5 ms·

Part of the immature me wishes we don't invent new diesel trucks for developing countries, especially not with the goal of making it accessible to massive new m

by tajen 10y ago

Part of the immature me wishes we don't invent new diesel trucks for developing countries, especially not with the goal of making it accessible to massive new markets. Doing so will extremely accelerate the global warming and local cancerigen pollution, both of which are there for the duration of the vehicle line (40 years?). I wish we'd start issuing electric models and portable ...nuclear plants? Solar systems? With wifi? This is childish, but the irresponsible pollution aspect of new diesel vehicles is worth pointing out.

pif 10y ago
> I wish we'd start issuing electric models Oil is a form _and_ a source of energy. Electricity is a just a form of energy. Which alternative source do you propose?
- tajen 10y ago
  As written above: > ...nuclear plants? Solar systems? More seriously, it's very important to consider that centralization of electricity production, even from coal or oil, allows a lot more pollution control than a hundred million vehicles each carrying a mini-combustion engine on the roads. Cars get lighter, and the factory can get efficient re-burners, soot filters, emit pollution outside cities, and benefit from future tech like CO2 burial. Heck, the country can even decide to shut down coal plants, go nuclear, hydroelectric or 100% renewable. Which is impossible if it's a matter of replacing 50 million cars. So, yes, an electric car in a country that produces 100% of its energy from coal is still much more ecologic than a combustion engine. The keyword is: centralization of energy production. Elon Musk is no fool. He beat 9 competitors with a total of $461bn market cap, because he got that before we did.
  - creshal 10y ago
    > He beat 9 competitors with a total of $461bn market cap At what? Internet points? Tesla has still a negligible total market share, because even first-world countries don't yet have the necessary infrastructure for an all-electric car fleet. How's that supposed to work in third-world countries, where you can count yourself lucky to have dirt roads? For a utility truck, where weight efficiency matters? And what about longevity? Reliability? Reparability? Tesla's batteries aren't even designed to survive five years, and if they're punctured, impossible to repair. Gas tanks can be fixed with duct tape and swearing, and diesel engines in minimally equipped workshops with spare parts that are lightweight enough you can ship them on a bicycle.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      To agree- there's many places even in India where if you attempted to run a handful of charging bays you'd cause a brownout or blow a transformer. Countries with worse infrastructure than that aren't going to cope very well. Electricity-delivered-to-an-endpoint isn't anywhere close to an unlimited resource.
  - pif 10y ago
    > an electric car ... is still much more ecologic than a combustion engine. I agree on this point, but don't forget the other critical points for energy: storage-ability and transportability. If you think about a centralized transport network (ex: train), then a dam and some wire will do the job. But, if you consider small, independent vehicles (ex: cars), unfortunately for humanity, up to now oil is unbeatable. I think that we don't need any more remainder that pollution sucks. We need more research to find alternatives that pollute less while providing the same comfort.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The Bolt appears to be staged to reach market prior to the Model 3, probably at a lower price point. The speculative ranges for each are similar enough. It doesn't have the Tesla mystique though, that's for sure.
  - ticklemyelmo 10y ago
    > Cars get lighter How do you figure that? It's pretty hard to beat a modern ICE + gasoline for power-to-weight and energy density. e.g. http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-race-engine/ http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-rac... And a 1,200lb 85kWh Tesla battery has about the same energy as 22lb of gas.
  - kragen 10y ago
    Centralization is no panacea. Photovoltaic can deliver decentralized clean power. Utility-scale power plants are slightly more efficient than portable engines, but it's less than a factor of 2; whether a coal plant produces more or less pollution than a gasoline or diesel engine depends on ① how well-maintained and well-equipped each is, ② how clean the fuel for each is, and ③ whether you're counting CO₂ as pollution, in which case the coal plant will always lose. Here in Buenos Aires, diesel is terribly polluting. In California, diesel is super clean. The difference is mostly that in California you have to fix your car if it starts emitting smoke, and the diesel fuel is centrifuged to remove sulfur. Diesel unavoidably emits a lot of soot until the engine warms up, but lots of diesel vehicles are equipped with soot filters which periodically burn the soot off. I don't know that it's accurate to say that centralization allows pollution control. It can just as easily prevent pollution control — even though there are less sources of pollution, they're each controlled by a more politically powerful entity. In many countries, this means energy companies can get away with murder. Literally.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
