More on Infrared

In my latest newsletter (check my website for newsletter archives) I talked a bit about interpreting infrared images. It got me thinking about the state of the technology and where it fits into building science.
When I took my course for my level 1 thermographer certification  I was impressed by the technical knowledge and skill of the instructors on all things IR. But in the section where they talked about building investigations there were a few things they said that made me realize that they were a bit weak in some building science details.
The current state of IR usage in buildings is still on the cusp as to who is using it. For years it was like the early days of computers. The tasks were performed by computer people, not people who were the experts in the task. As desk top computers proliferated and became increasingly easy to use the focus shifted back to having task experts use computers to do the job. It became easier to teach the use of the computer than to teach the task to a computer expert.
My only concern is that there are people who are learning building science only through use of infrared technology. I hope that they will come to understand that all they are seeing with the IR are clues, not facts. They still need to have a good solid understanding of what can be happening to figure out what is happening.
As always, other voices are welcome.

Avoiding the "savings" trap

The main reason people give for not pursuing building energy improvements is "poor payback". Unfortunately those of us who have been using cost savings as the sole or primary justification for recommending measures are directly to blame for this. We have set up the expectation that all energy saving improvements will "pay for themselves in just a couple of years".

When this payback period stretches beyond 2 - 3 years businesses tend to lose interest. Homeowners pass if paybacks exceed 5 years, or less if they anticipate moving. So what can we do? How about ignoring payback altogether?

Let's ask this, are buildings created with a specific payback period in mind? Usually that answer is no. Buildings are built to serve a function or set of functions that range from creating shelter from the elements to massaging the owners ego. Are there reasons within that range that we can bring in to the retrofit proposition that can trump payback? I think the answer is yes, the challenge is shifting the conversation.

Comfort is a reliable sales point. Most of my residential work is still focused on comfort issues. How do we bring in other issues such as indoor air quality and building durability? Obviously if there are glaring defects in those areas owners will be on board. But how do we bring those in proactively?

Anybody willing to chime in? I presume that since this is a new venture it will take a bit to get going, but be brave and jump in. I hope we can share thoughts. and solutions.

Let's get started

I am experimenting with a blog as a supplement to my newsletter. I expect that I will be posting a few times a month, give or take.

My hope is that this will be a little more interactive, allowing my readers to reply to me and to each other.

Let's have some fun and share a little knowledge. Knowledge is the one true all purpose tool.