The most important measure is to work towards the space and fabric being heated and insulated, and the household equipment are meeting genuine housing needs. While over 50% of these resources are underutilised (ie due to under-occupation) the wasted space/fabric/equipment will be duplicated through new building emitting intolerable levels of upfront/embodied carbon. Balancing the size of dwellings and households is the classic win/win.
"...meeting genuine housing needs. While over 50% of these resources are underutilised (ie due to under-occupation)...Balancing the size of dwellings and households is the classic win/win".
Genuine? Underoccupied? Based on whose metrics?
I grew up believing in the Right to Private Property. So what entity, Daniel, is going to divine what kind and how much private property anyone can own?
And if that entity is able to do that, shouldn't it follow, then, than the Right to Private Property has been annulled? And given that I have watched the Slippery Slope grow at an every increasing angle, what Right would be next? And the one after that?
I definitely agree that the initial focus should be on recognizing what the efficiency issues are. And airtightness should come next. Most US codes now require a new house to be tight enough (3 air changes per hour at 50 Pascal of pressure, roughly equivalent to a 20 mph/30 kph wind, usually stated as 3ach50) to require mechanical ventilation. But most older house are not going to achieve that level of airtightness without a total gut rehab. So mechanical ventilation is not necessary in most existing houses. But going from 12ach50 (not at all uncommon) to 6ach50 will make a huge difference.
Use a blower door test with a thermal imaging camera to help figure where the leaks are.
For those with "some means", thermals have come way down - from thousands for a rifle now down to $200 - $900 USD for a decent smartphone (I'd suggest FLIR). Then you can do the initials and "after fixing" imaging yourself as many times are you want.
I did just check and there's no way I'd buy the $70 I found.
Good discussion, but as always there's a strong cold climate bias there. Controlling solar heat gain can be as important and cost-effective as reducing air infiltration, if not more. Awnings, exterior roller shutters and painting roof shingles white would be among my first priorities if I lived in Phoenix or Houston. Given how poorly UK homes perform during heat waves, I'd bet they'd be pretty cost effective there too!
I like the recommendation for window inserts. I live in a 100 year old 2,700 sq ft brick and stucco 2-story home. We have the original double hung oak windows with nice trim, etc. They also have the rope and weights to raise and lower.
When you install inserts, you improve the efficiency of the glass area but how to you deal with the weights pockets? (Or ever they’re called)
Your last pyramid seems better than the ones higher in your post.
However, you are missing a hugely important piece. Without it, your updated scenarios may be better than a faculty lounge debate or a Friday night sophomore bull session.
It is needful to put the cost of such into any discussion that would be meaningful to those to whom have to reach into their own pockets. How MUCH does that Red Door cost? Sure, tier 2 is free stuff but even the next tier can become costly if one can't do it on their own - knowing for an average house "of age", what is the cost of materials? What would a handyman price that out at?
And continue it through the rest of the tiers for the sake of completeness.
I was wondering about the ROI when it comes to bang for your buck. Why is "complexity" even an issue? Homeowners don't do 98% of those things, they hire them out. Which means that it should be a pyramid of cost (to the homeowner) and the ROI of saving energy (or carbon.) But it seems that the bulk of what would save the most energy is also the most expensive, so a person who cares would have to decide whether money or carbon is the more important factor to any upgrades or improvements made.
A person can easily bankrupt themselves trying to outfit their house to such an extent that it's net zero or even negative, but in the grand scheme of things, that doesn't leave much room for living—and I ascribe a high value to that over other things.
"...and I ascribe a high value to that over other things"
And this is what happens when extreme advocates (and yes, I can fall into that category from time to time - smirk!) decide that Life should be all about their one thing - and demand that others fall into line.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way as Life is a multi-dimensional entity for the vast numbers of the population. Each day, one has to handle competing issues and those issues can change from day to day.
Sure, we need domain experts - but many times, they forget about those competing values. They forget that not everyone "is them" and that few will link up arms with them to the degree that the domain experts want.
Their failure is to realize is that others make decisions independently of them. Then the D.E., get government to MAKE them fall in line. That's totalitarianism.
The short answer reply is, (of the government) "Leave me tf alone."
You have an entity—the federal government—who's seemingly incapable or unwilling to do something as simple as codify a definition of what a woman is, or enforcing current immigration policy (let alone crafting new legislation) so I don't trust them to "do the right thing" in attempting to provide accounting protocols for limiting carbon emissions. I think the whole idea is poorly thought out and will surely be even more poorly executed because government is rife with incompetence and competing interests.
The most important measure is to work towards the space and fabric being heated and insulated, and the household equipment are meeting genuine housing needs. While over 50% of these resources are underutilised (ie due to under-occupation) the wasted space/fabric/equipment will be duplicated through new building emitting intolerable levels of upfront/embodied carbon. Balancing the size of dwellings and households is the classic win/win.
