Efficient housing for climate change.?

Question

Why are we concentrating on how to produce more energy sources when we haven't looked at building better insulated houses.
If we increase the insulation on new builds both for walls and roof plus triple glazing, we may find our body heat and that from things such as fridges and tv's would reduce the need for heating to zero.
Are the oil companies somehow strangling such initiatives?

Answer 1

No matter how good thermal insulation you install in your house, the need for heating will never be zero. Heatloss is a fact of life. You cannot insulate things to maintain constant temperature in different rooms of the house without a dedicated appliance to generate and distribute heat.

Take your argument for one moment. Say the fridge (somehow) manages to pump out enough heat to heat the kitchen. Assuming that doesn't result in the area immediately near the fridge to be very hot and the far corner of the kitchen to be that much cooler, how do you then heat the bedroom? Have another fridge in the bedroom? And what runs these fridges? Aaah.. electricity.

As for finding greener means of generating energy, this is done because house heating isn't the only use for energy. There's electricity generation. There's cooking. There's transportation. Insulating houses to minimise heat loss is one thing, but answers need also be found to solve these other energy issues. And the thing is, trying to find greener alternative sources ticks off more boxes than just insulating houses.

Anyway, the current building regulations that have recently come into force do require stricter measures for insulation and heatloss prevention. So in effect, what you've just suggested has already been done, albeit they do not claim that it will solve climate change issues with the one stroke.

Answer 2

The probability comes from the international result, maximum organic failures are community, hearth, Earthquake, hurricane, Volcano in a community experience those are worse than climate substitute however the end result are oftentimes some 10s or some 100s of km's. Tsunami's could have a much broader result because of the fact the Asian Tsunami did, affecting thousands of km's of coast line and affecting hundreds of thousands of individuals. because of the fact GW occurs so slowly it extremely is going to on no account have the comparable form of result yet that catastrophe does supply some thought only how many hundreds of thousands stay in low mendacity coastal components climate substitute is affecting the finished international, it extremely is in no way the top of existence, as some propose, people are very adoptable yet sea point upward thrust and changing climate cycles will impression maximum people. If even the low estimates of substitute happen, we can look back on denier claims that doing something will value some jobs or billions of dollars. the value of a international upward thrust of only 1m in sea point could dwarf the charges being pronounced to attempt and shrink greenhouse emissions now.

Answer 3

in some parts in europe that do build greener housing and cheaper. in britian we build expensive non green housing. it's not the oil companies are not strangling initatives,it's the goverment,building company's etc. once again down to human greed and not human need to dave the plant.