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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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 50/60k€.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
It's better to change clothes when it's -10..-25 C (14..-10F) outside. You can't stay indoors in heavy clothes and heavy shoes (and snow and sand and salt will melt indoors).
I'm sure people here are having so much disagreement because they live in very different climates.
I stayed some days in Italy in winter, and their indoor heating was just minimal, it was like +17 C (62 F). I did find it miserable. You can't take a shower quietly, because it's cold in the bathroom too, and you must dress up very very quickly. How do people in such places go to the toilet when they wake up at night? Do they sleep dressed? Or dress up, or just endure the cold for couple of minutes?
I'll find it ok to put on a sweater for the most cold week or two in a year, but not for months.
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
°C.
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.
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).
If you have moist air in a home that is heated 17°C or more, heating is not the issue. Correct aeration is. Ironically you will feel hotter in a correctly aerated house heated at 18°C than in a house heated at 22°C but with moist air.
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.
This is an important distinction to make. By omitting it your original comment seems to be purposely touting a lack of concern for personal emissions reduction.
