Loading ...amory-lovins-energy-efficiency-interview-cheapest-safest-cleanest-crisis?
Fascinating, brilliant and a morning upbeat article for FGC and everyone else. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/26/amory-lovins-energy-efficiency-interview-cheapest-safest-cleanest-crisis?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1
This is a really one sided article. As somebody who has spent a lot of time in the past looking at passive solar design, I can tell you the devil is in the details. And homes built like this tend to be much more expensive than conventional construction. How many people — if you present them with a cost 50 to 100% above what they’re already paying per square foot — with a payout over 20 – 30 years in “energy savings” are going to bite ? Most move every 8 years on average, so the payout doesn’t work. And he completely glosses over the environmental costs of wind / solar. Factor those in and it’s a pig wearing lipstick with no base load capability unless you add “super batteries” that just drive costs up more. Not to mention all the mining you have to do to create those wind / solar / batter solution. Small nuclear is MUCH more promising. Does adding insulation pay off ? Sure, up to a point, but it’s a diminishing returns scenario too. The fact that the author even buys into the whole “climate change” argument (because “global warming” just isn’t working anymore) is a HUGE tell. All IMHO.
Thanks Samson and CM
Interesting