Electric Buses Are Hurting the Oil Industry(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Electric Buses Are Hurting the Oil Industry
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/electric-buses-are-hurting-the-oil-industry
327 comments
Here in Germany with have quite a few hydrogen powered buses.
Examples:
(German) https://www.ksta.de/region/rhein-erft/huerth/ab-2019-neue-wa...
But also elsewhere in Europe (here: South Tyrol, Italy): http://www.greenmobility.bz.it/en/projekte/die-bozner-wasser...
Nothing but water vapor coming out of them.
Examples:
(German) https://www.ksta.de/region/rhein-erft/huerth/ab-2019-neue-wa...
But also elsewhere in Europe (here: South Tyrol, Italy): http://www.greenmobility.bz.it/en/projekte/die-bozner-wasser...
Nothing but water vapor coming out of them.
> Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas owing to the presence of the hydroxyl bond which strongly absorbs in the infra-red region of the light spectrum. [1]
Though I can't tell whether water vapor created at the surface has the same effect as water vapor at altitude.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
Though I can't tell whether water vapor created at the surface has the same effect as water vapor at altitude.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
You know, they could have titled this article: "Electric Buses are affecting the Oil Industry."
Yet they didn't. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the oil industry? The electric car can't come fast enough.
Yet they didn't. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the oil industry? The electric car can't come fast enough.
"they consume 30 times more fuel than average sized cars".
Is that true? That seems gigantic, I thought taking so bus was so much better for the planet than taking your car.
I guess this number must take into account that the average city bus is driven a lot more than the average car.
On a fuel consumption per km, not to mention per km*passenger, it's way too much. Some number e.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
On a fuel consumption per km, not to mention per km*passenger, it's way too much. Some number e.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
Bus weighs ~30,000 pounds. Car, ~4,000. So I would question this stat.
At full capacity, a bus would be able to pack more people, in a much smaller space than a full capacity car, so there's your savings in fuel.
Plus I would assume that one, larger engine in a bus is more efficient than ~10 smaller engines. There's also the hidden cost of manufacturing a bus - does one bus take less resources to manufacture than the cars it may be able to replace?
According to,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport...
"A commuter service in Santa Barbara, California, USA, found average diesel bus efficiency of 6.0 mpg‑US (39 L/100 km; 7.2 mpg‑imp) (using MCI 102DL3 buses). With all 55 seats filled this equates to 330 passenger mpg; with 70% filled, 231 passenger mpg.[51]"
[51] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26758.pdf
At full capacity, a bus would be able to pack more people, in a much smaller space than a full capacity car, so there's your savings in fuel.
Plus I would assume that one, larger engine in a bus is more efficient than ~10 smaller engines. There's also the hidden cost of manufacturing a bus - does one bus take less resources to manufacture than the cars it may be able to replace?
According to,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport...
"A commuter service in Santa Barbara, California, USA, found average diesel bus efficiency of 6.0 mpg‑US (39 L/100 km; 7.2 mpg‑imp) (using MCI 102DL3 buses). With all 55 seats filled this equates to 330 passenger mpg; with 70% filled, 231 passenger mpg.[51]"
[51] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26758.pdf
Plus more busses means less congestion and smoother traffic causes less emissions.
My parents used to have an RV built on a freightliner chassis. While not a perfect example, it used ~6MPG in cities, and ~11MPG on highways (where it was driven 99% of the time). Also it was from 2004.
With all the things you find in an RV - Pop-outs, fridge, washing machine, etc, I would be amazed if it didn't weigh something similar, if not more than a city bus and at least equal to a inter-city bus.
Worst case scenario and all buses are driving around with 2004 level mileage, that is still only roughly 10x more fuel than the best mileage vehicles available today.
Smells like bullshit to me.
With all the things you find in an RV - Pop-outs, fridge, washing machine, etc, I would be amazed if it didn't weigh something similar, if not more than a city bus and at least equal to a inter-city bus.
Worst case scenario and all buses are driving around with 2004 level mileage, that is still only roughly 10x more fuel than the best mileage vehicles available today.
Smells like bullshit to me.
Okay, cool. But the energy still has to be produced somehow. Are we shifting the diesel to coal power plants? So for every km driven, what is the comparative amount of CO2 produced? Is there a net benefit in this regard? Coal power plants might be more efficient, but then we are shifting the smoke stacks.
Then what about the batteries? The batteries need to be produced, and they have a useful lifespan, then need to be disposed of or recycled. How do we deal with all of that contamination?
Are we further ahead with electric cars and buses?
I went to the Volvo museum last year and learned that pneumatic tires consume something like 30% of the energy expended by road vehicles, should we not be focusing on better rail transport? Or solid tire technology?
Then what about the batteries? The batteries need to be produced, and they have a useful lifespan, then need to be disposed of or recycled. How do we deal with all of that contamination?
Are we further ahead with electric cars and buses?
I went to the Volvo museum last year and learned that pneumatic tires consume something like 30% of the energy expended by road vehicles, should we not be focusing on better rail transport? Or solid tire technology?
Well, using electric vehicles does create more battery storage to charge using solar during daytime off-peak hours. You go to work, park your car in a parking equipped with chragers and your car charges while you sit and work. The parking lot and the neighbouring buildings can have solar panels on their roofs to supply the electricity. Same during night time off peak hours: you car can charge while you sleep mainly using excess nuclear or wind power. But this discussion is about public transport, which works equally better because during daytime off-peak hours people are mainly at work and half of the bus fleet can charge up.
I'm sure going electric is not 100% clean, but it displaces smog from the cities and power generation can be diversified and even distributed. So in many respects it's better. It's definitely better for urban transport where you don't need hundreds of miles of autonomy. The rest of the vehicles that go outside cities can be switched to plugin hybrids running on LPG and DME, which are cleaner alternatives to petrol and diesel. When they get into urban areas they can switch to fully electric if the transport code requires it.
I'm sure going electric is not 100% clean, but it displaces smog from the cities and power generation can be diversified and even distributed. So in many respects it's better. It's definitely better for urban transport where you don't need hundreds of miles of autonomy. The rest of the vehicles that go outside cities can be switched to plugin hybrids running on LPG and DME, which are cleaner alternatives to petrol and diesel. When they get into urban areas they can switch to fully electric if the transport code requires it.
Solar rooftops on cars don't provide enough juice for it to amount to much. Let's say for the sake of argument you could fit a square meter of a car's roof as a 20% efficient solar panel (a ludicrously high efficiency). Solar irradience is roughly 1 kW per square meter giving you roughly 200W. That will provide roughly 1.6 kWhr of energy. This is enough to drive roughly 8 miles on an average EV (20 kWhr/100 miles). That's about half the average commute one-way. Not nothing, but still invokes the question if it's worth the effort.
I am aware of this. This is why you need more rooftops than the parking lot's and your home's to produce electricity and feed it into the grid. Parkings could just buy that electricity, meter it and sell it to you along with the parking fee.
Thank you all for the thoughtful replies and it seems to me that moving to electric transport is the way forward.
I would like to point out that the article in the main was about China, where they are building out significant coal capacity. However it does seem that on balance it does seem the right thing to travel to trade bus diesel engines for static coal generation.
I would like to point out that the article in the main was about China, where they are building out significant coal capacity. However it does seem that on balance it does seem the right thing to travel to trade bus diesel engines for static coal generation.
The point is that you don't shift to coal power plants, you're supposed to get your energy from clean sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, and solar. You are presenting a false dichotomy, and engaging in whataboutism to create a distraction.
Maybe the batteries aren't very good for the environment, and maybe there are still problems to be solved with energy generation - it doesn't mean that it's not worth it to try to make our vehicles cleaner.
Maybe the batteries aren't very good for the environment, and maybe there are still problems to be solved with energy generation - it doesn't mean that it's not worth it to try to make our vehicles cleaner.
Even producing electricity from non renewable in large power plants is better than using these same fuels directly: large power plants are much more efficient (close to 40% energy efficiency vs 30% for vehicle motors), and allow much more easily to filter out pollution, including CO2 capture. Sure going from diesel to coal would be bad, but going from diesel engines to diesel power plant would be a significant gain.
It is also a lot easier to shift centralized power generation (from coal to natural gas, to wind, import from neighbour countries) than across the fleet of millions privately owned vehicles.
All power generation here in Norway is renewable, so the comparative CO2 amount is zero, or approximately infinite improvement over petrol.
This doesn't include trolleybuses, which are more common in Europe (not by orders of magnitude, but still).
Also some modern trolleybuses have batteries in them so they can service routes where power lines are only on parts of the route.
Also some modern trolleybuses have batteries in them so they can service routes where power lines are only on parts of the route.
I'm a bit surprised nobody has mentioned the fraud[1]. The reason electric bus becomes so popular in China recently is mainly because of government subsidies. Well that's the intended consequence and most people are OK with it.
What's problematic is that the subsidy is a fix amount for certain kind of vehicle. And it turns out bus is more efficient in terms of subsidy/cost ratio. And since the subsidy is a fixed amount, bus maker can cut a lot of corners and make a bare minimum of a bus which may cost even less than the subsidy. Now they can dump these buses to a local government basically free and bribe the operators to drive the buses once a while to receive the subsidy[2].
I mean I'm all for green buses. But if electric buses out-sale electric cars a lot, you have to wonder why. And one obvious reason is buses are mostly bought in large quantities by entities not very concerned about cost/profitability, ie local governments. So it is much easier for bus related fraud than cars facing mostly individual consumers.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-fines-five-auto-makers-fo... [2] http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001382/company-accused-of-run...
What's problematic is that the subsidy is a fix amount for certain kind of vehicle. And it turns out bus is more efficient in terms of subsidy/cost ratio. And since the subsidy is a fixed amount, bus maker can cut a lot of corners and make a bare minimum of a bus which may cost even less than the subsidy. Now they can dump these buses to a local government basically free and bribe the operators to drive the buses once a while to receive the subsidy[2].
I mean I'm all for green buses. But if electric buses out-sale electric cars a lot, you have to wonder why. And one obvious reason is buses are mostly bought in large quantities by entities not very concerned about cost/profitability, ie local governments. So it is much easier for bus related fraud than cars facing mostly individual consumers.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-fines-five-auto-makers-fo... [2] http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001382/company-accused-of-run...
I have been of the opinion that the US government should have not pushed EV adoption by subsidizing moving all school buses to EV. The reasons are many but most important is having children used to the idea of EV as a good means for local travel, not having all those diesel buses spewing fumes on to people while loading and unloading at schools, and finally keeping school systems from financial issues incurred by rising fuel costs.
