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

251–260 of 314 posts

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

#251

Post by elihu »

bluGill wrote: post #207
losvedir wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Heating a building when you aren't there is silly. Is this true? I've thought about it for a while but can't quite wrap my head around an answer that feels obviously correct. It takes a lot of energy to raise the temperature of a house - more than to maintain a given temperature. Allowing for changing temperatures during the day, and concrete slabs and walls and the ground as heat stores, is it always the case that…

Yes, because when the inside of the house is close to outside temperature the temperature difference is lower (obvious). Heat loss depends on temperature differential so there will be less energy lose. The real question you should ask isn't is it true - it is. The real question is it significant enough to worry about. If you are going to be gone for several days it is. If you are only talking about a part of a day th…

> If you heat with electric (including heat pumps!), keeping the house a consistent temperature makes you use an even amount of heat all day, and so your house can be better supplied by renewable energy. If many people turn the heat up when (or just before) they get home at 5pm - the renewable power available isn't enough and the power company will have to turn on fossil fuel plants to make up the difference.

It also depends on what kind of renewable. A lot of people set their thermostat lower at night, which aligns well with solar power, which is only available during the day. But turning it down during the day and turning it up in the evening doesn't align as well (especially in the winter when the sun goes down early).

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

#252

Post by joecool1029 »

cauliflower2718 wrote: post #113
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,…

Seconded. I've lived in high-rises in NYC and cute houses in the bay area. Despite it staying much warmer outside in the bay area, my house (and others', apparently) is so poorly insulated that I feel much colder indoors in the winter in the bay area compared to in NYC.

>I feel much colder indoors in the winter in the bay area compared to in NYC.

NYC is uh, special. Due to the prevalence of steam heat most apartments I've been in usually open the windows when it gets too hot in the winter. Having a thermostat in such an apartment is a status symbol.

In short, combination of humidity plus tons of waste heat means you generally don't get cold there (unless something broke or you don't live somewhere with steam).

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

#253

Post by distances »

spand wrote: post #242
distances wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose that's possible with some special cases, I wouldn't really know. This type of energy loss would be quite different from the claim parent mentioned about "stored heat" though.

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

#254

Post by mixmastamyk »

secabeen wrote: post #134
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…

As I get older, I'm finding my extremities are not maintaining circulation/warmth. While I can wear socks no problem, I don't really want to wear gloves indoors. Heating the house more makes it feel cozy and nice, so I can see why some people would make that choice.

Generally agree, though fingerless gloves are nice compromise.

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

#255

Post by fctorial »

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #219
coldtea wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it your first winter? It's a special experience! Why would it be? Pakistan has winters, and cold ones at that...

"The record coldest it's ever gotten in Lahore was an unfathomable –2.2 °C on January 17, 1935." That's not a winter, that's a sudden mid-summer frost... :)

I feel the same way about florida summers. My preferred room temperature is 30-40 with a fan.

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

#256

Post by mixmastamyk »

Kluny wrote: post #221
quickthrowman wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Isn't mold handled most effectively with a dehumidifier, rather than a heater?

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

#257

Post by mixmastamyk »

whalesalad wrote: post #10

My wife and I just moved from LA (my birthplace) to Detroit (my wifes birthplace, I have lived here previously) and it sure has been a struggle to keep my office environment 'good'. I have a hyperhidrosis issue (excessively sweaty hands) that compounds the situation. I feel like homes and offices do not breath. My anecdotal napkin math would say like 10% of buildings are designed with proper ventilation, blending of…

Fingerless gloves should help. I also have some thermasilk glove liners that I love, keep hands warm and also breathable. They are quite thin, but I had to cut the fingertips off the middle fingers for typing and touch screens.

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

#258

Post by oh_sigh »

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #219
coldtea wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it your first winter? It's a special experience! Why would it be? Pakistan has winters, and cold ones at that...

"The record coldest it's ever gotten in Lahore was an unfathomable –2.2 °C on January 17, 1935." That's not a winter, that's a sudden mid-summer frost... :)

A missing fact here is that winters are foggy in Lahore. I live in CO now where winters are fairly dry, and I can go out in 20 degree F in shorts and a t shirt for a while, as long as I have a hat on. Whereas going outside in Portland in January when it is 40 degrees would be hell for me.

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

#259

Post by danans »

chrisseaton wrote: post #139
danans wrote: post #97

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 stan…

> 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. Did you know that the Romans had under-floor heating.

Wealthy Romans in palaces yes. But when I wrote "our" I meant it in the more universal sense.

Conversely, some impoverished people in the US today have very inadequate heating systems in their houses, and resort to things like propane heaters, or running their stoves and ovens to heat the house, which can cause carbon monoxide poisoning indoors.

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

#260

Post by Swinx43 »

twic wrote: post #178
lostlogin wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who grew up in South Africa I can confirm it. I grew up in the north of the country where in winter it can dip to just below freezing during the night and early morning. It would be back up to 16 degrees at lunchtime though.

I now live in the U.K. and although house quality and insulation is appalling compared to other places it is still infinitely warmer here in the middle of winter than in South Africa.

Coldest I have ever been was going back to visit family during winter there. My wife, who is from Germany and used to -5 to -10 in winter, would take a lot of persuading to visit South Africa in the middle of winter again.

Post reply on HN