Quote:
Housing in cities (even ingenious sounding solutions like laneway housing) will always be more expensive because the value of the land is inflated. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Global warming will sort that problem out, we'll be running AC all summer long within time!
|
Quote:
My Quebec real estate has 75% of its yearly energy bill concentrated in the winter months. Peak energy consumption in FL is from May-September, the diametrical opposite. (Though I don't really see it, as everything over there is always rented with utilities excluded.) |
Quote:
A properly designed solar map of Germany would have the color legend go from blue to green, not blue to red. Bavaria should be green, not red. Reserve scarlet red for the Sahara. |
Quote:
I've known people who've been in the Canadian Far North. Sure, land is free, but an apple will cost you $20. It seems incredibly evident than sprawl (at the very least, in the long run) is more expensive on a per capita basis than dense urban living. Lots more infrastructure per resident to maintain, lots more spending on transportation by the residents, higher construction costs and higher energy costs, etc. |
Quote:
Sure, if you want equal material luxury on all counts, and don't factor in the intangibles (commuting time saved, access to nice restaurants, etc.) then yeah, living in sprawl is cheaper. But that's not an apples to apples comparison at all - a given house with a pool and large private backyard in the middle of nowhere and that exact same house in the heart of Toronto, that's not comparable; the latter has lots of extra advantages and basically no drawbacks, it's normal that you'd have to pay a lot more. At the end of the year, you can live for $x a year in sprawl or for the same $x a year in the heart of downtown of a big city, and it should be comparable in pros and cons. Sure, you'll have less square feet of living space in the latter case, but you'll have other things to make up for it. |
Quote:
|
Here’s another HUGE one. The one qualifier I’ll put on this is that this is the only place I’ve heard this number. I’ve seen them say they expected to be able to get down to this number, but not that they’re there now. Start at the 3:00 mark to get right to it, but the whole clip is very informative, with the exception of the last bit where he speculates on the future of hydrogen, which is a prognostication I don’t share.
https://vimeo.com/305779686 What this guy is saying is that his company can remove CO2 from industrial exhaust streams for $30/tonne, and it can be transported and sequestered for $10-$20/tonne, and add in a profit margin of $10/tonne and there is a basis for an industry that can CCS very large amounts of CO2 for $60 tonne. So worst case scenario, if we can’t find enough commercial uses for the CO2, a $60/tonne carbon tax is all we’d need to capture huge amounts of it and stick in it in the ground. As of today that is, and we’re still only 4 years into our 85 year project, so lots of future improvements and developments are possible and probable. Edit: btw, Inventys is a Canadian company, from Burnaby BC. |
I treat the claims of cheap carbon capture with skepticism, but if it actually is true, then solving climate change is remarkably easy. Just implement a carbon tax and credit system with the price higher than the cost of capturing it, and then we can carry on almost as normal.
Of course, we'll need renewable sources of energy to fuel the CC plants, but that problem will sort itself out as the carbon input into the plants energy will be built into the price. As long as the price is right, then it will be cheaper to take CO2 out of the air than put it back in. So, either we implement carbon pricing or we can fight each other over worthless Green New Deal ideas that will never happen. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Um, how is it the wrong thread? Please explain? It has everything to do with climate change. Lake Ontario reaches highest level in recorded history, leaving Toronto Islands bracing for more flooding High winds on Thursday afternoon could lead to waves and water breaches, officials warn CBC News · Posted: May 30, 2019 1:43 PM ET Water levels on Lake Ontario have reached the highest point in recorded history, putting the Toronto Islands at risk of significant flooding. Current levels have reached 76.03 metres above sea level, topping the previous record of 75.93 metres which was set in 2017 when the islands were inundated with water. Toronto Islands face 'distressing time' as lake levels on rise, high winds in store Ferry service to Hanlan's Point has been suspended and the area around Gibraltar Point has been closed off as a result. Worse, strong winds are expected on Thursday afternoon, something that could lead to "significant wave action," local Coun. Joe Cressy warned. "This is a difficult time for local residents, who are also working tirelessly to protect the Islands. We are all grateful for volunteer assistance from visitors and the public," Cressy said in a tweet. full article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...vels-1.5155962 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
On the other hand, it's perfectly plausible that Ontario would get wetter in the winter (I believe that's what all (or at least most) models are forecasting) due to climate change.
Climate change, implies change. Wetter, implies higher lake levels. We just had two "you'll see that maybe once in a century at most" years out of three consecutive years. How likely is that, statistically? It's much more likely that the old normals have slightly changed now. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 7:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.