Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eggsnbacon1 2133 days ago
New buildings are rather efficient in US. The problem is old buildings that use 5X the energy for HVAC.

I echo that AC is quite efficient. Far more efficient than traditional heating. There's a misconception that hot areas are less environmentally friendly due to AC. The opposite is true.

Hot areas are only 25 freedom units hotter than humans prefer. Cold areas have months of 50+ temperature difference.

The misconception persists because heat uses gas, which is 5-10X less expensive per BTU of energy than electricity. So it might be cheaper to heat cold areas than run AC in hot ones, but its much more damaging to the environment. Plus, hot climates are using a lot of renewables these days which impacts the environmental friendliness of electric but not gas.

I expect migration to the sun belt to accelerate, at least in the US. It makes a lot of sense from environmental perspectives. In some southern cities there's already long stretches every summer where daytime AC use runs on 70%+ renewable energy.

6 comments

It is amazing how tight we can make buildings today. I had to learn a lot about HVAC on a remodeling job a few years ago. I had no idea that the drywall can be sealed so tight that when the HVAC system is running it can be next to impossible to open a door without a pressure release duct. Also saw how the HVAC system had vents to bring in air from outside with baffles controlled by the system. Can't remember exact purpose something about helping help control humidity as well as regulation to bring in "fresh" air to mix with the "stale" air in the building.

So some parts of construction techniques and building materials have improved significantly. However, when comparing the framing lumber used today to what was used in the 60s, I'm shocked that new construction doesn't fall over the first time the wolf huffs and puffs.

The outdoor fresh air intakes are typically via ERVs (Energy recovery ventilation systems). These systems bring in fresh air, filter it, and typically run it through a heat exchanger to minimize energy losses as the fresh air comes and and the stale air goes out.

The purpose is to prevent buildup of harmful gasses and VOCs (everything from CO2 to CO to regular out-gassing of furnitures, etc) that can become dangerous if not cycled regularly.

2020: ”Poisonous stuff in our houses... Bad! Let's vent it to the environment!”

2120: The environment is all full of poisonous gasses from the people of 2020. Each house needs its own air purifier to make the outdoor air safe to breathe.

This is already a reality.

> the first Cordis hotel on mainland China boasts something that is genuinely rare in big Chinese cities: clean indoor air.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/27/china-clean-a...

Luckily most organic compounds you find in indoor air aren't very stable.
> 2120: The environment is all full of poisonous gasses from the people of 2020. Each house needs its own air purifier to make the outdoor air safe to breathe.

That's the case in much of the world already... I live in area where there's tons of smog in the colder months and consider installing a system for bringing in filtered air from the outside, so that I won't have to open windows for the 6+ months smog period.

It's been my experience that the newer high efficiency buildings seem to be optimising for that rather aggressively to the detriment of breathable air, because the air in them certainly feels a lot stuffier than in the older ones I've been in. I can certainly see building owners setting the recirculation as high as they can get away with, for the lowest cost.
"Stuffy" air is your body detecting CO2. You should totally do something about it.
> Also saw how the HVAC system had vents to bring in air from outside with baffles controlled by the system. Can't remember exact purpose something about helping help control humidity as well as regulation to bring in "fresh" air to mix with the "stale" air in the building.

One reason is efficiency. In the Bay Area, it's common when the daytime high temperature is 80–90˚F for the nighttime low to be 50–60˚F. You can set your thermostat to 76˚F until sunset, then bring in outside air to cool down to 68˚F or below by sunrise. You get cool air when you're trying to sleep and avoid running the AC in the night or morning.

I'm getting my furnace & AC replaced today and was sad to learn I couldn't get one of these. The fresh air intake has to be at least 10' from the furnace flue vent, and that isn't practical with my home's design.

Can’t you run a pipe outside to extend the distance of your cold air intake?
The HVAC folks didn't seem to think that would be possible/practical. I don't know exactly why. It'd have to run along the top of the roof because I don't have an attic.
Full Fresh Air is typically called an "economizer" at least in California. The idea of those is to save energy.

But there is also typically fresh air requirements to bring in some percentage of fresh air.

And lastly the HRV/ERV mentioned in the other comment is typically more a residential thing from what I've seen but that's totally a thing I want in my next house.

For regular posts on this topic, see the @buildingsciencefightclub Instagram account. Christine writes delightfully clear posts about modern building science.
I also suggest Matt Risinger’s YouTube channel. Lately he’s been talking about Passive House construction, which supposedly uses only 10% of the energy of a standard built house.
Adding to PassiveHaus and Passive House (separate standard from the original PassivHaus) standards, look into NetZero, and Perfect Wall (especially Lstiburek's institutional Perfect Wall).
> New buildings are rather efficient in US. The problem is old buildings that use 5X the energy for HVAC.

I was describing my home renovation project to someone who lives in Brazil. I don't how true this is for that entire country, but she said that it's very uncommon for Brazilian homes to have insulation.

