General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Xyz Same
Undecided with Matt Ferrell
comments

Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" channel.

@ScarletFlames1 It does not get very cold during the winter (not like Canada). - btw what Israel does to the Palestinians amounts to genocide. No justice no peace.
22
@mv80401 That is the advantage of raising the code requirments. It becomes the new normal even for the middle of the road construction companies. They may screw you on passsive house, (inplementing some thermal bridge that better professionals would have avoided. But they do not try to cheat on materials, undersand that is important to use the right kind of foils, tapes, insulate also the nooks and crannies. And the consumers also understand it better of have knowledgeable friends that can help them out. Where I live the state government gives low interest loans for better standards (better than code which also has been raised a lot) and some extra for passive house codes. those loans are very popular. so that shapes the market, and the performance of construction companies.
7
@excitedbox5705 you do not understand how the heat balance of the planet works. The solar radiation would either heat a roof or the ground or it hits the solar panel. One way ot the other it is going to end up as infrared radiation and will leave the planet. some solar energy is stored in the oceans for longer (think maybe 100 years or even longer) but must escapes pretty fast. If humans put a solar panel in the way it is just put to good use before it is radiated back into space.
6
@dzhiurgis It is treated (Borax I think) so the critters do not get in, and the homes have a coating. The vent openings need to be covered, but else I would not be worried about critters.
5
I think mineral wool is better than fiber glass (also better regarding working with it, you still need protection of course).. That said it is not clear that the mycelium insulation will hold for 40 years or longer. (Mineral wool still going strong, and it can be recycled and it less sensitive if it gets every wet). If mycelium insulation gets wet it might start to decompose.(crack in the surface, burst pipes, hurricanes and floods getting into the insulation). Ideally a house is insulated from the outside, and if the insulation degrades after 20 or 30 years under the top layer, it would cost a lot to replace it. On the other hand we know that mineral wool and fiber glass hold (they are also not a fire hazard and can be recyled). Insulation in construction is long lived so it does not matter that mineral wool needs more energy to produce it. But the throw away stuff is important. Styrofoam dishes.
5
The professor mentioned it as advantage, the Australian Tesla installation is as far as they dare to push the temperature range for a permanent Lithium battery installation. No insulation is absolute, and the molten metal will still be much hotter than the surrounding (even if it is the Shara breaking temp records. Not to forget cooler desert nights). But it can't hurt to have 10 to 25 degrees more than the maximum temps in other regions. It will reduce the losses slightly, and more importantly it does no harm. If LI batteries get too hot they burn and are hard to extinguish, that could get very costly and dangerous.
4
I think the population would lovingly embrace it, and find a cute name for it ;) think of the PR. And the advertising opportunities. Be it condomes or viagra. Or adult toys.
4
@davidjessop2279 geothermal energy in that relatively low depth does NOT come from the core, if you have a bad planner (insufficient area surface for horizontal, or depth for vertical - usually in an attempt to appear cheaper and in order to close the deal), you can cool the underground, and more than the RAIN can replenish during the warm season. The user can take out more heat for a few years than can be replenished than they will find that they have an inefficient electric heating. The soil is a good temperature buffer. That is why it is cooler in the summer and warmer than above ground in winter, that is pretty constant. It does get hotter if you dig REALLY deep, that can become a problem with mining. In some South African gold mines the miners must be very fit and they blow cooled air into the tunnels, or the workers would collapse soon. And the shifts are not as long.
4
@ub59 I am very encouraged, I saw a video where he was interviewed and was asking myself: when do they announce the next stage ? Looks like they still have funding, they have the test projects for 2022, and the tech is not that complicated so that could work. 30 % or 50 % drop in costs for robust batteries - that would be a game changer. Not only do they cost less, they would also work much longer (not sure if that was factored into the calculation at 10:50). Never mind even if they broke it down to storage costs per kWh over 10 years .... 30 or 50 % less is huge. That will speed up LARGE solar installation by people who have the space or want to invest in a community project. And the projects will be more viable while also reducing grid peak demand. (the large providers do not like that, they make more money with peak demand, some providers in Texas make ONLY profits because of A/C peaks in summer. The rest of the year they hang on. Which explains why no one "voluntarily invests in winterization of the Texan electricity production.
3
I have been binge watching permaculture videos (also carbon sequestering IN the soil in form of humus or Terra Preta = biochar, and trees are part of the "tech" , that carbon capture is extra ). Permaculture is not only about agriculture, it is a systemic use of resources - and the Amri project fits right in with the mindset, and like every good and (hopefully) sustainable solution it has several advantages, uses a systemic approach, works with the beginning and end in mind (the life cycle from getting the minerals and what is after 20 - 30 years of use), and uses existing easily available resources = plentyful and cheap metals and well known tech. We already use a lot of lead it can be recycled and if the battery is good for 20 years (or even longer) and does not need a lot of maintainance that is ideal for commercial applications. Or neighbourhood projects. And brings costs down. All the lead batteries needed for vehicles that run on fossil fuel that become obsolete can be recycled to become part of the new battery (and the waste would be mined, it would be taken care of). Even if there would be a spill, as long as there is a concrete floor (it is heavy enough that one would need a solid foundation) the mess stays very local and can be cleaned up. also the advantage if there is a fire. Lithium batteries and an intense fire for whatever reason, are super dangerous for the firefighters. it also uses existing technology (like how to control the molten metals, that is not an unknown, meaning the manufacturing of the containers is also not unknown tech. They also know what the containers can take).
