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

261–270 of 314 posts

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

#261

Post by leipert »

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.

Was in South Africa in Winter. Your friend is right. Some AirBnBs were so cold, you just wanted to stay in bed and never get up. But the people were amazing, and the food, and the nature.

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

#262

Post by krn1p4n1c »

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,…

This is probably more of a factor of humidity than insulation. I've felt colder in -1C in Dublin where humidity was over 90% than at -20C in Luleå and 10%. Insulated clothing is less effective in higher humidity as moisture in the fibers wicks the heat away from the body faster.

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

#263

Post by leipert »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #241
grecy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not from there, but a humidifier?

My grandma always had a little thing filled with water hanging on the radiator during winter.

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

#264

Post by outworlder »

losvedir wrote: post #189
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. 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…

The answer is complicated. For the same amount of insulation, the amount of heat lost is also dependent on temperature. Leaving the house at a lower temperature (but still heated, not off!) while you are absent for long periods of time _usually_ is a better approach. Because you are losing heat anyway, the question is just how much.

Sure, if you have really amazing insulation(outside of specially engineered buildings you probably don't), the difference may not be significant and you would be right.

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

#265

Post by Swinx43 »

pea wrote: post #166
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 think there's a specifically British thing about accepting being cold and not complaining about it - I've lived in Scotland or London for most of my life, and no one will turn on their heating before November and most houses are 150-400 years old and are not insulated. I can literally feel the breeze inside as I type this.

I tip my hat to you sir. It is very true. My Irish neighbours were always surprised at how warm our flat was since they ran heating at 18 degrees in winter. Me having not grown up in the U.K. still run it at 23 to this day.

Two of the places I lived had beautiful old sash Windows. Only problem was you could see the curtains move as the breeze came through them in winter.

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

#266

Post by philjohn »

ajuc wrote: post #20
nabla9 wrote: post #5

Study that measured cold resistance among Finnish population found out that city dwellers in the south (Helsinki) had better cold resistance than people living in the north (Lappi). People in the cities wear thin city clothes even during winters, and freeze their ass off, while people living in much colder rural regions dress sensibly and stay warm.

I found the same when I worked in UK. I'm from Poland and in the winter everybody wear winter clothes even if it's 5C. Homes are well insulated and heated. People in UK by default wear much colder clothes so they are more used to cold. The end effect was that me and my friend were going everywhere in coats while everybody else was in their shirts :) What's funny is that people that moved to Poland from Siberia had si…

True - I was out changing my car battery in shorts and a t-shirt the other day when it was 5c out. As someone else pointed out, they take it to extremes in the north-east - I was in a park one christmas in Newcastle and despite being -1 and snowing, there were people in shorts and t-shirts.

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

#267

Post by leipert »

didsomeonesay wrote: post #75
lm28469 wrote: post #40

I've stopped using heating altogether since I moved out of my hometown (it was -20c or less in winter). When I'm cold I just add an extra layer of cloth or do a few squats or push/pull ups, heating XXX cubic meters of air is a pure waste of energy if you're healthy That being said your flat/home insulation plays a huge role. I'm living in Germany for a few years now, when it's 0c outside it's still 18c+ indoor even w…

> it's still 18c+ indoor even without any heating in my flat You can thank your neighbours.

When I lived in Berlin, on the second floor, the pipes for the Radiators were not insulated. Never turned up the heat in kitchen or bathroom.

But on the yearly utilities bill you usually pay 50:50 or 70:30 usage : area. So all of the energy cost of the house is taken and even if your neighbors heat for you, you pay for it.

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

#268

Post by megameter »

baby wrote: post #197
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…

Oh my, London was OK, but my SF appartement was freezing cold during the winter and horribly hot during the summer. And of course no AC and a shitty heater.

SF exists, for better or worse, in a Goldilocks zone where mediocre housing and clothing will still suffice for the climate. It gets cold, but rarely deadly cold. It gets hot, but rarely deadly hot. It gets wet, but mostly via fog. It gets windy, but not to hurricane force. Visitors regularly get faked out by the advertised mild weather and get the experience of a windy, cold grey SF summer in shorts - which is survivable but unpleasant. You can't last the entire year that way - rough sleepers do die from exposure in the harshest weeks - but it's "enough" to have some enclosure and warm socks in the winter and some ventilation for the fall heat waves.

And the constant backdrop of humidity can't be overemphasized in why it's unpleasant. Extreme dry temperatures kill you, mild wet ones make you feel dead.

This may also explain the age and quality of its housing stock, which is often a combination of moldy and drafty. There isn't an incentive pushing regulation further, so the landowners have their pick of NIMBY policies that keep old stock in the mix.

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

#269

Post by Kluny »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #256
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.

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

So add a second appliance rather than using one that you already have for both comfort and mold prevention?

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

#270

Post by sn_master »

jedberg wrote: post #161
duncans wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't know what the rules are in London, but in Chicago landlords are responsible for paying for heating. An interesting side effect is that even crappy old buildings have triple paned windows and super efficient heaters.

Strange, I never heard of any place where the renter doesn't pay for the heating. Doesn't seem fair to make the landlord pay for it.
Post reply on HN