[HN Gopher] Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)
___________________________________________________________________
Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)
Author : sebg
Score : 237 points
Date : 2023-01-30 15:33 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lowtechmagazine.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lowtechmagazine.com)
| pard68 wrote:
| The "clo" seems problematic as a unit. I know people who dress in
| hoodies in 100 degree weather and don't break a sweat. I know
| others who are sweating in shorts in the winter. I put out a lot
| more heat than my wife and yet I _feel_ cold a lot more than she
| does. Comfortable temperature is too subjective to get its own
| unit. It strikes me as something that was developed during that
| period of the early 1900s when they believed all of life could be
| reduced to a calculation.
| mrgoldenbrown wrote:
| The article acknowledges this: "The most significant factor
| influencing thermal comfort - even more important than air
| temperature and clothing - is body heat production" ... "The
| clo-values given for different indoor air temperatures are thus
| not more than guidelines - personal differences will occur."
| profstasiak wrote:
| people differ. Maybe you need more clo to be comfortable, but
| still the clo unit is valuable. Similarly you might need more
| calories than your wife, which doesn't make an unit of calories
| problematic.
| pard68 wrote:
| A calorie is not a subjective unit. A "clo" is by its
| definition.
|
| >one "clo" equals the thermal insulation required to keep a
| resting person (for instance, a couch potato) indefinitely
| comfortable at a temperature of 21deg Celsius (70deg
| Fahrenheit)
|
| This assumes we all produce the same output heat. We do not.
| Even at rest people output different amounts of heat. Normal
| skin temps range by almost 8 degrees Fahrenheit.
|
| Edit:
|
| Forgot to add "comfortable" is in the definition and comfort
| is always a subjective. I might be comfortable in my
| underwear at 70 degrees. And someone else (apparently) is
| comfortable in a three piece suit at 70.
| soperj wrote:
| > almost 8 degrees Fahrenheit.
|
| 4.5C for those wondering.
| zelos wrote:
| Surely there's a startup somewhere working on ceiling mounted AI
| targeted infrared radiant heaters? It could work like those pixel
| LED headlights on cars to accommodate different body shapes.
| tsoukase wrote:
| I have a question to all that agree to the title: are you married
| with a usual (in statistical terms) wife? Because, when I try to
| lower the house temp half a degree and start to put so something
| on, she starts the common nagging...
| ativzzz wrote:
| Great, now how do I insulate my body against the heat in the
| summer? I can only take off so many clothes
| hasbot wrote:
| Go with even thinner materials. I have thicker t-shirts for
| spring and fall and super thin t-shirts for summer. I also have
| super thin underwear and for summer. But, also consider using a
| ceiling fan. The long blades of a ceiling fan move a lot of air
| and barely generate any noise.
| ativzzz wrote:
| I don't wear shirts at all in the summer - I work from home
| lol
|
| The fan definitely helps, but when it's over 100 degrees
| outside every day for weeks you gotta crank up the AC or it's
| rough
| jojobas wrote:
| It's all fine and dandy until it's +40 outside for a week, you
| can't insulate your body against that.
|
| I'd bet insulating your home (at construction time) for the same
| effect is also cheaper over a lifetime of a house than warm
| clothes for all the inhabitants.
|
| Lastly, the pleasure of going near naked at home is worth every
| penny.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _every penny_
|
| Depending on the assumptions: the cost of heating has amounted
| to several-to-many salaries for some - even for white collars
| of industrialized countries in recent times.
| jojobas wrote:
| Yes, under-insulated houses will do that.
| wetpaws wrote:
| I like walking naked in my house.
| wffurr wrote:
| If your energy costs correctly reflected the externalities of
| heating to make that comfortable, that would be perfectly fine.
|
| Pigovian taxes are the correct solution here, rather than
| moralizing over preferences.
| tmtvl wrote:
| As long as you pump 0 carbon into the atmosphere (which you
| have to share with the rest of the planet) through heating,
| that's perfectly fine.
| acyou wrote:
| Hot climates: air-liquid heat exchangers with our own blood as
| the working fluid. Like a dialysis machine, but permanently glued
| to our backs. Plug ourselves in to turn the fan on, use our power
| packs on the go. Don't sit down too fast, don't run out of juice.
|
| Cold climates: same idea with an integrated block heater. Now we
| can sit in your basements in our t shirts and boxers.
|
| Later, our glucose vitamin pumps keep our blood sugar at ideal
| levels as our digestive tracts atrophy and eventually becomes
| vestiges.
|
| With relief, we can literally feel the heat and sugar spreading
| from our centers out towards our extremities as we drop in and
| power on our headsets...
|
| Much later, we introduce blood oxygenator units to get rid of
| those troublesome respiratory issues.
|
| Now and in the future, science fiction, pitch deck, and existing
| tech become blurred together.
| green-salt wrote:
| Self expression through heatsink fin design
| alliao wrote:
| I've been eyeing a normal electrically infra-red heating panel
| below my computer desk, I figured if it can warm my legs when I'm
| seated then that's enough comfort for me
| elric wrote:
| I have such a setup, see my comment elsewhere on this page.
| Takes 5 minutes to install and makes a huge difference.
| Sometimes I wrap a blanket around me like a poncho, helps keep
| the heat in.
| bluGill wrote:
| I really need a good infra-red heater for my hands. I can wear
| warm socks, but I don't like typing in gloves. My home office
| is in the basement where it is a bit colder than I would like.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| It's not bad typing with fingerless gloves. Per Wikipedia,
| "Cigarette smokers and church organists sometimes use
| fingerless gloves."
| artisanscribble wrote:
| I'm always bewildered when someone links to the not-solar version
| of lowtechmagazine.
|
| Solar version here:
| https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/02/body-insulation-th...
| Giorgi wrote:
| meh, I like to be comfortable at home and not wear layers.
| hasbot wrote:
| Reading through the comments here, apparently I'm the only person
| that likes to feel a little cold. It makes me feel more alert.
| So, I keep my house around 62F and around 60F while sleeping.
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25418676 - Dec 2020 (305
| comments)
| raverbashing wrote:
| Debating if heating the house or wearing a sweater comes first is
| privileged country talk
|
| If you come from a place where isolation and HVAC/heating are not
| common then you're going to wear thicker clothes at home because
| _there is no other way_
|
| Sure, you might have a bathroom heater or something but that's
| pretty much it
|
| So, yeah. Wear that sweatshirt at home because that's extra comfy
| benj111 wrote:
| What?
|
| Debating the _environmental_ aspects of whether to wear a
| jumper may be 'privileged' country talk.
|
| Debating whether to wear a jumper has been long discussed in
| times and countries poorer than our own. You see energy costs,
| money generally, and the thing that the less privileged tend to
| have less of is money, so they have to decide more carefully
| where to spend it.
|
| I don't know why you made this an issue, should we just put on
| heaters out of respect for the plebs? Self flagellation? What's
| your solution to this wokian conundrum?
| mdp2021 wrote:
| Awareness is duty, well before luxury.
| usrusr wrote:
| Isn't that privileged by lack of hard winters country talk? The
| nordics (southern hemisphere doesn't have much land in the
| "barely habitable zone") can afford heating because readiness
| for winter is literally the first thing on their mind if they
| are not, on all levels from individual to state. Sure, you
| don't see much of that happening these days because they just
| _are_ , but that's no accident.
| Ekaros wrote:
| It really goes to fundamental designs of buildings. Like for
| example location of fireplace. In Nordic country it would
| never be on the outer wall. That is just wasteful.
| Magi604 wrote:
| My low-tech keep-warm solution this past winter was the mighty
| hot water bottle. It cost $5 from some knick-knack store and it
| does an excellent job of keeping my sheets warm until long after
| I've fallen asleep. It saved me from shelling out for an electric
| blanket.
| dav_Oz wrote:
| > _The most significant factor influencing thermal comfort - even
| more important than air temperature and clothing - is human
| activity or body heat production (the metabolic rate). For
| instance, while it takes 12 clo-units to keep a resting person
| warm at an extremely low temperature of minus 40deg C, this comes
| down to only 4 clo when this person is walking, and to only 1.25
| clo when this person is running at 16 km /h. One of the most
| obvious reasons why our forefathers could bear lower indoor
| temperatures, was that they were more physically active than many
| of us._
|
| To use that to one's advantage:
|
| A little colder environment (e.g 18C/64F) than your comfort zone
| (e.g. 22C/72F) at normal humidity reminds you taking little
| breaks and be active during the day, it doesn't take much
| ("active recovery": 40-70% of your heart max; depending on your
| fitness status) and it goes a long way.
|
| If you include the cognitive benefits/enhancement you get from
| deliberate short breaks instead of grinding hours away sitting in
| front of a screen, I struggle to really see a need to hack our
| biological design for a little colder environment. (sitting in a
| loose T and shorts outfit through trial and error I found out
| that I begin to feel noticeable uncomfortable at about 14-16C
| depending on my activity level throughout the day; I set my
| thermostat usually 1-2 degree above that (16C-18C) in accordance
| to the indoor humidity levels.)
|
| Our bodies are extremely efficient [0] at regulating body
| temperature if one is cognizant of the instruction manual
| inherited through our evolution history.
|
| Incorporating some High-Intensity/Resistance training gives an
| additional metabolic boost/afterburn which - no surprise here -
| synergistically couples itself with low-intensity/active recovery
| mode.
|
| A bonus would be to expose yourself deliberately to extreme cold
| for a very short period of time (working your way slowly up). I
| personally don't go for numbers here but rather for the regular
| experience of _real_ cold hitting your body and shifting some
| powerful gears (similar to an appreciation of "hunger" after a
| fast).
|
| [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_adipose_tissue#Functio..
| .
| jl6 wrote:
| I do feel that personal-climate-control clothing has potential in
| our future world of more climate extremes. Some kind of backpack
| with a fluid pump, heater-cooler unit, and battery.
| Cooling/heating fluid gets pumped around a suit. Inductive
| charging via pads on the posterior, as long as your seat is part
| of the superchairger network.
| lm28469 wrote:
| A damp towel in warm climate and a cup of tea when cold will do
| thank you, this sounds like hell on earth
| sidpatil wrote:
| Is a damp towel going to help when it's humid outside?
