Which is more environmentally friendly? (solar panels, recycling, gas, pollution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ecological Architect Ken Yeang states in his book "Eco Skyscrapers" that skyscrapers are one of the most unecological building types because of all the energy and materials used to build them and to operate. He also says that skyscrapers should be made as green as possible simply because they won't go away overnight and they will with us for a while until we come up with an "economically viable alternative." (Although he says skyscrapers can never be green in totality and we must mitigate their negative effects.) I don't see how we could come up with an alternative to the skyscraper. He states that in nature, nothing is wasted and that we should mimic this by building buildings that are integrated into nature. So I guess what he is saying is that our buildings should "mesh" and "be a part" of nature. I am wondering if he means everything should be biodegradable, but I don't see how it would be possible to make every single thing we use biodegradable. And another thing: he even states that buildings that have solar panels, photovoltaics, building automation systems, double facades, biological recycling systems, and a high green rating award aren't necessarily ecological.
What do you think of all of this. I thought skyscrapers where supposed to be very environmentally friendly. It seems to me that Yeang fails to mention that people in sksycrapers use way less energy per capita than people in single family dwellings. Plus, with skyscrapers, people can walk or use public transit easier. How can they be the worst building type for the environment?!? He can't be suggesting that a small suburban city whose only walkable area is a dead downtown is greener than, say, Manhattan, right? Skyscrapers or not, we can all agree that dense, walkable areas are far more ecological than spead out single family homes, correct?! I can understand where he is coming from with buildings being integrated into nature but what is wrong with a building that doesn't necessarily mesh but makes its own energy from nature and recycles things? He says they will just be artificial things that wont be natural. They'll have the potential to pollute.
His skyscrapers have MANY plants on them and are designed to use resources from their location. So what do you think? I mean, this guy went to school at the University of Cambridge and he really seems to know what he is talking about. Are there any other books out there written by highly educated architects who argue that skyscrapers are naturally ecological or at least green?
Which is more environmentally friendly, a high-density urban center filled with skyscrapers or a small autocentric suburban city whose only walkable area is small, dead downtown with minimal activity? Now I know that their would be more pollution in the high density area but that's just because everything is more concentrated. But per capita, wouldn't pollution be way less in the urban core, thus making it better for the environment?
I chose the second option. It seems that in most things a middle-ground solution is often the best. Plus it's the choice I'd most prefer for my own city.
There are far too many other factors that must be accounted for.
Exactly, I'll use myself as a prime example. I burn coal to heat my home <gasp>. At first thought you may think well that has to be an environmental disaster but we need to look at the big picture. I use a local product that that is utilized in a coal stoker that is about 85% efficient. The delivery of this energy from source to the point of burning it and the energy extracted is very efficient. It is only moved a few miles instead of thousands of miles or half way around the globe. Add to that fact I'm burning the highest rank of coal that does not have the emissions soft coal has that is used in power plants.
Now someone using electric on the other hand has half their energy usage supplied by coal and to smaller degree other fossil fuels. The coal plant is not a very efficient system and extracts no where near 85% of the energy and you also have an inefficient grid delivering the electricity. They are in fact burning more coal than myself. Their total energy usage is much higher for the same amount of heat.
As you can see your question is really unanswerable because even two houses side by side using two different sources of energy are going to be more or less environmentally friendly.
Can you believe what this person on yahoo answers said?!?!
"Urban areas...like you said, have more pollution and waste all together. The businesses, such as mining, create damage to the Earth. And don't forget the people, who are constantly using energy for their homes and cars/taxis! Suburban areas have less "businesses"' to deal with, thus their pollution is less. By saying how per capita pollution in the urban is less than the suburban is wrong, because in the urban area each person is contributing hunks of pollution to the environment. In suburban areas, people walk, ride bicycles etc. therefore are more environmentally stable and each produce less waste!!"
I strongly disagree with them, don't you?! I mean, HELLO, people in urban areas also walk, bike, use public transit, and live in smaller apartments while people in suburbs have huge houses with gas-guzzling SUVs that they have to use to get everywhere!
I strongly disagree with them, don't you?! I mean,
HELLO, people in urban areas also walk, bike, use public transit, and live in smaller apartments while people in suburbs have huge houses with gas-guzzling SUVs that they have to use to get everywhere!
From what I've seen (and I'm sure there are exceptions), people in the suburbs generally use far more resources in their daily lives than those who live closer to the center of town. You will almost never see a person walking or cycling for transportation in the suburbs here, because to do so would be far too dangerous and take far too long. That being said, I'm not sure I would want to live in a vast maze of skyscrapers, either. But I'd take that over living ten miles from the nearest grocery store.
Can you believe what this person on yahoo answers said?!?!
"Urban areas...like you said, have more pollution and waste all together. The businesses, such as mining, create damage to the Earth. And don't forget the people, who are constantly using energy for their homes and cars/taxis! Suburban areas have less "businesses"' to deal with, thus their pollution is less. By saying how per capita pollution in the urban is less than the suburban is wrong, because in the urban area each person is contributing hunks of pollution to the environment. In suburban areas, people walk, ride bicycles etc. therefore are more environmentally stable and each produce less waste!!" I strongly disagree with them, don't you?! I mean, HELLO, people in urban areas also walk, bike, use public transit, and live in smaller apartments while people in suburbs have huge houses with gas-guzzling SUVs that they have to use to get everywhere!
There is no one answer to the question, because there are too many variables.
IF you found a city where the down-town was highly condensed and populated - where people lived in high-rise apartments, condos and lofts - and where they both worked and shopped in the downtown (walking or riding bike everywhere), that would be your most eco-efficient living system.
But that is not always (or often) the case.
I hate - let me emphasize this, I HATE - high gas prices. I loathe them, partly because the pad corporate pockets with billions of dollars.
But honestly, one of the reasons Americans are willing to live so far from where they work that it takes over an hour to commute to work, is because we can afford to. While I would HATE to see gas at $5.00 per gallon, that price would bring about more change in America's living and transportation habits than any one other thing.
IF you found a city where the down-town was highly condensed and populated - where people lived in high-rise apartments, condos and lofts - and where they both worked and shopped in the downtown (walking or riding bike everywhere), that would be your most eco-efficient living system.
You're only considering the amount of travel they do though, how much energy do one of those building use on the lighting in hallways, stairs, lobbies and other places that are lit 24/7365 use? It's little after 7 in the morning here and there won't be a light on in this house other the bathroom until about 8:30 tonight. A lot of building like that also require 24/7 AC in the summer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is more environmentally friendly?
