4 ms·

Why does critical infrastructure need to be among the first to “go green?”

quantified 4y ago
Not that it needs to go first. It's visible and it's possible for a small number of decision-makers to decide and have an impact over a larger swath of infrastructure. 1000 vehicles can be the result of 10 people deciding, not 1000 people deciding.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  "Critical infrastructure" is critical because it has some job more important than being a billboard for a cause. If you can make it a billboard without compromising it's primary function, then great, but obviously EV garbage trucks isn't such a case.
  - quantified 4y ago
    EV snowplows isn't a case. I'd be interested if any discussion of electrifying included plowing. One thing that's clear: until battery-powered EVs are able to handle real muscular work (snow removal, hauling, plowing, etc.), diesel engines will be purchased, maintained and fueled by all levels of authority. Exactly how will roads be maintained without graders, pavers, etc.?
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      It's not about muscle. Electric absolutely mops the floor with diesels. It's simple battery capacity.
fulafel 4y ago
We can't afford to make things "go green" serially, we need to move on all fronts at once.
- customname 4y ago
  Why?
  - diordiderot 4y ago
    Don't look up! Don't look up!
    - customname 4y ago
      Hehe, epic Netflix movie is like real life
- fwungy 4y ago
  This is a dangerous way to think. First, the climate change models are imperfect. In the worst case we're already out of time, in the best case we have a lot. A lot of people stopped believing in Climage Change when Al Gore's chosen predictions did not come true on the timeline he suggested in "An Inconvenient Truth". Being overly alarmist can cost credibility, which leads to my next point: there is only so far people are willing to go voluntarily to fight climate change. At some point they will say the expenses are not justified, especially when aggressive predictions do not come true. "Prediction is hard, especially about the future" as Robert Oppenheimer said. How much is the average American, let alone the average global citizen willing to spend, willing to lower their quality of life to protect the climate? This isn't a theoretical matter of eating a few less hamburgers, it's about spending weeks in a cold house in Winter instead of a toasty, comfy one. "I'll just put on a sweater", doesn't work for everyone. In fact there is a huge racial equity issue involved with telling people to turn down their thermostat: darker skinned people are genetically tuned for warmer climates. It's a lot more painful for a Somalian immigrant in Minneapolis to be forced to run their thermostat at 58 degrees Fahrenheit in the midst of a sub-zero Winter than, say, someone of Swedish heritage. Once people reach their voluntary limits of sacrifice for the climate change cause, things get a lot more difficult. Do you simply force them to comply? How? What kind of force do you use? What sort of dystopian methods must be employed to force people to make sacrifices they don't want to make? My point is this: a measured, careful, response to Climate Change will likely yield better long term results than a panic driven response based on the most aggressive climate models. Just as in a fire drill people are encouraged to act in an orderly manner to avoid the suboptimal outcome of mayhem, a measured, thoughtful response, that balances costs will lead to a better outcome. We only have one chance to do this, let's do it right.
Symbiote 4y ago
Garbage trucks make almost all their emissions in the city, with their staff working around them. They work at low speed and stop and start continually. Other than this ploughing requirement, they seem a good early opportunity for conversion.
wolverine876 4y ago
Who says it does? What does that address? Improving fleets has large ROI. The benefit is all the emissions from all those vehicles. The cost should be lowered per vehicle due to standardization, and due to professional managers, maintainers, and drivers who can handle much more complexity and deal with novel issues.

Not that it needs to go first. It's visible and it's possible for a small number of decision-makers to decide and have an impact over a larger swath of infrastructure. 1000 vehicles can be the result of 10 people deciding, not 1000 people deciding.

LarryMullins 4y ago
"Critical infrastructure" is critical because it has some job more important than being a billboard for a cause. If you can make it a billboard without compromising it's primary function, then great, but obviously EV garbage trucks isn't such a case.
- quantified 4y ago
  EV snowplows isn't a case. I'd be interested if any discussion of electrifying included plowing. One thing that's clear: until battery-powered EVs are able to handle real muscular work (snow removal, hauling, plowing, etc.), diesel engines will be purchased, maintained and fueled by all levels of authority. Exactly how will roads be maintained without graders, pavers, etc.?
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    It's not about muscle. Electric absolutely mops the floor with diesels. It's simple battery capacity.

fulafel 4y ago

We can't afford to make things "go green" serially, we need to move on all fronts at once.

customname 4y ago
Why?
- diordiderot 4y ago
  Don't look up! Don't look up!
  - customname 4y ago
    Hehe, epic Netflix movie is like real life
fwungy 4y ago
This is a dangerous way to think. First, the climate change models are imperfect. In the worst case we're already out of time, in the best case we have a lot. A lot of people stopped believing in Climage Change when Al Gore's chosen predictions did not come true on the timeline he suggested in "An Inconvenient Truth". Being overly alarmist can cost credibility, which leads to my next point: there is only so far people are willing to go voluntarily to fight climate change. At some point they will say the expenses are not justified, especially when aggressive predictions do not come true. "Prediction is hard, especially about the future" as Robert Oppenheimer said. How much is the average American, let alone the average global citizen willing to spend, willing to lower their quality of life to protect the climate? This isn't a theoretical matter of eating a few less hamburgers, it's about spending weeks in a cold house in Winter instead of a toasty, comfy one. "I'll just put on a sweater", doesn't work for everyone. In fact there is a huge racial equity issue involved with telling people to turn down their thermostat: darker skinned people are genetically tuned for warmer climates. It's a lot more painful for a Somalian immigrant in Minneapolis to be forced to run their thermostat at 58 degrees Fahrenheit in the midst of a sub-zero Winter than, say, someone of Swedish heritage. Once people reach their voluntary limits of sacrifice for the climate change cause, things get a lot more difficult. Do you simply force them to comply? How? What kind of force do you use? What sort of dystopian methods must be employed to force people to make sacrifices they don't want to make? My point is this: a measured, careful, response to Climate Change will likely yield better long term results than a panic driven response based on the most aggressive climate models. Just as in a fire drill people are encouraged to act in an orderly manner to avoid the suboptimal outcome of mayhem, a measured, thoughtful response, that balances costs will lead to a better outcome. We only have one chance to do this, let's do it right.

Symbiote 4y ago

Garbage trucks make almost all their emissions in the city, with their staff working around them. They work at low speed and stop and start continually. Other than this ploughing requirement, they seem a good early opportunity for conversion.

wolverine876 4y ago

Who says it does? What does that address? Improving fleets has large ROI. The benefit is all the emissions from all those vehicles. The cost should be lowered per vehicle due to standardization, and due to professional managers, maintainers, and drivers who can handle much more complexity and deal with novel issues.