Are you living in a particularly new region?
Every time I've seen this come up, the data actually says the opposite: the median US home is better insulated, more recently built and more efficiently climate-controlled. Which is unsurprising, because they're newer, basically. Home technology over the last half century has made huge improvements in energy consumption.
It's true that the median US home is much larger than what you probably see where you are. And obviously that goes to total consumption. But it's not an issue with housing technology at all.
Economist Ed Glazer makes the argument that by not allowing more housing to be built there, more people have to live in more energy consumptive locations (Houston, for example). Housing development policy of the Bay Area has a big environmental impact.
One thing that amazed me when moving to California a couple of years ago was reading ads for apartments where the text would gush about the apartment having double glazing!!!1!!
Meanwhile, in Sweden, triple glazing has been the required minimum since the 90s, and older buildings were forced to install a third pane or retrofit new windows or somehow bring it up to code.
These days you can get quadruple glazed windows, but they offer only a very small improvements to triple glazed, so there's not much use.
Is double glazing?
Where I live now we have single panes, but behind storm windows.
On the other hand, we know a family near Boston who live in a big old house. The husband, a mathematician, calculated that they would never recover the cost of replacing the windows. I don't know how far out he calculated, but I expect it was about 20 years.
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/san-francisco/californ...
California's development by contrast has overwhelmingly occurred in the last 50-60 years (their population has increased four fold since 1950, from ~10m to ~40m today). Compare that to Ohio, which has seen a nearly flat population for coming up on 50 years. New York State's population has only slightly increased in 50 years.
The newest housing stock is in the Idaho/Nevada/Arizona region, Texas and the South East (Florida to North Carolina).
The US generally - and much of California - also aggressively uses air conditioning (central or otherwise) and has for a long time, which has further spurred efforts toward maximizing insulation.
https://youtu.be/OWglKkE-0a8?t=2m17s
It also seems to be a wooden construction.. so frankly I don't know what to think. I'm sorry if this seems like very unconventional evidence but then going from building codes to what people are actually building out there is a whole different story, and then you didn't actually provide any data, either.
Though you are spot on with the ridiculously oversized buildings, like a 3 door garage that is so intimately integrated into the structure you're climate controlling it year round.
Wooden construction does not inhibit insulation. Probably the opposite. It's easier to insulate the voids between studs than it is to insulate a masonry structure. Plus, "stick" building is almost a requirement for seismic reasons in California.
As far as the windows are concerned, I can't tell from the video if they're single glazed or not. Seems crazy to me to do any new construction with those.
That layer of insulation had been mandatory since at least mid-80s, and requirements for thickness have increased a few times since.
It's true that they're are houses with low energy labels, but from mid-80s on houses already have a C level - and that's default, with further improvements possible by owners. Currently, minimum allowed label for new buildings is A. But we're already slowly moving to "zero-rated": solar panels supply needed energy (on average, over a year).
And because earthquakes are also plentiful in California, we don't want our walls to be too heavy. Tensile strength is more important, as well as flexibility.
Attached garages are typically is separated from the rest of the house conditioning space. I do insulation of the garage, but only because I plan to work there. Plus water heater I am installing is actually heat pump, so it should cool garage down a bit.
The framing techniques used in a modern building are far stronger and more energy efficient than you seem to think.
There are a number of issues with front-loading washers. While they use less water, they are also worse at cleaning clothes and much worse at sanitizing them. There was a recent post here on HN where a biologist did several experiments in her own washer to show how poorly they sanitized things compared to her older one. They also tend to trap water in the bottom and it gets musty and moldy, which with my spouses allergies is a non-starter.
But I whole-heartedly agree with your other issues. Moving from the Midwest, I can't believe how poorly insulated things are in CA. Our first apartment in Santa Monica had windows that didn't even seal properly when closed. You could very easily stick a sheet of paper through the gap between the window and the frame when it was supposedly closed. Some people even have glass louvres instead of windows in their bathrooms here!
... yeah. Because it's in Santa Monica. Without even bothering to ask details about your personal temperature preference or the size or construction date of the homes, I can 100% guarantee you you're using less energy on climate control in SoCal than in "the midwest".
