World Energy Use - There's No Tomorrow - Let's Fix This!

klapauzius said:

Yes, for heating/warm water which is by far the biggest portion of our energy consumption, we are at about 80 kWh per sq m per year.
And that is with basically a 20 year old gas furnace and a tankless heater.

The dilemma is this:
New windows and a hybrid heatpump/gas heating system would probably cut the energy use down by 50%, to the tune of (hold your breath) ~400$ savings annually.
The cost to implement these savings is ~ $ 20000-25000.

The good new is:
Without spending a lot of money you can get upretty efficient already.

I suspect in colder parts of the US the cost/benefit ratio will much better, especially when you factor in incentives as well.

Click to expand...

I've lived in both cold and now hot parts of this country and can confirm that it's expensive to operate a typical American home in either location. In the north it's heating oil, gas, and electricity; while here in the south is electricity for cooling. Insulation, better windows, proper shading, air tightness, and controlling thermal bridging are just as important in either location.

Wrapping the house in a layer of insulation and closing the leaks will reduce the cost of either a heating or AC upgrade. A solar thermal collector is the least expensive and most efficient type of solar to implement - it should be done before a single PV panel is installed. Efficiency first kills the "cost to implement these savings" problems. We know this to be the case in Alaska, Austin, and the midwest.

Alaska:
http://www.reina-llc.com/

Austin:
http://www.greenenergy-money.com/case_study/texas_passive_house/

- High Air Quality-Ventilation Systems
- High-Performance Building Insulation-Envelope
- 1.5 ton HVAC System (50% smaller than conventional system)
Energy Savings $1,307

Click to expand...

You can find out how you rank in household energy use for a given climate zone and household size by using the Energy Star Home Energy Yardstick.

Before I got my solar panels I was at 9.9 (99th percentile). After solar panels, with zero net electricity usage, I am still at 9.9. To get a ten I'd have to heat with wood or something like that, but I chose not to put in any wood burning fixture in my house because the main air pollution problem in the mountains is wood smoke and I didn't want to contribute. However, my natural gas usage isn't all that high: 383 Therms over the past 12 months. For a house in the snowbelt that is relatively low. In part that is due to keeping the thermostat set low and dressing warmly and in part it is getting free heat from the sun on sunny days because I designed my house with a lot of south facing windows ("sun tempered", according to the NREL design seminar I attended).

One thing I would like is some sort of ventilation system that captures heat because my house is buttoned up tight for eight months of the year here (and we have radon in this area). Several decades ago there used to be used to be jury-rigged devices that would do that, but I don't know if such things ever became commercially available.

AndyH said:

. A solar thermal collector is the least expensive and most efficient type of solar to implement - it should be done before a single PV panel is installed.

Click to expand...

Another example where there might be extreme regional differences...I looked long and hard into this before deciding that a tankless gas warm water heater gives the best cost/efficiency ratio.

Installation of a thermal collector for warm water is still so outrageously expensive here AND it is not subsidized in the same way PV generation is. You need very deep pockets AND a lot of idealism to go for something like this.

I wonder if prices for thermal collectors have dropped in the same way for panels though?

Anyways, the big problem in practical conservation lies mostly in convincing people to do efficient life style changes.

All the solar energy that my expensive solar panels produce is wasted by our neighbors, who leave about +500 Watts of incandescent lighting burning day and night ( which comes to 4380 kWh annually, about 300- 400 kWH more than my panels produce).

To imagine that a simple conscious flip of a finger (or a $500 investment into LED lighting), can achieve the same a 4 kW PV system.....

I am sure this applies to the majority of people, so the expensive technical solutions are really just for the endgame, if you can instill in people a sense of how much they are wasting.

The best way of course would be to increase energy prices 10 fold across the board (gasoline, natural, gas, electricity, everything). But that is about as realistic as getting panels on every roof.

dgpcolorado said:

You can find out how you rank in household energy use for a given climate zone and household size by using the Energy Star Home Energy Yardstick.

