5 ms·

This is great and all, but still really stupid if you stop and think a lot of EV use is just replacing ICE use that shouldn’t exist in the first place. A lot of

This is great and all, but still really stupid if you stop and think a lot of EV use is just replacing ICE use that shouldn’t exist in the first place. A lot of daily commute isn’t necessary, or not necessary by car with public transportation, but the economic incentives aren’t there to build cities for that - need to keep selling cars.

wilg 3y ago
It’s much less stupid if you think about it as a way to halt global warming and reduce pollution and noise.
- pengaru 3y ago
  > It’s much less stupid if you think about it as a way to halt global warming and reduce pollution and noise. s/halt/slow/
  - wilg 3y ago
    Slowing it is how you get to halting it. These things can run on purely renewable energy, so if we get to a 100% EV fleet it will be relatively easy to go carbon-neutral on vehicle transport.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "it will be relatively easy to go carbon-neutral on vehicle transport." For the fuel maybe. Probably not as easy on other components.
      - wilg 3y ago
        For the fuel definitely. But we have to solve the problem for other components anyway. EV batteries in particular are great because they are 99% recyclable, so that's going to be the long term strategy.
    - pengaru 3y ago
      I'm all for EVs, but it's no climate-change fixing panacea.
      - wilg 3y ago
        No one claimed it was. But vehicles are the largest GHG emitting sector, so zeroing out emissions from it is crucially important. We just have to go sector-by-sector do this. Plus, technology developed for EVs helps stationary grid storage and electrification of other products and industries.
    - creeble 3y ago
      Powering a 100% carbon neutral EV "fleet" would require lots more (solar/wind)+battery or nuclear that is unlikely to be developed as quickly as the consumption.
      - wilg 3y ago
        That's what's great about electricity! It abstracts the power generation technology. If we need to temporarily use natural gas to power it, for example, we can just do it and still achieve better efficiency than ICE cars. But we're going to have to develop that renewable power infrastructure anyway. And renewables are now cheaper in many cases than polluting alternatives.
        creeble 3y ago
        Cheaper, but not available. So not abstract. So if Jevon's Paradox holds true for transportation as it did for steam power, we may need lots of fossil-fuel electric plants just to meet demand. Maybe that's "temporary", but so was coal.
        wilg 3y ago
        I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't think you need to worry about this.
        pengaru 3y ago
        > I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't think you need to worry about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
dv_dt 3y ago
Whatever percentage of all vehicle use you think will potentially replaced, lets give you a generous 50%. A lot of remaining percentage would still be of benefit to transition from ICE to EV.
moolcool 3y ago
Solving a part of the problem is better than solving none of it.
AlotOfReading 3y ago
Perfect is the enemy of good. Public transit is great in many respects, but realistically the people who are in place to push EV adoption aren't meaningfully involved with public transit and vice versa. It's the collective consumers who influence both sides with their preferences. Planners could induce demand with better, more useful transit systems, but that's not hindered by increased EV adoption.
- kiba 3y ago
  It's not good enough for dealing with climate change and it's a hard conversation we're not having as a society.
  - wilg 3y ago
    We can support today's amount of industry and consumption on 100% renewable clean energy. (And we'd actually only need half the energy to do it.)
    - You-Are-Right 3y ago
      [dead]
epistasis 3y ago
As somebody who doesn't want to drive as much as I have to, advocates locally and vocally for permitting life with out cars by enhancing bike trails, building housing close to jobs, eliminating parking minimums, and increasing density, it's a slow route. It seems like small changes in regulations should be easy to accomplish, but it's actually far far harder than inventing entirely new technology and building entire industries around it. Social change is the hardest change to accomplish, despite it getting the most attention from so many.
- wilg 3y ago
  I'm glad people like you are advocating for this sort of thing! Very important for quality of life and helps the environment tremendously. I also worry about the pace that you mention, it's unfortunate that social change is so slow. It's also good that we have potential solutions that do not require it. I think the right framing on this might be to treat it as a "friendly competition". Can urban planning enthusiasts beat the electric car industry at reducing carbon by 2050? Or something like that.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    After five years of beating my head against the wall, and making a good number of friends in the process, but having zero concrete change, I think that the problem is the system. Our system is set up for maximum local control to prevent any non-car infrastructure, but with top-down enforced car infrastructure that's unstoppable. Local advocacy has been pointless, instead, state level laws that limit cities, and pull back undemocratic local control processes is the way to go. Nobody pays attention to local politics except a few wealthy homeowners, and so politicians only respond to these very few opinion makers. It's a losing game unless you're in your 60s, retired, and loaded with money. State level legislators have broader constituencies that try to serve every one.
- worik 3y ago
  Social change follows an S curve too. Rapidly changing now
prpl 3y ago
I’m not sure quite certain I understand your viewpoint. It seems like you are hinting at remote work obviating much of the daily commute. The issue I’ve seen with that is that public transport becomes useless since it’s largely oriented towards getting people into metro/city centers - not running errands or entertainment - which becomes the primary reasons you leave the house. While not true in HCOL urban areas - which probably includes much of NYC proper and probably half of SF proper, at most this is especially true in urbanized suburbs in or near those places. Beyond that, it’s generally hopeless.
zmnd 3y ago
Now let's just agree on who is going to decide what is stupid and what is not.
pfdietz 3y ago
I tune out opinions like yours because I know they're extremely unlikely to lead to anything real.
eastbound 3y ago
Probably most of European citizen live in 6-story high cities, aka Paris, Barcelona, Lausanne… and 6-story is the optimal density for having a lot of choice of officrs (second floors), a lot of commerce (ground floors), and a lot of housing (the rest). With that, you walk or bike to work while still working for a high pay.
martythemaniak 3y ago
1) The differences between transit and car oriented places aren't as great as you think. Poland has 7% fewer cars, France 20% fewer cars, Germany has 24% fewer cars, etc. Poor countries have much fewer cars, people with money generally like personal vehicles. 2) Public Transit will benefit immensely from car electrification. Batteries for busses will get better because of investments and economies of scale made for car battery manufacturing. 3) Buildings and cultural habits have generations-long duration. Even the shittiest houses last 100 years. Cars last 10-15 years, so the vehicle stock will be renewed many many times faster than memes like "rebuild our cities" 4) Autonomous EVs will likewise also arrive far sooner than "rebuilding cities". Cruise operates 24/7 in SF. Their "Origin" EV will be the basis for surface-level public transit in the future.

