I'll just add a little more explanation here since our site goes pretty in depth and I imagine most here would only be interested in a brief overview:
So buildings have what is known as a heating base temperature, which is the outside temperature above which heating is not needed inside the building. This is not the thermostat temperature inside the building (say 20 C), it is actually lower because of various factors like people and electrical equipment generating "free heat" inside the building, and how well the building is insulated to retain that free heat.
The base temperature varies from building to building, but let's say, for example, a fairly-well-insulated home might have a heating base temperature of 14 C. If the temperature outside is 14 C or above, that building will stay perfectly warm inside on its own, without the heating system needing to come on.
But, if the outside temperature drops below 14 C the building will need some heating to keep it comfortable inside. How much heating it needs will depend on how much the temperature drops below 14 C, and for how long.
And this is what heating degree days quantify. Here is an example diagram that demonstrates quite nicely how they are calculated (using a base temperature of 14 C):
The neat thing is that the heating degree days for any period of time represent all the relevant temperature variations across that period of time, and assuming you used an appropriate base temperature, are proportional to the heating energy consumption over that period of time. So for example you can have just one figure that represents the heating degree days across an entire week/month/year, and that will encapsulate all the relevant temperature variations across that week/month/year.
If January had 200 heating degree days, and February had 300, you can expect the heating energy consumption of the building to be 50% greater in February than in January. (Assuming you have chosen the right base temperature for your building that is!)
Compare this with knowing that the average temperature across a week/month/year was 12 C. What does that tell you about how much heating was needed in that week/month/year? Not a lot, cos you have no idea how much it varied within that time. This is the case even within a single day, since the temperature can vary a lot within a day.
Hence why people in the energy-saving business would typically use degree days rather than temperature data :)
(That said, hourly temperature data or similar is good for more sophisticated building simulations. But those are a lot more involved. On the simpler end of the spectrum degree days are a much better choice.)
Nice savings! Tho no ingenuity is needed to calculate them as there is actually an established process used in the energy saving business. It uses "degree days" that are derived from temperature measurements, rather than using temperature measurements directly.
Degree days work better in regression as, assuming the correct base temperature is chosen/calculated, heating degree days are directly proportional to heating energy consumption (including being zero when it is warm enough that no heating is needed) and cooling degree days are directly proportional to cooling energy consumption.
Coincidentally 2 days ago I tried something similar for the first time - a pea-based powder that you could make burgers out of. It wasn't as good as Beyond Burgers (my favourite of all the frankenmeats I can get here) but, considering its powdery origin, it was surprisingly good! Hope you enjoy yours! :)
So the meat you eat does not come from animals that suffer? They all live happy lives that they are happy to have cut short so they can be slaughtered for your dinner table?
I doubt it.
Curious to find out more about where you might be coming from, I took a look through some of your past comments. One in particular caught my eye:
> "I don't know how people can do that, slaughter an animal they've raised themselves."
To me this suggests that do have compassion for animals. This doesn't surprise me, because virtually everyone does. However, having compassion for animals just doesn't sit nicely with eating them, so we come up with reasons to justify that illogical behaviour of ours. Otherwise we would not be able to live with ourselves.
I am sure you do eat less meat than many people. But I bet that you would eat a lot less again if you had to personally slaughter all the animals you eat. Especially given how easy it is to not eat animals at all.
And in response to your last question, I think it's mainly just because it tastes good. Vegan meats and cheeses could quite reasonably be called something else, and I would still happily eat them. Though having them named as they are does make them more discoverable. I can see why that might make you annoyed if you are in the business of making and selling dairy cheese, and you see the rise of vegan alternatives as a threat to your business.
With all the anger you seem to have towards veganism I sense you may be closer to an awakening that most. Perhaps soon you will be making delicious vegan cheeses yourself :)
You seem to be suggesting that cheese is inexorably linked to animals. In my mind it's just a tasty substance that goes well in a sandwich. Nowadays it can very well be made without causing animal suffering.
