Report a Comment

Rural areas are fine too, for the most part they are self sustaining in many ways. Suburbs are what this site really discuss in comparison to urban areas, which are clearly net energy hogs compared to a city apartment. Think of it this way, a lot of house AC energy is spent cooling 75% of the house that a person isn't even in for the majority of the day. How can that be efficient?

Think about the process of keeping a lawn "green" in an area that doesn't habitate that type of grass or that lush of a lawn. Water pumping is energy use and water waste.

Think about how much energy loss comes from transmitting power over a far less dense region, through hundreds of splits and branches that are lowered in voltage so it will be safe in subdivisions. People dont know how much energy loss occurs when voltage is stepped down, but I can tell you for remote areas the majority of the energy used is actually lost in transmission.

I dunno if you consider me an expert, I have done a few energy studies in my day, but I certainly wouldnt say I am a leading expert in the field. I simply know that per capita, high rises are far more efficient energy and water users.

Also, empirically, look at the disastrous French heat wave of 2003 where 15000 people died. The majority of deaths occurred around the region of Paris where country houses didn't have AC. If power had gone out in part of Paris, people could easily walk to water areas and party like its 999 (to steal a partial reference to Prince). Where as in suburban regions like Champagne or Loire they would have to walk or even bike 80-150km to the nearest centralized area or non-stagnant water body in order to cool off.

This distance in regular 80degree weather is tough for most middle aged/young/elderly to accomplish, let alone when the temps exceed 100 degrees. Distance and isolation is the killer, not architecture.

by Tysons Engineer on Jul 8, 2012 9:57 pm • link • report