3
The German government meanwhile restricts the installations of units of more than 10kW peak - their buddies from Big Energy do not like the competition. They fear to only become the backup for the rainy days and winter (which admitted is justified - and if they had not spouted the free market nonsense before when things were going their way I would cut them some slack). It is not only that there are no subsidies for decent sized installations, now they have invented a financial penalty - even in not so sunny Germany installations (medium sized or larger) can meanwhile make do w/o any financial assistance (think medium sized companies that have a roof in the right direction, or households that use more energy for whatever reason, and with a second car that is more at home and can be easily charged whenever there is surplus). Having CHEAP storage is a game changer, people and companies might consider getting off grid. The current German restriction of the "free market" Now they make the people harvesting solar energy paying twice. For the self-consumed ! energy PLUS sales tax (or another tax, I do not know the name) when they supply surplus to the grid (as it is counted when it is generated it is really taxed twice). Needless to say landlords are hindered to sell to the tenants (or to make a swap), neighbourhoods cannot band together as co-op, because that would make them an "electricity provider". Being a provider comes with costs, burdens and whatnot. I think that the double taxation does not apply if a company or a household would go off grid. At the moment most don't do it, but with reliable tech people with a larger property might have second thoughts. They already needed to have the secure room for the oil tank if they had a oil based furnace (many have in Germay) that should be good enough for a liquid metall battery. Good insulation or it heats up the basement in the summer. The restriction by government means that currently many households and professionals do not go over the 10kW peak limit. But ideally any installation would have 30 % reserves compared to the typical highest demand. Ideal means investment to output, optimization, having the highest numbers of days without ANY power fro the grid - as long as that is achieveable at reasonable costs. Solar panels dropped in price, but cheap storage was still a limiting factor. There is a cost for the handymen just showing up with vehicles and equipment. a 15 kW installion does not cost three times more than a 5kW project not even when it comes to getting the panels set up, never mind the setup up of the inverter, and the electrical work. If the grid does not want their power on sunny days - why, they hopefully they can ramp up the batteries and for cheap. ideally car manufacturers would have an extra battery that can be easily plugged into the car as backup. It could charge during day, and next day the car can be used for a commute. Would be also an extenstion of reach for the occasional longer distance. That battery would not even need to be Lithium based (if it is backup the weight is less consequential and if it is recharged at home, the fast charge capability is not as crucial (so an EV would have two cheap lead batteries, that are swapped around. or maybe a solid state.
3
@jimstand 10 years of development is normal !! A little hype during a pitch is also O.K. Fusion reactors have been a few decades away from being the biggest thing ever for a long time - that claim is made since the 1960s ;) If any investor lost a lot of money (except the likes of Bill Gates or French company Total) they have no idea of investing in new tech and would have made bad investments anyway. They founded a company, so the project is NOT funded by university reasearch anymore, or his post as a professor. Aiming to get budgets for research is normal and necessary. Research is often done with no well defined intention to develop a specific product. It is often OPEND ENDED. Of course a lot of those projects lead nowhere, that is part of the SCIENCE. This project was NOT geared towards basic research so much, it was an engineering exercise, it was designed to have good success chances (by going with materials that are cheap and plentyful and using a "low tech" approach, they did not use any fascinating recently detected material effect and then when they have lab results they try to find out IF it would be suited for large scale use and mass production. what are you complaining about, many researchers handle their projects that way (incl. undergrad students doing work).
3
@jimstand You work at a college but think that 10 years (or 15) of time for development is too long ?? You do not work in research though, do you ? If you do not have an axe to grind I would assume that you are trolling on behalf of people that would not like to see a battery mass deployed. That would be highly disruptive for some industries.
3
Low cost thermal solar panels could increase efficiency or reduce the demand for dedicated area for the cheaper)horizontal installations. and in some areas vertical is not possible because of rock underground. It is also more insecure, you never know what is deep down until trying to drill into it (broken head and all, or one more day needed compared to what they thought. So horizontal loops a more predictable cost factor. Ideally that extra thermal input first heats the warm water all year round (I assume you get that from the underground, too). Surplus heat from long summer days goes into the ground. Uses more electricity in summer because the pump has to bring the heat underground (but only when PV output is good - by you or other users, so at least suplus renewable energy could be used. And many providers have better tarifs for the heat pump so it should not cost as much),. That added heat gives users an edge in winter. That could also be used to regenerate the heat underground to a sufficient extrent if a home has a small area of land but they want the cheaper horizontal system or vertical drilling is impossible or cost prohibitive. or they would have the land but do not want to dedicate so much of the area to the pipes (you cannot build on it, not even a light shed because it seals off the underground. Cannot dig into it deeper, plant trees, run heavy machinery or a car over it. and even a convential lawn is a considerable barrier to penetration of rain water. Good soil or gravel, or sand is much better for restoring heat. Normally most of the heat (that is taken out in winter) is regenerated with rainwater without any input from the homeowner (other than the restrictions for the use of the area they have to put up with). So some low cost thermal solar panels could be the cheap work horses to bring some heat into the underground in summer, and could give more flexibility and they would not need to be very fancy. It would be the 20 : 80 rule.
3
@bocadelcieloplaya3852 With reflecting snow cover and clear, sunny winter days one gets a decent harvest with solar panels (the short days are the problem). - I saw a video about an off grid homestead in Alaska. In front of the cabin they have a metal constrructon with 3 solar panels, a very standard and modest setup. They have a lever where they can switch the angle (of all 3 panels together). So in summer they fix it in the steeper position in the morning and late afternoon, and adjust in the default angle for solar panels when the sun is higher. In winter they keep it at the steep angle to catch as much energy as possible. That was a modest installation but with a clever twist. They can optimize their harvest without high tech (the person that needs to be present is no problem in their case). And since the panels are within reach, they can easily brush off snow in winter, so the panels will start to harvest fast, when the sun comes out. The panels are somewhat elevated, so if wildlife would be getting ideas .... But it is directly at the cabin, so they likely do not come that close anyway. The man is retired, the wife still drives to work so they can easily adust the position twice per day, it is not much work. They also have a gas powered generator and wood heating.
3
@excitedbox5705 Humans have built billions of homes with roofs and nothing happened. That is not like the energy balance of the globe works, it all leaves. then add to the impact of tarmac streets where vegetation used to be. We would not be in trouble even though they locally raise the temperatures on the ground. It is only a tiny share of land - which is only 30 % of the planet surface anyway.
