Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #67

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…

The difference there is the humidity making you feel cold. I live in the Yukon where -40C is the standard daytime temp for months, and I'm perfectly happy/used to it. I felt cold to my bones in the UK.

How do you folks in the Yukon manage air humidity inside your houses during the winter?

I would think that by default, the indoor heated air would be so dry that it would cause havoc on your sinuses.

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

#242

Post by spand » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

distances wrote: post #233

Kluny wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, there's this concept of thermal mass - once you heat up you walls, floors, furniture, etc, they retain it. If you keep on letting your house cool down and then heating it up again, you basically lose that stored heat and need to pay for it again. It's cheaper to just maintain the same temperature all the time. And, as a PNW resident I really need to emphasize this: MOLD. It's a thing.

This seems to be a common misconception, but not true. Letting the apartment cool down will always use less energy than keeping temperature up. I would think this is just very obvious. Keeping the temperature up will lead to more heat loss. I can try to find some supporting material if you wish though as I've heard this same claim before.

Not sure of the total outcome but the heat source might not be as efficient at pumping out heat for it to get warm quickly enough than it would at a constant rate. I cannot find a source now but I believe this is even the case for new refrigerators that they run in a much more continuous mode than the jagged cool/off mode.

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

#243

Post by oblio » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #165

lm28469 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course if you _have to_ heat then do it, as I said when I was going through -20c degrees winter you can't really escape it. I'd argue most people can live perfectly fine without heating. (not living up north / at high altitude / in cold micro climate). People don't heat their flats/offices to 25c in Berlin or London to avoid frozen pipes. Unless you live in a 1800s house there is no way your pipe would freeze here

I just looked up the yearly average high / lows for Berlin and London. I never realized they were both so temperate. They are both 10 degrees of latitude further North than me here in Iowa, yet they both look to rarely dip much below freezing. I knew London's temperature was buffered by being so close to the ocean, but I always thought Berlin was far enough inland to not have that benefit. And then on top of that the…

It's due to the Gulf Stream, not the jetstream :-) as the sibling comment says. Basically the Gulf Stream sucks all the heat from the West side of the Atlantic and brings it to Europe.

Bucharest, Romania is at the same latitude as Montreal, Canada but I'm quite sure it doesn't get as much snow as Montreal :-)

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

#244

Post by oftenwrong » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

hyko wrote: post #232

I can tolerate pretty cold environments, but why should I have to? The outdoors are the reason we invented the indoors. “The potential energy savings are huge; the costs are almost nil.” This is a complete fantasy. What’s actually happening here is, faced with a hard problem (heating indoor spaces in a sustainable way), they have decided to solve a much harder one (changing the behaviour and physiology of everyone on…

It is just the opposite of fantasy: Wearing warm clothing indoors is a technology that exists now and is a completely viable way to reduce energy needs. Clothing is more affordable now than at any other point in history. Heating all buildings to a comfortable temperature at all times in a sustainable way is, as you said, a hard problem - one for which there is currently no solution. Switching the world over to sustainable energy sources for heating and cooling is not simpler than convincing people to adjust their thermostats and wardrobe.

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

#245

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

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…

Fortunately, at least in the U.S., our building codes for new and renovated buildings help ensure that, over time, most of our buildings will be well-insulated.

But, I don't know how well current codes ensure that all aspects of IAQ are reasonably safe, particularly in residences. I'd need to check, but not sure they seriously address prolonged, elevated exposure to VOCs. I fear that decades from now, we'll learn we harmed a lot of people via prolonged exposure.

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

#246

Post by mixmastamyk » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

boznz wrote: post #182

Symbiote wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We're not that tough. Any house built in the past 15 years must meet the newer regulations of double-glazing and roof,wall,floor insulation. There are plenty of older properties without any of these standards and these are terrible and are also probably the most likely to be Holiday homes or AirBnBs, but any houses that are tenanted now need to be upgraded to meet minimum standards. Most private houses also have effi…

Apparently Al frames have been improved over the years as well.

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

#247

Post by m463 » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

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,…

> Of course, clothes can also be washed in a pedal-powered washing machine, and the hot water could come from a solar boiler, eliminating fossil energy use altogether (and keeping you more than warm enough while doing the laundry).

I think that sentence alone ...

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

#248

Post by meowster » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #162

Kluny wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I bought an older house built in the era of coal heating. Popped open an exterior wall to fix some water damage and discover it was completely un-insulated. Better than finding the walls stuffed full of asbestos, I guess, but man, how was I the first person in a century to think of insulating?

You didn't think of it, just like the previous residents didn't think of it. You discovered it, when maybe the previous residents didn't. Before you discovered it, you were assuming it was insulated right? Perhaps the previous people also assumed that.

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

#249

Post by hyko » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

PurpleFoxy wrote: post #240

hyko wrote: post #232

I can tolerate pretty cold environments, but why should I have to? The outdoors are the reason we invented the indoors. “The potential energy savings are huge; the costs are almost nil.” This is a complete fantasy. What’s actually happening here is, faced with a hard problem (heating indoor spaces in a sustainable way), they have decided to solve a much harder one (changing the behaviour and physiology of everyone on…

This kind of comment gets posted on everything from low tech magazine. I think the authors intention is not to give practical ideas that could be widely deployed to the world but instead to give ideas to people who find enjoyment out of maximising efficiency as a hobby. The author is a person who turns most of the lights off so they can run their office on a solar panel hanging out their apartment window.

Well, live and let live :)

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

#250

Post by mixmastamyk » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

I can attest. I received some super warm, thick socks as a gift this winter and am feeling more comfortable and using the heater significantly less at home this season as a result. It's interesting that I'm otherwise dressing largely the same at home, but a pair of much thicker socks made a noticeable difference.

So, get some super socks! Paid for themselves 3x already.