The Power of a Hot Body 161
Hugh Pickens writes "Depending on the level of activity, the human body generates about 60 to 100 Watts of energy in the form of heat, about the same amount of heat given off by the average light bulb. Now Diane Ackerman writes in the NY Times that architects and builders are finding ways to capture this excess body heat on a scale large enough to warm homes and office buildings. At Stockholm's busy hub, Central Station, engineers harness the body heat issuing from 250,000 railway travelers to warm the 13-story Kungsbrohuset office building about 100 yards away. First, the station's ventilation system captures the commuters' body heat, which it uses to warm water in underground tanks. From there, the hot water is pumped to Kungsbrohuset's heating pipes, which ends up saving about 25 percent on energy bills. Kungsbrohuset's design has other sustainable elements as well. The windows are angled to let sunlight flood in, but not heat in the summer. Fiber optics relay daylight from the roof to stairwells and other non-window spaces that in conventional buildings would cost money to heat. Constructing the new heating system, including installing the necessary pumps and laying the underground pipes, only cost the firm about $30,000, says Karl Sundholm, a project manager at Jernhusen, a Stockholm real estate company, and one of the creators of the system. 'It pays for itself very quickly,' Sundholm adds. 'And for a large building expected to cost several hundred million kronor to build, that's not that much, especially since it will get 15% to 30% of its heat from the station.'"
Matrix (Score:5, Interesting)
One step closer to The Matrix movie.
Re:Matrix (Score:4, Insightful)
Not too far off considering that this concept is only worthwhile when bodies are generating excess heat that is unwanted in a space. But if you take away all the bodyheat being generated, then the people in that space will feel cold. To make up for it they will either dress warmer (insulate to keep their heat instead of sharing it) or they will expend more calories (which they must make up for by eating more) to generate more heat.
So yes, kinda Matrix-like, this could easily turn into essentially draining a person's precious energy from them without their consent.
Re: (Score:1)
To make up for it they will either dress warmer (insulate to keep their heat instead of sharing it) or they will expend more calories (which they must make up for by eating more) to generate more heat.
So it is a self-regulating system, great.
In the current state people generate excess heat so they need cooling. Transporting the excess to a place where people doesn't generate enough heat is not exactly a sign of a dystopian future.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that if you pump the thermal energy out of the building where the "hot bodies" are without somehow knowing when to stop, there's nothing to keep the system from turning that comfortable space into something less comfortable and more like the winter temperature outside. That defeats the purpose because you're not going to save energy when that happens.
At the extreme, it means the temperature in the space could become cold enough people want you to turn the heat on. A little less extreme and i
Re:Matrix (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I said that up front.
As long as you are doing this to avoid having to cool a space that you'd have to otherwise cool, then yes, it's a net win.
Re: (Score:2)
Except when they are not - in the mornings. I eat every working day in a restaurant which is uncomfortably cold if the (outside) temperature has dropped during night or worse, weekend.
This idea has some uses, but is very limited what it can achieve. Bad planning can make it more a nuisance than an energy saving.
Re: (Score:3)
The place they are taking the heat from is a place where people are dressed for winter during winter, so lowering the temperature is desireable in the winter too. The railway station mentioned, Stockholm Central, can get quite toasty if you're dressed for the outside weather, and there's lot of people inside....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You clearly live somewhere that doesn't have many large train stations. When it's cold outside, you don't have to heat a train station. It's close to sweltering hot and wet inside just from all the people. The solution to this is to ventilate the area with outside air. In doing this you are losing all that heat to the outside. This plan is to capture that lost heat and use it to heat a different building.
I used to live in Russia, and you have to wear lots and lots of layers in the winter. When you get
Re: (Score:2)
B)Efficiency drops as the temp of both areas approach one another, so its not like you can forcibly drain one location to keep the other super hot.
C)This isn't a system to use in Kenya. Most people in modern countries already consume more calories than they need, so the argument that they would need to eat is invalid. It could even be marketed as a weightloss aid if it had a marked increase in
Re: (Score:2)
Or in this case accordingly to the article lower the temperature from 22-25 degrees celsius to something more comfortable (I don't know what that may be considering people will wear different kind of clothes different times of the year. Like atm people will use jackets and possibly mittens and a hat and hence 20 degrees may be too hot to feel comfortable and say 12-15 degrees more comfortable.