| messe wrote:
| Even if it doesn't evaporate, it will still absorb body
| heat, briefly. Similarly, if you are in a humid area,
| sitting in a bath / some body of water will help a lot.
| Don't underestimate the heat capacity of water.
| ivanhoe wrote:
| It will if the air is moving sufficiently fast over it, e.g
| in combination with the fan cooler. Or you can have a
| bucket with a mix of water, ice and salt, and point the fan
| to blow over it (we did this in army and it actually works
| fine as a poor man AC alternative).
| usrusr wrote:
| I could see that happening for heat: hot water bags are
| amazing, and being able to "wear" one occasionally on the upper
| back (using some improvisation with an empty backpack to keep
| it in place) has been one of the few things I consider a
| benefit of WFH. But cooling? Sure, the technology is doable but
| won't you get a very huge mess with condensation?
| HPsquared wrote:
| Some sort of wicking layer might help with condensation.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Some kind of backpack with a fluid pump, heater-cooler unit,
| and battery
|
| Like Adam Savage's cooling suit: https://youtu.be/z_Ti4GP0ntE
| bitwise101 wrote:
| What about a radiant heating system that selectively supply
| heat only on human bodies instead of the entire environment?
| Reventlov wrote:
| I propose microwave heating
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di3fPj0pUbQ
| t344344 wrote:
| Backpack with such battery would weight a ton, and would add to
| discomfort. And inductive charging under arse would have
| terrible safety.
|
| Much easier is to have plumbing in suit, and just plugin to
| heat exchanger pump on every location.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Nice our own personal Stillsuits...
| John23832 wrote:
| Exactly what I thought. This dude wants us to become Fremen.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| It reminded me of the body suits which people need in
| Termination Shock (2021)[0]. Written by Neal Stephenson,
| the same dude who wrote Snow Crash. Can recommend
| Termination Shock, very interesting, global story about
| climate change and the involved politics etc.
|
| These body suits do exactly what's being described in these
| comments. Wearable packs which regulate humidity,
| temperature etc.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)
| antupis wrote:
| kinda happening already eg https://www.therm-ic.com/en/heated-
| ski-gloves-for-men/751-ul...
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Some kind of backpack with a fluid pump, heater-cooler unit,
| and battery. Cooling /heating fluid gets pumped around a suit._
|
| So we're all going to become Fremen, wearing stillsuits?
| drdec wrote:
| My Dad was all over this but more succinctly: "If you're cold,
| put on a sweater!"
| ianpurton wrote:
| Thanks. Just tried it. So far it appears to be working.
| empiricus wrote:
| You know what is called when you dress warmer indoors because
| heating is too expensive, and when you don't shower so often to
| save even more energy? Poverty. It is what we did when the world
| was much poorer.
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| Just because a behaviour is associated with poverty doesn't
| make it incorrect, nor does it make the opposite behaviour
| correct.
|
| For example eating less is also associated with poverty. But
| people in more economically developed countries eat a massive
| excess of food causing epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and
| heart disease. Just because eating less is associated with
| poverty doesn't change the fact that eating less would hugely
| benefit the health of most people in wealthier countries.
|
| Sometimes affluence results in excesses with significant
| negative consequences. And our excessive diets and energy
| consumption both have significant negative consequences.
| drewm1980 wrote:
| There is not a single sustainable winter clothing manufacturer as
| far as I can tell. Rayon, hemp, and linen are sustainable but I
| have not found any warm clothing made of them. (Cotton requires a
| lot of water and organic cotton even more so because the yield is
| lower)
| xupybd wrote:
| https://norsewear.co.nz/
| prmoustache wrote:
| I am using merino wool. That is the closest thing to
| sustainable I could think of as the same sheeps will produce it
| every year.
| jgraham wrote:
| Unfortunately that's probably not true (and I say that as
| someone who has some much-loved merino clothes).
|
| The problem with animals like sheep is that they take up a
| huge amount of land, both directly grazing and for any
| additional feed that they require. The more intensively you
| farm them, the more ecosystem damage they do, but of course
| less intensive grazing either requires more land or reduces
| production and increases prices.
|
| I couldn't quickly find any numbers to compare to other
| materials like cotton, but at least for food production,
| grazing animals are an order of magnitude worse on this
| metric than any plant-based crops (e.g. [1]).
|
| The reason that land usage is bad is because it's zero sum:
| land that's being used for farming is likely to be less good
| at trapping carbon than other possible uses of the same land
| (e.g. reforestation), and is typically not very good habitat
| for wildlife (sheep in particular selectively graze on the
| tastiest plants and so tend to leave behind a monoculture of
| rough grasses which are their least favourite food).
|
| If you have to buy new clothes today, I don't really know
| what the best option is. Plastic-based fibres obviously
| require oil (although many are based on recycled plastics)
| and end up creating microplastic pollution and waste products
| that won't biodegrade. Cotton is very land intensive to
| produce, but I suspect wool is even worse. Maybe destroying
| land in the tropics is worse for biodiversity than grazing
| sheep in temperate regions (similar to palm oil being land
| efficient, but damaging to rainforests in particular)? In any
| case I don't know of a simple way to weigh these tradeoffs.
|
| The only thing that seems unambiguously like a win is buying
| fewer clothes and making them last longer.
|
| [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore
| is_true wrote:
| Sheep can live in places were most crops/animals can't
| prmoustache wrote:
| Sustainability is a subjective thing. If we consider the
| actual direction we are going: i.e. ever increasing world
| population, nothing is really sustainable in the long term
| anyway.
|
| But yes I agree that our worst enemy is fashion and the
| trend towards replacing perfectly working things with newer
| ones just for the sake of it.
| _visgean wrote:
| Here in UK most sheeps are in places where they have been
| for hundred if not thousand years. I agree its bad to
| deforest new areas for sheep grazing but that is not
| happening here.
| adrianN wrote:
| What's your definition of "sustainable"? Is wool okay? There
| are a couple of companies selling "sustainable" wool products.
| For example https://nordwolle.com/gb/
| [deleted]
| jolmg wrote:
| Smartwool?
|
| https://www.smartwool.com/what-matters.html#/smartwool/zqrx-...
|
| I just noticed them today. Don't really know much about them.
| Scandiravian wrote:
| Saw this quote on their front-page
|
| > Merino wool is renewable. It's made up of proteins and
| amino acids. It naturally breaks down in water and soil.
|
| So what happens when I was the cloth or sweat?
|
| How long is the expected lifetime of the product if water
| speeds up degradation?
| Thlom wrote:
| I have decades old wool sweaters. And my oldest wool base
| layers must be 10 years old. It's not a problem. If you dig
| it down in the ground or dump it in a lake it will break
| down with time.
| johnnny wrote:
| Are they 100% wool?
|
| Wooly jumpers, especially when made of fragile merino
| wool, remain usable for much longer when they are made of
| a mix that includes plastic fibers (maybe 75% merino, 25%
| polyester).
| Thlom wrote:
| The sweaters are 100% wool, but are the thick knitted
| type. Think a classic fisherman sweater or the Icelandic
| lopapeysa. These are not merino. Base layer is merino,
| might be a polyester/wool mix.
| jolmg wrote:
| I mean, it's not going to dissolve like cotton-candy under
| water either. It's essentially like hair. I imagine you'd
| need to keep it in a place with ample microbial activity
| like in soil or swampish water for a few weeks to see the
| degradation.
|
| I do think it needs more care than fabrics like cotton or
| polyester. I wash wool separately on delicate and air dry.
| The centrifugal drying by the washing machine gets rid of
| nearly all the water, leaving them moist rather than damp.
| adrianN wrote:
| Wood also breaks down naturally in water and soil and yet
| there are wood buildings that are hundreds of years old. If
| you dry your woolen clothes before fungi and bacteria
| populations explode they'll be fine. Loss of fiber through
| abrasion will ruin the clothing long before it is eaten.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Any wool?
| mdp2021 wrote:
| It is a bit more complicated than that; we had to check
| during a discussion: you may check e.g. the tree at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31119019
| alkonaut wrote:
| If I need to dress differently _indoors_ in winter than in
| summer, I 'd consider my house defective. It might be energy
| efficient to dress a lot more in winter and keep the thermostat
| at 18 instead of 21 or 22 indoors, but I don't _want_ to. 300mm
| outer wall insulation, expensive windows, and air heat recycling
| is something I 'll happily invest in to NOT have to lower the
| thermostat.
| bleuarff wrote:
| I don't want to sound harsh, but "my personal comfort is more
| important than finding ways to reduce energy consumption" seems
| pretty selfish to me. That's the kind of things that make me
| think trying to reduce our carbon footprint is utterly
| hopeless. How is it weird/defective to adapt to natural
| conditions? We're not talking about letting people freeze in
| their home, but just putting on one more layer when it's cold
| outside.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _I don 't want to sound harsh, but "my personal comfort is
| more important than finding ways to reduce energy
| consumption" seems pretty selfish to me._
|
| Airtight, properly insulated and ventilated structures _are_
| a way to reduce energy consumption. They are also very
| comfortable and healthy IAQ-wise.
|
| A 5,000 sq. ft. (500 sq. m) structure can use as little as
| 2000W (2 kW, i.e. a hair dryer) to keep the inside properly
| conditioned:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA
| pjerem wrote:
| Yeah you are right.
|
| A modern building with modern and super expensive
| insulation use less heating power. Ironically the second
| comment of your video says "Actually the major key to
| success is an unlimited budget."
|
| What a discovery. That's not the case of 99,99% of
| buildings on this planet though.
|
| However, the article you are commenting just says that
| before buying tens of thousands dollars of insulating
| material that you'll have to install somehow, the first
| thing you can do is wearing a pull over and a pair of
| socks.
