RE: And now for something completely different . . . choosing to keep the house cold

coldishhouse said:

Firefighterjake: Thanks for the encouragement on checking the chimney often. Will do so. We are pretty good about avoiding lame, smoldering fires. Habit thus far has been relatively short but hot fires, sporadically-- so hopefully that's relatively benign. Also, we're putting a relatively small total amount of wood through the stove... so that should help to keep the total creosote on the lower side.

Click to expand...

With respect for what you're trying to do here, 350 is not a "hot" fire.

Wow.. what a fun experiment. Not for me, but what the hey. I was in the Army 20+years, combat arms the whole time and uncle sam let me go plenty of long periods in some really cold places without real heat. and showers. Let me tell you, I don't have to much problem when it's a bit cool in the house, last years ice storm we "camped" at home for 8 days without any power at all, just the fireplace and a keroheater to keep us warm, we were fine. But 8 days without a hot shower was the suxors. I often will shower twice a day or more if I have been extra busy or something. we have friends that don't understand my shower "need", but I just tell them go 40-45 days of sweaty humpin' in weather to cold, or a place to dry, for even a spit bath sometime, and you will see my point.

"With respect for what you’re trying to do here, 350 is not a “hot” fire."

Not sure where the number 350 came from. We generally shoot for 500º-- though we don't often hold it there long before we stop feeding. 350º is where we bake cookies, but that's a different story...

Interesting thread here. It is getting late so I'll make a brief comment but hopefully more tomorrow.


Can people actually do this? Very much so! All one has to do is read a little history. How about that Indian tribe I read about once who went naked all year around....in Canada?! What about those poor folks who lived in the plain states in the 1800's?

Is 40 degrees cold? Not particularly if you are dressed for it. Otherwise what would some of us do while deer hunting, or ice fishing or snowmobiling? Also, 40 degrees in a house is different than 40 degrees outside when that 40 degrees included any amount of wind.

What about cold nights? When I was a little boy our home was not heated during the night! Yes, we woke up to some snow on the floor a few times....and it stayed there a long, long time before melting too. The point is, it can be done. But how many would really want to? I say very, very few and then only as an experiment, otherwise why are so many homes kept at a more comfortable temperature.

So you want to see how much you can do without? We've been doing that for years! Sure, we keep our home very warm; warmer than most. We do it for more than one reason but because I had polio in my youth I am very susceptible to the cold air. Therefore I try to stay warm. The fellow saves hot water from the dishwasher! Why does he even own a dishwasher? How does he get this hot water?

I think it was Slow who mentioned saving the warm bath water. Why not a shower which takes less water? Here is another way one can save and it probably will sound way off the wall to most. We take showers....but do not let the water run. Yes, it seemed odd at first but now seems very natural. It is the same as when we have stayed in an RV. Water and storage is a problem in these. So, wet the washcloth, turn off water, soap down and rinse off. I've found that I can actually take a shower using less than a gallon of water. So that is less water that we have to heat every day.

There are many other things people can do to use less, do with less and need less and most can be done with hardly any sacrifices. Okay, the shower was a sacrifice because I used to love standing there with that hot water beating on my sore back, but I get along okay without it.

We cut wood from our own property so the cost is minimal. If I had to buy wood things would be a bit different for sure. But we have the wood and I aim to be comfortable in my own house.

Good night.

coldishhouse said:

"With respect for what you’re trying to do here, 350 is not a “hot” fire."

Not sure where the number 350 came from. We generally shoot for 500º-- though we don't often hold it there long before we stop feeding. 350º is where we bake cookies, but that's a different story...

Click to expand...

You're right. I got it wrong. The post on your blog said 300.

"The problem is that for safety, efficiency, and emissions minimization, the stove has to burn at a certain minimum temperature of about 300-400ºF. But keeping the stove even just at 300º, consistently, takes the living areas up into the low- or even mid-60’s."

It doesn't go on to say anything about going to 500 instead, but if that's what you meant, then-- never mind. I'll stop fretting over your chimney.

Backwoods Savage said:

Interesting thread here. It is getting late so I'll make a brief comment but hopefully more tomorrow.


Can people actually do this? Very much so! All one has to do is read a little history. How about that Indian tribe I read about once who went naked all year around....in Canada?! What about those poor folks who lived in the plain states in the 1800's?