3
@tomdalton4016 Absolute numbers do matter, but for performance and willingness fo change and to make an effort of a country - and a LARGE rich country at that - you look at PER PERSON metrics. Energy use per person (horrible for the U.S.) and output of renewable energy. Germany bests the U.S. on both accounts. You correctly say that Germany has fewer people and MUCH less land. So that makes the use of wind power MORE difficult. What works for 82 million people with less land and generally much less favorable conditions for solar and wind - could certainly be scaled up a lot for 330 million people. Germany does not have the large wind swept plains or large open landscapes (also in Texas) that make wind a good option. Building in the ocean is much more expensive. Most areas in Germany ressemble Alaska and the state of Washington when it comes to the potential to harvest solar energy. These are the weakest solar regions (when it comes to use) in the U.S. though. the U.S. does less (per person) and has much better potential. And much more need to get started because the U.S. squanders so much energy per person. Countries like Japan, Germany, Denmark, U.K. also need to improve their game when it comes to the use of fossil fuel - but the U.S. is in a league of its own when it comes to recklessy wasting energy.
3
As long as it does not break ..... the layers separate themselves, you only lose one charge (and may not get much out of the battery when you would need it. But I doubt the disturbance would be that bad, that it upsets the layers a lot and if the earthquake is that strong it cracks the container, that is much more problems. Luckily there are lots of regsions where you do not have to expect heavy ! earthquakes. The container could be also placed on some shock absorbers.
2
@thoreberlin the race to the bottom regarding electrictiy costs in TX (for large companies !) also means that some providers only make money during the hot summer when demand goes up for A/C. Texas is the only state / region / province / country that could be part of a larger grid - and refuses to. New Zealand (both islands), Japanese islands, Cuba, Iceland, the Hawaiian islands, .... also have a stand alone grid - they can't help it. North Korea will not team up with south Korea - but if the Chinese would let them join the grid near the border they would be happy. Needing consumers (even if that means squandering energy) is necessary for the TX stand alone grid ERCOT that covers most of Texas. Waste of energy in summer is a feature not a bug (according to local government and TX energy providers). There are no codes to enforce insulation (would help every year and against the once in 10 - 20 year extreme cold), if done well it would prevent homes from heating up in summer. The stand alone grid in Texas is only possible because they have a lot of producers and also a lot of consumers. They could of course export a surplus of electricity out of state - but then they would be subject to federal regulation because they are a part of the grid. That would slightly raise costs per kWh - the required preparedness for emergencies. They sued the EPA - after the 2011 cold snap that was already pretty bad - so they would not have to winterize. Slightly increased costs for power would not matter much for small consumers and biz (one way or another the providers make them pay "service " / grid fees respectively for a monthly minimum anyway) BUT even small increased costs per kWH will mean less bonus for management and less profits for large shareholders of large companies (read donors). Those gains in a large company that uses a lot of electricity are handed over to only a small group of people. El Paso region was hit (like the rest of Texas) in 2011. But for geographic reason they ARE on the South West grid (half of the U.S. and parts of Canada). So that is plenty of backup. the feds pushed them (and the rest of Texas) to winterize and invest in emergency preparedness and after 2011 El Paso did not need much pushing. Boy, did that pay off after only 10 years. They had business as usual in Feb. 2021. They were able ! to import extra power from Arizona, because they do have the power lines that can carry that load, because they do that on a regular base - as part of the much larger grid.
2
And there were other warnings a few years ago - like the freak cold snap where Florida had higher temps than parts of the Arctic region - in winter. Did not last long, around freezing point, did not do too much damage (this time !), but the temps should be at least 25 degrees deeper in the ARctic at that time of the year. They had an unprecedented heat wave in the Arctic. That is a warning sign. More to come the freak events will become more intense and more frequent. Consumers ignored it, and government and reulators ignored it as well. As long as it has no consequences for them .... The providers cannot act volunatirly, it is a cost disadvantage. The state government would need to level the playing field for all.
2
Whenever humans REALLY put in the effort to solve a challenge They. Will. Come. Up. With. A. Solution. Unfortunately that Can-do attitude usually is only activated when it comes to war (on a government level) or in the for-profit, cost -cutting economic system (a very narrow view on what benfits one company or consumer often only for very short time, while offloading as many costs and damage as possible on others ot onto future generations). But IF Humans want to get it done they get it done. Netherlands seizing land from the ocean. China regreening completely degenerated land. The Old Great Wall in China (many people died). The new Green Wall. Penicillin (only available at the end of WW2, and it was published in ? 1926) that took a while malaria medication (the U.S. military pushed for it) Photovoltaic panels (for satellites) Plastics, detected in the 19th century, first patents for materials 1900 until before WW2 - but it did not take off because there was no market for consumer goods, not enough wealthy people and then came the Great Depression, and they were not esein the military (or not thought to be essential). Aviation (also for military reasons) nuclear fission the Race to the Moon Developing corona vaccines in record time Mass vaccination in the 1960s (on a global scale)
2
@MsSomeonenew they do not have "higher" costs unlike Lithium they are not YET using economy of scale. Industrial mass production will bring prices down and they tend to drop the most in the stage from micro to normal series. If the system is robust you can expect them to make a very competitive offer to sell a lot of them FAST. it also helps that they worked with known process, materials and tech - the industry handles molten metals all the time, if the tests work well during 1 year there is no reason to assume that they cannot do that for 10 and 20 years. The industry also knows how to make robust enough containers and how to insulate when it is hot inside. The transport is not supper challenging either. Lots of providers and flagship companies would get such storage, just for PR. They know that Lithium minin has a bad rep, and that we use cheap and common metalls will sound good. Expect some virtue signalling purchases - and that will help with the price drops. The metalls are not rare so no problem from that side. I am encourage to hear they plan several demonstration sites in 2022. That is good news. So 1 year to find out the bugs in real life and then full scale manufacturing capacities. The French have a lot of OLD nuclear power stations, lots of sun, and a French company is involved. Total will see to it that the EU is kindly inclined towards the project.
