7 ms·

Yup, the means to solve climate change and electricity the US already exist, but people don't like them for stupid reasons. US has an irrational dislike for ov

Yup, the means to solve climate change and electricity the US already exist, but people don't like them for stupid reasons. US has an irrational dislike for overhead wires, for both trains and trolley buses (ubiquitous enough they have Unicode) This isn't a problem of technology, and we can't "innovate our way out". Our dispersed suburban land use pattern is simply a mistake, and impossible to make efficient. Efficiency comes from: * Electrified freight rail for cargo transport into and between cities and buildings * High speed intercity electrified passenger rail * Frequent, automated subway and heavy rail in cities and their peripheries * Frequent, ubiquitous trolleybuses to bring people to rail stations * Dense apartment buildings with good noise cancellation which share heated walls, and use heat pumps for heating and cooling * Renewable electricity * Flights for trips >500km, taking passengers from several nearby cities who take high speed rail to the airport ALL OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES EXIST TODAY, we just need to be willing to adopt them. Because these technologies exist today, there is no sense in "waiting for technology to save us". We need to choose to adopt them, and abandon our inefficient policies now. These will always be the solutions, and we are just in denial that we need to adopt them.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> US has an irrational dislike for overhead wires, for both trains and trolley buses but oddly, not for neighborhood electrical delivery.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  I have what I believe to be a rational dislike for overhead wires for neighborhood electrical delivery: They're unreliable (multiple outages every winter because snowstorms take out trees), unsafe when they're knocked down but still live, expensive in the long run due to pole replacement and tree maintenance, ugly, and all it takes is a slight increase in capital expenses for installation to replace them with underground utilities. I don't think I'm alone in this.
  - oblio 5y ago
    You're not alone. The EU generally has underground wires and where it doesn't yet have them it's actively planning to move them there.
  - alamortsubite 5y ago
    Not at all, but it's totally beside the parent's point, which is the hypocrisy of scapegoating overhead lines to restrict public transportation options, while simultaneously letting them proliferate unchallenged for residential electric delivery.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    >expensive in the long run due to pole replacement and tree maintenance, Not compared to burial. The cost is up front (not amortized) and is a big enough multiplier that it won't overcome maintenance costs, especially when including buried repair/maintenance costs, which are significantly higher than overhead, even taking into account the lower frequency. (Tree roots, dug-up lines, cathodic decay and leaking conduits, necessary relocations, etc, all happen.) There's nothing preventing the adoption of buried electrical today except the customer's willingness to pay for it. New neighborhoods and houses that want it, pay for it. Simple as that. And nothing prevents replacing existing overhead except it becomes a 100% unnecessary cost, once overhead has already been installed. >...and all it takes is a slight increase in capital expenses for installation to replace them with underground >slight 4-10x upfront install cost. Higher in urban environments. Not slight. If it paid for itself as you claim, why are companies almost universally making an irrationally expensive decision?
    - cgriswald 5y ago
      To compare fairly, you'd also have to take into account relative fire risk and difference in frequency of outages. > If it paid for itself as you claim, why are companies almost universally making an irrationally expensive decision? I don't think he made such a claim. There's an implication that it's 'worth it', but not that it's necessarily less expensive to implement. Companies aren't making irrational decisions. They just haven't historically been paying for the externalities.
vasco 5y ago
Not trying to be too dismissive, but americans like big houses, and I'm not sure how you can get around that.
- alamortsubite 5y ago
  A gas expands to fill its container.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  Americans would like mansions too if they were massively subsidized to the point of affordability. If you stopped subsidising the suburbs and suburbanites were forced to pay the 5x higher property tax rates it takes to maintain infrastructure, people's preferences would change.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    The people who currently live there have chosen where they live based on their budget. They likely cannot afford the 5x in taxes, so the practical result is that infrastructure would be left to crumble. This is what is currently happening with a lot of post-war infrastructure in the US right now.
    - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
      No, the practical result in the US is a huge Federal bailout every few decades, labelled "Infrastructure." Not to mention that they are subsidised within their own municipalities by commercial property and what little climate friendly housing is not NIMBY'd, typically by loud car sewers.
whiddershins 5y ago
How about people want to live how they want to live and we should innovate to accommodate that not restructure society?
- wyre 5y ago
  Because climate change is quickly killing our planet as we know it.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  We don't have that now (and never have). There are always constraints on what we can do.
- atq2119 5y ago
  Written on the website whose reason for existence is innovations that restructure society.
- maccam94 5y ago
  Suburbs were not created out of a natural desire people had. There was a combination of federal financial incentives and racist motives in the 50s that created them, and they are far less efficient than cities by basically every metric. Not Just Bikes series on Strong Towns: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-federal-government-intentionally-racially-segregated-american-cities-180963494/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-federal-governmen...
  - kube-system 5y ago
    There are reasons people like having a yard, more space, less noise, and an automobile, other than racism.
    - jeromegv 5y ago
      Yes. Many people. Issue is lack of alternative and how the whole society is built to cater to this lifestyle so many people are forced into it if they want anything more than a shoebox 1 bedroom. That’s why understanding why this option became the only choice is interesting to study.
maxerickson 5y ago
What does efficient mean, objectively? Like is it efficient for me to live in a place I don't like?
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  CO2 emissions per mile traveled. > Like is it efficient for me to live in a place I don't like? Is it more efficient to accommodate hundreds of millions of climate refugees rather than simply internalize the costs of climate change?
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    I doubt we need to move to trolley based cities to get to low emissions.
analyte123 5y ago
Completely overhauling the entire built environment, housing stock, supply chain, energy flows, and air transportation network of the world's 3rd largest country is not matter of "just" choosing or "just" anything.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> US has an irrational dislike for overhead wires, for both trains and trolley buses but oddly, not for neighborhood electrical delivery.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago
I have what I believe to be a rational dislike for overhead wires for neighborhood electrical delivery: They're unreliable (multiple outages every winter because snowstorms take out trees), unsafe when they're knocked down but still live, expensive in the long run due to pole replacement and tree maintenance, ugly, and all it takes is a slight increase in capital expenses for installation to replace them with underground utilities. I don't think I'm alone in this.
- oblio 5y ago
  You're not alone. The EU generally has underground wires and where it doesn't yet have them it's actively planning to move them there.
- alamortsubite 5y ago
  Not at all, but it's totally beside the parent's point, which is the hypocrisy of scapegoating overhead lines to restrict public transportation options, while simultaneously letting them proliferate unchallenged for residential electric delivery.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >expensive in the long run due to pole replacement and tree maintenance, Not compared to burial. The cost is up front (not amortized) and is a big enough multiplier that it won't overcome maintenance costs, especially when including buried repair/maintenance costs, which are significantly higher than overhead, even taking into account the lower frequency. (Tree roots, dug-up lines, cathodic decay and leaking conduits, necessary relocations, etc, all happen.) There's nothing preventing the adoption of buried electrical today except the customer's willingness to pay for it. New neighborhoods and houses that want it, pay for it. Simple as that. And nothing prevents replacing existing overhead except it becomes a 100% unnecessary cost, once overhead has already been installed. >...and all it takes is a slight increase in capital expenses for installation to replace them with underground >slight 4-10x upfront install cost. Higher in urban environments. Not slight. If it paid for itself as you claim, why are companies almost universally making an irrationally expensive decision?
  - cgriswald 5y ago
    To compare fairly, you'd also have to take into account relative fire risk and difference in frequency of outages. > If it paid for itself as you claim, why are companies almost universally making an irrationally expensive decision? I don't think he made such a claim. There's an implication that it's 'worth it', but not that it's necessarily less expensive to implement. Companies aren't making irrational decisions. They just haven't historically been paying for the externalities.