creshal 10y ago
Diesel engines are by far the easiest to adapt for biofuels – even regular car diesels can run on vegetable oil (with some preparations). So as long as we don't know what to replace internal combustion engines with, they're the safest bet, since they don't need fossil fuels.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  Global warming is worsened with Biofuels (by 7%)[0] and local cancerigen pollution is only reduced (by 6.6%), not eliminated. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-biofuels-gasoline-global-warming https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-bio...
  - creshal 10y ago
    You realize that your quoted article – referring to one of the many possible kinds of biofuel – actually refutes you…?
the_other 10y ago
The assertion and interpretation of "immaturity" on issues like this holds us all back. Perpetuating a known problem hardly seems "mature" or even "sane". I appreciate that doing things differently demands extraordinary cultural and economic shifts, new business models, faith... I don't see any of that as immature. (Perhaps I'm immature :) )
- pif 10y ago
  Yeah, pollution sucks. But pushing a wheelbarrow sucks, too.
  - the_other 10y ago
    We learned to harness ox and horses for this reason. These things don't pollute as much as a truck, and at the end of their lives we can eat them or they can become food for our ecosystem peers rather than leave them in toxic dumps. I'll rephrase my point to highlight what I think most relevant: if we constantly make concessions towards cost efficiency (because it's "pragmatic" and "mature") we will run out of time to deal with the major pollution problem before it kills us and most of our peers.
    - exDM69 10y ago
      > These things don't pollute as much as a truck I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Farming and keeping animals consumes a lot of natural resources. Keep in mind that you'd need a lot of time and a lot of oxen or horses to haul two tons of material.
gambiting 10y ago
The thing is, that supplying a diesel truck to a rural community might dramatically improve living standards in the community. The damage done by burning diesel is small compared to the improvement of livelihood of dozens of people. I would say, if you are worried about trucks polluting the earth, we should stop ordering shit online and expecting that every supermarket everywhere has all the freshest produce from every corner of the world. I'm willing to bet that the ecological cost of my local supermarket having fresh cherries from Chile or watermelon from Argentina(I'm in UK) is an order of magnitude greater than all diesel trucks used by 3rd world African villages combined.
- pif 10y ago
  Yes, we should not forget that people adopted fossil fuels because it meant a great improvement in the quality of their lives. After decades of experience, we know that this has a cost (pollution is bad for health) and discussion is welcomed, but focusing on the cost without acknowledging the benefits is not a good start.
- joosters 10y ago
  Fresh fruit or flowers from remote parts of the world are often flown to the UK via backloads, i.e. planes that would otherwise be empty. So the ecological cost is not as great as you may think.
  - gambiting 10y ago
    I know that plane manufacturers try to make their planes as light as possible, because every kg translates to actual fuel needed to fly - so even if a plane would fly empty otherwise, filling it up with fruit has a cost. Not to mention this fruit has to then be taken to shops on a fleet of trucks etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I love that I can buy fresh produce any time of the year - but I just wanted to point out that denying the developing world basic transport technology to fight pollution, while we burn through monumental amounts of oil just to get stuff that improves our lives marginally, is not really fair.
jacquesm 10y ago
There was a man in the jungle Trying to make ends meet Found himself one day with an axe in his hand When a voice said "Buddy can you spare that tree We gotta save the world - starting with your land" It was a rock 'n' roll millionaire from the USA Doing 3 to the gallon in a big white car And he sang and he sang 'til he polluted the air And he blew a lot of smoke from a Cuban cigar (From Joe Jackson, Obvious Song)
- tmd83 10y ago
  Precisely this. I will give examples of US hotels since thats really the only first world country I have visited. Everywhere there's shades and basically with 4/5 lights I get no where near the light that a single no shade light gives in my own room. There are lots of things done in third world that are done in a more polluting matter for cost concern. But I would hazard a guess that if you take a ratio pollution / 'improvement of quality of living' first world countries would be so far ahead of 3rd world countries that there would be no competition. When I said countries I do mean most in that category there are bound to be exceptions.
Lio 10y ago
Seems like Gordon Murray agrees with you. On the [Ox website](http://oxgvt.com/ http://oxgvt.com/) it mentions that the powertrain can be swapped out in future versions for electric or hydrogen powered altenatives.

