3 ms·

> How does the life of the average human looks like in a world with net zero emissions? For one, net zero houses look pretty comfortable: * https://www.chba.c

> How does the life of the average human looks like in a world with net zero emissions? For one, net zero houses look pretty comfortable: * https://www.chba.ca/CHBA/BuyingNew/Net-Zero-Homes.aspx https://www.chba.ca/CHBA/BuyingNew/Net-Zero-Homes.aspx If you go further toward "passive house" you can have 5000 sq. ft. (500 sq. m.) of living area and only need 1500W (a hairdryer) to heat it: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA Residential energy use accounts for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States: * https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122 IMHO there's still plenty of low-hanging fruit in just efficiencies that can be plucked before lifestyle sacrifices would need to be made.

bookofsand 5y ago
This is an excellent answer. The number of Passivhauser in the US is apparently in the thousands. What would it take to scale this up to 100-1000 times? What would it take to change the status from luxury good to mass adoption? https://www.pembina.org/blog/passive-house-revolution https://www.pembina.org/blog/passive-house-revolution
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  There is always a reason why <insert groundbreaking and game changing technology> has not been widely adopted. If it was all upside, the established players, in this case home builders, would have already incorporated it to gain a competitive advantage. I am guessing there are downsides such as cost of materials, expertise, mold, or something that keeps this from being an economical solution.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Passive house is a very high standard, and I do not think it is very practical to do it at large scale. Aiming for something that can be net zero is probably more practical: building stringently up to a certain point, and then throw some PV panels to offset whatever expected energy use is remaining.

bookofsand 5y ago

This is an excellent answer. The number of Passivhauser in the US is apparently in the thousands. What would it take to scale this up to 100-1000 times? What would it take to change the status from luxury good to mass adoption? https://www.pembina.org/blog/passive-house-revolution https://www.pembina.org/blog/passive-house-revolution

lotsofpulp 5y ago
There is always a reason why <insert groundbreaking and game changing technology> has not been widely adopted. If it was all upside, the established players, in this case home builders, would have already incorporated it to gain a competitive advantage. I am guessing there are downsides such as cost of materials, expertise, mold, or something that keeps this from being an economical solution.
throw0101a 5y ago
Passive house is a very high standard, and I do not think it is very practical to do it at large scale. Aiming for something that can be net zero is probably more practical: building stringently up to a certain point, and then throw some PV panels to offset whatever expected energy use is remaining.