This is a project I completed in Syracuse, NY to attempt zero net energy consumption at this residence while minimizing costs.

1. Net Zero Energy Project 1054 Lancaster Ave, Syracuse, NY
Ronald Heacock
12/9/2016
Dr. Crovella

2. Table of Contents
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................3
Methods.........................................................................................................................................4
Data................................................................................................................................................8
Energy Usage After Upgrades .............................................................................................. 11
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix A-REScheck Original Home Envelope and Upgraded Home.................... 17
Appendix B- Light Bulb Calculator .................................................................................... 18
Appendix C- New Hot Water Heater Specifications ....................................................... 19

3. Introduction
The purpose of this project is to integrate all the topics reviewed in class during
the semester to get a home to reach net zero energy. The project will require a selection
of an existing building and designing a set of modifications that will allow it to be net
zero. According to the 2009 Massachusetts Zero Net Energy Buildings Task Force “A
zero net energy building is one that is optimally efficient and, over the course of a year,
generates energy onsite, using clean renewable resources, in a quantity equal to or greater
than the total amount of energy consumed onsite.” This assignment required the total
energy use of a building over a one-year period. Energy usage was divided into sectors of
electric use (kWh), space heating (therms) and domestic hot water (DHW). Multiple
energy conservation measures (ECM) were evaluated and used to determine energy
reduction. The payback period for each ECM evaluated was calculated. Renewable
energy sources were then analyzed to find the best energy source for onsite
implementation. The purpose of the renewable energy source is to meet the energy
demand after the ECM reductions. This analysis gives a resident insight on energy usage
and gives better understanding of the cost and payback period associated with upgrading
a home to make it save energy.
The home chosen for this report is located at 1054 Lancaster Ave, Syracuse, New
York, 13210. It is a two-story home that was built in 1930. The square footage of the
home is 1524. The walls of the house are wood frame, 16” on stud spacing with 3 ½”
blown cellulose insulation. The attic has 6 ½” blown cellulose insulation. There are 18
30” x 62” single pane, wooden frame single hung windows distributed throughout the
house. The basement is unfinished, solid concrete with virtually no insulation. There are

4. 38 incandescent light bulbs distributed throughout the house. The house is considered
very leaky. There are a total of four people living in the house and all are college
students.
Methods
The first step to strive towards “net zero” modifications will be to identify current
energy usage of the home. All energy information needed can accessed by inputting all of
the necessary utility information at the website https://www.nationalgridus.com/Default.
This website provides monthly energy bills for the home and it will outline the overall
gas (therms) and electricity (kWh) usage each month. In order to determine the total
energy cost for electrical devices, space heating and domestic how water (DHW), a full
years worth of energy bills was downloaded from the National Grid account. The bills
appeared on a Microsoft Excel sheet that had the monthly energy usage and the monthly
cost. The hot water heater in the home is electric, so 15% of the total electric energy
usage was used to determine the Domestic Hot Water (DHW). The figure 15% came
from the water heating section of Residential Energy and it states “Water heating
consumes approximately 15% of the electricity and 25% of the natural gas used in
residences.”(Krigger, 2009) The next step into comparing the usage types is by finding a
common unit for the three usage types. British Thermal units (BTU) are the best unit for
comparison between electric, space heat and DHW (Refer to Chart 1). The conversions
were done by taking the electric and DHW values and using the conversion factor
1kWh=3412 BTU. For space heat, the conversion factor used is 1 Therm=100,000 BTU.
Once all of these were calculated, the common units were placed on a pie chart for
comparison. Heating, DHW and electricity units can all be found on Table 1 of the data

5. section. Another pie cart was created to show the cost currently associated for energy use
in the house. The cost for 1 Therm was calculated to be $1.05 and the cost for 1 kWh of
electricity was determined to be $.12 (Refer to Chart 2).
The next step of the assignment was to determine the energy conservation
methods (ECM) needed to improve the home. To determine possible energy reduction,
characteristics of the house were manually inputted in the website
https://energycode.pnl.gov/REScheckWeb/launch.html?sessionTimeout=true. Some of
the characteristics of the home inputted consisted of the total sq ft of the walls and
ceiling, the types of insulation throughout the house and the types of windows in the
house. Once all of the data was input, “check compliance” was clicked and it provides a
UA value and provides a percentage that represents if the home passed or failed. The first
time the data was entered into REScheck, the home failed the test with a -51.6% (Refer to
Appendix A). To have the home pass the test, new windows were installed and insulation
was added to the attic, walls and basement. To find the amount of energy being saved by
upgrading the insulation, the heat loss formula . HDD stands for heating
degree-days is the number of degrees that a day’s average temperature is below 65 The
R-value measures an objects resistance to heat and manufacturers will place the R-value
on all insulation. The heat loss value of an object needs to be calculated first and then the
upgraded insulation heat loss value needs to be calculated. Once both values are found,
subtract the heating values from each other and the final value is the amount of heat that
is saved annually (Refer to Heat Loss ECM Calculations in the data section) . This value
can then be multiplied by the cost of fuel, 1.05/therm, to find the total amount of money
that will be saved annually from the insulation upgrades. To get the price associated with

