The Surprising Link Between In-Home Care And Energy Efficiency
Almost 70% of people would prefer not to go into a care home if they ever needed full-time support. Independence and quality of life are the most common reasons, but you may not realize that staying at home can also be better for the environment.
Nursing homes use a huge amount of energy, roughly 17.4 kilowatt-hours of electricity per square foot annually. A home with a live-in carer uses a fraction of that, and unlike nursing facilities, homes are also far easier to make greener with efficiency upgrades. It turns out in-home care really is one of the most practical environmental choices a family can make.
Two very different energy footprints
The average U.S. home uses around 76.8 million British thermal units (MMBtu) of energy every year. That figure has also actually fallen from 89 MMBtu in 2009, thanks to improvements in insulation, heating, and appliances. You may use a bit more energy at home when a carer moves in, as another person means more hot water, more cooking, and more laundry. The person who needs care may also have additional needs that require a little more energy.
But we’re still talking about a regular household that uses domestic appliances. In comparison, nursing homes are among the most energy-intensive types of buildings. Healthcare facilities consume approximately 9% of all commercial building energy in the U.S., but occupy just 4% of total commercial floorspace.
Unlike a home, which naturally uses less energy overnight even when someone needs care, these facilities consume energy around the clock. Medical equipment, HVAC, commercial laundry, kitchen equipment, and corridor lighting never stop.
Better for people, better for the planet
15 million Americans already receive care in their own homes, mainly because they want to stay as independent as possible for as long as possible. Home-based care models also improve patient outcomes compared to institutionalized settings.
A study by the National Institute for Health Research found that people cared for at home were less likely to end up in long-term residential care compared to those treated in hospital (5.7% vs 8.7%). Many families start with domiciliary care, where a carer visits at planned times and then move on to live-in care as needs increase.
Either way, both models keep people out of nursing facilities, and every person who stays at home means one less bed needed in a huge energy-hungry building. Multiply that across thousands, maybe even millions of people, and the environmental impact will start to add up.
Why homes are easier to decarbonize
It’s easier than ever for homes to become more energy-efficient, including homes where someone is receiving live-in care. For example, about 7% of U.S. homes now have solar panels, and that will rise to 15% by 2030. The five million solar installations already up and running across the country have offset emissions equal to 22 billion gallons of gas.
It’s mainly federal incentives that have made these kinds of upgrades even more within reach for the average person. Federal tax credits worth up to $3,200 per year under Section 25C cover costs of upgrades like heat pumps and insulation. Many states also have their own rebate programs. These incentives make it easier for the average home to become energy efficient, and a home with a live-in carer qualifies for every one of them.
It’s not so easy for nursing facilities to go green. These buildings are often older and much larger than the average home. So even if the owner wanted to install a heat pump or solar panels, that’s a major financial investment, and the project needs to be done across tens of thousands of square feet.
The Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency tax deduction (Section 179D) does let building owners claim deductions for energy-efficient improvements, but it’s nowhere near as simple to claim as the credits available to homeowners. Going green is costly and complicated for most nursing facilities.
Live-in care is a greener alternative to nursing facilities. It keeps people in homes that are easier to decarbonize and out of some of the country’s most energy-intensive buildings.
Rapid urbanization has placed growing pressure on water and sewage infrastructure in many cities. As populations expand, aging systems often struggle to meet demand in overcrowded communities and informal settlements with limited access to sanitation.
Green building and sustainable urban planning improve the resilience of water and sewage systems by reducing pressure on centralized infrastructure.