|
| Nobody says that you have to choose between insulating your
| home or your body. Just do both if you can.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _What a discovery. That 's not the case of 99,99% of
| buildings on this planet though._
|
| Which is already being addressed:
|
| > _Key to the PGH approach is balancing expenditures and
| gains. Where other programs use specific energy-use
| targets or other criteria, and the building code
| establishes a baseline ("the worst house you can legally
| build"), a PGH goes above code until it stops making
| financial sense. On some new homes, that may be not far
| above code, and on other projects performance may rival
| that of a Passive House, but in most cases it will be
| somewhere in between those two standards._
|
| * https://www.prettygoodhouse.org/economics
|
| Being able to live at 22C, 40-60% RH, and filtered air
| exchange via ERV, isn't as difficult as going to the
| moon. An increase of 5-10% in building cost for better
| air sealing, a little more insulation (and reducing
| thermal bridging), and some mechanicals isn't crazy.
| pjerem wrote:
| > An increase of 5-10% in building cost for better air
| sealing, a little more insulation (and reducing thermal
| bridging), and some mechanicals isn't crazy.
|
| Yes but you forgot the part where the vast majority of
| the world population don't live in a brand new building.
|
| Insulating my not so old house (1998) to be up to the
| modern norms would cost me something like 50/60kEUR.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Insulating my not so old house (1998) to be up to the
| modern norms would cost me something like 50 /60kEUR._
|
| I grew up in a house built in ~1898. I know about old
| houses. There was still some piping in it for gas
| lighting (before electricity was "invented").
| hd95489 wrote:
| But it is crazy a new home is like 300k just for the
| house maybe closer to 400-500k for anything decent on the
| coasts. 30-50k buys a lot of electricity or nat gas.
| bluGill wrote:
| Great insulation is not very expensive. It is somewhat
| more expensive, but not a whole lot. We are talking about
| a few thousand dollars on a project that will already
| cost you upwards of $300,000 (assuming you already own
| farmland you want to build a 5000 square foot house on -
| farmland because it implies cheaper labor than in the
| city)
| pjerem wrote:
| You are talking about a new construction project. On this
| you are right. Been there, done that.
|
| However most people in the world already live in an
| existing building. Insulating an existing building is not
| what I would call cheap, especially if you are still
| paying a mortgage.
| bluGill wrote:
| There is for sure less you can do for existing
| construction, but it isn't nothing. There are still a lot
| of attics in cold places with R10-R20 insulation that can
| cheaply be brought closer to R40-R60. (About a month ago
| I bought my attic to R40 for $4k, remove all old
| insulation, air seal, and then new )
|
| Most existing houses get a significant remodel once in a
| while as well. If you are doing that you should bring the
| changed areas to better code. Much siding only lasts for
| 25 years, so just put insulation under it while doing the
| regular replacement can make a big difference as well for
| not much more since you have to pay for a lot of labor.
| maxerickson wrote:
| So where's the oracle that tells us exactly what is need and
| exactly what is selfish? How much joy am I allowed per meal?
|
| Heated buildings are a pretty awesome way to adapt to cold
| natural conditions.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I haven't used a fossil Joule for heating in my life (e.g.
| oil, gas or fossil generated electricity), that helps me
| defend it at least somewhat.
|
| If I had gas heating or fossil electricity I would probably
| have a different view of it. I mean right now it's mostly
| just economics: either I spend on insulation, or renewable
| energy, or I don't spend and lower the thermostat.
| greesil wrote:
| It's not selfish if their carbon footprint is lower because
| they created an energy efficient home instead of wearing a
| parka indoors.
|
| Maybe their house is powered by carbon neutral power
| generation, too. It's not always zero sum.
| tristor wrote:
| Strongly agree with this. The /entire point/ of technology is
| to make human beings more productive, more comfortable, and to
| make life more enjoyable. Why would I voluntarily give up on
| modern technology to instead have a more miserable existence?
|
| I am actively working on plans for a new home construction that
| will meet PassivHaus standards and use FAR FAR FAR less energy
| than the place I currently live, and be able to use primarily
| locally sourced renewable (rooftop solar) for the majority of
| its energy requirements. This is both much better for the
| environment, and much better for my quality of life, and
| doesn't require me to wear thermals and pajamas with fur
| slippers to bed under two duvets in order to not freeze to
| death while I'm sleeping. I don't understand the mindset of
| someone who would bust their ass working in order to live like
| a pauper pre-industrial revolution. I work so I can afford to
| have luxuries like indoor plumbing, effective heating and
| cooling, and comfort-based climate controls.
|
| The environment is a major concern for me, and I applaud folks
| for thinking of ways for humanity to use less energy, but going
| without what I consider to be basic modern amenities is not the
| way. We can use modern technology to drastically (like several
| orders of magnitude) reduce our energy usage without resorting
| to a drop in quality of life.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Your existence is more miserable because you wear a sweater
| in winter and a t-shirt in summer?
|
| Have you considered that maybe your sweater could be
| comfortable?
| tristor wrote:
| If I have to wear that sweater inside my own home, where I
| get to control the thermostat, I would say that this is a
| more miserable existence. I'm not sure what there is that's
| not understandable about that.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| You have to wear clothes - if they're equally
| comfortable, I'm not sure why it matters.
|
| When you go outside, you're going to want a sweater on
| anyway. Why is it better to have to change your clothes
| when you go inside and outside?
| throwpp034578 wrote:
| > You have to wear clothes
|
| Not necessarily. Underwear I'll grant, it'd be
| uncomfortable not to, but otherwise I don't see why one
| _has_ to wear clothes.
|
| Also, do blankets count as clothes? You (or I, at least
| :-)) can easily be comfortable "wearing" just a blanket
| and underwear at a temp of around 10 degC.
| culebron21 wrote:
| Apartment building is another way of saving energy. My
| parents one was in the middle of the house, and we'd shut all
| radiators, and still it was very warm inside. I guess if per-
| apartment counters were added, people would keep their
| appartments cooler, but still it would require very few
| heating.
|
| And I remember the time when we had poor insulation, mostly
| in windows - it was misery to stay indoors in a sweater,
| still feeling a bit cold, but in warm sneakers, and feet
| sweating. Triple-glass packet windows were a blessing!
| jltsiren wrote:
| According to a joke, the definition of a warm climate is that
| it gets cold inside in the winter. When cold weather is seen as
| a temporary inconvenience, people will rather invest in bigger
| homes than in better insulation.
|
| Similarly, a cold climate is where it gets hot inside in the
| summer. And then there is coastal California, which has
| elements of both.
| dublidu wrote:
| That's a luxury that many people in this world can't afford.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Indeed - and of all the luxuries I can splurge on, it ranks
| very high. But as I have clarified elsewhere: I don't use
| fossil energy. I consider heating a home with e.g. fossil gas
| to be an equally bad idea as freezing.
| OJFord wrote:
| > If I need to dress differently indoors in winter than in
| summer, I'd consider my house defective.
|
| Funny, I find it weird to dress ( _so_ ) differently indoors to
| out in winter. Why should it take more preparation to leave my
| house in winter than in summer? _That_ seems like a defect.
| is_true wrote:
| Ideally just add a layer to stop water/wind
| culebron21 wrote:
| Because some people live there where in summer, you need just
| a T-shirt, and in winter you need a sweater and a heavy
| winter jacket or a coat above. And a good hat.
| bluGill wrote:
| Where I live it gets cold enough for the pipes to freeze if I
| don't heat the house. While I can live in a tent and thus
| wear the same clothing indoors as outdoors, I consider not
| having to go outside for a bathroom a plus and thus I keep my
| house warm enough that I can have indoor plumbing. Once I
| have committed to having plumbing, the cost to heat to the
| point where I'm comfortable without extra layers is minimal.
| OJFord wrote:
| I heat the house, I said ' _so_ differently ', I'll put a
| coat on - I just don't want to be rolling my sleeves down,
| putting a jumper on (perhaps taking my shirt off
| temporarily and putting a vest on), and _then_ putting a
| coat on. I 'll usually wear some light coat/jumper outside
| in summer anyway (UK!), so my point is just that I don't
| want _extra_ things to put on (ok, a scarf & gloves) -
| they can be thicker and more waterproof than the summer
| ones.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I live where there is freezing 6 months per year and people
| never wear shoes indoors. Getting dressed when going outside
| is done basically 101 months of 12, as the hottest summer
| months you are having "room temperature" also outdoors.
| teekert wrote:
| Fully agree, I hate that cold moist feeling in the house. I
| tried keeping the thermostat low, it makes me unhappy. I prefer
| to spend money on the house indeed. That said I do wear more
| clothes indoors in the winter, but that's impossible to avoid
| in our climate (now it's about 2 deg C outside).
| pjerem wrote:
| If you have moist air in a home that is heated 17degC or
| more, heating is not the issue. Correct aeration is.
| Ironically you will feel hotter in a correctly aerated house
| heated at 18degC than in a house heated at 22degC but with
| moist air.
| jpdaigle wrote:
| I'm shocked and disappointed at how expensive retrofitting
| insulation into a minimally insulated 1930s Bay Area house
| actually is. I estimate gas heating costs at around 2500$ / year
| (nov-march), while insulating floors, walls and roof would cost a
| shocking 60K$ for an average size 3bdrm.
|
| If the insulation cuts heating cost in half, that's a 1250$
| savings per year, meaning a 48 year break even time assuming zero
| discount rate. It absolutely doesn't make sense to do the work
| unless there's a massive tax subsidy or contractor costs come
| down (which is bad for the environment)
| mxuribe wrote:
| @jpdaigle Clearly too many factors play into however you
| received that quote...But, maybe this can help you...
|
| Years ago, i researched insulating my home...an old home that
| was split into 2 living portions...and whose front half/portion
| was built in late 1800s, and back portion of home was built
| around late 1910s. So, you can imagine it was pretty much a
| sieve, just burning our money. So, i did get a few costly
| quotes...but the cheap husband in me wondered if i can do
| things piecemeal....and i assure you that its possible. There
| are lots of factors to consider....but you can research and
| determine for yourself.
|
| Here is my suggestion:
|
| 1. Contact your electric company/provider...and ask them if
| they offer a free energy assessment. Ours did, and it helped us
| determine the exact zones/sections of our home where we had the
| worse heat loss. This assessment was so valuable, i wold have
| paid to have this done!
|
| 2. Research where you/your family spend the most time in the
| home. My opinion is that the bedrooms should be the last places
| to insulate, since blankets (and bodies) help keep things warm
| in this type of room.