6. installing the insulation, for the desired insulation are found in the RSMeans
Building Construction Cost Data book. The costs of the upgrades were calculated by
multiplying by the total area that the insulation covers (Refer to the cost of
ECM section in the data section). To get the payback period, the annual savings divides
the total costs for the upgrades. (All payback period calculations can be found in the data
section). R-values associated with installing a specific insulation are also found in the
RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data book. For the attic, 8 ” of blown cellulose
(R30) was added to increase the R-value from 22 to 52. For the walls, 6 ½” blown
cellulose (R28) was added to increase the R-value from 13 to 26. All single pane, wooden
from windows in the house were replaced with double pane, low-e coating windows with
vinyl frames. This decreased the U-value from .48 to .29. The U-value measures the
effectiveness of a material as an insulator by measuring the rate of heat transfer. The
lower U-values are better. Finally, the depth of insulation in the attic was extended from
the 1 ft. to 8.5 ft. by using 2” polystyrene foam board insulation. After all of the ECMs
were completed, the new UA value passed at 17.8% (Refer to Appendix A). All space
heat insulation payback periods can be found on Table 2 in the summary of results
section.
ECMs were also taken in place to reduce electricity demand. The website
https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/bulb.html
was used to determine savings and payoff of replacing the light bulbs in the house by
inputting all of the relevant and necessary information into the calculator (Refer to
Appendix B for energy star calculator). All 38, 60 watt incandescent light bulbs in the
home were replaced with energy star rated 20 watt equivalent compact fluorescent bulbs.

7. Each energy star compact fluorescent light bulb costs $5 and the total amount to replace
all the light bulbs in the house is $190. It was determined that 2774 kWh would be saved
each year when the price of electricity was at $.12/kWh. The estimated yearly savings is
$327.10 and that creates a payback period of 7 months. The next ECM for electrical use
taken was preplacing the hot water heater. The current hot water heater is over 10 years
old and requires a lot of electricity. A new energy star certified electric whirlpool water
heater, with a hybrid heat pump was installed (Refer to Appendix C). The water heater
was originally $1,119.46, but after incentives the price came down to $419.46. The hot
water heater uses exactly one third of the annual energy that the current hot water heater
uses. It was determined that it would save 840.48 kWh each year, resulting in an annual
savings of $100.86 The payback period for the system was determined to be about 4
years. The next ECM for electricity taken was to remove the two mini-fridges that are
operating in the house. Both mini-fridges are older Haier models and use 250kWh of
electricity each year. There are no costs needed to remove them and no payback period.
The annual savings of 500kWh is $60. All electric equipment upgrade payback periods
can be found on Table 2 in the summary of results section.
The last step of the assignment was to find a set of renewable energy sources that
can be implemented onsite and will meet the energy demand after ECM reduction. To
meet the zero net energy building modification, a solar photovoltaic (PV) system was
installed on the roof. Using https://nyserda.wattplan.com/pv/, a personalized solar
estimate was created. The website determined that a 6kW-DC system could be installed
on the roof and have an annual production of 6,466kWh. The roof plane direction is south
and has minimum shading of about 10%. 24 panels can be placed on the roof, which

8. covers a total area of 462sq ft. The PV system will cover 77% of the annual electricity
demand. The other 23%, 1897kWh, will be covered the ECMs made. The payback period
for the PV system can be found on Table 3 in the summary of results section. The new
energy usage after upgrades for all sectors is found in the Data section.
Data
Energy
type
Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Heating Therms 127 169 113 85 34 0 0 0 0 7 38 70 643
Electricity kWh 460 1102 949 939 649 378 138 63 996 949 1048 692 8,363
DHW kWh 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 1254.45
Table 1- Energy usage broken down into month and sector
Given Conversion Factors
1 therm = 100,000 BTU 1 kWh=3412 BTU U= 1/R R=1/U
1 kWh=$.12 1 Therm=$1.05
Initial Home Energy Conversions
Domestic Hot Water
New Electricity Energy Usage
643 therms = 64,300,000 BTU
7,720 kWh = 26,340,640 BTU
1,254.45 kWh = 4,280,183.4 BTU
Electric Base Load