Is 40 degrees cold? Not particularly if you are dressed for it. Otherwise what would some of us do while deer hunting, or ice fishing or snowmobiling? Also, 40 degrees in a house is different than 40 degrees outside when that 40 degrees included any amount of wind.

What about cold nights? When I was a little boy our home was not heated during the night! Yes, we woke up to some snow on the floor a few times....and it stayed there a long, long time before melting too. The point is, it can be done. But how many would really want to? I say very, very few and then only as an experiment, otherwise why are so many homes kept at a more comfortable temperature.

So you want to see how much you can do without? We've been doing that for years! Sure, we keep our home very warm; warmer than most. We do it for more than one reason but because I had polio in my youth I am very susceptible to the cold air. Therefore I try to stay warm. The fellow saves hot water from the dishwasher! Why does he even own a dishwasher? How does he get this hot water?

I think it was Slow who mentioned saving the warm bath water. Why not a shower which takes less water? Here is another way one can save and it probably will sound way off the wall to most. We take showers....but do not let the water run. Yes, it seemed odd at first but now seems very natural. It is the same as when we have stayed in an RV. Water and storage is a problem in these. So, wet the washcloth, turn off water, soap down and rinse off. I've found that I can actually take a shower using less than a gallon of water. So that is less water that we have to heat every day.

There are many other things people can do to use less, do with less and need less and most can be done with hardly any sacrifices. Okay, the shower was a sacrifice because I used to love standing there with that hot water beating on my sore back, but I get along okay without it.

We cut wood from our own property so the cost is minimal. If I had to buy wood things would be a bit different for sure. But we have the wood and I aim to be comfortable in my own house.

Good night.

Click to expand...

I confess that if I had a larger stove and a larger supply of dry wood, I'd totally bag the spartan stuff and be toasty (except for the 2nd floor because I really like sleeping in a pretty cold room). But I'm relieved and pleased to find that I do perfectly fine with a lot less heat than I would have imagined a few years ago.

One problem with the short showers-- you absolutely have to have a really warm bathroom to get away with doing that! (Or at least I do.) So which uses more energy, a warm bathroom with a short shower or a cold bathroom and a longer shower?

"You’re right. I got it wrong. The post on your blog said 300.

[“The problem is that for safety, efficiency, and emissions minimization, the stove has to burn at a certain minimum temperature of about 300-400ºF. But keeping the stove even just at 300º, consistently, takes the living areas up into the low- or even mid-60’s.”]

Master-- Oops, you're right, that was a mistake-- should've read "about 400-500ºF". But, it is true that if we kept it even at 300º round-the-clock, we'd be into the 60's! But we don't do that

"The fellow saves hot water from the dishwasher! Why does he even own a dishwasher? How does he get this hot water?"

Backwoods-- We own a dishwasher because it came with the house, and we get hot water same way as most people, from a hot water heater (also came with the house). I know, if we were "for real", we wouldn't have hot water at all, or a car, or chocolate chip cookies, or any of the other things that people can do without. But one thing at a time : ) Whether hot water is essential for washing dishes is, I suppose, open to debate generally, but at present it is not open for debate in my household... and sometimes domestic harmony takes precedence. Anyway, here's my argument that the dishwasher is as efficient as dishwashing by hand (assuming you're using hot water anyway): http://coldhousejournal.com/2008/12/17/simple-experiments-in-heat-reclamation-part-i-the-dishwasher/

Coldish, we do not have a hot water heater here. We do have a cold water heater though as I could never see any sense in heating hot water. lol


gyrfalcon, it is warm enough in our bathroom to do this but it does not have to be really toasty to do it. If, however, it did get too cold, which it has just a couple of times, we do have a Pelonis ceramic heater that we can turn on. Very minimal cost there as it cost pennies per hour and it would not be on probably more than 15 minutes to a time at most.



Back to the experiment without heat. Just that last post on the blog makes it appear to me that this experiment is going wrong. The lady wants to warm up before she leaves; the man doesn't want to start the stove.

I'm sorry, but when 2 people live together and one begins to be uncomfortable with the living conditions, a lot of things begin to go wrong. It might appear at first that there is some other issue involved but it will no doubt boil down to being uncomfortable in the house.

Why do most folks enjoy summer more than winter? Of course they don't have to shovel snow, drive on icy roads or pay lots of money to heat their homes. But the biggest reason of all is that they can go outdoors without having to put heavy clothing on. They can go outdoors and be comfortable; in fact, many much prefer to being outside vs. being inside a building. Winter brings on enough problems for most folks and if you have to be uncomfortable for 6 months of the year it is going to go bad sooner or later.