2
@MsSomeonenew For solar the economy of scale factor is 20 %. For wind it is 14 % (more "old" = mature tech involved). For processors it is much higher, see Murphy's law - but every product (class) has it. - For every doubling of globally installed capacities you get a price drop for the produced kWH of 20 (for solar) or 14 % for wind. That trend is very stable for solar, that goes on since the late 1970s. It was not the passing of time that brought the price drops, the innovations did not manifest because of years going by - only when there were subsidies and other support the positive feedback loop established itself. For renewables the Chinese government deserves a lot of credit, they propped that up, and mass produced and installed a lot of solar panels and wind turbines in high volumes and calculated the costs over several years. So they got more orders and so on and so forth. The communits of China used industrial mass production and economy of scale to jumpstart the technology. Doubling the capacities is not hard when you start out, so you can expect massive price reductions within 3 years. Even if we very conservatively assume it is 10 % only. For every 1,000 USD of investiment in year one, we are at 729 USD after 3 years (of subsequent 10 % price drops and that is a cautious assumption). If they have the loans or investors they can as well start out with a price of 8,000 in the first year to boost sales numbers and benefit from higher economy of scale effects. I guaranee you after 5 years the prices will be at 6,000 USD, we have seen that with solar panels. If the output of concrete or steel (old, mature tech) is globally doubled there may be still some improvements possible - but that is well established tech that is used in VERY high volumes, so the doubling can take a while. The estimate (as given in the video 10: 50 ) was that the price (that is higher right now for the test series) will be 30 - 50 % below the current battery prices. And they will achieve those low prices between 2023 and 2030. The costs of the materials are 17 USD per kWh versus 51 USD for the Lithium ion batteries (costs for those batteries are expected to come down, not sure if that has to do with raw materials, But the liquid metall batteries are simple, so it should not be hard to gain advantages as soon as they mass produce). 30 - 50 (or even 20 %) lower costs soon - that is a game changer. Especially in nations in the temperate and cold climate zone where peak demand and peak production do not align as nicely as in California, Texas or Australia (A/C needs the power when the sun shines). They do not have the same good conditions in Germany, Canada or Sweden - they have the highest demand in winter, when they harvest less solar energy. In Morocco German investor Desertec and other investors build a solar park that concentrates heat and uses molten salt storage, so they can sell that electricity to Europe during night. And they also harvest during winter, it is still sunny and the lower temps are even better for the panels (no energy needed for cooling them). I do not know the costs for molten salt storage but cheap storage could come in handy. Also in the South of Europe, they could ramp up production in those countries.
2
@williamholmes7529 EV batteries are the divas among batteries. The demands on their performance come in a package with restricted number of cycles, squandering those away might become costly, in financial terms but also for the environment. Their restrictions are acceptable (for use in vehicles NOT as backup for the grid) because they offer light weight and fast charging. They are expensive (and more so if the life span is shortened), the raw materials are problematic. Using them as backup for the grid comes at a cost: Reduced life time AND the cars would need to be plugged in most of the time. But usually the cars are parked when people are at work and that means they would have to build the infrastructure to have many cars on the grid if they are not driving. Malls, companies, parking garages in cities, at the street (target for vandalism ....) And the degradation by being used as storage by the grid might cost the car owner much more than they gain from a better tariff. Most users do not drive that much, so the "fuel" costs are low. It is not worth the trouble. If I would have an EV I would hesistate to offer it's battery as backup - but a robust residential battery ? Make me a reasonable offer and I am all ears. The residential batteries are alway on the grid and cope very well with the charging cycles (5 - 10 % loss over 20 years of daily deep discharge !) - that is ideal.
2
@jimstand You never know if it is "phony" until you carry out the research, that is why it is called BASIC research. Of course some professors will push their pet projects and the money might be better invested in other projects (where the professors are less talented with the sales pitches). - But WHO would get to decide what is pie in the sky and / a "waste of budgets" (at least for now). A project can be solid and still it goes nowhere. The Makani project achieved a lot but they did not get any more funding after 10 years and maybe it their approach is not possible - for now. The results are public domain (at least a lot), and maybe if some new materials are invented (to have a rope that ties them to the generator) someone comes back to that projects and picks up the batton. The tricky thing was to steer the kite (which is big) and to make it start and land correctly. I understand that they had the battery "on board" - systems like Enerkite have a steel cable and the battery is charged on the ground, the kite does not need to learn to park itself ;) That approach might win in the end - it is easier so also more realistic to achieve.Enerkite still seems to be afloat, but also still "testing". Their approach is simpliefied so it is likely easier to get the funding. But a lot of experience was gained because of the Makani project, the engineers got a very good training by being part of the team. it was not in vain (google financed them in recent years, they got money from Shell .... The money was better spent on enthusiastic researchesr and engineers as opposed to being parked on some bank accounts. if one out of 1000 "hare brained" projects turn out to be a hit - the 8 - 10 billion of us can easily live with the 990 that went nowhtere and the 9 that were decent but not spectacular. Mankind has that tech. And a few other research resutls might also be useful, maybe in another context in 10 years or 20 or 30. They had no idea if nuclear fission could even work - they just tried (I am no fan, but that is beyond the point, 50,000 people in a secret city in the desert, and a few years of big funding). It took very long to produce penicillin as stable medication or to find medication against malaria (other then Quinin. Finding a SAFE polio vaccine was not easy either, they had a lot of flops). And then there was the researcher that got the funding cut for mRNA technology in the 1990s because it was not a "viable" project with good prospects. Ahem. Like there was no market for a book like Harry Potter. Or not giving the Beatles a contract (both happened). In her case access to a lab was enough to continue the research in her free time w/o being paid (that would not work for a project like the Makani kite or Ambri, because more engineering work is needed the objects are much larger, more people with special skills are needed, etc. (I seem to remember she not only lost the budgets but also her her job at the university so she could not use undergrad students either. Resp. had to get a new job).
