The Issue with going all Electric

'Our main concern should be the energy used per person'...

This is a radical position; not reasonable at all.

And, believe me, it is too radical. The position discounts geographic realities, which I find entertaining for you to all go down the path of...we need ferries cuz there ain't bridges, etc.

Energy equity race to the bottom is worse than the opposite. In Lebabon, they are limiting the amount of money each person can take from the bank. Lebabon's collapse is imminent. And I have little doubt that people would suggest the collapse of a nation resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands is okay to keep a degree of climate change from happening. Not reasonable. You are not getting any engagement for this cockamamie idea on the forum; except me. Most people just shake their head and move on to a better thread. I don't mind telling people when they are vividly wrong; despite it being a waste of my resources.

When the US navy is a few hundred miles from the equator; they sometimes reroute for a crossing for troop morale. It costs a lot of resources. You guys suggested we eat less chicken is not the reasonable position anymore than them spending a fortune for troop morale.

And you probably think I'm okay with Kylie Jenner flying her private jet for 10 minutes to get around traffic for some shopping. I'm not. But if I must decide between Ms. Jenner and a $40 a gallon fuel tax; she wins because she is not imposing a sadistic concept to destroy a culture who eeked out generational survival in really bad winter conditions.

 

I did, in a reply to your wrong calculation that included your incorrect assumptions on how our energy needs would continue to double each 29 years for the next three centuries or so. If you don't want people to respond to wrong assumptions about issues: don't bring them into the conversation.

So please don't ask suggestive questions implicating I started a topic that you yourself brought to the table.

 

I wonder how much electricity has this discussion used.

 

And:

The position does not discount geographic realities. Yes, at high latitudes people need more energy for heating. Near the equator energy is spent on air conditioning. Someone might live in a moderate climate but may have good reasons to travel a lot. For al these situations possibilities exist to reduce the impact they have on climate and our environment. Often in ways that make life of people involved more comfortable.

Some houses in Texas are constructed in much the same way as they are in Wisconsin. Badly insulated and not optimally designed for the environment they are in. Those houses would be much more comfortable for the people living in them if they were designed better, while at the same time minimizing their energy use.

 

Where do you get the data that houses in Wisconsin are badly insulated? Seems like you make up "information" as you go along.

 

Based on your map, it seems obvious the ferry could have few stops, and bicycling on each island could comprise of most of the miles traveled. This is more obvious by the promotion of the high speed ferry rather than a slow ferry.

Calling something "efficient" when it uses 4 times the energy and resources of existing technology is questionable. Similarly to how calling a tesla model car efficient is misleading at best. This candela craft is interesting to develop for emergency use and so forth, but the primary concern should be replacing the diesel ferry with the most sustainable solution, not something labeled "green" just because it is electric.

Making aptera twice as efficient as a conventional car but still able to do 0-60mph (0-96kph) in 3.5 seconds (much faster than most cars still) They optimized air drag which is key, but they did not optimize rolling resistance or weight! They did not trade cornering or acceleration for further efficiency improvements. You can find figures for yourself, the aptera claims 10 miles per kwh which is better than twice these:

"The Model 3 is rated to travel between 3.33 and 4.17 miles per kWh. Meanwhile, the Leaf can go 2.94 to 3.45 mile"

Local view referring to those responsible for mining:
"when he steps on the soil he claims bouganville but you have not met our customary requirements: you have not paid for the bloodshed. Like I said, blood is thicker than water"

The politicians may want to reopen the mine to make money, but this is a country they have a custom to burn someones house if they deceive you. The destruction from the mine continues to destroy more and more forest as evidenced from satellite photos even in 2020 new areas are dying more than 30 years after closing.

We will have to wait and see what happens, but we all know it takes a small percentage (perhaps only 3%) of the population of the island to take significant risks and actively sabotage this type of development to essentially prevent it.

Your comments have shown you are in fact the radical one. You represent the minority of humans in a society based on excessive consumption, and this is more and more a radical view. Just because you surround yourself on a day to day basis with other radicals does not make you any less so.

This is a perfect example of how collapse is imminent. Most of us would rather the economy collapse sooner rather than the environment collapse a few decades later.

Again trying to justify people who stole land through genocide and then destroyed it. Somehow the american indians did not use fossil fuels and lived in the same location.