Before I got my solar panels I was at 9.9 (99th percentile). After solar panels, with zero net electricity usage, I am still at 9.9. To get a ten I'd have to heat with wood or something like that, but I chose not to put in any wood burning fixture in my house because the main air pollution problem in the mountains is wood smoke and I didn't want to contribute. However, my natural gas usage isn't all that high: 383 Therms over the past 12 months. For a house in the snowbelt that is relatively low. In part that is due to keeping the thermostat set low and dressing warmly and in part it is getting free heat from the sun on sunny days because I designed my house with a lot of south facing windows ("sun tempered", according to the NREL design seminar I attended).

One thing I would like is some sort of ventilation system that captures heat because my house is buttoned up tight for eight months of the year here (and we have radon in this area). Several decades ago there used to be used to be jury-rigged devices that would do that, but I don't know if such things ever became commercially available.

Click to expand...

Cool link.

So we got 8.1, and we have little kids, so lots washer/dryer use AND the leaf (and not as much sun, so PV generation here is about 1000 kWh per 1kW installed).

FWIW we live in the mtns and installed Fujitsu high pressure heat pumps. We have gotten usable heat with the outside temp at -7 degrees F. On that morning our house got down to 62 degrees but as soon as the sun came up we were back up over 70 degrees. In A/C mode the 12,000 BTU model has a SEER of 25, and the 9,000 BTU model has a SEER of 26. In the heating mode, the two of them together use 2,000 watts.

klapauzius said:

Cool link.

So we got 8.1, and we have little kids, so lots washer/dryer use AND the leaf (and not as much sun, so PV generation here is about 1000 kWh per 1kW installed).

Click to expand...

By contrast, I have very low hot water usage so my summer natural gas usage is about 2 Therms a month.

My PV is running about 1600 kWh annually per 1 kW installed. In addition to very intense high altitude sun and cool temperatures, I also adjust the pitch of my pole-mounted panels with the seasons: they are currently at 45º (my latitude is about 38º).

klapauzius said:

AndyH said:

. A solar thermal collector is the least expensive and most efficient type of solar to implement - it should be done before a single PV panel is installed.

Click to expand...

Another example where there might be extreme regional differences...I looked long and hard into this before deciding that a tankless gas warm water heater gives the best cost/efficiency ratio.

Installation of a thermal collector for warm water is still so outrageously expensive here AND it is not subsidized in the same way PV generation is. You need very deep pockets AND a lot of idealism to go for something like this.

Click to expand...

Oh dear God. This, Klap, is EXACTLY the type of out of date thinking I'm trying to reverse here! I'm sorry, man - I'm not attacking you, just the information!

I have a 4'x8' name-brand solar thermal collector in the garage waiting for installation right now - it was $900 delivered from Georgia. The balance of system was another $300. With prices like this, we don't need subsidies! (For perspective, I'm a disabled vet on a fixed income. )

Here is a real example of using 'expensive' solar thermal in a harsh environment. This is a net-zero PassivHaus in central Alaska.

The Sunrise Home is the latest design in our quest to develop sustainable shelters for the Arctic incorporating no fossil fuel based heating system, and an annual zero energy requirement. The prerequisite to making zero energy buildings in a 14,000 HDD climate possible is a highly efficient building and very low energy requirements built to stringent Passive House Benchmarks. It requires an optimized passive solar design with additional insulated mass within the thermal envelope and a minimum of 0.6 SHGC on south facing windows equiped with thermal shutters. In addition, it requires an integrated design of all the renewable energy systems molded together with an annual seasonal heat storage tank.

Click to expand...

http://www.reina-llc.com/projects/sunrise/pictures/
http://www.reina-llc.com/resources/videos1/

Heat and hot water year round from solar thermal panels - in central Alaska. Yes, the guy in the video is a German living in the snow on purpose. Thankfully for his wallet he brought passivhaus with him.

AndyH said:

Oh dear God. This, Klap, is EXACTLY the type of out of date thinking I'm trying to reverse here! I'm sorry, man - I'm not attacking you, just the information!

I have a 4'x8' name-brand solar thermal collector in the garage waiting for installation right now - it was $900 delivered from Georgia. The balance of system was another $300. With prices like this, we don't need subsidies! (For perspective, I'm a disabled vet on a fixed income. )

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but to put this into perspective:

I have been quoted significantly more ( up to $9k) for solar thermal warm water, and that is NOT going to give you warm water year round, you need an auxiliary heater in addition to that.

