4 ms·

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 k

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.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    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)
    - pjerem 4y ago
      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.
      - bluGill 4y ago
        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.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > 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. * https://www.prettygoodhouse.org/economics https://www.prettygoodhouse.org/economics 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.
maxerickson 4y ago
So where's the oracle that tells us exactly what is need and exactly what is selfish? How much joy am I allowed per meal? Heated buildings are a pretty awesome way to adapt to cold natural conditions.
alkonaut 4y ago
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.

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.
- bluGill 4y ago
  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)
  - pjerem 4y ago
    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.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      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.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > 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. * https://www.prettygoodhouse.org/economics https://www.prettygoodhouse.org/economics 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.

maxerickson 4y ago

So where's the oracle that tells us exactly what is need and exactly what is selfish? How much joy am I allowed per meal? Heated buildings are a pretty awesome way to adapt to cold natural conditions.

alkonaut 4y ago

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.