 4.63 3.6 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,891.56 2.1 778 14.80 38,996 5.56 138.8 305,963 0.95 4.53 2.16 5.6 i n EPS Core, OSB int. 9,683.46 4.1 764 29.00 39,951 8.14 103.7 306,336 1.07 4.44 4.10 7.4 in EPS Core, OSB int. 9,586.75 5.1 757 35.92 40,882 10.66 109.7 307,611 1.49 4.40 4.97 9.4 i n EPS Core, OSB int. 9,531.06 5.7 753 39.80 42,120 14.01 130.1 310,005 2.28 4.37 5.62 3.6 i n EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,885.70 2.1 778 15.03 39,235 6.20 152.5 306,491 1.12 4.53 2.16 5.6 in EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,680.53 4.2 764 29.29 39,905 8.02 101.1 306,192 1.02 4.44 4.10 7.4 i n EPS Core, Gypsum int. 9,580.88 5.2 757 36.21 40,655 10.05 102.5 307,041 1.30 4.40 4.97 9.4 in E PS Core, Gypsum int. 9,525.20 5.7 753 40.08 41,620 12.66 116.7 308,797 1.88 4.37 5.62 R 13 Fib Batt, 2x4 steel stud, 16 in o.c. 10,468.94 3.6 819 25.52 37,863 2.49 NaN 308,597 1.82 4.80 3.67 R 15 Fib Batt, 2x4 steel stud, 16 in o.c. 10,433.77 3.3 816 23.15 37,934 2.68 NaN 308,451 1.77 4.78 3.24 R 19 Fib Batt, 2x6 steel stud, 24 in o.c. 10,225.68 1.2 802 8.77 37,563 1.68 NaN 305,695 0.86 4.70 1.51 R 21 Fib Ba tt, 2x6 steel stud, 24 in o.c. 10,193.44 0.9 800 6.53 37,634 1.87 NaN 305,567 0.82 4.68 1.08 R 25 Fib Ba tt, 2x8 steel stud, 24 in o.c. 10,158.26 0.6 797 3.79 38,090 3.11 NaN 306,277 1.05 4.67 0.86 R 15 Fib Batt, 2x4 wood stud, 16 in o.c. 10,052.75 0.5 790 3.42 37,013 0.19 20.6 302,807 0.09 4.61 0.43 R 19 Fib Ba tt, 2x6 wood stud, 24 in o.c. 9,862.25 2.4 776 16.72 37,066 0.33 7.4 301,186 0.63 4.53 2.16 R 21 Fib Batt, 2x6 wood stud, 24 in o.c. 9,809.49 2.9 773 20.42 37,137 0.52 9.5 300,866 0.73 4.50 2.81

PAGE 159

159 Table A 4. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different ceiling options in Gainesville, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions ( M tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon ( Baseline) Ceiling R 30 Fib Vented 9,894 885 0.00 36,943 0.00 315,183 4.54 Ceiling R 38 Fib Vented 9,789 1.1 876 9.58 37,324 1.03 39.7 314,817 0.12 4.5 0.88 Ceiling R 49 Fib Vented 9,701 2.0 868 17.51 37,862 2.49 52.5 315,039 0.05 4.46 1.76 Ceiling R 60 Fib Vented 9,645 2.5 863 22.27 38,388 3.91 64.9 315,648 0.15 4.42 2.64 Ceiling R 38 Cellulose, Vented 9,777 1.2 875 10.53 37,517 1.55 54.4 315,145 0.01 4.49 1.10 Ceiling R 49 Cellulose, Vented 9,681 2.2 866 19.10 38,079 3.07 59.5 315,339 0.05 4.45 1.98 Ceiling R 60 Cellulose, Vented 9,619 2.8 861 24.36 38,629 4.56 69.2 315,938 0.24 4.42 2.64 Ceiling R 38 Fiberglass Batt, Vented 9,780 1.2 875 10.25 37,172 0.62 22.3 314,374 0.26 4.49 1.10 Ceiling R 49 Fiberglass Batt, Vented 9,686 2.1 867 18.38 37,636 1.87 37.7 314,394 0.25 4.45 1.98 Ceiling R 38 Closed Cell Foam, Vented 9,792 1.0 876 9.19 40,283 9.04 363.6 321,808 2.10 4.5 0.88 Ceiling R 49 Closed Cell Foam, Vented 9,678 2.2 866 19.31 41,503 12.34 236.1 323,339 2.59 4.45 1.98 Ceiling R 60 Closed Cell Foam, Vented 9,610 2.9 860 25.46 42,735 15.68 227.5 325,420 3.25 4.42 2.64 Ceiling R 38 Open Cell Foam, Vented 9,777 1.2 875 10.55 41,097 11.24 393.8 323,538 2.65 4.49 1.10 Ceiling R 49 Open Cell Foam, Vented 9,681 2.2 866 19.11 42,843 15.97 308.8 326,507 3.59 4.45 1.98 Ceiling R 60 Open Cell Foam, Vented 9,619 2.8 861 24.35 43,963 19.00 288.3 328,444 4.21 4.42 2.64 Roof R 38 Fib Batt, Unvented 9,654 2.4 865 20.45 37,809 2.34 42.3 314,528 0.21 4.43 2.42 Roof R 38 Fib Batt, R 24 Polyiso 9,470 4.3 848 36.90 40,233 8.90 89.1 318,052 0.91 4.35 4.19 Roof R 38 Fib Batt, R 25 XPS 9,470 4.3 848 37.24 41,451 12.20 121.0 320,864 1.80 4.35 4.19 Roof R 38 Closed Cell Foam 9,701 2.0 868 16.96 41,088 11.22 244.4 322,675 2.38 4.46 1.76 Roof R 49 Closed Cell Foam 9,610 2.9 861 24.64 42,374 14.70 220.4 324,681 3.01 4.41 2.86 Roof R 60 Closed Cell Foam 9,555 3.4 855 30.05 43,672 18.21 223.9 327,014 3.75 4.38 3.52 Roof R 38 Open Cell Foam 9,663 2.3 865 19.76 41,946 13.54 253.1 324,318 2.90 4.44 2.20 Roof R 49 Open Cell Foam 9,584 3.1 858 27.02 43,444 17.59 240.5 326,876 3.71 4.4 3.08 Roof R 60 Open Cell Foam 9,543 3.6 854 30.85 44,967 21.72 260.0 329,944 4.68 4.38 3.52

PAGE 160

160 Table A 4. Continued. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Roof R 27.5 SIP 9,839 0.6 880 4.70 42,517 15.09 1185.8 327,634 3.95 4.52 0.44 Roof R 37.5 SIP 9,683 2.1 866 18.80 43,558 17.90 351.8 328,223 4.14 4.45 1.98 Roof R 47.5 SIP 9,569 3.3 857 28.64 44,941 21.65 279.2 330,175 4.76 4.39 3.30

PAGE 161

161 Table A 5. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different ceiling options in Miami, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (B aseline) Ceiling R 30 Fib. Vented 9,933 928 0.00 36,943 0.00 320,863 4.56 Ceiling R 38 Fiberglass, Vented 9,871 0.6 923 5.06 37,324 1.03 75.2 321,092 0.07 4.52 0.88 Ceilin g R 49 Fiberglass, Vented 9,818 1.2 919 9.18 37,862 2.49 100.1 321,812 0.30 4.51 1.10 Ceiling R 60 Fiberglass, Vented 9,789 1.4 917 11.68 38,388 3.91 123.7 322,718 0.58 4.49 1.54 Ceilin g R 38 Cellulose, Vented 9,862 0.7 923 5.60 37,517 1.55 102.3 321,472 0.19 4.52 0.88 Ceilin g R 49 Cellulose, Vented 9,810 1.2 918 10.08 38,079 3.07 112.6 322,203 0.42 4.5 1.32 Ceiling R 60 Cellulose, Vented 9,774 1.6 916 12.81 38,629 4.56 131.6 323,134 0.71 4.48 1.75 Ceiling R 38 Fiberglass Batt, Vented 9,868 0.6 923 5.45 37,172 0.62 42.0 320,685 0.06 4.52 0.88 Ce iling R 49 Fiberglass Batt, Vented 9,812 1.2 919 9.69 37,636 1.87 71.4 321,215 0.11 4.5 1.32 Ceiling R 38 Closed Cell Foam, Vented 9,871 0.6 923 4.98 40,283 9.04 670.7 328,041 2.24 4.53 0.66 Ceiling R 49 Closed Cell Foam, Vented 9,807 1.3 918 10.26 41,503 12.34 444.4 330,207 2.91 4.49 1.54 Ceiling R 60 Closed Cell Foam, Vented 9,768 1.7 915 13.46 42,735 15.68 430.3 332,675 3.68 4.48 1.75 Ce iling R 38 Open Cell Foam, Vented 9,862 0.7 923 5.61 41,097 11.24 740.4 329,866 2.81 4.52 0.88 Ce iling R 49 Open Cell Foam, Vented 9,810 1.2 918 10.09 42,843 15.97 584.7 333,371 3.90 4.5 1.32 Ceiling R 60 Open Cell Foam, Vented 9,774 1.6 916 12.80 43,963 19.00 548.4 335,640 4.61 4.48 1.75 Ro of R 38 Fiberglass Batt 9,880 0.5 925 3.89 37,809 2.34 222.4 322,381 0.47 4.53 0.66 Roof R 38 Fiberglass Batt, R 24 Polyiso 9,695 2.4 909 19.51 40,233 8.90 168.6 326,015 1.61 4.45 2.41 Roof R 38 Fiberglass Batt, R 25 XPS 9,692 2.4 909 19.83 41,451 12.20 227.3 328,828 2.48 4.45 2.41 Roof R 38 Closed Cell Foam 9,903 0.3 926 2.11 41,088 11.22 1964.2 330,303 2.94 4.54 0.44 Roof R 49 Closed Cell Foam 9,827 1.1 920 8.54 42,374 14.70 635.9 332,474 3.62 4.51 1.10 Roof R 60 Closed Cell Foam 9,774 1.6 915 13.01 43,672 18.21 517.2 334,930 4.38 4.49 1.54 Roof R 38 Open Cell Foam 9,883 0.5 925 3.53 41,946 13.54 1417.1 332,128 3.51 4.53 0.66 Roof R 49 Open Cell Foam 9,812 1.2 919 9.78 43,444 17.59 664.6 334,819 4.35 4.5 1.32

PAGE 162

162 Table A 5. Continue d Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Roof R 6 0 Open Cell Foam 9,768 1.7 915 13.43 44,967 21.72 597.4 337,910 5.31 4.49 1.54 Roof R 27.5 SIP 10,006 0.7 935 6.33 42,517 15.09 880.5 334,761 4.33 4.59 0.66 Roof R 37.5 SIP 9,868 0.6 923 5.09 43,558 17.90 1299.5 335,703 4.62 4.53 0.66 Roof R 47.5 SIP 9,777 1.6 916 12.80 44,941 21.65 624.8 337,934 5.32 4.49 1.54

PAGE 163

163 Table A 6. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different ceiling options in Tallahassee, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) Ceiling R 30 Fib. Vented 10,103 793 36943 0.00 303,090 4.63 Ceiling R 38 Fib. Vented 9,991 1.1 785 7.87 37324 1.03 48.3 302,950 0.05 4.59 0.86 Ceiling R 49 Fib. Vented 9,897 2.0 779 14.39 37862 2.49 63.8 303,356 0.09 4.54 1.94 Ceiling R 60 Fib. Vented 9,839 2.6 775 18.28 38388 3.91 79.0 304,079 0.33 4.52 2.38 Ceiling R 38 Cellulose, Vented 9,982 1.2 785 8.47 37517 1.55 67.7 303,323 0.08 4.58 1.08 Ceiling R 49 Cellulose, Vented 9,880 2.2 778 15.48 38079 3.07 73.3 303,722 0.21 4.54 1.94 Ceiling R 60 Cellulose, Vented 9,818 2.8 773 19.77 38629 4.56 85.3 304,449 0.45 4.5 2.81 Ceiling R 38 Fib. Batt, Vented 9,982 1.2 785 8.33 37172 0.62 27.5 302,534 0.18 4.58 1.08 Ceiling R 49 Fib. Batt, Vented 9,886 2.1 778 15.03 37636 1.87 46.1 302,742 0.11 4.54 1.94 Ceiling R 38 Closed Cell Foam, Vented 10,000 1.0 786 7.17 40283 9.04 465.8 309,980 2.27 4.59 0.86 Ceiling R 49 Closed Cell Foam, Vented 9,883 2.2 778 15.35 41503 12.34 297.0 311,766 2.86 4.54 1.94 Ceiling R 60 Closed Cell Foam, Vented 9,809 2.9 773 20.45 42735 15.68 283.2 313,984 3.59 4.5 2.81 Ceiling R 38 Open Cell Foam, Vented 9,982 1.2 785 8.48 41097 11.24 489.8 311,716 2.85 4.58 1.08 Ceiling R 49 Open Cell Foam, Vented 9,880 2.2 778 15.49 42843 15.97 380.9 314,890 3.89 4.54 1.94 Ceiling R 60 Open Cell Foam, Vented 9,818 2.8 773 19.76 43963 19.00 355.2 316,955 4.57 4.5 2.81 Roof R 38 Fiberglass Batt 9,780 3.2 771 22.35 37809 2.34 38.7 302,186 0.30 4.49 3.02 Roof R 38 Fiberglass Batt, R 24 Polyiso 9,610 4.9 759 34.10 40233 8.90 96.5 306,327 1.07 4.41 4.75 Roof R 38 Fiberglass Batt, R 25 XPS 9,610 4.9 759 34.37 41451 12.20 131.1 309,148 2.00 4.4 4.97 Roof R 38 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,824 2.8 774 18.94 41088 11.22 218.8 310,323 2.39 4.51 2.59 Roof R 49 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,739 3.6 768 25.09 42374 14.70 216.4 312,529 3.11 4.47 3.46 Roof R 60 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,681 4.2 764 29.35 43672 18.21 229.3 315,014 3.93 4.44 4.10

