3 ms·

> In a dense city most people don't even have a car. Yes, but the city need a far more expensive metro network, surface buses and so on, witch in term of raw m

by kkfx 2y ago

> In a dense city most people don't even have a car. Yes, but the city need a far more expensive metro network, surface buses and so on, witch in term of raw materials demand much more than cars and in term of energy demand the same or even more because metros have also stations and even with metros and buses we still need cars and van for a variety of activities, vehicles used for work (like a small Transit for a plumber or an electrician) but also usable for private stuff. The TCO is still not in favor of such model, despite many (from the interested ruling class) claim the inverse... > I live in an apartment building from the 50's. With just 2 walls of our building retrofitted with insulation I now barely need any heating in winter, try that with a single family home. This means that you live in a nice climate, where summers are not too hot and winters are mild. Such areas exists and are typically densely populated also because of the climate but they are a very little part of the inhabited earth, or you are in a less nice climate but being "in the middle" you get "free heat" from some apartments underneath and "insulation" from apartments over yours. Again that's true for some, but in TCO terms it's still not favorable for the humanity at a whole, only for some humans. If you are in mild climate a single family home would barely need heat as well, not if you get free heat from neighbors of course BUT a new single family home in the same climate can thanks to insulation and mere design (compact form, large windows on the southern side, roof/other element shielding the Sun in summer while allowing it pass in the winter etc) and while you might profit from your neighbors they still have to heat/cool anyway, it's good for you but it does not reduce the overall consumption. Just for a personal counter argument: I was living in an apartment from the '60s in a mild climate, it's heated with 24kW methane. I live now in a home twice the size/a bit more than twice the heated volume, in a much colder place and I heat with 1KW most of the time, climbing to 3-4kW few late night and early morning between January and February, the maximum absorption recorded for heating was at the end of January 2017 a single night with a minima of -24.8℃ (-12.64℉) with 6.3kW. In raw material terms electricity here means nuclear (I have p.v. with small storage, but not to heat the home at night) and the grid, gas means a much more raw material and energy hungry distribution network. So again building new home demand energy, but in their useful life we amortize it and we evolve. Remain in old buildings demand still more, many times more in many cases, just to keep them operational and we do not evolve. Can we change them now? A 40 apartment building build today respect of one 40 apartments from the '50s cost at least twice... You need to relocate 40 families for an year instead of putting a small container-home in the garden for two-thee month...

CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
>Yes, but the city need a far more expensive metro network, surface buses and so on, witch in term of raw materials demand much more than cars and in term of energy demand the same or even more because metros have also stations and even with metros and buses we still need cars and van for a variety of activities, vehicles used for work (like a small Transit for a plumber or an electrician) but also usable for private stuff. The TCO is still not in favor of such model, despite many (from the interested ruling class) claim the inverse... Source? This says otherwise, especially if you take into account you'll have to do less km in a dense city. If you go by bike it's even less. https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint >in the middle" you get "free heat" from some apartments underneath and "insulation" from apartments over yours. Again that's true for some, but in TCO terms it's still not favorable for the humanity at a whole, only for some humans. In an apartment everyone has at least 1, most people 2-3 neighbors and many even 4. >Just for a personal counter argument: I was living in an apartment from the '60s in a mild climate You're comparing with a new build house, compare with a new/renovated apartment. >You need to relocate 40 families for an year instead of putting a small container-home in the garden for two-thee month... For the most renovations you don't need to move, insulation is added on the outside.

by kkfx 2y ago

CorrectHorseBat 2y ago

>Yes, but the city need a far more expensive metro network, surface buses and so on, witch in term of raw materials demand much more than cars and in term of energy demand the same or even more because metros have also stations and even with metros and buses we still need cars and van for a variety of activities, vehicles used for work (like a small Transit for a plumber or an electrician) but also usable for private stuff. The TCO is still not in favor of such model, despite many (from the interested ruling class) claim the inverse... Source? This says otherwise, especially if you take into account you'll have to do less km in a dense city. If you go by bike it's even less. https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint >in the middle" you get "free heat" from some apartments underneath and "insulation" from apartments over yours. Again that's true for some, but in TCO terms it's still not favorable for the humanity at a whole, only for some humans. In an apartment everyone has at least 1, most people 2-3 neighbors and many even 4. >Just for a personal counter argument: I was living in an apartment from the '60s in a mild climate You're comparing with a new build house, compare with a new/renovated apartment. >You need to relocate 40 families for an year instead of putting a small container-home in the garden for two-thee month... For the most renovations you don't need to move, insulation is added on the outside.