I never got to take part in the popular “cash for clunkers” program that ran a few months back, but I sure like the idea of an adaptation of the same concept for homeowners. Below are some excerpts from an article (“Cash For Caulking?”) on Mother Nature News, by writer Matt Hickman.
——————————————-
Twin proposals, dubbed “cash for caulkers,” have been separately submitted to the White House by venture capitalist John Doerr and by former president Bill Clinton.
The idea behind cash for caulkers isn’t too dissimilar from cash for clunkers which was generally viewed as the one true homerun of the stimulus bill (but not without controversy). Cash for caulkers will provide homeowners with funds to perform weatherization projects and, in turn, the economy and the environment will receive much-needed boosts; green jobs will be created, carbon emissions will be curbed, and homeowners will eventually save save money.
What’s the Plan?
Many details need to be ironed out before any sort of government-backed home weatherization incentive program becomes a reality but from the sounds of it, Doerr and Clinton mean business. Doerr’s vision of cash for caulkers would cost $23 billion over 2 years with most of the money being allocated as incentive payments, around $2,000 to $4,000, for weatherization projects with homeowners having to pay 50 percent of a project’s total cost. Money would also be reserved for contractors and retailers to promote the program.
Where’s the money coming from?
The funding for Clinton’s plan would come from unspent clean energy money from the stimulus bill and would not only cover homes and apartments but commercial and industrial buildings as well. It also must be noted that there is an existing 32-year old Weatherization Assistance Program available to low-income families.
However, as New York Times writer David Leonhardt points out, committing to a home weatherization project is much more complex than trading in an old gas guzzling car for a more efficient one. Although Leonhardt does have reservations about a cash for caulkers program, he does, in the end, support it given that its positive environmental and economic impact could potentially far outweigh the successes of cash for clunkers if executed correctly.
——————————————-
Give us your feedback:
So what do you think? Would you be more likely to weatherize your home if the job was subject to government incentives? Or are you still daunted by such an investment whether the government’s green is involved in helping or not?
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
Handy Heat Gun
This heat gun is great for drying joint compound, primer and paint when patching drywall and plaster walls. Plus it can soften adhesive, get a very cold small engine to start, and shrink heat-shrink tubing.
Reliable Crimp Connectors
These reliable, high-quality connectors from Wirefy work on 10-22-gauge wire have heat-shrink insulation to keep out water and road salt.
Affordable IR Camera
This camera is super useful for tracking down air leaks in buildings. The one-hand pistol grip arrangement frees your other hand for steadying yourself while maneuvering tricky job sites.
View Comments
I have problems with these 'quick-fix' ideas on two fronts.
The first is that I have an issue with the very idea of government (especially the Federal Governemnt) becoming involved in the matter at all. I do not find authority for such involvement in the Constitution, and I believe the 'market' is better than any program in seeing that every dollar is spent in the most effective manner.
The other front is the very concept that more caulk is better. It wasn't that long ago when Jimmy Carter wanted us to make our homes airtight; the result was a flurry of rot and mold issues a few years later. It seems all that air leakage was doing some good after all.
Cleaning up after a recent, minor flood revealed all manner of tiny pockets where water had accumulated. It doesn't take but a drop of water to get mildew started - and these little pockets had no deliberate path to exit. As it was, the ordinary pattern of air circulation led to great differences in how quickly sections of an open room dried out.
I suspect that the greatest cause of wasted energy is simply the lack of feedback and accountability. I have seen all manner of folks radically change their behavior when they started getting their own heating bill. Naturally, this option is limited by 'economies' in the construction of buildings; there are plent of massive apartment buildings where all the heat is controlled by one thermostat in the boiler room. Changing that won't be easy - or cheap.
Finally, often overlooked is the damage that caulk can cause. If you ever have to remove that caulk - say, to repair the siding or replace a window - caulk can greatly increase the damage caused. Breaking things is not very 'green' in my book.
We shold note that Jimmy Carter learned about building houses after four years of giving advice. I suggest that the sequence ought to be reversed .... and government halls, even building departments, are seriously lacking in folks who have ever actually built anything.
I LIKE the weatherization idea. Within the year I've learned just how much houses leak .... and they leak a LOT. A heckofa LOT. Even brand new ones! And that represents foreign oil (or natural gas or coal) used by us for heating the outdoors. What a stupid waste.
