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

@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