"...meeting genuine housing needs. While over 50% of these resources are underutilised (ie due to under-occupation)...Balancing the size of dwellings and households is the classic win/win".
Genuine? Underoccupied? Based on whose metrics?
I grew up believing in the Right to Private Property. So what entity, Daniel, is going to divine what kind and how much private property anyone can own?
And if that entity is able to do that, shouldn't it follow, then, than the Right to Private Property has been annulled? And given that I have watched the Slippery Slope grow at an every increasing angle, what Right would be next? And the one after that?
I definitely agree that the initial focus should be on recognizing what the efficiency issues are. And airtightness should come next. Most US codes now require a new house to be tight enough (3 air changes per hour at 50 Pascal of pressure, roughly equivalent to a 20 mph/30 kph wind, usually stated as 3ach50) to require mechanical ventilation. But most older house are not going to achieve that level of airtightness without a total gut rehab. So mechanical ventilation is not necessary in most existing houses. But going from 12ach50 (not at all uncommon) to 6ach50 will make a huge difference.
Use a blower door test with a thermal imaging camera to help figure where the leaks are.
>> "with a thermal imaging camera"
For those with "some means", thermals have come way down - from thousands for a rifle now down to $200 - $900 USD for a decent smartphone (I'd suggest FLIR). Then you can do the initials and "after fixing" imaging yourself as many times are you want.
I did just check and there's no way I'd buy the $70 I found.
Yes, I should have added, for full disclosure - I used to consult for them - not on their products but on the software used to run their factories.
Thanks for sharing this. Useful stuff.
Good discussion, but as always there's a strong cold climate bias there. Controlling solar heat gain can be as important and cost-effective as reducing air infiltration, if not more. Awnings, exterior roller shutters and painting roof shingles white would be among my first priorities if I lived in Phoenix or Houston. Given how poorly UK homes perform during heat waves, I'd bet they'd be pretty cost effective there too!
totally agree about the cold climate bias. I should have added something about shading! I have certainly written about it in the past. https://www.treehugger.com/buildings-must-adapt-to-climate-crisis-shade-5496660
I like the recommendation for window inserts. I live in a 100 year old 2,700 sq ft brick and stucco 2-story home. We have the original double hung oak windows with nice trim, etc. They also have the rope and weights to raise and lower.
When you install inserts, you improve the efficiency of the glass area but how to you deal with the weights pockets? (Or ever they’re called)
Your last pyramid seems better than the ones higher in your post.
However, you are missing a hugely important piece. Without it, your updated scenarios may be better than a faculty lounge debate or a Friday night sophomore bull session.
It is needful to put the cost of such into any discussion that would be meaningful to those to whom have to reach into their own pockets. How MUCH does that Red Door cost? Sure, tier 2 is free stuff but even the next tier can become costly if one can't do it on their own - knowing for an average house "of age", what is the cost of materials? What would a handyman price that out at?
And continue it through the rest of the tiers for the sake of completeness.
a couple of hundred bucks for the red door test and report about where to start.
So we're starting off with $200 and then free. Next tier cost?
I was wondering about the ROI when it comes to bang for your buck. Why is "complexity" even an issue? Homeowners don't do 98% of those things, they hire them out. Which means that it should be a pyramid of cost (to the homeowner) and the ROI of saving energy (or carbon.) But it seems that the bulk of what would save the most energy is also the most expensive, so a person who cares would have to decide whether money or carbon is the more important factor to any upgrades or improvements made.
A person can easily bankrupt themselves trying to outfit their house to such an extent that it's net zero or even negative, but in the grand scheme of things, that doesn't leave much room for living—and I ascribe a high value to that over other things.
"...and I ascribe a high value to that over other things"
And this is what happens when extreme advocates (and yes, I can fall into that category from time to time - smirk!) decide that Life should be all about their one thing - and demand that others fall into line.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way as Life is a multi-dimensional entity for the vast numbers of the population. Each day, one has to handle competing issues and those issues can change from day to day.
Sure, we need domain experts - but many times, they forget about those competing values. They forget that not everyone "is them" and that few will link up arms with them to the degree that the domain experts want.
Their failure is to realize is that others make decisions independently of them. Then the D.E., get government to MAKE them fall in line. That's totalitarianism.
The short answer reply is, (of the government) "Leave me tf alone."
You have an entity—the federal government—who's seemingly incapable or unwilling to do something as simple as codify a definition of what a woman is, or enforcing current immigration policy (let alone crafting new legislation) so I don't trust them to "do the right thing" in attempting to provide accounting protocols for limiting carbon emissions. I think the whole idea is poorly thought out and will surely be even more poorly executed because government is rife with incompetence and competing interests.