This page gives the numbers of one of Georgia's largest school bus fleets. http://www.cobbk12.org/centraloffice/Transportation/
(numbers)
This page gives the numbers of one of Georgia's largest school bus fleets. http://www.cobbk12.org/centraloffice/Transportation/
(numbers)
875 Bus Drivers
139 Bus Monitors
886 Conventional Buses
288 Special Needs Buses
870 Routes per day
37,530 Bus Stops per day
68,673 Miles Traveled per day
72,544 Students Transported each dayExtraneous "not"?
"...should have not pushed EV adoption..."
"...should have not pushed EV adoption..."
China is definitely going on the right direction, I live in Bogotá Colombia and according to the mayor of Bogotá, the benefit of electric buses are comparable to buses fueled by natural gas, which I think is not that accurate. Despite the new trending worldwide of adopting electric buses, we are not getting them in the near future part of it are political reasons because the cost of an electrical bus is about the same than a diesel bus as far as I know.
Hopefully, this changes in the near future and the government get serious about going green on the public transportation.
Hopefully, this changes in the near future and the government get serious about going green on the public transportation.
Can people please stop talking about "zero emission" when talking about electric vehicles. This is intellectual dishonesty. The electricity isn't generated without emissions. The car isn't "environmental". The only environmental vehicle is the one that is NOT manufactured.
I think Lithium Ion is hurting OPEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densitie...
If they have good batteries and enough nuclear power, charging vehicles will take care of extra electricity produced during nights.
Win-win
Win-win
Hurt it harder. The oil industry deserves to be ruined with absolute malice.
Good.
I wonder what happens when China becomes more environmentally friendly than the US. What sort of excuses will the Trump crow come up with then?
Usually whatever is done in Europe is ignored in the US, with the reason that China is so much worse. China has been a useful bogeyman for conservatives for decades as a reason to not make any sort of improvement whether related to the environment, workers salaries, work conditions, universal health care etc.
Usually whatever is done in Europe is ignored in the US, with the reason that China is so much worse. China has been a useful bogeyman for conservatives for decades as a reason to not make any sort of improvement whether related to the environment, workers salaries, work conditions, universal health care etc.
Oh, the humanity
Sounds like good news
Oh, shucks...
Working at Proterra, we're doing our part.
Can you outline a bit how cities are customising the buses?
I've a bit of the report posted here a week or so. There are over 20 companies (of course ones in US and EU paying 2-3x over Chinese ones) and I can't fathom what they are competing over. Seems like a huge waste of resources.
I've a bit of the report posted here a week or so. There are over 20 companies (of course ones in US and EU paying 2-3x over Chinese ones) and I can't fathom what they are competing over. Seems like a huge waste of resources.
It's one of the difficulties in manufacturing for US entities is the huge amount of customization. Pretty much everything outside of the shell, battery pack and motor, can/is customized.
We of course think our tech is better.
We of course think our tech is better.
I’d love to see a tech news blurb about the new DC Circulator buses - efficiency, durability, etc.
Live in Greenville, SC and was waiting for a Proterra comment. :)
I work out of Bay Area office in Burlingame.
I'm back in the Greenville site a bunch. Really nice area, the downtown is super active, people really friendly. My wife and I have it on the think about list for bugging out of CA.
Plus they just bought some of our buses.
I'm back in the Greenville site a bunch. Really nice area, the downtown is super active, people really friendly. My wife and I have it on the think about list for bugging out of CA.
Plus they just bought some of our buses.
Cool! I saw Proterra made the new DC Circulator buses.
I like the red, they stand out.
I see they're being used in Seattle :)
Is this a submarine PR ad for the Chinese government? Not to take away from the objective positivity of the actual facts, but it feels eerily cheerleady. Almost childish, if nothing else… I count at least five pointless “ha ha look who’s laughing now” and “China is leading the world” in this, and a surprising lack of counterbalance. Perhaps I’m just seeing things?
But yes: great.
But yes: great.
I think you are seeing things. China is mentioned because they had the worst pollution problems, seriously invested in electric, and are now realizing the payoff. The numbers support the narrative.
Shenzhen resident here. Every time a large petroleum vehicle goes past I hear it. On the other side of the block there is a bus depot - totally silent - all Shenzhen buses and 50% of taxis are now electric. It's great.
Has there been an improvement in air quality or have the changes been too small to have an impact as yet?
Haven't been here long enough (~12 months) to anecdata that, but it's generally recognized that government policies are increasing air quality rapidly in many major cities. Example policies: routinely spraying water on the roads in dusty areas and near construction sites, banning motorbikes from city centers, banning the import of second hand vehicles, encouraging electric vehicles, moving polluting industries away from population centers, increasing industrial regulation, reducing opportunities and increasing penalties for corruption. I have a German friend who builds air quality monitoring systems for export here and he said that restaurant kitchen air vents are actually one of the worst urban air polluters now. Another is construction. He said India's cities, especially Delhi, are literally off the charts (sensors incapable of registering pollution levels that high) and that, compared to India, China has things well under control.
> banning motorbikes from city centers
Dirty thing people miss about motorbikes. Better mileage, but not as much as you would think, in return for a lot more emissions. That said I'm lead to understand that electric motorcycles and bicycles have become very common in China.
Dirty thing people miss about motorbikes. Better mileage, but not as much as you would think, in return for a lot more emissions. That said I'm lead to understand that electric motorcycles and bicycles have become very common in China.
Larger motorcycles, like Harley Davidson, use the same size engines as compact cars, like the Honda Fit. And they make a lot more noise dong so, which is part of the marketing for them.
Will automakers start putting "engine speakers" on electric Harley Davidson motorcycles and playing engine noises through them?
Will automakers start putting "engine speakers" on electric Harley Davidson motorcycles and playing engine noises through them?
You’re probably right. Perfunctory research into the author reveals a focus on clean energy, and very few articles at all about China.
I’ve become paranoid about astroturfing.
I’ve become paranoid about astroturfing.
I think the general consensus is that, politics aside, China is leading the world in many things now. Certain people, even sometimes Americans, seem to experience some schadenfreude that the US is being displaced in so many categories.
While the reducing pollution piece is captured here, interestingly the reducing oil imports dependency is not captured in the article which I would imagine is equally important here.
> reducing oil imports dependency
I keep harping on this as something important that doesn't get much attentions. Lot of countries are almost wholly dependent on oil imports. Things will change rapidly as the leaders of those countries wake up to the fact that they don't have to be.
Geopolitical implications are huge.
I keep harping on this as something important that doesn't get much attentions. Lot of countries are almost wholly dependent on oil imports. Things will change rapidly as the leaders of those countries wake up to the fact that they don't have to be.
Geopolitical implications are huge.
I guess with the advent of shale, things aren’t as black-and-white for the U.S. as they once were.
With regard to the US, I would argue the dependence on fossil fuels is bad regardless if the oil is imported or not. Being a fossil fuel "producer" is a misnomer because you aren't creating new fossil fuels. You are simply burning through your own home reserves faster.
I think few people know that a bunch of public transit was actually electric in the early/mid 20th century. Car companies, most notably GM, conspired to convert public transport to gas to make public transit less comfortable compared to private car ownership[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
The dismantling of LA’s electric public transit system (which more or less happened in real life, if I recall correctly) is the backdrop of the Who Framed Roger Rabbit plotline.
I remember riding on Dunedin's (New Zealand) Trolley Bus service when I was very small, which were standard bus bodies that were hooked to overhead power lines. I remember the driver hooking the bus back to the power lines. Must have been about '78 or '79.
I remember them in Auckland at about the same time. Every trip it would lose the contact with the overhead lines and the driver would get out with his stick and move it back. I also remember for the being very quiet, except for a quiet hum and whine inside. And they accelerated very fast.
I really wish they'd bring back some trams though. A lot of our roads are incredibly wide, they could still have trams going up High Street, thru Caversham etc. I wish Dunedin would spend more effort on public transport - I loved how many people used the buses recently when they had a free day!
Seattle has this system all over downtown. Buses have two poles that go up to wires above the street, to power electric motors. Sometimes, the poles demagnetize and fall off the wires, so the driver has to go behind the bus and clap them together, and guide them back up to the wires.
You still see these "trackless trolleys" in Boston too where some of the old streetcar and trolley lines used to be. (Unfortunately, most of those streetcars were replaced with diesel busses instead)
They still have those in Vancouver.
Diesel vs electric is a false dichotomy. Many cities in north america have natural-gas powered buses, and a lot of taxi fleets are CNG as well. Then there's also old-style cable cars and overhead electric lines scattered around, too.
CNG misses the win from regenerative braking on a massive vehicle in traffic. That’s going to reduce the fuel burned even if the systems are comparable in emissions and also reduces the particulate emissions from brake pads which are linked to various health problems.
> CNG misses the win from regenerative braking on a massive vehicle in traffic
CNG hybrid busses are gaining traction where I'm from in Europe https://www.vanhool.be/en/public-transport/exquicity-brt/cng...
CNG hybrid busses are gaining traction where I'm from in Europe https://www.vanhool.be/en/public-transport/exquicity-brt/cng...
Good clarification: I should have specified that as direct drive since hybrid approaches can clearly make sense and I'd bet can be easier to engineer since the engine doesn't need to handle variable speed and power demands.
Which are all loud, toxic, uncomfortable and expensive to maintain.
Probably less efficient than converting the natural gas to electricity too?
The scale of this is astounding and wonderful:
"China had about 99 percent of the 385,000 electric buses on the roads worldwide in 2017, accounting for 17 percent of the country’s entire fleet. Every five weeks, Chinese cities add 9,500 of the zero-emissions transporters—the equivalent of London’s entire working fleet, according Bloomberg New Energy Finance."
"China had about 99 percent of the 385,000 electric buses on the roads worldwide in 2017, accounting for 17 percent of the country’s entire fleet. Every five weeks, Chinese cities add 9,500 of the zero-emissions transporters—the equivalent of London’s entire working fleet, according Bloomberg New Energy Finance."
While electric buses are almost certainly an emissions win compared to the no doubt primitive and dirty Chinese diesel buses, I doubt it is it fair to call them zero-emission? China burns a lot of coal for electrical power.
That is picking nits :-) Not only is China rapidly building nuclear power plants, containing the emissions of one plant burning coal is easier than containing the emissions of the 10,000 buses that plant provides power to operate.
There is also a benefit to China converting from oil (something imported[1]) to coal (something available locally[2]).
