[GSBN] Still ventilating

Sun Mar 31 01:11:40 UTC 2013

I agree that many of the social and technical changes often referred to as "progress" actually harm people and the planet.  It is prudent to be careful about evaluating innovation, and sometimes it's better to embrace the devil that we know over the one we don't.  However, it's counterproductive to hold tight to any devil, in order to avoid a minor imp or two associated with new options.

To be a bit less metaphorical, in evaluating the risks of new options, it makes more sense to compare them to the downsides of our current systems, rather than to zero.  But we have a tendency to do the latter.  It's easy to place little weight on the problems that we have been living with.  Sometimes we are ignorant of the issues, and sometimes we just ignore them.  Either way, it seems to be a human tendency to overestimate new things, and underestimate current risks and past issues.  I see this in discussions of indoor air quality.  Things have seemed OK to most people up to now, so what is the problem with our current systems?

In fact, indoor air quality for a big proportion of the population is pretty lousy, and it was worse historically.  Lots of people still burn open fires in their houses for cooking and warmth.  70 years ago, many people in Britain and the colonies were heating with coal burned in the bedroom and livingroom.  A few decades earlier, upscale homes burned gas in the light fixtures, which was a step forward from the kerosene lanterns and candles used by many others.  In all these cases, indoor air quality was poor.  Now we have gas stoves and ventless fireplaces to dump combustion byproducts into our indoor air.  Not to mention smoking.

While I think there are a number of paths to good ventilation and good indoor air quality, I am opposed to the major strategy used during most of history, which is to just leave things to chance and hope for the best.  Opening windows is certainly reasonable when the climate supports it, but for locations where people are likely to leave the windows closed for a month or more of winter, we certainly need more reliable ventilation strategies, that are likely to lead to good indoor air quality for all rooms during all days.  I remain convinced that leaving ventilation to chance and hope means bad indoor air quality during every windless day (or hour), and in some rooms even on windy days.  I differ from Feile in believing that mechanical ventilation is the easiest way to get good indoor air quality in leaky, poorly insulated houses.  It's not just for tight houses, but prudent as well for every other kind.

I'm glad that radon has been introduced to the conversation.  It's worth noting that widespread publicity about the radon problem came about before it became commonplace to build very tight houses.  Public awareness was grabbed by serious radon health concerns in leaky houses.  Radon is a very spotty problem that, like ventilation, is best solved by testing and designing in systems to take care of it, rather than retrofitting.  Radon issues continue to afflict predominantly leaky houses, since they are the majority.  Earthships and other earth sheltered houses are worthy of special attention, due to the the large earth masses involved, fewer ventilation options, and greater difficulties in retrofitting or remodeling.  Anyone building with large quantities of stone, or creating a home in a cave, would be prudent to check carefully for radon and other radioactivity.  Even concrete can have significant radioactivity in rare cases, which is another reason why I wouldn't want to live in a concrete home.

Feile mentioned the need to prepare for rare events, like a 100 year storm, and I agree.  She pointed out that reliable electricity may not be guaranteed for the next 100 years, even in first world countries.  That consideration merits thought and research.  The fact that a chance-ventilated house will have equally bad indoor air quality both before and after the end of access to electricity is not much of a consolation for anyone.

I'm sorry to hear of the economic problems in Ireland, and of course it is not unique to that location.  While this is not a political discussion list, the fact that most political decisions now favor the interests of corporations has a negative impact on many aspects of building and living.  It's sad that many people cannot pay their mortgages, and must pay for electricity with tokens, if they can pay for it at all.  I'm not sure whether part of the implication was that we shouldn't use electricity for ventilation, because many people can't afford electricity.  Obviously, few people can afford new houses, and so only a minority are dealing with the choices about ventilation.  But let's imagine a choice between living in a tight, well-insulated, electrically ventilated house, compared to the average leaky house being built today.  Perhaps in twenty years, some people in economic hardship will have that choice.  In any case, the family in the electrically ventilated, tight, insulated house is certain to spend less on energy, and probably less on electricity than the conventional house.

Finally, I'm sorry to hear that Passive House is becoming the only green choice in Ireland.  The Irish Passive House Academy is quoted as saying, "It makes no sense to build anything less."  I'd be willing to stop at "It makes no sense".  While I think a lot of things about Passive House are good, anyone concerned about costs and indoor air quality can find a more reliable and efficient path.

Thanks to all for the continuing conversation.

Derek

On Mar 25, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Feile Butler wrote:

I too have enjoyed the debate and found it really educational. It has actually helped to clarify my own position a bit and realise where some of my prejudices or concerns may be unfounded.

This post is to maybe clarify some of the background to my position - I have found the global nature of the debate really interesting, and perhaps because of that, sometimes meanings or intentions get lost in translation.

I value progress and I value technology and how it can help to improve our life (and I also think some if it does nothing to improve our life). I know John was being facetious about ripping electrical lighting cables out of the walls, etc. However, it does actually highlight an important point. This expectation of electric light has been fully assimilated into all of our "developed world" cultures. However, even with lighting, we have realised the system isn't perfect and now with LEDs and solar we are trying to figure out ways to improve this technology.