Also, dont forget that installation costs make up a significant part of the price of any of these systems. In Seattle e.g. we are at a point, where labor cost for PV installation exceeds materials costs for smaller systems ( ~2 kW). And not everyone is DIY capable.

For comparison, my tankless heater costs me about $100 - $120 per year in gas for warm water.
So for the higher end price of solar -thermal hot water, I can get at current natural gas prices 70-90 years of hot water.
At ROIs like this, the installation has to be a nuisance cost.

You cannot reverse the economic reality, but e.g. if my neighbors just turned off their lights when they go to bed, or when the sun rises, they can save the environment the same amount of energy I am with my expensive solar panels.

Once we have gotten educated enough to not be mindlessly wasteful, I hope the technological solutions will have become affordable enough.

klapauzius said:

Once we have gotten educated enough to not be mindlessly wasteful, I hope the technological solutions will have become affordable enough.

Click to expand...

Too many excuses, Klapauzius.

In order for there to be a hundredth monkey effect, we need at least 99 monkeys to go before. It's not a mass ascension.

Do you know what we call people that stand still and wait for everyone else to catch up? Speed bumps.

AndyH said:

klapauzius said:

Once we have gotten educated enough to not be mindlessly wasteful, I hope the technological solutions will have become affordable enough.

Click to expand...

Too many excuses, Klapauzius.

In order for there to be a hundredth monkey effect, we need at least 99 monkeys to go before. It's not a mass ascension.

Do you know what we call people that stand still and wait for everyone else to catch up? Speed bumps.

Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand me.
In order to solve the problem, it has to be doable by the 99%.
So you have to have affordable solutions that allow people to change to more efficient ways gradually.

Zero energy houses are great, but have you seriously looked at affordability?

It wont help if the 1% are super efficient, have net zero carbon foot print etc. Unless of course, they move to a space station and live happy lives there isolated from the masses and the polluted planet. Elysium anyone?

I understand that, if you have some of the necessary skills, some pioneer spirit and enough free time on your hands, you can rig up you own PV system, build your own thermal solar hot water etc and save a pretty penny, but for those of us in the city who are working regular jobs, have to adhere to building codes and maybe are afraid to get electrocuted or fall of the roof, it costs substantial money.

Money that most people currently simply do not have to spend, even if they wanted to.

Therefore, we have to start with conservation (which mostly costs nothing, just life style changes).

The best way to encourage this is to increase energy costs, e.g. through taxes, which you can then give back to people to fund solar panels/hot water/wind etc. Worked in Germany, although there is now this silly social backlash ( apparently PV owners are now seen as evil capitalists who burden the common man with ever increasing energy costs, currently around $0.30 /kWH I think, thanks to the EEG (Erneuerbare Energie Gesetz = renewable energy act)).

But the higher prices there make a significance difference in consumption (check your previous post, Germans use much less energy than Americans).

klapauzius said:

AndyH said:

klapauzius said:

Once we have gotten educated enough to not be mindlessly wasteful, I hope the technological solutions will have become affordable enough.

Click to expand...

Too many excuses, Klapauzius.

In order for there to be a hundredth monkey effect, we need at least 99 monkeys to go before. It's not a mass ascension.

Do you know what we call people that stand still and wait for everyone else to catch up? Speed bumps.

Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand me.

Click to expand...

No, Klapauzius, I understand you completely. You, though, are not listening to me. I'll tell you how I know. In the piece about the passive solar house in Alaska, built and owned by one of your countrymen, the solar thermal panels on the facia provide both hot water and space heat nearly year round in central Alaska. An area with temperatures much colder than Germany and with less solar insolation than Seattle. They provide the rest of the heat - water and space heating - with a single cord of wood.

Efficiency - especially ultra efficiency - is less expensive than conventional building - both during construction or retrofit -- and it's SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive every month. This has been proven by the PassivHaus process and the folks at the Rocky Mountain Institute separately.

We don't have time for feet-dragging or FUD - that time is gone.

Thankfully there are enough of us younger folks on the planet to clean up after our elders. I'll guarantee that we won't be thinking soft, fuzzy thoughts about them while we're fixing this place, however...

AndyH said:

Efficiency - especially ultra efficiency - is less expensive than conventional building - both during construction or retrofit -- and it's SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive every month. This has been proven by the PassivHaus process and the folks at the Rocky Mountain Institute separately.