[1] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Becomes-Worlds-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China
There is also a benefit to China converting from oil (something imported[1]) to coal (something available locally[2]).
[1] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Becomes-Worlds-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China
> That is picking nits
No, actually it's not. The source of electricity matters, and just because something doesn't directly emit pollutants does not mean its power is derived without emitting pollutants.
No, actually it's not. The source of electricity matters, and just because something doesn't directly emit pollutants does not mean its power is derived without emitting pollutants.
I don't disagree the source of electricity does matter. But who is to say where the electron coming out of the plug came from? Perhaps it came from one of their existing nuclear plants[1] ?
For me, when you get to the point where you can construct two valid statements that both are supported by available information, yet one disproves a statement and the other proves it, you have reached the point of 'nits'.
In this case :
"They are not zero emission because electricity can come from a coal fired plant."
"The are zero emission because electricity can come from a nuclear power plant."
Pedants could go a different way, they could say "the bus is zero emission but the infrastructure isn't."
We saw a lot of that with solar panels where people would argue that the energy to smelt the aluminum to make the frames and furnaces to grow the silicon ingots far exceeded any amount of energy that the solar cells themselves would provide.
But one has to wonder, what is the point of arguing at that level when, as the article states, the pollution where the buses are deployed is significantly less?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
For me, when you get to the point where you can construct two valid statements that both are supported by available information, yet one disproves a statement and the other proves it, you have reached the point of 'nits'.
In this case :
"They are not zero emission because electricity can come from a coal fired plant."
"The are zero emission because electricity can come from a nuclear power plant."
Pedants could go a different way, they could say "the bus is zero emission but the infrastructure isn't."
We saw a lot of that with solar panels where people would argue that the energy to smelt the aluminum to make the frames and furnaces to grow the silicon ingots far exceeded any amount of energy that the solar cells themselves would provide.
But one has to wonder, what is the point of arguing at that level when, as the article states, the pollution where the buses are deployed is significantly less?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
> But one has to wonder, what is the point of arguing at that level when, as the article states, the pollution where the buses are deployed is significantly less?
Pollution where deployed isn't the issue, overall pollution is (the main impact of CO2 is climate change on a global scale). Significant reductions in pollution are to be celebrated, but it's wrong - and takes away from your point - to emphasise something as "zero emission" when it isn't.
Pollution where deployed isn't the issue, overall pollution is (the main impact of CO2 is climate change on a global scale). Significant reductions in pollution are to be celebrated, but it's wrong - and takes away from your point - to emphasise something as "zero emission" when it isn't.
Pollution where deployed isn't the issue, overall pollution is
I think inhabitants of large Chinese cities that have to wear masks when they go for a walk would disagree.
Actually, both things are quite relevant. Pollution in cities poisons and kills people in the short run, climate change would kill us all in the long run.
I think inhabitants of large Chinese cities that have to wear masks when they go for a walk would disagree.
Actually, both things are quite relevant. Pollution in cities poisons and kills people in the short run, climate change would kill us all in the long run.
It’s a toxic argument, because in practice it’s used to absolve diesel or gas cars entirely. It‘s also a way of missing the forest for the trees. Gas cars can never be clean, electric cars are in fact cleaner from the get go and have the potential to be (nearly) entirely clean. Building a world where that is possible requires a large investment in infrastructure and that will only happen if there is a large scale switchover to electric cars.
You are certainly not wrong when you say that also electric cars pollute, but you should be aware of how and when and why this kind of argument is usually deployed.
You are certainly not wrong when you say that also electric cars pollute, but you should be aware of how and when and why this kind of argument is usually deployed.
You can't say they're cleaner from the get go. They could rely on such a different set of polutant products that you can't compare them in general. Also building one electric car when the production chain doesn't exist is obviously going to pollute much more than one has vehicle with its existing infrastructure. It's because we consider the industrial evolution and the usage lifetime that we can compare the two and EVs might be considered less pollutant (even though once again you're comparing very different kinds of pollution). It's not because they seem much better in theory that you should give the EV industry any favorable bias—they need to be held accountable even more than the existing industry because they will probably shape the future of the automotive industry.
A thing that is pointed out is the life of a vehicle, especially a bus might be 15-30 years. During that time the grid will become a lot cleaner. Where with a diesel bus emissions wise you're all in.
There is also the long tailpipe, diesel buses produce toxic emissions where people are, coal fired power plants produce emissions elsewhere. (not necessarily, but likely)
There is also the long tailpipe, diesel buses produce toxic emissions where people are, coal fired power plants produce emissions elsewhere. (not necessarily, but likely)
Yes you are nitpicking. It's like if someone says "paper bags reduce wastes by 50%" and you retort "welllll you still need need factories to make those paper bags." It's literally the definition of nitpicking
In this case, you're doing so in an attempt to undermine the activity raised in the parent. Not sure what your intention is, but definitely not supported by logic
In this case, you're doing so in an attempt to undermine the activity raised in the parent. Not sure what your intention is, but definitely not supported by logic
I think actual nitpicking would be "welllll paper bags reduce plastic waste by X %, but they also increase paper waste by Y %".
I flew across China last month ... Lots of open cast coal mines, each with a power station next to it .... But they're planning ahead, those power stations are surrounded by thousands of windmills, more than I could count leveraging the power distribution network
how do you contain CO2? its a gas so very voluminous, do you propose liquefying it and keep it refrigerated?
Not yet proven at commercial scale, and likely to be expensive:
"Although the processes involved in CCS have been demonstrated in other industrial applications, no commercial scale projects which integrate these processes exist; the costs therefore are somewhat uncertain. Some recent credible estimates indicate that the cost of capturing and storing carbon dioxide is US$60 per ton,[173] corresponding to an increase in electricity prices of about US 6c per kWh (based on typical coal-fired power plant emissions of 0.97 kg (2.13 lb) CO2 per kWh). This would double the typical US industrial electricity price (now at around 6c per kWh) and increase the typical retail residential electricity price by about 50% (assuming 100% of power is from coal, which may not necessarily be the case, as this varies from state to state)."
"Although the processes involved in CCS have been demonstrated in other industrial applications, no commercial scale projects which integrate these processes exist; the costs therefore are somewhat uncertain. Some recent credible estimates indicate that the cost of capturing and storing carbon dioxide is US$60 per ton,[173] corresponding to an increase in electricity prices of about US 6c per kWh (based on typical coal-fired power plant emissions of 0.97 kg (2.13 lb) CO2 per kWh). This would double the typical US industrial electricity price (now at around 6c per kWh) and increase the typical retail residential electricity price by about 50% (assuming 100% of power is from coal, which may not necessarily be the case, as this varies from state to state)."
Actually increasing my residential rate by 50% to get zero CO2 emissions at the plant sounds like a great deal to me. I would have expected the price to be even higher.
CO2 has numerous industrial applications, so you typically don’t store it but bottle it and send it elsewhere. Beer manufacturing (to add bubbles) is an anecdotic use; green house or urban farm agriculture is a growing need.
the need for CO2 is extremely low, why is carbonating drinks even referenced whenever carbon capture is mentioned?
the amount of CO2 absorbed in the drink will be released upon opening the drink, or else burping or farting.
the amount of CO2 the plants in a green house absorbs is offset by atmospheric CO2 not absorbed by the plant...
yes CO2 has niche uses, but whenever I see people mention CO2 utilization in the context of emissions reduction, it instantly unmasks their lack of knowledge.
The idea that we simply capture it at the chimney, and then bring it to where we need it is in fact very similar to the thought process in a perpetuum mobile.
consider pure graphite as a model of coal, you can burn it, which binds 2 oxygens for each carbon atom, now we capture the CO2, strip the oxygens, and cram all the carbon atoms together into a neatly disposable clump... the burning releases an amount of energy, the reverse process takes at least the same amount of energy.
in the form of CO2 its just incredibly voluminous or incredibly pressurized or incredibly cold to keep stored.
sure you can pump it underground, but the CO2 will still diffuse... then we are just obfuscating the dump
the capture technology is useful if you power it with nuclear or windmills in case CO2 levels and global warming get out of hand. but it is not useful to capture CO2 from the power plant. it is better then to generate the energy with either renewables or nuclear directly.
the amount of CO2 absorbed in the drink will be released upon opening the drink, or else burping or farting.
the amount of CO2 the plants in a green house absorbs is offset by atmospheric CO2 not absorbed by the plant...
yes CO2 has niche uses, but whenever I see people mention CO2 utilization in the context of emissions reduction, it instantly unmasks their lack of knowledge.
The idea that we simply capture it at the chimney, and then bring it to where we need it is in fact very similar to the thought process in a perpetuum mobile.
consider pure graphite as a model of coal, you can burn it, which binds 2 oxygens for each carbon atom, now we capture the CO2, strip the oxygens, and cram all the carbon atoms together into a neatly disposable clump... the burning releases an amount of energy, the reverse process takes at least the same amount of energy.
in the form of CO2 its just incredibly voluminous or incredibly pressurized or incredibly cold to keep stored.
sure you can pump it underground, but the CO2 will still diffuse... then we are just obfuscating the dump
the capture technology is useful if you power it with nuclear or windmills in case CO2 levels and global warming get out of hand. but it is not useful to capture CO2 from the power plant. it is better then to generate the energy with either renewables or nuclear directly.
I mentioned beer because the process of capturing CO2 from fermentation and re-injecting it was invented by my family a century ago and apparently was the first of its kind (according to my uncle).
My cousin and a friend of my father are working on accelerating plant and algae growth with CO2-rich atmosphere and water, in urban farms (not greenhouse) and mixed-use aqua-farming respectively. Neither have reached scale yet, but the projects seem promising -- enough that both have considered colocating with industrial CO2 emitters.
I also believe that some people are looking into re-using CO2 to store energy from solar power: focus solar rays and get CO2 to react into longer chain hydrocarbons thanks to catalyst. I’m less familiar with that process.
My cousin and a friend of my father are working on accelerating plant and algae growth with CO2-rich atmosphere and water, in urban farms (not greenhouse) and mixed-use aqua-farming respectively. Neither have reached scale yet, but the projects seem promising -- enough that both have considered colocating with industrial CO2 emitters.
I also believe that some people are looking into re-using CO2 to store energy from solar power: focus solar rays and get CO2 to react into longer chain hydrocarbons thanks to catalyst. I’m less familiar with that process.
we all know CO2 and H20 can be recombined to form fuels, its where the fossil fuels originally came from. Where do these bacteria get their energy from? Either from photosynthesis elsewhere, or by photosynthesis themselves. In either case, in order to offset the power plant at the rate is converting fuel to electricity, you need a huge area of plants or solar to recover _all_ CO2. But then you could just remove the fossil fuel burning power plant out of the equation.