by tajen 10y ago

pif 10y ago

> I wish we'd start issuing electric models Oil is a form _and_ a source of energy. Electricity is a just a form of energy. Which alternative source do you propose?

tajen 10y ago
As written above: > ...nuclear plants? Solar systems? More seriously, it's very important to consider that centralization of electricity production, even from coal or oil, allows a lot more pollution control than a hundred million vehicles each carrying a mini-combustion engine on the roads. Cars get lighter, and the factory can get efficient re-burners, soot filters, emit pollution outside cities, and benefit from future tech like CO2 burial. Heck, the country can even decide to shut down coal plants, go nuclear, hydroelectric or 100% renewable. Which is impossible if it's a matter of replacing 50 million cars. So, yes, an electric car in a country that produces 100% of its energy from coal is still much more ecologic than a combustion engine. The keyword is: centralization of energy production. Elon Musk is no fool. He beat 9 competitors with a total of $461bn market cap, because he got that before we did.
- creshal 10y ago
  > He beat 9 competitors with a total of $461bn market cap At what? Internet points? Tesla has still a negligible total market share, because even first-world countries don't yet have the necessary infrastructure for an all-electric car fleet. How's that supposed to work in third-world countries, where you can count yourself lucky to have dirt roads? For a utility truck, where weight efficiency matters? And what about longevity? Reliability? Reparability? Tesla's batteries aren't even designed to survive five years, and if they're punctured, impossible to repair. Gas tanks can be fixed with duct tape and swearing, and diesel engines in minimally equipped workshops with spare parts that are lightweight enough you can ship them on a bicycle.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    To agree- there's many places even in India where if you attempted to run a handful of charging bays you'd cause a brownout or blow a transformer. Countries with worse infrastructure than that aren't going to cope very well. Electricity-delivered-to-an-endpoint isn't anywhere close to an unlimited resource.
- pif 10y ago
  > an electric car ... is still much more ecologic than a combustion engine. I agree on this point, but don't forget the other critical points for energy: storage-ability and transportability. If you think about a centralized transport network (ex: train), then a dam and some wire will do the job. But, if you consider small, independent vehicles (ex: cars), unfortunately for humanity, up to now oil is unbeatable. I think that we don't need any more remainder that pollution sucks. We need more research to find alternatives that pollute less while providing the same comfort.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The Bolt appears to be staged to reach market prior to the Model 3, probably at a lower price point. The speculative ranges for each are similar enough. It doesn't have the Tesla mystique though, that's for sure.
- ticklemyelmo 10y ago
  > Cars get lighter How do you figure that? It's pretty hard to beat a modern ICE + gasoline for power-to-weight and energy density. e.g. http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-race-engine/ http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-rac... And a 1,200lb 85kWh Tesla battery has about the same energy as 22lb of gas.
- kragen 10y ago
  Centralization is no panacea. Photovoltaic can deliver decentralized clean power. Utility-scale power plants are slightly more efficient than portable engines, but it's less than a factor of 2; whether a coal plant produces more or less pollution than a gasoline or diesel engine depends on ① how well-maintained and well-equipped each is, ② how clean the fuel for each is, and ③ whether you're counting CO₂ as pollution, in which case the coal plant will always lose. Here in Buenos Aires, diesel is terribly polluting. In California, diesel is super clean. The difference is mostly that in California you have to fix your car if it starts emitting smoke, and the diesel fuel is centrifuged to remove sulfur. Diesel unavoidably emits a lot of soot until the engine warms up, but lots of diesel vehicles are equipped with soot filters which periodically burn the soot off. I don't know that it's accurate to say that centralization allows pollution control. It can just as easily prevent pollution control — even though there are less sources of pollution, they're each controlled by a more politically powerful entity. In many countries, this means energy companies can get away with murder. Literally.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

creshal 10y ago

Diesel engines are by far the easiest to adapt for biofuels – even regular car diesels can run on vegetable oil (with some preparations). So as long as we don't know what to replace internal combustion engines with, they're the safest bet, since they don't need fossil fuels.