In the summer people will dress more lightly but on the other hand there will be less demand for the heat.
Re: (Score:2)
I think any closed room with more then 10 people needs to have a ventilation system. Either you throw away that heat or you using it.
It's a shame that we don't have more buildings like that, that can use heat from the sun or people for anything useful. Termites nest have a strict regulated temperature (like 1 degree Celsius strict) without any ventilation or air-conditioners.
My apartment is on the north side of the house block. With mirrors and fiber optics I could get the same sun then my neighbour. I was
Carbon Tax (Score:2)
I bit off topic – but it’s spot on when it comes to global warming.
By subsiding green energy we will overinvest in politicians pet projects (I am thinking about corn ethanol) and underinvest in neat innovated projects like this – which offers great bang for the buck. A carbon tax would be much more rational.
Re: (Score:2)
Termites and ants do indeed have ventilation. It's natural ventilation, so you don't recognize it as such, but it most certainly is ventilation.
I'm seeing paywalls, book reviews, etc that don't really have a lot of text available for the casual browser. My search:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=thermoregulation+ventilation+termite+mounds&oq=vantilation+termite+mounds&gs_l=hp.1.1.0i13i30j0i13i5i30.1592.8146.0.14169.26.25.0.0.0.0.513.5998.0j12j10j1j [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Termites nest have a strict regulated temperature (like 1 degree Celsius strict) without any ventilation or air-conditioners.
Termite nests have great ventilation [iom3.org]!
Re: (Score:2)
That radiated heat was going to be lost into the atmosphere, and probably from thence eventually into space. Capturing heat from air that was already being vented would have no effect on the temperature of the rail car.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this has anything to do with Chernobyl. The heat carried away from the passenger's bodies is carried off by convection. The passengers aren't really glow-in-the-dark radiaoactive.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know, everyone gives off "light" in the infrared spectrum, and radiated heat (infrared) is one of the main ways that heat is lost both from our bodies and from the earth. Convection is another way, but you will note for instance that the earth loses enormous amounts of heat despite convection losses against the vacuum of space being minimal.
Re: (Score:2)
You also lose quite a lot of heat when you breathe.
The bodyheat that is "lost" to the building is also trapped by the building walls and ceiling; it doesn't radiate into space very effectively. In fact, it's a part of our global warming problem that we give off so much heat into the atmosphere from our buildings and vehicles... faster than the heat can be radiated into space.
As long as the walls and ceiling remain a certain temperature, then the ambient temperature will remain stable. If the walls are cool
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever been in a underground station (or even glassy college campus corridors in Summer) where there are hundreds of people walking through. The humidity and heat does build up, even when they are wearing winter jackets and shoes. Places which do suck out all the heat just feel ice cold, and will be avoided when possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a new concept - the Mall of American actually has no heating system - no boilers or other heating mechanism. It does have chillers and A/C (and sometimes it runs in the middle of winter).
It uses body heat (of the shoppers) and solar heating (sunroofs) to keep the entire place warm (70F) in those chilly 10F Minnesotan winters.
Certain offices are also dense enough that
Re: (Score:1)
The Power of a Hot Body
One step closer to The Matrix movie.
you surely mean Carrie-Anne Moss (the hot body)
Re: (Score:1)
It would be more like every 1,000th. I doubt that 1 person could produce enough heat to justify much.
Headline (Score:2, Informative)
Who else expected something completely different from the headline?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, stories about the power of hot chicks over nerds. Damn, where is that article..
Re: (Score:2)
My testosterone-addled mind obviously thought about naked women.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The first thing I thought of was (Score:5, Informative)
You can buy drainage pipes for the shower that are basically heat exchangers. Cold water is passed through them (in countercurrent with the water draining from the shower) before it goes to the shower head. Of course, you still have to add some hot water in the mixing faucet, but thermal energy is saved.
Google: shower heat exchanger
Bert
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever you do, don't go tankless unless your water heater will be installed near to the kitchen. It will drive you goddamned nuts. The water heater should always be installed on the same wall as the sink (optimally on the other side, but sometimes there's no space) and then the second-nearest thing, which should also be as near as possible, should be the sink of the most central bathroom. This is always true, but it's especially annoying when you're dealing with the additional warm-up time of a tankless h
Re: (Score:2)
I looked into tankless when our gas powered tank water heater sprang a leak a few years ago. I concluded that converting wasn't worth it. Better to go with a solar water heating system. Also, that's the most efficient use of sunlight. Heat water first, then generate electricity from whatever is left over.
