5 ms·

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

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.

dublidu 4y ago
That’s a luxury that many people in this world can’t afford.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  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.
  - keyanp 4y ago
    What are you heating with specifically? 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.
OJFord 4y ago
> 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 4y ago
  Ideally just add a layer to stop water/wind
- bluGill 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
  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.
- culebron21 4y ago
  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.
teekert 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
bleuarff 4y ago
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.
- greesil 4y ago
  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.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA
  - pjerem 4y ago
    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.
    - 4y ago
tristor 4y ago
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.
- culebron21 4y ago
  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!
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
jltsiren 4y ago
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 4y ago

That’s a luxury that many people in this world can’t afford.

alkonaut 4y ago
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.
- keyanp 4y ago
  What are you heating with specifically? 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.

OJFord 4y ago

> 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 4y ago
Ideally just add a layer to stop water/wind
bluGill 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
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.
culebron21 4y ago
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.

teekert 4y ago

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 4y ago
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.

bleuarff 4y ago

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.

greesil 4y ago
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.
throw0101c 4y ago
> 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA
- pjerem 4y ago
  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.
  - 4y ago

tristor 4y ago

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.

culebron21 4y ago
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!
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.

jltsiren 4y ago

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.