Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results Page: 45 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:
The ADRP used a reliable but conservative method to estimate the savings
which result from eliminating the pilot. Also, the pilot is a very simple gas-
consuming device, so there is little room for error. Consequently, we can add
the predicted pilot gas savings to the measured and predicted savings with
negligible loss of accuracy.
4.1.4 Reportable Average Savings
Table 4.4 presents the average energy savings which should be reported for
application of the ADRP to low-income homes in South Central Wisconsin.
Table 4.4 incorporates both the measured savings and the pilot gas savings which
were not measurable with the instrumentation used in this study. The average
audit group savings should be reported as 207 + 59 therms/year/house or as lying
within the 90% confidence interval of 105 to 309 therms/year/house. The pre-
dicted savings should be presented in the same manner.
4.1.5 Discussion of the Results
It is important to remember that these results are relevant to WAP eligible
homes in South Central Wisconsin. The characteristics of the housing stock have
a profound influence on energy savings. Another part of the state which had a
housing stock of poorer condition would be expected to have larger energy
savings. Likewise, other parts of the country with different climates will have
savings which are larger or smaller than those reported here. The method used
here is, however, applicable to other regions, climates, and house types.
These results should be compared with the results of other evaluations very
cautiously. The audit component of the ADRP was designed to test the concept of
such an audit, not to establish the ultimate capabilities of the ADRP approach.
The performance of the ADRP should improve as more retrofits are added (e.g.,
domestic hot water retrofits). Further, the ADRP was designed to save energy
cost effectively, not to save energy at any cost. Consequently, retrofits which
save much energy but which are relatively expensive were not done. Storm
windows are the best example of this.
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/m1/45/: accessed February 22, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.