Unfortunately, I could not find a solar system for a sane price. It was $350 for a low quality new tank, or $1000 for tankless plus another $400 to convert the house to use it, or $5000 for solar. S
Re: (Score:2)
Fireplaces should always be on internal walls (Score:2)
It's ridiculous when you see so many houses with brick fireplaces, 3 sides of which are external of the houses they're heating. Architects that design houses with fireplaces like that should be rounded up & shot; well at least made to drive cabs instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And finally, it is painfully easy to overestimate the flow you're going to be using, and have the heater not switch on when you want to use it, especially if you're on a well system whose pressure delivery cycles significantly.
Do you mean "underestimate"? I thought the danger is going below threshold flowrate and causing the heater to turn off (while some water still flows thru the "hot" pipe).
No, if you underestimate the flow that you will be using, then you will certainly have enough flow to activate the heater. If you overestimate the flow, and you have less than you think, then you might not have enough flow. HTH, HAND
Electric instant-ons at work have 0.5 gpm (or so) threshold.
That's cool, but most people on wells would prefer something that runs on propane because a water heater is a bit much to run from a generator and you want hot water even when the power is off.
How is this possible? (Score:5, Funny)
The Swedes are such a cold people. Even the Danes consider them distant and formal (not to mention a bit condescending).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You?" I'm not Scandinavian at all (short and dark, in fact). Did spend a winter in Stockholm, and definitely wouldn't recommend it for the weather. Also have to add, in case it's not obvious from your message, that the Danes have a much better sense of humor than the Swedes, and better beer as well.
Re: (Score:1)
As we all know from thermodynamics, energy can be extracted from a temperature differential. And the Swedes' neighbours to the east are the Finns...
Re: (Score:2)
you forget their nominal condition, liquored up and red-faced radiating heat.
Re: (Score:2)
The Swedes are such a cold people. Even the Danes consider them distant and formal (not to mention a bit condescending).
Maybe, but many of the women have really hot bodies!
Re: (Score:2)
The central station in Stockholm is probably the largest railway hub in Scandinavia. It will have plenty of foreign visitors providing heat.
Foreigners? In winter?
In summer the place is indeed replete with them, but they all go south with the brass monkeys before real winter hits...
Re: (Score:3)
It will have plenty of foreign visitors providing heat.
I was there this August. I've seen plenty of hotties there, and from the looks, mostly locals rather than immigrants. Of course, during winter, when the heat is needed, all the hotness is covered by clothes.
60W - 100W bulbs still commonly used? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm nit-picking in finding this anachronistic, but this is a technology news site...
Re: (Score:1)
This is also a US-centric site, and in the US 82% of household lighting is still 40-100W incandescent, and US people are hoarding these light bulbs because of government mandated phase-out.
Re: (Score:2)
A crazy subset of US people are hoarding those light bulbs. Home Depot had the Phillips LED screw-in replacements on sale for $13 yesterday. No mercury, decent color temperature, expect them to last at least 25000 hours if you don't use them in a closed-up fixture, and probably longer.
And you can always find some fool, ignorant of heat pumps and the inefficiencies of generating electricity, defending crappy old incandescent bulbs as a good source of heat.
Re: (Score:1)
Crappy old incandescent bulbs are a good source of "decent color temperature". The problem is that color receptors in the human eye have sensitivity curves over light frequency/wavelength, and colored surfaces have refractive curves. So even if your eye can be fooled into considering direct light from an LED light to have a certain color temperature, that does not mean at all that colored surfaces look the same color as they would under an incandescent light of the same temperature.
It's the nightmare of p
Re: (Score:2)
expect them to last at least 25000 hours
Or ~three months if you don't waste power by having them on 24/7. Power cycling kills them dead. Add being harsh on eyes and making colors look like crap (neighbour post can tell you more).
Re: (Score:3)
Power cycling does NOT kill LEDs dead. Where do you get this information? LEDs are installed on bicycles running on one phase from a bicycle hub generator; at low speeds, it is flicker-flicker-flicker. Chopping LEDs at a kHz is a recommended way of modulating their power. LEDs are used for brake lights (and now, headlights) in modern cars; those are cycled frequently.
