+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
die nasen die ein verbot von ölheizungen ganz toll finden, ohne dass es einigermaßen finanzierbare alternativen gibt.
alle die immernoch dem schwachsinn glauben der heutzutage als "ökologisch" verkauft wird haben lack gesoffen.
das einzige was daran "öko" ist ist die "ökonomie". es geht um neue technologie verkaufen und die regeln so anzupassen das es unmöglich ist nicht zu "konsumieren" - das mit den regeln hat nämlich bei dem sogenannten "impfstoff" von der goldgrube ja auch schon super funktioniert.
das die neue technologie irgendwo und hierzulande hergestellt werden muss, mit starken umweltgiften die entstehen, interessiert hier keinen von den ökos. die balkon-solarpanels sind in 10 jahren sondermüll. recycled wird da nichts (jaja ich weiß gibt da soone vorzeigefirma, macht trotzdem keiner). das läuft wie der restliche elektroschrott, ab nach afrika und dann im alten ölfass die kabelisolierung abfackeln, das ist dann recycling.
zwischenzeitlich wird dann der holzofen verboten weil der jetzt auf einmal ganz dolle schlimm ist: "aLLeS cO2 aUf eiNMaL fReiGeseTzt!1111"
und dann noch work and travel irgendwo um die welt fliegen, geht ja nicht anders, bissel selbstfindung muss schon sein!
@Pat some of them i like, some i don't. e.g. air heat pumps are inefficient (at best factor 3 iirc) those using water as medium are good (factor 4 and better).
additionally insulating the windows can give you problems with mold, especially if the heating temperature already is reduced.
other tips are good. closesline is a no brainer :)
there is no one size fits all solution, but this is what the german "ecological" people are pushing. with everything focused on the "climate crisis", not other more pressing environmental issues like pollution - which is increased by producing all this new technology.
In climates that don't get below freezing, you shouldn't need any heating device at all. In those cases a well insulated home and some thermal mass along with the ambient heat from electrical devices and body heat is enough to keep warm.
In climates that get very cold, it might make sense to install the outdoor unit of a heat pump underground in a cellar or something because they lose efficiency when it gets really cold. Cellars stay warmer than the outside air when it gets really cold outside and the ground can act as a heat source that way.
Conservation is the best strategy, and not making so many babies will help in the long run.
I know someone who lives in an area that sees winter temperatures below -30C and they did that trick of putting the outdoor unit underground in a cellar near the house and it worked. They were able to use the unit everyday in the winter because the cellar stayed well above -15C. And it was a fairly small cellar too.
Even with the small space, the fan in the outdoor unit caused air circulation against the walls of the cellar which readily transferred the heat from the ground to the air in the cellar.
This technique probably only makes sense in areas where it gets really cold, below -15C, and there are a lot of things to consider including the thermal conductivity of the ground and many other variables.
It would probably work even better if the heat pump manufacturers specifically designed the outdoor units for underground operation.
Regarding population control, that idea came from another thread recently here on qoto. Having fewer babies not only reduces demand for energy and other resources, but it also mitigates the amount of suffering that humanity will face decades from now when there is less food to eat and more migration because of the consequences of climate change.
But yeah, expectations about what is normal will likely change significantly.
@Pat i'm not sure the cellar idea works. the problem is that air is a bad medium to transport heat. that's why it insulates well :) you'll end up with a really cold cellar.
using groundwater you usually have about 4°C even with the occasional -15°C air temperature. you can't use that in cities.
heavily subjective part starts here:
not being wasteful is of course the easiest way :) i'd argue that it less depends on the # of babies but what the babies come to expect as "standard" for living in the end. then, i think the only reasonable way for kids to grow up is somewhere with nature around and build into the daily life.
that at least some kids turn out half sane after being raised in a city is more a testament of the resilience of the human mind than for that what we are doing is good.