Solar punk is a genre of hope about mitigating and surviving climate crisis with actually better and more community oriented lives. More green spaces, degrowth and clean energy. Corporations hav...
Strong video: showing the difference between true solar punk on the one hand and greenwashing on the other .
i guess this was a joke, but just fyi: plants don’t go that well along with buildings sometimes, for example when you want to plant a tree on the roof. You need to be sure that the walls are actually strong enough for this, wasting additional concrete in reinforcing them.
Things get murky once time comes into the discussion.
Yes, more concrete is used. But if the building survives for 100yrs, there’s a point where the reduced CO2 required to power the HVAC system thanks to the added shade cover, equals the amount of CO2 expressed in order to create that extra concrete. And that benefit continues as time goes on, never mind the added beauty.
Do we create durable homes for our people by choosing concrete over the naturally carbon-sequestering wood? Are we not subsequently damaging our forests more directly as a result? I’m not really sure either way, to be honest.
However, I expect losing the ability to make multistory buildings would be losing out on efficiency in indirect ways; heat rises, so in winter, less energy is needed to keep a large group of people warm vs a cluster of individual houses. Groceries and work can be closer to one another thanks to the higher density. There’s obviously some real downsides to these choices as well, but there it is.
Bamboo’s got about 1.7MPa compressive strength to weak concrete’s 15MPa.
I’m absolutely keen on caring for nature, but being pragmatic also hinges on knowing when to use certain materials at the right times. As an engineer, my goal is maximizing utility, and thus minimizing environmental impact when considering the system (earth) as a whole.
nuh uh, solar punk is when the buildings have plants on them
i guess this was a joke, but just fyi: plants don’t go that well along with buildings sometimes, for example when you want to plant a tree on the roof. You need to be sure that the walls are actually strong enough for this, wasting additional concrete in reinforcing them.
Things get murky once time comes into the discussion.
Yes, more concrete is used. But if the building survives for 100yrs, there’s a point where the reduced CO2 required to power the HVAC system thanks to the added shade cover, equals the amount of CO2 expressed in order to create that extra concrete. And that benefit continues as time goes on, never mind the added beauty.
Do we create durable homes for our people by choosing concrete over the naturally carbon-sequestering wood? Are we not subsequently damaging our forests more directly as a result? I’m not really sure either way, to be honest.
However, I expect losing the ability to make multistory buildings would be losing out on efficiency in indirect ways; heat rises, so in winter, less energy is needed to keep a large group of people warm vs a cluster of individual houses. Groceries and work can be closer to one another thanks to the higher density. There’s obviously some real downsides to these choices as well, but there it is.
Concrete is chosen to be fire resistant. You can’t have something like the 16th century fire of London burn down the whole city at once.
You’re right of course, but not solely. It’s also got very, very high compressive strength.
Well yeah, so does bamboo.
Bro, it’s not equivalent.
Bamboo’s got about 1.7MPa compressive strength to weak concrete’s 15MPa.
I’m absolutely keen on caring for nature, but being pragmatic also hinges on knowing when to use certain materials at the right times. As an engineer, my goal is maximizing utility, and thus minimizing environmental impact when considering the system (earth) as a whole.
E: sources:
yeah yeah ok
Buildings with plants can totally be solarpunk. But obviously there’s more to it than that.