3 ms·

> Environmental groups and common knowledge haven't caught up yet, but the fastest route to a low carbon future is a lot of factories producing ev cars, applian

by danans 4y ago

> Environmental groups and common knowledge haven't caught up yet, but the fastest route to a low carbon future is a lot of factories producing ev cars, appliances, and batteries. Not sure where you are getting this, but sounds like you just have an axe to grid. Environmental groups have been pushing for decarbonization and accelerating the shift toward a renewable grid for forever and a day. They were the ones who educated the public about the imminence and perils of climate change, drove legislation in places like California that created the environment where EVs became popular. It wasn't Chevron, or Ford, or even Tesla that did that. The groups that weren't onboard until now are mainstream capitalists and consumers. > For 80% of the things we need to do, it's just people going to home depot. As someone who has recently built an entire electrified high-performance house that consumes a fraction of the typical house's energy, I could easily buy into this, but it is flat out wrong. What I accomplished was building a cheap-to-operate, comfortable, and healthy house for my family. It negligibly reduced the CO2 emitted on the grid, and significantly reduced the amount emitted on my behalf (by eliminating my direct natural gas usage) but I'm still reliant on a grid that is 50% fossil fuel powered. What I did is not particularly easy to replicate either, unless you are doing a full gut remodel or new construction - so not something that trips to home depot can accomplish. The bottom line is that it's not a scalable near term solution for our climate issues. Instead, a huge amount of what has to happen in the near term is development and deployment of firm grid scale renewables and the systems to coordinate and transmit energy between those and flexible sources of demand.

garbagecoder 4y ago
It's a little bit more complicated than that. They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, and many environmental groups seem convinced that there is no future where the planet is safe and our current economic system stays in place. I could even be convinced of the latter, but I know enough to know that both of these policies are political poison pills in effect. Plenty of environmental groups have done plenty of harm to the cause, largely from not accepting half a loaf.
- danans 4y ago
  > They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, Is there a reason you are unable to just use the word "nuclear"? Non-proliferation was, and still is, a major concern for nuclear power. Add to that the fact that current uranium supply lines end in Russia. It may have a role in the future, and we should continue to invest in that possibility, but it's far from conclusive that it will be viable economically. > and many environmental groups seem convinced that there is no future where the planet is safe and our current economic system stays in place. Our economic system is always changing and evolving in response to social pressures. That's how we got the 5 day work week, Medicare, and historically low tax rates. Globalized capitalism itself is experiencing a retrenchement at this moment, which is as much a response to growing internal inequality in the developed world as it is about the aftermath of the pandemic and concern about onshore strategic manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, negotiations are underway for the wealthy world (who put most of the CO2 into the atmosphere) to pay the developing world for the damage they have incurred due to climate change, and to develop in a renewable way. Which is all to say, our current economic system is changing no matter what.
  - garbagecoder 4y ago
    Yeah, because nuclear isn't the only one. Environmental groups never object to hydro power, right? They've never objected to helping brown coal be replaced by less CO2 emitting ones in poor countries right? They've never objected to replacing biomass burning with coal or coal with natural gas? Nope. They go to Africa and tell people to put soda bottles in their roof instead (ie our trash). It's not just nuclear, but nice try. The rest is too hostile to bother with. Sorry I dared question holy environmental groups who have never shot themselves in the foot. Of course it will have to change. The point is how. I want it done, I just don't want to sacrifice our industrial society and I don't want to listen to pseudo-science justifying bad trade offs just because of vibes, mostly because I don't think most other people will either and then you get little or nothing. France—not the US, ok, since I know US bad—has this all figured out. I'm sure you think I'm some sort of global warming denier or whatever. I'm not. I urgently want solutions. So urgently, I'm willing to look for less than utopian solutions. Anyway, so how's this approach working out for you? Have we solved it?
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
> As someone who has recently built an entire electrified high-performance house How much did it cost? If you don't mind me asking.
- danans 4y ago
  I paid a premium of about $60/sqft (about $90K in my house) for the high-performance stuff (heat pumps, HRV, airtight weather barrier, dense pack blown-in insulation, etc). The remaining $/sqft is just like any other build in the Bay Area, so quite expensive, but a lot depends on structural changes, finish levels, premium features (or lack thereof), and other things that have little to do with energy performance of the building envelope. As with all things, the bigger the house, usually the lower the cost per square foot for an individual system like a heat pump that have high fixed costs but scale up more cheaply. But the costs for things like a high performance external weather/air barrier and high performance insulation scale with the external surface area. I'm not including things like electric stoves/ovens and heat pump dryer in that because those price differences are easy to find online. In a new build, I think the premium for high performance could be brought down much lower, but only if performance is considered from the design stage.