RENOSTEINKE says: Tightening up houses causes rot. Sure, if your home is full moisture that shouldn't be there. But it seems a bit silly (if not criminal) to solve it by using twice the fuel to keep the house warm. The problem of moisture is now well known and fixable. See http://www.buildingscience.com for good technical papers on the subject.
It's time we quit paying the foreign oil producers for us to heat the outdoors and in the process contribute mightily to the carbon footprint. We can do better.
Example: We recently did a major "caulk" refit (including moisture remediation, insulation, caulking air leaks -- lots of 'em, etc) on a typical Maine house with a couple living there for 35 years. In Maine most of us burn #2 fuel oil. They were burning 1900 gallons per year. By the time we fixed up their home they were down to less than 900 gallons per year. Yup ... less than half. At about $3 per gallon they are able to pay the monthly payment on the home-improvement loan and have money left over ($110/month) that is saved from oil not purchased. Think about it: They got a more comfortable home (less drafty), cut the use of foreign oil by a 1,000 gallons per year (every year) and have an increased cash flow of $110 per month. And they've reduced their carbon footprint. What's not to like about that??????
Cash for Caulk? GO FOR IT.
We need the Federal Govt involved because the public is too slow to move on this. With a cash incentive to wake people up I suspect many, many more people will get moving and stop heating (or cooling) the outdoors and feeding caviar to the kids of middle easterners.
I likewise do energy upgrades. I did an energy upgrade on one Maine home in Lewiston. In the spring of 2008, a couple contacted me via my website, http://www.greendesignbuild.net. They were desperate. They had used 2365 gallons of heating oil that winter. And the worst thing about it was they were freezing even though they were using that much oil. He would often go into work early just so he could get warm. Their's was a 60' x 30', 2 1/2 story apartment house, with no insulation. I dense packed cellulose insulation into the walls, blew 18" into the attic, insulated the attic hatch with rigid foam and gasket, and insulated the floor joists with R-25 fiberglass between the basement and first floor. They also installed a pellet stove in the 2nd and 3rd floor apartment where they lived. The spring of 2009, they again contacted me. This time, they had used only 600 gallons of heating oil and spent $1200 for pellets. To quote them: "The energy upgrades have really paid off." They also ended up with a much more comfortable home. They could now stay warm, no matter what the weather was like, which was really nice for the sake of their 2 little ones.
Yes, weatherization is definitely worth doing. And it is not hard to do while avoiding the problems mentioned by another commenter. One does have to know what they're doing, and how one measure affects another, but it is still definitely worth doing. I agree with the previous poster that http://www.buildingscience.com is a very reliable source of information regarding building science. Anyone like myself doing energy upgrades needs to know the why's, and the reasons for taking any action, and particularly how one measure affects another, or they will get into trouble. But if one is reasonably knowledgeable, careful, and reputable it is not hard to avoid problems.
GREAT post dirk!
So for someone who is looking at sealing up and adding insulation to their attic, do I go ahead and do it now for the 30% tax credit, or do I wait for the chance of getting 50% off the cost.
**Quick question: If I go for the “tax credit” and I’m getting a tax refund for 2009, does that mean the credit get’s added onto my refund?
OK… back to the original question… I live in Virginia. The winter here is not as bad as Maine, but it’s not Florida either. From mid December to mid March, the temps are between mid 30’s to lower 40’s. My house is heated by a heat pump. I currently have around R-10 to R- 13 (blown insulation between rafters is sagging) in my attic. I ran the numbers to bump up the insulation to R-49 (what is recommended for this region). The material cost to insulate the attic of my 2600 sqft home is between $1600 (blown fiberglass and batts) to $2100 (all blown fiberglass). Let’s look at the $1600 number. I could insulate now get the tax credit of $480 or wait and possibly get $800. What makes more since?!?! I guess this could be a “bird in the hand” discussion as well…
We recently did a big "Caulker" conversion (including moisture remediation, insulation, caulking air leaks - a lot of 'em, etc.) on a typical house in Maine with a couple who live for 35 years. In Maine most of us burn fuel oil no 2. They burned 1.900 gallons per year. At the time we have fixed their home, they have declined to less than 900 gallons per year. Yeah ... less than half. At about $ 3 per gallon, they are able to pay the monthly payment loans, home improvement and rest of the money ($ 110/month) that is saved from oil are not purchased. Think about it:
http://www.financeandmarkets.net