Quote of the Day
In climate and energy policy, certain well-intentioned ideas gain outsized popularity despite persistent evidence against them. One such appealing but deeply problematic approach is the “fabric first” philosophy — the notion that building decarbonization must begin by aggressively insulating and sealing structures, only later electrifying their heating systems. On the surface, it’s intuitive: if buildings leak less heat, they need less energy. Yet decades of research across multiple countries continue to reveal that “fabric first” consistently delivers far less than promised, saddling property owners and governments with excessive costs while barely reducing fossil fuel dependency.
…
In short, after decades of experience and analysis, the lesson is clear and overdue: if the goal is truly to decarbonize buildings rapidly, affordably, and permanently, electrification must lead the way. Insulation and sealing should support that goal—not substitute for it. Anything else is merely burning money and carbon while chasing a comforting illusion.
Michael Barnard
March 27, 2025
The “Fabric First” Trap: Decades Of Studies Show Electrification Wins Every Time – CleanTechnica
The reason why this is true is obvious in hindsight:
The culprit, as ever, was the infamous rebound effect: homeowners, now able to heat their spaces affordably, naturally sought higher comfort — warmer rooms, longer heating periods — and even added heated extensions to their properties.
This reminds me of the effect of “childproof” medicine bottles. It turns out that when people had small children and hazardous medicines, their behavior changed versus without “childproof” medicine bottles. They were less careful with the availability of their medicines when they had “childproof” medicine bottles. The end result was essentially the same accidental poisoning of small children.
It appears the psychology is that, in essence, people have a “set point” of risk level they are willing to accept. They used the increased safety of the containers to increase their convenience and maintained the same level of child safety.
And so it is with the heating bills. The people have a “set point” on what they will spend on heating cost and seek more comfort as the cost goes down.
It is not good intentions. Just another piece of totalitarian control. If it were such a great idea, people would just do it.
People change their behaviors when the risks, costs, and incentives change.
Shocker. Completely surprising…. not.
And this is why politicians fail so often. They are (selectively) unable to understand that people change behavior to changing conditions and incentives in ways that are not always what the pol wanted to happen.
It’s called “Risk Homeostasis”. When the apparent risk of a behavior changes, people subconsciously adjust their behavior to get to the level of risk with which they are comfortable.
If you make an activity inherently safer, people will be more willing (again subconsciously) to increase their risk.
If you make an activity more hazardous, people tend to be more cautious. I know that when my car needs brakes or tires, for example, I drive more cautiously without even thinking about it.
My brother, the economist, talked of a professor who claimed that there was a sure fire way to completely eliminate vehicle fatalities. Simply remove all seat belts and active restraint systems (airbags) from cars and then place an impossible to remove 10″ spike in the center of every steering wheel. He said that speed limits could even be done away with. My brother, however, pointed out that it would never happen because funding from traffic regulation citations is too large a component of every taxing district to be eliminated. So, yes, safety does have a price.
Awesome!
The nonsense about the “electrification” to reduce energy use is completely insane. It omits one little detail:
Where would the electricity come from to make up all of the energy use being lost by eliminating fossil fuel usage? Gonna burn unicorn farts? Maybe use those bricks of unicorn poop in nuclear reactors?
Yet another factor is geographic location. A study done by the (Canadian!) BC Hydro showed that for almost all locations above 45° latitude that using incandescent bulbs, with their 90% energy use going to “waste” heat was actually more energy efficient than using CFL’s or (now) LED’s. That study was promptly buried and ignored. The rush to replace natural gas-burning furnaces, boilers, and water heaters ignores the simple fact that they become hideously inefficient at outdoor temperatures below about -10°F and simply turn into extremely costly electric heaters.
It makes far more sense to put natural gas in a pipeline and transport it cheaply and efficiently to where it is used on a point-use basis at reasonably high (85% to 95%) in furnaces than it is to transport electricity at low efficiency (power line losses over long distances can be enormous).
And even if all electricity were to come from the so-called “renewable” sources, there is not enough material available to mankind in the earth’s crust to provide sufficient solar panels, bird-choppers, and the necessary battery back-ups to build it all. Not to mention that the cost will be 3 to 4 times higher than what we currently pay for electricity.
