Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

From a practical standpoint, they have valued their energy savings closer to what the true cost of carbon emissions are (remember, most carbon emitters are in no way paying the true cost of their emissions [1]; this externality dumping continues with wild abandon).

You're arguing systems and scale. This person is simply early in the adoption curve. Consider what will happen when this happens more broadly. As the climate situation becomes more dire [2], the price of carbon emissions per ton will rise and the willingness to prioritize energy savings and carbon emission reductions should increase regardless of fiat return. Physical system outcomes are distinct from magic number in database goes up.

But sure, if you're already poor and have nothing [3], this won't matter to you and your life trajectory is already mostly locked in today. As nullstyle mentions, we need to compound in the positive outcome direction, and those decisions are being made today.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9

[2] https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243595924/march-world-hottes...

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/poverty

This is a tough one, honestly. For one, being at the early adoption curve also has you on the low side of efficiency. If things aren't being done at scale, they are likely fairly low on that score.

More, though, moving to something that gets you a more climate controlled home in the name of efficiency is odd. You could almost certainly use smaller scale solutions to get more comfortable living that does not involve such a drastic change to the home. Clothing and lifestyle changes are things you can do, for one. For two, though, if the place was so drafty you could feel a breeze, it almost certainly did not have active heating/cooling to the level that they built up to. Such that is seems odd to justify how efficient you could do something that was just not getting done before?

No reason not to do it, of course. But insulation is an expensive thing to add to a house. Not just in raw costs, mind. Most insulation materials are of dubious carbon neutrality. And nothing lasts forever, least of all housing.

Insulation is one of the cheapest improvements than can be done to improve energy efficiency of a structure. Once insulated, those energy efficiency gains persist for the life of the structure. Nothing lasts forever, but homes have a 100+ year service life.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... (control-F insulation)

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/types-insulation

https://www.energystar.gov/saveathome/seal_insulate/methodol...

Homes have a 100+ year service life? Where? I see the median age of housing stock varies heavily in the US. Quickly scanning other markets, I see EU has older housing, in general. Even there, though, they don't talk of 100+ year old houses as being that common.

Scanning websites on this claim, I see that "properly installed, with no damage" some types claim up to 100 years of service for insulation. I strongly suspect that that is a claim that will not hold for the vast majority of homes. More reading also strongly suggests that if your house was built prior to 2005, you probably need to get the insulation redone.

Worse, from my experience, the older the home the less likely you are to have subfloor/walls to actually install insulation. Heaven help you if you do one of those container homes. And if you live in an environment where you have heavy rains or hail, expect damage to creep in rather quickly.

Don't get me wrong, I support the idea that adding insulation is almost certainly a good idea where you can. I just can't bring myself to trust claims of 100 year service life.

Depends on the country. A well-built and properly maintained house in Germany can have a service life of 80 to 100 years or more. Some may even exceed this range, especially those that are regularly updated and renovated.

German building standards contribute to the longevity of residential buildings.

A well built and properly maintained anything can last hundreds of years. Proper maintenance likely involves heavy replacement of parts, mind. And is very contingent on no damage.

I will add I just moved out of a hundred year old house in Seattle. I know they can happen. I also know that house had no air conditioning and retrofitting one on would have basically meant a new house. Even if it looked the same.

> As the climate situation becomes more dire [2], the price of carbon emissions per ton will rise

Looking at what's happening here in Canada, where it looks like what has high chances to be the next government is campaigning on getting rid of the carbon tax, these days I'm somewhat pessimistic that carbon pricing will actually be implemented by the top contributors to global emissions. I hope I'm wrong.

There's no consumer-led revolution to come from early adopters accruing over time. It's fringe and luxury activity.

You... clearly haven't tracked the cost of solar panels. Learning curves are a thing https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve

I know abt that. I'm replying to a post about insulation which is not innovation-ripe for industrialized optimization anytime soon

Reply on news.ycombinator.com