Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

lowtechmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 314 posts

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#91

Post by fennecfoxen »

wittyreference wrote: post #60
ashtonkem wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a problem with this in older Chicago apartments, usually 2 flats and quads. These buildings usually had radiator heat fired by a common boiler in the basement and city mandated turn-on dates and minimum daily/nightly temperatures. In theory each radiator has a regulator valve that allows you to moderate the amount of steam flowing through it. In reality these valves are all painted over/corroded/never worked i…

> It was not uncommon to see apartments with open windows in January to help regulate the heat produced by the radiator. Known as the Brooklyn Thermostat.

These days I have the same problem because the downtown Brooklyn PTACs all have the thermostat sensor right next to the window.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#92

Post by fulafel »

grecy wrote: post #79
kortilla wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment isn’t about the temps outside, it’s inside the house. The point was that in really cold places people have to have good heating and insulation so the house feels better than places with more mild winters.

The humidity is still a big factor inside, and it's why you feel colder than in places with low humidity.

Humid -40C air becomes very dry +20C air when it gets inside a heated house.

Saturated vapour density, the basis of relative humidity, about doubles every 10C.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#93

Post by cortesoft »

wittyreference wrote: post #59

As my Siberian parents taught me growing up: There's no such thing as bad weather; there's just being incorrectly dressed for it.

As someone from Southern California, we have a similar phrase: "There is no such thing as bad weather"

That's it. That's the whole phrase.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#94

Post by mikestew »

mtw wrote: post #62

all of this tech and no mention of warm hats. anyone living in cold countries know most of the heat is lost through the hat. and drafts! any draft will make you cold, even if you heat your home at a high 24C

anyone living in cold countries know most of the heat is lost through the hat.

Those folks think they know. What they don't know is the "X% of heat lost through your head" myth is based on a poorly-run U. S. Army study from the 50s. I'd provide a link, but it's trivial to search for one from a source of your choosing.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#95

Post by Ekaros »

hordeallergy wrote: post #23
xcambar wrote: post #3

After 5 winters of Berlin, I have decided to treat myself proper heat tech clothing. The difference in comfort is such that I barely feel any kind of fatigue or depression that the cold temperatures used to put on me. It has changed my perception of winter and I couldn't have spent my money any better. This is a costly investment though, be warned. For the curious, the keyword that started it all: "layered clothing"…

Totally disagree with the layers philosophy. Way too much fuss. In mid-winter London I wear a t-shirt and a jacket. Perfectly warm. Just get a good jacket. Easy on, off, no ceremony.

Living in Finland. For city life I have never needed extra clothing. Short sleeved shirt and proper jacket. Change the jacket depending if it's +15C or 0C or -15C...

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#96

Post by incanus77 »

I’m 43 and my dad is 75; my grandfather would be 111 if still alive (though he did live to 97). We all grew up in the northeastern US, which has cold, snowy winters.

My grandfather spoke of needing to go outside, retrieve a bucket of coal, and use it to start heating the house in the morning.

My dad speaks of having a pile of blankets on his bed and being able to see his breath in his room in the morning.

I grew up wearing footed pajamas to bed and my dad frequently wearing a ski-type hat around the house to regulate temperature.

Even today, I wear a hat at my desk in the winter, though I’ve typically lived in older, draftier houses. I wear a flannel shirt unless I’m very active in the house. I now live in a temperate climate, but still: old house. We turn the heat down significantly at night and use wool blankets.

I can certainly afford to set the heater higher at all times, but it just seems like a waste when I could so easily throw on a layer, versus spending more money, fossil fuels (even with carbon offsets), and wear and tear on the HVAC system by pushing a button instead.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#97

Post by danans »

Being able to be comfortable in our homes while being minimally clothed in the winter is one of those "luxuries" of the fossil fuel age that we take for granted.

The constellation of technologies needed to achieve this efficiently (with far less fossil fuels) and healthily (with healthy internal air quality) exists: heat pumps, heat-recovery-ventilators, airtight but vapor permeable house sealing materials - the standard equipment of passive houses. However, as the article mentions, today it is not available at low cost.

None of this technology is exotic (as in requiring exotic materials or manufacturing processes). It doesn't need to be expensive. Even the labor for installing it in isn't uncommon - air sealing is a DIY project if one is OK with a bit of hard work.

In the US at least, many industries providing these building measures have however reached a kind of equilibrium where they mostly sell it to people of higher means, which makes the global impact of home energy efficiency minimal. Other developed countries - mostly in N Europe - have started putting these into their building codes.

To have any impact, home energy efficiency needs to reach critical mass in the public consciousness, and for that, the public need to start looking at their homes the way that many have started to look at their low MPG ICE vehicles, and demanding higher efficiency both from the private home building market and from regulatory institutions.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#98

Post by oftenwrong »

chrisjarvis wrote: post #73

I have never lived in a cold climate, but this sounds sensible to me. Much of the FIRE, "Mr Moneymustache"-esque advice around saving money contains this suggestion. I like this line: "Indeed, these high-insulating garments demonstrate how valuable fossil fuels are as a material, and how foolish we are to simply burn them." Thanks for sharing.

Foolishness in the opposite direction applies in a warm climate. It is not unusual for cooling systems to be applied excessively, forcing occupants to compensate by wearing warmer clothing.

In some places, there are laws against excessive heating and cooling.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#99

Post by duncans »

fnbr wrote: post #54
peteretep wrote: post #11

From the comments: > Sorry, I am not buying it. Not because you haven't done good work on the article: you have. Also not because N.American homes are overheated, and the residents under-dressed: they are. I do not buy it because the Japanese live the way you suggest in the winter, and it is miserable I have a mother in Scotland and I have a mother-in-law in Canada. Worst it ever gets near my mother seems to be -5C,…

Yeah, I find that people spend the least amount of money on insulation/heat that they can. I’m from Edmonton, and the coldest I’ve ever been was the winter when I lived in London, UK, as their insulation sucks and their heating sucks. In Edmonton, that’s not possible, because you have a few days of -40C weather annually, so your pipes will freeze without proper insulation (and you’ll die). Now, it’s not comfortable l…

I guess most people's experience of living in London is because they lived in shitty rented accommodation. Most houses in London were built before the 1970s. Being rented would mean they they would be less likely to have double-glazing retro-fitted or insulation improved because the landlord wouldn't give a shit.
Post reply on HN