5 ms·
The things that seem largely missing from such articles: 1. Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. 2. Passive solar design. We have created a world highly depen
by DoreenMichele 4y ago
The things that seem largely missing from such articles:
1. Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods.
2. Passive solar design.
We have created a world highly dependent on various energy inputs. It has gone a long way towards killing off walking, cycling and vernacular architecture (where passive solar is a historic default).
Those technologies still exist. They can be brought back into more mainstream use.
- User23 4y agoLet’s not forget how incredibly relatively efficient Otto and Diesel engines are. Doing the same work with actual horse or ox power would produce considerably greater emissions.
- tuatoru 4y agoI fully support those things for health reasons. We would be so much more healthy, physically and mentally, if we had good local connections and comfortable, pleasant public spaces to occupy. They aren't relevant to the problems of making steel or non-ferrous metals or cement or plastics, or to the problems of shipping things around over long distances. Which we cannot avoid, while maintaining a high-tech civilisation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tpm 4y agoIf you don't need to drive around in a car then you are 1) not burning fossil fuels to drive and 2) not needing steel and other materials to manufacture said car. Energy efficiency saves energy to use it where it's really needed. This does not matter if it's one Potemkin village but it matters on the level of states and can be seen in statistics like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co... where probably every EU country is much lower than the US, for example.
- ako 4y agoAnd not burning fossil fuels, reduces polution, this making more positive impact on health.
- HPsquared 4y agoNational energy consumption figures should really include the embodied energy of imports, minus that of exports. Consumption is not the same as production. Consumption of goods (not just storage and passing-through) should also count.
- nightski 4y agoI think this is backwards. Everyone assumes people are lazy because of the cars. I propose that cars were made because people are lazy (or, in reality, have no time in this dual income era we live in - walking takes a lot of time, even if it is very enjoyable). If you make walk-able, mixed-use neighborhoods there is no guarantee people will use them. In contrast, I bike over 1000 miles a year and walk several times a week. Yet I am not in a walk-able mixed use neighborhood nor have any interest in living in one.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoif you look at housing prices of walkable mixed use neighborhoods in the US, it certainly appears people want to live in them.
- adrianN 4y agoCars were made for game theoretic reasons: As long as few people drive, cars give drivers extreme advantages. When a critical mass of drivers exist, the advantages deminish, but infrastructure investements (now politically viable!) can delay the process. As soon as most people drive most of these advantages disappear regardless of further infrastructure investments, but people who don't drive now suffer from extreme disadvantages that didn't exist before car-centric infrastructure.
- ackfoobar 4y agoAnd because drivers are now the majority, we can rob the people who don't drive to pay for the infrastructure to support our unsustainable lifestyle! Go democracy! --- Sorry for the sarcasm. I'm more and more leaning towards libertarianism nowadays.
- hedora 4y agoRegarding 2, from the article: > People think you can’t throw GPUs at solving an energy shock but in the medium term you really can if those GPUs are used by civil and chemical engineers and not to mine shitcoins. I suspect 1 is usually missing because the obvious conclusion is that excess (and increasing) production capacities will mean people have more choices regarding their lifestyles. If you want walkable, go for it!
- jnsaff2 4y agoI get that he does not call out your exact favorites in there but the last few paragraphs talk quite a bit about the potential for energy demand going down for reasons that could be extended or even include yours. Also I would say passive solar design is only one part (and seemingly becoming less important) of Passivhaus way of building. Why not include all energy efficiency improvements?