PAGE 164

164 Table A 6. Continued. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Roof R 38 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,789 3.1 771 21.67 41946 13.54 230.8 311,975 2.93 4.49 3.02 Roof R 49 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,707 3.9 766 27.43 43444 17.59 237.0 314,731 3.84 4.45 3.89 Roof R 60 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,669 4.3 763 30.08 44967 21.72 266.7 317,954 4.90 4.43 4.32 Roof R 27.5 SIP 9,988 1.1 785 7.65 42517 15.09 728.6 315,154 3.98 4.59 0.86 Roof R 37.5 SIP 9,818 2.8 773 19.72 43558 17.90 335.4 316,011 4.26 4.5 2.81 Roof R 47.5 SIP 9,707 3.9 765 27.61 44941 21.65 289.7 318,218 4.99 4.45 3.89

PAGE 165

165 Table A 7. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different floor options in Gainesville, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) R 14 Fiberglass Batt 9,894 885 36,943 315,183 4.54 R 19 Fiberglass Batt 9,856 0.4 882 3.64 37,052 0.29 29.8 314,960 0.07 4.53 0.22 R 30 Fiberglass Batt 9,815 0.8 877 7.67 37,257 0.85 40.8 314,911 0.09 4.51 0.66 R 38 Fiberglass Batt 9,801 0.9 876 9.08 37,413 1.27 51.7 315,094 0.03 4.51 0.66 R 19 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,856 0.4 882 3.64 38,762 4.92 499.5 318,969 1.20 4.53 0.22 R 30 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,815 0.8 877 7.67 39,737 7.56 364.2 320,726 1.76 4.51 0.66 R 38 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,801 0.9 876 9.08 40,435 9.45 384.5 322,179 2.22 4.51 0.66 R 19 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,856 0.4 882 3.64 39,207 6.13 621.8 320,013 1.53 4.53 0.22 R 30 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,815 0.8 877 7.67 40,351 9.22 444.2 322,165 2.22 4.51 0.66 R 38 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,801 0.9 876 9.08 41,170 11.44 465.4 323,901 2.77 4.51 0.66

PAGE 166

166 Table A 8. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different floor options in Miami, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) R 14 Fiberglass Batt 9,933 928 36,943 320,863 4.56 R 19 Fiberglass Batt 9,953 0.2 930 2.02 37,052 0.29 NaN 321,382 0.16 4.57 0.22 R 30 Fiberglass Batt 9,985 0.5 933 4.63 37,257 0.85 NaN 322,205 0.42 4.58 0.44 R 38 Fiberglass Batt 10,003 0.7 934 6.01 37,413 1.27 NaN 322,753 0.59 4.59 0.66 R 19 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,953 0.2 930 2.02 38,762 4.92 NaN 325,391 1.41 4.57 0.22 R 30 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,985 0.5 933 4.63 39,737 7.56 NaN 328,020 2.23 4.58 0.44 R 38 Closed Cell Spray Foam 10,003 0.7 934 6.01 40,435 9.45 NaN 329,838 2.80 4.59 0.66 R 19 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,953 0.2 930 2.02 39,207 6.13 NaN 326,435 1.74 4.57 0.22 R 30 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,985 0.5 933 4.63 40,351 9.22 NaN 329,459 2.68 4.58 0.44 R 38 Open Cell Spray Foam 10,003 0.7 934 6.01 41,170 11.44 NaN 331,560 3.33 4.59 0.66

PAGE 167

167 Table A 9. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different floor options in Tallahassee, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) R 14 Fiberglass Batt 10,103 793 36,943 0.00 303,090 4.63 R 19 Fiberglass Batt 10,050 0.5 789 3.56 37,052 0.29 30.4 302,878 0.07 4.62 0.22 R 30 Fiberglass Batt 9,997 1.0 786 7.39 37,257 0.85 42.4 302,856 0.08 4.58 1.08 R 38 Fiberglass Batt 9,977 1.2 784 8.70 37,413 1.27 54.0 303,050 0.01 4.57 1.30 R 19 Closed Cell Spray Foam 10,050 0.5 789 3.56 38,762 4.92 510.7 306,887 1.25 4.62 0.22 R 30 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,997 1.0 786 7.39 39,737 7.56 378.0 308,670 1.84 4.58 1.08 R 38 Closed Cell Spray Foam 9,977 1.2 784 8.70 40,435 9.45 401.3 310,136 2.32 4.57 1.30 R 19 Open Cell Spray Foam 10,050 0.5 789 3.56 39,207 6.13 635.8 307,931 1.60 4.62 0.22 R 30 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,997 1.0 786 7.39 40,351 9.22 461.1 310,110 2.32 4.58 1.08 R 38 Open Cell Spray Foam 9,977 1.2 784 8.70 41,170 11.44 485.8 311,857 2.89 4.57 1.30

PAGE 168

168 Table A 10. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different window options in Gainesville, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ( $/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) Low E, Double, Non metal, Arg, M Gain 9,894 885 36,943 315,183 4.54 Low E, Double, Non metal, Arg, L Gain 9,809 0.9 877 7.98 37,095 0.41 19.0 314,799 0.12 4.5 0.88 Low E, Double, Insulated, Air, H Gain 10,018 1.2 896 10.51 37,748 2.18 NaN 320,087 1.56 4.6 1.32 Low E, Double, Insulated, Air, M Gain 9,883 0.1 884 1.28 37,933 2.68 773.2 319,352 1.32 4.54 0.00 Low E, Double, Insulated, Air, L Gain 9,780 1.2 875 10.50 38,084 3.09 108.7 318,805 1.15 4.49 1.10 Low E, Double, Insulated, Arg, H Gain 9,997 1.0 894 8.60 38,120 3.18 NaN 321,467 1.99 4.59 1.10 Low E, Double, Insulated, Arg, M Gain 9,900 0.1 885 0.15 38,305 3.69 NaN 321,170 1.90 4.55 0.22 Low E, Double, Insulated, Arg, L Gain 9,757 1.4 873 12.63 38,457 4.10 119.8 320,156 1.58 4.47 1.54 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Air, H Gain 9,809 0.9 877 7.98 37,959 2.75 127.3 318,586 1.08 4.5 0.88 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Air, L Gain 9,725 1.7 870 15.43 38,045 2.98 71.4 317,986 0.89 4.45 1.98 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Arg, H Gain 9,804 0.9 877 8.26 38,173 3.33 148.9 319,488 1.37 4.5 0.88 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Arg, L Gain 9,707 1.9 868 16.86 38,260 3.56 78.1 318,741 1.13 4.45 1.98 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Air, H Gain 9,827 0.7 879 6.59 39,321 6.44 360.8 324,736 3.03 4.52 0.44 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Air, L Gain 9,651 2.5 863 21.81 39,407 6.67 112.9 323,115 2.52 4.44 2.20 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Arg, H Gain 9,801 0.9 877 8.60 39,535 7.01 301.3 325,410 3.24 4.5 0.88 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Arg, L Gain 9,637 2.6 862 23.34 39,622 7.25 114.8 323,857 2.75 4.43 2.42

PAGE 169

169 Table A 11. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different window options in Miami, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) Low E, Double, Non metal, Arg, M Gain 9,933 928 36,943 320,863 4.56 Low E, Double, Non metal, Arg, L Gain 9,689 2.4 908 20.19 37,095 0.41 7.5 318,876 0.62 4.45 2.41 Low E, Double, Insulated, Air, H Gain 10,311 3.8 961 32.88 37,748 2.18 NaN 328,702 2.44 4.73 3.73 Low E, Double, Insulated, Air, M Gain 10,012 0.8 935 6.61 37,933 2.68 NaN 326,067 1.62 4.59 0.66 Low E, Double, Insulated, Air, L Gain 9,742 1.9 912 16.06 38,084 3.09 71.0 323,756 0.90 4.47 1.97 Low E, Double, Insulated, Arg, H Gain 10,317 3.9 962 33.34 38,120 3.18 NaN 330,393 2.97 4.74 3.95 Low E, Double, Insulated, Arg, M Gain 10,123 1.9 945 16.19 38,305 3.69 NaN 328,955 2.52 4.64 1.75 Low E, Double, Insulated, Arg, L Gain 9,751 1.8 913 15.15 38,457 4.10 99.9 325,505 1.45 4.48 1.75 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Air, H Gain 9,807 1.3 918 10.46 37,959 2.75 97.1 323,940 0.96 4.5 1.32 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Air, L Gain 9,578 3.6 899 29.55 38,045 2.98 37.3 321,811 0.30 4.4 3.51 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Arg, H Gain 9,830 1.0 920 8.65 38,173 3.33 142.2 325,115 1.33 4.51 1.10 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Arg, L Gain 9,587 3.5 900 28.80 38,260 3.56 45.7 322,853 0.62 4.4 3.51 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Air, H Gain 10,059 1.3 939 10.70 39,321 6.44 NaN 332,684 3.68 4.61 1.10 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Air, L Gain 9,654 2.8 905 23.30 39,407 6.67 105.7 328,599 2.41 4.43 2.85 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Arg, H Gain 10,073 1.4 941 12.07 39,535 7.01 NaN 333,802 4.03 4.62 1.32 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Arg, L Gain 9,663 2.7 906 22.63 39,622 7.25 118.4 329,630 2.73 4.43 2.85

PAGE 170

170 Table A 12. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different window options in Tallahassee, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) Low E, Double, Non metal, Arg, M Gain 10,103 793 36,943 303,090 4.63 Low E, Double, Non metal, Arg, L Gain 10,044 0.6 789 4.02 37,095 0.41 37.6 303,227 0.04 4.61 0.43 Low E, Double, Insulated, Air, H Gain 10,147 0.4 796 3.04 37,748 2.18 NaN 307,014 1.29 4.65 0.43 Low E, Double, Insulated, Air, M Gain 10,076 0.3 791 1.75 37,933 2.68 565.5 307,197 1.35 4.62 0.22 Low E, Double, Insulated, Air, L Gain 10,009 0.9 786 6.57 38,084 3.09 173.7 307,228 1.37 4.59 0.86 Low E, Double, Insulated, Arg, H Gain 10,138 0.3 796 2.54 38,120 3.18 NaN 308,578 1.81 4.65 0.43 Low E, Double, Insulated, Arg, M Gain 10,085 0.2 792 1.08 38,305 3.69 1261.0 308,916 1.92 4.62 0.22 Low E, Double, Insulated, Arg, L Gain 9,979 1.2 785 8.48 38,457 4.10 178.4 308,608 1.82 4.57 1.30 Low E, Tr iple, Non metal, Air, H Gain 10,018 0.8 787 5.59 37,959 2.75 181.7 306,807 1.23 4.59 0.86 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Air, L Gain 9,965 1.4 783 9.52 38,045 2.98 115.7 306,668 1.18 4.57 1.30 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Arg, H Gain 10,018 0.8 787 5.95 38,173 3.33 206.7 307,697 1.52 4.58 1.08 Low E, Triple, Non metal, Arg, L Gain 9,944 1.6 782 10.91 38,260 3.56 120.7 307,429 1.43 4.56 1.51 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Air, H Gain 10,018 0.8 787 5.85 39,321 6.44 406.4 312,740 3.18 4.59 0.86 Low E, Tr iple, Insulated, Air, L Gain 9,877 2.2 777 15.91 39,407 6.67 154.8 311,797 2.87 4.53 2.16 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Arg, H Gain 9,994 1.1 785 7.62 39,535 7.01 340.1 313,445 3.42 4.58 1.08 Low E, Triple, Insulated, Arg, L Gain 9,851 2.5 776 17.37 39,622 7.25 154.2 312,548 3.12 4.52 2.38

PAGE 171

171 Table A 13. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different building infiltration levels in Gainesville, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline ) 5 ACH50 9,894 885 36,943 315,183 4.54 4.5 ACH50 9,739 1.6 871 13.77 37,092 0.40 10.8 313,724 0.46 4.47 1.54 4 ACH50 9,672 2.3 865 20.13 37,121 0.48 8.8 312,958 0.71 4.44 2.20 3.5 ACH50 9,613 2.8 859 25.78 37,154 0.57 8.2 312,294 0.92 4.41 2.86 3 ACH50 9,613 2.8 859 25.77 37,192 0.67 9.6 312,384 0.89 4.41 2.86 2.5 ACH50 9,610 2.9 860 25.63 37,237 0.79 11.4 312,507 0.85 4.41 2.86 2 ACH50 9,613 2.8 860 25.44 37,292 0.94 13.7 312,662 0.80 4.41 2.86 1.5 ACH50 9,616 2.8 860 25.12 37,363 1.13 16.7 312,870 0.73 4.41 2.86 1 ACH50 9,619 2.8 860 24.70 37,463 1.41 21.0 313,160 0.64 4.41 2.86 0.5 ACH50 9,625 2.7 861 24.19 37,634 1.87 28.5 313,628 0.49 4.41 2.86