|
| 3. Consider which areas of the home can be insulated via easier
| methods - like spray foamy stuff - which may only need little
| holes and not necessary to tear down full walls, etc. Some of
| these foams are not as insulating as traditional options, but
| the ease and cost is more than enough to justify things.
|
| 4. Ideally start on the outside walls of the home, and of the
| specific rooms/area where you will focus your first work.
|
| There is so much more on thios topic...but keeping the work low
| in scope, and iterative really can help...its all about being
| clever here. Good luck!!
| anon23anon wrote:
| Construction is incredibly expensive. Why that is complicated.
| In a lot of the ways the problems though is our lack of newer
| affordable homes. Newer homes tend to cost more and have all
| the tech. Older homes are cheaper but paying someone else to
| upgrade them is crazy expensive.
| great_wubwub wrote:
| That's an awfully long-winded way to say "go put on a sweater
| before you turn up the heat".
| tdubhro1 wrote:
| Nitpick but statements like "this is why we have resorted to
| clothing ever since we left our origins in Africa (where it was
| hot enough to survive without additional layers of clothing)."
|
| really make me question the basic intelligence of the author.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| It could be just rhetoric.
|
| Nonetheless, there is some odd distortion there, with short
| circuits: the author relates <<hair (or feathers)>> to <<heat
| transfer>>, but some argue that hair - that humans did in fact
| keep - is a protection against _insects_ (to feel them as they
| "land"), before heat conservation; and on the same line the
| reason to leave the eastern African peri-rift was to escape
| insects (and other pests), which resist less in colder
| climates. The topmost human killers include, after mosquitoes,
| bugs and flies. Hair is not a protection from canids, but they
| remain near the top of human killers and cold climates reduce
| the threat coming from strays, and some types of clothing can
| offer some protection.
|
| Clothing is not just a matter of heat conservation.
| culi wrote:
| A negative remark without any details is just an insult, not a
| criticism.
|
| Insult my basic intelligence as well, but I personally think
| the fact that we are the only non-tropical ape is interesting
| and relevant. Even amongst primates in general there are very
| few that have ever made it in temperate areas and they never
| got as far as us. All this despite us not having fur
| bloopernova wrote:
| I recently bought a tall Kotatsu table from eBay. A kotatsu table
| has a thick blanket draped over the table frame, while the
| tabletop sits on top of that. There's a heater on the underside
| of the frame that heats the enclosed space created by the heavy
| blanket. You sit with your legs under the blanket and stay nice
| and warm.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu?wprov=sfla1
|
| We use it in place of a coffee table and also use it as a dining
| table. My wife has trouble keeping warm, and she adores this
| table!
|
| Only downside is that most kotatsu futon are designed for the
| traditional low table, so finding new covers/blankets is going to
| be difficult.
|
| But I'm completely sold on the kotatsu concept. Highly
| recommended for toasty spouses!
|
| Oh, and another cold spouse tip: Bedjet. It's like having your
| bed sheet made like a hot air balloon! A heater and fan pushes
| warm (or cold) air into the bag-like sheet. It works much, much
| faster than a heated blanket and doesn't have wires throughout
| the sheet that break. Again wins the cold spouse seal of
| approval.
| micheljansen wrote:
| These are really clever. Work especially well when wearing a
| yukata!
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| I do thay for my desk: got a small radiator next to my chair, a
| blanket above us.
|
| Warm all day.
| Wistar wrote:
| I just bought a BedJet but have yet to hook it up. After
| receiving the unit, I realized that, due to the way the bed
| frame is constructed, I need the special flat hose which is on
| order.
| elric wrote:
| Kotatsu are great. And you can apply the same concept to a
| desk. I have a tiny infrared panel mounted on the underside of
| my desk. IIRC it's rated 150W. I can comfortably work when the
| room is 15degC while the panel is on roughly 60%. That's 0.5kWh
| for a working day. A lot better than having to heat the whole
| room.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Yeah, the eBay listing described the table as a desk. Our
| original intent was to use the table for crafts, laptops, etc
| etc. It's very quickly morphed into the central location of
| our little townhouse :)
|
| I want to get some sort of reflective or insulating rug to
| alleviate some of the effects of the cold concrete floor. But
| until then, slippers do just fine!
| walterbell wrote:
| Rug + insulating foam board with foil on one side?
| https://www.menards.com/main/building-
| materials/insulation/f...
| bloopernova wrote:
| Interesting! I will look into that, thank you!
| trillic wrote:
| I have a 3080 and 5800x under my desk. I turned off ECO mode
| and keep it slightly overclocked all winter. The more
| efficient my code, the colder I get.
| Tepix wrote:
| I'm wondering if PC cases could be optimized to radiate their
| heat away in one particular direction.
| danuker wrote:
| Other than the fan pumping hot air in one focused
| direction?
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| This sounds like exactly what I need. Would you mind sharing
| a link?
| NovaPenguin wrote:
| Heat people not spaces has been a mantra of mine for decades. It
| may not be AS comfortable but it is far from unpleasant.
| nradov wrote:
| It's rather unpleasant to have cold hands all the time.
| petrochenkov wrote:
| It's also rather unpleasant to wear clothing in general. If
| there's an opportunity to reduce it to the minimum, I'd
| rather use it. That's why I like my commieblocks with central
| heating.
| sofixa wrote:
| > That's why I like my commieblocks with central heating.
|
| As long as they had proper insulation from construction or
| a retrofit they're great. The one i grew up (built by
| Construction Troops in a hurry) had terrible insulation,
| with _newspapers_ used to fill gaps between the windows and
| the walls during construction, but after the (government-
| sponsored) renewal of the exterior it 's pretty damn good.
| jolmg wrote:
| If you mean because gloves prevent you from doing a lot of
| stuff while you have them on, I've found fingerless wool
| gloves to be great at keeping my hands warm while letting me
| e.g. type on a keyboard, grab stuff from my pockets, from my
| wallet, etc.
| lynx23 wrote:
| Not for everyone. The more clothes I have to wear, the more I
| sweat. And that _is_ unpleasant.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| If you sweat, you wear too much clothes or the wrong kind.
|
| Wool is nice and merino wool is the best.
|
| Some synthetic stuff might also work, but is not so nice on
| the skin and some fiber just acts like a plastic sheet,
| meaning trapping all moisture inside.
|
| But to repeat, we climbers and winter campers use merino
| wool. It is a bit more expensive, but worth it.
| lynx23 wrote:
| Exactly. If I sweat, I wear too much clothes. So the
| "islotate yourself" mantra does not work for me.
| adrianN wrote:
| I don't understand. Do you sweat and still feel cold?
| bearmode wrote:
| Different parts of your body can feel hotter or colder,
| because the sensation of temperature is not about your
| internal body temp, but the heat transfer at the skin.
|
| Hands with a pair of gloves on will feel colder than e.g.
| armpits under 3 layers of clothing. It's absolutely
| possible to sweat and still feel somewhat cold.
| lynx23 wrote:
| Almost. I typically sweat due to too much clothing, which
| results in me feeling cold.
| danwee wrote:
| What's weird about that? My armpits could be sweating
| (e.g., wearning a t-shirt + sweater) but my hands (no
| gloves) could be freezing.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| If you would wear other kinds of clothes, you likely
| could be warm, but not sweat.
|
| A little bit of sweat is normal, the problem comes, when
| this sweat cannot vaporate, but remain trapped inside
| your clothes.
|
| Maybe try merino wool.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _the more I sweat_
|
| Check transpiration friendly clothing (I am missing the
| terminology right now) - the underware (and apparel) that you
| would wear while doing intensive sport. There exists fabric
| that attempts retention of heat and avoidance of sweating
| (and its cooling effect).
|
| (By the way: as I tried searching for better terms, three
| instances, I met the following results, one per instance:
| 'transgender clothing'; 'see-through clothing'; 'the
| sexualization of women in sports'. The search engines
| algorithms are getting some fixation?)
| ragazzina wrote:
| >transpiration friendly clothing (I am missing the
| terminology right now)
|
| Moisture wicking clothing?
| ygra wrote:
| How does that work in preventing mold in dwellings, though?
| Moist air (byproduct of living things in enclosed spaces) likes
| settling on cool walls, so heating has other benefits than just
| keeping a comfortable living temperature.
| hackernewds wrote:
| dehumidifier. no need to heat
| klondike_klive wrote:
| Total game changer. Pouring out a tank full of water that
| otherwise would have gone into your walls is still a
| delight. And the waste heat warms the room up too.
| bluGill wrote:
| That is what I have in my shed. It doesn't work because
| the water freezes to the coils. Once this starts it keeps
| getting worse until you thaw the coils. Sure if you live
| where the temperature is never below freezing they are an
| option, but when the temperature gets colder they are not
| an option.
|
| Not to mention I need heat to keep my plumbing from
| freezing.
| progman32 wrote:
| Check out rotary desiccant dehumidifiers. They can work
| at very cold temperatures. They work by continuously
| regenerating a desiccant disk.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| This is a real problem and ventilating often helps, but
| depending on the air humidity and walls you have to heat
| above a certain temperature, yes.
| xupybd wrote:
| I lived for years too poor to heat. Mold is a real issue. No
| amount of cleaning and ventilation makes up for not heating
| your home.
|
| In my last year of study I was writing up my honours project
| and I had to stop to wipe the condensation off of my monitor.
| Mind you, it was about 2am.
| piyh wrote:
| I stayed overnight in an old castle. The owners didn't have
| enough money to keep it for a while in the water damage it
| caused was ridiculous. Castles are dependent on fires in
| every room to drive the leaking water out.
| adrianN wrote:
| You can probably not avoid heating your home completely
| (unless you constantly have a window open), but you can lower
| the temperature by a couple of degrees without having mold
| problems if you also keep an eye on humidity.
| OJFord wrote:
| Dehumidifying & ventilating will be more effective anyway.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| So imagine a house, imagine the rising temperature above it, a
| gradient, like a chimney. Wouldnt a set of vertical heat pump
| modules right in the chimney be optimal? Like - do not put it
| hidden on the side for heat, but like a swarm of antenna right at
| the center of the chimney..
