ᐅ About Passive Houses, Plastic Bags, and Styrofoam Cladding

Marvinius II schrieb:
Just as an example:
"80% of butterflies are dead"
80% of what starting population? What is the cause: perhaps shredded by wind turbines?

"Polar bears are dying"
They have always died; if you mean extinction: they are interbreeding with grizzlies, so extinction is out of the question.

That somehow sounds like wishful thinking. Have you heard any news in the last 5 years? Or did you mean that all of it is just theater and nothing they broadcast is true? That would be possible, of course. But my clean windshield on the highway in summer tells a different story.

In the end, with Freud you always end up with sh... [emoji4][emoji111]️.
But with a passive house, that's difficult. These things tend to overheat easily.

Nordlys schrieb:
With Joy, you always end up with Cr... [emoji4][emoji111]️.
But that’s difficult in a passive house. These things tend to overheat easily.

So what exactly is difficult about that?

Well, I thought it might be due to the melting point of the plastic bag...

On the topic: I would love to have a passive house with plenty of insulation. Unfortunately, I can’t afford it. The idea of using very little energy really excites me. Mainly to stick it to the greedy energy companies.

Marvinius II schrieb:
I disagree. There are enough buffer systems so that you can produce carbon dioxide at time A and place B, and reintroduce it into the cycle again at time D and place E.

That is true; however, the interval between times A and D cannot be arbitrarily long. It should remain several orders of magnitude below the timescale on which greenhouse gases significantly contribute to global warming by increasing the accumulated energy from solar radiation. Otherwise, the buffer becomes irrelevant for the objective of "climate protection."

Marvinius II schrieb:
If that weren’t the case, you would have to tie a plant around your waist that immediately converts the CO2 you exhale back into O2...

The issue is the overall balance. The amount I exhale or burn can just as well be absorbed in Brazil or New Zealand. Since we consider CO2 throughout the entire atmosphere when discussing global warming, only a global balance makes sense.

When I said "simultaneous" in my response to Karsten, I meant it on a timescale relevant to climate change—not seconds or days, where I was unclear.

However, the argument of the balance cannot generally be applied over arbitrary time periods, since the millions of years between the formation and combustion of coal and oil do not address the problem adequately.

Marvinius II schrieb:
With plant growth, x tons of CO2 more can now be absorbed, which you have (hopefully without NOx and particulate emissions) emitted. On top of that, algae in the ocean absorb another y tons of CO2, so you could even emit x + y tons...

Be cautious with the ocean. It is such an effective CO2 sink that this is not offset by algae—not even remotely.