PAGE 172

172 Table A 14. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different building infiltration levels in Miami Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) 5 ACH50 9,933 928 36,943 320,863 4.56 4.5 ACH50 9,933 0.0 928 0.05 37,092 0.40 NaN 321,217 0.11 4.55 0.22 4 ACH50 9,915 0.2 927 1.23 37,121 0.48 144.0 321,118 0.08 4.55 0.22 3.5 ACH50 9,900 0.3 926 2.47 37,154 0.57 85.1 321,032 0.05 4.54 0.44 3 ACH50 9,874 0.6 924 4.75 37,192 0.67 52.2 320,822 0.01 4.53 0.66 2.5 ACH50 9,745 1.9 913 15.38 37,237 0.79 19.1 319,532 0.41 4.47 1.97 2 ACH50 9,742 1.9 913 15.64 37,292 0.94 22.3 319,628 0.39 4.47 1.97 1.5 ACH50 9,751 1.8 914 14.75 37,363 1.13 28.4 319,911 0.30 4.47 1.97 1 ACH50 9,763 1.7 914 13.96 37,463 1.41 37.2 320,249 0.19 4.48 1.75 0.5 ACH50 9,768 1.7 915 13.36 37,634 1.87 51.7 320,729 0.04 4.48 1.75

PAGE 173

173 Table A 15. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different building infiltration levels in Tallahassee Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) 5 ACH50 10,103 793 36,943 303,090 4.63 4.5 ACH50 9,809 2.9 773 20.41 37,092 0.40 7.3 300,759 0.77 4.49 3.02 4 ACH50 9,795 3.0 772 21.32 37,121 0.48 8.3 300,708 0.79 4.49 3.02 3.5 ACH50 9,792 3.1 771 21.74 37,154 0.57 9.7 300,730 0.78 4.48 3.24 3 ACH50 9,783 3.2 771 22.04 37,192 0.67 11.3 300,780 0.76 4.49 3.02 2.5 ACH50 9,780 3.2 771 22.21 37,237 0.79 13.2 300,863 0.73 4.49 3.02 2 ACH50 9,780 3.2 771 22.26 37,292 0.94 15.6 300,987 0.69 4.48 3.24 1.5 ACH50 9,783 3.2 771 22.16 37,363 1.13 18.9 301,165 0.64 4.48 3.24 1 ACH50 9,786 3.1 771 21.95 37,463 1.41 23.7 301,428 0.55 4.48 3.24 0.5 ACH50 9,795 3.0 772 21.45 37,634 1.87 32.2 301,895 0.39 4.49 3.02

PAGE 174

174 Table A 16. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different water heater systems in Gainesville Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) Electric Benchmark 9,894 885 36,943 315,183 4.54 Ele ctric Standard 9,824 0.7 879 6.22 36,943 0.00 0.0 314,368 0.26 4.52 0.44 Electric Premium 9,713 1.8 869 15.94 36,967 0.06 1.5 313,369 0.58 4.45 1.98 Electric T ankless 9,757 1.4 873 12.56 38,028 2.94 86.4 316,147 0.31 4.48 1.32 Gas Benchmark 7,488 24.3 909 24.17 37,428 1.31 NaN 322,088 2.19 4.36 3.96 Gas Standa rd 7,491 24.3 910 25.09 37,428 1.31 NaN 322,209 2.23 4.36 3.96 Gas Premiu m 7,397 25.2 885 0.06 37,569 1.69 10433.3 320,531 1.70 4.18 7.93 Gas Tankless 7,368 25.5 869 16.56 37,901 2.59 57.9 314,792 0.12 4.03 11.23 Oil Standard 7,488 24.3 966 81.17 38,202 3.41 NaN 343,021 8.83 4.62 1.76 Oil Premiu m 7,418 25.0 940 54.98 38,363 3.84 NaN 341,845 8.46 4.51 0.66 Propane St andard 7,491 24.3 813 72.14 37,428 1.31 6.7 309,448 1.82 4.55 0.22 Propane Premium 7,380 25.4 784 100.68 37,569 1.69 6.2 307,326 2.49 4.33 4.63 Propane Tankless 7,368 25.5 765 120.31 37,901 2.59 8.0 301,177 4.44 4.17 8.15 HPWH, 50 gal 8,435 14.8 768 117.45 37,796 2.31 7.3 310,191 1.58 3.87 14.76 HPWH, 50 gal, Exhaust Ducting 8,801 11.0 796 89.24 38,098 3.13 12.9 317,188 0.64 4.03 11.23 HPWH, 50 gal, In Confined Space 8,476 14.3 771 114.30 37,796 2.31 7.5 310,604 1.45 3.89 14.32 HPWH, 80 gal 8,318 15.9 761 124.61 38,205 3.42 10.1 313,713 0.47 3.81 16.08 Solar heater 8,496 14.1 772 113.37 44,122 19.43 63.3 331,761 5.26 3.9 14.10

PAGE 175

175 Table A 17. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different water heater systems in Miami Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) Electric Benchmark 9,933 928 36,943 320,863 4.56 Electric Standard 9,839 0.9 921 7.68 36,943 0.00 0.0 319,856 0.31 4.51 1.10 Electric Premium 9,678 2.6 907 20.96 36,967 0.06 1.1 318,389 0.77 4.44 2.63 Electric Tankless 9,607 3.3 901 27.17 38,028 2.94 39.9 319,910 0.30 4.41 3.29 Gas Benchmark 8,066 18.8 968 40.04 37,428 1.31 NaN 329,849 2.80 4.47 1.97 Gas Standard 8,074 18.7 970 41.28 37,428 1.31 NaN 330,012 2.85 4.48 1.75 Gas Premium 7,998 19.5 946 17.98 37,569 1.69 NaN 328,578 2.40 4.31 5.48 Gas Tankless 7,758 21.9 912 16.59 37,901 2.59 57.7 320,468 0.12 4.07 10.75 Oil Standard 8,025 19.2 992 63.15 38,202 3.41 NaN 346,336 7.94 4.68 2.63 Oil Premium 8,192 17.5 989 61.02 38,363 3.84 NaN 348,317 8.56 4.68 2.63 Propane Standard 8,069 18.8 868 60.08 37,428 1.31 8.1 316,711 1.29 4.64 1.75 Propane Premium 7,978 19.7 842 86.76 37,569 1.69 7.2 314,832 1.88 4.43 2.85 Propane Tankless 7,758 21.9 805 123.87 37,901 2.59 7.7 306,389 4.51 4.17 8.55 HPWH, 50 gal 8,168 17.8 780 148.00 37,796 2.31 5.8 311,861 2.81 3.76 17.54 HPWH, 50 gal, Exhaust Ducting 8,722 12.2 827 101.93 38,098 3.13 11.3 321,202 0.11 4.01 12.06 HPWH, 50 gal, In Confined Space 8,324 16.2 794 134.77 37,796 2.31 6.3 313,597 2.26 3.82 16.23 HPWH, 80 gal 8,127 18.2 778 150.88 38,205 3.42 8.4 315,946 1.53 3.73 18.20 Solar heater 8,775 11.7 832 96.53 44,122 19.43 74.4 339,650 5.86 4.02 11.84

PAGE 176

176 Table A 18. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different water heater systems in Tallahassee, Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (B aseline) Electric Benchmark 10,103 793 36,943 303,090 4.63 Electric Standard 10,029 0.7 788 5.03 36,943 0.00 0.0 302,431 0.22 4.61 0.43 Electric P remium 9,918 1.8 780 12.56 36,967 0.06 1.9 301,719 0.45 4.56 1.51 Electric Tankless 9,982 1.2 785 8.32 38,028 2.94 130.4 304,611 0.50 4.58 1.08 Gas Benchm ark 7,611 24.7 834 40.60 37,428 1.31 NaN 312,150 2.99 4.43 4.32 Gas Standa rd 7,611 24.7 834 41.47 37,428 1.31 NaN 312,264 3.03 4.45 3.89 Gas Premium 7,509 25.7 809 16.23 37,569 1.69 NaN 310,575 2.47 4.24 8.42 Gas Tankle ss 7,497 25.8 795 1.93 37,901 2.59 NaN 305,126 0.67 4.12 11.02 Oil Standard 7,608 24.7 897 103.77 38,202 3.41 NaN 333,894 10.16 4.73 2.16 Oil Premiu m 7,506 25.7 867 73.67 38,363 3.84 NaN 332,205 9.61 4.58 1.08 Propane St andard 7,608 24.7 738 55.01 37,428 1.31 8.8 299,603 1.15 4.64 0.22 Propane Pr emium 7,491 25.8 709 83.63 37,569 1.69 7.5 297,471 1.85 4.41 4.75 Propane Tankless 7,497 25.8 692 101.20 37,901 2.59 9.5 291,593 3.79 4.26 7.99 HPWH, 50 gal 8,664 14.2 693 100.31 37,796 2.31 8.5 300,346 0.91 3.98 14.04 HPWH, 50 g al, Exhaust Ducting 9,024 10.7 717 75.75 38,098 3.13 15.2 306,865 1.25 4.14 10.58 HPWH, 50 gal, In Confined Space 8,710 13.8 696 97.42 37,796 2.31 8.8 300,727 0.78 3.99 13.82 HPWH, 80 gal 8,573 15.1 687 106.40 38,205 3.42 11.9 304,011 0.30 3.93 15.12 Solar heater 8,637 14.5 691 101.81 44,122 19.43 70.5 321,185 5.97 3.96 14.47

PAGE 177

177 Table A 19. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different HVAC systems in Gainesville Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Central AC: SEER 13, EER 11 9,894 885 36,943 315,183 4.54 Central AC: SEER 14 9,710 1.9 868 16.85 37,066 0.33 7.3 314,088 0.35 4.46 1.76 Central AC: SEER 15 9,546 3.5 853 31.72 37,189 0.67 7.8 313,251 0.61 4.38 3.52 Central AC: SEER 16 9,405 4.9 841 43.83 37,313 1.00 8.4 312,785 0.76 4.32 4.85 Central AC: SEER 17 9,431 4.7 843 41.69 37,436 1.33 11.8 314,181 0.32 4.33 4.63 Central AC: SEER 18 9,311 5.9 833 51.68 37,559 1.67 11.9 313,986 0.38 4.27 5.95 Central AC: SEER 21 9,024 8.8 812 73.45 37,929 2.67 13.4 314,482 0.22 4.14 8.81 Room AC: EER 8.5 10,311 4.2 922 37.33 34,529 6.53 296,572 5.90 4.73 4.19 Room AC: EER 9.8 9,889 0.1 884 1.07 34,647 6.22 292,816 7.10 4.53 0.22 Room AC: EER 10.7 9,657 2.4 863 22.06 34,896 5.54 292,785 7.11 4.43 2.42 Room AC: EER 8.5, 30% Conditioned 8,198 17.2 753 131.71 34,529 6.53 274,389 12.94 3.76 17.18 Room AC: EER 9.8, 30% Conditioned 8,054 18.6 743 141.73 34,647 6.22 274,358 12.95 3.69 18.72 Room AC: EER 10.7, 30% Conditioned 7,975 19.4 738 147.25 34,896 5.54 276,357 12.32 3.66 19.38 Room AC: EER 8.5, 20% Conditioned 7,966 19.5 737 148.01 34,529 6.53 272,249 13.62 3.65 19.60 Room AC: EER 9.8, 20% Conditioned 7,852 20.6 729 155.91 34,647 6.22 272,496 13.54 3.6 20.70 Room AC: EER 10.7, 20% Conditioned 7,790 21.3 725 160.25 34,896 5.54 274,650 12.86 3.57 21.37 Furnace: Gas, 78% AFUE 8,974 9.3 981 96.08 35,527 3.83 318,537 1.06 4.42 2.64 Furnace: Gas, 80% AFUE 8,974 9.3 980 94.34 35,566 3.73 318,564 1.07 4.41 2.86 Furnace: Gas, 90% AFUE 8,936 9.7 963 77.58 35,778 3.16 317,750 0.81 4.33 4.63 Furnace: Gas, 92.5% AFUE 8,936 9.7 961 76.12 36,012 2.52 319,086 1.24 4.33 4.63 Furnace: Gas, 95% AFUE 8,936 9.7 960 74.75 36,245 1.89 320,429 1.66 4.32 4.85 Furnace: Gas, 96% AFUE 8,936 9.7 959 74.21 36,339 1.64 320,971 1.84 4.32 4.85 Furnace: Gas, 98% AFUE 8,936 9.7 958 73.16 36,525 1.13 322,050 2.18 4.31 5.07 Furnace: Oil, 78% AFUE 8,974 9.3 907 21.54 35,225 4.65 310,409 1.51 4.54 0.00 Furnace: Oil, 80% AFUE 8,974 9.3 904 19.23 35,476 3.97 312,293 0.92 4.53 0.22 Furnace: Oil, 85% AFUE 8,974 9.3 899 13.89 36,155 2.13 317,511 0.74 4.5 0.88

