The World's 2.75b Buildings
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
tech.marksblogg.comResearchstoryHigh profile
calmpositive
Debate
60/100
Building FootprintsGlobal InfrastructureClimate Change
Key topics
Building Footprints
Global Infrastructure
Climate Change
A new dataset estimates there are 2.75B buildings on Earth, sparking discussions on the implications for climate change and the built environment.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
11m
Peak period
51
108-120h
Avg / period
9.6
Comment distribution67 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 67 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 7, 2025 at 1:26 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 7, 2025 at 1:37 PM EDT
11m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
51 comments in 108-120h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 15, 2025 at 3:52 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45506055Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 5:02:38 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
But on a serious note this is an interesting project highlighting the sheer volume of power usage across the world. .. I'm also curious given the data and power usage, if AI assisted heatmap is actually more accurate than one developed by downloading a single dataset of high resolution satellite imagery at night, performing algorithmic analysis to draw heatmap based on light output or !maybe even simple image processing downsampling the image and shifting white-blue to red?
I've only seen Maxar publish one night time image and that was of Dubai. I suspect smaller buildings in not so well lit areas could end up getting missed out.
SAR imagery would work well for seeing at night and through clouds but I'm not sure what the state of AI building footprint detection is with SAR atm.
If we painted the roofs on all of them white, by how much would the temperature of the planet drop?
I think that would be very viable with fridges, that represent a large share of electricity consumption among the poorest. Before electricity, people powered fridges by constantly buying ice blocks. They were just isolated boxes where food was stored together with the blocks. Perhaps it's just necessary to go back at the roots, and make fridges that take energy from solar panels and generate a lot of ice by day, and uses it to keep cold at night, with no need for batteries.
The whole point of my thought exercise is to see if we can somehow make the cost go down. My understanding is that the panel can easily last twenty five years but the battery you'd be lucky to go beyond eight?
Edit: good news / bad news
Bad news: this is not an original thought
Good news: smarter people than me are already working on this. See solar Variable Frequency Drive (VFD). Basically, my thought is a pump is a pump. if you can build a pump to pump water to irrigate poppy fields, you can use the same pump to drive refrigerant in a refrigerator/ freezer / heat pump.
No, modern refrigerators and other white box appliances with variable speed motors use electrically commutated (aka EC or brushless) motors that allow for motor speed control. Larger three-phase induction motors can have their speed controlled by a variable frequency drive (VFD).
> Basically, my thought is a pump is a pump. if you can build a pump to pump water to irrigate poppy fields, you can use the same pump to drive refrigerant in a refrigerator/ freezer / heat pump.
You’re close, but it’s more ‘a motor with enough power can drive any pump (or fan)’ than ‘a pump is a pump is a pump’, as there are many different kinds of pumps for various working fluids (water, glycol, oil, refrigerant, etc)
Regarding the fully solar powered A/C, you can smooth out power generation and consumption using capacitors (aka batteries)
If you are looking for a cooling solution, you could go the other way and make water chillers through a dedicated water tank. You would tie the HVAC to pipe air through a heat exchanger. Seems like all of that is well established engineering.
[0] DOE link on water heating https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/water-heating
Sun heating in Winter = awesome. Sun heating in Summer != awesome.
I am not arguing the strength of the effect, only that you must account for all seasons.
man·ner /ˈmanər/ noun 1. a way in which a thing is done or happens.
But adding conventional AC is never going to cool down the world.
- Installation, maintenance and transmission costs are lower when solar is aggregated on farms - Solar offsets air conditioning, but that moves the heat outside. White roofs reduce the need for AC, which helps significantly with urban heat scenarios
A quick search yields a UCL study, which supports the lower claim: https://phys.org/news/2024-07-roofs-white-city.html
It'd have a much bigger impact if all those roofs had solar panels, and the resulting electricity was used to replace carbon-emitting energy sources.
Wonder if that would make a substantial difference? Much brighter than asphalt but not bright enough to bother drivers.
Hell I was just walking down the street a minute ago and thinking the same! It's October ffs! (It IS October right?)