wilg 3y ago

It’s much less stupid if you think about it as a way to halt global warming and reduce pollution and noise.

pengaru 3y ago
> It’s much less stupid if you think about it as a way to halt global warming and reduce pollution and noise. s/halt/slow/
- wilg 3y ago
  Slowing it is how you get to halting it. These things can run on purely renewable energy, so if we get to a 100% EV fleet it will be relatively easy to go carbon-neutral on vehicle transport.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "it will be relatively easy to go carbon-neutral on vehicle transport." For the fuel maybe. Probably not as easy on other components.
    - wilg 3y ago
      For the fuel definitely. But we have to solve the problem for other components anyway. EV batteries in particular are great because they are 99% recyclable, so that's going to be the long term strategy.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    I'm all for EVs, but it's no climate-change fixing panacea.
    - wilg 3y ago
      No one claimed it was. But vehicles are the largest GHG emitting sector, so zeroing out emissions from it is crucially important. We just have to go sector-by-sector do this. Plus, technology developed for EVs helps stationary grid storage and electrification of other products and industries.
  - creeble 3y ago
    Powering a 100% carbon neutral EV "fleet" would require lots more (solar/wind)+battery or nuclear that is unlikely to be developed as quickly as the consumption.
    - wilg 3y ago
      That's what's great about electricity! It abstracts the power generation technology. If we need to temporarily use natural gas to power it, for example, we can just do it and still achieve better efficiency than ICE cars. But we're going to have to develop that renewable power infrastructure anyway. And renewables are now cheaper in many cases than polluting alternatives.
      - creeble 3y ago
        Cheaper, but not available. So not abstract. So if Jevon's Paradox holds true for transportation as it did for steam power, we may need lots of fossil-fuel electric plants just to meet demand. Maybe that's "temporary", but so was coal.
        wilg 3y ago
        I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't think you need to worry about this.
        pengaru 3y ago
        > I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't think you need to worry about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

dv_dt 3y ago

Whatever percentage of all vehicle use you think will potentially replaced, lets give you a generous 50%. A lot of remaining percentage would still be of benefit to transition from ICE to EV.

moolcool 3y ago

Solving a part of the problem is better than solving none of it.