| occz wrote:
| Underfloor heating works a bit on this principle, with more
| even heat distribution from the heat source.
| batushka3 wrote:
| Another benefit of pants and ligh sweater is that around 20C it's
| much easier to maintain 50% humidity in cold weather reagions.
| And I'm talking about European A+ house with Mechanical
| ventilation with Heat Recovery. Above 0C I don't need run
| humidifier even, CO2 is around 650ppm. Below 0C humidifier keeps
| around 45%RH, dropping to 40%RH on -15C days. But set room to 23C
| and you need to run humidifier much much harder.
| trabant00 wrote:
| First thing: the article does not advocate against heating your
| home as most comments here seem to suggest. Quote: "this article
| is not a plea to get rid of heating systems altogether [..] for
| many of us, a heating system remains a necessity".
|
| Secondly I have experimented quite a lot this winter with
| clothing to reduce home heating requirements. I used to keep my
| home at 24C(74F) and wear short pants and short sleeves made of
| cotton. Now I keep the home at 20C(68F) during the day and
| 18C(64F) during the night. My heating bill is now half and I did
| notice I sleep a lot better at 18C then I used to at 24C.
|
| I wear synthetic form fitting long pants and sleeves thermal base
| layer and a loose synthetic robe on top of those. The base layer
| keeps more heat but more importantly evacuates sweat a lot better
| than cotton. The robe is what keeps most of the heat trapping air
| inside being thick but also air between it and the base layer.
| You can find a lot of material on the internet about layering
| clothes and what each layer should do. One mistake I used to make
| and the article seems to think so as well is that the base
| layer's role is to keep heat.
|
| I chose synthetic over wool for home because of the huge price
| difference and also the wear resistance. It's 10 euros vs 200
| euros, I can wash it without care, I won't cry if they get
| stained with coffee, etc. I use merino wool when going out.
|
| After these experiments I plan to get rid of most of my cotton
| clothes and replace them with synthetic and merino wool, even for
| the summer. I can't believe how I put up with the humidity
| trapping cotton for so long.
|
| I am also interested to hear what other people experimented in
| this regard and their results.
| fleddr wrote:
| 24C? Are you a reptile?
| empiricus wrote:
| If the walls are cold, 24C does not feel so hot.
| ozim wrote:
| It does not advocate but it gives certain numbers so it
| proposes that one could go below 18C. If I keep my flat at 18C
| or below I get loads of condensation and mold. I don't need
| some special clothes to feel comfortable between 19C - 20C
| sweatpants and sweatshirt are cozy enough. That said - if
| someone needs 24C to feel comfortable it might be useful to get
| some thermal underwear and turn heat down to 20C.
| erictd wrote:
| One of my favorite warming hacks is to put a towel or small
| blanket on my lap while I work at my desk.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Cannot escape home insulation and energy efficient ventillation
| if you want to ensure healthy environment from the humidity point
| of view. Bathroom, cooking, laundry, and people as well, all will
| produce humid air that will form mold on cold surfaces of an
| uninsulated home if not properly ventillated. Where the proper
| level of ventillation needs to be quite intensive for the desired
| effect - causing elevated energy loss or requiring supplemental
| heat preservation techniques - except if low level of heating
| (temperature) is maintained, which raises other kind of concerns.
| hedora wrote:
| I recently got a CO2 meter for our living room. The results are
| shockingly bad. I can't imagine having humidity issues from the
| sources you cite without also first having unhealthy CO2
| levels.
|
| We've settled on always leaving one window slightly open if it
| is windy outside, or 2-3 on still days.
| wahern wrote:
| Older homes were designed to breath.[1] I live in San Francisco
| and unfortunately contractors often forget this (or don't care
| or never think to consider it). For example, painters will
| often use a non-porous latex on the outside with a common
| consequence that you'll quickly begin to see mold grow on the
| internal walls where in bygone years this wouldn't have been a
| problem. Or the paint may be much more prone to blistering as
| humidity tries to escape.
|
| Most old homes in SF originally had (or at least were modified
| 100+ years ago to have) gravity fed heaters--no forced air, and
| no return registers in each room; just a single giant return
| register at a low point on a bottom floor. I've spoken with A/C
| contractors who say that there shouldn't be any _serious_
| problems rigging up a forced air system to the output
| registers, even without proper return registers. And plenty of
| homes do this. But I guess maybe the real problems come if you
| then being insulating the home--can the forced-air heating
| system circulate air quick enough without return registers to
| compensate for the fact the building no longer naturally
| ventilates? I imagine in most cases it works well enough, but
| you 're still moderately more likely to see mold problems.
|
| [1] To varying extents. My house was built in 1926, and it
| seems they used a relatively thin tar paper to wrap the house,
| or at least part of the house. (Unless that was somehow added
| much later, but I doubt it as the wall facing an adjacent house
| a few inches away is papered, and the siding is original on
| that wall.)
| [deleted]
| Gravityloss wrote:
| There are lots of dimensions - old building techniques,
| breathing materials, natural ventilation, proper maintenance
| etc. And there are lots of solutions and it can be done, but
| it requires expertise.
|
| It's possible to mess up a very good old house made up of
| breathing materials with adding some plastic for example.
| klondike_klive wrote:
| My parents had their rafters spray-foam insulated about a
| decade ago, now there's a growing awareness/hysteria about
| condensation getting trapped in pockets and rotting the
| timbers. More than likely my parents were fast-talked into
| it.
| richiebful1 wrote:
| It depends if it's open or closed cell foam. If you're
| insulating the walls of your crawlspace, open cell foam
| is still recommended on wood because it can breathe
| bluGill wrote:
| The important part is there is exactly one barrier that
| water cannot get through. Spray foam is generally good.
| there are different spray foams as well. Open cell and
| closed cell work completely different.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Not if that barrier traps water against regular wooden
| framing members
| bluGill wrote:
| Water will move through the wood framing to the other
| side and out. It takes a little longer, but we have
| plenty of time. It is when the water cannot get out
| either side that you have a problem.
| cannonpr wrote:
| Foam on timber is a bad idea, for those talking about
| open cell vs closed cell foam in this thread, beware,
| both are bad for timber. Im renovating s Victorian
| property at the moment and when I run the simulations on
| condensation and vapour pressure etc etc... in several
| colder climates the system even with open foam
| accumulates enough moisture content in the wood to rot
| it. A large part of that is the cold bridging effect
| generating liquid water close to the wood which it soaks
| up much faster than it can release during the summer.
| Please always run a simulator for your climate before
| allowing modern materials near timber and or old
| properties.
| alliao wrote:
| don't they usually have a gap for moisture/condensation
| to escape?
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| if you spray foam the rafters they are encapsulated in
| foam.
| bluGill wrote:
| Not in any situation I know of. 3 sides are in foam, the
| 4th is attached to plywood and the other side of that is
| the outside. That is enough to let water out. It is slow,
| but we don't need it to be fast.
| citrin_ru wrote:
| Heat recovery ventilation is more energy efficient than an
| old breathable house. But unfortunately it is not common even
| in new buildings. If you own a home you probably can install
| one but renters are out of luck.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Heat recovery ventilation is still a technology in its
| infancy.
|
| Typically only around 90% of the energy is recovered, even
| in ideal conditions.
|
| That sounds good, but considering that for 'good air', you
| really want to be replacing the air fully every 10 minutes.
| That means after ~1.5 hours, you've lost nearly all the
| heat in your home.
|
| Combine that with the fact the 90% is an ideal figure - in
| more typical installations it might be more like 50%
| because the incoming and outgoing airflows are not
| balanced, the heat exchanger is full of fluff and dust, and
| the humidity of the air is such that lots of energy is lost
| to the latent heat of vaporization.
|
| Is it worth having one if you want a well ventilated house?
| Yes. Will it be worth replacing it in 5-10 years when more
| efficient models get designed...? Probably also yes.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Typically only around 90% of the energy is recovered,
| even in ideal conditions._
|
| As opposed to the 0% of energy recovered when a house
| "breathes" (i.e., leaks like a sieve) and lets out all
| the conditioned air?
|
| > _That sounds good, but considering that for 'good air',
| you really want to be replacing the air fully every 10
| minutes._
|
| [citation needed]
|
| ASHRAE 62.2 does not mandate nearly that much air
| exchange. A 2,000 sq. ft. (200 sq. m) home is about
| 20,000 cu. ft. of volume, and needs about 100 cfm of
| ventilation. And some folks (e.g., Lstiburek) think
| ASHRAE (at least the newer revisions) is too high:
|
| * https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/lstiburek-has-new-
| ventil...
|
| * https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/how-much-
| fresh-...
| Dork1234 wrote:
| Most homes are getting 4 to 7 air changes per hour just
| from leakage, 100cfm is nothing compared to that.
|
| It should be tied to the ACH value of the construction,
| as well as tied to occupancy sensors in each room.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| > That means after ~1.5 hours, you've lost nearly all the
| heat in your home.
|
| As far as I know most of the heat in my home is stored in
| solid objects like the walls and not the air. Replace all
| the air and you still have the heat
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Unless you live in an adobe/stone/brick house, the
| thermal mass of your walls is pretty small. Traditional
| plaster would add a limited amount to a stud-framed
| house, but in most US houses, what you've said isn't
| true.
| dagw wrote:
| _That sounds good, but considering that for 'good air',
| you really want to be replacing the air fully every 10
| minutes._
|
| What country are you in that has such standards? In
| Sweden the official recommendation in the building
| standards is once every other hour.
| alliao wrote:
| I once heard that Swedes sleep with windows open, sounds
| like way more ACH than building standards?
| jeltz wrote:
| Only during the summers and due to lack of air
| conditioning. That is no related to air quality.
| kyberias wrote:
| The standard to replace all air is about 2 hours which is
| 12 times longer than the 10 minutes you stated here.
| Dork1234 wrote:
| HRV have been around for 30+ years. I wouldn't call it
| infancy, just not main stream.
| valenterry wrote:
| > That sounds good, but considering that for 'good air',
| you really want to be replacing the air fully every 10
| minutes.
|
| That obviously does not make _any_ sense. You at least
| want to know the volume of the room /house before giving
| any number...