I look back to my youth and it had not been that long since the Great Depression. Folks had went without a lot of things back then and cold houses were very common. Most of those folks definitely would not have gone back to the cold ways; it was just too uncomfortable.


One comment was made about the couple being young and that has a bearing on the experiment. The bodies in youth are much different from what they are as people age (I am just realizing). Cold in youth is much different than cold in old age. The blood does not circulate as well and the joints have become stiff. These joints become much worse as the temperature drops.

In my home, one of the things to watch for to tell if the house is warm enough is when the ladies begin to remove some clothing. Somehow I much prefer that over the ladies looking for more and heavier clothing to put on that body. I would much rather see a scantily clad female body than to look at that lady who is wearing heavy clothing, a stocking hat and sitting on an electric heating pad. In addition, a young couple could easily go without that electric blanket as there are simplier and more pleasant ways to keep warm.

As an experiment, this thing will work. As a way of life, very, very few would accept it.

coldishhouse said:

I know, if we were "for real", we wouldn't have hot water at all, or a car, or chocolate chip cookies, or any of the other things that people can do without. But one thing at a time : )

Click to expand...

"For real" what? What is the objective here anyway - to live in self denial? Somehow the jump seems be going from minimizing energy use to giving up chocolate chip cookies... Sacrilege I say!

Seriously - I think there is a line between reducing waste or perhaps even a bit of self denial that can help us to appreciate things more (too many cookies and even they don't taste as good - law of diminishing returns?) and self denial to inflict suffering on ones self. When someone crosses the line I begin to question the motives and/or become concerned about their state of mind. Then again I'm all into a good challenge and become obsessed with stranger things than this so I'm no stranger to having my state of mind being questioned though so what do I know eh?

Slow, I tend to think most of us has our sanity challenged every now and then. lol

I do agree with you on the motives. This thing about no heat is not bad as an experiment but as a way of life I would definitely question. If one wants to know what it is like, okay. If one wants to know if it would work all he needs to do is look at history or look at some of the poorer areas of the globe. Yes, people could live that way if forced.....but would only if forced.

Backwoods Savage said:

Slow, I tend to think most of us has our sanity challenged every now and then. lol

I do agree with you on the motives. This thing about no heat is not bad as an experiment but as a way of life I would definitely question. If one wants to know what it is like, okay. If one wants to know if it would work all he needs to do is look at history or look at some of the poorer areas of the globe. Yes, people could live that way if forced.....but would only if forced.

Click to expand...

Y'know, Backwoods, we pretty much all get our endorphins from different things in life. What they're doing seems to me to be taking things to a kind of nutty extreme, but then my friends back in the burbs definitely think I'm taking things to a nutty extreme by heating with wood and growing much of my own food ( not to mention having moved a 3-hour drive away from the nearest Trader Joe), yet I get a huge morale boost from both things. Showering the way you do, even in summer, seems to me to be a nutty extreme, yet there's something about making that little sacrifice that you feel good about. So really, each to his own.

It is interesting to find out, as the Coldhouse people are doing, how many of the comforts of modern living conditions one can really do perfectly well without. That's a different place for every one of us.

And you're absolutely right that age has a lot to do with how easy or hard it is. By the time people get to "our age," I think the vast majority of us have been through enough periods of one kind of hardship or another that we have our psychological/emotional limits, as well as the very definite physical ones fo the aging and decreasingly resilient body. "Been there, done that," I think to myself, "Don't want to do it again, thanks. I'll try something else."

And by the way, just to prolong the nitpicky practical argument, I question whether running the space heater to warm up the bathroom enough for your one-gallon shower uses less energy than heating an extra half dozen gallons of water. I still shudder at the mere thought of standing around wet and naked in the bathtub in anything less than the height of summer hot weather!

gyrfalcon said:

Backwoods Savage said:

Slow, I tend to think most of us has our sanity challenged every now and then. lol

I do agree with you on the motives. This thing about no heat is not bad as an experiment but as a way of life I would definitely question. If one wants to know what it is like, okay. If one wants to know if it would work all he needs to do is look at history or look at some of the poorer areas of the globe. Yes, people could live that way if forced.....but would only if forced.

Click to expand...