PAGE 178

178 Table A 19. Continued. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Furnace: Oil, 90% AFUE 8,936 9.7 883 2.18 36,824 0.32 321,233 1.92 4.42 2.64 Furnace: Oil, 94% AFUE 8,936 9.7 880 5.28 37,617 1.82 127.5 327,737 3.98 4.41 2.86 Furnace: Oil, 95% AFUE 8,936 9.7 879 6.00 37,824 2.38 146.7 329,446 4.53 4.41 2.86 Furnace: Oil, 96% AFUE 8,936 9.7 878 6.71 37,998 2.85 157.1 330,870 4.98 4.41 2.86 Furnace: Propane, 78% AFUE 8,974 9.3 948 62.93 35,225 4.65 312,214 0.94 4.48 1.32 Furnace: Propane, 80% AFUE 8,974 9.3 945 59.57 35,476 3.97 313,413 0.56 4.47 1.54 Furnace: Propane, 82% AFUE 8,974 9.3 942 56.38 35,739 3.26 314,712 0.15 4.46 1.76 Furnace: Propane, 90% AFUE 8,936 9.7 915 30.08 36,824 0.32 318,350 1.00 4.38 3.52 Furnace: Propane, 92% AFUE 8,936 9.7 913 27.82 37,147 0.55 NaN 320,163 1.58 4.38 3.52 Furnace: Propane, 94% AFUE 8,936 9.7 911 25.65 37,479 1.45 NaN 322,048 2.18 4.37 3.74 Furnace: Propane, 96% AFUE 8,936 9.7 909 23.53 37,825 2.39 NaN 324,030 2.81 4.37 3.74 ASHP: SEER 13, 7.7 HSPF 9,704 1.9 871 14.29 33,887 8.27 293,366 6.92 4.45 1.98 ASHP: SEER 14, 8.2 HSPF 9,423 4.8 845 39.94 34,032 7.88 291,264 7.59 4.32 4.85 ASHP: SEER 15, 8.5 HSPF 9,317 5.8 836 49.42 34,177 7.49 291,283 7.58 4.27 5.95 ASHP: SEER 16, 8.6 HSPF 9,261 6.4 830 55.33 34,322 7.09 291,772 7.43 4.25 6.39 ASHP: SEER 17, 8.7 HSPF 9,121 7.8 817 67.82 34,468 6.70 291,405 7.54 4.18 7.93 ASHP: SEER 18, 9.3 HSPF 9,030 8.7 809 76.22 34,613 6.31 291,567 7.49 4.14 8.81 ASHP: SEER 19, 9.5 HSPF 8,892 10.1 797 88.09 34,758 5.91 291,273 7.59 4.07 10.35 MSHP:9 kBtuh/uni t: SEER14 / 8.2HSPF 9,267 6.3 829 56.42 34,272 7.23 291,595 7.48 4.25 6.39 MSHP:12kBtuh/unit : SEER 14 / 8.2HSPF 9,637 2.6 861 24.53 34,272 7.23 295,779 6.16 4.43 2.42 MSHP:1 5 kBtuh/unit : SEER14 / 8.2HSPF 9,792 1.0 875 10.20 34,272 7.23 297,659 5.56 4.5 0.88 MSHP : 9kBtuh/unit : SEER19 / 9.8HSPF 8,599 13.1 776 108.83 34,593 6.36 287,514 8.78 3.95 13.00 MSHP:12kBtuh/unit : SEER18 / 9.6HSPF 8,919 9.9 801 83.99 34,559 6.45 290,477 7.84 4.1 9.69 MSHP:15kBtuh/unit : SEER17 / 9.4HSPF 9,267 6.3 829 56.48 34,525 6.55 293,792 6.79 4.26 6.17 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER26 / 10.7HSPF 8,063 18.5 738 147.62 34,782 5.85 284,071 9.87 3.7 18.50 MSHP:12kBtuh/unit : SEER 23 / 10HSPF 8,277 16.4 753 131.81 34,748 5.94 285,849 9.31 3.8 16.30

PAGE 179

179 Table A 19. Continued. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon MSHP:15 kBtuh/unit : SEER20 / 10HSPF 8,555 13.5 774 111.43 34,714 6.03 288,228 8.55 3.92 13.66 MSHP:9 kBtuh/unit : SEER30 / 13.5HSPF 7,755 21.6 715 170.41 35,380 4.23 286,293 9.17 3.55 21.81 MSHP:12 kBtuh/unit : SEER26 / 12HSPF 8,001 19.1 733 152.37 35,186 4.76 286,970 8.95 3.67 19.16 MSHP:15 kBtuh/unit : SEER22 / 12HSPF 8,312 16.0 755 130.25 35,064 5.09 288,809 8.37 3.81 16.08 MSHP:9 kBtuh/unit : SEER33 / 14.2HSPF 7,588 23.3 703 181.84 35,536 3.81 286,153 9.21 3.48 23.35 MSHP:12 kBtuh/unit : SEER29 / 14 HSPF 7,793 21.2 718 167.46 35,501 3.90 287,735 8.71 3.58 21.15 MSHP:15 kBtuh/unit : SEER25 / 13 HSPF 8,101 18.1 740 145.30 35,375 4.24 289,545 8.13 3.72 18.06

PAGE 180

180 Table A 20. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different HVAC systems in Miami Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Ce ntral AC: SEER 13, EER 11 9,933 928 36,943 320,863 4.56 Central AC: SEER 14 9,648 2.9 905 23.73 37,066 0.33 5.2 318,865 0.62 4.43 2.85 Central AC: SEER 15 9,399 5.4 884 44.68 37,189 0.67 5.5 317,230 1.13 4.31 5.48 Central AC: SEER 16 9,185 7.5 866 62.68 37,313 1.00 5.9 315,992 1.52 4.21 7.68 Central AC: SEER 17 9,209 7.3 868 60.71 37,436 1.33 8.1 317,364 1.09 4.23 7.24 Centra l AC: SEER 18 9,021 9.2 852 76.26 37,559 1.67 8.1 316,439 1.38 4.14 9.21 Centra l AC: SEER 21 8,573 13.7 815 113.75 37,929 2.67 8.7 314,873 1.87 3.94 13.60 Room AC: EER 8.5 10,487 5.6 977 49.00 34,529 6.53 303,783 5.32 4.81 5.48 Room AC: EER 9.8 9,845 0.9 922 6.91 34,647 6.22 297,729 7.21 4.52 0.88 Room A C: EER 10.7 9,493 4.4 892 36.35 34,896 5.54 296,589 7.57 4.36 4.39 Room AC: EER 8.5, 30% Conditioned 7,392 25.6 716 212.34 34,529 6.53 269,488 16.01 3.39 25.66 Room A C: EER 9.8, 30% Conditioned 7,163 27.9 697 231.54 34,647 6.22 268,251 16.40 3.29 27.85 Room AC: EER 10.7, 30% Conditioned 7,037 29.2 686 242.09 34,896 5.54 269,589 15.98 3.23 29.17 Room AC: EER 8.5, 20% Conditioned 6,928 30.2 677 251.19 34,529 6.53 264,390 17.60 3.18 30.26 Room A C: EER 9.8, 20% Conditioned 6,759 32.0 663 265.23 34,647 6.22 263,830 17.77 3.1 32.02 Room AC: EER 10.7, 20% Conditioned 6,668 32.9 655 272.96 34,896 5.54 265,539 17.24 3.06 32.89 Furnace: Gas, 78% AFUE 9,944 0.1 1031 102.51 35,527 3.83 325,061 1.31 4.58 0.44 Furnace: Gas, 80% AFUE 9,944 0.1 1031 102.45 35,566 3.73 325,308 1.39 4.58 0.44 Furnace: Gas, 90% AFUE 9,894 0.4 1026 97.30 35,778 3.16 326,017 1.61 4.55 0.22 Furn ace: Gas, 92.5% AFUE 9,894 0.4 1026 97.25 36,012 2.52 327,539 2.08 4.55 0.22 Furnace: Gas, 95% AFUE 9,894 0.4 1026 97.19 36,245 1.89 329,053 2.55 4.55 0.22 Furn ace: Gas, 96% AFUE 9,894 0.4 1026 97.17 36,339 1.64 329,664 2.74 4.55 0.22 Furn ace: Gas, 98% AFUE 9,894 0.4 1026 97.13 36,525 1.13 330,874 3.12 4.55 0.22 Furnace: Oil, 78% AFUE 9,944 0.1 934 5.19 35,225 4.65 313,943 2.16 4.59 0.66 Furn ace: Oil, 80% AFUE 9,944 0.1 934 5.10 35,476 3.97 316,118 1.48 4.59 0.66 Furn ace: Oil, 85% AFUE 9,944 0.1 933 4.87 36,155 2.13 322,007 0.36 4.59 0.66

PAGE 181

181 Table A 20. Continued. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Furnace: Oil, 90% AFUE 9,894 0.4 928 0.30 36,824 0.32 327,159 1.96 4.55 0.22 Furnace: Oil, 94% AFUE 9,894 0.4 928.03 0.41 37,617 1.82 1642.4 334,056 4.11 4.55 0.22 Furn ace: Oil, 95% AFUE 9,894 0.4 928 0.44 37,824 2.38 2000.9 335,856 4.67 4.55 0.22 Furn ace: Oil, 96% AFUE 9,894 0.4 927.97 0.47 37,998 2.85 2243.4 337,369 5.14 4.55 0.22 Furnace: Propane, 78% AFUE 9,944 0.1 935.34 6.90 35,225 4.65 310,541 3.22 4.59 0.66 Furnace: Propane, 80% AFUE 9,944 0.1 935.2 6.76 35,476 3.97 312,162 2.71 4.59 0.66 Furnace: Propane, 82% AFUE 9,944 0.1 935.07 6.63 35,739 3.26 313,863 2.18 4.59 0.66 Furnace: Propane, 90% AFUE 9,894 0.4 929.38 0.94 36,824 0.32 320,206 0.21 4.55 0.22 Furnace: Propane, 92% AFUE 9,894 0.4 929.3 0.86 37,147 0.55 NaN 322,305 0.45 4.55 0.22 Furnace: Propane, 94% AFUE 9,894 0.4 929.22 0.78 37,479 1.45 NaN 324,464 1.12 4.55 0.22 Furnace: Propane, 96% AFUE 9,894 0.4 929.14 0.70 37,825 2.39 NaN 326,714 1.82 4.55 0.22 ASHP: SEER 13, 7.7 HSPF 10,457 5.3 975.02 46.58 33,887 8.27 307,034 4.31 4.8 5.26 ASHP: SEER 14, 8.2 HSPF 10,026 0.9 936.39 7.95 34,032 7.88 303,227 5.50 4.61 1.10 ASHP: SEER 15, 8.5 HSPF 9,865 0.7 922.8 5.64 34,177 7.49 302,708 5.66 4.53 0.66 ASHP: SEER 16, 8.6 HSPF 9,719 2.2 910.58 17.86 34,322 7.09 302,369 5.76 4.46 2.19 ASHP: SEER 17, 8.7 HSPF 9,508 4.3 893.17 35.27 34,468 6.70 301,357 6.08 4.37 4.17 ASHP: SEER 18, 9.3 HSPF 9,367 5.7 881.48 46.96 34,613 6.31 301,086 6.16 4.3 5.70 ASHP: SEER 19, 9.5 HSPF 9,156 7.8 863.71 64.73 34,758 5.91 300,018 6.50 4.2 7.89 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER 14 / 8.2 HSPF 9,253 6.8 871.74 56.70 34,272 7.23 297,237 7.36 4.25 6.80 MSHP:12kBtuh/unit : SEER14 / 8.2 HSPF 9,534 4.0 895.19 33.25 34,272 7.23 300,315 6.40 4.37 4.17 MSHP:15kBtuh/unit : SEER14 / 8.2 HSPF 9,792 1.4 916.92 11.52 34,272 7.23 303,166 5.52 4.49 1.54 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER19 / 9.8 HSPF 8,435 15.1 803.32 125.12 34,593 6.36 291,056 9.29 3.86 15.35 MSHP:12kBtuh/unit : SEER18 / 9.6 HSPF 8,778 11.6 832.13 96.31 34,559 6.45 294,541 8.20 4.03 11.62 MSHP:15kBtuh/unit : SEER17 / 9.4 HSPF 9,182 7.6 866.13 62.31 34,525 6.55 298,706 6.91 4.22 7.46 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER26 / 10.7HSPF 7,673 22.8 739.65 188.79 34,782 5.85 284,348 11.38 3.52 22.81 MSHP:12kBtuh/unit : SEER23 / 10HSPF 7,954 19.9 763.31 165.13 34,748 5.94 287,157 10.50 3.65 19.96

PAGE 182

182 Table A 20. Continued. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon MSHP:15kBtuh/unit : SEER20 / 10HSPF 8,338 16.1 795.08 133.36 34,714 6.03 291,030 9.30 3.82 16.23 MSHP:9 kBtuh/unit : SEER30 / 13HSPF 7,400 25.5 717.1 211.34 35,380 4.23 286,601 10.68 3.4 25.44 MSHP:12kBtuh/unit : SEER26 / 12HSPF 7,693 22.5 741.14 187.30 35,186 4.76 288,065 10.22 3.53 22.59 MSHP:15 kBtuh/unit : SEER22 / 12HSPF 8,092 18.5 774.57 153.87 35,064 5.09 291,389 9.19 3.71 18.64 MSHP:9 kBtuh/unit : SEER33 / 14HSPF 7,230 27.2 702.25 226.19 35,536 3.81 286,012 10.86 3.32 27.19 MSHP:12 kBtuh/unit : SEER29 / 14HSPF 7,465 24.8 722.08 206.36 35,501 3.90 288,310 10.15 3.42 25.00 MSHP:15 kBtuh/unit : SEER25 / 13 HSPF 7,819 21.3 751.83 176.61 35,375 4.24 291,115 9.27 3.59 21.27

