Don't put too much hope on apartment buildings. My country is plagued with buildings since it's a passive source of income for wannabe landlords. In the last twenty years the entire coast was cluttered with concrete blocks and the countryside is witnessing a similar trend.
As long as population is uncontrollably accruing due to artificial economic growth, no solution will be adequate enough.
While those suburbs you have in America are a nightmare, this poster is too simplistic to give you a full picture of the situation.
SO happy other people are realizing this. Watching the actual braindamaged Canadians argue over housing while ignoring the existence of apartments as a solution is mind boggling
Environmental has been discussed, but there's also practicality. The number of people per household is rapidly decreasing^[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015008-eng.htm].
The scaling impact of this is twofold - Everything is going to be further away, and the sense of community will be greatly lessened (and that's not even considering how much more time people spend inside compared to 20 years ago).
Fewer people in a house means more maintenance per person too - and if you're going to hire someone else to do it, that's gotten more expensive^[https://www.thumbtack.com/guide/content/average-home-maintenance-cost-440876223059787781].
If you want a house, you can get a house. But things have changed - It's not the best option for most people, and it's certainly not the best option for any competent government.
Completely agree, and it's important to note that there are lots of quality of life benefits to well designed microdistricts where you can have parks, shops, entertainment venues, and so on, all within walking distance.
I think that it isn't so easy. The necessary infrastructure depends on the number of people rather than the number of buildings (electricity, water, pipes, streets, etc). An urbanization with individual houses can generate its energy needs sufficiently with decentralized solar and wind panels, which is not possible for the same number of people in a single building. The best example is the environmental impact of towns with individual houses and small buildings, comparing the impact of large, densely populated cities, which even influence the climate. The real world is not an island, as this drawing of yours suggests. Large cities with huge buildings cannot be integrated into nature they always replace it. https://i.vgy.me/waCsuy.png
I've always seen per-house solar panels to supplement the energy requirement which is mostly met through conventional means. Do you have an example of "decentralised solar and wind" energy meet the needs completely?
Several, here in Spain there are quite a few chalets that use solar roofs for their own consumption and even have surpluses to repay surpluses to the network. Decentralizing energy production is a more efficient way than centralized production, naturally the energy industry is still putting obstacles, but this is already changing little by little. People realize that a house can be energetically self-sufficient with current technologies. https://www.homebiogas.com/blog/energy-self-sufficient-home/
It's more efficient because you're constantly producing energy that you don't always need, so you feed it back into the grid that otherwise burns coal/etc to make up the deficit.
Is it good? Yes. Does that mean houses are better than apartments? Lol no
You're completely ignoring just about every other reason apartments are better.
[Environment] Condense people = walkable cities
[Environment] Fewer cars
[Environment] Hubs are more efficient for transporting goods
[Environment] Extra space can be preserved
[Environment] Heat insulation is better ^[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/energyefficiencyofhousinginenglandandwales/2021]
[Environment] Sewage, water, and electricity lines don't require n^2 sprawl
[Livelihood] Better public transportation
[Livelihood] Closer to nature (your image is a joke and not how most house-based neighborhoods look)
It's easy to see big cities like NYC and think "that's bad for the environment", but it's easier to forget how much worse it would be if everyone lived in houses.
How many walable citys do you know with fewer cars, preserving extra space (Parks are no woods or nature), a good public transport and closer to nature? How to make a big building energy autonom? Big aglomerations are not the way. Energy by nuclear is a joke for several reasons. Even if you show the article from the gov, which shurly is objective and independent, the realyty is other. Come to Europe and see the problems with nukes they had and its form of housing.
How many walable citys do you know with fewer cars, preserving extra space (Parks are no woods or nature), a good public transport and closer to nature?
I live in SE Asia and the answer is "almost all of them"
Bio fuels data show that they're not a solution. Ask gpt how much land you need to grow enough plants to produce the bio-fuel needed to replace the quantity of gasoline+diesel which is consumed by your country.
It feels odd hearing messages like this. The assumption seems to be that we can have a world exactly as we do today except that energy needs are met by renewables rather than fossil fuels which seems unlikely.
Incredibly expensive (estimated 11 billion €) and years delayed (18 year construction; testing began in 2021). Yet brings down electricity prices by 75 %.
How does that make sense? It can't make economic sense to the constructor and operator.
Maybe you could say French companies and citizens essentially subsidized Finland through contracted building at a huge loss?
Now that it's built better operate it and gain something out of it?
Its LCOE would probably let us forget it forever. Just think about this: I bet you hear more rumors about non-existant fusion nuclear plants than about olkilioto. Let's focus on renewables.
Olkiluoto 3, Finland's own Sagrada Família and Star Citizen. It was really frustrating to read news about the plant getting delayed year by year. Especially during winter it felt like moving the goalposts, there always were some kind of "technical problems" with getting the plant deployed. I'm glad that it's over, and so is getting gas from Russia.
Well, if you socialize all the costs around it (insurance, waste disposal for the next couple of hundred thousand years, etc.) it's really cheap. If you calculate the true costs, it's pretty much the most expensive way to generate electricity. And it's not renewable either.
The idea to install them in a vertical position (on the facades of buildings for example) is to take into consideration: it must start to be atrending topic
If they can't adapt, then the market will relegate them to the dustbin of history. Only forests that meet the needs of the ever changing market will survive, and that's good for society. /s
the guy is a carnist, the videos may be (and probably are, he has a masters in climate policy iirc so eh) perfectly valid, but i just can't stand observing him unironically just consuming animal products while talking about the danger of climate change, guy is a clown
green
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.