The Phillips bulbs are notably NOT harsh; they're a low-color temperature light. I personally like a hotter (bluer) light, but that's not
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about some fancy good LEDs that are either prototypes or can be found only in civilized parts of the world. Around here, all you can get are CFLs or cheapest chinese crap LEDs.
I guess, I could hunt down something reasonable, but for now, incadescent bulbs just work. And their waste heat is welcome most of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the heck are you? Home Depot stocks the Phillips LEDs, and all the parts I use are available mail order from an outfit in Vermont [ledsupply.com]. There are others, these are just the guys I stumbled across when I first set out to build bike lights.
This stuff is not-not-not prototype -- I built my first set of lights in 2008 or earlier: http://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/more-undercabinet-lights/ [wordpress.com]
The biggest problem is that the design point for incandescent bulbs is all different from LEDs, and trying to put L
Re: (Score:2)
A small town, Poland. I guess it's a combination of you painting things in way too rose colours and me in way too black, together with me not being up to date on new developments. For now I'll stay with something that works and has no downsides in my climate while you ahmericans figure a replacement out, but thanks for letting me know it's not as bad as I quite recently found out.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's available in Poland? How much do they mark it up? CREE is American, which I think is wonderful and amazing, but I don't think the Chinese stuff will be crap for long. And how much does power cost in Poland, per kwH? That's what makes all the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because a lot of us here in the usa are pretty dim, so we use higher wattage bulbs so we seem brighter than we really are.
Re: (Score:2)
I still haven't seen the CFL that takes minutes to warm up and visibly flickers.
I have one, in my rented flat. It's very small, made to fit in the same type of fitting as a miniature halogen spot light, but in this case the fitting is shaped to only take the CFL bulb. It's like this [energybulbs.co.uk], except not Philips. The lights take about 90-120 seconds to warm up fully. It's rarely a problem, as I don't often just pass through this room at night, and I won't bother to replace the bulbs until they fail.
I remember my mum buying a CFL in about 1990, it looked like this [wikipedia.org] (but white). This was well
Re: (Score:2)
So the 60W bulb is using at least 75W ?-)
Re: (Score:2)
So the 60W bulb is using at least 75W ?-)
I may have missed a word -- more energy than the rest of the flat's lighting combined.
Average bulb? Give me a break... (Score:4, Insightful)
>" about the same amount of heat given off by the average light bulb"
For the love of god, will people PLEASE come up with a better analogy than that tired, ancient one. I don't know about you, but I don't think I have more than one or two bulbs anywhere in my house that pull more than 20 watts, the average being more like 12.
The "average light bulb" is hardly "average" anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with analogies, they are based on something the majority is familiar with. ~80% of the population of the USA is over the age of 30. The incandescent bulb began it's phase out only a few years ago.
There is a tiny insignificant portion of the population who can't rationalise what a 60 watt lightbulb looks like in terms of heat and light. Old people being especially resistant to change have no idea how much light or heat a 20watt CFL generates.
Comparing something in power terms to incandesce
Re: (Score:2)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light+bulb?s=t [reference.com]
"light bulb, noun: An electric light."
So I guess it depends on your definition. And even if you require it to be glass, contain a gas, and a filament, then a fluorescent lamp is still a bulb. I guess my LED ones don't quite fit that, though.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Good for you, but the majority of people are still using incandescent bulbs."
Not the people that I know. All my friends and family have higher than 50% non-incandescent, making non-incandescent the "norm" or "average". Most are much, much higher uptake than 50%. My last big jump from 60% to 95% happened last year when I was finally able to get LED BR30 tracklight bulbs (Utilitech Pro #0338929) that are:
* Bright (650 Lumens)
* True soft white (2700K)
* Flood, not spot
* Fully dimmable
* X10 compatible
*
Re: (Score:2)
You want pictures? Of the entire interior of my and my friends' and family's houses? I think not. You can choose to believe whatever you like, it makes no difference to me.
And lets install Fart receptacles to help power (Score:2)
While they are at it let's install fart receptacles so that when a person feels a toot coming on they can plop their own asses on a hole to capture the methane for power plant use.....
Re: (Score:2)
While they are at it let's install fart receptacles so that when a person feels a toot coming on they can plop their own asses on a hole to capture the methane for power plant use.....