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
Global warming is worsened with Biofuels (by 7%)[0] and local cancerigen pollution is only reduced (by 6.6%), not eliminated. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-biofuels-gasoline-global-warming https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-bio...
- creshal 10y ago
  You realize that your quoted article – referring to one of the many possible kinds of biofuel – actually refutes you…?

the_other 10y ago

The assertion and interpretation of "immaturity" on issues like this holds us all back. Perpetuating a known problem hardly seems "mature" or even "sane". I appreciate that doing things differently demands extraordinary cultural and economic shifts, new business models, faith... I don't see any of that as immature. (Perhaps I'm immature :) )

pif 10y ago
Yeah, pollution sucks. But pushing a wheelbarrow sucks, too.
- the_other 10y ago
  We learned to harness ox and horses for this reason. These things don't pollute as much as a truck, and at the end of their lives we can eat them or they can become food for our ecosystem peers rather than leave them in toxic dumps. I'll rephrase my point to highlight what I think most relevant: if we constantly make concessions towards cost efficiency (because it's "pragmatic" and "mature") we will run out of time to deal with the major pollution problem before it kills us and most of our peers.
  - exDM69 10y ago
    > These things don't pollute as much as a truck I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Farming and keeping animals consumes a lot of natural resources. Keep in mind that you'd need a lot of time and a lot of oxen or horses to haul two tons of material.

gambiting 10y ago

The thing is, that supplying a diesel truck to a rural community might dramatically improve living standards in the community. The damage done by burning diesel is small compared to the improvement of livelihood of dozens of people. I would say, if you are worried about trucks polluting the earth, we should stop ordering shit online and expecting that every supermarket everywhere has all the freshest produce from every corner of the world. I'm willing to bet that the ecological cost of my local supermarket having fresh cherries from Chile or watermelon from Argentina(I'm in UK) is an order of magnitude greater than all diesel trucks used by 3rd world African villages combined.

pif 10y ago
Yes, we should not forget that people adopted fossil fuels because it meant a great improvement in the quality of their lives. After decades of experience, we know that this has a cost (pollution is bad for health) and discussion is welcomed, but focusing on the cost without acknowledging the benefits is not a good start.
joosters 10y ago
Fresh fruit or flowers from remote parts of the world are often flown to the UK via backloads, i.e. planes that would otherwise be empty. So the ecological cost is not as great as you may think.
- gambiting 10y ago
  I know that plane manufacturers try to make their planes as light as possible, because every kg translates to actual fuel needed to fly - so even if a plane would fly empty otherwise, filling it up with fruit has a cost. Not to mention this fruit has to then be taken to shops on a fleet of trucks etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I love that I can buy fresh produce any time of the year - but I just wanted to point out that denying the developing world basic transport technology to fight pollution, while we burn through monumental amounts of oil just to get stuff that improves our lives marginally, is not really fair.

jacquesm 10y ago

There was a man in the jungle Trying to make ends meet Found himself one day with an axe in his hand When a voice said "Buddy can you spare that tree We gotta save the world - starting with your land" It was a rock 'n' roll millionaire from the USA Doing 3 to the gallon in a big white car And he sang and he sang 'til he polluted the air And he blew a lot of smoke from a Cuban cigar (From Joe Jackson, Obvious Song)

tmd83 10y ago
Precisely this. I will give examples of US hotels since thats really the only first world country I have visited. Everywhere there's shades and basically with 4/5 lights I get no where near the light that a single no shade light gives in my own room. There are lots of things done in third world that are done in a more polluting matter for cost concern. But I would hazard a guess that if you take a ratio pollution / 'improvement of quality of living' first world countries would be so far ahead of 3rd world countries that there would be no competition. When I said countries I do mean most in that category there are bound to be exceptions.

Lio 10y ago

Seems like Gordon Murray agrees with you. On the [Ox website](http://oxgvt.com/ http://oxgvt.com/) it mentions that the powertrain can be swapped out in future versions for electric or hydrogen powered altenatives.