This is a debate that has been going on for a while. Large buildings are sprinklered, but homes rarely are. Essentially, the cost is just too high for the perceived benefit. Here's the article that got me thinking about this a bit more:
Builders Fight proposed Home Sprinkler Requirement
Personally, I don't think there can be an absolute rule on all houses having sprinklers - after all, they are expensive. I also don't see them saving that many more lives, because the people that die now are often in old buildings and houses that don't even have a smoke alarm, never mind sprinklers. And why should a small 1200 sq.ft. house have a system when it would add a significant percentage to the cost of the home, for little benefit. A house that small is relatively cheap to rebuild should it burn down. On the other hand, the cost add sprinklers during construction of a 5000 sq.ft. mansion would be pretty insignificant, and has the potential to dramatically reduce damage by a fire. In fact I'm surprised the insurance industry isn't all over this - they have the most to gain by homes being sprinklered. I know that one of the questions insurers ask is whether your building is sprinklered or not - so surely it has an impact on premiums. And don't forget - how often is a single-family home fire ever actually contained to just that house? Rarely! With how closely spaced suburban houses are (and they aren't getting any further apart) it almost always causes damage to the neighbouring homes, either through the intense heat of the fire, or by the fire actually travelling to the next house.
To me it would make sense that any building that has more than 2 or 3 dwellings should be sprinklered. This would, for example, allow homeowners to have a rentable flat in their house without needing a sprinkler system. On the other hand, any building with more than a few dwellings, where more lives and homes could be seriously affected by a fire, should unquestionalby be sprinklered. Personally, when looking at purchasing a condo in a building, whether it is sprinklered or not weighs heavily in my decision, as spinklered, multi-tenant buildings are much safer than those that are not. The same goes for townhomes or rowhomes. Maybe two or three rowhomes adjacent to each other doesn't justify the cost...but any row of attached homes longer than that should either be sprinklered or have a full 4-hour rated firewall between each unit. Row housing was built like that in cities all over (think Montreal), and that limits the fire (and water) damage to a single unit, while still creating a dense, livable neighbourhood.
So in summary, I guess if it's your own house, and you're out in the country with no one around, why should anyone care whether your home is spinklered or not. But if you're in a city, and you have no control over your neighbour, and of course don't know what they do or how safety concious they are (or whether they are even home to announce that there is a fire), wouldn't you sleep a lot easier knowing that should a fire break out, it will be quickly extinguished by sprinklers?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The waste debate
As you may or may not know, Metro Vancouver is currently undergoing a review process to determine what to do with its waste in the future. The current landfill at Cache Creek is nearly full and they need to find a new solution. A new landfill has been pretty much ruled out, as had shipping the waste across the border to a facility in southern Washington - both terrible ideas to begin with.
The leading solution right now seems to be the construction of a large new waste incinerator. There is already one in the lower mainland. Now, I have little to say against waste incinerators - they are in use all over Europe and the new incinerators are very efficient and produce little air pollution. In addition, the excess heat is used to generate electricity and hot or steam to heat local buildings, resulting in a very low overall carbon footprint. Of course one large plant is only going to be able to heat so many buildings - the hot water can only go so far before it cools down to a useless temperature. So rather than one large plant, several smaller plants would make a lot more sense. Also, decentralizing the system would reduce the distance trucks had to drive to the plants.
But I fear than Metro Vancouver is getting ahead of itself. First of all, let me point out that Metro Vancouver is responsible for only about 60% of the region's waste. The other 40% goes to the Delta landfill in Delta which is owned by the City of Vancouver. Aside from Vancouver, the waste from Delta, Richmond, White Rock, the University Endowment Lands and portions of South Surrey also goes to the Delta landfill. At the current maximum authorized disposal rate, the Delta landfill could accommodate Vancouver's solid waste disposal needs for another 30 to 40 year. Of course Metro Vancouver is eyeing this landfill as a solution to their problem, but fortunately the City of Vancouver is not taking their request lightly.
Like the City of Vancouver and other municipalities, Metro needs to do more to reduce waste in the first place before charging ahead with an expensive incinerator or other mega-project solution. And if Metro indeed wants to become a Zero Waste region as they are proposing (http://www.zerowastevancouver.com), here's what they need to do first:
Seattle Transfer Station
Seattle breaks recycling record
Even better than Seattle: San Fran, New York, Portland
Then, what's left over can be disposed of as required, but must be done as efficiently as possible. Use the waste heat from an incinerator, capture the landfill gas to use for heating or power generation, etc. And don't forget - try to ship all the waste as short a distance or by as green a means as possible...see my last post about Skytrain freight. :)
The leading solution right now seems to be the construction of a large new waste incinerator. There is already one in the lower mainland. Now, I have little to say against waste incinerators - they are in use all over Europe and the new incinerators are very efficient and produce little air pollution. In addition, the excess heat is used to generate electricity and hot or steam to heat local buildings, resulting in a very low overall carbon footprint. Of course one large plant is only going to be able to heat so many buildings - the hot water can only go so far before it cools down to a useless temperature. So rather than one large plant, several smaller plants would make a lot more sense. Also, decentralizing the system would reduce the distance trucks had to drive to the plants.
But I fear than Metro Vancouver is getting ahead of itself. First of all, let me point out that Metro Vancouver is responsible for only about 60% of the region's waste. The other 40% goes to the Delta landfill in Delta which is owned by the City of Vancouver. Aside from Vancouver, the waste from Delta, Richmond, White Rock, the University Endowment Lands and portions of South Surrey also goes to the Delta landfill. At the current maximum authorized disposal rate, the Delta landfill could accommodate Vancouver's solid waste disposal needs for another 30 to 40 year. Of course Metro Vancouver is eyeing this landfill as a solution to their problem, but fortunately the City of Vancouver is not taking their request lightly.
Like the City of Vancouver and other municipalities, Metro needs to do more to reduce waste in the first place before charging ahead with an expensive incinerator or other mega-project solution. And if Metro indeed wants to become a Zero Waste region as they are proposing (http://www.zerowastevancouver.com), here's what they need to do first:
- Reduce the amount of waste generated in the first place - put limits on allowable packaging, require more returnable/refundable packages (like bottles and cans are already), etc.
- Encourage reuse of materials - construction waste is a big opportunity here; for example lumber doesn't need to be mulched or burned if it's still in good shape. Also, don't demolish buildings, deconstruct them to remove as much of the reusable materials as possible instead of everything ending up in one giant heap.
- Mandatory recycling - too many people don't recycle (or don't do it properly), and yet it's so easy to do. Implement fines for failing to properly sort waste, and set-up a waste sorting plant to catch any recyclables that make it through. At the same time, make it easy for people to do!
- Compost - people should be doing this in their yards, but those in apartments can't. Either way, set up a composting system that collects all yard and organic kitchen wastes and then turns it into compost to be put back into the ground in gardens.
- Curb-day - start an annual or semi-annual "curb-day" where people set old furniture, etc that they don't want out on the curb for others to come by and take for free. I remember doing this over 15 years ago in Waterloo, Ontario and it was a huge success. Any items that don't go can be left on the curb for pick-up the next garbage day, and hopefully recycled. Right now most of these kinds of things go straight to the landfill without any possibility of diversion. Also, encourage local community garage sales.
Seattle Transfer Station
Seattle breaks recycling record
Even better than Seattle: San Fran, New York, Portland
Then, what's left over can be disposed of as required, but must be done as efficiently as possible. Use the waste heat from an incinerator, capture the landfill gas to use for heating or power generation, etc. And don't forget - try to ship all the waste as short a distance or by as green a means as possible...see my last post about Skytrain freight. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