Piano keys were traditionally made of ivory, now, fortunately, they are made of plastic. Does the elephant butchery of the past mean I should not play the piano today? I don't think so.
Times change. When kinder and more sustainable alternatives exist, it makes sense for us to favour them.
Well I must say that sounds like some peculiar logic to me! But hey, I spent years performing mental gymnastics to justify the suffering I contributed to by eating meat and dairy, so I can see where you are coming from ;)
I used to love steak, and fish, and various other non-vegan things. But I became increasingly uncomfortable with the thought of where those things came from, and eventually I had to give them up. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't. Having vegan substitutes just made it easier. I don't see the harm in that, neither do I see the hypocracy. I want the taste, but I don't want the suffering.
Good point! Vegan cheeses are so much better now than they used to be, there's never been a better time to have a casein allergy :D
Honestly if it weren't for all the amazing fake meats, milks, and cheeses, I would find it a lot harder to be a vegan. As it is though, it's a piece of (vegan) cake :)
Interesting article. I work in the field of heating/cooling energy consumption and I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I had never heard of the clo before.
> Precisely how much energy can be saved by lowering the thermostat depends on the outdoor temperature. In temperate climates, lowering the thermostat just 1° C (or about 2°F) yields an energy savings of about 9 to 10 percent
It does depend on the local climate. For anyone interested in calculating the savings you have made if you have already done something to reduce your heating/cooling energy usage, like turning down the thermostat or installing new windows or insulation, a little while ago I wrote an explanation of the process that is usually used in the industry:
And for anyone just thinking about stocking up on high-clo clothing rather than having actually done it, you could estimate how much you could save as follows:
a) get say 12, 24, or 36 months of energy-usage data from your smart meter or utility bills (making sure not to include any figures that were estimates made by the utility).
b) get a baseline regression formula as described in the link above, which will give you an estimate of your current heating base temperature (which should be lower than your thermostat temperature).
c) work out your hypothetical new heating base temperature, by reducing the current heating base temperature by the number of degrees that you intend to lower the thermostat by.
d) get, say, 5-year average heating degree days in both the current base temperature and your hypothetical-lower base temperature.
e) plug them both into your baseline regression formula (separately) to get i) your average annual energy consumption now and ii) your predicted average annual energy consumption if you lowered the temperature.
f) compare those two figures to get an estimate of how much energy you'd save in a typical year.
I will admit that estimating 9-10% savings per Celsius is a lot more straightforward :D
I'm lucky that I was taught how to read music as a kid... I'm still rubbish at it, it's slow and painful for anything vaguely complex, but at least I can do it badly when I put mind to it.
I find complex rhythms particularly hard to read. Figuring out timing from a sheet without hearing it is like pulling teeth :D That said, listening to a recording of a great pianist and trying to work out exactly what they are doing can also be very difficult and frustrating when there are chords and complex patterns in two hands, so a good transcription can help a lot. I have a book of Bill Evans transcriptions that I would definitely do more with if I were better at reading music, or had software assistance!
It sounds great to me - sight reading is difficult, and frustratingly hard work too, so assistance in mastering that skill is welcome. I am without MIDI keyboard at present as I play an acoustic upright, but I will look out for an opportunity to give it a proper go.
And I might as well put in a feature idea (which I suspect would be rather tricky to implement but here goes anyway!): it would be awesome if it could take input from a mic and figure out the notes from that, so it could work with acoustic instruments too :)
The beauty of a piece doesn't depend on its technical difficulty. Back when I used to play classical music more I loved playing a few of Chopin's Nocturnes repeatedly - they were about the right level for me so it was fun, and I could play them pretty well, I think. But I also spent a lot of time learning a few harder pieces (like Fantaisie Impromptu), and I remember getting frustrated that it took me ages to learn them and, although in the end I could play them sortof OKish, my efforts just weren't a patch on what a better pianist could do.