2
The air is fairly dry in deserts, but one could use it in dry coastal areas nearby saltwater.
2
@jakedarang The scientist with Hungarian roots (founder of BionTec) at an American university found no one to finance mRNA research, the budgets were cut. It WAS difficult - stability was a major issue and no one thought that could be solved. She hustled along for many, many years. She lost her funding and her position. She continued the work in her free time (and had lab use) at another university or project. But you must be able to afford that. If she had worked for a private company out of necessity (money, single mom, high cost of living for instance when she or a familymember need expensive medication, having kids and thinking of the need to earn good money to buy a home, save up for their college fund) - she could not have pursued that "pie in the sky" project for years and years. No genius investor saw the potential. And the universities also did not see it. you never know where the big hits come from (mRNA is not the vaccine of choice for a pandemic ! but it holds a lot of promise for other drugs incl. cancer).
2
@zoltanvass9492 good compilation. In the moderate climate zone hot summers are problematic. windows closed and shaded (also and especially on the West side). and MASS inside. Brick walls. thick loam walls, tiles, stone, .... I have familymembers that had a brick an mortar home built for them and aimed for passive house (the architect or construction company made an error and they have a thermal bridge to the basement. Nothing too bad or problematic regarding condensation, but they did not get the full subsidies. Automatic air exchange of course and a heat pump (so not much space lost for a furnace). Insulation is easier to pull off with homes made from wood / particle boards - but they wanted brick and mortar and paid for the more tricky thick outer insulation (it is much easier to install on wooden houses than on a brick wall). The mass is an advantage in hot summers. IF you have the summer heat in a well insulated home w/o mass (does not even have to be passive house standard) you are screwed, hard to get that out, unless the weather and the night temperatures change and rop considerably. Plants that drop the leaves can be a help. Or shading OVER the windows (but the problem is how to attach them w/o opening the hull. It nees more care by the construction workers or home owners to install all of that. Ideally the roof has just the right overhang to keep out the summer sun rays, but let's in the rays earlier or later in the season. then the nights are cool enough that the house does not overheat (w/o AC). Window shutters and blinds (outside !) could be used too, but that also means you can't have plants inside and have only half light if you want to use the room
2
@HamRadio200 You haven't yet figured out the reality of global warming causing disruptive climate change, so you are not in a position to be critical of the research or sources of Matt.
1
@ReevansElectro the Ambri system is especially well suited for hot locations ! The Tesla system in Australia is at the end of the possible and safe temperature range (under current conditions, it will get hotter in Australia). The Ambri battery needs to be very hot, so Sahara, noon at the height of summer will be fine, just fine, one could not operate with Lithium batteries there. That would mean shopping for trouble, especially if you have the installation for years (as opposed to using a battery short term and very carefully mointoring and coddling it) - at some point the cooling does not work perfectly .... there you go. That could be a very costly fire and dangerous too. So they would not even try at a location that is more extreme than in Australia.
1
@peterknapp5440 He did mention that the batteries are heated up the first time (they are at ambient temperature during transport and installation). They have a built in device for that. They are well insulated, a large mass with small surface by comparsion, and self-heat (side effect, and loss of the process) as long as they continuously charge and discharge (he even mention a pattern of 5 - 7 hours that would be ideal - and that the battery is not degraded by deep discharge or shorter or longer cycles). There is plenty of use for a battery that stores energy for one days or two. If they ever cool down into solid state, that does not ruin them, they just have to be heated up again.
1
@thoreberlin In Texas they would have needed to open the window once for 1 minute i the room where they mainly stayed or cooked. it would have gotten cool and anything but cozy but O.K. for a few days.
1
In Germany and Austria there are already set ups where heat is used that is produced as side product of electricity generation or waste management. Typically when garbage is burned or the sewage water is fermented to make methane gas. The gas is then burned and used to produce electricity (23 % efficiency, or in that range) and the abundant side product - heat - is used to heat up water. Combustion engines and heat engines (for the production of electricity) are notoriously inefficient because so much of the energy ends up as heat not as motion to turn the turbines - but when they can put the heat to good use, the efficiency goes up to over 60 %. That is usually peak demand electricity, because they have storage tanks for the hot water, and can determine to a degree when they produce. And the higher demand (for hot water for use and for heating of homes) conincides with the need for electricty. But the are also an emergency backup (I think, those gas turbines are very agile and fast on the grid if need be). They have that setup even for homes. A furnace that is run on wood or biogas and also produces electricity. So, yes it is weird that the Germans are not doing it already. But these would be large systems and the energy transition was a project of political opportunism of Merkel (very much triggered by Fukushima, JUST when she had undone the slow exit from nuclear power. In German they call it the exit from the exit from the exit. Her heart (or that of the "conservative" lead government is not in it and it shows in the lack of vision.
1
@crusherven The government sued the EPA AFTER 2011 (which was bad already and before it was 1989, and smaller outages in rural areas) so they would NOT have to forcre the industry to winterize. Republicans colluding with big biz.
