View Single Post
Old 08-08-2019, 02:29 PM   #28
dwf137
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 161333
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle
Vehicle:
'18 Golf R
'14 Outback

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arghx7 View Post
There is already talk of banning natural gas, Berkeley CA just did it for new buildings. Electric heat is going to be insanely expensive for anyone in a colder climate. When I lived in North Carolina I had a heat pump at a rental house and it had to turn on the "emergency" heat to actually keep the house at a comfortable temperature (when it's below 40F out), which is like heating your house with a toaster. I'm skeptical newer designs are that much more effective... how well can a heat pump work when it's 20 F outside without some kind of inefficient supplemental heating?

In Germany they have switched to expensive renewable energy sources for electricity (and Russian gas...), but everyone uses wood stoves to heat their house which of course contributes to particulate emission concentration, same as the dirty VW diesels!
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/...rina_Rippl.pdf

There's no easy affordable answer. And I say that as someone who has a Tesla (charged at work) but runs everything else in the house on natural gas.
Passive house. You can heat a home with extremely little energy, essentially that toaster might be all you really need. And that point, it doesn't matter your fuel source, because anything can keep up. If we did it in Alaska, it'll work anywhere (https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com...frigid-climate)

We need to start building better buildings. Period. There is no other option.

I'm a certified passive house consultant. Energy use in buildings is what I do. Code officials really need to get to tightening the ropes on our building codes to get them way more efficient than they currently are. Unfortunately that has deepening consequences as most major cities face a housing crisis, because it makes homes (a little) more expensive. The dollar calculations on payoff just don't crunch out a lot of the time, even if the carbon offset it gives is massive. Without subsidies, the market is not driving towards it. But when fossil fuel costs are artificially low because of government subsidies, it's not really an even playing field... Problem is, there's no money to be made in people paying less to live, so there's no incentive (dollars in the back pocket) for officials to make change. The people lining their pockets are the ones who stand to gain by us continuing to march down a path of burning everything that's in the ground until there's literally nothing left.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
dwf137 is offline   Reply With Quote