Trying to fix energy consumption by improving construction and code regulation in the major city least in need of climate control, like, worldwide is just a silly waste of resources.
LA is wasteful in many ways. But a city that sits at a 60-70F average basically year-round is just not in need of attention here.
In So Cal, I didn't have A/C for 10+ years and rarely used the heater (a desktop computer can double as a heater haha).
In the midwest, the A/C or heater is on pretty much 24/7 because even when the temperatures look favorable, there is humidity.
Servers are so much better...
http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/847/SC847BE1C4...
An Athlon XP was my space heater during my gap decade.
my apartment has a heater and no a/c, but has a flow-through design that naturally keeps it cool in the summer. my heater and my portable a/c unit each get used about 2 weeks a year. the weather is really that great here.
My Bosch dishwasher in Europe does the Auto cycle in less than 90 minutes on a single change of water.
I think it's about different consumer expectations: it the US it seems people don't care so much about energy/water consumption, so other things matter.
BTW, both dishwashers get things done, the dishes do come out clean.
We typically just ventilate our home during the day and don't run AC, we've never turned the heat on (I don't know if we have heat, actually).
The door gasket is pretty bad (not sloped well enough for water to completely drain away from it), but it's also got a pull-out tray for detergent which also collects quite a bit of water each time.
I did have a top-loader that got a bit musty smelling, though that was largely my own fault- living alone as a bachelor at the time (infrequent use) and habitually starting a load late at night only to fall asleep before I took it out.
I've never had the same problem with top-loaders. My next machine will most definitely be a top-loader.
You still [probably] need to hand-dry the gasket, but according to my research it's what manufacturers recommend when pushed. I order a box on eBay every 1-2 years, approximately.
If you didn't try that before, give it a shot. Hopefully it'll help.
1: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-is-p...
EDIT - for an example, their clothes washer energy/water requirements got stricter in 2015 and then again in 2018 https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IC95DA848BDAD48929...
They also have the strictest building energy codes (Title 24). https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/
It's interesting to see it in practice too; if you move to California and bring a car, part of the registration process is to check the car and make sure it indicates it meets California requirements in design and build (not just smog testing; they do that too, but the actual registration/titling will involve them popping the hood and checking the car has the right markings). And basically every modern car does.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/2...
but if California is able to retain their own standards then these federal proposals would also hopefully be ineffective.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zon...
https://www.businessinsider.com/california-economy-ranks-5th...
I can imagine forcing people to replace A/C units won’t be so objectionable, especially if it’s free to do so, but there may be some real opposition to requiring people to drive different cars. Nobody gets attached to an A/C.
I don’t drive right now - I take public transport everywhere - but I’d love a large car (a Dodge RAM). If I try to buy something small to be conscious of my carbon footprint and energy usage, I think I will end up buying the large car a few years later.
Is there anything at-all I can do to drive a large car while not being part of the problem? I’m looking into carbon offsetting, but that’s all I am aware of for the time being.
I wish Dodge would make an electric RAM 1500, that could make this much easier.
In some countries, half the price of a new car is tax.
That is why people drive little toy cars there. Everyone would like a nice big comfortable car but they are unaffordable for most.
What I’m trying to grapple with is this desire of mine while trying to be aware of my environmental impact.
If there’s no way to have my cake and eat it too, I won’t get one.
But I think it's either still in the concept stage, or maybe in fleet trials. Don't think an ordinary consumer can get one.
Still... I know they aren't good for the environment, which means I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I just drove one without greatly reducing or eliminating it's impact.
I do that with my wife for convertibles. She loves them, so any time we're on vacation and need a car I try to get one. It's just a couple hundred more for a week's vacation, at the time we'd get the most enjoyment out of it.
[0] https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7uYI/ram-trucks-just-the-facts-faste...
I do think love at first sight is a better explanation.
I like mine, but I only drive it when I have to. I don't understand people who commute in a pickup.
As far as grid operations, it's not really that exciting to see in person. Access is tightly controlled and it's pretty much like any other enterprise application shop.