It is still perpetuum mobile...
It is still perpetuum mobile...
Thank you for calling the CCS crowd out on their magical thinking.
The amount of CO2 we can pump underground to form carbonates with basalt rock is a drop in the bucket. Unless we find a catalyst that allows us to economically turn tons of CO2 into an inert (and maybe useful) solid or liquid, this is all going nowhere.
No reason to despair, or to stop working on solutions. But today's CCS tech, and the many variations on it, will not solve our problems.
At the moment, our best bet is improved natural sequestration. There is massive potential in better agricultural methods (cf. silvopasture, perennial crops, Upland rice, microbial farming), better land management, re-establishing grasslands in Siberia (cf. Pleistocene Park), farming in the ocean (cf. marine permaculture, upwelling restoration), etc.
The amount of CO2 we can pump underground to form carbonates with basalt rock is a drop in the bucket. Unless we find a catalyst that allows us to economically turn tons of CO2 into an inert (and maybe useful) solid or liquid, this is all going nowhere.
No reason to despair, or to stop working on solutions. But today's CCS tech, and the many variations on it, will not solve our problems.
At the moment, our best bet is improved natural sequestration. There is massive potential in better agricultural methods (cf. silvopasture, perennial crops, Upland rice, microbial farming), better land management, re-establishing grasslands in Siberia (cf. Pleistocene Park), farming in the ocean (cf. marine permaculture, upwelling restoration), etc.
The nuclear is much worse than coal. The public perception is different, but a few dozen big catastrophes in the coming few generations as the old reactors are pushed for too long will change all that. The thing about nuclear is that its a problem for hundreds if not thousands of years. Coal is green in comparison, when looking at the entire lifetime of repercussions.
It really depends on your values. If you honestly think the nuclear waste we produce now will make a significant difference in people's lives 10000 years, then sure it's a problem. In my opinion your epistemology is suspect, but within that value framework, it makes sense.
Regardless of the questionable assertion that people won't have figured out a way to safely contain nuclear waste 100 or 200 years from now - I'm more concerned about civilization still being a thing in 100 years from now to be worried about the effects of our waste on the cockroaches that remain when we are gone.
I think if you take an honest look at likely scenarios, Coal is not green in comparison to nuclear regardless of the relative weight you place on the value of human health and lives now vs. 100 years from now.
Nuclear is safer for the far future and is safer for people now.
Regardless of the questionable assertion that people won't have figured out a way to safely contain nuclear waste 100 or 200 years from now - I'm more concerned about civilization still being a thing in 100 years from now to be worried about the effects of our waste on the cockroaches that remain when we are gone.
I think if you take an honest look at likely scenarios, Coal is not green in comparison to nuclear regardless of the relative weight you place on the value of human health and lives now vs. 100 years from now.
Nuclear is safer for the far future and is safer for people now.
Every time we talk about EVs someone tries to make this point.
Yes you can call them zero emission because they themselves produce zero emissions. This means in the city which is where the most people and the biggest problem with smog is, there are zero emissions.
One further reason that the HN crowd should understand is that it decouples energy generation from it's usage. So once you have clean energy generation you can turn off the coal and no one driving EVs will notice.
Yes you can call them zero emission because they themselves produce zero emissions. This means in the city which is where the most people and the biggest problem with smog is, there are zero emissions.
One further reason that the HN crowd should understand is that it decouples energy generation from it's usage. So once you have clean energy generation you can turn off the coal and no one driving EVs will notice.
Yup, but it is still beneficial because power generation can be gradually made cleaner without affecting the rest of the infrastructure.
In addition to the possibility of cleaner power in the future; simply moving the emissions from tailpipes on the street to plants 100km from Beijing or Lagos or Mexico City... Still increases overall life expectancy.
Not zero but... consider that just the oil refinery alone uses about the same energy to make gasoline to drive one mile, as an EV uses directly to drive one mile.
EVs are hugely more energy efficient overall, which helps even if what energy requirement is left comes from burning coal.
EVs are hugely more energy efficient overall, which helps even if what energy requirement is left comes from burning coal.
I think the main point for China is to move the pollution outside the city streets where it directly affects more people. That's nothing to do with CO2 or global warming but to do with people's health, which is obviously super important.
Yep, it’s not zero emissions it’s like 75% less emissions (or whatever you get from adding the generator efficiency plus regenerative braking plus renewable sources.)
Fair point but consolidating pollution emitters to a single point instead of scattering them across public roads is a good thing.
Isn't that more than total Tesla cars on the road? I presume producing electric buses are much more complicated than cars. Tesla sounds like a lot hype compared with above stats.
It really is about the same. Electric buses aren’t new of course (Seattle has had them forever), but the ability to use them with batteries and without overhead wires is the new thing. In the bus the battery is just much bigger (usually stored on top).
Might be better on the bottom. See this rollover during testing. https://insideevs.com/four-injured-electric-bus-rollover-inc...
Disclosure< I work for Proterra and our packs are on the bottom.
Disclosure< I work for Proterra and our packs are on the bottom.
Bottom seems like the natural place. Can I ask you how you solve the problem mentioned in the article of excess axel weight?
> Mr. Stoddart continued: “Provisions for rooftop battery packs are common across all North American and international bus manufacturers. In fact, heavy-duty transit buses built by other manufacturers with batteries located only under the floor (between the axles) have recently been tested at the FTA Altoona track and have exceeded front axle weight ratings, resulting in a significant limitation to the number of passengers that can be carried on board.”
> Mr. Stoddart continued: “Provisions for rooftop battery packs are common across all North American and international bus manufacturers. In fact, heavy-duty transit buses built by other manufacturers with batteries located only under the floor (between the axles) have recently been tested at the FTA Altoona track and have exceeded front axle weight ratings, resulting in a significant limitation to the number of passengers that can be carried on board.”
I went to the test doc at: http://altoonabustest.psu.edu/buses/reports/480.pdf?15190591...
The relevant quote there is:
The interior of the bus is configured with seating for 39 passengers including the driver. Eight seats fold away for 2 wheelchair positions. The manufacturer passenger placard indicates that the test bus can accommodate 42 standing passengers. At 150 lbs per person, this load results in a measured gross vehicle weight of 43,540 lbs which exceeds the gross vehicle weight rating of 42,000 lbs by 1,540 lbs or approximately 10 people. At this load, the front gross axle weight rating is also exceeded. All testing performed under this partial test was performed at a seated load weight of 37,230 lbs.
My read from that is total weight, and only about loading to highest placarded passenger count, which using the govt. weight would overload the axle.
I didn't see anything that would change based on weight location or CG.
As with every EV vehicle it's about weight reduction while maintaining structure and safety margins.
The relevant quote there is:
The interior of the bus is configured with seating for 39 passengers including the driver. Eight seats fold away for 2 wheelchair positions. The manufacturer passenger placard indicates that the test bus can accommodate 42 standing passengers. At 150 lbs per person, this load results in a measured gross vehicle weight of 43,540 lbs which exceeds the gross vehicle weight rating of 42,000 lbs by 1,540 lbs or approximately 10 people. At this load, the front gross axle weight rating is also exceeded. All testing performed under this partial test was performed at a seated load weight of 37,230 lbs.
My read from that is total weight, and only about loading to highest placarded passenger count, which using the govt. weight would overload the axle.
I didn't see anything that would change based on weight location or CG.
As with every EV vehicle it's about weight reduction while maintaining structure and safety margins.
Is that the norm? I guess the floor could be raised with a higher roof to compensate. I’ve noticed that new energy buses are taller (NG and electric) to make room for fuel/battery, but I’m not exactly sure where that is going.
Car batteries in the floors of cars don't seem to have made them any taller.
Buses have different constraints, so I'm assuming they have more battery for more range between recharges.
Depends on the use-case. For fixed-line buses in urban areas, their range requirements could be quite low, especially if high-speed charging is available at the terminal.
I'd say electric buses are simpler: they're larger, and traditionally the "coachbuilt" structure gives plenty of space in the frame to put batteries while also potentially allowing the use of the same bodies as the diesel buses. They also don't have to be as fast.
Hmm something doesn't add up, or I'm misreading it...
if the rest of the world only has 1% of 385,000 (3,850) how come just London has 9,500?
Worried as I am about China's authoritarian practices and their growing influence, they sure are effective at solving environmental problems.
For some things authoritarianism is very effective at achieving results.
For instance, China's government simply mandated that everybody would start using a simplified writing system that was supposed to increase literacy. And the country.. just sort of went along with it.
Also, iodizing salt is sort of a big deal. Turkmenistan, being a dictatorship, simply declared non-iodized salt illegal and gave out 11 pounds of iodized salt each year to each family, and (presumably) sent out inspectors with iodine testing kits and threats of fines. Kazakhstan, being a democracy, had to cajole its people into accepting the change.
Same thing with China and India. China switched to a remarkably different writing system. I'm guessing that the process went something like "You guys have two years. After that all government forms and mass media will be written in the new system. The schools will all be teaching the new system." Whereas India, which would benefit greatly if they all spoke a mutually intelligible language, is a democracy and will never give up their ancestral languages.
For instance, China's government simply mandated that everybody would start using a simplified writing system that was supposed to increase literacy. And the country.. just sort of went along with it.
Also, iodizing salt is sort of a big deal. Turkmenistan, being a dictatorship, simply declared non-iodized salt illegal and gave out 11 pounds of iodized salt each year to each family, and (presumably) sent out inspectors with iodine testing kits and threats of fines. Kazakhstan, being a democracy, had to cajole its people into accepting the change.
Same thing with China and India. China switched to a remarkably different writing system. I'm guessing that the process went something like "You guys have two years. After that all government forms and mass media will be written in the new system. The schools will all be teaching the new system." Whereas India, which would benefit greatly if they all spoke a mutually intelligible language, is a democracy and will never give up their ancestral languages.
> China switched to a remarkably different writing system.
The simplified characters are not actually "remarkably different". In many cases, simplification just codified a large number of short forms of the traditional characters that were already being used by the people. Have you ever seen how Chinese actually write many common characters with a paper and pen?
> For instance, China's government simply mandated that everybody would start using a simplified writing system that was supposed to increase literacy.
Orthography reforms happen in non-authoritarian countries, too. After the fall of Communism, Romanian saw a change to its spelling rules. Spanish and German, too, have had changes in recent decades. Even under a democracy, language academies and the big publishers can have enough prestige to push changes.