There are some of you on the list who are incredibly comfortable with mechanical ventilation. You have been specifying/researching/installing/monitoring it for years (even decades) and in your perception it is just as established as electric light, refrigeration, etc. But for the wider world, we are just arriving at the point where airtightness and insulation have reached such high levels that we must consider mechanical ventilation to achieve acceptable indoor air quality. For me, anyway, this is not a culturally established technology. This is a decision to begin to incoporate a new technology, which after a generation will be accepted as the norm and unthinkable to be without. So I want to be very careful in my decision.

I have actually specified demand-controlled and humidity-controlled mechanical extract ventilation for certain clients. As an architect, I must accommodate my clients' needs. We also have an issue with radon gas in Ireland and in circumstances where buildings are relaitvely airtight and the radon levels are high, a continuous low-watt fan is necessary under the ground floor. I agree with the sentiment of appropriateness in context and also of trying out the simplest, most low-tech option first. I was not expecting John to say that he found PassiveHaus an extreme option, too complex and too intensive. In my head I have been equating mechanical ventilation with PassiveHaus Standard - but that is partly to do with the current Irish context.

I would love to know from those of you who are very experienced in mechanical ventilation - at what point do you think it crosses a line. Before this debate, I hadn't even considered that even the experts might think there is "good" mechanical ventilation and "bad" mechanical venitlation.

What is the current Irish context? Part of the context relates to Europe - which hands down directives that we must follow. In Norway in 2010, they updated their building codes and now every new dwellling MUST use mechanical ventilation. Even if a passive strategy could be worked out, this would no longer be considered compliant/legal. With the drive towards zero-carbon - the signs are that the 2015 regulations will be tied to the PassiveHaus standard. In Ireland, there is a bit of a love affair with PassiveHaus, one that makes me a little uncomfortable - as I think there has to be room left for other options. For example, our leading (and really ony) green building magazine was rebranded in January as Passive House Plus. The plus is supposed to relate to "all those other green issues" which are not PH. I haven't seen too many other issues being discussed so far. Our building regulations seem to be following the path of the Norwegians. There is a perception here that PassiveHaus is the holy grail and when mechanical ventilation is discussed in this country, I think this is what we are really thinking of (which is why I worry about occupiers operating/maintaining their systems properly in the future). To quote from the Irish Passive House Academy website -
"It is fast becoming the leading energy efficiency and comfort standard for all building types across the world. It makes no sense to build anything less. This is not magic but it can be your reality"
I have been reassured by many of you that power cuts will not affect indoor air quality in mechanically ventilated houses (and there is always the option to open a window and put on a jumper). But there must be a point when it becomes unsafe (if you have clients who don't want to open the window on a chilly day)? Is this after hours or days or weeks?

As an architect I must design for extreme cases. It doesn't matter if I think the house will never go on fire, I must design it to give the occupants the best chance in a catastrophic blaze. I have to design for the 100 year storm (although that seems to be coming around every 20 to 30 years now and the 100 year storm is becoming a whole new beast ......and therefore my details are becoming more robust). We are not fortune-tellers - but if there are signs of potential problems in the future - shouldn't we design with those in mind? And I don't think it is over-the-top to expect ongoing disruptions to the electricity supply in the future. I do not mean in some Armageddon-type way - it can happen much more simply than that.... It's true that we have not yet reached peak oil and that Asia is ramping up its need for energy. That probably will cause problems with access to energy in the future. But coming back to the Irish situation....

Depsite what our Taoiseach (prime minister) might have said to Obama as he handed over the traditional bowl of shamrock on St. Patrick's Day, Ireland is not coming out of the recession (he must have been hoping to entice a few foreign investors to our shores). We are so deep in it and probably still going down. Over 25% of mortgage holders (186,785 homes) are in arrears, have had to restructure or are in repossession actions. People can't pay their bills - a lot of people. The national electricity supplier has taken to installing token meters in people's houses who are in arrears. They are literally paying for their electricity hour to hour. This is not Armageddon, this is 2013 in First World Ireland.

Even considering the issue of our worsening storms, every year we have power cuts that can last 2 to 3 days at a time (usually at Christmas).

As I said before, we try to show people that life can be lived comfortably and simply without as much technology as they might think. When we need to, we employ additional technology, but as little as possible. But regulations are starting to strip us of that freedom to decide on a case-by-case basis and I that is a dangerous path for the future.

Thanks again for the debate. As someone pretty new on list, I have enjoyed hanging out with the "big boys".

Feile (a woman with no fridge)

Féile Butler
MRIAI B.Arch Dip. Arch Conservation Grade III
Mud and Wood
Grange Beg, Skreen, Co. Sligo, Ireland

T:  +353 (0) 71 930 0488
M: +353 (0) 86 806 8382
E : feile at mudandwood.com
W: www.mudandwood.com<http://www.mudandwood.com>

_______________________________________________
GSBN mailing list
GSBN at sustainablesources.com<mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com>
http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

Derek Roff
derek at unm.edu<mailto:derek at unm.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20130331/4e950ea7/attachment.htm>