Click to expand...

This highly depends on where your house is located. In colder climates, where you have heating bills that run int he thousands, definitely. If you can spend e.g. $5k to keep you warm every winter, a $12k investment to reduce your heating costs by maybe 20-30% seems very reasonable. In warmer climates, these kinds of investments make less sense, but then others do. I suspect going solar (PV and or thermal) in the southwest is probably now financially a no-brainer even in the absence of incentives and net metering?


I know that retrofitting a reasonably modern house in the PNW is mostly a waste of money, the climate is too mild here. Just lowering my thermostat by 1 deg (centigrade) will achieve the same as $20k retrofit.

The bottom line is, yes all these things are good, but simply changing lifestyle (which costs no money, just force of will) will go a long way.
The proof can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is mostly lifestyle and cost of energy (but yes also some infrastructure investments in better construction):

Energy per capita (GJ/a)

Germany 5329.9
United states 9538.8

Same quality of life, but almost half the consumption.
Imagine the US would cut their consumption per capita in half and get down to German levels! That would make a serious dent in CO2 emissions.
And everyone would still be cozy and warm in winter, can take warm showers, watch TV, run electronic gizmos, etc. Nobody would have to move back to a cave.

Klap - you are fantastic at filling a post with words yet you're still missing the point and thinking too small.

A passive house uses only 15% of the total energy used by a similarly sized house built to US code standards.

That's an 85% savings.

And I've already shown you that the efficiency is the same whether the building is in Fairbanks, Ohio, or Austin - yes, techniques differ to tailor the building to the climate - but the efficiency remains.

A full passive house retrofit performed in Austin, TX was done for $93/ft sq -- less than it costs the same builder to build a 'normal' building.

AndyH said:

Klap - you are fantastic at filling a post with words yet you're still missing the point and thinking too small.

A passive house uses only 15% of the total energy used by a similarly sized house built to US code standards.

That's an 85% savings.

And I've already shown you that the efficiency is the same whether the building is in Fairbanks, Ohio, or Austin - yes, techniques differ to tailor the building to the climate - but the efficiency remains.

A full passive house retrofit performed in Austin, TX was done for $93/ft sq -- less than it costs the same builder to build a 'normal' building.

Click to expand...

$93/sq ft??? Did you really write "retrofit"? Or are you talking about new construction? Is there a decimal missing somewhere?
Or is it $93 /sqft vs. say $70/sqft for "normal" construction?

If I take what you write at face value and I did a retrofit of my house to the tune of $93/sqft, it would be just 193(!) years in 2014 dollars to recover the investment.

How much do you think people typically spend on energy in their houses to justify such costs?

Did you retrofit your house? What did it cost? What are your annual energy costs now and what were they before?

Sorry - context is useful.

The $93/sq ft is the builder's target for new construction. That's less than the $100/sq ft number for the Austin, TX area. The specific house was, however, a full 'gut and rebuild' retrofit and was an experiment in meeting Passive House goals with the lowest tech and most environmentally friendly products available.

http://www.passivehouse.us/phc2011/.../Koch, Nicholas Blaise - Austin TX PH PPT.pdf

To understand the significance of the savings a Passive House offers in S Texas, here are some numbers. I'm renting a 1600 sq foot all electric house built in 2004. Three bedrooms, 2 1/2 baths, two story. Standard 2x4 'stick' construction with a brick veneer on the front. The upstairs '2nd bedroom' is unusable from spring through late November as the central AC cannot keep it cool enough without super-cooling the rest of the house - it's the 'box room'. The air conditioning season runs from early March through November. I keep the temperature around 78. In 2013 I paid $1946 for electricity -the high month was $255.

If this was built to PassivHaus specs, it would cost about $300/year for electricity, temperatures throughout the house would be within 2 degrees room to room rather than the current ~7 degree shift (12 for the SW bedroom), all the rooms would be usable year round, and the much smaller furnace/AC system would cost less than 1/2 and wouldn't spike to ~12KW on startup.

Switch gears to central Alaska. Same passive house goals, different amounts of insulation and different temperature control needs. All of the house's heating and hot water is provided by solar thermal panels and 1 cord of firewood. This was also built for about the same price per square foot as standard code-compliant construction in the area.