1
The race to the bottom regarding electrictiy costs in TX (for large companies !) also means that some providers only make money during the hot summer when demand goes up for A/C. Texas is the only state / region / province / country that could be part of a larger grid - and refuses to. New Zealand (both islands), Japanese islands, Cuba, Iceland, the Hawaiian islands, .... also have a stand alone grid - they can't help it. North Korea will not team up with south Korea - but if the Chinese would let them join the grid near the border they would be happy. Needing consumers (even if that means squandering energy) is necessary for the TX stand alone grid ERCOT that covers most of Texas. Waste of energy in summer is a feature not a bug (according to local government and TX energy providers). There are no codes to enforce insulation (would help every year and against the once in 10 - 20 year extreme cold), if done well it would prevent homes from heating up in summer. The stand alone grid in Texas is only possible because they have a lot of producers and also a lot of consumers. They could of course export a surplus of electricity out of state - but then they would be subject to federal regulation because they are a part of the grid. That would slightly raise costs per kWh - the required preparedness for emergencies. They sued the EPA - after the 2011 cold snap that was already pretty bad - so they would not have to winterize. Slightly increased costs for power would not matter much for small consumers and biz (one way or another the providers make them pay "service " / grid fees respectively for a monthly minimum anyway) BUT even small increased costs per kWH will mean less bonus for management and less profits for large shareholders of large companies (read donors). Those gains in a large company that uses a lot of electricity are handed over to only a small group of people. El Paso region was hit (like the rest of Texas) in 2011. But for geographic reason they ARE on the South West grid (half of the U.S. and parts of Canada). So that is plenty of backup. the feds pushed them (and the rest of Texas) to winterize and invest in emergency preparedness and after 2011 El Paso did not need much pushing. Boy, did that pay off after only 10 years. They had business as usual in Feb. 2021. I think the newspaper where I read the online articles was ? Texas Tribune. Goole El Paso and power outage 2021 and it should pop up. They were able ! to import extra power from Arizona ( a nuclear power plant ramped up production), because they do have the power lines that can carry that load, because they do that on a regular base - as part of the much larger grid.
1
@PhotonHerald Never is 1989, and 2011 - and the the state of Texas sued the EPA. While El Paso winterized. They needed extra energy to have business as usual and it was no problem to get it - because they do not throw a tanturm over federal regulation that are the condition to be allowd ON the much larger grid (that could have been the backup).
1
@PhotonHerald Never is the incrreasing frequency of polar vortex freak events. Florida having the same temps as the Arctic for one or two winter days was a loud warning shot for those who did listen.
1
@SilvaDreams Actually computer development took from the 1940s until ? 1970s, and a lot happened afterwards. And ALL with lots of goverment funding. We would not have electronics if we had waited for the private sector.
1
Savonius turbines could be like hedgerows deterring wildlife from plundering a garden. Deer would not like it. It might also care birds away though - and they are needed in a garden that is close to nature to control insects.
1
@PaleGhost69 I am a fan of Lawton and bing watch his videos - but find his TED talks "underwhelming" (he held two during events in the Middle East. My impression is that he also did not get the audience all excited). Which is a shame. He explains the principles and philosophy, and that is all fine - but a person that is able to ruin every plant within a week never mind they could run a homestead or care for animals .... could recite those principles. I have seen enthusiastic but inexperienced (clueless) persons announcing and debating all sorts of (half baked) alternative ideas. Or trying to run a homestead or little farm - but they failed. In the end it has to function, too. High minded philosophies are not enough. The fascinating thing about Geoff Lawtin is how to APPLIES the principles, the successes he had (and the problems and failures) and also the insight that a system needs TIME. Also his ability to read a landscape and to UNDERSTAND a system - that did not come accross in the TED talks. I checked two TED talks and was left somewhat dissatisfied after watching them - and returned to binge watching the other uploads ;) on his channel. You are able to find meaning in the TED talks AFTER you watched some of his other stuff where he talks about the real life use and related problems - but I doubt it excites persons that are new to the issue. I would say one of the videos about What is a food forest. Or What is permaculture is a good point to start. He either shows something and does a walk and talk, or he gets questions from the group he teaches (online) and answers those - to the benefit of all that are online. Often he enhances the answer with things on his farm (explaining the principles). he also knows all the plants by name, he really knows his system and his stuff. Plus his Q&A are short, often only 5 - 10 minutes, no ads and his friendly and enthusiastic, positive personality shines through. Or if he does a walk and talk on the Australian farm or the Jordan project (what is new, how have systems developed, etc) and greets the animals. Hillarious.
1
The green ton (Power Pod) does have moving parts, it better be EXCELLENTLY greased (or constructed) or it will become the squeaky wind ton of the neighbourhood, or many squeaky tons if more people have it. But nice idea and if the thing lasts for 25 years with no problems - why not. It will earn its investment costs. (Governments: producing it IN the country but with major subsidies, it creates employment and governments CAN create money they just need to make sure they also have goods created for it. The power pods would be many small reliable producers. Or ONE installation, but people have ownership, that means maintainance and getting it into the grid in one place (so avoiding those costs). of course there might be effects where they hinder each other if there are many in one place. It would be also a good off grid solution.
1
And the tech for Lithium was detected in the ? 1970s, and they became a thing in the ? 1990s (for some tools, laptops .... mobile phones). Fast forward 20 or 30 years and there is viable tech.
1
Thanks for taking action !
1
@gregbailey45 The insulation cannot completely avoid the loss of heat, but the hotter the surroundings the longer it takes. The heat in Tx (or in any environement that is not a volcanoe etc.) is s not nearly enough to keep the metal molten (imagine that !) we are talking 300 F or more as opposed to a hot summer day.
1
@joseylastborn8790 If you use the "waste" heat / cold of course the efficiency of the SYSTEM becomes higher (the process itself of course not if you want to nitpick). - That is already done btw. Burning methan from sewage treatment, or drift wood or garbage - and producing electrictiy. With luck 23 % of the energy will create motion to turn the turbines - the usual low efficiency for heat engines, but if the side product heat is used the efficiency is more than 60 %. That is not spectacular, but much better and it is a process that provides peak demand (of electricity). With the hot water for consumers and businesses they have buffer anyway. Cities in Germany, Austria and also in the Nordic countries handle it that way. Likewise - if the wind turbines stand still although they could produce and solar panel produced electricty has to be given away for nothing (just to get it out of the grid) - 60 % or 50 % efficiency of the process starts looking really good. Backup does cost money. Hydropower plants also often do not run at full capacity (spring, after heavy rain), they let a part of the water bypass (if they could not sell it). If that has no negative effect on the ecosystems downstream (not sure about that) they could always use the full power of the stream and send the surplus into storage. hydropower is very cheap and there are many plants that have been built decades or even one century ago and are long written off. If they produce at low cost and only 50 % of the electricity will be put to use later (losses with storage) that is still a good deal.
