Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results Page: 37 of 84
This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
4. ENERGY SAVINGS
The principal objective of this field test was to determine how much energy
could be saved by ADRP-selected retrofits and at what cost.* This section
presents the energy savings results; Sect. 5 concerns cost effectiveness.
The performance of individual retrofits is also of considerable interest.
Over half of the audited houses received one major retrofit and a number of
minor retrofits. The major retrofits (usually wall insulation or furnace repla-
cement) account for the vast majority of expected energy savings for individual
houses. Minor retrofits have small expected savings and small costs. Average
savings are discussed first, then savings associated with individual retrofits.
4.1 AVERAGE SAVINGS
The control group is discussed first because it is a background against
which to view the savings realized by the audit group. Energy savings of the
audit group are presented first as measured, then adjusted for the apparent
savings of the control group.
4.1.1 Control Group
The results of the statistical analysis of the control group are shown in
Table 4.1. In most ways, the pre- and post-retrofit characteristics of the
control group are the same. The average normalized annual space heating
consumption (NAHC) is about 915 therms/year. The standard error of the mean is
about 70 in both cases, so there is only about one chance in ten that the true
mean value of the NAHC is <790 or >1040 therms/year.
*Comparison of ADRP performance with Wisconsin's retrofit selection method's
performance was not a purpose of this study. A recent study had characterized
the performance of Wisconsin's weatherization program, therefore, a new study
was not deemed necessary.3
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
McCold, L.N. Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results, report, January 1, 1988; United States. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc740901/m1/37/: accessed September 24, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.