3 ms·

Sure, it’s not an ideal solution. If we had any sense, we would ban diesel and gasoline vehicles from our cities and subsidise their replacement with zero emiss

Sure, it’s not an ideal solution. If we had any sense, we would ban diesel and gasoline vehicles from our cities and subsidise their replacement with zero emissions vehicles. Combusting hydrocarbons have no place alongside our kids. People will look back on us in 50 years and laugh at how stupid we were. Until then, we need people to do what they can. We’re talking about commercial vehicles - either the owner will bear the cost, and make it clear to employees not to do it, or they won’t, and people will learn quick smart to turn off their engine anyway. In 95% of cases, people aren’t doing it with the intention of being anti-social - they’re just not aware of it. This sort of enforcement scheme is the kind of thing that changes cultures, starting with polluting corporates.

peakaboo 5y ago
In 50 years? I've been looking back at humans since I was born and thinking there is not much to be proud of. We made the planet a worse place for every other species expect maybe cats and dogs.
- rythmshifter03 5y ago
  This is utter nonsense. Quality of life has improved in so many ways you must have simply not even bothered to check. I need to stop commenting late at night.
  - CodeShmode 5y ago
    "For every other species"
kkfx 5y ago
Try a small game: how much car's there are in your city? How many kWh/day they need? Now try to interpolate at national level and just try finding an answer to: how can we recharge? IMVHO single family homes, in a certain (albeit large) part of the world, well placed, that can at least two car per adult head, might run on p.v. and so energy is not a problem, on scale such hypothetical society can meet their energy need most days and can use wind/hydro/nuclear for the others. However: - most cities, witch means most densely populated areas of the planet and where most peoples live, can't do that, simply there is no physical space. - we probably can't produce enough batteries, in natural resources terms, to substitute all ICE cars, and keep producing them when after just 5-8 years initial batteries are dead (we still do not have viable way to recycle). If you follow the press you've might have read things like: - https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/uk-eliminating-car-ownership https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/uk-eliminating... - https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3vny5/glorified-electric-golf-carts-for-all https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3vny5/glorified-electric-go... etc witch clearly depict a future of a divided society: a small minority living in modern homes, with p.v. et al. to meet their energy needs, e.v., perhaps flying ones (witch might be cheaper than keep up a big road network in the actual climate change state) and the rest confined in modern smart cities, closely similar to factories or prisons, oh something like: - https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-really-remember-what-that-is-or-how-differently-well-live-in-2030/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s... - https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/how-we-help-clients/capital-excellence/cities https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/how-w... - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-expensive-new-migrant-camps-are-outraging-ngos https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-ex... - https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/34827717.html https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/34827717.html etc. I honestly do not know what can be our (humans) options so far, BUT certainly I do not like decisions made by those who are actually responsible of our tragic evolution. Personally I quit a large modern city toward a served-enough mountains area, building a new modern home, with insulation, anything electrical, p.v. with lithium storage to power and backup, with various backups (nearby water source, water recuperation at home, emergency/for pleasure airtight wood stove enough for heating the house etc) and the above depicted future society might be even good for me: as long as I can get services (food, tools, meds etc) my own personal life is already, still remain if nothing of that happen and can remain if such evolution happen, better than before, but such new society can't last longer. No society where too large part of population are pushed toward India's caste-alike isolation between cohort of people can really last much, especially in modern times where we need enough smart people to keep out tech up.
- iso1210 5y ago
  People living in areas without public transport should have driveways and/or garages. Driving an average 14,000 miles a year or 40 miles a day, or 13kWh, is easily charged from the power you get out of a standard socket overnight, 1kWh per car, less than a space-heater. If you live in a city and thus don't have a private parking space, then you should be using mass transport. Cars don't work in high density areas. I live in the country in the UK, I do have a bus, it runs 6 times a day and doesn't go in the right direction or right times for most purposes, but the total mileage we do is easily charged from an extension lead, and solar on the roof would provide more 15,000 miles of power over a year - far more than we use. However the cost of both an electric car and the solar installation isn't worth it, because we don't pay externalities for the carbon production.
  - kkfx 5y ago
    > People living in areas without public transport should have driveways and/or garages. And do have also the ability to produce electricity with a usage pattern that permit self-charging the car? Electricity grid are a bit complex to be kept up, to be more precise generators need time to step up produced power and time to step down, that's why we make large enough grid to average the load on generators counting on a big enough user base to have a nearly constant load on the grid, small variations of loads can be sustained. Slowly charging a car, test on few friends cars, means around 15-20A witch yes is not exceptional BUT if many people charge their car during the night that means a spike load, a significant one, on the grid, something no actual grid can sustain. Remember: we do not have "big hyper-condenser batteries" to absorb a spike while generator step up and we do not have "energy sponge" to dump excess of energy once a load drop and the generator need a bit to lower it's produced power. That's the very same problem of domestic p.v.: if they are connected to the grid it's the grid that sustain initial spike while the solar inverter step up, and it's the grid sustain final spike receiving the excess of energy while the inverter step down. If your load surpass injection limits your inverter will disconnect loosing power completely to do it's best to keep a constant frequency on the grid. We have invented the CONCEPT, since so far exist only on paper and small scale experiments, of smart-grids, to mitigate that big problem: in a smart grid nodes talks each others to say "hey, get ready to produce more energy, I'm about to soft-start from x to y", generators can potentially answer back "don't, we are overloaded" or "ok, we get ready for you". E.v. in the game can provide batteries + inverters to quickly intervene backing up the grid segment per segment. Similarly in case of disruption they can keep a house powered connected to it's micro-grid + anti-islandic system to avoid injecting to the grid. So far we haven't such networks, we have only ideas and experiments. It will take decades (one it's not enough, for all not so small countries) to implement them at a certain scale. > If you live in a city [...] then you should be using mass transport. Witch is an enormous issue alone: mass transport are very costly and very inefficient, they are efficient only when fully loaded, exactly when people do not like them for the crowd. But we need to move 24/7/365 not just in peak time, so public transports are complicated and bad in terms of energy saving and outcome service. They are pushed just because there is a hyper-push against personal ownership and autonomy at any cost. But the truth is that public transports are needed in dense cities, but are absolutely unsustainable and dense cities are. Some want them, just because dense cities means mass surveillance where very few can rule many easily, also making them dependent for anything. Even accepting that big liability in cities you still need cars: you have sometimes to go outside, you have to transport heavy/bulky stuff, witch can't be done on public transport. People who work in the city need vehicles just because a plumber, an electrician etc always need a not so small set of tools with him/her etc. > However the cost of both an electric car and the solar installation isn't worth it True, and that's why to push the Green New Deal they artificially hyper push up energy prices, both to finance massive private investments in energy production and transmission and to force people who can to buy the Green New Deal stuff and the others to starve sliding toward State subsides at State (of course, not Democratic state but one run by private neoliberal interests) rules. That's already happen. When I've made my new home I know it was not economically interesting BUT I've smell rodent and decide to accept the capex, now in just few years it start to be economically interested. E.v. are still too expensive for their MTBF but I'm pretty sure in few years with energy prices that keep skyrocketing they'll became interesting. As a result I'll spend far more than without the neoliberal economy but still far less then embracing it. Most who live in classic homes and cities will simply have no choices: they'll sell their own homes to some private giant that will rebuild them in new homes for who can afford to buy or rent, or to the State in exchange of provided social housing at provided condition reaching the (in)famous "In 2030 you'll own nothing" from the World Economic Forum agenda. If you are in the UK I suggest Mark Carney (ex head of UK national bank) book "Value(s): Building a Better World for All" it's essentially written black on white, of course, with different tones, but equal picture for the future.

