4 ms·

Most existing buildings can be retrofitted: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/united-states-building-energy-efficiency-retrofits/ https://www.rockef

Most existing buildings can be retrofitted: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/united-states-building-energy-efficiency-retrofits/ https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/united-states-b...

zbrozek 6y ago
At eye-watering expense and with long lead times. Both of those are largely self-inflicted wounds. As with everything, if it were cheaper and faster to do, we'd probably be doing more of it. We'd do well to shorten timelines and costs by removing permitting requirements for most types of work and loosening control over building. We also need to reduce costs of living so a broader occupational dynamic range of people can live in any area. That would expand the labor pool for doing work in urban areas. I don't know anyone who has managed to accomplish nontrivial work on an existing home in Palo Alto in under two years and for less than half a million dollars. One friend has been trying to fix a leaky structure there for ~5 years.
- akamaka 6y ago
  It’s expensive up front, but it should pay for itself if done right. This is not a trivial finance problem, though. It’s very challenging fund projects with decades-long payoffs.
  - zbrozek 6y ago
    That's probably true in places with sensible construction costs and timelines. But around here it's going to cost me $250k to fix the envelope of my house. If it reduced my energy usage to zero it would take only 70 years to pay for itself. But it won't do that and I won't live that long, so...
    - akamaka 6y ago
      Yep, you nailed the biggest problem. No single person can individually make decisions on those time scales. Future energy costs, interest rates, climate trends, technological changes, and urban planning all need to be factored in. There needs to be a financing system that packages all this together and offers homeowners a simple low-interest construction loan that is cheaper than their energy bills.
      - zbrozek 6y ago
        In practice it's vastly more cost efficient for me to build an enormous solar array and install batteries. So I'm doing that.

zbrozek 6y ago

At eye-watering expense and with long lead times. Both of those are largely self-inflicted wounds. As with everything, if it were cheaper and faster to do, we'd probably be doing more of it. We'd do well to shorten timelines and costs by removing permitting requirements for most types of work and loosening control over building. We also need to reduce costs of living so a broader occupational dynamic range of people can live in any area. That would expand the labor pool for doing work in urban areas. I don't know anyone who has managed to accomplish nontrivial work on an existing home in Palo Alto in under two years and for less than half a million dollars. One friend has been trying to fix a leaky structure there for ~5 years.

akamaka 6y ago
It’s expensive up front, but it should pay for itself if done right. This is not a trivial finance problem, though. It’s very challenging fund projects with decades-long payoffs.
- zbrozek 6y ago
  That's probably true in places with sensible construction costs and timelines. But around here it's going to cost me $250k to fix the envelope of my house. If it reduced my energy usage to zero it would take only 70 years to pay for itself. But it won't do that and I won't live that long, so...
  - akamaka 6y ago
    Yep, you nailed the biggest problem. No single person can individually make decisions on those time scales. Future energy costs, interest rates, climate trends, technological changes, and urban planning all need to be factored in. There needs to be a financing system that packages all this together and offers homeowners a simple low-interest construction loan that is cheaper than their energy bills.
    - zbrozek 6y ago
      In practice it's vastly more cost efficient for me to build an enormous solar array and install batteries. So I'm doing that.