If you can walk or use a low speed vehicle to get to your destination and you can walk to the second family down in 5 minutes it’s not a low density settlement just because you can see a single story house.

Villages are missing middle (at least until the commercial center gets gutted and replaced with car yards and parking and 50% of the houses are demolished for highway).

These are the walkable non-suburban communities being talked about. Why are you trying to use examples of the desired outcome as a counter example (and reason to continue destroying said towns)?

If you take both the population and area of greater houston without the urban core, there is one hectare of suburban wasteland per person.

One person per hectare isn’t the rural settlement in your imagined past, it’s a single family and a few farm hands living on an unusually large and high-labor productivity farm way out of town.

No. Humans have lived in walkable villages and towns built at missing middle densities (hundreds to a few thousand people and markets all within walking distance linked by long distance travel corridors you walked to or what you are calling ‘urban’) with local services and a handful of people living on the outskirts.

Endless suburban seas of <500 people per km^2 were invented for the automobile. The past you are counterfactually claiming exists did not have half an acre of roads, car parks, 4-car garages, set backs and car yards per resident, nor did it have all the services in a central gigantic box building 20 miles away through a sea of identical houses, nor did your rural people demand those in higher density regions provode them with infrastructure for heating, cooling, water and sewerage. Nor did they demolish all the houses around the market just in case they wanted to leave a cart there.

Better title:

EU still setting policy based on projections of oil lobbying organisation in spite of 20 straight years of failure on analyais that can be performed by a highschool student with a pencil and some log paper.

In spite of best efforts to stop it, targets are exceeded yet again. Set back distance, mandatory consultation with crisis actors, and byzantine permitting requirements for wind to increase again next year. We haven’t thought of anything that will slow down solar yet, but we’ll keep trying.

The IEA has no credibility nor do wood mac. The most charitable interpretation of their continued failures for projections (sometimes even failing to project that solar will ever grow or coal will ever shrink to the previous year’s numbers) on the energy transition after having the flaws pointed out repeatedly is rank incompetence. Given the board’s career history and the membership criteria this is a pretty long reach though.

Thermodynamically you start with ~55MJ/kg available if you were to oxidise the methane.

Then you end with 750g of carbon that would give you ~35MJ/kg were you to oxidise it or 26MJ. And 250g of hydrogen that would give you 120MJ/kg or 30MJ

If it were 100% efficient and free then for the cost of the input methane you could get the same amount of thermal energy with a solar panel or wind turbine and a resistor. This is a science proof of concept so expect single digit efficiency which is unrelated to pkssible scaling

As far as ways of greenwashing fossil methane go, it might actually have some potential positive effect, although the hydrogen produced will not be competitive except as backup energy.

As a thing to do with waste-emission methane it might be better than burning it. You’d still need some way of storing the hydrogen that is competitive with overbuilding solar + 4-12hr batteries (none presently exists).

That doesn’t fix any of the problems mentioned.

Efficiency, battery price for the cost, power, and charge time/long distance speed are measurably objectively in the top tier (although not uniquely so or not the singular best).

Not worth it for the shoddy construction, abusive customer-exploitative remote control that means you never own it, false advertising, and cultural association (also not uniquely so).

The roadster was released after that happened.

I guess there might be a handful of prototypes around?

Whatever you want to call them, they share at least one wall, are two story, have a deep aspect ratio and side access on the other wall is minimal (if there at all). The only awful features are the set back and the giant garage (which can just be used for indoor space|.

Libertarians (or rather ancaps that stole the word) are far right

If the garage is used as internal space, then row houses are plenty high enough density. The occupant could have a much nicer back yard without the setback (front yards are car infrastructure), but the road is not too wide, just awful to be on.

If we assume 1.8-2.1 people per house, then these blocks are about and 300m^2 with about 100m^2 out the front in tye public spacs e per house (property boundary to middle of road]. 5000 people per km^2 for the residential area, assume 50% as much commercial/parks elsewhere (~100m^2 per resident) and you’re at over 3000 people per km^2

This is in the ideal missing middle range if a little bit low, it’s just awful missing middle (that will probably also have its density ruined hy a sea of carparks in the commercial areas and a highway, but that’s a separate issue).

Running against traffic on the road improves pretty much all of these and puts the new threat (oncoming cars) under their control.

It does leave the runner vulnerable to cars turning right (in drive-on-the-right countries) though if they aren’t hyper aware of it.

“Buy a new big car because it will be later year than a new small car and thus have newer safety features” is an incredibly wild way of drawing the exact opposite conclusion to the one you should have from that data.

Which is offset by the lack of safety regulation, high center of mass, heavier weight to crush the cabin in a rollover, and much higher likelihood of running over your own kids.

Stop spreading propaganda by cherry picking,

Now you’re dodging the point. You’re spreading the harmful propaganda, and using the fact that it’s effective to justify spreading it.

Which does not override the lack of safety of a tall heavy vehicle. Small cars are not less safe than emotional support trucks and full sized SUVs, because the latter get specific exemptions from safety regulations.

“I’m going to increase the probability of killing my kid, innocent hystanders because of this one specific critereon i’ve cherry picked” is an emotional argument.

I can object to it being used to justify killing kids for a feeling though. Which is what you were doing by suggesting it’s a prisoner’s dilemma.

Having these people be homeless in awful conditions is entirely a choice made by the wealthy californians. One that can be remedied in months if the harm to their health becomes larger than the utility of being able to use them as a political pawn. They can also be supplied antibiotics and flea/rodent control tools for a few dollars per capita.

Even without antibiotics, mouse traps and insecticide will stop bubonic plague from spreading.