peakaboo 5y ago

In 50 years? I've been looking back at humans since I was born and thinking there is not much to be proud of. We made the planet a worse place for every other species expect maybe cats and dogs.

rythmshifter03 5y ago
This is utter nonsense. Quality of life has improved in so many ways you must have simply not even bothered to check. I need to stop commenting late at night.
- CodeShmode 5y ago
  "For every other species"

kkfx 5y ago

Try a small game: how much car's there are in your city? How many kWh/day they need? Now try to interpolate at national level and just try finding an answer to: how can we recharge? IMVHO single family homes, in a certain (albeit large) part of the world, well placed, that can at least two car per adult head, might run on p.v. and so energy is not a problem, on scale such hypothetical society can meet their energy need most days and can use wind/hydro/nuclear for the others. However: - most cities, witch means most densely populated areas of the planet and where most peoples live, can't do that, simply there is no physical space. - we probably can't produce enough batteries, in natural resources terms, to substitute all ICE cars, and keep producing them when after just 5-8 years initial batteries are dead (we still do not have viable way to recycle). If you follow the press you've might have read things like: - https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/uk-eliminating-car-ownership https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/uk-eliminating... - https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3vny5/glorified-electric-golf-carts-for-all https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3vny5/glorified-electric-go... etc witch clearly depict a future of a divided society: a small minority living in modern homes, with p.v. et al. to meet their energy needs, e.v., perhaps flying ones (witch might be cheaper than keep up a big road network in the actual climate change state) and the rest confined in modern smart cities, closely similar to factories or prisons, oh something like: - https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-really-remember-what-that-is-or-how-differently-well-live-in-2030/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s... - https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/how-we-help-clients/capital-excellence/cities https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/how-w... - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-expensive-new-migrant-camps-are-outraging-ngos https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-ex... - https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/34827717.html https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/34827717.html etc. I honestly do not know what can be our (humans) options so far, BUT certainly I do not like decisions made by those who are actually responsible of our tragic evolution. Personally I quit a large modern city toward a served-enough mountains area, building a new modern home, with insulation, anything electrical, p.v. with lithium storage to power and backup, with various backups (nearby water source, water recuperation at home, emergency/for pleasure airtight wood stove enough for heating the house etc) and the above depicted future society might be even good for me: as long as I can get services (food, tools, meds etc) my own personal life is already, still remain if nothing of that happen and can remain if such evolution happen, better than before, but such new society can't last longer. No society where too large part of population are pushed toward India's caste-alike isolation between cohort of people can really last much, especially in modern times where we need enough smart people to keep out tech up.