PAGE 183

183 Table A 21. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using different HVAC systems in Miami Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon C entral AC: SEER 13, EER 11 10,103 793 36,943 303,090 4.63 Central AC: SEER 14 9,933 1.7 781 11.80 37,066 0.33 10.4 302,657 0.14 4.55 1.73 Ce ntral AC: SEER 15 9,783 3.2 771 22.20 37,189 0.67 11.1 302,407 0.23 4.48 3.24 Ce ntral AC: SEER 16 9,654 4.4 762 31.15 37,313 1.00 11.9 302,356 0.24 4.42 4.54 Central AC: SEER 17 9,701 4.0 765 27.75 37,436 1.33 17.8 303,917 0.27 4.45 3.89 Ce ntral AC: SEER 18 9,587 5.1 757 35.57 37,559 1.67 17.3 304,007 0.30 4.4 4.97 Central AC: SEER 21 9,317 7.8 739 54.41 37,929 2.67 18.1 304,888 0.59 4.27 7.78 Ro om AC: EER 8.5 10,489 3.8 820 26.81 34,529 6.53 283,099 6.60 4.82 4.10 Room AC: EER 9.8 10,100 0.0 793 0.25 34,647 6.22 280,831 7.34 4.64 0.22 Room AC: EER 10.7 9,886 2.1 778 15.14 34,896 5.54 281,600 7.09 4.54 1.94 Ro om AC: EER 8.5, 30% Conditioned 8,555 15.3 685 107.70 34,529 6.53 265,447 12.42 3.93 15.12 Room AC: EER 9.8, 30% Conditioned 8,417 16.7 676 117.18 34,647 6.22 265,486 12.41 3.87 16.41 Room AC: EER 10.7, 30% Conditioned 8,344 17.4 671 122.40 34,896 5.54 267,524 11.73 3.83 17.28 Room AC: EER 8.5, 20% Conditioned 8,312 17.7 668 124.54 34,529 6.53 263,237 13.15 3.81 17.71 Room AC: EER 9.8, 20% Conditioned 8,209 18.7 661 131.83 34,647 6.22 263,563 13.04 3.76 18.79 Room AC: EER 10.7, 20% Conditioned 8,151 19.3 657 135.84 34,896 5.54 265,761 12.32 3.74 19.22 Furnace: Gas, 78% AFUE 8,851 12.4 896 102.80 35,527 3.83 307,326 1.40 4.46 3.67 Furna ce: Gas, 80% AFUE 8,851 12.4 894 100.52 35,566 3.73 307,282 1.38 4.45 3.89 Furnace: Gas, 90% AFUE 8,831 12.6 874 81.45 35,778 3.16 306,163 1.01 4.36 5.83 Furnace: Gas, 92.5% AFUE 8,831 12.6 873 79.53 36,012 2.52 307,441 1.44 4.35 6.05 Furnace: Gas, 95% AFUE 8,831 12.6 871 77.69 36,245 1.89 308,721 1.86 4.34 6.26 Furnace: Gas, 96% AFUE 8,831 12.6 870 76.97 36,339 1.64 309,242 2.03 4.34 6.26 Furnace: Gas, 98% AFUE 8,831 12.6 869 75.61 36,525 1.13 310,278 2.37 4.33 6.48 Furnace: Oil, 78% AFUE 8,851 12.4 829 35.81 35,225 4.65 300,188 0.96 4.62 0.22 Furnace: Oil, 80% AFUE 8,851 12.4 826 32.74 35,476 3.97 301,974 0.37 4.6 0.65 Furnace: Oil, 85% AFUE 8,851 12.4 819 25.71 36,155 2.13 306,969 1.28 4.57 1.30

PAGE 184

184 Table A 21. Continued. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Furnace : Oil, 90% AFUE 8,831 12.6 801 7.77 36,824 0.32 310,445 2.43 4.48 3.24 Furnace: Oil, 94% AFUE 8,831 12.6 796.67 3.66 37,617 1.82 NaN 316,818 4.53 4.46 3.67 Furnace: Oil, 95% AFUE 8,831 12.6 795.69 2.68 37,824 2.38 NaN 318,493 5.08 4.46 3.67 Furnace: Oil, 96% AFUE 8,831 12.6 794.76 1.75 37,998 2.85 NaN 319,887 5.54 4.45 3.89 Furnace: Propane, 78% AFUE 8,851 12.4 883.34 90.33 35,225 4.65 303,717 0.21 4.55 1.73 Furnace: Propane, 80% AFUE 8,851 12.4 878.92 85.91 35,476 3.97 304,777 0.56 4.53 2.16 Furnace: Propane, 82% AFUE 8,851 12.4 874.7 81.69 35,739 3.26 305,941 0.94 4.52 2.38 Furnace: Propane, 90% AFUE 8,831 12.6 843.6 50.59 36,824 0.32 308,949 1.93 4.42 4.54 Furnace: Propane, 92% AFUE 8,831 12.6 840.58 47.57 37,147 0.55 NaN 310,663 2.50 4.42 4.54 Furnace: Propane, 94% AFUE 8,831 12.6 837.69 44.68 37,479 1.45 NaN 312,453 3.09 4.41 4.75 Furnace: Propane, 96% AFUE 8,831 12.6 834.91 41.90 37,825 2.39 NaN 314,348 3.71 4.4 4.97 ASHP: SEER 13, 7.7 HSPF 9,733 3.7 767.63 25.38 33,887 8.27 279,818 7.68 4.47 3.46 ASHP: SEER 14, 8.2 HSPF 9,475 6.2 749.65 43.36 34,032 7.88 278,722 8.04 4.35 6.05 ASHP: SEER 15, 8.5 HSPF 9,382 7.1 742.97 50.04 34,177 7.49 279,110 7.91 4.31 6.91 ASHP: SEER 16, 8.6 HSPF 9,387 7.1 743.4 49.61 34,322 7.09 280,430 7.48 4.31 6.91 ASHP: SEER 17, 8.7 HSPF 9,264 8.3 734.74 58.27 34,468 6.70 280,566 7.43 4.25 8.21 ASHP: SEER 18, 9.3 HSPF 9,179 9.1 728.93 64.08 34,613 6.31 281,068 7.27 4.21 9.07 ASHP: SEER 19, 9.5 HSPF 9,053 10.4 720.08 72.93 34,758 5.91 281,169 7.23 4.15 10.37 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER14 / 8.2HSPF 9,496 6.0 750.84 42.17 34,272 7.23 281,371 7.17 4.36 5.83 MSHP:12 kBtuh/unit : SEER14 / 8.2HSPF 9,918 1.8 780.34 12.67 34,272 7.23 285,243 5.89 4.55 1.73 MSHP:15kBtuh/unit : SEER14 / 8.2HSPF 10,064 0.4 790.49 2.52 34,272 7.23 286,574 5.45 4.62 0.22 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER19 / 9.8 HSPF 8,816 12.7 703.49 89.52 34,593 6.36 277,955 8.29 4.04 12.74 MSHP:12kBtuh/unit : SEER18 / 9.6HSPF 9,156 9.4 727.16 65.85 34,559 6.45 280,766 7.37 4.2 9.29 MSHP:15kBtuh/unit : SEER17 / 9.4HSPF 9,516 5.8 752.3 40.71 34,525 6.55 283,769 6.37 4.37 5.62 MSHP: 9kBtuh/unit : SEER26 / 10HSPF 8,309 17.8 668.2 124.81 34,782 5.85 274,972 9.28 3.81 17.71 MSHP: 12kBtuh/unit : SEER 23 / 10 HSPF 8,523 15.6 683.21 109.80 34,748 5.94 276,646 8.73 3.92 15.33

PAGE 185

185 Table A 21. Continued. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon MSHP: 15kBtuh/unit : SEER20 / 10HSPF 8,801 12.9 702.52 90.49 34,714 6.03 278,882 7.99 4.04 12.74 MSHP: 9kBtuh/unit : SEER30 / 13HSPF 7,966 21.1 644.34 148.67 35,380 4.23 277,053 8.59 3.66 20.95 MSHP: 12kBtuh/unit : SEER26 / 12HSPF 8,224 18.6 662.31 130.70 35,186 4.76 277,721 8.37 3.78 18.36 MSHP: 15kBtuh/unit : SEER22 / 12HSPF 8,532 15.5 683.78 109.23 35,064 5.09 279,474 7.79 3.91 15.55 MSHP: 9kBtuh/unit : SEER33 / 14HSPF 7,787 22.9 632.15 160.86 35,536 3.81 276,812 8.67 3.58 22.68 MSHP: 12kBtuh/unit : SEER 29 / 14HSPF 8,004 20.8 647.12 145.89 35,501 3.90 278,472 8.12 3.68 20.52 MSHP: 15kBtuh/unit : SEER25 / 13HSPF 8,321 17.6 669.1 123.91 35,375 4.24 280,259 7.53 3.82 17.49

PAGE 186

186 Table A 22. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient appliances in Gainesville Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Baseline 9,894 885 36,943 315,183 4.54 Freezer: EF = 19.9 9,833 0.6 880 5.03 36,954 0.03 2.0 314,621 0.18 4.52 0.44 Freezer: EF = 20.4 9,824 0.7 879 6.04 37,184 0.65 39.8 316,720 0.49 4.52 0.44 Freezer: EF = 21.9 9,795 1.0 877 8.65 37,300 0.96 41.2 317,500 0.73 4.5 0.88 Cooking: Electric, Induction 9,865 0.3 883 2.54 37,900 2.59 376.6 325,862 3.39 4.53 0.22 Cooking: Gas 9,490 4.1 992 106.52 36,844 0.27 0.9 325,716 3.34 4.54 0.00 Cooking: Propane 9,490 4.1 933 48.09 36,844 0.27 2.1 318,048 0.91 4.58 0.88 Dishwasher: EnergyStar 9,801 0.9 877 8.06 37,023 0.22 9.9 315,249 0.02 4.5 0.88 Clothes washer: EnergyStar 9,513 3.9 853 32.11 37,015 0.19 2.2 311,846 1.06 4.37 3.74 Clothes dryer: Electric, Premium 9,675 2.2 866 18.79 37,043 0.27 5.3 313,869 0.42 4.44 2.20 Clothes dryer: Gas 8,957 9.5 960 74.68 37,183 0.65 NaN 327,747 3.99 4.36 3.96 Clothes dryer: Gas, Premium 8,933 9.7 947 61.37 37,283 0.92 NaN 327,152 3.80 4.29 5.51 Clothes dryer: Propane 8,957 9.5 913 27.68 37,183 0.65 NaN 321,580 2.03 4.41 2.86

PAGE 187

187 Table A 23. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient appliances in Miami Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Baseline 9,933 928 36,943 320,863 4.56 Freezer: EF = 19.9 9,853 0.8 922 6.35 36,954 0.03 1.6 320,128 0.23 4.53 0.66 Freezer: EF = 20.4 9,839 0.9 921 7.62 37,184 0.65 31.5 322,192 0.41 4.52 0.88 Freezer: EF = 21.9 9,798 1.4 918 10.93 37,300 0.96 32.6 322,880 0.63 4.5 1.32 Cooking: Electric, Induction 9,894 0.4 926 2.91 37,900 2.59 328.7 331,493 3.31 4.54 0.44 Cooking: Gas 9,555 3.8 1038 109.44 36,844 0.27 0.9 331,778 3.40 4.57 0.22 Cooking: Propane 9,555 3.8 979 51.01 36,844 0.27 2.0 324,110 1.01 4.61 1.10 Dishwasher: EnergyStar 9,839 0.9 921 7.72 37,023 0.22 10.4 320,973 0.03 4.51 1.10 Clothes washer: EnergyStar 9,584 3.5 899 29.11 37,015 0.19 2.5 317,919 0.92 4.4 3.51 Clothes dryer: Electric, Premium 9,698 2.4 909 19.65 37,043 0.27 5.1 319,436 0.44 4.45 2.41 Clothes dryer: Gas 9,001 9.4 1004 75.21 37,183 0.65 NaN 333,497 3.94 4.37 4.17 Clothes dryer: Gas, Premium 8,962 9.8 989 60.55 37,283 0.92 NaN 332,724 3.70 4.31 5.48 Clothes dryer: Propane 9,001 9.4 957 28.22 37,183 0.65 NaN 327,330 2.02 4.42 3.07

PAGE 188

188 Table A 24. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient appliances in Tallahassee Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon Baseline 10,103 793 36,943 303,090 4.63 Freezer: EF = 19.9 10,044 0.6 789 3.93 36,954 0.03 2.6 302,674 0.14 4.62 0.22 Freezer: EF = 20.4 10,035 0.7 788 4.71 37,184 0.65 51.0 304,801 0.56 4.61 0.43 Freezer: EF = 21.9 10,006 1.0 786 6.73 37,300 0.96 52.9 305,658 0.85 4.59 0.86 Cooking: Electric, Induction 10,070 0.3 791 2.10 37,900 2.59 455.5 313,827 3.54 4.63 0.00 Cooking: Gas 9,692 4.1 905 112.39 36,844 0.27 0.9 314,393 3.73 4.63 0.00 Cooking: Propane 9,692 4.1 847 53.96 36,844 0.27 1.8 306,725 1.20 4.67 0.86 Dishwasher: EnergyStar 10,003 1.0 786 6.78 37,023 0.22 11.8 303,324 0.08 4.6 0.65 Clothes washer: EnergyStar 9,707 3.9 766 27.26 37,015 0.19 2.6 300,389 0.89 4.47 3.46 Clothes dryer: Electric, Premium 9,883 2.2 778 15.45 37,043 0.27 6.5 302,215 0.29 4.54 1.94 Clothes dryer: Gas 9,159 9.3 880 87.34 37,183 0.65 NaN 317,316 4.69 4.44 4.10 Clothes dryer: Gas, Premium 9,138 9.5 867 74.32 37,283 0.92 NaN 316,758 4.51 4.38 5.40 Clothes dryer: Propane 9,159 9.3 833 40.35 37,183 0.65 NaN 311,149 2.66 4.49 3.02