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| It's not obvious to me why this doesn't make sense.
|
| What "Replacing the air fully" equates to in terms of
| volume is already a factor of the size of the room/house.
|
| You might want to know what volume of air that actually
| was to understand energy usage, but gp was talking about
| air quality, not energy efficiency.
| valenterry wrote:
| > What "Replacing the air fully" equates to in terms of
| volume is already a factor of the size of the room/house.
|
| Exactly. If one person lives in a castle, do we need to
| replace all the air every hour? Certainly not. If we are
| talking about a person in a 5sqm room (for sleeping) then
| replacing all air every hour won't be sufficient.
|
| There are more factors besides the number of people and
| the air volume, but I really didn't want to go into so
| much detail.
| voisin wrote:
| Buildings don't need to breathe, people do. Buildings need to
| dry out, and there are many ways to do this that don't
| involve uncontrolled air flow that destroys energy
| efficiency.
| Dork1234 wrote:
| I think both of you are correct, you can have a tight
| building, but you need to have a way to get the moisture
| away from both sides of the vapor barrier. There are
| definitely been cases in the past 30 years were buildings
| were built tight without correctly considering removing
| moisture.
|
| https://buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-the-
| p...
| nemo44x wrote:
| You're sort of wrong here and the proof is the massive
| graveyard of homes built in the 60's, 70's, 80's and early
| 90's before we really understood new techniques and
| materials that were being used to build homes. So many of
| those homes rotted out and rotted out quickly. It's similar
| to all the moldy basements that were finished without
| considering that water vapor that can't escape is the real
| killer. Open up a 100 year old house that has been
| maintained and you'll see pristine lumber that has hundreds
| more years if allowed to not rot.
|
| You could take an old house and bring it up to a modern
| standard but you would never recoup those energy savings
| both in terms of the cost to upgrade and the energy used to
| create and transport those materials.
|
| Even just replacing the single glazed, wood windows that
| have an uninsulated weight box with modern windows is
| probably not worth it if the existing windows are
| weatherstripped (the most important thing) and have storm
| windows.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Older homes were designed to breath.[1]_
|
| Was it purposefully _desgined_ to do this, or did it just
| happen because of construction methods of the time?
| devonkim wrote:
| Somewhat both. Balloon framing existed for houses when
| homes were heated with fireplaces and sealing the house
| could have been potentially dangerous as a result.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I find the idea that balloon (rather than platform)
| framing was part of the heating design of a house a
| little hard to take. The moment we could switch to
| platform framing, almost everybody did (not least because
| shorter studs were cheaper). But a balloon framed house
| with a fire that escaped the fireplace is going to burn
| only slightly faster than a platform framed house, and
| the main determinant is not going to be the framing but
| things like fire-resistant doors and wall finishes.
| gfaregan wrote:
| Why would sealing a balloon framed house be dangerous? I
| know that you need blocking to help stop a fire from
| spreading between floors.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| If you heat with open fireplaces, then you can't seal the
| house unless you have really really good artificial
| ventilation (which you don't because it's 1840 still when
| you're building this house), regardless of how the house
| is built. A sealed house with a fire burning in it is a
| suicide machine.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _A sealed house with a fire burning in it is a suicide
| machine._
|
| Modern designs use direct vent systems, where instead of
| using inside air for combustion, they bring in outside
| air (and then exhaust externally as usual):
|
| * https://www.efireplacestore.com/five-things-about-
| direct-ven...
|
| The warming of the house occurs via radiant heat and
| through any conduction of heat via the actual material of
| fireplace or stove.
| jefftk wrote:
| That's not an open fireplace, though?
|
| (And so while the house is sealed, the fire is not
| burning with the sealed boundary of the house.)
| nemo44x wrote:
| Sort of, yes. They knew that they had to prevent water so
| you tend to see homes with larger eves than post WW2 homes.
| You'll also see attics with windows which seems weird until
| you realize that was designed to prevent condensation.
|
| Also they built homes much smaller (the average home was
| less than 1000 sq feet 100 years ago, today it's 2400) and
| they tended to have smaller, compartmentalized rooms. This
| allowed for the inefficient home to use less energy
| anyways.
|
| Where I live there are quite a few ~120 year old homes that
| are about 2400 sq feet. These would have been built by
| fairly wealthy people of that time as evidenced by old
| directories which indicate a live-in servant at most
| addresses, rift sawn moldings and floors, and stained glass
| windows on landings/in dining rooms. And although
| inefficient, they are smaller so they use similar amounts
| of energy to much larger modern homes.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Correct, that is a common botched (ignorant, clueless) doing
| ignoring humidity aspects of highly insulated homes that was
| not an issue while air tightness (and consequently the energy
| efficiency) was on a lower level and traditional materials
| were being used. No excuse for those ignoring this as this is
| taught for many many decades now for the professionals.
| bb123 wrote:
| Mechanical ventilation with Heat Recovery (MHVR) mostly solves
| this. Air is actively exchanged with outside to regulate
| humidity from cooking etc but heat from the waste air is
| captured and used to warm the incoming air. These are now
| standard in homes in the UK.
|
| https://www.cse.org.uk/advice/advice-and-support/mechanical-...
| _benedict wrote:
| "Standard" is a bit strong, maybe? I think the majority of
| new homes still use trickle ventilation because it's much
| cheaper, and not many homes have them retrofitted?
|
| They are certainly common, but I think far from standard.
| bluGill wrote:
| Last I checked 20 years ago it was required. This was
| Minnesota though, where insulation code is generally more
| up to date than other parts of the US.
| _benedict wrote:
| The original comment referenced the U.K., where it is
| definitely not required, but is becoming more common.
|
| I am surprised at the idea that MVHRs have been
| _required_ anywhere for as much as 20 years.
| bluGill wrote:
| Where you are makes a big difference. 20 years ago I read
| about some 'passive house', and realized it was actually
| less insulated than the codes in Minnesota require - but
| it was in a mild climate so it was passive, while the
| more efficient houses in MN are not passive.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Correct, thanks for highlighting that, I edited to explicitly
| note (beyond 'energy efficient ventillation') that there are
| heat preservation techniques to use (heat exchangers) with
| the elevated level of ventilation needs while avoiding high
| energy loss.
| brnt wrote:
| For an A+++ energy rated house, you can't have holes in walls
| where I live. That means you can't have cooker extractors that
| extract, you can only have them run the air through a filter.
| But this is really silly, because a major 'exhaust' is water
| vapor, which filters don't help with. A more humid house is bad
| for many reasons, and often results in people opening windows
| anyway. Yes, an A+++ house also requires air refreshing with
| energy recovery, but it takes ages to get that sort of humidity
| out that way. Running an airco just for dehumidification is
| also expensive.
|
| It's short sighted imho. The extractor is precisely the right
| place to just move air out for all kinds of health reasons,
| maybe someone should work on one that recaptures some of the
| heat (that would also make sense!); I have not yet seen one.
| fnomnom wrote:
| there are a lot of available ventilation solutions that
| recover the energy and cycle air in your use. they start at
| 200EUR a unit and go up from there.
|
| i think the modern cooking extractors are all built into the
| countertops and just filter the air. at least thats the trend
| in germany
| brnt wrote:
| The point is that those systems do not integrate with
| extractors, and filtering only removed VOCs and
| particulates, not water vapour, which you would prefer to
| extract as well.
|
| Heat recovery from an extractor (eg remove heat from air
| before expelling) would achieve the goal the rating is
| aimed at, without compromising indoor air quality by not
| having a way to remove humidity. Or maybe another kind of
| integrated dehumidifier that discharges in your
| sink/plumbing maybe.
|
| Those filter-only extractors won't do for anyone serious
| about indoor air quality.
| nice__two wrote:
| Berbel has a unit that opens when using the unit and closes,
| when not in use. Quite ingenious, if you ask me.
|
| [1]: https://www.berbel.de/dunstabzuege/zubehoer/abluft-
| zubehoer/...
| brnt wrote:
| That's clever, but this [1] is already common and I guess
| not much worse?
|
| [1] https://www.ventilatieshop.com/terugslagklep-in-
| ventilatieka...
| nice__two wrote:
| It is _much_ worse. The Berbel retains the insulation
| provided by the wall, when closed. This is nothing more
| than a fancy hole in the wall.
|
| Opening and closing, means you get the best of both
| worlds.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Can you just settle for a measly A++? Is there an A++++
| rating? Seems like a silly system anyway.
| maccard wrote:
| Assuming you're joking about the ++'s on the end, the
| reality is that the efficiency scales (like the appliance
| energy efficiency scales in europe) were designed when what
| was considered "good", was vastly different to what it is
| now.
|
| The choice is to either rebalance/demote everyone who built
| a top rated property 25 years ago, or add more tiers.
| Political will means we do the latter.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Why can't we just use numbers? "This house in this
| climate will use about X kwh per year for
| heating/cooling". That's what appliances do. No messing
| with scales and tiers and having to constantly re-
| balance.
|
| It's also more directly meaningful to customers. An
| A+++++ mansion is going to use more energy to heat than a
| modest A+++ house.
| maccard wrote:
| > Why can't we just use numbers?
|
| Because numbers require everyone who is involved in
| comparing options (i.e. consudmers) to have intimate
| knowledge of what those numbers mean. Is X kwh actually
| good? How does it compare to other houses in the area?
| What number do you use - the amount of energy it will
| take to heat the house, or the amount of energy of a
| specific type you will use. How do you compare those (a
| house with Natural Gas as a heat source will require
| significantly less electricity to heat than a house with
| electric radiators, but will likely _cost_ more).
|
| Using ratings gives a standardised way to compare them.
| If you compare two houses, one has an A rating and one
| has a B rating, the B one is strictly worse, by an amount
| that someone who knows something about this has deemed
| significant.
|
| > That's what appliances do
|
| Appliances are graded on a similar score here. Every
| appliance you buy in the EU has one of these [0] labels
| (which has the same problem).
|
| > An A+++++ mansion is going to use more energy to heat
| than a modest A+++ house.
|
| You're comparing two different things here, and
| forgetting a very important point - someone who is going
| to buy a "mansion" is not going to buy a modest house, so
| it doesn't matter what the rating of the house is in
| comparison. What matters is the rating of the mansion
| next door.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_energy_label
| dahfizz wrote:
| Hm, in the US we have energy labels on appliances like
| [1] that just tells you how much energy it will likely
| use. When shopping for a fridge, you can directly compare
| different models.
|
| It even shows the average cost of other similar products.
| So you can see both the absolute numbers and a visual
| representation of how efficient something is in relative
| terms without having to squint and count '+' marks.
|
| I don't see why we couldn't do that for houses. Maybe use
| a unit like BTU instead of kwh to account for different
| heating sources. And include a comparison to the average
| range for houses in the area.
|
| This would be a lot more concrete and avoid arbitrary
| ratings. If the ratings are based on bureaucratic rules
| (i.e. can't have stovetop vents) instead of actual
| measurements, then it feels a lot less meaningful. "This
| house will cost about $X to heat each year" is a much
| more useful piece of information for someone house
| shopping.
|
| [1] https://www.sce.com/residential/home-energy-
| guide/energy-sta...