The control room is pretty cool, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KatQ9Q_IQk
Another benefit of hybridization is that AC and other power-hungry accessories can be powered during heavy acceleration without putting any more strain on the engine. It's fun to go for a drive during a hot day, use AC the entire time, and still get (for example) 42.3 MPG.
Plus, you get the instant torque of an electric car. Maybe not quite as much as a Tesla, but you'll still beat an F-150 off the line.
I don't mind if you buy and drive a dodge ram or a Sherman tank, as long as you reimburse me for the harm it does to me and my child.
I'm being serious -- I would be willing to do something to reduce or eliminate my environmental impact. Would carbon offsetting be enough, or is there something else I can do?
Anyway, I'm talking about legislative action, rather than individual action -
[Note: I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) that you're in the USA. If you're not, please pretend for a few minutes that you are.]
What I (and many others) want is, in effect, for it to be mandatory that everyone reimburse everyone else for the harmful effects of their carbon emissions, and for the IRS to mediate all of this.
If the policy is implemented intelligently then you as an individual, don't need to do anything, but as a consumer of goods and services will pay increased prices (the price difference being the amount that you owe society for the harm that your carbon footprint is imposing).
Adapted from [1]:
- A fee is levied on fuels at their point of origin into the economy,
such as the well, mine, or port of entry. The fee is based upon the
carbon content of a given fuel, with a commonly-proposed starting
point being $10–$16 per ton of carbon that would be emitted once the
fuel is burned.
- A border tax adjustment is levied on imports from nations that lack
their own equivalent fee on carbon, increasing the cost of the goods
by an amount corresponding to the (estimated)carbon emitted in their
manufacture. This ensures that American manufacturers remain competitive
in spite of their increased energy costs, and incentivizes nations who
want to sell goods into the USA to put a price on carbon as well.
- The fees collected each month are returned to households as an energy
dividend (eg every resident over 18 years of age gets an equal share).
Returning 100% of net fees results in a revenue-neutral carbon fee-and-
dividend system.
But I think they're all ignoring a more important point. It doesn't need to be about changing people's behavior. To me, it's more about justice. I'm not about to tell wealthy businessmen that they can't fly across the country on a private jet every single week. But if their travels are 10% of the reason that my daughter has to live in a world where food is 10x more expensive because the oceans are dead and agricultural yields have been decimated, shouldn't they have to compensate her? It seems to me that, as long as the size of the fee is set properly, a policy like the one described above would be the fairest and most direct way to achieve that.
BTW, an organization un the USA whose sole mission is to lobby for a policy like this is the "Citizen's Climate Lobby" (CCL)[2]. To me, it seems so sensible that I can't understand why it isn't more widely discussed. It could turn out, I suppose, that implementation of the policy is difficult or impractical, but the discussion never even gets that far. Even the CCL's legislative proposal is, in my opinion, woefully lacking in implementation details.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend [2] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Of large cars, Tesla makes a 7 seat SUV and will make a giant truck in about 2 years. Other manufacturers will follow them 2-3 years after that.
https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-ram-hybrid-could-hit-a-decent-...
> I'd say quite the opposite. We paid 3.5k to have A/C changed in our house this year. Many people don't have that kind of money.
"...especially if it’s free to do so"
> would be the only way IMO.
"California's total energy consumption ranks among the highest in the nation, but, in 2015, the state's per capita energy consumption ranked 49th, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs."
That per-capita figure results from action. Instead of just talking the talk, they've been actively building green capacity for decades.
"In 2016, California ranked ... first as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources."
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA
Energy consumed per-capita across the US in 2016: https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/#/series/12
- Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it
- These people, if we don't screw up and start another war, will want a house, air conditioning, a car, air travel, lots of kids, and more
- Human will inhabit more parts of the Earth that are uninhabitable (Antarctica, Siberia, Canada, Australia), which will require an order of magnitude increase in energy for heating/cooling
- Industry and manufacturing will need to provide for the leisure spending of billions of additional humans (iPhones, Televisions, etc)
- New technologies will require orders of magnitude more energy, such as flying cars, space travel, etc.