This is the same for many homes in Spain and Portugal too. For most of the year it's warm enough outside and you can be comfortable without AC (especially if you are in an older building with thick stone walls), but then for the one or two months of winter it is so cold inside, even though it may only get down to 10C (50F) outside. Most houses rely on resistive electric heaters (if they have any) which end up being very expensive to run.

I live in a modern house in Northern Europe, and we don't even turn our heating on until it gets below freezing. Because we have good insulation, only then it starts to drop below 22C (72F) inside.

Completely true, many old homes in Madrid are freezing in the winter. New homes are more regulated in efficiency, however. I lived in a new A-rated flat with sophisticated central heating and thermosolar, paying 500€/mo for the actual home and about 10€/mo for heating.
Adding to this, I spent a week in a A-rated house. 30+ C outside and I never even looked for the remote of the air conditioner.
Best marketing voice: "Why migrate to the sunbelt? Burn gas and wait for climate change to bring the warmth to you!"

...sigh. I really hope it doesn't go this way.

It already has. There is a noticeable shift in temperatures here in the Netherlands.

Hot days are getting hotter and much more frequent. Snow is getting rare. We had a yearly ice skating event that never happens anymore because there is no ice.

Weeks of 30C weather are getting more common while not long ago, hotter than 25C was considered exceptional.

It’s like daily temperatures are just shifted +5 degrees within 2 decades.

It’s not just my gut feeling, there are plenty of statistics

Which yearly event was this?
This event took place 15 times in the last century. How can this be yearly?
I agree it's hardly a yearly event, but this is definitely the even he is referring to. Theoretically yearly would be a better term.
Already has, mate. There's no turning back, just a matter of damage mitigation, now.
Any time I buy property I check how far above sea level it is, so I can estimate when I'll be able to sell it as beachfront property...
I absolutely agree regarding climate change nuances for long term property investing! Two things confound me: - good internet now for my relaxation gaming vs right location for climate change.

- predicting what council rates (US has Land tax I think?!?) might turn into when the town realises it will be half underwater...

> New buildings are rather efficient in US.

They can be, and there's lots of modern construction techniques that are really good (search term "building science").

One big problem is that a lot of stuff is still built to "minimum code" which just isn't that great. On top of that, sloppy construction work can significantly undermine what is done. In my own house I've fixed several simple things, like missing insulation around vents and holes cut too big (or created by a hammer, rather than cutting).

Here's a good walkthrough of a house under construction showing lots of problems typical to any subdivision (non-custom) build: https://youtu.be/OmU2N_Q732A

Is NG really over 5X cheaper than electricity? It seems like a NG genset that is better than 20% efficient wouldn't be that hard to build, yet I don't see people running their houses off of electricity that way.
In the US, natural gas averages $11.85 per 1,000 cubic feet. Electric averages $0.13 / kwh.

1,000 cubic feet of natural gas is a bit over 1 million BTU. That converts to 297 kwh of electricity.

that 1,015,000 btu costs:

$38.61 in electric

$11.85 in natural gas

So 3-4x rather than 5-10x
[I was wrong]
Air conditioners are often more than 100% efficient- they move more heat energy than they consume.

(Of course if you start with a fossil fuel, turn it into electricity, and then pipe that into an AC unit, the overall efficiency will be dropped by the efficiency of the power plant, but it's still somewhat made up for by the advantages of heat pumps)

As others have pointed out, the coefficient of performance is over 1.0. However, as I remember from my mechanical engineering classes, a single-stage piston compressor based refrigeration system found in most window-mount AC units, refrigerators, etc. typically operates at about half of the Carnot efficiency. Central AC units with scroll compressors do a bit better, and of course industrial chillers with multi-stage centrifugal compressors do quite a bit better.
This is false
What is false?
The total efficiency of an air conditioner will never be more than 100% based on design; you will never be able to remove more heat than what the system produces in net cooling effect based off of the energy consumption created from compression - this is what would lead you to the eventual path of the theory of the heat death of the universe. You may be able to remove heat from one place to another but never more than what the system produces. Heating systems are completely different regarding efficiency.
The ratio of thermal power moved to electrical power input is more properly called "coefficient of performance" rather than "efficiency", but it's far greater than 100% in modern equipment.

> From 1990 to 2013, U.S. shipment-weighted efficiency for residential split-system A/Cs increased from 9.5 SEER (~2.2 COP) to 14.9 SEER (~3.8 COP).

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/The%20Fu...

I think you’re misunderstanding the terminology. In a heat engine, efficiency is the ratio of how much heat you can move per unit of energy you put in. An air conditioner can usually move substantially more than 1 joule of heat energy from one place to the other for each joule of energy put into the compressor.

Yes, the hot side will spit out all of the heat extracted from inside, plus the energy from the compressor operation, so indeed energy is conserved.

But heat pump heating and cooling has coefficient of performance / energy efficiency ratios around 3-4 (or even higher than 5 for certain applications!), so you more than make back your efficiency loss there.