This is a great question. It is somewhere below 100 grams of co2, most likely about 10 grams. It is difficult to calculate as many calculations indicate the power for the backlight on the device to be the major energy use which is up to the individual, and in my case at least not causing additional emissions if I post or not. Posting text is an almost insignificant data in comparison to the videos and images we are posting...

so please help improve the estimated emissions of this thread. For context "One gallon of diesel fuel emits 22.44 pounds (10,180 grams) of CO2 when combusted," When considering the emissions to extract refine and transport the figure is closer to 30 pounds or 13,607 grams, but this is from conventional reserves, not tar sands not fischer tropher process etc.

Depending on the source, an ad blocker can reduce emissions from 30-70%. I suggest anyone not using it to install adblock on their browser as just one more person will more than offset the emissions of this entire thread within a day most likely and provide additional savings each day thereafter.

 

It is plainly obvious as passive heating can work in this location and many others yet people continue to burn fuels for heat. There are lots of examples of house that do not require external energy for heat, using only solar energy and large water tanks inside what is essentially a greenhouse. An older design (since 1970s) boils water by churning water from a wind turbine (no copper or electricity involved) :
Heat your House with a Mechanical Windmill | LOW←TECH MAGAZINE https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house-with-a-water-brake-windmill.html

There are many examples of greenhouses in colorado that stay warm with many feet of snow around them without consuming fuel being entirely solar heated year round.

If you want to see a worse example than wisconsin: check out new zealand. Perhaps one of the most inexcusable failures in the world regarding poor insulation in houses.

 

I'm saying houses in the different climate zones in the US could be much better designed for their specific climates than they currently are, and insulation is part of that. Triple glazing very slowly is becoming more normal in the US but windows like that and for example heat pumps have been a thing in Sweden for over 40 years now. Insulation standards in general also are much higher there. Low energy prices have made the US slack in some departments.

Houses not optimized for their climate zone , like many in the US, negatively impacts how much comfort they offer.

 

No, what you are saying is not true. Any new home has to comply with energy savings standards. Any frame house with 2x6 studs is equivalent in insulation to a Swedish house. Once more, you make up "facts" as you go to justify your opinion. It may work at a bar, but it won't at a forum full of engineers.

 

Those standard are, and historically have been, higher in northern Europe. And more gains can be made as options exist to optimize houses for their climate zone that are currently hardly used at all. Many houses should require almost no energy to keep them warm or cool.

International Passive House Association | PASSIVE HOUSE https://passivehouse-international.org/index.php?page_id=78

The main point is making things more efficient can at the same time make them more enjoyable in their daily use. In contrast to how measures to reduce energy use are often perceived as something that makes our lives more miserable.

As another example, the Candela is incredibly smooth and quiet at speeds a planing ICE boat would give a loud and bumpy ride:

 

Except, lots of old houses have no or little insulation and geniuses here think the way to solve this is to punish the poor folks. And the irony is they pretend I'm radical.

And my father died this year from exposure to an insulation.

Have you ever been to Minnesota?

Ambient overnite temps of minus 20 are not uncommon. Is the building going to jump up and down to stay warm??

 

You previously said things like:

And:

So instead of trying to find a technical solution for too much strain on the grid or finding innovative ways to maintain our living standards you propose dystopian levels of restrictions on how we live.

That's not how an engineer should approach problems.

 

Mind i said: Many houses should require almost no energy to keep them warm or cool.

Not every house should use no energy at all. But anyway, even in Minnesota it's possible to get close to this goal compared to what conventional houses are using. And with careful engineering zero energy use houses are possible in many places on our planet.

Passive House Minnesota https://passivehouseminnesota.org/

Good Energy Haus — TE Studio Passive House Design https://www.testudio.com/projects/good-energy-haus

 

$$$$

 

We can't change all houses to more energy efficient ones overnight but we have to start somewhere. And if rich people that can afford better houses keep using enormous amounts of energy to keep their big homes warm energy prices will only go up faster, and poor people will be off even worse. 35% of the US population, consisting mostly of the poorest part, lives in rentals moving money from the poor to the rich. In that department gains also can be made as at the moment people owning the rental houses have no incentive to make them more energy efficient, that should change.