Just little details the eco-fascists want us to ignore.
The problem with electrification of heating is dependency. You become 100% dependent on a grid that is always the first to fail. When was the last time you saw a widespread natural gas outage?
The reason I installed a high efficiency wood burner was specifically because it’s less technically difficult to light a fire when the power goes out than to use my portable generator to fire my boiler.
Psych set-points are important in a number of fields, not just obvious “risk” items.
For example, the reason that men generally would prefer to marry women with a low-to-zero “body-count” is that the women tend to adjust their set-points to the best of each trait for the men they have slept with.
So to have a good chance at a long-lasting marriage, you have to be as nice as her first, as well-hung as her 5th, as long-lasting as her 8th, as rich as her 15th, as handsome as her 23rd, have as much free time as her 30th, be as ambitious as her 32nd, etc., etc., etc. That’s an impossible standard to meet, so they become bored / dissatisfied. If you are the only one she’s been with, then… you are the best of each of those things, and the odds of staying together are much better. If you point this out, high-body-count women will just slam you as “insecure,” of course.
And what of “high body-count” men?
Citations?
Women control access to sex.
Men control access to commitment.
A key that opens nearly any lock is a rare and valued item.
A lock that can be opened by nearly any key is worthless.
We are not the same.
Citations? Just look at the research relating to divorce rates and number of partners the woman has before marriage. “Alpha widow” is a very real thing.
I wonder, with the push and/or requirement to insulate first, then power “heating” systems, did “fabric first” advocates adjust policy for hot climes, which make up a LOT of the habitable zones of the Earth? Or did they treat it as a “one size fits all” solution … that does not actually work for everyone?
Insulation has one purpose — and it’s NOT to “keep warm when it’s cold outside”. Insulation simply blocks the transfer of heat. In cold climes, that might help quite a bit, because people shelter inside and their body heat will help warm the interior space.
But in hot climes, insulation can help keep the outside heat out, but it’s also trapping body heat in an already-uncomfortably-warm space, which is counter-productive without also providing a way to cool the interior. It’s reasonable to expect that as buildings become more efficiently insulated, opening a window and turning on a fan becomes less desirable (and effective) compared to a heat pump or air conditioner.
I can see where the authors are coming from: as homes and buildings become more efficient at blocking excess heat going in or out, the demand for heating and cooling does not go down, it remains static or goes up. But the cited example explaining “fabric first” seems to assume cold climes and it would not surprise me if they extrapolated their conjecture worldwide. However, the problem is different in hot climes — an excess of heat that must be shed, not a lack of heat that must be captured and maintained — and requires a slightly different solution.
Are “fabric first” advocates taking that into consideration? Or are they shocked — shocked I tell you! — that insulating already-warm structures to trap excess heat does NOT lead to a drop in demand for energy?
To add: Blackwing1 above points out that heat pumps become enormously inefficient at heating when the outside temp goes below -10 degrees Fahrenheit. I would add that they also become enormously inefficient for cooling at temperatures above about 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
The reason is simple: heat pumps just transfer (pump) thermal energy (heat) between the interior and exterior of a building. At very cold outside temps, there’s not enough heat for the pump to “pull” inside, so additional heat sources (i.e. electric heaters and/or furnaces) are necessary. At very hot outside temps, the exterior air is already as hot or hotter than the pump, so the pump can’t “push” any more heat outside.
In both cases, the “more insulation” solution experiences sharply diminishing returns. At some point, actual energy must be consumed to heat or cool the interior, and when it comes to heating, the amount of stored energy in fossil fuels easily outstrips that of “renewable” electricity, and does its job much more reliably than the over-taxed electrical grid.
(Regarding the over-taxed electrical grid — If a stand-up comedian hasn’t made this joke, they’re welcome to my version: California mandated EVs and insulation and “renewable energy”, and outlawed natural gas appliances. They did this to “improve efficiency” and “reduce energy costs”. Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but my energy usage has certainly gone down. With all the rolling brown-outs from “renewables” that can’t keep up, there’s no energy to use!)
Pingback: Divorce Rate Versus Number Premarital Sex Partners for Women | The View From North Central Idaho