Top models of energy efficiency fashion
July 31, 2009
(2 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...Three weeks ago Brussels Grand Place hosted the reconstruction of the parade that the Capital City Brussels offered to King Charles V on 2nd June 1549, when he came to present his son Phillip to the people of Flanders. More than 4000 actors participate in this beautiful parade in full velvet suits, with feathers and fur, with bonnets, helms, armour and the rest of the equipment. It was an impressive and beautiful show, but at the same time it was painful to see all these people suffering inside their elegant robes, the unusual 36ºC that the capital of Europe was enjoying for a few days.
I noticed the contrast between the audience in shorts and t-shirts and the actors sweating in velvets and furs. I considered then, whether one of the best ways to combat energy consumption would not be changing the way we dress. In fact, the idea is not new. After the oil crunch of 1973, Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira presented what he called “energy conservation look” a white summer suit with short arms conceived to reduce the consumption of air conditioning in the offices.
Many experts consider that the most efficient way of saving heating or cooling is simply reduce or increase by 1º the temperature that of our thermostats. One degree variation could lead to up to 10% energy savings. And however, it is not so unusual to find people that sleep with a blanket in the middle of the summer because they keep the air conditioning too high. Equally, you see some people in the middle of the winter walking around their apartments with a simple t-shirt. Maybe the right choice of clothes together with a wiser use of the heating and cooling systems may have a positive impact on their comfort and also on their energy bills¨:
It looks like quite a personal choice in any case, but companies are starting to see the added value of such an approach. The idea of the “casual Friday”, a day in which white collar employees come to the office in more informal clothes, is beginning to have more and more supporters. I think it would be worth making some studies to see if these days the consumption of energy comes down, and if so whether this habit can be extended to other days of the week.
Of course, we need to think where the limit of such policy should be. Prime Minister Ohira for instance was not very successful as a fashion designer, and I seriously doubt that my colleagues in the Commission are ready to renounce to their beloved ties to come to the office. I guess the energy efficiency fashion policy has to be based, like any other one, on common sense. We cannot behave like the king of the fable that ordered a suit that only clever people could see and end up walking naked in the streets of his kingdom.
Some food for thought during these holidays, which I wish you can enjoy either in the warmth of the northern hemisphere or in the cold of the south, in comfortable clothes.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
August 5th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“…More than 4000 actors participate in this beautiful parade in full velvet suits, with feathers and fur, with bonnets, helms, armour and the rest of the equipment….”
I wonder who paid for this extravaganza, taxpayers likely?? And who authorised it, politicians maybe?? It is so easy to spend other people’s money, shame it is harder to persuade your colleagues to adopt energy efficiencies if it means putting on a jumper or taking off a tie:-(
August 13th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Dear Commissioner,
I can add to your blogentry the fact that building climate control design has for some year now been in a development specifically related to what you write about above.
The topic is the development of a new standard model for predicting the indoor thermal comfort level that is achieved using a particular building climate control system. Believe it or not, this is a science where computer simulation is employed in combination with empirical evidence linking indoor climate conditions such as humidity and temperature to the observed comfort experienced by building occupants. People turn out to have slightly different experience of temperature, which is reflected in the fact that no building climate control system or strategy can satisfy all building occupants. The optimal building climate control system will, however, satisfy the requirements of up to 95% of all occupants.
The standard model for predicting building occupant satisfaction with the building climate was developed by Fanger on the basis of the human metabolism and his energy and moisture balance. That model has in the last few years been updated to account for observed seasonal variations in human physical and psychological characteristics. Scientists have found that people’s experience of the indoor climate is not totally defined by the classical climate conditions such as temperature and humidity. In fact, the simple availability of windows and/or vents in the facade that can be opened by the occupant significantly increases the tolerance of that occupant to high temperatures inside. The result is that buildings that have openable windows can deliver the same level of indoor thermal comfort at a higher temperature setpoint (lower energy use in summer) than a building with closed windows.
Of course, as was already clear to Fanger in his original model for human thermal comfort, wearing suitable clothes to fit the seasons and the resulting equilibrium indoor climate also has a significant effect on the the level of cooling or heating that is needed to achieve thermal comfort in a building. If people - especially the executives and managers in their three-piece wool suits running around the offices all day - were to adapt their clothing more to the seasons, the effect on the level of energy use necessary to achieve thermal comfort would be very favorable, but I doubt -like you - that will happen any time soon! until that happens, lets make use of the recent insights in human psychology with regard to building features such as openable windows. Especially for high-rise office buildings this poses technical challenges due to wind attack on the facade, but there are many technical solutions available, if only the engineers responsible for the design apply the available knowledge to full effect and help convince the building owner to push ahead despite the higher up-front costs.
To conclude: there is lot of opportunity for increasing building indoor thermal comfort while reducing energy use. What is required to achieve the best results is the thorough application of the available scientific knowledge on the subject of indoor climate control. Unfortunately: this costs money for building developers and tends to add risk to the project. Innovative climate control systems often require carefull tuning and monitoring *after* the building has been taken into use, which is not usually acceptable. And certainly while energy costs for climate control are typically a small fraction of total costs for a company using an office building, there is not likely to be any real economic interest in diverting significantly from the well-worn path of ‘brute force’ methods of climate control that have low risk but use much more energy than would otherwise be possible.
So building developers will need be continually forced to look at the possibilities offered by applying science and technology other than the conventional that has not changed since the 60’s by ratcheting up the building environmental standards more and more. Fortunately, this realisation seems to have come to policy makers, albeit arguably 30 years too late!
Best regards,
J
August 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am
People should dress as they wish but energy systems should not help them wear absurd clothing. Perhaps your colleagues in the Comission will start not loving their beautiful ties if building temperatures in summer are higher, or won’t be in shirts in winter if they are lower.
It’s nonsense designing buildings to satisfy people wishes of wearing certain clothes, specially when they don’t pay it’s cost.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:41 am
It’s depressing to read the need to make “some studies”. If you search in the Internet you’ll probably find plenty, anyway it’s expected from political leaders to use commonsense without the need to accumulate several hundreds of pages (expensively paid) to feel safe about their decisions.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Formula (<><>M= -0+) uses GRAVITY FUSION - release of toxins into the environment in nature = 0%.
M/Efficiency= +> M received power = 100% <+ M additional forces = 0%.
Can replace all RENEWABLE and NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Good call, Andris! So when we will see you in shorts around Schuman; before this summer is out?
August 21st, 2009 at 10:18 am
To all participating in this discussion:
EER and EE - labels .. fashion or daily routine
EER – Energy Equivalent Return means to be able as a producer, distributor or consumer to return the energy equivalent of any product to its right source by its right quality and quantity.
EER might concern the energy equivalent of your car, your flat, your breakfast and many other products around but EER might concern your job too.
An example:
Try to produce by your own physical force the energy necessary to:
- run your office computer within a day
- cover the electrical demand of your fridge over the night.
Yours faithfully,
Chavdar Azarov
chavdarazarov@yahoo.com
August 25th, 2009 at 11:07 am
What a nice blog you have..thanks for all this information.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
You might be interested to know that the prime minister of Bangladesh has ordered male government employees to stop wearing suits, jackets and ties to save electricity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8234144.stm
September 4th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
We look forward as a new piece of legislation that prescribes thoroughly how we have to dress in order to comply with the criteria chosen by our politicians.
@Chavdar Azarov:
I don’t have to produce the energy that I need with my physical force, and I don’t understand your point. Are you suggesting that I should be able to do so? Are you suggesting that politicians should force everyone to live (or better, at 99.999% die) under this strict standard? Please explain.