The solution to these things isn't to crawl in a hole and try to shave a few % efficiencies out of a washing machine or a pickup truck. Energy isn't a limited resource. It's one of the most abundant things in the universe. With today's technology (Nuclear Fission and one day, Fusion) you could make energy more cheaply and abundantly than the air we breathe.
People should expect to behave as if energy is free. And energy should be free. The problem is that society at large (and NIMBYs and Anti-Nuclear activists) don't have any imagination and therefore set back our civilization and post-scarcity society 50-100 years.
Luckily, we're looking at a very real possibility that we peak at 9 billion and then start to shrink from there. Which creates a whole host of other social issues, but at least gross overpopulation isn't one of them.
As a recent example, by the time China's population begins flat-lining on growth and or declining in an estimated six years or so at the current trend, we'll have known for 35-40 years that China was set to age rapidly.
For what it’s worth I think we’re still dealing with the destabilizing shock of the baby boomers outnumbering other generations, and have been dealing with that since the late 1960s.
Unlikely.
> - These people, ... lots of kids, and more
Also unlikely.
> - Human will inhabit more parts of the Earth that are uninhabitable
Unlikely
> spending of billions of additional humans (iPhones, Televisions, etc)
Unlikely
> - New technologies will require orders of magnitude more energy, such as flying cars, space travel, etc.
Yes, likely.
World population is set to decrease. Birth rates in the US, UK, Japan, South Korea, China are all below replacement. This seems to be a general trend that happens when countries reach a certain level of development.
I think most models should show world population peaking, and then declining.
I agree that nuclear is probably our best bet. The high profile screw ups (like Fukushima) are annoying and decrease public trust. But we need to get better at creating/regulating safe nuclear solutions.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-bi...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-carbon-iea/global-...
> "Most major economies saw an increase in carbon emissions, though Britain, the United States, Mexico and Japan experienced declines.
The biggest drop came from the United States, where they were down 0.5 percent"
> "Compared to Europe the US is doing better on carbon reduction seeing as the US went down and Europe went up. "
The US is doing a better job on _carbon reduction_.
Looks pretty good on what metric?
1 - https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-... 2 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-carbon-climatechange/e...
The EU has nearly 200 million more people than the US, roughly 60% more, squeezed into an area less than half the size of the US. Whose fault is that population density? The total EU emissions are ~80% as high as the US in ~45% of the land area (a drastically worse rate of emissions per km2), due to that population density. How do you think that emissions concentration impacts the local environment? Population matters, it's why we wouldn't have to care much if Iceland had 2x the per capita emission output of the US.
If your nation has three billion people - ie vast over-population - you shouldn't have the same per capita emissions considerations or concerns as a nation with three million. I understand that sounds unfair. The earth sets the real limitations and it doesn't care about perceived fairness.
If a country like Nigeria or Indonesia somehow rapidly expanded to five billion people, would it be acceptable for them to have the same per capita emission output of the EU? Obviously not. It'd be an environmental disaster for the planet due to the overall output. Population is the other critical factor in emissions (eg in China's case their emissions would be catastrophic at US per capita levels with 1.4b people in that small of an area).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_...
(By the way, what the hell is happening in Wyoming? 111.55 tons per person?)
First way is called demand response, and entails the operator asking some users “how much is the next MW worth to you?” If no one can supply that MW at that price or less, the customer can agree to not consume that MW. It is significant for some operators, but by design of the market, is only an option for industrial customers, really.
Some utilities also offer a limited form of this, where you can allow them to shut off your AC, receiving a discount on your bill, generally.
Both work, in their way. Would have a much larger effect if they were more universal, and of the price signal were felt more strongly by consumers. Which I think was your point.
California skates by because the big population centers need almost zero heating or cooling, relatively speaking. Other than that, our power use would make a German Green Party member see red.
Compare that to northern Europe where the outside temperature is below 0C for a lot of the winter, the payoff for properly insulating a house, installing new windows, etc, just isn't there. If you really wanted to save energy, move somewhere where you don't require so much energy to not freeze to death.