The simplified characters are not actually "remarkably different". In many cases, simplification just codified a large number of short forms of the traditional characters that were already being used by the people. Have you ever seen how Chinese actually write many common characters with a paper and pen?
> For instance, China's government simply mandated that everybody would start using a simplified writing system that was supposed to increase literacy.
Orthography reforms happen in non-authoritarian countries, too. After the fall of Communism, Romanian saw a change to its spelling rules. Spanish and German, too, have had changes in recent decades. Even under a democracy, language academies and the big publishers can have enough prestige to push changes.
> The simplified characters are not actually "remarkably different".
You're incorrect. As a simple example look at the difference in the character horse between the two character systems. You might be able to sort of figure it out if you knew ahead of time what it meant. Just plopping a whole pile of text in front of you with no translation in the language you're familiar with is fairly incomprehensible.
>Have you ever seen how Chinese actually write many common characters with a paper and pen?
Yes, I have written some stuff in chinese and I have friends who write sloppily. The strokes are still suggested if not perfectly expressed. Have you any experience?
> Orthography reforms happen in non-authoritarian countries, too.
Although there since it's not enforced, you end up with a plurality of languages, like India. You can change any individual language but still have to support the old way.
You're incorrect. As a simple example look at the difference in the character horse between the two character systems. You might be able to sort of figure it out if you knew ahead of time what it meant. Just plopping a whole pile of text in front of you with no translation in the language you're familiar with is fairly incomprehensible.
>Have you ever seen how Chinese actually write many common characters with a paper and pen?
Yes, I have written some stuff in chinese and I have friends who write sloppily. The strokes are still suggested if not perfectly expressed. Have you any experience?
> Orthography reforms happen in non-authoritarian countries, too.
Although there since it's not enforced, you end up with a plurality of languages, like India. You can change any individual language but still have to support the old way.
I'm Spanish, and ortographical changes made to Spanish by the Royal Academy are very mild and very slow. Typically affecting only a single letter or accent mark in a few words every few years. And still many people resist the changes. While I don't know German, Germans I know say that it's similar for their language.
The change from traditional to simplified Chinese was much more radical. Although there are even better examples. For example, Atatürk changed Turkish from the Arabic alphabet to a modified Latin alphabet in 1928. This was a really profound change, and it was possible because Turkey had no democracy at that time.
The change from traditional to simplified Chinese was much more radical. Although there are even better examples. For example, Atatürk changed Turkish from the Arabic alphabet to a modified Latin alphabet in 1928. This was a really profound change, and it was possible because Turkey had no democracy at that time.
You may have missed this point in TFA;
“China is ahead on electrifying its fleet because it has the world’s worst pollution problem. With a growing urban population and galloping energy demand, the nation’s legendary smogs were responsible for 1.6 million extra deaths in 2015, according to non-profit Berkeley Earth.”
It’s great to celebrate progress, but don’t fall for the spin.
A study published in Nature [1] found 3.3 million deaths per year worldwide attributed to air pollution. China owning nearly half that is mind blowing.
The figure for the U.S., by comparison, is 60-80,000. In terms of per capita mortality rate, China’s polution problem is 5x more deadly. [2]
Economics is the study of allocation of scarce resources. China investing more heavily in electrifying their buses is not surprising in the context of a deadly pollution epidemic. The same level of investment into electric buses in the US would be a tradgedy in the sense of actual lives lost due to gross misallocation of public funds.
[1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15371
[2] - (1.6e6 / 1.3e9) / (8e4 / 3.2e8)
“China is ahead on electrifying its fleet because it has the world’s worst pollution problem. With a growing urban population and galloping energy demand, the nation’s legendary smogs were responsible for 1.6 million extra deaths in 2015, according to non-profit Berkeley Earth.”
It’s great to celebrate progress, but don’t fall for the spin.
A study published in Nature [1] found 3.3 million deaths per year worldwide attributed to air pollution. China owning nearly half that is mind blowing.
The figure for the U.S., by comparison, is 60-80,000. In terms of per capita mortality rate, China’s polution problem is 5x more deadly. [2]
Economics is the study of allocation of scarce resources. China investing more heavily in electrifying their buses is not surprising in the context of a deadly pollution epidemic. The same level of investment into electric buses in the US would be a tradgedy in the sense of actual lives lost due to gross misallocation of public funds.
[1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15371
[2] - (1.6e6 / 1.3e9) / (8e4 / 3.2e8)
> The same level of investment into electric buses in the US would be a tradgedy in the sense of actual lives lost due to gross misallocation of public funds.
I get it that you don't like public investment in electric buses, but there is no evidence to suggest that such investment would cause any "actual lives lost", vs the other much bigger public budget items in the US.
If anything, more people in buses would likely reduce a significant cause of deaths in the US: car accidents.
I get it that you don't like public investment in electric buses, but there is no evidence to suggest that such investment would cause any "actual lives lost", vs the other much bigger public budget items in the US.
If anything, more people in buses would likely reduce a significant cause of deaths in the US: car accidents.
I have no issue at all with the appropriate level of investment in electric buses.
Investment in public transit in general is besides the point. It’s economic fact that paying more for an electric bus and building the infrastructure to support them is more justifiable and will provide better ROI in China where the pollution is 5x more deadly.
If your metric is spending dollars efficiently to save lives, there’s better ROI in the US by spending the money elsewhere.
Investment in public transit in general is besides the point. It’s economic fact that paying more for an electric bus and building the infrastructure to support them is more justifiable and will provide better ROI in China where the pollution is 5x more deadly.
If your metric is spending dollars efficiently to save lives, there’s better ROI in the US by spending the money elsewhere.
> If your metric is spending dollars efficiently to save lives, there’s better ROI in the US by spending the money elsewhere.
It's massively oversimplifying the trade-off to reduce it to a single metric, and it proposes a false choice.
Why not also consider reducing congestion, reducing local-air-pollution related respiratory conditions, etc?
And compared to the known types of huge government expenditures that might be doing actual harm to some subset of citizens (i.e. lives lost in wars of questionable value) why point the finger at electric buses?
It's massively oversimplifying the trade-off to reduce it to a single metric, and it proposes a false choice.
Why not also consider reducing congestion, reducing local-air-pollution related respiratory conditions, etc?
And compared to the known types of huge government expenditures that might be doing actual harm to some subset of citizens (i.e. lives lost in wars of questionable value) why point the finger at electric buses?
> actual lives lost due to gross misallocation of public funds.
The US already makes gross under-allocation of public funds with the result of lives lost, but since that relates to healthcare and homelessness it seems hard to get anyone to care.
The US already makes gross under-allocation of public funds with the result of lives lost, but since that relates to healthcare and homelessness it seems hard to get anyone to care.
I'm not saying they have fewer environmental problems, I'm saying that when they decide to solve one they're able to just go all-in and get it done.
IMO conflating air polution and greenhouse gases does not make a lot of sense. CO2 has the highest impact greenhouse gas, yet it has no adverse health effects in the concentrations humans are exposed to it. In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is AFAIK still below EU average and 3x below the US who is by far the worst offender among highly populated developed nations. Air pollution is a problem, yes, but a different one than combating human induced climate change.
I’m not sure where climate change enters the picture in this story. I don’t think China is investing in electric buses to reduce CO2 to head off climate change, but rather to control actual smog/air pollution.
It's a strange shift in affairs that China appears to have the greatest incentives (urban pollution, petroleum imports) today to advance clean transportation and energy while the US has stalled or moved backward, at least the Federal level.
Western European countries, for whom fossil fuels don't seem to be an identity politics issue like in the US, are also making more progress in electrifying their transportation and developing renewable generation - like those massive offshore turbines in the North Sea, or the more comprehensive EV charging networks.
Again, they seem to have stronger incentives: high gas/petrol prices, higher population density, tense relations with Russia - their big petroleum and natural gas supplier, and the desire to gain an advantage in clean energy technology while the US is seemingly regressing.
Perhaps states that have taken the problem seriously - wind in Texas, Iowa, EVs in CA, WA, NY, will carry the torch for the US without the Federal government's support.
Western European countries, for whom fossil fuels don't seem to be an identity politics issue like in the US, are also making more progress in electrifying their transportation and developing renewable generation - like those massive offshore turbines in the North Sea, or the more comprehensive EV charging networks.
Again, they seem to have stronger incentives: high gas/petrol prices, higher population density, tense relations with Russia - their big petroleum and natural gas supplier, and the desire to gain an advantage in clean energy technology while the US is seemingly regressing.
Perhaps states that have taken the problem seriously - wind in Texas, Iowa, EVs in CA, WA, NY, will carry the torch for the US without the Federal government's support.
> the US has stalled or moved backward, at least the Federal level.
It has at the individual level too for most individuals. Try to get someone to consider flying less. Look at the size of vehicles on the road. How much meat we eat. Air conditioning to point of needing sweaters in the summer and heating to wearing shorts in the winter.
All personal choices anyone can make, no legislation necessary. We can blame fossil fuel companies, and they are abusing their power, but we have a long way to go as individuals before legislators see that regulation will result in more votes, not less.
It has at the individual level too for most individuals. Try to get someone to consider flying less. Look at the size of vehicles on the road. How much meat we eat. Air conditioning to point of needing sweaters in the summer and heating to wearing shorts in the winter.
All personal choices anyone can make, no legislation necessary. We can blame fossil fuel companies, and they are abusing their power, but we have a long way to go as individuals before legislators see that regulation will result in more votes, not less.
I work in a bank. They keep it so cold inside in the summer that employees are forced to have space heaters in their offices to keep from shivering all day. All in hopes that a customer who comes in from the outside heat will feel comfortable for the less than 5 minutes that they are inside.
The amount of waste is unreal and disgusting. I was laughed at the other day by a coworker because I commented on how much energy we waste by doing this. He said, "But you don't have to pay for it. Who cares?"
That about sums up the attitude here in Texas.
The amount of waste is unreal and disgusting. I was laughed at the other day by a coworker because I commented on how much energy we waste by doing this. He said, "But you don't have to pay for it. Who cares?"
That about sums up the attitude here in Texas.
At least in commercial buildings in humid climates, building air is cooled by industrial chillers to lower humidty to acceptable levels (chiefly to inhibit mold growth I think), then the air is heated for comfort. So it would actually use more energy to make these spaces warmer. This is what I have been told by some building engineers/architects.
