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

171–180 of 314 posts

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

#171

Post by sleepydog »

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 lived in Kyoto for a year. To me it seemed that the houses there prioritized being comfortable during the oppressive summer heat they have there -- lots of windows, very drafty, shaded outdoor porches, etc. I wouldn't call the winters miserable -- I had a space heater, a warm robe and thick blankets. Kyoto does have fairly mild winters, though.

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

#172

Post by andys627 »

litany wrote: post #158
danans wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An interesting aspect of a "Green New Deal" would be to subsidize electrifying the HVAC & insulating our older buildings. This is the great part of the Green New Deal that was shouted down when much of the political establishment mocked it - it would put scores of people to work in jobs in the trades.

Unfortunately insulating a building after the fact is extremely difficult, expensive, and depending on climate can approach the level of near tear down. I think it many cases it may ultimately be more environmentally friendly and cost effective to add things like solar and just brute force the heating/cooling. The reason for this is that buildings not designed for insulation and air sealing can suffer from dramatical…

> Basically remove all cladding and upgrade it.

This is not extremely difficult nor expensive on every building. It's certainly more of a job than cutting holes in the wall on the inside and blowing in insulation. By insulating from the exterior you can address vapor issues. There are benefits: you can avoid having to patch holes (2 per stud bay... ie a lot) and repaint the inside. There's opportunity to upgrade electrical or fix any issues. Siding also has a limited lifetime. Wood siding can be reused.

With some/many buildings it is certainly too hard and expensive, but for many this is not. We shouldn't write off the whole idea because it doesn't apply to all buildings.

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

#173

Post by widforss »

grecy wrote: post #123
fulafel wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thing is, it's almost always close to 100 % humidity when it's cold, since the air can hold so little vapor.

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

#174

Post by waivej »

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.

Coldest winter of my life was near London. Heater was wired to cheap middle of the night electricity so you had to plan a day ahead to have hot water or heat. Friends had to go to hardware store to get tokens to feed their rental heaters. Ran out at night? Put on a extra blanket and get there early the next day.

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

#175

Post by wffurr »

quickthrowman wrote: post #168
wolverine876 wrote: post #102

I expect people on HN to have already figured out the obvious: It takes much less energy to heat the area under your clothes, using existing heat, than to heat a room or building with artificially generated heat. Your body is 37 deg C. Wearing low-insulation clothing and letting that heat float away, and then heating the entire room or building to warm you up again, is absurd if you understand basic physics and think…

> Heating a building when you aren't there is silly. [0] If I don’t heat my home when I’m not there in the winter, the water supply lines will freeze and burst causing thousands or tens of thousands in damage. I think I’ll heat my home when I’m not there, thanks.

I'm pretty sure the OC means "don't heat your home to a comfortable habitation level when you aren't there." Obviously turning the heat off entirely with a risk of pipes breaking is a bad idea. However, setting your thermostat to 50ºF is sufficient for that.

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

#176

Post by wffurr »

com2kid wrote: post #117
wolverine876 wrote: post #102

I expect people on HN to have already figured out the obvious: It takes much less energy to heat the area under your clothes, using existing heat, than to heat a room or building with artificially generated heat. Your body is 37 deg C. Wearing low-insulation clothing and letting that heat float away, and then heating the entire room or building to warm you up again, is absurd if you understand basic physics and think…

None of this keeps my hands warm. Or makes me feel comfortable. After growing up in a house with no insulation and being miserable all winter long, now for an extra ~$50 a month during the winter I get to keep my house at a nice toasty 74-76 degrees F and I'm comfortable year round.

Keeping your core warmer, especially with the thermal underwear discussed at length in the article, will also keep your hands warmer.

There's an entire section of the article titled "Hands and feet". You could read it instead of dismissing the whole idea out of hand.

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

#177

Post by jamesmehaffey »

When I was in the UK I lived in a terraced house from the 1880’s with thick exterior walls. It wasn’t all that bad, but I wouldn’t say that it was very well insulated either. It was OK if you just wanted to heat one room, though I did have a decent collection of fleece sweaters and whatever. Actually, The warm summers were rough because there was no cooling, and most of my clothes were designed for cold, damp weather.

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

#178

Post by twic »

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.

A friend said the same about South Africa. It's so rarely cold, that when it is cold, it's colder than London.

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

#179

Post by tener »

I realise I'm likely an outlier here, but I absolutely hate every single clothing piece shown in the article. This is because I dislike tight clothes in general and long sleeves in particular. It is also unclear how much actual savings can be achieved by lowering the temperature. I would love to see the curves ($ savings for lowering average temp by 1 degree) for modern buildings (good insulation) for different climate types.

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

#180

Post by wolverine876 »

Kluny wrote: post #147
wolverine876 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some reasons why not: > you may live with other people who have different basal temperatures from yours, aren't comfortable at 16 degrees or whatever you settle on, and didn't consent to participating in your wacky experiment; > other people may come over to visit your house without realizing in advance that they need to wear long underwear; C'mon. We can't figure out the solutions to these problems, in a moment? :…

No thank you. I grew up in a house with a dad who fully bought into the "wear a sweater" philosophy. He'd make us go around all winter wearing two sweaters, a hat, and shoes indoors, and I still froze. My nose ran constantly and my hands got so cold I couldn't use my computer. Now I'm an adult and I've learned that the extra cost to heat my condo to 23 degrees all winter is basically the same as my Netflix subscripti…

OK, you win, you can't figure it out. :)
Post reply on HN