3 ms·

you expect an order of magnitude reduction in consumption? it won't happen.

rsynnott 7y ago
France manages a reasonable standard of living at 4.5T/capita/year (albeit with a LOT of nuclear, which may be politically and economically difficult to reproduce elsewhere). EU as a whole is 6.3T. So not really an order of magnitude, necessarily. The US is an outlier, granted, but mostly for fixable reasons (in particular, over dependence on cars due to poor public transport). 2T/capita is extremely ambitious, but not inconceivable. EDIT: By the way, it is notable that even before climate was a concern, CO2 emissions in developed countries were largely falling, since the 70s. This was a result of the oil crisis and other energy security issues pushing greater efficiency, plus the replacement of coal with gas for air quality and economic reasons.
- johnofthesea 7y ago
  > in particular, over dependence on cars due to poor public transport There is no form of transport that will fix poor urban planning.
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    No, but my impression is that even in cities in the US which have the density to support good systems, the systems tend to be... not great. I go to SF from time to time, and it's the only place I regularly have to resort to lyft/uber/etc, because the public transport system just doesn't seem... very useful. And I'm coming from Dublin, a city with a pretty bad system by European standards. And it's _possible_ for public transport to work for fairly low density suburbs; I think some places have had success with small feeder buses feeding larger buses or trams. Also, of course, urban planning can be improved. And tastes can change too; my impression is that the very large McMansion type houses are getting somewhat less popular in the US now, and they're a big contributor on two grounds (they exacerbate the low density problem, and they're expensive to heat and cool both due to sheer size and to generally relatively cheap construction prompted by the sheer size).
    - johnofthesea 7y ago
      > And it's _possible_ for public transport to work for fairly low density suburbs; I think some places have had success with small feeder buses feeding larger buses or trams. This is what I was sceptical about, but I haven't looked at these kinds of projects yet. I will 'research' more in to it. Thank you for these directions.
- Accipitriform 7y ago
  >The US is an outlier, granted, but mostly for fixable reasons (in particular, over dependence on cars due to poor public transport). This isn't an obstacle, given electric cars and clean electricity generation. As I said elsewhere, nuclear is the only viable answer. Sadly, it has been demonized, and that needs to be reversed. ThorCon's efforts in Indonesia will be interesting to watch. I'm not sure I like its current plan of siting the reactors like oil platforms in coastal waters though... The best approach is underground siting, with no or very little water cooling requirement.

France manages a reasonable standard of living at 4.5T/capita/year (albeit with a LOT of nuclear, which may be politically and economically difficult to reproduce elsewhere). EU as a whole is 6.3T. So not really an order of magnitude, necessarily. The US is an outlier, granted, but mostly for fixable reasons (in particular, over dependence on cars due to poor public transport). 2T/capita is extremely ambitious, but not inconceivable. EDIT: By the way, it is notable that even before climate was a concern, CO2 emissions in developed countries were largely falling, since the 70s. This was a result of the oil crisis and other energy security issues pushing greater efficiency, plus the replacement of coal with gas for air quality and economic reasons.

johnofthesea 7y ago
> in particular, over dependence on cars due to poor public transport There is no form of transport that will fix poor urban planning.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  No, but my impression is that even in cities in the US which have the density to support good systems, the systems tend to be... not great. I go to SF from time to time, and it's the only place I regularly have to resort to lyft/uber/etc, because the public transport system just doesn't seem... very useful. And I'm coming from Dublin, a city with a pretty bad system by European standards. And it's _possible_ for public transport to work for fairly low density suburbs; I think some places have had success with small feeder buses feeding larger buses or trams. Also, of course, urban planning can be improved. And tastes can change too; my impression is that the very large McMansion type houses are getting somewhat less popular in the US now, and they're a big contributor on two grounds (they exacerbate the low density problem, and they're expensive to heat and cool both due to sheer size and to generally relatively cheap construction prompted by the sheer size).
  - johnofthesea 7y ago
    > And it's _possible_ for public transport to work for fairly low density suburbs; I think some places have had success with small feeder buses feeding larger buses or trams. This is what I was sceptical about, but I haven't looked at these kinds of projects yet. I will 'research' more in to it. Thank you for these directions.
Accipitriform 7y ago
>The US is an outlier, granted, but mostly for fixable reasons (in particular, over dependence on cars due to poor public transport). This isn't an obstacle, given electric cars and clean electricity generation. As I said elsewhere, nuclear is the only viable answer. Sadly, it has been demonized, and that needs to be reversed. ThorCon's efforts in Indonesia will be interesting to watch. I'm not sure I like its current plan of siting the reactors like oil platforms in coastal waters though... The best approach is underground siting, with no or very little water cooling requirement.