A chiller generates a lot of heat which is discharged outside (for example on the building roof). I would ask the engineer why they don't use this heat to reheat the dehumidified air.
As long as the energy wasted is clean energy, I guess it should be fine? The sun is shining on Earth at all times and most of the energy is wasted.
(a) it isn't clean energy, generally;
(b) setting up the infrastructure to produce clean energy is not purely clean itself.
Until you can account for every last gram of toxic solvent, mine tailings, electricity consumed during manufacture, and CO2 produced during transport from e.g. solar panels, it's not entirely clean. It's just better than the alternative. Not using the energy is always cleaner.
(b) setting up the infrastructure to produce clean energy is not purely clean itself.
Until you can account for every last gram of toxic solvent, mine tailings, electricity consumed during manufacture, and CO2 produced during transport from e.g. solar panels, it's not entirely clean. It's just better than the alternative. Not using the energy is always cleaner.
I read an article a few months back (no reference handy, unfortunately) that was talking about attitudes towards energy utilization in Quebec, Canada, where the vast majority of the electricity is generated from hydro. The basic conclusion was that when everyone knows that the energy they're using is "clean", they don't actually worry too much about it.
That idea really excites me! If our energy sources are both clean and abundant, that opens up a lot of doors to technology that previously had uncomfortable tradeoffs. For example, high-energy-consumption recycling instead of mining new raw materials; right now it can be a bit of a wash (sure, we're mining less, but we're burning coal to power the process), but post-scarce-clean-energy it becomes way less of concern. Likewise with a lot of automation tasks. Very exciting!
That idea really excites me! If our energy sources are both clean and abundant, that opens up a lot of doors to technology that previously had uncomfortable tradeoffs. For example, high-energy-consumption recycling instead of mining new raw materials; right now it can be a bit of a wash (sure, we're mining less, but we're burning coal to power the process), but post-scarce-clean-energy it becomes way less of concern. Likewise with a lot of automation tasks. Very exciting!
Constructing clean energy is not without greenhouse gas emissions, and the wastage of clean energy means that soemone else is required to use dirty energy. Now once we get to a world of 100% clean energy this won't be true, but AFAIK only a few countries have achieved this so far, and it only occurs when weather conditions are just right.
It would be fine if all energy used everywhere on the planet was green. Until then, wasting clean energy still creates more demand for that clean energy, which affects its price and thus its competitiveness vs other energy sources.
Even in Quebec, for example, energy not used is sold outside the province.
Wasting a resource decreases its supply. With legitimate demand constant, the decrease in supply increases the price of the good. If the price is then in the fossil fuel range, you’ve increased the demand for fossil fuel.
This is a problem even in tropical countries such as India and Singapore. The contrast between outside and inside temperatures is insane. We get headaches and God knows what the long term detrimental health effects are. It's worse in Singapore as the subway is also super cold.
This affects hotels/conference rooms in Singapore a lot. It's a bit absurd - I needed shorts+tshirt to survive the trip to the hotel and then a sweater to survive the conference inside. I'm not sure how can people deal with it every day.
I’m living in SG 5 years now, moved in from Europe. You get used to the temperature outside (Took me two months to get adjusted), so wearing long trousers and a shirt is ok now. That also works for inside. When I’m back home now everything < 25°C is cold!
I work for a financial group, and no customer will ever have a reason to come into this specific building whatsoever. Current outside temp this morning is about 65F with a high of 68F. The temperature set for inside is 60F. What sadistic person thinks that 60F is comfortable? That temperature never moves.
I wear thin sweaters to work during the summer. Last summer, I went inside a gas station after work to grab a snack. The outside temp was anywhere from 90F to 110F. The woman behind the counter asked if I had a medical condition, because, "Who wears a sweater during the summer?" I laughed and explained how my office building is an ice box.
I wear thin sweaters to work during the summer. Last summer, I went inside a gas station after work to grab a snack. The outside temp was anywhere from 90F to 110F. The woman behind the counter asked if I had a medical condition, because, "Who wears a sweater during the summer?" I laughed and explained how my office building is an ice box.
As someone who generates a lot of waste - environmental responsibility just doesn't factor into my consumption decisions.
I work from home so I have the A/C set to be fairly cold. I enjoy a specific brand of bottled water. A major online retailer sells this water cheaper than my local store. I drive a car that gets about 15mpg because I enjoy driving it. I generate approx 13 gallons of trash per day. This is mostly shipping materials and grocery packaging.
All of these examples are the direct consequence of prioritizing myself. There simply has to be a stronger (perhaps economic) incentive that will change the behavior of people like me.
I work from home so I have the A/C set to be fairly cold. I enjoy a specific brand of bottled water. A major online retailer sells this water cheaper than my local store. I drive a car that gets about 15mpg because I enjoy driving it. I generate approx 13 gallons of trash per day. This is mostly shipping materials and grocery packaging.
All of these examples are the direct consequence of prioritizing myself. There simply has to be a stronger (perhaps economic) incentive that will change the behavior of people like me.
I wanted to change my habits because I thought it was the right thing to do. So we put solar on the roof and bought a cheap used electric car (a Leaf). My goal was to do the right thing, but the result has been unforeseen benefits.
The solar power more or less makes us net neutral, even when factoring in the electricity for the car.
In short:
- The solar power will pay for itself in less than five years.
- We don't have an electric bill to speak of. (There is an eight dollar a month charge for just being hooked up to the grid.)
- We pay very little to run the Leaf. (We pay nothing when we charge at home, but sometimes we charge on the road.)
I'm surprised by this outcome. I started out trying to do the right thing but ended up doing something that benefited me financially.
The solar power more or less makes us net neutral, even when factoring in the electricity for the car.
In short:
- The solar power will pay for itself in less than five years.
- We don't have an electric bill to speak of. (There is an eight dollar a month charge for just being hooked up to the grid.)
- We pay very little to run the Leaf. (We pay nothing when we charge at home, but sometimes we charge on the road.)
I'm surprised by this outcome. I started out trying to do the right thing but ended up doing something that benefited me financially.
If I read you right, beyond the environmental reasons and beyond the financial results, you sound happier than expected at acting on your values.
I think people don't realize the happiness and emotional reward that comes with acting on your values in the face of resistance.
That's why my podcast http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast focuses on leadership first. The joy, fun, meaning, value, purpose, and community parts of acting on your values are what make it fun. I'm in it because my food is more delicious, though it's cheaper too.
Crossing the finish line of a marathon is similar. It costs me money and causes me pain, but it's one of the best things I've ever done. People can live life for comfort and convenience, but for me the best things come from activity.
I think people don't realize the happiness and emotional reward that comes with acting on your values in the face of resistance.
That's why my podcast http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast focuses on leadership first. The joy, fun, meaning, value, purpose, and community parts of acting on your values are what make it fun. I'm in it because my food is more delicious, though it's cheaper too.
Crossing the finish line of a marathon is similar. It costs me money and causes me pain, but it's one of the best things I've ever done. People can live life for comfort and convenience, but for me the best things come from activity.
Five year payoff for solar is good - below (above?) average.
While I don't dispute that economic incentives are important in changing people's behavior on large scales... on a purely individual level, whatever happened to doing something because it's the right thing to do? You're not some self-serving automaton. You're aware that these practices produce unnecessary waste. Is your tap water unsafe to consume?
> whatever happened to doing something because it's the right thing to do?
Taken to its logical conclusion, one could follow anyone around and claim they aren't doing the most right thing. The "right thing to do" is a scale, not binary, and it often conflicts. E.g. right thing to do for self health, vs environment, vs for my customers, vs for my employees, vs for my family (and time with them), vs happiness (for self and others), etc. GP is right, you have to align "right thing to do" with "prudent thing to do" and it becomes viable. Otherwise, to many it comes off as preaching as though they are bad people when they only optimize for other right things.
Taken to its logical conclusion, one could follow anyone around and claim they aren't doing the most right thing. The "right thing to do" is a scale, not binary, and it often conflicts. E.g. right thing to do for self health, vs environment, vs for my customers, vs for my employees, vs for my family (and time with them), vs happiness (for self and others), etc. GP is right, you have to align "right thing to do" with "prudent thing to do" and it becomes viable. Otherwise, to many it comes off as preaching as though they are bad people when they only optimize for other right things.
Agree, that is why one should advocate taxation and subsidies which promote green lifestyles rather than moralizing and pestering people. Just make it economic to be environmentally friendly.
Now I don't drive but I use public transport. However I'd be okay with biking if we had a much better bike lane system in Oslo, Norway where I live. When I lived in the Netherlands I biked everywhere. It was often faster to do than public transport. It felt safe and it gave me about 1 hours of exercise each day.
You feel better from getting exercise, you save money and time. So once cities and authorities actually plan for green living it isn't very hard to do so.
Yet in my native Norway, the green shift has been much more about making life miserable for those who drive, while making few benefits for those who use public transport or drive.
A particular bad development, is ever more centralization by the government in the same of efficiency and saving money. It means pharmacies, doctors offices, police stations, hospitals are made fewer and placed further and further apart. This means public services you used to be able to walk to or bike to, now requires a car.
All this happens while government keeps harping on people needing to use their car less.
There is a lot of things I think our government is really good at in Norway, but transport is an area we utterly suck at. I am very envious of the Dutch.
Now I don't drive but I use public transport. However I'd be okay with biking if we had a much better bike lane system in Oslo, Norway where I live. When I lived in the Netherlands I biked everywhere. It was often faster to do than public transport. It felt safe and it gave me about 1 hours of exercise each day.
You feel better from getting exercise, you save money and time. So once cities and authorities actually plan for green living it isn't very hard to do so.
Yet in my native Norway, the green shift has been much more about making life miserable for those who drive, while making few benefits for those who use public transport or drive.
A particular bad development, is ever more centralization by the government in the same of efficiency and saving money. It means pharmacies, doctors offices, police stations, hospitals are made fewer and placed further and further apart. This means public services you used to be able to walk to or bike to, now requires a car.
All this happens while government keeps harping on people needing to use their car less.
There is a lot of things I think our government is really good at in Norway, but transport is an area we utterly suck at. I am very envious of the Dutch.
> There simply has to be a stronger (perhaps economic) incentive that will change the behavior of people like me.
People like you might want economic incentives, but what they actually need is a better education.
People like you might want economic incentives, but what they actually need is a better education.
Seems he's quite aware and knowledgeable about his impact, he's just the kind of person who is apathetic to the tragedy of the commons, aka why humanity can't have nice things.
