"Today, we have a different kind of fuel problem – we have to stop burning it, we have to stop releasing the carbon dioxide that is cooking the planet. That means thinking about RADICAL EFFICIENCIES ..."
If you want to talk efficiencies with respect to fuel and energy use, then climate alarmists need to skip the worst performing wind and solar (~40% and ~25%) and go nuclear (~90%). The fact they refuse to do so indicates they're not interested in facts and efficiencies but in virtue signaling.
A point to make about the analogy with aircraft is that at first when innovation got going flying was reserved for the ultra-rich and people who worked for the government. A ticket in 1939 from London to Brisbane would cost the same as an average person's annual wage. It was not until 50+ years from its initial flight that flying reached a cost that Mr/Mrs average could afford.
The same can be said of Passive House. If you have enough money, then yes you too can have a passive house designed and built to your personal requirements. However, that is not the case with the average person and there are far more average than ultra-rich.
Passive House is stuck in the quandary:-
1) Do it fast - incredibly expensive - average person will not be interested.
2) Do it slow - affordable but very slow - can't achieve anything meaningful by 2050.
So they found you again at last Lloyd, shame. Pity for the rest of us you've had to turn the comments off but I don't blame you. It was nice while it lasted.
It's going to be a long long time gradually replacing our existing infrastructure of buildings with 15-minute communities of Passive-House buildings (and gradually implementing all the other needed advanced green infrastructure). We (including you, Lloyd) need to do and to tenaciously promote less heating and cooling (none between 13C-30C, https://greenbetween.home.blog), less driving, less flying, less meat-eating, and less population growth (2 children max) to bridge the gap.
"Today, we have a different kind of fuel problem – we have to stop burning it, we have to stop releasing the carbon dioxide that is cooking the planet. That means thinking about RADICAL EFFICIENCIES ..."
If you want to talk efficiencies with respect to fuel and energy use, then climate alarmists need to skip the worst performing wind and solar (~40% and ~25%) and go nuclear (~90%). The fact they refuse to do so indicates they're not interested in facts and efficiencies but in virtue signaling.
A point to make about the analogy with aircraft is that at first when innovation got going flying was reserved for the ultra-rich and people who worked for the government. A ticket in 1939 from London to Brisbane would cost the same as an average person's annual wage. It was not until 50+ years from its initial flight that flying reached a cost that Mr/Mrs average could afford.
The same can be said of Passive House. If you have enough money, then yes you too can have a passive house designed and built to your personal requirements. However, that is not the case with the average person and there are far more average than ultra-rich.
Passive House is stuck in the quandary:-
1) Do it fast - incredibly expensive - average person will not be interested.
2) Do it slow - affordable but very slow - can't achieve anything meaningful by 2050.
"We have eight years to cut our carbon emissions in half"
Another prediction to track!
Software Elegance - Do accomplish the desired function with the least amount of lines of code - nothing more, nothing less.
So they found you again at last Lloyd, shame. Pity for the rest of us you've had to turn the comments off but I don't blame you. It was nice while it lasted.
It's going to be a long long time gradually replacing our existing infrastructure of buildings with 15-minute communities of Passive-House buildings (and gradually implementing all the other needed advanced green infrastructure). We (including you, Lloyd) need to do and to tenaciously promote less heating and cooling (none between 13C-30C, https://greenbetween.home.blog), less driving, less flying, less meat-eating, and less population growth (2 children max) to bridge the gap.