9. /1 year = 2547.6 kWh/yr
2,547.6 kWh/yr 3412 BTU = 8,692,411.2 BTU/yr
Cost of ECM Insulation Cost of upgrade =
Wall Insulation Upgrade (Add 6 ½” Blown Cellulose R23)
6 ½” Thick Blown Cellulose Insulation = $1.12/
Cost = $1.12/
Cost = $1473.92
Ceiling Insulation Upgrade (Add 8 11/16” Blown Cellulose R30)
8 11/16” Thick Blown Cellulose Insulation = $1.38/
Cost = $1.38/
Cost = $609.96
Basement Insulation Upgrade (Add 2” Polystyrene Foam Board R8)
2” Polystyrene Foam Board Insulation = $1.37/
Cost = $1.37/
Cost = $746.65
Window Upgrades (Add 30” x 62” double pane, low-e coating windows U.29)
Double pane, low-e coating windows = $180/window
Cost = $1.80/
Cost = $1944
Heat Loss ECM Calculations
Wall Insulation Original Upgrade (Add 6 ½” Blown Cellulose R23)
Heat Loss (Original) =

10. Heat Loss (Upgraded) =
Ceiling (Attic) Insulation Original Upgrade (Add 8 11/16” Blown Cellulose R30)
Heat Loss (Original) =
Heat Loss (Upgraded) =
Basement Wall Insulation Upgrade (Add 2” Polystyrene Foam Board Insulation R8)
Heat Loss (Original) =
Heat Loss (Upgrade) =
Windows in the House (Add 30” x 62” double pane, low-e coating windows)
Heat Loss (Original) =
Heat Loss (Upgrade) =

11. New Hot Water Heater (1/3 Energy Needed)
Current DHW use = 150.3 Therms
150.3 Therms .33 = 49.6 Therms
150.3 Therms 49.6 Therms = 100.7 Therms (Saved)
100.7 $105.74
Energy Usage After Upgrades
100,644,608 BTU
= 16,582,217.64 BTU
22,061,992 BTU 16,582,217.64 BTU
= 5,479,774.36 BTU

12. Summary of Results
Chart 1- Original home total annual energy use
Chart 2- Original dollars spent on energy usage for utilities
26,340,640
64,300,000
4,280,183.40 0
Annual Energy Use by Sector (BTU)
Electricity
Space Heat
DHW
926.4675.15
150.53
0
Annual Cost of Utilities ($)
Electric
Space Heat
DHW

13. Proposed ECM Location Cost ($) Annual Energy Saved Annual Energy
Amount Saved
($)
Payback
(Years)
8 11/16” (R30)
Blown Cellulose
Insulation
Ceiling $609.96 1,783,000 BTU
or
(17.83 Therm)
$18.72 32.58
6 ½” (R23) Blown
Cellulose Insulation
1st
and 2nd
story walls
$1473.92 10,559,000 BTU
or
(105.59 Therm)
$110.87 13.3
2” (R8) Polystyrene
Foam Board
Insulation
Basement
walls
$452.35 56,345,608 BTU
or
(563.46 Therm)
$591.63 1.33
Vinyl Double Pain
low-e windows
(U.29)
18
Throughout
the House
$1944 31,976,000 BTU
or
(319.76 Therm)
$335.75 5.8
Compact
Fluorescent Light
bulbs
38
Throughout
the House
$190 9,464,888 BTU
or
(2774 kWh)
$327.10 .7
New Hot Water
Heater
Basement $419.46 2,867,717.76 BTU
or
(840.48 kWh)
$100.86 3.96
Remove 2 mini-
fridges
Student
Rooms
$0 1,706,000 BTU
or
(500 kWh)
$60 0
Total $5089.69 114,702,213.8 BTU $1544.93 3.29
Table 2- Proposed Energy Conversation Measure (ECM) costs
Proposed Sustainable
Energy Source
Location Cost ($) Annual Energy
Savings (BTU)
Annual Energy Amount
Saved
Payback
(Years)
6 kW-DC Solar PV
System
Roof
(24 panels)
$28,849 22,061,992
or
(6,466 kWh)
$775.92 22
Table 3- Proposed Sustainable Energy Source costs
Total Cost ($) Annual Energy
Savings (BTU)
Annual Energy Amount Saved Payback Period of
all upgrades
(Years)
ECM Upgrades $5,089.69 114,702,213.8 $1,544.93 Total Cost/Annual
Savings
14.62 Years
PV system $28,849 22,061,213.8 $775.92
Total $33,938.69 136,763,427.6 $2320.85
Table 4- Total home upgrade costs and payback period of project