Looking back I can see that I shouldn't have picked such hard pieces until I was really ready for them. It was probably a big part of why I ended up quitting for quite a few years before taking it up again more recently with an entirely different approach.
The conventional way of learning piano has a student learning sheet-music pieces that get increasingly difficult as the student improves. It's a fairly linear path, and the vast majority of students will never be able to play a difficult piece like, say, Chopin's Fantaisie Impromptu, as well as a top performer.
Similarly the vast majority of students going the chords/voicings/improvisation route will never be able to play Over The Rainbow as well as Keith Jarrett, but they can at least have the satisfaction and enjoyment of doing it in their own unique way.
Composing your own music takes it a step further again.
I can imagine this being really useful for improving sight-reading.
However, for me what made piano a whole lot more fun was ditching the sheet music and opting to learn about chords, all the different ways to voice them, and the various scales that fit well on top of them. I started taking lessons with a pro jazz pianist (instead of a more typical classically-focused piano teacher), I gave up on sheet music altogether and started working off lead sheets instead (just chord symbols and a melody line). I am so pleased I made that decision, it's so much more satisfying playing a tune in your own way rather than just aiming for a note-for-note reproduction of what is written on a sheet.
However, although I think I can play reasonably well now, my sight-reading is awful, and it does hold me back because it makes it a lot harder for me to learn new techniques from sheet music (which I am actually interested in doing, as opposed to simply learning the sheet music note for note). I can do it just about, but it's painfully slow, so I am usually too lazy to bother.
Given the choice of either playing with full sheet-music or learning chords/voicings/scales and how to put them together, I'd pick the latter no question, and that is what I recommend to other adults who are learning piano, but I do think it's best to have both. So I can definitely see the value in this, even if it doesn't currently seem to teach the theory and improvisation that, in my opinion, is what really brings the joy into piano playing. I might give it a proper go myself some time soon, to see if it can help me improve my rubbish sight reading.
I can also imagine this being very useful for a beginner... Although I'm singing the praises of chord theory and improvisation I'm guessing most beginners might realistically do better starting with sheet music, for a while at least.
In summary: it might not teach everything, but it looks really useful nonetheless :)
So buildings have what is known as a heating base temperature, which is the outside temperature above which heating is not needed inside the building. This is not the thermostat temperature inside the building (say 20 C), it is actually lower because of various factors like people and electrical equipment generating "free heat" inside the building, and how well the building is insulated to retain that free heat.
The base temperature varies from building to building, but let's say, for example, a fairly-well-insulated home might have a heating base temperature of 14 C. If the temperature outside is 14 C or above, that building will stay perfectly warm inside on its own, without the heating system needing to come on.
But, if the outside temperature drops below 14 C the building will need some heating to keep it comfortable inside. How much heating it needs will depend on how much the temperature drops below 14 C, and for how long.
And this is what heating degree days quantify. Here is an example diagram that demonstrates quite nicely how they are calculated (using a base temperature of 14 C):
https://www.degreedays.net/images/heating-degree-days-calcul...
The neat thing is that the heating degree days for any period of time represent all the relevant temperature variations across that period of time, and assuming you used an appropriate base temperature, are proportional to the heating energy consumption over that period of time. So for example you can have just one figure that represents the heating degree days across an entire week/month/year, and that will encapsulate all the relevant temperature variations across that week/month/year.
If January had 200 heating degree days, and February had 300, you can expect the heating energy consumption of the building to be 50% greater in February than in January. (Assuming you have chosen the right base temperature for your building that is!)
Compare this with knowing that the average temperature across a week/month/year was 12 C. What does that tell you about how much heating was needed in that week/month/year? Not a lot, cos you have no idea how much it varied within that time. This is the case even within a single day, since the temperature can vary a lot within a day.
Hence why people in the energy-saving business would typically use degree days rather than temperature data :)
(That said, hourly temperature data or similar is good for more sophisticated building simulations. But those are a lot more involved. On the simpler end of the spectrum degree days are a much better choice.)