4 ms·

How is this a tiny detail. We live in a passivhaus. We hardly ever heat. Improving insulation of old houses is an important aspect here. Reducing energy consump

How is this a tiny detail. We live in a passivhaus. We hardly ever heat. Improving insulation of old houses is an important aspect here. Reducing energy consumption is as important as generating and storing energy.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
- stewbrew 4y ago
  I don't see how this relates to this discussion other than by spamming this subthread.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    I appreciate that you don't see how a direct answer to your question, where you asked what you don't understand and it was spelled out for you, doesn't relate to the discussion. I agree, your attempt to make the world's energy problems about the way you live personally in a Passivhaus doesn't relate to this discussion. That was kind of my point, as well as the point of several other people who've replied to you so far. You might as well ask why everyone doesn't just live in an igloo. It's because they don't work in the places that most people live, like downtown. And if you try to ask the company "hey, I see that you claim you reduce carbon by 90%, why wouldn't LEED certify you, they only require 30%," the company will quickly change the topic. I'll try it a little differently. "If your solution doesn't work for 99.99% of humans, your solution just doesn't work." No, I wasn't selling anything. This wasn't spam. But, you knew that. I was making a good faith attempt to answer the question you asked.
- ratww 4y ago
  The point is not that everyone should live in a passivhaus. The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption. Not best: better. Those are two different words. No, you don't need a passivhaus, but the passivhaus example, which barely needs heating, is useful for demonstrating the efficiency of insulation.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    > The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption Yes, that's a wonderful tidbit that fans love to say. It's also about as relevant to the discussion at hand as giving tips of how not to spill your coffee on the deck to keep it dry is to a sinking boat. You can't solve climate change with better insulation. Sorry. Part of the problem with the discussion about climate change is that people who've never actually looked at the numbers feel the emotional need to take the position of an expert and explain what will help. And yes, if a car is rolling down the hill at you, at some level, technically, throwing a grape at it will slow it down. But not enough to matter. When you take the time to put your solution in the specific context of the discussion, and take a look at how big the impact is, you realize "oh wait, no, this actually isn't a valid line of thought." You might as well try to solve the national debt with a ten dollar bill. You're missing way, way too many zeroes. In order to stop climate change, we must go carbon negative. Energy reduction does not change carbon dynamic spread, and cannot solve the problem without reducing our energy spend to zero. I enthusiastically recommend that you read some work by the academics before continuing. These are not new ideas, and they have been roundly and thoroughly debunked for decades. It turns out that yes, we have thought of insulation. This was not a curve ball. Owens Corning has so thoroughly advertised it to us that by the time I said their name, we all shared a memory of their mascot, its song, and their theme color. There is a reason that absolutely nobody who's got actual traction in the field is offering improved insulation as a solution. The reason Passivhaus is a good example is simple: they claim a 90% reduction in carbon, and when they tried to get LEED certified, LEED said "actually you increase carbon, we're not certifying you." You're listening to marketing, and trying to hold it up as engineering. Every time you attempt to google for this, please do yourself a favor, and check whether the text you're looking at is word for word identical to their marketing materials. Try a university study. None of them say it's a benefit, and there have been tons. Respectfully, no, weird houses that make carbon worse aren't going to fix this either. Thanks for understanding.
    - ratww 4y ago
      A lot of what you typed have nothing to do with my answer. You also seem to be making a lot of very uncharitable and unpolite assumptions about me that don't make sense at all, since I only posted one single message, so I'll assume you're under the impression that I am someone else. Sorry but I won't be dragged into an internet argument.
- midasuni 4y ago
  I lived in a new house for 5 years from 2016. We keep the house warm (21-22), but even then the radiators were rarely on, insulation was great. On the other hand in summer temperatures overnight we’re still in the 28-30 range in the west facing rooms even at midnight.
ajuc 4y ago
> Reducing energy consumption is as important as generating and storing energy. Only if the efficiency is 100%. In practice it's lower than that, so reducing consumption is better than increasing production.
tailsdog 4y ago
The point is that in some situations it can be more cost effective to generate additional energy than implement energy saving measures such as insulation improvements. My house was built in the 1600's it's very difficult to insulate properly.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  Real Question: I see posts like this often on HN. Why not tear down these houses and rebuild with energy efficient ones? I know... blah. blah. blah. historical this and that... but do you want to suffer from 40+C summers? This is the price of history! Think about it. Really really! Please start tearing down these horribly inefficient houses that are "historical". We already do it for office buildings!
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    The issue is that it's ridiculously expensive. You have to pay an inflated price for an existing, perfectly fine home. Then you have to pay to have it demolished. Then you have to pay to build a brand new home. It's going to cost >2x what the resulting home is actually worth. When the old homes decay to the point that they need to be torn down, then they will be. But destroying perfectly good houses is just too expensive in this market.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago