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _For an A+++ energy rated house, you can 't have holes in
| walls where I live. That means you can't have cooker
| extractors that extract, you can only have them run the air
| through a filter._
|
| It's possible to install dampers that are normally closed for
| airtightness, but open when the kitchen vent is activated
| (both on the exhaust, and makeup air, side of things):
|
| * https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/makeup-air-
| for-...
|
| Even the Passive House folks are fine with this arrangement
| (SS3.4):
|
| > _When the exhaust air system is not operating the exhaust
| air and intake air vents should close airtight and should not
| cause any leakage volume flow. Furthermore, additional
| insulation will be advantageous at these locations._
|
| *
| https://passiv.de/downloads/05_extractor_hoods_guideline.pdf
|
| So I'm not sure why your building codes mandate
| recirculation, since I'm guessing even they wouldn't be as
| "strict" as the PH folks.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| In general theres two kinds of ways to meet code: by design
| or by test. They might be referring to a 'design'
| stipulation which wouldn't require a real test. If they
| choose to be tested instead, then the 'open when activated'
| would likely pass.
|
| EDIT: it looks like the terms are 'Prescriptive' and
| 'Performance'. e.g. https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/defau
| lt/files/2019-09/Ener...
| a1371 wrote:
| I think the article doesn't explain the pumping coefficient
| correctly and so it gets into this rabbit hole about how long and
| tight clothing is better:
|
| > Long underwear has more advantages over other clothing options.
| It does not hide your body shape and can maintain sex-appeal, a
| common concern for both men and women
|
| If this is not your concern, consider that there is no problem
| with putting on loose clothes. It will work fine because the
| trapped air itself acts as an insulator. The pumping coefficient
| only materially significant for things like dresses.
| rambambram wrote:
| Thermal underclothing was the best 25 euros that I ever spent.
|
| Also, don't forget to take a cup of warm tea now and then. Or do
| some pushups, jumping jacks and squats when feeling cold at home.
| interactivecode wrote:
| or eat, so many times I get cold at 17h and I get super toasty
| after eating dinner.
| rambambram wrote:
| Yeah, lately I really feel a difference between eating warm
| and cold stuff. Before I didn't really notice.
| Izkata wrote:
| It's not even a warm/cold food thing, it's more like you're
| low on energy so your body isn't producing as much heat as
| usual. When it happens to me it's usually before lunch.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| This is known as specific dynamic action, or the thermic
| effect of food. Your metabolism does actually increase as
| a result of eating.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_action
| rambambram wrote:
| > it's more like you're low on energy so your body isn't
| producing as much heat as usual
|
| I expected that to be the cause, but me eating cold
| yoghurt to replenish my energy or me eating a hot
| sandwich makes a big difference, I now notice.
| Nitrolo wrote:
| Any particular brand you'd recommend?
|
| I don't need anything fancy but the higher range stuff (Helly
| Hansen, Arcteryx, Patagonia, etc.) is easily triple that.
| dangwhy wrote:
| depends on your activity level and how sweaty you get. Its
| critical to not get sweaty. I would go for something cheap if
| you are using it to just chill at home without much activity.
| mftrhu wrote:
| If you have a Decathlon nearby, you could try theirs. The
| basic Wedze thermal underwear - very much _not_ fancy, 100%
| polyester, but warm and more than OK to wear indoors - is
| only EUR6.99 for a pair of pants or shirt. They also carry
| more expensive items, some of them in wool, and usually much
| cheaper than other brands.
| tpm wrote:
| Aclima. Norwegian merino (so doesn't smell) underwear, not
| cheap but not the most expensive at least here in Europe.
| Several different lines with different levels of insulation.
| I use the "warmwool" line and it's very warm indeed.
| rambambram wrote:
| I bought Helly Hansen years ago (ten years already, I guess).
| I only have thermal trousers and paid around 25 euros, if I
| remember correctly. The trousers are still doing fine after a
| lot of use.
| leethargo wrote:
| I use icebreaker brand, made of merino wool. They are among
| the most expensive, but I can wear the long underpants for
| weeks without them smelling bad.
| proactivesvcs wrote:
| I've got a few sets of cheap (low-cost supermarket) and
| moderately-expensive thermals. They're not marketed or
| branded for sport etc. but both are equally excellent. The
| more expensive set is thinner and feels just as effective,
| but is more comfortable (ease of movement) on days when I am
| outside and more active. With a set of thin, long socks worn
| over the thermal layer's lower legs, and thicker long socks
| on top, my feet are nice and warm if I'm sedentary or active
| for the day.
| klondike_klive wrote:
| I wear a brand called Brass Monkeys - (from the british slang
| term for bloody freezing - "it's cold enough to freeze the
| balls off a brass monkey") They're merino from New Zealand.
| They're great, hard wearing and not itchy. Fit's on the small
| side though, definitely size up.
| kekebo wrote:
| I have good experiences with the "Heattech" line from Uniqlo.
| It's some synthetic formulation of fibers but does it's job
| quite well for me, at low cost.
| Nitrolo wrote:
| Funny that, I'm wearing the Heattech Ultra turtleneck right
| now, it cost 30EUR and is probably the comfiest top I own.
| The reason I was asking for alternatives is simply that I
| can't get a non-turtleneck one in my size because they sell
| out immediately.
|
| Overall I'm really happy with all the clothes I got from
| Uniqlo.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| I don't understand HN obsession with this.
|
| I want to walk around in boxers and a T-shirt when at home.
| bestest wrote:
| And you definitely don't want to spend whole days in merino.
| It'd ruin both the clothing and your health.
| tristor wrote:
| What are you talking about? I wear merino every single day,
| year-round, and it is absolutely not going to ruin the
| clothing or your health. My socks, my undershirts, and my
| boxers are all made of merino wool. It's not as miraculous of
| a fabric as some people claim, but merino /is/ pretty
| awesome, and it is not going to in any way damage your health
| any more than any other fabric you might be exposed to.
| taink wrote:
| Would it ruin my health? Most of what I've read suggests
| otherwise, do you have any suggestions on further reading
| about this?
|
| And I'd expect any fabric to wear out when you wear it
| (there's probably a good pun to make here).
| erikerikson wrote:
| Perhaps, but where should we make it?
| taink wrote:
| Perhaps a better question would be how can we wear our
| wearable wares so that they don't wear out from us
| excessively wearing them?
| rkangel wrote:
| I'd like to drive my sportscar all the time. I'd like to do a
| lot of flying. I'd like to not have to bother about recycling
| anything.
|
| But it is selfish to have what I want and not care about the
| future of our planet, so I make some compromises.
| twoodfin wrote:
| Relying on human selfishness by putting a price on the
| externalities of emissions seems to me far more likely to
| succeed than preaching self-abnegation.
|
| Pay more for more heat or pay for fancy thermal underwear.
| Choose what selfishly makes you happier.
| rkangel wrote:
| I completely agree that that would be a more effective
| approach, and we should all campaign for it. That isn't the
| world that we live in though, so instead I have to choose
| not to be selfish.
|
| FWIW, I don't wear fancy thermal underwear. I do accept
| that wearing a warm jumper during the winter (while heating
| my house to 19 or 20 degC) is a perfectly reasonable
| compromise.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Exactly.
| danwee wrote:
| Exactly. I mean, I don't pretend to wear only boxers at home
| during winter... but just my jeans and a t-shirt? C'mon. Also,
| I don't see the need to turn on the heating in the whole house:
| it's usually turned on only in the living room (where I spent
| 90% of the time). The bathroom, kitchen, hallways, they all
| could be as cold as needed, I don't mind. As for the bedroom:
| as soon as I'm inside bed for at least 10 minutes, I'm already
| warm no matter if the heating is off.
| bluGill wrote:
| If your house is properly insulated the others rooms will be
| warm just because your living room is. May as well heat them
| all as the cost difference is minimal and then you can be
| comfortable that other 10% of the time.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| I wear silk thermal underwear around the house, under normal
| clothes. I keep the thermostat at 55 degrees Fahrenheit (12.75 C)
| except for the first two hours after I wake up. And I live in a
| very cold climate.
|
| EDIT: I have no mold, but I live in a very dry environment --
| high altitude, mountainous. Lots of snow but very dry air. Today
| it was 10 F (-12 C), but that is not typical. We are in a cold
| spell. I am nowhere near the sea, like Denmark, as mentioned in
| other comments.
|
| Try this. You can do it. As another commenter wrote, get gloves
| with the fingertips cut out.
| mrweasel wrote:
| That is 13 degrees Celsius, that's pretty cold. Currently, due
| to the war in Ukraine and a reliance on Russian gas many Danish
| companies and government offices have been turning down the
| heat to 19 or 20 degrees Celsius. This has come with warning
| from engineers to not go much lower. In cold and wet climates,
| dropping below 19 degrees during the winter will damage
| building and allow mold to grow.
|
| I can see 13 degrees not doing much harm in places arctic
| perhaps, but it is something to be aware of.