14. The ECMs taken were found to save 114,702,213.8 BTU annually. The total cost
for installing all of the ECMs was found to be $5089.69 and the payback period for all
the ECM’s was found to be 3.29 years. A 6 kW-DC solar system was the only sustainable
energy system used to reach net zero because of the limited space of the property. The
annual estimated energy output for a 6 kW system was determined to be 6,466 kWh. The
payback period for the system was determined to be 22 years.
The total cost of the ECMs and the PV system were added up for a total home
upgrade cost of $33,938.69. The total annual energy savings was found to be
136,763,427.6 BTU, which saves $2,320.85 annually. The payback period for the entire
upgraded was calculated to be 14.62 years.
Conclusion
Based on the data section and summary of results section, it can be seen that the
ECM and sustainable energy system installed made the house net zero. The house
without the upgrades used 64,300,000 BTU for space heat annually. After all of the
insulation was added to the walls, basement, ceiling and new windows were put in, the
house was estimated to save 100,644,608 from heat loss. The home had a positive net
BTU savings of 36,364,608 BTU. The original REScheck calculation in Appendix A,
found that the home failed code by 51.6%. After all of the insulation upgrades, the home
was able to pass the REScheck building code with a 13.2%. The ECM to save electrical
use and DHW use came out to 14,038,605.75 BTU annually. The annual electric and
DHW usage was calculated to be 30,620,823.4 BTU. After the ECM upgrades,
16,582,217.64 BTU remained. To cover the remaining BTU, the PV system was installed

15. on the roof. The PV system was estimated to produce 22,061,992 BTU annually. The PV
system would result in a surplus of 5,479,774.36 BTU annually, making the home net
zero.
The price of all the ECM upgrades and the addition of the PV system all have
varying payback periods. The overall payback period is low at 14.26 years, but it could
have been skewed by factors like 0 years payback for disposing of the 2 mini-fridges. I
am a senior in college that is renting this house, so I could not do any of these
modifications. The landlord most likely would not do any of these modifications because
the utilities are not included in the rent, so the payback period for the landlord would
almost be non-existent. If I were to own a home like this and had a steady job, I would
make the investments. The home would be much more comfortable to live in and the
value of the house would most likely rise. A lot of people would not invest in the
upgrades though because it is hard to predict how long a person will stay in one location
for an extended period of time.
All of the roof space was utilized to cover the electrical costs of the home. The
front lawn is too small to place a system in and the backyard would be completely shaded
by trees and the neighbor’s house. The PV system was the only system utilized because
of the limited space. There was no room to place a solar thermal unit and a geothermal
system would be impractical for the small lot. Like the systems evaluated in the other
studies, the data gathered for the PV system is an estimate. The performance of the
system is extremely dependent on unpredictable weather conditions. The weather
conditions can drastically increase or decrease the production of the PV system and the
production values would impact the payback period of the systems and the net zero status

16. could vary. The payback period could also change because not all costs associated with
installing the windows were calculated. Each individual price of the windows used was
$108, but that did not include hiring somebody to install the windows. This would
increase the overall costs and therefore increase the overall payback period.
In the first report, the personal energy use, the same home was evaluated and it
was discovered that the home had a EUI of 60,903.08 BTU/sq ft/yr and an HHI of 6.20
BTU/sq ft/HDD. For EUI, the home fell in the category of major problems with air
leakage, insulation or space0condition efficiency. For HHI, the home fell in the better-
than-average home with good insulation. The EUI was definitely more accurate than the
HHI after reviewing the major insulation problems with the house. After the upgrades for
the home, the HHI fell in the most efficient category by being less than 2 BTU/sq
ft./HDD and also fell in the most efficient category for the EUI by being less than 25,000
BTU/sq ft/yr. Both categories determined that the home was now airtight; super insulated
and has high heating efficiency.

17. Appendix A-REScheck Original Home Envelope and Upgraded Home

18. Appendix B- Light Bulb Calculator

19. Appendix C- New Hot Water Heater Specifications