I won't rip you for being honest, and I suspect there are a ton of people out there that behave either consciously or unconsciously like this. It's not sustainable, so society will either have to tax these behaviors at the consumer or ban them at the producer side, or some combination of both.
But I do hope that consumers start to choose better habits, because if we don't, we're going to hit a wall sooner or later.
But I do hope that consumers start to choose better habits, because if we don't, we're going to hit a wall sooner or later.
Artificial scarcity of garbage disposal maybe? Where I live in Australia, you wouldn't be able to put 13 gallons of trash a day in a bin. The trash bin has maybe 20-30 gallons total and gets taken every other week. The recycling and compost are larger and get taken more often. You could produce more garbage of course, but then it's up to you to drive to the tip and you'll have to pay to drop stuff off.
If you value how you affect other people, you may find that acting on that value improves your life.
Simply prioritizing yourself and only caring about economic incentives would motivate stealing when you know you won't get caught.
You sound as if you know your waste is hurting other people. You have your values, but if I lived as you describe, knowing my externalities needlessly hurt people would eat me up inside -- no right, wrong, good, or bad, just my personal values. I would change simply to feel better about myself and my role in my community, local and global. Just because people can't see how I'm affecting them, I still am.
If you don't value how you affect other people, my view is to live and let live and hope that people who care enough to act outnumber people like you enough that your waste doesn't hurt that many people.
I suspect that if you started changing a few things, you'd find the emotional reward to change more. I created my podcast http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast for people to hear leaders doing just that.
Simply prioritizing yourself and only caring about economic incentives would motivate stealing when you know you won't get caught.
You sound as if you know your waste is hurting other people. You have your values, but if I lived as you describe, knowing my externalities needlessly hurt people would eat me up inside -- no right, wrong, good, or bad, just my personal values. I would change simply to feel better about myself and my role in my community, local and global. Just because people can't see how I'm affecting them, I still am.
If you don't value how you affect other people, my view is to live and let live and hope that people who care enough to act outnumber people like you enough that your waste doesn't hurt that many people.
I suspect that if you started changing a few things, you'd find the emotional reward to change more. I created my podcast http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast for people to hear leaders doing just that.
You are essentially explaining why people and companies need to be held accountable for externalities. If you were taxed on the order of your waste, you’d rapidly change your behavior because you’d actually be paying for it.
This is so true, one can be thought of as crazy for suggesting some of those ideas you mentioned. I've come to realise that it's the market that drives a lot of demand. Sure, in some cases markets are rigged in the fossil fuel industries favour (by the Government); However, I see more people not caring about environmental issues than anything else so it makes it easier for politicians to do nothing.
[deleted]
While these are personal choices, there must be some incentive. If increased electricity bill from abusing "Air conditioning to point of needing sweaters in the summer and heating to wearing shorts in the winter" compared to conservative temperatures boils down to single digit percentage values (as non-USian I don't know what those values are) of all annual home upkeep expenses, it is difficult to rationalize saving.
And somewhat useless. Changing the temperature from 72 to 75 in my well-insulated house does take off a few kWh. But it seems a bit meaningless when the shop down the road is trying to get more people to come in by setting their thermostat at a chilly 65 and leaving the door open all day.
Likewise in spending thousands to upgrade from an average 25 mpg car to a 35+ mpg car, only to drive down the road alongside coal-rolling semis that believe DEF is a conspiracy.
Likewise in spending thousands to upgrade from an average 25 mpg car to a 35+ mpg car, only to drive down the road alongside coal-rolling semis that believe DEF is a conspiracy.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Incremental changes in the right direction help, whatever everyone else is doing.
Just because others aren't doing anything, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Every bit helps, and unless there is a major shift in public opinion, or the government steps in, businesses will not change their behavior, i.e. doing what improves their bottom line.
> Likewise in spending thousands to upgrade from an average 25 mpg car to a 35+ mpg car
I'm really curious about this as well. I drive an old Honda Accord that gets ~22-26mpg. In Texas I can choose to only purchase renewable energy, but how much environmental impact will be had from my purchase from an electric car compared to keeping this nearly two-decade-old car running? What is the point where this car is better left as recycled metal vs. keeping it running?
I'm really curious about this as well. I drive an old Honda Accord that gets ~22-26mpg. In Texas I can choose to only purchase renewable energy, but how much environmental impact will be had from my purchase from an electric car compared to keeping this nearly two-decade-old car running? What is the point where this car is better left as recycled metal vs. keeping it running?
This depends on a lot of factors, including:
- How much you have to drive. The more you drive, the more you can offset the embodied carbon footprint of the EV, and the more fossil fuels you offset.
- How fast your decades old ICE car deteriorates, and therefore decreases in efficiency and increases its operational pollution emissions.
- The embodied carbon footprint of the vehicle parts you replace through maintenance of an old vehicle.
High range EVs with large batteries cancel their embodied footprint in 18 months with a typical drive cycle, even lower if you are mostly using renewably sourced electricity. Lower range EVs take even less time [1]
It sounds to me like from your situation (old car, renewable power available) the numbers already suggest you should do it now. From the report linked below, driving an EV in Texas today is like getting 52 mpg with an ICE car. If you're using only renewables it is multiple times more efficient (see equivalents for CA and NY)
1. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life...
- How much you have to drive. The more you drive, the more you can offset the embodied carbon footprint of the EV, and the more fossil fuels you offset.
- How fast your decades old ICE car deteriorates, and therefore decreases in efficiency and increases its operational pollution emissions.
- The embodied carbon footprint of the vehicle parts you replace through maintenance of an old vehicle.
High range EVs with large batteries cancel their embodied footprint in 18 months with a typical drive cycle, even lower if you are mostly using renewably sourced electricity. Lower range EVs take even less time [1]
It sounds to me like from your situation (old car, renewable power available) the numbers already suggest you should do it now. From the report linked below, driving an EV in Texas today is like getting 52 mpg with an ICE car. If you're using only renewables it is multiple times more efficient (see equivalents for CA and NY)
1. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life...
That's why we have these things called laws and democracy and international agreements. Relying on individual action rarely brought massive change.
> there must be some incentive
My experience and observation say otherwise. I have no incentive not to litter when I know no one will fine me. Still I get up and walk trash to garbage cans. Even with all the litter around, most people still walk trash to garbage cans instead of littering.
Most people don't shoplift even when they know they wouldn't get caught. Most people stop at red lights in the middle of the night when no one is around. Etc. Etc.
I've found living by my values the greatest incentive. The alternative is to try to accept that my comfort and convenience come at the cost of others' health and resources, which ate me up inside.
I think most people value clean air and water enough that when the culture shifts, they won't need material incentive.
Laws will follow behavior, not the other way around.
My experience and observation say otherwise. I have no incentive not to litter when I know no one will fine me. Still I get up and walk trash to garbage cans. Even with all the litter around, most people still walk trash to garbage cans instead of littering.
Most people don't shoplift even when they know they wouldn't get caught. Most people stop at red lights in the middle of the night when no one is around. Etc. Etc.
I've found living by my values the greatest incentive. The alternative is to try to accept that my comfort and convenience come at the cost of others' health and resources, which ate me up inside.
I think most people value clean air and water enough that when the culture shifts, they won't need material incentive.
Laws will follow behavior, not the other way around.
Partly agree. It is fine when it puts low demands on you. It is much harder to get people to do the right thing when it is a significant burden.
It is also a question of habit and social norms. A lot of what we claim is internal moral values, is really just social conformism. We don't throw garbage around and shop lift in large part because we don't want to be worse people than everybody else we know.
We see this in countries with a lot of cheating on taxes. It is hard to break out of, because nobody wants to pay taxes while knowing that none of their friends pay. Nobody wants to be the lone sucker doing the good deed. On the flip side you don't want to cheat on taxes if you know everybody else is really particular about paying it.
So I think the establishment of social norms is very important. And to do that one might need to create incentives and rules to kickstart people. As the norms develop you could cut back on the incentives and rules.
I've seen this in my native Norway. Fathers and mothers could split the maternity leave. Although almost no father took advantage of this. It simply wasn't an established social pattern. Your boss would look funny at you if you did it. Then the government mandated that some weeks should be taken by the father otherwise those weeks were lost and could not be used by the mother.
Within few years the social norms around father staying home looking after kids, changed radically in Norway. Hence government policies DO matter for how personal values and behavior develops.
It is also a question of habit and social norms. A lot of what we claim is internal moral values, is really just social conformism. We don't throw garbage around and shop lift in large part because we don't want to be worse people than everybody else we know.
We see this in countries with a lot of cheating on taxes. It is hard to break out of, because nobody wants to pay taxes while knowing that none of their friends pay. Nobody wants to be the lone sucker doing the good deed. On the flip side you don't want to cheat on taxes if you know everybody else is really particular about paying it.
So I think the establishment of social norms is very important. And to do that one might need to create incentives and rules to kickstart people. As the norms develop you could cut back on the incentives and rules.
I've seen this in my native Norway. Fathers and mothers could split the maternity leave. Although almost no father took advantage of this. It simply wasn't an established social pattern. Your boss would look funny at you if you did it. Then the government mandated that some weeks should be taken by the father otherwise those weeks were lost and could not be used by the mother.
Within few years the social norms around father staying home looking after kids, changed radically in Norway. Hence government policies DO matter for how personal values and behavior develops.
> It is much harder to get people to do the right thing when it is a significant burden.
Beliefs like this are why I focus on leadership first. There are many examples where we choose difficult things because of the reward
- Sports and exercise
- Learning and personal growth
- Hobbies
- Writing free software
- Having children
- Going to the moon
Many other examples. They generally turn out to have other benefits, but they are challenges. Yet we love them.
Beliefs like this are why I focus on leadership first. There are many examples where we choose difficult things because of the reward
- Sports and exercise
- Learning and personal growth
- Hobbies
- Writing free software
- Having children
- Going to the moon
Many other examples. They generally turn out to have other benefits, but they are challenges. Yet we love them.
Over many years, laws shape culture though.
With all problematic behaviours, citizens fall into three groups: 1) those who refrain out of a healthy sense of personal responsibility; 3) those who persist out of a pathological understanding of personal freedom, and then 2) those who refrain only because they fear personal consequences (ostracism, fines, jail time).
My suspicion is that a well-written, well-hated law can push a healthy chunk of people from pompous group 3 into reluctant group 2. As the next generation sees less of the problematic behaviour growing up, group 3 shrinks smaller and smaller over time.
That's how progressives ended slavery, got women to vote, made gay marriage mainstream, banned public smoking, and how we are now reining in the war on drugs; it's not clear why it shouldn't work to address energy decadence and meat overconsumption.