AlotOfReading 3y ago

Perfect is the enemy of good. Public transit is great in many respects, but realistically the people who are in place to push EV adoption aren't meaningfully involved with public transit and vice versa. It's the collective consumers who influence both sides with their preferences. Planners could induce demand with better, more useful transit systems, but that's not hindered by increased EV adoption.

kiba 3y ago
It's not good enough for dealing with climate change and it's a hard conversation we're not having as a society.
- wilg 3y ago
  We can support today's amount of industry and consumption on 100% renewable clean energy. (And we'd actually only need half the energy to do it.)
  - You-Are-Right 3y ago
    [dead]

epistasis 3y ago

As somebody who doesn't want to drive as much as I have to, advocates locally and vocally for permitting life with out cars by enhancing bike trails, building housing close to jobs, eliminating parking minimums, and increasing density, it's a slow route. It seems like small changes in regulations should be easy to accomplish, but it's actually far far harder than inventing entirely new technology and building entire industries around it. Social change is the hardest change to accomplish, despite it getting the most attention from so many.

wilg 3y ago
I'm glad people like you are advocating for this sort of thing! Very important for quality of life and helps the environment tremendously. I also worry about the pace that you mention, it's unfortunate that social change is so slow. It's also good that we have potential solutions that do not require it. I think the right framing on this might be to treat it as a "friendly competition". Can urban planning enthusiasts beat the electric car industry at reducing carbon by 2050? Or something like that.
- epistasis 3y ago
  After five years of beating my head against the wall, and making a good number of friends in the process, but having zero concrete change, I think that the problem is the system. Our system is set up for maximum local control to prevent any non-car infrastructure, but with top-down enforced car infrastructure that's unstoppable. Local advocacy has been pointless, instead, state level laws that limit cities, and pull back undemocratic local control processes is the way to go. Nobody pays attention to local politics except a few wealthy homeowners, and so politicians only respond to these very few opinion makers. It's a losing game unless you're in your 60s, retired, and loaded with money. State level legislators have broader constituencies that try to serve every one.
worik 3y ago
Social change follows an S curve too. Rapidly changing now

prpl 3y ago

I’m not sure quite certain I understand your viewpoint. It seems like you are hinting at remote work obviating much of the daily commute. The issue I’ve seen with that is that public transport becomes useless since it’s largely oriented towards getting people into metro/city centers - not running errands or entertainment - which becomes the primary reasons you leave the house. While not true in HCOL urban areas - which probably includes much of NYC proper and probably half of SF proper, at most this is especially true in urbanized suburbs in or near those places. Beyond that, it’s generally hopeless.

zmnd 3y ago

Now let's just agree on who is going to decide what is stupid and what is not.

pfdietz 3y ago

I tune out opinions like yours because I know they're extremely unlikely to lead to anything real.

eastbound 3y ago

Probably most of European citizen live in 6-story high cities, aka Paris, Barcelona, Lausanne… and 6-story is the optimal density for having a lot of choice of officrs (second floors), a lot of commerce (ground floors), and a lot of housing (the rest). With that, you walk or bike to work while still working for a high pay.

martythemaniak 3y ago

1) The differences between transit and car oriented places aren't as great as you think. Poland has 7% fewer cars, France 20% fewer cars, Germany has 24% fewer cars, etc. Poor countries have much fewer cars, people with money generally like personal vehicles. 2) Public Transit will benefit immensely from car electrification. Batteries for busses will get better because of investments and economies of scale made for car battery manufacturing. 3) Buildings and cultural habits have generations-long duration. Even the shittiest houses last 100 years. Cars last 10-15 years, so the vehicle stock will be renewed many many times faster than memes like "rebuild our cities" 4) Autonomous EVs will likewise also arrive far sooner than "rebuilding cities". Cruise operates 24/7 in SF. Their "Origin" EV will be the basis for surface-level public transit in the future.