You can't really trust people to properly fit the plug. Obviously we should simply replace the asshole with a quick-connect valve at birth. Hopefully a gate valve.
Re: (Score:2)
While they are at it let's install fart receptacles so that when a person feels a toot coming on they can plop their own asses on a hole to capture the methane for power plant use.....
You could do that for cows. See this [phys.org] People don't really produce enough to make it worthwhile.
Old hat. (Score:2)
Already done. (Score:2)
that architects and builders are finding ways to capture this excess body heat on a scale large enough to warm homes and office buildings
If you are in the building, aren't you already warming the building with your body heat, excess or otherwise?
Excess heat (Score:2)
If you are in the building, aren't you already warming the building with your body heat, excess or otherwise?
Umm, yes. In this case you (along with a few thousand of your closest friends) are heating the building so much that the excess heat has to be removed. The point of the article is to put that excess heat that has to be removed to good use heating ANOTHER building.
Next: harness the energy of flatulence. (Score:2)
Of those 100 travelers in a busy public space, about 8 are farting at any given moment.
If that heat and gas could be captured, we might have an alternate energy revolution, especially within a few blocks of a Taco Bell.
Re: (Score:2)
Of those 100 travelers in a busy public space, about 8 are farting at any given moment.
Finally, the smoking bans make sense ..
Re: (Score:2)
Of those 100 travelers in a busy public space, about 8 are farting at any given moment.
That would mean that on average, every person lets out a 4.8 second long fart every single minute.
Unless they're all lawyers, that will by necessity produce a rather large volume of gas.
That train station doesn't need a heat exchanger, it needs anchors.
Mall of America has been using body heat for years (Score:3, Informative)
So, while I applaud the re-use of body heat for something useful, it's definitely not a new concept. Architects and engineers have been accounting for it and sometimes harnessing it for years.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF (Score:2)
If I paid for the food that made that heat, and paid to be in the space they're using to collect that heat, I'm sending someone a bill...
Where's the thermodynamics outrage? (Score:1)
Usually whenever /. posts a story about harnessing energy from some source, the pseudo-physicists come out in force to complain about the energy being stolen, e.g. a story about harvesting energy from the motion of cars over a road attracts comments about stealing gas from the motorists (it must increase fuel usage, or the laws of thermodynamics are being violated, yada yada). Knowing /., I was expecting complaints about how this must increase food usage of the people in the subway. Kinda like how putting
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite curious why you would mock or label as "pseudo-physicist" anyone who pointed out the foolishness of harvesting energy from moving cars. Perhaps the pseudo-physicist is between your ears.
As for assisting HVAC heating with the human body, yes every building being heated, that also has people in it does that already, without one cent needing to be spent on additional equipment or infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
they're talking about moving heat, not converting heat. sure, there's an entropy gain with moving heat. but it's not nearly as large a penalty as you'd get from conversion. so, less to get angry about. Heat reclamation is just a form of smart design. hence all of the "this isn't anything new!?!" comments.
My 1926 house (Score:2)
My 1926 house already has this feature. All of the heat given off by the bodies in the house going directly into the air and so the heater doesn't have to run as often. It's amazing what they thought of in 1926, before central heat was even invented. No wonder they're called the Greatest Generation!
Re: (Score:1)
Central heating was invented before the USA was invented [wikipedia.org].
you had me worried (Score:2)
That they were going to pump crowded train air directly into the office. Nothing else would quite keep the cubicle monkeys in their place quite like letting them know that free heat is worth more than lack of BO :)
Re: (Score:2)
Love trains or crazy trains you pick :)
Re: (Score:2)
It gets worse
Fiber optics relay daylight from the roof to stairwells and other non-window spaces that in conventional buildings would cost money to heat.
... cost money to light, during the day. At night you still need lights. Fiber is fairly IR transparent, even if they really did mean "heat", which I find unlikely, they still need heat during the night, especially long winter nights. I'm sure they'll have all the heat necessary during long summer days.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, during the long winter nights, you don't need as much heating as you'd think if the house is built correctly. In fact, we have a problem here in Sweden, Norway and Finland in that many houses built in the 70's and 80's are overly insulated and thus cause health problems(increased probability of asthma, allergies, sleep problems etc etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of ventilation more so than too much insulation. New enough to have "advanced" insulation, too old for modern heat recovery ventilator machines in the HVAC.
