[Greenbuilding] Old buildings = better energy performance; why? NYT

[John Salmen]

There are definitely a lot of factors. In looking to improve the efficiency
of a leaky local waldorf school I was surprised to find that it consumed
less energy than any other school in the province (on a per capita). But
then no computers.

 

I’ve lived in a number of old uninsulated homes. An old NA woodframe
building will have ¾” plaster on ½” plaster and horse hair mix on ½” wood
lathing. The base for the lathing was often a full layer of 1x sheathing
boards. Framing was typically a full 2” and a lot of it.  Layers of
sheathing, siding built up interior and exterior mouldings and trim work add
up substantially.  So overall wood layers could add up to 3-4”. Significant
interior mass with the walls. Substantial overhangs, recessed (cutting wind
surface) and smaller windows (generally utilizing storm windows).  Generally
good siting and landscaping. Add 100 years worth of paint and caulking for
air seal.

 

Compare that to a leaky house poorly insulated with badly installed r20 and
double or triple the glazing and yes the old house could perform better.

 

From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org]
On Behalf Of Reuben Deumling
Sent: November-19-13 9:16 AM
To: Greenbuilding
Subject: [Greenbuilding] Old buildings = better energy performance; why? NYT

 

Thoughts?

 

"older buildings of every stripe, even those dating to the early 1900s,
performed better than most structures from recent decades. Green-building
experts say it is likely because they have fewer windows and thicker walls,
which provide better insulation. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/nyregion/wide-differences-found-in-large-b
uildings-power-use.html?_r=0

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20131119/fe913c5d/attachment.html>