Відео

I am a recent ICC B1 B2 inspector an found your presentation relevant and present. Thank you.

Thanks for making this available on UA-cam.

A clear definition of what type of carbon neutrality for building is required; there seem to be three main types, perhaps they could be termed Carbon Neutral Type 1, Type 2, Type 3? Type 1: Operational Carbon Neutrality: This is the most common interpretation. It means the building, once occupied, doesn't produce net carbon emissions from its day-to-day operations. This includes heating, cooling, lighting, and plug-in appliances. It's achieved through energy efficiency, renewable energy sources (like solar panels), and potentially, purchasing carbon offsets for any remaining emissions. Type 2: Embodied Carbon Neutrality: This is a more stringent definition. It includes the carbon footprint of the building's entire lifecycle, from the extraction and manufacturing of materials to construction, use, and eventual demolition. Achieving this is much harder, as it requires using low-carbon materials, reducing waste, and optimizing the construction process. The effect of a 'total timber city' type environment is subject to the contraints described in a study by Potsdam University, published the in Nature Journal at www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32244-w, the contextual overall discussion at ua-cam.com/video/xyo0Zf496WI/v-deo.html is also useful. (The effect of mass pine forest planting would reduce the albedo effect globally and put a strain on land area available for food. ) Type 3 : Net-Zero Carbon: This is the most ambitious goal. It means the building goes beyond neutrality and actively removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This could be achieved through using materials that sequester carbon, integrating carbon capture technologies, or contributing to carbon removal projects. Using the type 3 definition in conjunction with re-using existing structures may be a 'type 3A' It is good to see this type of discussion going on in the business world, regardless of the word salad puzzles of the prominent politicians? There are some environmental matters that the world's politicians seem to consistently ignore: perpetual growth of all aspects of material life irrespective of the size of this planet and the limited logic of extra terrestrial material extraction.

I love how building codes, that are supposedly all about your "safety", still allow the sh.tty 2x4 and glorified cardboard houses in areas of high fire risk. It's not about safety; it's about collecting fees and keeping the permit-mafia and developers happy.

You make such beautiful videos, but why are your videos less likes, comments and shares?

FYI the talk starts at 6.0 minutes.

P r o m o S M 😳

Excellent information! And Mr Moore explained so clearly. Thank you

great session! would like to be part of such conversations in the future.

Thank you - I am studying to take the CA CSE exam, and this is an excellent and informative video. Many thanks!

Great discussion! Nice blend of different perspectives.

Promo>SM

cogen? why, it's natural gas powered

Congratulations to all the winners!!

PV can be installed on standing seam metal roofs with S5! Clamps. Minimum array size 4.0 KW for economics.

Good grief man get to the point

Have a look if you can. It’s time to grow!

1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere/GHGs, makes the earth cooler than it would be without that atmosphere like that reflective panel set behind the windshield. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock with a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree. 2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying/intercepting, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires "extra" energy which according to RGHE theory comes from 3) the terrestrial surface radiating that "extra" energy as a LWIR ideal black body which 4) cannot happen because of the non-radiative, kinetic energy, heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules and as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science: principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/ 1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change. Version 1.0 070121

*or her

Oh how and where and how this info can be used

Is anyone else having an audio issue? it seems like audio from two different points in the stream are playing at the same time.

how does the DDX compare to or complement the USGBC's Arc tool?

How does the national compare the data if we're allowed to use different baselines?

What is the difference between Zero Tool and Target Finder?

If you have a multifamily with ground floor retail for example, would you select it as non-residential and break it down by use types and GSF accordingly?

does the % Heated and % Cooled relate to the % of square footage or something different?

what does TDV stand for? time dependent ??

my firm is very interested in joining the 2030 commitment, but we haven't been able to figure out how to do energy modeling in a cost effective way as a small firm