| maccard wrote:
| Can you source this? All of the advice from UK bodies says
| 15-16 rather than 19.
| wiz21c wrote:
| That's weird: in Denmark, I guess temperature would go above
| 19 degrees about 6 months a year. That means that buildings
| are built with the _expectation_ of being warmed...
| proto_lambda wrote:
| > That means that buildings are built with the expectation
| of being warmed...
|
| That doesn't seem strange to me. At even lower
| temperatures, water pipes will burst, so you have to heat
| it at least a little in winter. Waste heat from humans
| might be enough to avoid freezing temperatures, but then
| humans also produce a lot of humidity, causing mold.
| maccard wrote:
| I live in Edinburgh (Scotland) and we count _days_ over 19
| degrees rather than months.
| Scandiravian wrote:
| I think most buildings are build with an expectation of
| cold in the winter. Building for warmth would result in
| burst pipes during winter, when the temperature goes below
| freezing
|
| I might be in for a surprise, but I don't think there has
| been a year where the temperature has been above 19 degrees
| for six months of the year. I'm curious if you have a
| source on that?
| wiz21c wrote:
| no source, was just guessing based on Denmark's position
| on the globe (and comparing to my own country)
| maelito wrote:
| > dropping below 19 degrees during the winter will damage
| building and allow mold to grow.
|
| Can you provide a source ? This would mean that all
| unoccupied houses would be damaged, since they are just
| heated to avoid freezing (10 ?).
| mrweasel wrote:
| https://sparenergi.dk/forbruger/spar-energi-i-dit-hus <-
| Danish Government Office for Energi (but in Danish).
|
| They say 18 degrees, to avoid issue with moisture. It very
| much depends on how the home is built I'd assume, because
| holiday homes are normally kept colder, down to 5 degrees,
| during the winter.
| benj111 wrote:
| 19c is basically a rule of thumb measurement.
|
| Warm air can hold more moisture than cold air. Humans and
| their activities give off moisture. In winter humans
| maintain warmer than ambient temperatures. Therefore at
| some point the warm wet air is going to cool and reach its
| dew point.
|
| Ideally you don't want this happening in the house, whether
| it does depends on the inside temp and the outside temp and
| humidity inside and out.
|
| So there's a few knobs you can twiddle, temp being one.
| mtsr wrote:
| Just thinking out loud, I'd guess people living there would
| be an important factor since we produce quite a lot of
| water vapor, as do things like cooking etc. And when the
| house is cold, this has a tendency to condense on any
| surfaces. And humid porous surfaces (drywall) and even
| insulation will probably be a good substrate for mold.
| Manfred wrote:
| Most insulation materials are engineered to reduce growth
| of mold. Drywall usually has an air gap on the cold side
| to let air circulate.
| sofixa wrote:
| Drywall is very rare for non -internal walls across
| Europe, especially in cold countries like Denmark.
| Nitrolo wrote:
| Warning, annecdata: we turned down our heating signifcantly
| this winter, and both my roommate and me have gotten quite
| a bit of mold on and around our windows.
|
| The thermostat is now back up to 19.5degC.
| mtsr wrote:
| If you're able to invest in better windows (good double
| or even triple glazing), that will solve it. But just
| wiping down the window sill semi-regularly works well,
| even if it's an annoying chore.
| rini17 wrote:
| With better windows the moisture may condense in other
| less visible places. Best to remove it with desiccator.
| mtsr wrote:
| Sure, but there are insulation solutions that mostly
| prevent it. For example insulation foam layered between
| vapor permeable foil on the cold side and vapor
| inhibiting foil on the warm side.
|
| But drywall (and other porous surfaces) are supposed to
| help regulate moisture, so if they never get an
| opportunity to dry because it's permanently cold and
| humid, yeah, that'll be a problem. Cracking a window at
| least 30 minutes per day (ideally on dry days) does
| wonders, though it won't help temperatures in winter.
| rini17 wrote:
| Yep in theory it's all nice and easy, just put foils in
| and open the windows sometimes.
|
| In practice... say, there is a dog that likes to gnaw on
| corners and thus punctures the vapor barrier. Happened to
| my own house's outside insulation. That's just one of
| many "unforeseen" ways how these foils and barriers stop
| working. I fully expect the polystyrene there to get
| moldy in 20 years or even less.
| diordiderot wrote:
| My insurance requires that my house be at least 16 degrees
| all year
| benj111 wrote:
| How do they measure that?
|
| Presumably your fridge and freezer is breaking that rule.
|
| Edit: it's a genuine question. Is that the minimum temp
| anywhere in the house or the average? What about an
| attached garage?
| Tepix wrote:
| > _Presumably your fridge and freezer is_ [sic] _breaking
| that rule_.
|
| You must be fun at parties.
| benj111 wrote:
| >[sic]
|
| touche
| diordiderot wrote:
| To be honest I don't know.
| kube-system wrote:
| One does not have to measure something to require it.
|
| The insurance company does not want stupid actions by the
| owner causing property losses. If you have utilities shut
| off to the property for a month in freezing winter
| weather and all of the pipes freeze, they'll be able to
| determine that you did not maintain 16 degrees.
| benj111 wrote:
| Theres a wide gap between freezing and 16 degrees.
|
| Which suggests this is more about mold etc. If they don't
| want to cover frozen pipes then fair enough, they should
| really state that because then it becomes unclear what
| the situation is in the case of a garage or if you have a
| pipe in the attic or cellar.
| kube-system wrote:
| It's likely not about any one type of damage in
| particular and more about 16 c being a reasonable lower
| bound for indoor temperatures of a properly maintained
| property. Nobody from the insurance company is going
| around checking to see if people's houses are 15.5
| degrees so they can cancel their policies. Provisions
| like this are just a slightly more objective way to say
| "don't neglect your damn property".
|
| Now this also doesn't mean that frozen pipes aren't
| covered. It is possible to have pipes freeze while
| keeping normal indoor air temps. Not all pipes are in
| conditioned space.
| benj111 wrote:
| >Nobody from the insurance company is going around
| checking to see if people's houses are 15.5 degrees so
| they can cancel their policies.
|
| No of course they won't. That would be giving up good
| money. Instead when you make a claim they'll reject it on
| some basis around the property not being kept at 16c.
| kube-system wrote:
| Of course, this is the point of outlining requirements
| within a contract.
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| Usually the freeze dryed air there, kills any mold
| rebuilder wrote:
| Have you had moisture problems in your house/apartment? The
| advice I see cautions against letting insulated spaces drop
| below 18 degrees C or so (around 65 F) as you'll start to have
| issues with moisture buildup.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| No, but I live in a very dry environment -- high altitude.
| Lots of snow but very dry air. Nowhere near the sea like
| Denmark as mentioned in other comments.
| venv wrote:
| If you are actually being serious, I would caution others from
| following your example. Houses usually require a certain indoor
| temperature to prevent problems from moisture buildup in the
| structure (walls etc).
| culi wrote:
| every time I've tried gloves with no fingertips it just feels
| like the finger holes are restricting the blood going to my
| fingertips. I feel like my fingers get colder than they would
| if I just didn't wear gloves
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| They sound too tight. This is what I use:
|
| https://www.walmart.com/ip/Mens-Fingerless-Ragg-Wool-
| Gloves-...
| berjin wrote:
| > This has resulted in a very diverse and fashionable line of
| lightweight clothes with high clo-values. A great deal of this
| progress is due to the use of new, synthetic materials
|
| ... which are endocrine disruptors turn produce microplastics.
| memo: plastics are bad.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Merino wool undergarments are much more expensive but work
| really well and are not endocrine disruptors.
| Nitrolo wrote:
| Can you recommend any brand with a reasonable price tag?
|
| I've checked the big brands but merino is a lot more
| expensive than synthetic stuff.
| _visgean wrote:
| You can get them for like 75 https://www.cotswoldoutdoor.co
| m/lister.html?q=merino%20base%...
| benj111 wrote:
| Plastics are inert, with no sense of morality. They have many
| uses, many of which have negative externalities. Some negative
| externalities are worth it though because the alternative would
| be far worse.
|
| Ultimately your existence is going to create externalities.
| Unless you're proposing to commit Hari Kiri what ever option
| you choose will create externalities. So at some point you're
| going to have to accept that you are leaving a mark on the
| world.
|
| I personally believe a few grams of microplastics is acceptable
| in view of the tonnes of co2 not emitted.
| tpm wrote:
| Bisphenol A is certainly not inert. It's partly used as an
| antioxidant, so its very purpose in this application is to be
| oxidised, not inert. It's also a xenoestrogen. Note: in
| chemistry, inert describes a substance that is not reactive.
| berjin wrote:
| I really want a label that says this product is safe and
| free of all the bad things like forever chemicals and
| phthalates. Think vegan or halal. Unfortunately the
| plastics industry loves to pedal the BPA-free meme while
| they are free two swap out BPA for very similar chemicals.
| Outside of food and drugs, chemicals that are given a free
| pass until we find out it's been affecting peoples' health.
| That needs to change too as it's quite clear we cannot
| trust DuPont or 3M to do the right thing.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _When discussing space heating,_ we _overlook the fact that our
| own bodies are heating appliances too_
|
| ...The dreaded sociologistic '<<we>>' ("We have killed Julius
| Caesar!" No sorry, I was elsewhere).
|
| The "heating power" of the human body is estimated by some
| computers (maybe 'crunchers', for reduced chance of
| misunderstanding?) to be around 100W, based on typically intaken
| calories.
|
| (...We had checked.)
| bearmode wrote:
| Sounds like a great way to introduce mold problems into your
| home.
|
| Also insulating the body is great and all, but then all your
| surfaces are cold. Every time you open a door, your hand gets
| freezing. Your sofa is cold. Your chair is cold. Your floor is
| cold. It's just not a comfortable way to live. It's unpleasant.
|
| Then, any bits of your flesh exposed to the cold air in your
| house also feel cold.
|
| Not to mention how much more uncomfortable it is to have to layer
| up at home, rather than just being able to wear a set of pyjamas.
| caxco93 wrote:
| Is this because of that one comment on the "what have you been
| doing wrong your entire life" post?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-31 23:02 UTC)