iso1210 5y ago
People living in areas without public transport should have driveways and/or garages. Driving an average 14,000 miles a year or 40 miles a day, or 13kWh, is easily charged from the power you get out of a standard socket overnight, 1kWh per car, less than a space-heater. If you live in a city and thus don't have a private parking space, then you should be using mass transport. Cars don't work in high density areas. I live in the country in the UK, I do have a bus, it runs 6 times a day and doesn't go in the right direction or right times for most purposes, but the total mileage we do is easily charged from an extension lead, and solar on the roof would provide more 15,000 miles of power over a year - far more than we use. However the cost of both an electric car and the solar installation isn't worth it, because we don't pay externalities for the carbon production.
- kkfx 5y ago
  > People living in areas without public transport should have driveways and/or garages. And do have also the ability to produce electricity with a usage pattern that permit self-charging the car? Electricity grid are a bit complex to be kept up, to be more precise generators need time to step up produced power and time to step down, that's why we make large enough grid to average the load on generators counting on a big enough user base to have a nearly constant load on the grid, small variations of loads can be sustained. Slowly charging a car, test on few friends cars, means around 15-20A witch yes is not exceptional BUT if many people charge their car during the night that means a spike load, a significant one, on the grid, something no actual grid can sustain. Remember: we do not have "big hyper-condenser batteries" to absorb a spike while generator step up and we do not have "energy sponge" to dump excess of energy once a load drop and the generator need a bit to lower it's produced power. That's the very same problem of domestic p.v.: if they are connected to the grid it's the grid that sustain initial spike while the solar inverter step up, and it's the grid sustain final spike receiving the excess of energy while the inverter step down. If your load surpass injection limits your inverter will disconnect loosing power completely to do it's best to keep a constant frequency on the grid. We have invented the CONCEPT, since so far exist only on paper and small scale experiments, of smart-grids, to mitigate that big problem: in a smart grid nodes talks each others to say "hey, get ready to produce more energy, I'm about to soft-start from x to y", generators can potentially answer back "don't, we are overloaded" or "ok, we get ready for you". E.v. in the game can provide batteries + inverters to quickly intervene backing up the grid segment per segment. Similarly in case of disruption they can keep a house powered connected to it's micro-grid + anti-islandic system to avoid injecting to the grid. So far we haven't such networks, we have only ideas and experiments. It will take decades (one it's not enough, for all not so small countries) to implement them at a certain scale. > If you live in a city [...] then you should be using mass transport. Witch is an enormous issue alone: mass transport are very costly and very inefficient, they are efficient only when fully loaded, exactly when people do not like them for the crowd. But we need to move 24/7/365 not just in peak time, so public transports are complicated and bad in terms of energy saving and outcome service. They are pushed just because there is a hyper-push against personal ownership and autonomy at any cost. But the truth is that public transports are needed in dense cities, but are absolutely unsustainable and dense cities are. Some want them, just because dense cities means mass surveillance where very few can rule many easily, also making them dependent for anything. Even accepting that big liability in cities you still need cars: you have sometimes to go outside, you have to transport heavy/bulky stuff, witch can't be done on public transport. People who work in the city need vehicles just because a plumber, an electrician etc always need a not so small set of tools with him/her etc. > However the cost of both an electric car and the solar installation isn't worth it True, and that's why to push the Green New Deal they artificially hyper push up energy prices, both to finance massive private investments in energy production and transmission and to force people who can to buy the Green New Deal stuff and the others to starve sliding toward State subsides at State (of course, not Democratic state but one run by private neoliberal interests) rules. That's already happen. When I've made my new home I know it was not economically interesting BUT I've smell rodent and decide to accept the capex, now in just few years it start to be economically interested. E.v. are still too expensive for their MTBF but I'm pretty sure in few years with energy prices that keep skyrocketing they'll became interesting. As a result I'll spend far more than without the neoliberal economy but still far less then embracing it. Most who live in classic homes and cities will simply have no choices: they'll sell their own homes to some private giant that will rebuild them in new homes for who can afford to buy or rent, or to the State in exchange of provided social housing at provided condition reaching the (in)famous "In 2030 you'll own nothing" from the World Economic Forum agenda. If you are in the UK I suggest Mark Carney (ex head of UK national bank) book "Value(s): Building a Better World for All" it's essentially written black on white, of course, with different tones, but equal picture for the future.