PAGE 189

189 Table A 25. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient lighting in Gainesville Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Baseline) 100% Incandescent 9,894 885 36,943 315,183 4.54 20% CFL 9,751 1.5 872 12.69 36,951 0.02 0.6 313,535 0.52 4.48 1.32 40% CFL 9,607 2.9 861 24.61 36,958 0.04 0.6 311,988 1.01 4.41 2.86 60% CFL 9, 472 4.3 849 36.14 36,965 0.06 0.6 310,492 1.49 4.35 4.19 80% CFL 9,341 5.6 838 47.13 36,972 0.08 0.6 309,067 1.94 4.29 5.51 100% CFL 9 ,215 6.9 828 57.54 36,978 0.09 0.6 307,714 2.37 4.23 6.83 20% LED 9,727 1.7 871 14.27 36,968 0.07 1.7 313,368 0.58 4.47 1.54 40% LED 9,572 3.3 857 27.80 36,993 0.13 1.8 311,652 1.12 4.39 3.30 60% LED 9,414 4.9 844 41.03 37,017 0.20 1.8 309,972 1.65 4.32 4.85 80% LED 9, 261 6.4 831 53.68 37,041 0.26 1.8 308,368 2.16 4.25 6.39 100% LED 9 ,103 8.0 819 66.02 37,066 0.33 1.9 306,808 2.66 4.18 7.93

PAGE 190

190 Table A 26. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient lighting in Miami Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (Base line) 100% Incandescent 9,933 928 36,943 320,863 4.56 20% CFL 9,736 2.0 912 16.48 36,951 0.02 0.4 318,718 0.67 4.47 1.97 40% CF L 9,549 3.9 896 31.99 36,958 0.04 0.5 316,699 1.30 4.39 3.73 60% CFL 9,370 5.7 881 47.02 36,965 0.06 0.5 314,744 1.91 4.3 5.70 80% CF L 9,194 7.4 867 61.59 36,972 0.08 0.5 312,848 2.50 4.22 7.46 100% C FL 9,024 9.1 853 75.78 36,978 0.09 0.5 311,001 3.07 4.14 9.21 20% LED 9,707 2.3 910 18.52 36,968 0.07 1.3 318,489 0.74 4.46 2.19 40% LE D 9,502 4.3 892 36.15 36,993 0.13 1.4 316,236 1.44 4.36 4.39 60% LED 9 ,291 6.5 875 53.43 37,017 0.20 1.4 314,024 2.13 4.26 6.58 80% LE D 9,089 8.5 858 70.50 37,041 0.26 1.4 311,840 2.81 4.17 8.55 100% L ED 8,883 10.6 841 87.71 37,066 0.33 1.4 309,642 3.50 4.07 10.75

PAGE 191

191 Table A 27. Energy consumptions, construction costs, and carbon emissions using high efficient lighting in Tallahassee Florida. Energy Cost Carbon Possible alternative Total energy use (kWh/yr) kWh savings per year (%) Energy costs ($/yr) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost ($) Cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC ($) LCC increase (%) CO2 emissions (metric tons/yr) CO2 savings/yr (%) Energy Cost Carbon (B aseline) 100% Incandescent 10,103 793 36,943 303,090 4.63 20% CFL 9,959 1.4 783 10.12 36,951 0.02 0.7 301,780 0.43 4.58 1.08 40% CFL 9, 818 2.8 773 19.66 36,958 0.04 0.7 300,544 0.84 4.51 2.59 60% CFL 9,686 4.1 764 28.88 36,965 0.06 0.8 299,352 1.23 4.45 3.89 80% CFL 9, 560 5.4 755 37.76 36,972 0.08 0.8 298,204 1.61 4.39 5.18 100% CFL 9 ,437 6.6 747 46.39 36,978 0.09 0.8 297,085 1.98 4.34 6.26 20% LED 9,933 1.7 782 11.38 36,968 0.07 2.1 301,654 0.47 4.56 1.51 40% LED 9, 780 3.2 771 22.22 36,993 0.13 2.2 300,290 0.92 4.49 3.02 60% LED 9,631 4.7 760 32.78 37,017 0.20 2.2 298,961 1.36 4.43 4.32 80% LED 9, 481 6.2 750 43.19 37,041 0.26 2.3 297,652 1.79 4.35 6.05 100% LED 9 ,332 7.6 739 53.59 37,066 0.33 2.3 296,346 2.23 4.28 7.56

PAGE 192

192 APPENDIX B PARAMETRIC AND OPTIMIZED MODELS Table B 1. Range (m inimum and maximum ) of energy carbon, and life cycle costs savings for optimal parametric s imulations in the State of Florida. Energy Cost Carbon kWh savings per year (%) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC increase (%) Carbon savings/yr (%) Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Walls R 15 Fib.Batt,2x4 wood, 16 in o.c. 0 0.5 0.18 18.42 0.19 NaN 18.2 0.11 0.06 0 0.43 R 19 Fib.Batt,2x6 wood, 24 in o.c. 0.15 2.4 0.93 22.67 0.33 6.7 132.7 0.69 0.05 0 2.2 R 21 Fib.Batt,2x6 wood, 24 in o.c. 0.12 2.9 0.61 20.42 0.52 8.6 317.7 0.82 0.12 0.22 2.81 Ceiling R 38 Fiberglass, Vented 0.6 1.1 5.06 9.58 1.03 39.7 75.2 0.12 0.07 0.86 0.88 R 49 Fiberglass, Vented 1.2 2 9.18 17.51 2.49 52.5 100.1 0.05 0.3 1.1 1.94 R 38 Fiberglass Batt, Vented 0.6 1.2 5.45 10.25 0.62 22.3 42 0.26 0.06 0.88 1.08 R 49 Fiberglass Batt, Vented 1.2 2.1 9.69 18.38 1.87 37.7 71.4 0.25 0.11 1.32 1.98 R 38 Fiberglass Batt, Unvented 0.5 3.2 3.89 22.35 2.34 38.7 222.4 0.3 0.47 0.66 3.02 Floor R 19 Fiberglass Batt 0.2 0.5 2.02 3.64 0.29 NaN 29.8 0.07 0.16 0.22 0.22 R 30 Fiberglass Batt 0.5 1 4.63 7.67 0.85 NaN 40.8 0.09 0.42 0.44 1.08 R 38 Fiberglass Batt 0.7 1.2 6.01 9.08 1.27 NaN 51.7 0.03 0.59 0.66 1.3 Windows Low E, Db Non metal, Arg, L Gain 0.6 2.4 4.02 20.19 0.41 7.5 37.6 0.62 0.04 0.43 2.41 Low E, D b Insulated, Air, L Gain 0.9 1.9 6.57 16.06 3.09 71 173.7 0.9 1.37 0.86 1.97 Low E, T p Non metal, Air, L Gain 1.4 3.6 9.52 29.55 2.98 37.3 115.7 0.3 1.18 1.3 3.51 Low E, T p Non metal, Arg, L Gain 1.6 3.5 10.91 28.8 3.56 45.7 120.7 0.62 1.43 1.51 3.51 Building envelope infiltration 4.5 ACH50 0 2.9 0.05 20.41 0.4 NaN 7.3 0.77 0.11 0.22 3.02 4 ACH50 0.2 3 1.23 21.32 0.48 8.3 144 0.79 0.08 0.22 3.02 3.5 ACH50 0.3 3.1 2.47 25.78 0.57 8.2 85.1 0.92 0.05 0.44 3.24 3 ACH50 0.6 3.2 4.75 25.77 0.67 9.6 52.2 0.89 0.01 0.66 3.02 2.5 ACH50 1.9 3.2 15.38 25.63 0.79 11.4 19.1 0.85 0.41 1.97 3.02 Domestic water heater Electric Standard 0.7 0.9 5.03 7.68 0 0 0 0.31 0.22 0.43 1.1 Electric Premium 1.8 2.6 12.56 20.96 0.06 1.1 1.9 0.77 0.45 1.51 2.63 Gas Tankless 21.9 25.8 1.93 16.59 2.59 NaN 57.9 0.12 0.67 10.75 11.23 Propane Premium 19.7 25.8 83.63 100.68 1.69 6.2 7.5 2.49 1.85 2.85 4.75

PAGE 193

193 Table B 1. Continued. Energy Cost Carbon kWh savings per year (%) Energy savings ($/yr) Initial const. cost increase (%) Simple payback (yrs) LCC increase (%) Carbon savings/yr (%) Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Domestic water heater Propane Tankless 21.9 25.8 101.2 123.87 2.59 7.7 9.5 4.51 3.79 7.99 8.55 HPWH, 50 gal 14.2 17.8 100.31 148 2.31 5.8 8.5 2.81 0.91 14.04 17.54 HPWH, 50 gal, In Confined Space 13.8 16.2 97.42 134.77 2.31 6.3 8.8 2.26 0.78 13.82 16.23 HPWH, 80 gal 15.1 18.2 106.4 150.88 3.42 8.4 11.9 1.53 0.3 15.12 18.2 HVAC ASHP: SEER 15, 8.5 HSPF 0.7 7.1 5.64 50.04 7.49 7.91 5.66 0.66 6.91 ASHP: SEER 16, 8.6 HSPF 2.2 7.1 17.86 55.33 7.09 7.48 5.76 2.19 6.91 ASHP: SEER 17, 8.7 HSPF 4.3 8.3 35.27 67.82 6.7 7.54 6.08 4.17 8.21 ASHP: SEER 18, 9.3 HSPF 5.7 9.1 46.96 76.22 6.31 7.49 6.16 5.7 9.07 ASHP: SEER 19, 9.5 HSPF 7.8 10.4 64.73 88.09 5.91 7.59 6.5 7.89 10.37 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER14 / 8HSPF 6 6.8 42.17 56.7 7.23 7.48 7.17 5.83 6.8 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER19 / 9HSPF 12.7 15.1 89.52 125.12 6.36 9.29 8.29 12.74 15.35 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER26 / 10HSPF 17.8 22.8 124.81 188.79 5.85 11.38 9.28 17.71 22.81 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER30 / 13HSPF 21.1 25.5 148.67 211.34 4.23 10.68 8.59 20.95 25.44 MSHP:9kBtuh/unit : SEER33 / 14HSPF 22.9 27.2 160.86 226.19 3.81 10.86 8.67 22.68 27.19 Home appliances Freezer: EF = 19.9 0.6 0.8 3.93 6.35 0.03 1.6 2.6 0.23 0.14 0.22 0.66 Dishwasher: EnergyStar 0.9 1 6.78 8.06 0.22 9.9 11.8 0.02 0.08 0.65 1.1 Clothes washer: EnergyStar 3.5 3.9 27.26 32.11 0.19 2.2 2.6 1.06 0.89 3.46 3.74 Clothes dryer: Electric, Premium 2.2 2.4 15.45 19.65 0.27 5.1 6.5 0.44 0.29 1.94 2.41 Lighting 100% LED 7.6 10.6 53.59 87.71 0.33 1.4 2.3 3.5 2.23 7.56 10.75

PAGE 194

194 Table B 2. Optimal energy efficient measures for Gainesville, FL with different heat pump systems. HVAC system Wood Stud Unfinished Attic Pier & Beam Air Leakage Mini Split Heat Pump Water Heater MSHP #1 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER14 / 8HSPF Electric Std. MSHP #2 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER14 / 8HSPF Electric Std. MSHP #3 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER14 / 8HSPF Electric Premium MSHP #4 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER26 / 10HSPF Electric Premium MSHP #5 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER26 / 10HSPF Electric Premium MSHP #6 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER26 / 10HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #7 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #8 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #9 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #10 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #11 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #12 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #13 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #14 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #15 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #16 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 3 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #17 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #18 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Tp.Air, L Gain 3 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #1 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF Electric Std. ASHP #2 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF Electric Premium ASHP #3 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF Electric Premium ASHP #4 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #5 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #6 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 4 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #7 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #8 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #9 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #10 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db.Arg, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #11 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Tp.Air, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #12 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Tp.Air, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal

PAGE 195

195 Table B 3. Optimal energy efficient measures for Miami, FL with different heat pump systems. Wood Stud Unfinished Attic Pier & Beam Windows Air Leakage Mini Split Heat Pump Water Heater MSHP #1 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER14 / 8HSPF Electric Std MSHP #2 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER14 / 8HSPF Electric Premium MSHP #3 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER26 / 10HSPF Electric Premium MSHP #4 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER26 / 10HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #5 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #6 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #7 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #8 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #9 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER33 /1 4HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP #10 R 21 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #1 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF Electric Std ASHP #2 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF Electric Std ASHP #3 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF Electric Premium ASHP #4 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #5 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #6 R 15 Fbg.Batt, 2x4, 16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #7 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #8 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #9 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #10 R 19 Fbg.Batt, 2x6, 24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg.Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg,M Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal

PAGE 196

196 Table B 4. Optimal energy efficient measures for Tallahassee, FL with different heat pump systems. Wood Stud Unfinished Attic Pier & Beam Windows Air Leakage Mini Split Heat Pump Water Heater MSHP #1 R 15 Fbg.Batt,2x4,16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER14 / 8HSPF Electric Standard MSHP #2 R 19 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER14 / 8HSPF Electric Standard MSHP #3 R 19 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER14 / 8HSPF Electric Premium MSHP #4 R 19 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER26 / 10HSPF Electric Premium MSHP #5 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER26 / 10HSPF Electric Premium MSHP #6 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER26 / 10HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #7 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER26 / 10HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #8 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP #9 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 50 gal MSHP 10 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP 11 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP 12 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP 13 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal MSHP 14 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Tp. Air, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER33 / 14HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #1 R 15 Fbg.Batt,2x4,16 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF Electric Standard ASHP #2 R 19 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF Electric Premium ASHP #3 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 4.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #4 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #5 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 3 ACH50 SEER15 / 8HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #6 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 3.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 50 gal ASHP #7 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 3 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #8 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 38 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #9 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 19 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #10 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #11 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Db. Arg, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #12 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 30 Fbg. Batt Low E, Tp. Air, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal ASHP #13 R 21 Fbg.Batt,2x6,24 in o.c. R 49 Fbg. Batt, Vented R 38 Fbg. Batt Low E, Tp. Air, L Gain 2.5 ACH50 SEER19 / 9HSPF HPWH, 80 gal

PAGE 197

197 APPENDIX C HYPER EFFICIENT AND CARBON NEUTRAL MANUFACTURED HOMES SURVEY : PART I Informed Consent Form: Thank you for agreeing to take part in this important survey that aims to better understand current practices and the challenges of implementing energy efficiency measures in the construction of manufactured homes. Be assured the answers you provide will be confidential. Only the researchers will have access to your information. Also, n o identifying information will be collected or connected with your responses, which will be anonymous. Institutional Review Board (IRB) information Study number: IRB2019008 15 Telephone: (352) 392 0433 Fax number: (352) 392 9234 E mail address: irb2@ufl.edu Questions : Walls 1. Which R value is your factory currently using for walls?___________________ 2. How often does your factory use R 21, fiberglass batt, 2x6 walls in manufactured homes? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4) c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 3. Can R 21, fiberglass batt, 2x6 walls be implemented in the current manufacturing process? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why? 4. Compared to (Q1 answer), how R 21, fiberglass batt, 2x6 walls affect the current manufacturing process?