Y'know, Backwoods, we pretty much all get our endorphins from different things in life. What they're doing seems to me to be taking things to a kind of nutty extreme, but then my friends back in the burbs definitely think I'm taking things to a nutty extreme by heating with wood and growing much of my own food ( not to mention having moved a 3-hour drive away from the nearest Trader Joe), yet I get a huge morale boost from both things. Showering the way you do, even in summer, seems to me to be a nutty extreme, yet there's something about making that little sacrifice that you feel good about. So really, each to his own.

It is interesting to find out, as the Coldhouse people are doing, how many of the comforts of modern living conditions one can really do perfectly well without. That's a different place for every one of us.

And you're absolutely right that age has a lot to do with how easy or hard it is. By the time people get to "our age," I think the vast majority of us have been through enough periods of one kind of hardship or another that we have our psychological/emotional limits, as well as the very definite physical ones fo the aging and decreasingly resilient body. "Been there, done that," I think to myself, "Don't want to do it again, thanks. I'll try something else."

And by the way, just to prolong the nitpicky practical argument, I question whether running the space heater to warm up the bathroom enough for your one-gallon shower uses less energy than heating an extra half dozen gallons of water. I still shudder at the mere thought of standing around wet and naked in the bathtub in anything less than the height of summer hot weather!

Click to expand...

I can relate to what you wrote about being away from the city, having your own land and lots of your own food. It is wonderful!

I would challenge you to heat a gallon of water to 120 degrees and then compare the amount of energy required. However, it would be useless because as I stated, it is not always we would use the heater. In fact, we have not used it even once so far this winter. Only if the temperature gets down to -10 or below would we consider using it so over a year's time it certainly doesn't get used much. I believe we saw that temperature only twice last winter and not even close this winter.

As for the standing around wet and naked, you can take a very quick shower if needed or if you have to have the shower running constantly you could consider not showering alone...

interesting concept.....think i'll throw another log on the fire.

cass

As a rule I usually don't run my stoves above 600 but after reading the blog and this thread I noticed it's up to about 700 and I'm still a bit chilly. I think the prospect of never really warming up would bug me. I can be out in sub freezing cold all day(fishing,hunting, farming etc) but knowing I can come in at the end of the day and warm up makes it ok. It would be like returning to a cold camp after a day in a tree-stand.......jmo but it would just jerk all the fun out of it for me. Direct heat triggers some sort of pleasure center that I would sorely miss.
Joe

"This thing about no heat is not bad as an experiment but as a way of life I would definitely question... If one wants to know if it would work all he needs to do is look at history... Yes, people could live that way if forced…..but would only if forced."

Historically, not many too many people were forced to live up here in the cold northern part of the country! And if I had to choose between Maine with barely any heat or Florida with barely any A/C, I wouldn't have to think long! (Think the same goes for the other inhabitant here...)

I think more important than denying comfort is to be smart about consumption of any kind. We posses knowledge and technology these days that enable us to heat our homes much more efficiently, take showers using a minimal amount of water, and wash our clothes with a fraction of the water that yesterday's washers used. In fact our government is offering great tax incentives encouraging some of these efficiencies. So to this point, the couple in the blog may be using as much energy in keeping their home in the 50's as they might to keep a smaller, more efficiently planned and insulated space in the 70's. Denial of comfort is more of a philosophical exercise that you might liken to self-flagellation to some extent unless that denial results in a benefit outside of oneself. Although it can be a means to inner growth and a noble sacrifice towards a greater understanding of the suffering of the impoverished, if it's cold outside and you choose to sit in the shade rather than the sun you're not really helping anybody else just because you understand what it feels like to be cold. Instead, being proactive about utilizing our energy-conserving technologies and designs can enable us to live comfortably while not hogging the resources that others need. Conservation of resources being the goal, you generally have two options: use less but still inefficiently, or use the same amount efficiently. There is a greater respect for the resources if you're using them to the full potential of your abilities. You're still wasting them if you don't use them to their full potential and you have the ability to.

I live not far from these guys and I do keep my house warmer. I think of myself as a wuss about the cold, and I have some health issues. But, when I visit family (not in Maine) who keep their house at 72+, I swelter and find it really uncomfortable. It seems silly to be unable to wear a wool sweater in the winter without being too warm. It's quite possible to dress appropriately, stay active, and be comfortable at cooler temps. I don't use A/C, and my comfort range in the summer is fairly wide, too.