- Albedo change. Dark asphalt is ~0.05–0.10. “White” coatings can push toward ~0.4–0.6 (fresh), but weathering quickly dulls them. So a plausible Δalbedo for roads is +0.2 to +0.5.
- Global albedo change. Δα_global ≈ (road fraction) × (Δalbedo_road) ≈ (0.001)×(0.2–0.5) ≈ +0.0002 to +0.0005.
- Radiative forcing. Globally averaged incoming sunlight ≈ S₀/4 ≈ 340 W m⁻². Forcing from an albedo change is ΔF ≈ −Δα_global × 340 ≈ −0.07 to −0.17 W m⁻².
- Temperature response. Using a standard sensitivity ~0.8 °C per W m⁻² (≈3 °C per CO₂ doubling): ΔT ≈ −0.05 to −0.14 °C at equilibrium.
Some people are very anal about any kind of noise coming out of their rigs. I personally undervolt everything to keep the fans at bay/minimum and having extra legroom in PSU department helps a lot
Who benefits from this situation ?
https://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/forestry/qld-...
Humans are in oversupply currently - for what needs doing.
And as we all know, products in oversupply lose their value.
The algorithms that drive the world are optimised for money and capital, humans are just one product in that structure.
Enjoy the ride.
Instead it feels like playing Monopoly, round for round, and all the money goes to the one player with all the hotels and train stations and there is no opportunity for other players to obtain any property or wealth.
If you are lucky enough to be in the circle of that one player with all the wealth, good for you. For the rest of us, it's just rolling the dice and going in circles - round for round.
For most people, it feels like opportunities evaporate and disappear into the void. Nobody gains anything meaningful from the monopolization of opportunities. One regular person's "opportunity of a lifetime" turns into a billionaire's "spam in the inbox".
It's lose-lose but the billionaire may think of this as neutral or "not a problem" from their end. Easily solved by a spam filter, an assistant and a personal security team.
E.g. [Revolutionary Paint: How to Make Surfaces Stay Cool in the Sun](https://youtu.be/dNs_kNilSjk)
Yes, from chatgpt:
These are so-called “radiative cooling paints.”
Here’s how they work:
They reflect almost all sunlight, so the surface doesn’t heat up.
At the same time, they emit thermal radiation in a specific infrared range (around 8–13 micrometers) that can pass through the Earth’s atmosphere and escape into space.
Such paint can make surfaces cooler than the surrounding air, even in sunlight.
So it doesn’t convert solar energy into another form — it selectively reflects and emits infrared radiation that sends heat directly into space.
Can someone verify?
As you increase the size of your subdivisions, the unpopulated fraction goes down. In the limit of all land being in just one subdivision, it's obviously 0.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density
I think we can just draw an outline around cities, towns, and villages and count that area as populated, no matter how many people are actually in there.
For long stretches of land where there's just a single highway going through and a few gas stations, motels and shacks, totaling maybe <100 people for many miles around, we can count that land as unpopulated.
Isolated islands with indigenous/uncontacted tribes, not sure.. We may have to consider their population growth and see if they're in "equilibrium" with "nature" and so on.
A simple glance at Google Earth shows large parts of Russia as clearly unpopulated/undelevoped, then there's the deserts of China and Africa, and some natural land in the Americas, and finally of course there's Antarctica, until the Elder Things awaken.
I think the "overcrowded planet" scenario is not very plausible, except if we're talking about resources. There is plenty of land for everyone, especially if we start to construct efficiently.
I was afraid someone will get it the wrong way: I hope it STAYS that way; that the majority of the planet remains unpopulated, but humans learn to make better use of the space we're already occupying.
I have some analysis around that topic in the middle of this post: https://tech.marksblogg.com/overture-land-cover.html
The only exception might be the vatican, if you consider it a country.
I found it interesting the disparity between the number of buildings in India and the rest of the world (3 times the next country). And the close parity in number between China and the US.
India has ~4x the population of the US so the ratio of buildings isn't much of a surprise.
Not sure if this comes from search engine optimisation or years of experience consulting to clients that know nothing :)
Anyway, good work Mark. Another of your posts I’ll bookmark.