PAGE 198

198 5. What is needed for R 21, fiberglass batt, 2x6 walls be standard practice in the future? Floors 1. Which R value is your factory currently using for floors? _______________ 2. How often does your factory use R 19 floors in manufactured homes? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4) c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 3. Can R 19 floors be implemented in the current manufacturing process? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why? 4. Compared to (Q1 answer), how R 19 floors affect the current manufacturing process? 5. Wh at is needed for R 19 floors be standard practice in the future? Ceiling 1. Which R value is your factory currently using for ceilings? _____________ 2. How often does your factory use R 38 Fib. Batt in manufactured homes? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4) c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 3. Can R 38 Fib. Batt be implemented in the current manufacturing process? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why? 4. Compared to (Q1 answer), how R 38 Fib. Batt ceilin gs affect the current manufacturing process? 5. What is needed for R 38 Fib. Batt to be standard practice in the future? Structural Insulated Panels for walls and ceiling 1. Does your factory use SIPs? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4)

PAGE 199

199 c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 2. Can Structural Insulated Panels be implemented in the current manufacturing process? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why? 3. How Structural Insulated Panels affects the curre nt manufacturing process? 4. What is needed for Structural Insulated Panels be standard practice in the future? Windows 1. Which U Value is your factory currently using for windows? _____________ 2. How often does your factory use U 0.34/ SHGC 0.3 in manufactured homes? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4) c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 3. Can U 0.34/ SHGC 0.3 be implemented in the current manufa cturing process? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why? 4. Compared to (Q1 answer), how U 0.34/ SHGC 0.3 affects the current manufacturing process? 5. What is needed for U 0.34/ SHGC 0.3 be standard practice in the future? Infiltration 1. Does your factory perform Blower door test for home infiltration? Which is the typical ACH50 value? _____________________________________________ 2. How often does your factory use 4.5 ACH50 in manufactured homes? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4)

PAGE 200

200 c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 3. Can 4.5 ACH50 be implemented in the current manufacturing process? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why? 4. Compared to (Q1 answer), how 4.5 ACH50 affects the current manufacturing process? 5 What is needed for 4.5 ACH50 be standard practice in the future? HVAC 1. Does your factory install HVAC systems? Which is the most typical? a. Central air conditioning. SEER: b. Furnace (electric or gas/oil/propane). AFUE: c. Packaged system d. Air source heat pumps. SEER: HSPF: e. Ductless mini split heat pumps. SEER: HSPF: d. Other: ____________________________________ ________ 2. How often does your factory use d uctless mini split heat pumps in manufactured homes? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4) c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 3. Can ductless mini split heat p umps be implemented in the current manufacturing process? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why? 4. Compared to (Q1 answer), how ductless mini split heat pumps affect the current manufacturing process? 5. What is needed for ductless mini split heat pumps be standard practice in the future? 6. Would your factory be interested in implementing ductless mini split heat pumps in the future? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why?

PAGE 201

201 Water heater 1. Which water heater system is your factory curre ntly using? a. Electric. EF: b. Gas. EF: c. Oil. EF: d. Propane. EF: e. HPWH. EF: d. Other: ____________________________. EF: 2. How often does your factory use HPWH in manufactured homes? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4) c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 3. Can HPWH be implemented in the current manufacturing process? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why? 4. Compared to (Q1 answer), how HPWH affects the current manufacturing process? 5. What is needed for HPWH to be standard practice in the future? Appliances + lighting 1. Which of the following appliances/lighting your factory typically provide? a. Refrigerator. Energy Star? YES/ NO b. Dishwasher. Energy Star? YES/ NO c. Clothes washer. Energy Star? YES/ NO d. Clothes dryer. Energy Star? YES/ NO e. Lighting. LED? YES/ NO d. Other: ________________________ Energy Star? YES/ NO 2. How often does your factory use Energy Star appli ances or LED in manufactured homes? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4) c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 3. What is the reason for not using Energy Star appliances or LED ? 4. What is needed for Energy Star appliances or LED to be standard practice in the future?

PAGE 202

202 Photovoltaic panels 1. Does your factory use PV panels ? a. Always (Go to next measure) b. Frequently (Go to 4) c. Sometimes (Go to 4) d. Occasionally (Go to 4) e. Never (Go to 3) 3. Can PV panels be implemented in the current manufacturing process? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why? 4. How PV panels affects the current manufacturing process? 5. What is needed for PV panels be standard practice in the future? 6. Would your factory be interested in installing PV panels in manufactured homes in the future? a. Yes. Why? b. No. Why?

PAGE 203

203 APPENDIX D HYPER EFFICIENT AND CARBON NEUTRAL MANUFACTURED HOMES SURVEY : PART II Informed consent: Thank you for agreeing to take part in this important survey that aims to better understand the manufactured housing market in the State of Florida and to identify strategies that could increase the attractiveness of manufactured homes. Be assured the answers you provide will be confidential. T here is a minimal risk that the security of any online data may be breached, but our survey host (QUALTRICS) uses strong encryption and other data security methods to protect your information. Only the researchers will have access to your information on the Qualtrics server. No identifying information will be collected or connected with your responses, which will be anonymous. Institutional Review Board (IRB) information Study number: IRB201900815 Telephone: (352) 392 0433 Fax number: (352) 392 9234 E mail address: irb2@ufl.edu The survey will take 3 5minutes. Click next to continue! 1. First, just for demographic purposes, what occupation best describes you ? 1. Manufacturer (Go to 2) 2. Retailer/dealer (Go to 3) 3. Lender (Go to 3) 4. Other. (Please specify)_________ (Go to 3)

PAGE 204

204 2. Is your factory also responsible for selling manufactured homes directly to homeowners? 1. YES 2. NO (Go to 3 rd section) 3. What is the likelihood that your customers are : a) First time home buyer 1. Very high 2. High 3. Moderate 4. Low 5. Very low b) Retirement buyer 1. Very high 2. High 3. Moderate 4. Low 5. Very low c) Upgrad ing / replac ing a current manufacturer home 1. Very high 2. High 3. Moderate 4. Low 5. Very low d) A second home buyer 1. Very high 2. High 3. Moderate 4. Low 5. Very low 4. What is the typical age range of your buyers? 1. Up to 29 years 2. 30 39 years 3. 40 49 years 4. 50 59 years 5. + 60 years 5. There are a number of factors that relate to the cost that may affect the decision to purchase a home. Considering your experience, rate the importance of the following factors. a) Total cost of home 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. b) Potential resale value on house 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important

PAGE 205

205 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. c) Monthly mortgage payment 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. d) Monthly utility costs 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. 6. Rank the following factor in order of importance for a sale to succeed, in which 1 is most important and 4 is less important: ____ Total cost of home ____ Potential resale value on house ____ Monthly mortgage on house ____ Monthly utility costs 7. Do homeowners complain about the energy performance of manufactured homes? 1. Always 2. Frequently 3. Sometimes 4. Occasionally 5. Never 6. Do not know. 8. How often your customers ask about energy efficiency measures when buying a manufactured home? 1. Always 2. Frequently 3. Sometimes 4. Occasionally 5. Never 9. How frequently d o you use energy efficiency as a selling point? 1. Always (Go to 1 1 ) 2. Frequently (Go to 1 0 ) 3. Sometimes (Go to 1 0 ) 4. Occasionally (Go to 1 0 ) 5. Never (Go to 1 0 ) 10. What are the reasons for not using energy efficiency as a selling point? (select all that apply) 1. Not enough knowledge 2. Lack of interest from buyers 3. Incremental costs of energy efficient homes 4. Difficulty to finance energy efficient homes 5. It is not important for a sale to succeed. 6. Other. Specify:

PAGE 206

206 11. The three following manufactured homes options have the same interest rates and term duration. The costs represent the monthly expenses of the homeowner. Considering your experience selling manufactured homes, which of the above options would your customers typically prefer? 1. Option A: low mortgage but high utility costs 2. Option B: average mortgage and utility costs 3. Option C: high mortgage but low utility costs 12. Which of the following energy measures do you believe could be improved in current manufactured homes? 1. Air conditioning 2. Lighting 3. Envelope insulation 4. Home appliances 5. Water heating 6. Other. Specify: 13. Rate the importance of the following factors for improving the attractiveness of manufactured homes? a. Improving exterior architectural appearance 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. b. Improving interior design 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. c. Improving home durability 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. d. Reducing construction costs 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant

PAGE 207

207 5. Very unimportant. e. Flexible financing options 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. f. Increasing energy efficiency 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. g. Installing solar panels to reduce energy costs 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant. h. Other. Specify: 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Neither important or unimportant 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Very unimportant.

PAGE 208

208 LIST OF REFERENCES [1] IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5 C (2018). [2] A.E. Fenner, C.J. Kibert, J. Woo, S. Morque, M. Razkenari, H. Hakim, X. Lu, The carbon footprint of buildings: A review of methodologies and applications, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 94 (2018) 1142 1152. [3] P. Torcellini, S. Pless, M. Deru, D. Crawley, Zero energy buildings: A critical look at the defi nition, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Department of Energy, US (2006). [5] 24 CFR Part 3280 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (1975). [6] EIA, Residential energy con sumption survey, Energy Information Administration (2018). [7] United States, Energy independence and security act of 2007 (2007) Section 413. [8] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing 10 CFR Part 460. Docket N o. EERE 2009 BT BC 0021 (2015). [9] S. Chandra, E. Salzberg, Cost implications of retrofit vs. replacement of manufactured housing (2012). [10] E. Levy, J. Dentz, E. Ansanelli, G. Barker, P. Rath, D. Dadia, Field Evaluation of Advances in Energy Efficiency Practices for Manufactured Homes, US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, 2016. [11] E.L. Vaughan, I. Payosova, S. Akella, High Performance Manufactured Housing (2011). [12] VEIC, Marke t Analysis for Zero Net Energy Manufactured Home Replacements in Delaware (2015). [13] T. Hewes, B. Peeks, Northwest Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing Program High Performance Test Homes, United States. Department of Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2015. [14] MHI, General Industry Information (2017). [15] K.A.M. Kamar, Z.A. Hamid, M.N.A. Azman, M.S.S. Ahamad, Industrialized Building System (IBS): revisiting issues of definition and classification, International Journal of Emerg ing Sciences. 1 (2011) 120+.

PAGE 209

209 [16] C.I. Board, New Perspective in Industrialisation in Construction: A state of the art report, Switzerland, Zurich.CIB Publication. 329 (2010) 161 181. [17] A. Warszawski, Industrialised and Automated Building System, Techni on Israel Institute of Technology, E & FN Spon (1999). [18] C. Tatum, J.A. Vanegas, J. Williams, Constructability improvement using prefabrication, preassembly, and modularization, Bureau of Engineering Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1987. [19] M odular Building Institute, Introduction to Commercial Modular Construction, 1 ed., Modular Building Institute, 2015. [20] S. Gssling, Carbon neutral destinations: a conceptual analysis, Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 17 (2009) 17 37. [21] J. Williams, Ze ro carbon homes: a road map, Routledge, 2013. [22] J. Laski, V. Burrows, From Thousands to Billions: Coordinated Action Towards 100% Net Zero Carbon Buildings By 2050, World Green Building Council (2017). [23] DCLG, Code for sustainable homes: A step chang e in sustainable home building practice (2006). [24] U. DCLG, Code for Sustainable Homes Technical Guide (2008). [25] Canada Green Building Council, Zero Carbon Building Standards (2017). [26] City of Vancouver, Zero Emissions Building Plan (2018). [27] J. Zuo, B. Read, S. Pullen, Q. Shi, Achieving carbon neutrality in commercial building developments Perceptions of the construction industry, Habitat International. 36 (2012) 278 286. [28] M.A.R. Lopes, C.H. Antunes, N. Martins, Energy behaviours as promot ers of energy efficiency: A 21st century review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 16 (2012) 4095 4104. [29] US Energy Information Administration, US Energy Information Administration: Analysis and Projections (2018). [30] E. Star, Energy Star, Pro gram Requirements for Residential (2018). [31] IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2015.