Habitat for Humanity building to Passive House standards
http://www.planetforward.org/idea/habitat-for-humanity-building-passive-homes-as-affordable-housing

Low income families often use 40% of their income on energy costs, according to Tom DiGiovanni, head of the Passive House Alliance in Washington, D.C. Cutting this cost can be a crucial step that helps more people own homes, as well as stay in those homes once they move in.

Click to expand...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K627ehSiRvs[/youtube]

...The hype about passive houses is that they don't need a furnace...they are tremendously comfortable...there's no temperature stratification...there are no drafts...

Click to expand...

Same for the Earthships built in Taos, E Texas, upstate NY, Lasqueti Island, BC, Ontario, France, and Patagonia - off grid, solar heating and cooling, electricity from PV, backup on-demand hot water and cooling gas costs about $100 per year - that's the only utility payment. These are also built for square foot prices similar to standard construction in their areas.

Random and brief contribution to this conversation:

• On the policy level, I think utility decoupling can go a long way in the effort to conserve energy (via "aligning incentives").
  Here is a good if a bit dated/2007 EPA pdf which goes into more detail. Also note here how CA and NY are well below the national average in energy consumption per capita (partly due to decouping, party use of mass transit).
  
• And on the personal level, giving up or reducing one's consumption of (red) meat can also go a long way. But of course, that can only be arrived at on one's own!

Haven't seen much discussion of either of these "Out of the Box" ideas (as requested in the original post), so thought I'd throw them out there.

AndyH said:

Sorry - context is useful.
The $93/sq ft is the builder's target for new construction. That's less than the $100/sq ft number for the Austin, TX area. The specific house was, however, a full 'gut and rebuild' retrofit and was an experiment in meeting Passive House goals with the lowest tech and most environmentally friendly products available.

Click to expand...

Ok, so in effect these costs are for new construction and of course it makes sense for new construction to do this, but don't forget all the existing homes that are not going through this process of radical renovation soon.

To understand the significance of the savings a Passive House offers in S Texas, here are some numbers. I'm renting a 1600 sq foot all electric house built in 2004. Three bedrooms, 2 1/2 baths, two story. Standard 2x4 'stick' construction with a brick veneer on the front. The upstairs '2nd bedroom' is unusable from spring through late November as the central AC cannot keep it cool enough without super-cooling the rest of the house - it's the 'box room'. The air conditioning season runs from early March through November. I keep the temperature around 78. In 2013 I paid $1946 for electricity -the high month was $255.

If this was built to PassivHaus specs, it would cost about $300/year for electricity, temperatures throughout the house would be within 2 degrees room to room rather than the current ~7 degree shift (12 for the SW bedroom), all the rooms would be usable year round, and the much smaller furnace/AC system would cost less than 1/2 and wouldn't spike to ~12KW on startup.

Click to expand...

This is a good example. Lets assume rebuilding the house to passiv-haus standards would cost $148,800. Annual savings $1646. Nominal ROI = 90.4 years.
Lets assume you had the money and invest it at a 5% annual return, or you invest in the retrofit and invest the savings with a 5% return and we assume that energy prices go up 3% annually. You would never catch up with your initial investment, since 5% on $148k will pay your energy and some.

Since you rent, now imagine you have to convince your landlord to make these changes...?
Presumably, in Texas, PV would go a long way, and incidentally, the production is greatest, when you need the most electricity?
I can imagine that would give more bang for the buck than $93/sqft retrofits?

My personal life-style change was to leave the places that need AC during the summer. But of course that is not an option for everyone.

klapauzius said:

This is a good example. Lets assume rebuilding the house to passiv-haus standards would cost $148,800. Annual savings $1646. Nominal ROI = 90.4 years.
Lets assume you had the money and invest it at a 5% annual return, or you invest in the retrofit and invest the savings with a 5% return and we assume that energy prices go up 3% annually. You would never catch up with your initial investment, since 5% on $148k will pay your energy and some.

Since you rent, now imagine you have to convince your landlord to make these changes...?
Presumably, in Texas, PV would go a long way, and incidentally, the production is greatest, when you need the most electricity?
I can imagine that would give more bang for the buck than $93/sqft retrofits?

