this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5307 readers
4 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

In the electrical design world, we NEED examples to point to to sway customers. To me, this is great for that reason alone. Even if they don't go with hydro, giant successful renewable projects still push the perception of feasibility of the ancillary renewables.

Energy Codes are becoming more stringent every 3 years. As our tech gets better, the next level of building code and energy consumption standards can be aggressively lower than the last iteration. Sometimes so aggressively that manufacturers legitimately don't have proper solutions for them. (An example is about a decade ago, when LEDs were less reliable and efficient, IECC set an aggressive lumens per watt threshold that was, at the time, not feasible. Nowadays they blow past it in efficiency)

But ya know what? It forces them to TRY. If there's enough pushback because the new standards can't be met, it at the very least opens the dialog.

I guess I'm ranting a bit, but after getting a new perspective with my employment, I do earnestly believe the scientific professionals ARE trying to push for a more environmentally approach to new construction, but we need regulation to drive innovation. Otherwise innovation stalls, in my opinion. Im sure I'm philosophically incorrect on that point, but its what I've noticed from my experience talking to customers, equipment manufacturers, and engineering leads.