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

121–130 of 314 posts

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

#121

Post by Symbiote »

duncans wrote: post #99
fnbr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's that most rented accommodation in areas desirable for people like software developers or foreigners new to the city is as you describe.

Further out, or in less trendy areas, there may well be a different mix of old/new council/private-built buildings. I lived in a wonderful 1930s apartment block (good double glazing, shared building heating system etc) and a decent 1970s council-built house.

I also lived in a crappy 1960s council flat (single glazed aluminium framed windows) and an 1900-ish house-illegally-turned-into-flats (single glazed, wooden sash windows).

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

#122

Post by denimnerd42 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #32
tikej wrote: post #8

This is all cool ideas but sadly keeping home cool is not that easy due to problems with humidity and consequently mold. Old houses were much less airtight than modern ones. So sadly I think it’s a trade off: either modern energy efficient house with mechanical ventilation or older, rather windy and cold house. Modernising older Homes to be energy effective appears to be a lost cause. If you make them airtight there…

Old houses tend to pull moisture into and out of the insulation between summer and winter, which can become a problem above and beyond the high heat bills that they create. Matt Risinger had a great video where they were rebuilding a 1930s house and you could see where all the moisture had built up and wept back out of the insulation, staining the wood behind the plaster. My understanding is the problem with making o…

Love to see a Matt Risinger comment here!

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

#123

Post by grecy »

fulafel wrote: post #92
grecy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you ever experienced Humid -40C air? It doesn't happen.

I've had very humid -25C air in Alaska, and wearing literally everything I own (which is perfect at -48C), I was freezing cold for the entire day, even when running, snowboarding, jumping up and down and beating my chest.

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

#124

Post by jnwatson »

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.

I thought so too, until I spent 2019 Thanksgiving in Banff, Alberta.

-20°F (-30°C) is a real change in perspective of what cold is. You absolutely need layering, as the equipment you need to be comfortable outside is way more than a jacket.

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

#125

Post by mnw21cam »

dancek wrote: post #111
praptak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be costly but it doesn't have to. You pay extra for comfort, looks, low weight and obviously the branding. Warmth itself is cheap if you accept clothes that are a bit heavier and maybe not ultra-breathable. Adding a pair of cotton long johns and a cotton long sleeve turtleneck underneath whatever you are wearing can easily keep you warm, it's just not super comfortable and not super fashionable.

Cotton underwear doesn't work that well if your activity varies. Wear enough cotton to be warm while sitting for hours, and you're certain to be sweaty after five minutes of physical activity. And moist cotton underwear makes you cold. I tend to wear wool long johns from December to March. Decades of experience with cotton, too. Wool is much, much better.

Especially merino wool. That stuff is fantastic.

It's a well known thing among mountain walkers/climbers. Cotton kills.

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

#126

Post by bromley »

Interesting article. I work in the field of heating/cooling energy consumption and I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I had never heard of the clo before.

> Precisely how much energy can be saved by lowering the thermostat depends on the outdoor temperature. In temperate climates, lowering the thermostat just 1° C (or about 2°F) yields an energy savings of about 9 to 10 percent

It does depend on the local climate. For anyone interested in calculating the savings you have made if you have already done something to reduce your heating/cooling energy usage, like turning down the thermostat or installing new windows or insulation, a little while ago I wrote an explanation of the process that is usually used in the industry:

https://www.degreedays.net/calculate-energy-savings

And for anyone just thinking about stocking up on high-clo clothing rather than having actually done it, you could estimate how much you could save as follows:

a) get say 12, 24, or 36 months of energy-usage data from your smart meter or utility bills (making sure not to include any figures that were estimates made by the utility).

b) get a baseline regression formula as described in the link above, which will give you an estimate of your current heating base temperature (which should be lower than your thermostat temperature).

c) work out your hypothetical new heating base temperature, by reducing the current heating base temperature by the number of degrees that you intend to lower the thermostat by.

d) get, say, 5-year average heating degree days in both the current base temperature and your hypothetical-lower base temperature.

e) plug them both into your baseline regression formula (separately) to get i) your average annual energy consumption now and ii) your predicted average annual energy consumption if you lowered the temperature.

f) compare those two figures to get an estimate of how much energy you'd save in a typical year.

I will admit that estimating 9-10% savings per Celsius is a lot more straightforward :D

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

#127

Post by Symbiote »

lostlogin wrote: post #101
fnbr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 find it cooler indoors in New Zealand during the winter than I did in the UK for this reason. NZ pretends it’s always warm and has little home insulation, or none in my house, except the ceiling which I did. New Zealand has very poor housing.

I found a week-long business trip to South Island in the winter terribly cold.

Going from 30°C weather to 12°C isn't a great start, but then the otherwise-decent hotel had single glazed windows, which the maid would open every morning. The only heater in the room was an electric resistance one attached to the wall.

In offices, most of the foreigners on the trip were wearing coats and other extra layers.

Young people walking around seemed to be happy in shorts and t-shirt. My conclusion was that New Zealanders are tough, outdoors people, and haven't upgraded their building insulation regulations from whatever they inherited from Britain.

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

#128

Post by odiroot »

atemerev wrote: post #55
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,…

I am from Siberia. I no longer live there, but I cannot tolerate the temperature at home lower than 23 degrees C. For the same exact reason.

I was born and raised in Poland. Granted, Polish winters are not as bad as Siberian (-32°C is the lowest I experienced).

My friends and colleagues from the south (or even US) always ask me, why I dislike winter -- "I should already be used to it".

I doubt you can ever get used to it, but we've insulated our houses well and have good heating system (especially in dense cities). And you'd usually try to escape the cold as often as possible, mostly spending winter inside.

On the other hand, an additional negative of winters (or late autumn) is the heating makes the indoor air "thick" and unpleasant. You need to ventilate the room every hour or so. It's really tedious. During summer, you'd just leave your windows open whole day and have a nice air exchange.

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

#130

Post by odiroot »

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"…

Winters in Berlin are particularly annoying because they're very humid. The cold seems to be penetrating deep into your bones.
Post reply on HN