1,956
edits
Walkability/New construction: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
If [[walkability]] was achieved by building brand-new neighborhoods, how long would it take to "break even" considering the carbon emissions of building the new homes/buildings? | |||
Simplified model: | |||
* consider the carbon footprint of making a new building, per person living there. | |||
* assume a full extreme lifestyle change: people go from "USA average" amount of driving, to zero driving. | |||
In such a case, it would take about 7-8 years to pay itself off: | |||
<tab name="(see maths)"> | |||
{{dp | {{dp | ||
|<nowiki>building.construction_ghg_by_floor_area</nowiki> | |<nowiki>building.construction_ghg_by_floor_area</nowiki> | ||
| Line 59: | Line 66: | ||
|years (average_us_vehicle.fuel_usage * gasoline.ghg_by_energy * usa.registered_vehicles / usa.population) | |years (average_us_vehicle.fuel_usage * gasoline.ghg_by_energy * usa.registered_vehicles / usa.population) | ||
}} | }} | ||
</tab> | |||
The real-life figure might be higher because... | |||
* can't really expect a full change to ''zero'' driving, just a lot less than before | |||
* the calculation didn't include interior furnishings of the building, as far as I know | |||
Or it might be lower because... | |||
* the footprint of heating the new place would probably be lower than the old place | |||
In any case, the carbon payoff of new construction could be worth it if there's no better option for [[Walkability/Existing housing]]. | |||
<!-- TALK: i | <!-- TALK: should i try to find a different case study that deals with per capita (or total emissions and total number of residents) instead of guesstimating floor space per person --> | ||