Re: (Score:2)
First there is no law of air conditioning. it's a law of thermodynamics.
Second it's called removing energy, I can make it "cold" by removing energy from it.
Cold is a human term for a temperature state. Reducing the temperature of an object by removing energy is in fact making it "cold".
Re: (Score:3)
do you mean "the human body generates about 60 to 100 Watts of energy" ?
similar to saying
"the car covers distance at 100 km/h"
which is not too bad. i have seen much worse.
Re: (Score:3)
MW are not units of energy. Megawatts per month makes no sense whatsoever.
Or...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. It irks me to no end when journalists, even science or engineering journalists, conflate (units of) energy and power. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since hardly anyone else gets it right either. Nor, it seems, does anyone care. No wonder we can't have meaningful conversations about energy, where it comes from, and how we use it.
I'm amazed at how many people have a hard time understanding kilowatt-hours and talk about how many kilowatts per hour their computer uses, or end up fucking up the conversion so much that they think their computer costs $60/hour to run.
Or...
Over what time scale? Did they mean average power? What is the typical "home" journalists and PR folk use for this drivel? Homes consume power in different amounts - a highrise condo in NYC is very different than a McMansion in the 'burbs. The same house, occupied by different people, will use power at vastly different rates.
Or...
Don't even get me started.
How many homes of bioelectricity does it take to power a library of congress?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There has been very few to look in to sub-surface building, such a shame.
I've looked into it. Sump pump / water leak costs / waterproofing attempts are extraordinarily expensive.
Also you are correct, dude in wifebeater tee shirt can dig a house basement sized hole in plain ole dirt for 3-figures... I'm guessing an entire basement can be completely built for only a couple thousand. Supposedly $5/sqft finished is reasonable. Don't confuse building a living space with shoving a basement full of $10K worth of HVAC gear... you can still build the raw empty basement for just a coup
Re: (Score:3)
How many of you have been in a crowded house party in the dead of winter, with snow on the ground? Everybody piled their coats in a bedroom, the windows are open, and it's still hot. No money at all. If there are bodies in the room, and they're moving, it's hot.
That heating method is very expensive due to the fuel costs.
As soon as you run out of beer, you'll lose almost all of your heating elements. It will probably end up costing you a couple of hundred bucks per night to heat the house.
Re: (Score:2)
Do it Dutch style, all participants bring their own fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly you can build a modest, normal sized home that can do most of this without any "high tech" by using building techniques from the 1950's and 1960's and modern insulation.
Apparently you haven't been in many houses built in the 50's and 60's...
Pressed board siding, blown in paper insulation, thin walls, single pane windows, substandard wiring, no weather wrapping, inefficient heating and cooling ... only someone who literally knew *nothing* about house construction or was high as a kite would say houses built in the 50's and 60's were superior in *any* way to today. That was the initial "suburbia" boom and houses were slapped together as quickly and inexpensively as possible
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to pick ANY decades that, hands down, produced the worst quality construction in the last 125 years, those would be it. (Although, arguably, if you look at the rise of slap-together condo construction in the late 70's and early 80's, those would be worse... but its a small part of the market.)
Well, you'd really have to say "everything built since the 1950s" because statistically they're all pieces of shit built just the same way, except they're pretty much all using glass or foam insulation now and they have a tyvek wrap.
If you're trying to wax nostalgic about structural quality, you need to go a LOT farther back than that, back to pre-WWII, when houses were built to last... but even those are a joke when it comes to energy efficiency. There's nothing you can do with modern insulation to fix a house with 4" thick exterior walls, short of filling them with aerogels
Ah yes, but if you go back pre-WWII then you're going back to at least the end of the era when lumber was still cheap, especially if you lived near it and you should probably remember that California is the most populous state, and we not only still produce lumber but we're near
Re: (Score:2)
I have a house built in 1960. The siding is the original cedar shake over plywood cladding. The insulation is fiberglass, though some is collapsed or missing. The wiring is 3-wire NM with a circuit-breaker panel (Square D, likely original); the outlets were originally 2 prong but the boxes were all grounded. No weather wrap; that came much later. Locally a lot of people have replaced the shakes with vinyl and added a weather wrap. The windows were indeed terrible, but no worse than anything which went
Re: (Score:2)
Without kWh statistics, I call shenanigans.