by danans 4y ago

garbagecoder 4y ago

It's a little bit more complicated than that. They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, and many environmental groups seem convinced that there is no future where the planet is safe and our current economic system stays in place. I could even be convinced of the latter, but I know enough to know that both of these policies are political poison pills in effect. Plenty of environmental groups have done plenty of harm to the cause, largely from not accepting half a loaf.

danans 4y ago
> They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, Is there a reason you are unable to just use the word "nuclear"? Non-proliferation was, and still is, a major concern for nuclear power. Add to that the fact that current uranium supply lines end in Russia. It may have a role in the future, and we should continue to invest in that possibility, but it's far from conclusive that it will be viable economically. > and many environmental groups seem convinced that there is no future where the planet is safe and our current economic system stays in place. Our economic system is always changing and evolving in response to social pressures. That's how we got the 5 day work week, Medicare, and historically low tax rates. Globalized capitalism itself is experiencing a retrenchement at this moment, which is as much a response to growing internal inequality in the developed world as it is about the aftermath of the pandemic and concern about onshore strategic manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, negotiations are underway for the wealthy world (who put most of the CO2 into the atmosphere) to pay the developing world for the damage they have incurred due to climate change, and to develop in a renewable way. Which is all to say, our current economic system is changing no matter what.
- garbagecoder 4y ago
  Yeah, because nuclear isn't the only one. Environmental groups never object to hydro power, right? They've never objected to helping brown coal be replaced by less CO2 emitting ones in poor countries right? They've never objected to replacing biomass burning with coal or coal with natural gas? Nope. They go to Africa and tell people to put soda bottles in their roof instead (ie our trash). It's not just nuclear, but nice try. The rest is too hostile to bother with. Sorry I dared question holy environmental groups who have never shot themselves in the foot. Of course it will have to change. The point is how. I want it done, I just don't want to sacrifice our industrial society and I don't want to listen to pseudo-science justifying bad trade offs just because of vibes, mostly because I don't think most other people will either and then you get little or nothing. France—not the US, ok, since I know US bad—has this all figured out. I'm sure you think I'm some sort of global warming denier or whatever. I'm not. I urgently want solutions. So urgently, I'm willing to look for less than utopian solutions. Anyway, so how's this approach working out for you? Have we solved it?

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

> As someone who has recently built an entire electrified high-performance house How much did it cost? If you don't mind me asking.

danans 4y ago
I paid a premium of about $60/sqft (about $90K in my house) for the high-performance stuff (heat pumps, HRV, airtight weather barrier, dense pack blown-in insulation, etc). The remaining $/sqft is just like any other build in the Bay Area, so quite expensive, but a lot depends on structural changes, finish levels, premium features (or lack thereof), and other things that have little to do with energy performance of the building envelope. As with all things, the bigger the house, usually the lower the cost per square foot for an individual system like a heat pump that have high fixed costs but scale up more cheaply. But the costs for things like a high performance external weather/air barrier and high performance insulation scale with the external surface area. I'm not including things like electric stoves/ovens and heat pump dryer in that because those price differences are easy to find online. In a new build, I think the premium for high performance could be brought down much lower, but only if performance is considered from the design stage.