PAGE 210

210 [32] Y. Lu, S. Wang, K. Shan, Design optimization and optimal control of grid connected and standalone nearly/net zero energy buildings, Appl. Energy. 155 (2015) 463 477. [33] IEA, SHC, Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings IEA SHC Task 40 and ECBCS Annex 52 (2015). [34] A. Kylili, P.A. Fokaides, European smart cities: The role of zero energy buildings, Sustainable Ci ties and Society. 15 (2015) 86 95. [35] Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast), Official Journal of the European Union. 18 (2010) 2010. [36] California Energy Commission, New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015 2020, CA Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (2015). [37] C.J. Kibert, M.M. Fard, Differentiating among low energy, low carbon and net zero energy building strat egies for policy formulation, Build. Res. Inf. 40 (2012) 625 637. [38] M. Ristimki, A. Synjoki, J. Heinonen, S. Junnila, Combining life cycle costing and life cycle assessment for an analysis of a new residential district energy system design, Energy. 63 (2013) 168 179. [39] U. Congress, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (HR 2454), US House of Representative, Washington, DC (2009). [40] US DOE, DOE Zero Energy Ready Home: National Program Requirements (Rev. 06) (2017). [41] US D OE, DOE Zero Energy Ready Home: Savings & Cost Estimate Summary (2015). [42] M. Rosenberg, D. Jonlin, S. Nadel, A Perspective of Energy Codes and Regulations for the Buildings of the Future, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 139 (2017) 010801. [43] Arch itecture 2030, AIA 2030 Design Data Exchange (2018). [44] S. Al Beaini, S. Borgeson, B. Coffery, D. Gregory, K. Konis, C. Scown, J. Simjanovic, J. Stanley, B. Strogen, I. Walker, Feasibility of achieving a zero net energy, Zero net cost homes (2010). [45] G. Ozcan Deniz, R. Fryer, de Castro Amorim Ferreira, Ana, The Design of Net Zero Energy Affordable Housing in Philadelphia, Designs. 2 (2018) 26.

PAGE 211

211 [46] C. Yimprayoon, Energy Efficiency Design Strategies for Buildings with Grid Connected Photovoltaic Systems (2012). [47] H. Radhi, Can envelope codes reduce electricity and CO2 emissions in different types of buildings in the hot climate of Bahrain?, Energy. 34 (2009) 205 215. [48] G.A. Florides, S. Kalogirou, S. Tassou, L. Wrobel, Modeling of the modern house s of Cyprus and energy consumption analysis, Energy. 25 (2000) 915 937. [49] L. Zhu, R. Hurt, D. Correa, R. Boehm, Comprehensive energy and economic analyses on a zero energy house versus a conventional house, Energy. 34 (2009) 1043 1053. [50] T.G. Theodos iou, A.M. Papadopoulos, The impact of thermal bridges on the energy demand of buildings with double brick wall constructions, Energy and Buildings. 40 (2008) 2083 2089. [51] W. Feist, R. Pfluger, B. Kaufmann, J. Schnieders, O. Kah, Passive house planning p ackage 2007, Specifications for Quality Approved Passive Houses, Technical Information PHI 2007/1 (E), Darmstadt, Passivhaus Institut (December 2007) (2007). [52] A. IECC, International Energy Conservation Code 2015, C403. 3 (2015). [53] J. Lee, H. Jung, J Park, J. Lee, Y. Yoon, Optimization of building window system in Asian regions by analyzing solar heat gain and daylighting elements, Renewable Energy. 50 (2013) 522 531. [54] N. DeForest, A. Shehabi, J. O'Donnell, G. Garcia, J. Greenblatt, E.S. Lee, S. Selkowitz, D.J. Milliron, United States energy and CO 2 savings potential from deployment of near infrared electrochromic window glazings, Build. Environ. 89 (2015) 107 117. [55] I. Acosta, C. Munoz, M.A. Campano, J. Navarro, Analysis of daylight factors a nd energy saving allowed by windows under overcast sky conditions, Renewable Energy. 77 (2015) 194 207. [56] US DOE, Heat and cool: Water heating (2018). [57] H. Willem, Y. Lin, A. Lekov, Review of energy efficiency and system performance of residential he at pump water heaters, Energy and Buildings. 143 (2017) 191 201. [58] United States Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart C Energy and water conservation standards (2018). [59] N. Leslie, R. Chitwood, G. Koertzen, Innovative Zero Net Ener gy Home Designs for Affordable Housing (2018).

PAGE 212

212 [60] J. Young, J. Shiau, S. Kristjasson, ZNE simulation study Californa homes with mixed fuel vs. electric only appliances (2016) 1100. [61] L. Brand, M. Brook, N. Leslie, The path to achieving zero net ener gy homes energy choices, consumer costs, and the environment. 121 (2015). [62] M. Wei, S.H. Lee, T. Hong, H. Yang, S. Price, L. McKenzie, B. Conlon, S. Price, A. German, B. Hendron, J. Greenblatt, Approaches to More Cost Effective Zero Net Energy Homes ( 2018). [63] B. Hong, R.W. Howarth, Greenhouse gas emissions from domestic hot water: heat pumps compared to most commonly used systems, Energy Science & Engineering. 4 (2016) 123 133. [64] Washington Gas Light Company, Single Family Home Operating Cost & C O2 Emissions Analysis: Natural Gas Vs. Residential Heating Oil Vs. Propane Vs. Electric (2015). [65] D.S. Parker, M.D. Mazzara, J.R. Sherwin, Monitored energy use patterns in low income housing in a hot and humid climate (1996). [66] K.J. Chua, S.K. Chou, W. Yang, Advances in heat pump systems: A review, Appl. Energy. 87 (2010) 3611 3624. [67] C. Moon, A Study on the Floating House for New Resilient Living, Journal of the Korean housing association. 26 (2015) 97 104. [68] D.W.H. Cai, S. Adlakha, S.H. Low, P. De Martini, K. Mani Chandy, Impact of residential PV adoption on Retail Electricity Rates, Energy Policy. 62 (2013) 830 843. [69] D. Parker, S. Barkaszi, J. Sherwin, C. Richardson, Central Air Conditioner Usage Patterns in Low Income Housing in a H ot and Humid Climate: Influences on Energy Use and Peak Demand (1996) 1994 1996. [70] E.T. Garman, R. Forgue, Personal finance, Cengage Learning, 2011. [71] Steven Winter Associates, A community guide to factory built housing, 2001. [72] W.D. Thomas, Energ y performance of net zero and near net zero energy homes in New England (2012). [73] M. Waltner, Does zero net energy mean zero net carbon? Reevaluating California's time dependent valuation metric as the State moves toward a net zero code (2016) 1114.

PAGE 213

213 [74 ] J. Morrissey, R.E. Horne, Life cycle cost implications of energy efficiency measures in new residential buildings, Energy and Buildings. 43 (2011) 915 924. [75] P. Schneider, B. Just, P. Howe, Net Zero + Low Income + Innovative Thinking = Residential Ene rgy Efficiency of the Future (2018). [76] P. Zhao, R. Hammon, R. Narayanamurthy, R. Kliewer, J. Shiau, Technical and Economic Evaluation of the Replicable and Scalable Near Zero Net Energy Deep Retrofits for Low Income Communities (2018). [77] Y. Liu, T. L iu, S. Ye, Y. Liu, Cost benefit analysis for Energy Efficiency Retrofit of existing buildings: A case study in China, Journal of Cleaner Production. 177 (2018) 493 506. [78] H. Islam, M. Jollands, S. Setunge, Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost impli cation of residential buildings A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 42 (2015) 129 140. [79] R. Flanagan, G. Norman, J. Meadows, Life cycle costing: theory and practice, BSP Professional Books, 1989. [80] R. Anderson, C. Christensen, S. Horo witz, A. Courtney, T. Givler, K. Tupper, G. Barker, Analysis of System Strategies Targeting Near Term Building America Energy Performance Goals for New Single Family Homes, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Final Technical Report, NREL/TP 550 36 920.September (2004). [81] US Census Bureau, American Housing Survey (AHS). 3 (2017). [82] K. Grosskopf, Assessing the effectiveness of mitigation: a case study of manufactured housing and the 2004 hurricane season, J Emerg Manage. 3 (2005) 27 32. [83] K.M Simmons, D. Sutter, Manufactured home building regulations and the February 2, 2007 Florida tornadoes, Nat. Hazards. 46 (2008) 415 425. [84] J.O. Beamish, R.C. Goss, J.H. Atiles, Y. Kim, Not a trailer anymore: Perceptions of manufactured housing, Housing Policy Debate. 12 (2001) 373 392. [85] G. Wherry, U. Buehlmann, Product life cycle of the manufactured home industry, BioResources. 9 (2014) 6652 6668. [86] J. Talbot, Mobilizing Energy Efficiency in the Manufactured Housing Sector (2012). [87] C.M. Cleve nger, J. Haymaker, The impact of the building occupant on energy modeling simulations (2006) 1 10.

PAGE 214

214 [88] M. Bonte, F. Thellier, B. Lartigue, Impact of occupant's actions on energy building performance and thermal sensation, Energy and Buildings. 76 (2014) 2 19 227. [89] Z.M. Gill, M.J. Tierney, I.M. Pegg, N. Allan, Low energy dwellings: the contribution of behaviours to actual performance, Build. Res. Inf. 38 (2010) 491 508. bui lding energy analysis: A research review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 80 (2017) 1061 1071. [91] D. Cal, T. Osterhage, R. Streblow, D. Mller, Energy performance gap in refurbished German dwellings: Lesson learned from a field test, Energy an d Buildings. 127 (2016) 1146 1158. [92] I. Nahmens, A. Joukar, R. Cantrell, Impact of low income occupant behavior on energy consumption in hot humid climates, J. Archit. Eng. 21 (2014) B4014006. [93] 106th Congress, Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (2000) S. 1452. [94] U. Congress, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Public Law (2005) 109 113. [95] J. Sen. Tester, Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing Act of 2010 (2010) S. R ept. 111 307. [96] SBRA, Plants certified to produce ENERGY STAR manufactured homes (2018). [97] J. McWilliams, Manufactured Housing: It is Easy and Enticing. Is it Energy Efficient? (2018). [98] US DOE, Southern Energy Homes First DOE Zero Energy Ready Manufactured Home Russellville, AL (2014). [99] C.F.P. Bureau, Manufactured housing consumer finance in the United States, September, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_manufactured housing.pdf (2014). [100] T. Hewes, B. Peeks, High Performance Manufactured Home Project: Final Project Report (2012). [101] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Manufactur ed Homes Loan Insurance (Title I) (2018). [102] J.W. Creswell, J.D. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage publications, 2017.

PAGE 215

215 [103] C. Christensen, G. Barker, S. Horowitz, A sequential search technique for identifying optimal building designs on the path to zero net energy (2004) 877 882. [104] OpenEI, U.S. Utility Rate Database (2018). [105] O.A. Preciado Prez, S. Fotios, Comprehensive cost benefit analysis of energy efficiency in social housing. Case stu dy: Northwest Mexico, Energy and Buildings. 152 (2017) 279 289. [106] EPA, Power Profiler (2017). [107] R. Fu, R.M. Margolis, D.J. Feldman, U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2018. NREL/TP 6A20 72399 (2018). [108] J.J. Cook, K.B. Ardani, R.M Margolis, R. Fu, Cost Reduction Roadmap for Residential Solar Photovoltaics (PV), 2017 2030. No. NREL/TP 6A20 70748 (2018). [109] E.M. Ryan, T.F. Sanquist, Validation of building energy modeling tools under idealized and realistic conditions, Energy and Buildings. 47 (2012) 375 382. [110] P. Storm, B. Hannas, D. Baylon, B. Davis, Residential building stock assessment: Manufactured home characteristics and energy use (2013). [111] U.S. Department of Energy, The Sunshot Initiative (2018). [112] R. Fu, D. Fe ldman, R. Margolis, M. Woodhouse, K. Ardani, US solar photovoltaic system cost benchmark: Q1 2017, Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2017).

PAGE 216

216 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Andriel Fenner was born and raised in Novo Xingu, Rio Grande do Sul, Braz il. In Studies at the Catholic University of Pelotas, Brazil Right after graduation, Andriel Fenner received a fellowship from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher E ducation Personnel (CAPES), sponsored by the Brazilian Government and moved to Gainesville, FL, to pursue his Ph.D. degree in Architecture with concentration in Construction Management at the University of Florida. He received Construction Management from the University of Florida in 2018 and his Ph.D. from the University of Florida in 2019. Under the mentorship of Dr. Charles Kibert, Andriel has devoted his time to study and conduct research about sustainability in the built environment focusing on energy efficiency, carbon neutrality, and modular construction For his dissertation, Andriel conduct ed a detailed analysis of the energy performa nce of manufactured homes in the State of Florida and investigate d the opportunities for reaching hyper efficiency and carbon neutrality while improving the life cycle affordability of homeowners. Apart from the academic activities, Andriel has been invol ved in several activities such as organizer of t he State of the Art of Modular Construction Symposium in 2017 P resident of USGBC Rinker Student Chapter, Secretary of the Rinker Ph.D. Forum, and the Social and Academic Director of the BRASA organization