5 ms·

Worked in 7 of them, million dollars of brand new buildings... Energy efficent buildings are efficient because they’re not as mild as they should be, always too

Worked in 7 of them, million dollars of brand new buildings... Energy efficent buildings are efficient because they’re not as mild as they should be, always too cold in winter, always above 25° in summer (in actual on-the-desk thermometer measurement), lights switch off at set times when you still work and no proper way to override anything « because consumption would get out of the target ». Those building are built for the norms, not for the human inside. In fact they make you well notice that the human is the intruder. And they’re here for the next 30-70 years.

saeranv 8y ago
Yes. We run energy/thermal comfort simulations to figure out where it's reasonable to to impose thermal discomfort on our inhabitants. If our energy models tell us that there's one extreme week that will be really hot, but we can reduce the HVAC sizing (for cost and energy efficiency), I think it's prudent to do so. I always argue on the side of reducing energy whenever possible. That's a couple of days over the course of the year though, we're not imposing discomfort every day! The industry has also been shifting towards different thermal comfort models (PMV or Predicted Mean Vote to ATC Adaptive Thermal Comfort) which takes into account inhabitants changing their clothing (i.e removing sweater), using personal fans, opening windows to modify their environment for comfort. FYI, I work in an office that actively uses all these strategies, and personally I don't mind it. Even if it's initially uncomfortable, human beings usually adapt to different thermal stresses in about two weeks of exposure. And yes, it does require some social/cultural shifts (in N. America especially) if you're expected to be a more active participant in making yourself feel thermally comfortable. ETA: Clarifying thermal comfort strategies.

saeranv 8y ago

Yes. We run energy/thermal comfort simulations to figure out where it's reasonable to to impose thermal discomfort on our inhabitants. If our energy models tell us that there's one extreme week that will be really hot, but we can reduce the HVAC sizing (for cost and energy efficiency), I think it's prudent to do so. I always argue on the side of reducing energy whenever possible. That's a couple of days over the course of the year though, we're not imposing discomfort every day! The industry has also been shifting towards different thermal comfort models (PMV or Predicted Mean Vote to ATC Adaptive Thermal Comfort) which takes into account inhabitants changing their clothing (i.e removing sweater), using personal fans, opening windows to modify their environment for comfort. FYI, I work in an office that actively uses all these strategies, and personally I don't mind it. Even if it's initially uncomfortable, human beings usually adapt to different thermal stresses in about two weeks of exposure. And yes, it does require some social/cultural shifts (in N. America especially) if you're expected to be a more active participant in making yourself feel thermally comfortable. ETA: Clarifying thermal comfort strategies.