My personal life-style change was to leave the places that need AC during the summer. But of course that is not an option for everyone.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your thoughts here - they're valid and are absolutely one way to look at the problem. In a 1950s world where we can expect electricity prices to fall or stay level, and where one can easily find a trustworthy investment at 5%, then I would agree with you. Today is not that time, however. In addition, your numbers do not reflect a full accounting of either the prices or costs of either housing or the energy they consume. Including even some of those changes the picture dramatically.

Your move to a place that doesn't need AC in the summer (or much heating in winter) is nice - but you're right - that's not an option for everyone. I built an efficient retirement house in Srn Illinois with solar-ready house/garage roofs and plumbing pre-installed for solar thermal collectors. Instead of retiring, however, the USAF decided I needed to finish my career in San Antonio instead of Illinois - and I couldn't afford to maintain the house until I was able to return. Someone has to live in Iowa and Minnesota so you can have corn and wheat, after all - and many of the folks there are burning heating oil during their long winters. Yet it still misses the point of efficiency - you still use plenty of energy to operate your house - cutting 85-90% off those loads is still significant to you and to society.

The Germans are finding that it does pay back to build new and to retrofit to passivhaus standards - the reduction in energy needs reduces the cost and size of all HVAC equipment, reduces the demand on utilities, reduces the need for new power plant construction, and reduces the price of adding PV/thermal to not only drop to net-zero but to be net-positive - which fits the overarching goals of both the Energiewende and the Third Industrial Revolution - buildings as power plants.

The number one complaint about installing solar - whether PV or thermal - is that 'it would cost too much to give me the energy I use and therefore it won't work'. Cutting the energy demand of buildings completely eliminates that problem.

More Battery Storage! Will Tesla's giga-factory do for battery prices what Germany's projects did for PV prices?

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1090513_tesla-reveals-details-on-plans-for-new-giga-factory
http://green.autoblog.com/2014/02/21/sun-wind-could-power-tesla-gigafactory-ev-batteries-nevada/

The Gigafactory will take in the raw materials for lithium batteriesand put out finished packs, not only for the electric vehicles made by Tesla and its automotive customers, but also for massive amounts of renewable energy storage – that’s a niche the company plans to begin to occupy sometime early next year with residential-sized products. The production volume is expected to be at least 30 gigawatt-hours-worth per year. That’s more storage than all the lithium battery factories in the world combined produce now. Color us impressed.

Click to expand...

AndyH said:

In a 1950s world where we can expect electricity prices to fall or stay level, and where one can easily find a trustworthy investment at 5%, then I would agree with you. Today is not that time, however. In addition, your numbers do not reflect a full accounting of either the prices or costs of either housing or the energy they consume. Including even some of those changes the picture dramatically.

The Germans are finding that it does pay back to build new and to retrofit to passivhaus standards - the reduction in energy needs reduces the cost and size of all HVAC equipment, reduces the demand on utilities, reduces the need for new power plant construction, and reduces the price of adding PV/thermal to not only drop to net-zero but to be net-positive - which fits the overarching goals of both the Energiewende and the Third Industrial Revolution - buildings as power plants.

The number one complaint about installing solar - whether PV or thermal - is that 'it would cost too much to give me the energy I use and therefore it won't work'. Cutting the energy demand of buildings completely eliminates that problem.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly , 5%, even in today's environment, still is a rather conservative estimate for the stock market, no need to go back to fancy hats and ugly furniture. And in my calculation I assumed rising energy costs of 3%. Of course, if we run out of easily accessible carbohydrates, that number can go up dramatically.

You are right, and that is a point that needs to be hammered into peoples minds more urgently: Current energy prices do not reflect the full cost, they are artificially low and thus encourage wastefulness.
Imagine how good a LEAF would look at $8/gallon for gas!!!!!



Yes, the study on better insulation found that this will save Germany 30-50 billion in the next 30 years or so. Not much, but it is a net-positive investment.
But keep in mind, the average German uses half (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) the energy the average American uses.

And that is not because of more efficient insulation, but because of LESS wastefulness. Of course Germans are not better people than Americans, when it comes to the environment.
But energy prices are much higher in Germany, which forces people to be more conservative.