1
@asbestosfibers1325 I agree they should develop a more harmless agent. IF there are leaks. To be fair one would notice in performance but if it leaks out slowly the damage could be already done. On the other hand the pipes can be made to last 100 years, so high quality.
1
@SF-li9kh Suburban areas. One pod in the garden.
1
@jakedarang A lot of that has to do with MONEY. Or the different skill sets. A scientiest is not necessarily good in implementing industrial manufacturing processes and often they are not good networkers and sales people, or speakers. Which is necessary to get MONEY (from gov. or private fianciers). Penicillin ! published in 1926 and it took them till end of WW2 to find a method to produce it at large scale and in a stable form. Likely the war helped to continue financing the project. You need to finance 20 - 30 projects. Many will fail (it also has to do with the skill of the inventers to bring it on the ground with series, to SELL to consumers, and before to investors). We could easily (we meaning the rich nations) finance 99 such large scale expensive projects (on wind alone) if we get ONE hit for it. And some fairly good solutions for niches. Think off the grid. Or in India where they do not have a grid. They now skip that step and go solar where the village is an "island" right away.(so they also do not have the costs for a grid) On a modest scale but it makes a difference in the life. Like refrigeration, light without kerosine lamps. Machines w/o diesel generator (loud, costly, it stinks). like in the rural ares in the U.S. in the 1930s and 1940s where the electrification was pushed and subsidized by the FDR admin. They did not have fridges and washing machines right away, it was mainly for light in the beginning AND local companies had more options. The for profits were not interested to electrify the whole country, they restricted their economic activities to densely populated areas.
1
@jakedarang Biontec (that visionary Hungarian scientist was a co-founder) got the equivalent of 450 million USD from the German government to develop a vaccine - and then Pfizer came on board. They did not "riks" money they let government take all the risks. mRNA has a lot of potential, Dr. Hotez acknowledges that - but on the other hand for a pandemic fast mass production for cheap (and likely other raw materials than the other producers need) are big advantages. The yeast produced version that Dr. peter Hotez works on would be ideal. They got the genome in Jan. 2020 - like other labs. But then he had to run around for 2 - 3 months to find private financiers for a cheap, easy to handle (temperature) mass vaccine for a pandemic They needed a few million USD - which is pocket change in that context. The German governement also gave 200 - 300 million USD to another smaller company (BAYER snateched them up) to develop a vaccine. That delay cost the group around Hotez a lot of time, I think they may be in the late stage of testing now. The tech is different than the vaccines where an adenovirus is the vehicle (Sputnik or Astra Zeneca for instance), and not as fancy as the mRNA vaccines. Yeast produced vaccines are old fashioned tech if you will, but it is reliable, and cheap. Oddly enough no one in politics was interested to support that project as well, if only as backup for the other projects. If it would turn out to provide a safe and well functioing vaccine, it would of course be serious competition for the other (heavily subsidized) vaccines. Those that got much more money, but during a pandemic there is no such thing as "stranded" costs in vaccine development. The Astra Zeneca is problematic, but no one could know that until it was ready and being used on millions of people (it is still less risk than getting the disease or on the large scale allowing more and more mutations to pop up globally). we need fast mass deployment. the more working vaccine of all kinds the better. The Trump admin did favors to big pharma.
1
@vulpo that does NOT mean that the Power Pod is not viable (at least as niche off grid solution), it proves they have problems to get the funding to scale it up. Ask Dr. Hotez about budgets (with old fashioned vaccine tech - not even new tech). or the NOW lauded Hungarian scientist (mRNA technology) that was one of the founders of BionTec - about getting the budgets in the early days when only she believed that could work. Penicillin took a looooong time to became one of the things that massively changed our society. I wonder if they would have carried on with the research (the funding !) w/o WW2 going on.
1
@DavidGarcia-zu3hl the usual talking points. China uses the same amoung of energy as the U.S. WHILE being the workbench of the world and while having more than THREE times the population. which they also controlled, or they would have more than 1.1 or 1.3 billion people. The U.S. has around 330 million.
1
@DavidGarcia-zu3hl there is no other major country that squanders energy like the U.S. (energy need PER person and that is while importing so much manufactured products from other nations). O.K. Saudi Arabia might use even more (but they need a lot for desalination). And a few other smaller nations might use even more than the U.S. (like Kuwait) - but where it matters (size) the U.S. is the worst offender of squandering energy.
1
@DavidGarcia-zu3hl the Maunder minimum the Medieval Cold period (little Ice Age) happened in the NORTHERN hemisphere and it shifted regionally and over time (first in Asia later in Central Europe). Not globally. Plus a sun spot constellation like that accounts for max. 0.3 degree Celsius cooling (a temp difference like it is also typcial for an El Nino or El Nina year, only the solar minimum influences lasted longer). There was a natural cycle plus some reinforcing factors: Forests popping up in Europe naturally (young trees sequester a lot of carbon in that phase of their life cycle) because of war and maybe even The Plague, and volcanic activities. The Maunder minimum scenario would only cool the globe by 0.3 %, but that and other factors (like the huns, the plague, and volcanoes) all added up and pushed the feedback loop in one direction. The volcanoe outbreaks in the 17th and 18th century likely prolonged the cold cycle in the NORTHERN hemisphere.
1
@tomdalton4016 Germany for many years bested also Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, ... in the use of the sun to produce electricity (or warm water, which is the technology that got estabished much earlier). Despite having much less ideal conditions than the South of Europe. It has always be about intentions and making the effort.