vasco 5y ago

Not trying to be too dismissive, but americans like big houses, and I'm not sure how you can get around that.

alamortsubite 5y ago
A gas expands to fill its container.
ZoomerCretin 5y ago
Americans would like mansions too if they were massively subsidized to the point of affordability. If you stopped subsidising the suburbs and suburbanites were forced to pay the 5x higher property tax rates it takes to maintain infrastructure, people's preferences would change.
- kube-system 5y ago
  The people who currently live there have chosen where they live based on their budget. They likely cannot afford the 5x in taxes, so the practical result is that infrastructure would be left to crumble. This is what is currently happening with a lot of post-war infrastructure in the US right now.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    No, the practical result in the US is a huge Federal bailout every few decades, labelled "Infrastructure." Not to mention that they are subsidised within their own municipalities by commercial property and what little climate friendly housing is not NIMBY'd, typically by loud car sewers.

whiddershins 5y ago

How about people want to live how they want to live and we should innovate to accommodate that not restructure society?

wyre 5y ago
Because climate change is quickly killing our planet as we know it.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
We don't have that now (and never have). There are always constraints on what we can do.
atq2119 5y ago
Written on the website whose reason for existence is innovations that restructure society.
maccam94 5y ago
Suburbs were not created out of a natural desire people had. There was a combination of federal financial incentives and racist motives in the 50s that created them, and they are far less efficient than cities by basically every metric. Not Just Bikes series on Strong Towns: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-federal-government-intentionally-racially-segregated-american-cities-180963494/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-federal-governmen...
- kube-system 5y ago
  There are reasons people like having a yard, more space, less noise, and an automobile, other than racism.
  - jeromegv 5y ago
    Yes. Many people. Issue is lack of alternative and how the whole society is built to cater to this lifestyle so many people are forced into it if they want anything more than a shoebox 1 bedroom. That’s why understanding why this option became the only choice is interesting to study.

maxerickson 5y ago

What does efficient mean, objectively? Like is it efficient for me to live in a place I don't like?

ZoomerCretin 5y ago
CO2 emissions per mile traveled. > Like is it efficient for me to live in a place I don't like? Is it more efficient to accommodate hundreds of millions of climate refugees rather than simply internalize the costs of climate change?
- maxerickson 5y ago
  I doubt we need to move to trolley based cities to get to low emissions.

analyte123 5y ago

Completely overhauling the entire built environment, housing stock, supply chain, energy flows, and air transportation network of the world's 3rd largest country is not matter of "just" choosing or "just" anything.