Even though electric heat isn't efficient, an electric blanket saves a lot of energy because you can turn the heat way down at night. I pre-heat the bed and use a good quilt, and don't much mind having the bedroom stay in the low 50s. I do with I'd installed heated floors in the bathroom, though.

Todd said:

I saw them on the national news and found it kind a odd they burned wood and only kept the house in the 50's. I can tolerate 60's but the wife won't.

Click to expand...

When the temp outside is in the teens and twenties, the Regency Insert keeps our bedroom at 58*. I think that's perfect sleeping temp. My wife wakes up and exaggerates her shivers. I'm not budging. The electric heat thermostat can stay at 50.

k3c4forlife said:

Todd said:

I saw them on the national news and found it kind a odd they burned wood and only kept the house in the 50's. I can tolerate 60's but the wife won't.

Click to expand...

When the temp outside is in the teens and twenties, the Regency Insert keeps our bedroom at 58*. I think that's perfect sleeping temp. My wife wakes up and exaggerates her shivers. I'm not budging. The electric heat thermostat can stay at 50.

Click to expand...

I have to agree - high 50's isn't all that tough once you are used to it. We often wake up with parts of the house in the 57-59 range. There is a big difference between that and 50-52 though in my opinion. Take a look at the blog and you will see that they are not talking about upper 50's most of the time and they are frequently in the 40's.

Honestly I would be fine with that. I am like the thermostat nazi and my electric bill was still $197 for January...

Hands over head applauding loudly and enthusiastically for dvellone's thoughful post. Bravo!

It''s about being thoughtful and conservative. I'm a seamstress, but have little interest in a "hair shirt".

"Conservation of resources being the goal, you generally have two options: use less but still inefficiently, or use the same amount efficiently."

Or, third option, use less, and be efficient. In my observation, improving technology often doesn't translate into great energy conservation. In the early 1980's, you could get a Honda Civic that returned 50 mpg highway. Now, we have amazing hybrid technology-- but instead of a Civic that gets 100mpg, we have a heavier, fancier, more powerful Civic that still gets only 50mpg.

Similarly, in 1960, we had relatively poor insulation technology, and the average new home in the U.S. had 1,200 sq. ft. of living space. By 2007, we had improved insulation technology, and the average new home size had doubled to 2,400 sq. ft. of living space With a simultaneous reduction in the average family size. What conclusions to draw?

Our living space is about 1,050 sq. ft. Smaller than some, larger than some-- but in general I think we're doing a reasonable job of tackling both efficiency and use.

By stating "use the same amount more efficiently". The "same amount" I was referring to was the lesser amount being used inefficiently. It doesn't make much sense to increase efficiency but not to decrease usage.

I also think that any discussion of efficiency needs to take into account not only actual energy usage, but efficiency in terms of how much energy is necessary per individual. If you can build a home utilizing the least amount of energy usage that goes beyond the square footage that some conservationists believe is adequate, are you still being an over-consumer because you didn't build the minimal size? Sure there are building materials to consider, but there are many options towards greater efficiency in that regard too. Maybe the neighbor's house is bigger than yours, but maybe he or she built using materials that edged you out in terms of their being more renewable. Then there's the slippery slope of who's to say what size is the standard for a family of four, or five etc. I live in an 820 square ft. home with my wife and two small children and I gripe about how tiny it is. I have a friend from Mexico who looks at me in bewilderment when I talk about how small the house is.
The automotive issue is interesting too. I looked at the Highlander Hybrid and discovered that it gets about the same gas mileage as our regular 4-cylinder Highlander which isn't anything to brag about. Toyota put the energy efficiency into more horsepower rather than better mileage. So the car still uses the same amount of gas right? Not really, it is powering a much bigger engine with the same amount of gas that my 4-cylinder uses. As much as I'd like to see the car getting twice the mileage if not more, it's a step in the right direction for most Americans who have been addicted to big cars and big motors for a long, long time. Hard to believe that those folks will just drop their old habits and start driving European-style tiny cars, and since we live in a consumer-driven market the auto industry isn't going to ignore what a lot of us like. I see a Hummer on the road and I can't imagine who would want one... but someone is buying them. Now if Hummer can put those folks into a model that is more efficient that may be step towards changing their habits. Maybe they'll begin to appreciate lower gas bills. Maybe they'll begin to demand lower gas consumption over time. If the next model year's vehicle is scaled down a bit with more efficiency again, maybe they're habits will begin to change.

At least with the house that cold, the rodents probably go to the neighbor's place.