1
@tomdalton4016 The Europan Union with the U.K. and associated nations like Switzerland and Norway have approx. 530 million people. (that is most but not all of Europe). And they have much more ambitious goals than the U.S. - Germany, Austria, Switzerland (associated) and the Nordic states with their push for renewables are important players in the European Uniion because they are the richest nations. Plus Germany is an economic heavyweight.
1
@tomdalton4016 Replacing the use of fossil fuels with technology, engineering, science, human labor, ingenuity, DIY skills of the population (insultion), building codes getting more strict over time may seem expensive. But it is a blessing in disguise because it creates jobs in manufacturing and engineering and science. Note: it is Switzerland, Austria, Germany, the Nordic countries, .... that have kept the quality manufacturing jobs IN the country. Building codes (mandatory and the ones that are higher for subsidies and tax credits) have always been more strict, but in recent years all of the EU pushed even more in the direction of passive house / very low energy house. The construction companies, homeowners, planners, architects, producers of windows and furnaces,..... were forced to up their game. If you have no interest in the issue and just buy a middle of the road window or roof window - you will land at much higher standards by default. The construction companied do not have to be told to avoid thermal bridges. They know the drill meanwhile. The buildings are inspected with a heat sensor camera (and a pressure test for passive house standard), getting subsidies and low interest, long term loans (very popular) depends on meeting those standards. Construction companies that think they can cut corners will be found out. That helps to raise standards. In Germany (in Europe in general) people still build a lot of brick and mortar homes (and the premade homes with wood are usually produced by manufacturers that know what they are doing). Individual homes or a few story buildings are usually built by local companies and good or bad reviews or word of mouth recommendations are important. That builds a pool of expertise - workforce, their foremen, the company owners, architects and planners, and also the consumers. And the agencies how to handle the monitoring.
1
@tomdalton4016 Nope, regarding "cleanest energy" in Germany - are you sarcastic. There are lots of positves (the attitude of the population, the stance to use technology to not use fossil fuel), as for Merkel the turn towards renewables was very opportunistic * - it shows in how the Switch towards renewables (in electricity !) is done - it is a mixed picture. The share of wind in the electricity is 25.6 %, coal is 24.8 % (coal was reduced by 20 % from 2019 to 2020). Solar is approx. 5 % and nuclear is 12.5 %. ALL renewables are 50.5 % of the total yearly electricity production. I guess the 48 % mean almost half of all renewable energy is wind. So around a quarter of the total production. I think Germany has a problem to find new good locations for wind - unless they go into the ocean. Which is expensive though. they also dampened the deployment of large PV installations (companies with large roofs started deploying that and w/o subsidies that was profitable, think 6 years for return of investment. No subsidies. Then add the write off for taxes and the fact that the systems function much longer. I think preventing PV from becoming mainstream among households and companies was doing favors for the providers. And to be sure with more PV it would upset the normal "market" even more and even faster. Germany should have invested into battery research big time, that was neglected under Merkel, she is a very status quo person, but she does not have any fixed opinions, on most things she navigates as a (seemingly) modest and unassuming opportunis. Now it is about STORAGE to account for the infrequent supply. That is the missing link. Then we will see the large energy providers being bailed out as they cannot compete with private and commercial small scale energy production. Wind does not always compensate for lack of solar (and it is regionaly different). Wind is more in the North and in the less densely populated areas. So NOT where it is needed and they do not yet have the full power lines. But it is higher than in the U.S. per person under less favorable condtions. Must be the number of ONE day ! Germany does not have that share on average, not even close. Merkel pushed for a much faster exit from nuclear for political reasons and it shows. Coal is STILL heavily subsidized (jobs, and like in the U.S. they did not boost local manufacturing in the affected regions to have a perspective. Cause neoliberalism). The government before Merkel got into power was a coalition of Social Democrats and the green party. Nuclear power and waste disposal is a fairly controversial issue in Germany, the plants are old and a plan was devised for a fade out. With center right, big biz friendly Merkel in charge that exit plan was cancelled. it was the exit from the exit. For the industry it was uncorked champaign. Little investments, longer run times .... And the government under Merkel told the citizens that it was all fine, they had made the assessements the old plants were safe. Then came Fukushima & in all of the EU there took a hard look at nuclear (I think they took them off the grid for a month). After that month a state election was lost where the party of Merkel had run the show for the longest time. They lost to a coaltion (on the state level) of left leaning and Green party. Ooops. So Merkel changed her mind (or so she said) and it was the exit from the exit from the exit. Done so hastily that it offered the industry a chance to sue the German government for damages. (I wonder if that opportunity was offerd to them). Still a lot of good things have come out of it - but the pro biz and opportunistic stance also meant a lot of lost chances. (a niche for new products and companies, and showing the population what is possible).
1
Check out Dr. Christine Jones on sequestering carbon in form of stable humus. Or in form of Terra Preta. Like all good solutions they offer many benefits. Water infilatration and retention is one of the most important. (Also check out Geoff Lawton, permaculture for a dose of positivity).
1
@ArthurDentZaphodBeeb Passive house have a VENTING system, did you even watch the video, he mentioned it as one of the principles. In the moderate climate zone it would not run (much) except late fall to early spring. People just open the window like they used to, and widely on sunny days. Only in spring or fall when it is not really cold inside but a little uncozy: you keep the heat from humans and appliances in (with the good insulation - that goes a long way. Butthen fresh air w/o opening the windows is exchanged automatically (and the heat of the air inside warms up the fresh air). In summer some peoplehave it for moderate cooling. To take the edge off really hot summer day, A/C is not common in central Europe. Passive houses often have heat pumps for geothermal that ran year round for the warm water. So the cooling supplies extra heat into the underground which is extracted next winter). But if people do not cool or heat the fensters can stay open, or you open them wide when you come home. The houses do not use more harmful materials than conventional houses but air exchange is much more reliable and constant. Also during night when people sleep. You can have fresh air in the sleeping room while not having to sleep with an open window. Or if you have noisy neighbours an active rooster, partying teenage neighbours etc.
1