stewbrew 4y ago
I don't see how this relates to this discussion other than by spamming this subthread.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  I appreciate that you don't see how a direct answer to your question, where you asked what you don't understand and it was spelled out for you, doesn't relate to the discussion. I agree, your attempt to make the world's energy problems about the way you live personally in a Passivhaus doesn't relate to this discussion. That was kind of my point, as well as the point of several other people who've replied to you so far. You might as well ask why everyone doesn't just live in an igloo. It's because they don't work in the places that most people live, like downtown. And if you try to ask the company "hey, I see that you claim you reduce carbon by 90%, why wouldn't LEED certify you, they only require 30%," the company will quickly change the topic. I'll try it a little differently. "If your solution doesn't work for 99.99% of humans, your solution just doesn't work." No, I wasn't selling anything. This wasn't spam. But, you knew that. I was making a good faith attempt to answer the question you asked.
ratww 4y ago
The point is not that everyone should live in a passivhaus. The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption. Not best: better. Those are two different words. No, you don't need a passivhaus, but the passivhaus example, which barely needs heating, is useful for demonstrating the efficiency of insulation.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  > The point is that better insulation can help reducing energy consumption Yes, that's a wonderful tidbit that fans love to say. It's also about as relevant to the discussion at hand as giving tips of how not to spill your coffee on the deck to keep it dry is to a sinking boat. You can't solve climate change with better insulation. Sorry. Part of the problem with the discussion about climate change is that people who've never actually looked at the numbers feel the emotional need to take the position of an expert and explain what will help. And yes, if a car is rolling down the hill at you, at some level, technically, throwing a grape at it will slow it down. But not enough to matter. When you take the time to put your solution in the specific context of the discussion, and take a look at how big the impact is, you realize "oh wait, no, this actually isn't a valid line of thought." You might as well try to solve the national debt with a ten dollar bill. You're missing way, way too many zeroes. In order to stop climate change, we must go carbon negative. Energy reduction does not change carbon dynamic spread, and cannot solve the problem without reducing our energy spend to zero. I enthusiastically recommend that you read some work by the academics before continuing. These are not new ideas, and they have been roundly and thoroughly debunked for decades. It turns out that yes, we have thought of insulation. This was not a curve ball. Owens Corning has so thoroughly advertised it to us that by the time I said their name, we all shared a memory of their mascot, its song, and their theme color. There is a reason that absolutely nobody who's got actual traction in the field is offering improved insulation as a solution. The reason Passivhaus is a good example is simple: they claim a 90% reduction in carbon, and when they tried to get LEED certified, LEED said "actually you increase carbon, we're not certifying you." You're listening to marketing, and trying to hold it up as engineering. Every time you attempt to google for this, please do yourself a favor, and check whether the text you're looking at is word for word identical to their marketing materials. Try a university study. None of them say it's a benefit, and there have been tons. Respectfully, no, weird houses that make carbon worse aren't going to fix this either. Thanks for understanding.
  - ratww 4y ago
    A lot of what you typed have nothing to do with my answer. You also seem to be making a lot of very uncharitable and unpolite assumptions about me that don't make sense at all, since I only posted one single message, so I'll assume you're under the impression that I am someone else. Sorry but I won't be dragged into an internet argument.
midasuni 4y ago
I lived in a new house for 5 years from 2016. We keep the house warm (21-22), but even then the radiators were rarely on, insulation was great. On the other hand in summer temperatures overnight we’re still in the 28-30 range in the west facing rooms even at midnight.

ajuc 4y ago

> Reducing energy consumption is as important as generating and storing energy. Only if the efficiency is 100%. In practice it's lower than that, so reducing consumption is better than increasing production.

tailsdog 4y ago

The point is that in some situations it can be more cost effective to generate additional energy than implement energy saving measures such as insulation improvements. My house was built in the 1600's it's very difficult to insulate properly.

throwaway2037 4y ago
Real Question: I see posts like this often on HN. Why not tear down these houses and rebuild with energy efficient ones? I know... blah. blah. blah. historical this and that... but do you want to suffer from 40+C summers? This is the price of history! Think about it. Really really! Please start tearing down these horribly inefficient houses that are "historical". We already do it for office buildings!
- dahfizz 4y ago
  The issue is that it's ridiculously expensive. You have to pay an inflated price for an existing, perfectly fine home. Then you have to pay to have it demolished. Then you have to pay to build a brand new home. It's going to cost >2x what the resulting home is actually worth. When the old homes decay to the point that they need to be torn down, then they will be. But destroying perfectly good houses is just too expensive in this market.