With all problematic behaviours, citizens fall into three groups: 1) those who refrain out of a healthy sense of personal responsibility; 3) those who persist out of a pathological understanding of personal freedom, and then 2) those who refrain only because they fear personal consequences (ostracism, fines, jail time).
My suspicion is that a well-written, well-hated law can push a healthy chunk of people from pompous group 3 into reluctant group 2. As the next generation sees less of the problematic behaviour growing up, group 3 shrinks smaller and smaller over time.
That's how progressives ended slavery, got women to vote, made gay marriage mainstream, banned public smoking, and how we are now reining in the war on drugs; it's not clear why it shouldn't work to address energy decadence and meat overconsumption.
That's also how "progressives" sent thousands to the guillotine in 18th century France and starved millions in 20th century China. They wrote laws. People who couldn't get behind those laws (or who were just associated with the wrong people) got screwed.
"Get on board or we'll screw you over", which is exactly the dynamic a "well-hated" law creates, is not how a healthy society is run.
NY-SAFE is an example of a "well hated law". How is it working outside the areas that wanted it in the first place? Culture isn't shifting very much as far as I can tell.
"Get on board or we'll screw you over", which is exactly the dynamic a "well-hated" law creates, is not how a healthy society is run.
NY-SAFE is an example of a "well hated law". How is it working outside the areas that wanted it in the first place? Culture isn't shifting very much as far as I can tell.
By shaping the culture? That was quite a reach.
Perhaps the Oil companies control the US gov't. Or perhaps they're actually the same.
Interesting then to note that Norway, where the oil company is majority owned by the government, also has the largest per capita fleet of electric cars.
But the norwegian government is owned by people, unlike the US govt which is owned by corporations. And the people know that it's in their best interest to switch to EV. Also, the norwegian government will end their investments into oil & gas: https://www.ft.com/content/611c2e9e-cad9-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8...
In principle, the US government represents the will of the people. Government officials may be corrupt and in the pockets of corporate interests, but clinging to power is an even bigger motivator. If enough voters demand something, they are usually forced into delivering it, at least partly.
The major problem in my view is the systematic and continuous disinformation campaigns regarding climate change and environmental problems in general (financed of course by oil and chemical companies). By keeping voters misinformed and confused, corporate powers ensure they are able to continue their operations without public oversight.
The major problem in my view is the systematic and continuous disinformation campaigns regarding climate change and environmental problems in general (financed of course by oil and chemical companies). By keeping voters misinformed and confused, corporate powers ensure they are able to continue their operations without public oversight.
>In principle, the US government represents the will of the people.
Unfortunately that's not really encoded in how you guys and gals do elections.
From gerrymandering, to the stale two-horse race for party-approved candidates, to the emphasis on a single person (the "President") with roman senate undertones as opposed to collaborating MPs (and where are the coalition governments?), to legal lobbying, to the undue role of appointed justices in legislation, to the BS with vote registration (and voting day not being an official holiday)...
It's like everything has been done to distance the governance from the will of the people...
Unfortunately that's not really encoded in how you guys and gals do elections.
From gerrymandering, to the stale two-horse race for party-approved candidates, to the emphasis on a single person (the "President") with roman senate undertones as opposed to collaborating MPs (and where are the coalition governments?), to legal lobbying, to the undue role of appointed justices in legislation, to the BS with vote registration (and voting day not being an official holiday)...
It's like everything has been done to distance the governance from the will of the people...
On the other hand, this probably allowed the US to become the superpower it is. I feel the US is the closest example in the modern world to capitalism unchecked - with both the pros and cons that entails.
>On the other hand, this probably allowed the US to become the superpower it is.
Corellation != causation.
I'd say the exhaustion of Europe in WWI and WWII (which the US only participated with its military, whereas the European citizenry had much more direct costs across the whole population (occupation, bombings, ethnic cleansing, brain drain, etc), the post-war influx of European scientists (half of the scientific developments in post-WWII US are from Jewish, German, and other immigrants), the collapse of European colonialism, and an internal 300+ million strong market to try stuff in, plus a strong military to force its market interests globally, were more of a factor in that.
Case in point, China is becoming "the superpower it is" without following the same model as the US of "unchecked capitalism", if anything the opposite.
>I feel the US is the closest example in the modern world to capitalism unchecked - with both the pros and cons that entails.
What pros? If anything, unchecked capitalism tends to also destroy the free market and democracy -- as unchecked capitalists gain political and social power over their puny fellow citizens and lesser businesses.
Corellation != causation.
I'd say the exhaustion of Europe in WWI and WWII (which the US only participated with its military, whereas the European citizenry had much more direct costs across the whole population (occupation, bombings, ethnic cleansing, brain drain, etc), the post-war influx of European scientists (half of the scientific developments in post-WWII US are from Jewish, German, and other immigrants), the collapse of European colonialism, and an internal 300+ million strong market to try stuff in, plus a strong military to force its market interests globally, were more of a factor in that.
Case in point, China is becoming "the superpower it is" without following the same model as the US of "unchecked capitalism", if anything the opposite.
>I feel the US is the closest example in the modern world to capitalism unchecked - with both the pros and cons that entails.
What pros? If anything, unchecked capitalism tends to also destroy the free market and democracy -- as unchecked capitalists gain political and social power over their puny fellow citizens and lesser businesses.
If you were a Vietnamese born with defects caused by Agent Orange. Or a child in Yemen. Pretty sure these "pros" are not worth anything to you.
>> I feel the US is the closest example in the modern world to capitalism unchecked - with both the pros and cons that entails.
Please enlighten me which parts of the 'pros of capitalism' I'm missing out on as a non-US citizen, because I definitely don't see many, if any at all.
Please enlighten me which parts of the 'pros of capitalism' I'm missing out on as a non-US citizen, because I definitely don't see many, if any at all.
I guess it would be paying $1000 for a $50 medical procedure, because the unchecked health industry wants to make a profit, and can just ramp prices, enforce its dictums, and pay politicians uncheckedly.
"Pros" are subjective, of course. But if you ask an American to describe why US is great, it would be things like:
* Largest economy on the planet
* Biggest and most well known tech companies (or companies in general)
* Majority of the top research universities
* Quality of medical system (if you can pay!)
* And so on
For us in tech, living in the US is no comparison - it's the best place to be an engineer by a long shot, due to much higher wages and opportunities. Not to say you can't find good stuff elsewhere, it's just harder, and you'll get rewarded much less in general.
Increased regulation, labour protections, consumer protections, and so on stifles the economy, at least in the short term. I'm not saying that's bad - there's more to life than money, which I think is an idea that Europe embraces more so than the US.
* Largest economy on the planet
* Biggest and most well known tech companies (or companies in general)
* Majority of the top research universities
* Quality of medical system (if you can pay!)
* And so on
For us in tech, living in the US is no comparison - it's the best place to be an engineer by a long shot, due to much higher wages and opportunities. Not to say you can't find good stuff elsewhere, it's just harder, and you'll get rewarded much less in general.
Increased regulation, labour protections, consumer protections, and so on stifles the economy, at least in the short term. I'm not saying that's bad - there's more to life than money, which I think is an idea that Europe embraces more so than the US.
I don't feel any of these things provide people with more or better opportunities than those I have here, or elsewhere in many western-European or Asian countries.
The universities here are great, and actually rank equal to or better than all but a handful of US ones. The quality and availability of health care is basically the same, for a much lower price. Even for rare treatment options that are only available abroad (e.g. in the US), which are covered through regular health insurance. There are many high-tech companies in countries like the UK, Germany, Scaninavia, Netherlands, etc. Maybe not as many software companies as in Silicon Valley, but those only employ a tiny percentage of people. If you have a university or college degree you can make a great living here, and your standard of living is most definitely a lot better than in Silicon Valley. I know because I travel there regularly for work and have many direct colleagues who live and work there, some who transfered from here, and I know how much they make and what their cost of living is.
Having 'more of X', 'biggest of', 'best of', 'largest economy' have exactly zero meaning in the context of the lives of individual people. Just looking around what we have here, and what you have in the US, there are no 'pros of capitalism unchecked' that are exclusive to the US for the vast majority of people. There are many cons though.
There reason for my somewhat snarky original comment is that I honestly don't think anyone could come up with any factual, comprehensive facts that prove that the US has any exclusive benefits from 'capitalism unchecked'. In fact, most lists (per capita income, poverty, cost of living, education, vertical mobility, health care, and maybe most importantly: happiness) the US is not even near the top.
The universities here are great, and actually rank equal to or better than all but a handful of US ones. The quality and availability of health care is basically the same, for a much lower price. Even for rare treatment options that are only available abroad (e.g. in the US), which are covered through regular health insurance. There are many high-tech companies in countries like the UK, Germany, Scaninavia, Netherlands, etc. Maybe not as many software companies as in Silicon Valley, but those only employ a tiny percentage of people. If you have a university or college degree you can make a great living here, and your standard of living is most definitely a lot better than in Silicon Valley. I know because I travel there regularly for work and have many direct colleagues who live and work there, some who transfered from here, and I know how much they make and what their cost of living is.
Having 'more of X', 'biggest of', 'best of', 'largest economy' have exactly zero meaning in the context of the lives of individual people. Just looking around what we have here, and what you have in the US, there are no 'pros of capitalism unchecked' that are exclusive to the US for the vast majority of people. There are many cons though.
There reason for my somewhat snarky original comment is that I honestly don't think anyone could come up with any factual, comprehensive facts that prove that the US has any exclusive benefits from 'capitalism unchecked'. In fact, most lists (per capita income, poverty, cost of living, education, vertical mobility, health care, and maybe most importantly: happiness) the US is not even near the top.
I live in London so I'm probably biased. Salaries are lower compared to US counterparts. Funding for startups is harder. I think a lot of this is related to stronger labor protection and higher taxes. So I think in terms of economic opportunities for tech, and other in-demand industries, the US is better for individuals and companies. I still wouldn't want to live there though - I spent many years in Chicago, where you could hear gun shootings every couple weeks or so. Homeless people everywhere. It's like a dystopian world, even in "bad parts" of London you don't get anything like it.
In practice however democracy doesn't work in the US. The system allows a duopoly of two parties which have long ago been bought by corporate interests. You actually need laws in a democracy to prevent government from being taken over by special interests.
In Norway we traditionally secured this by strong limitations on the usage of political ads. Hence you could not fund yourself to political popularity. The other mechanism is that starting a new party is very easy in Norway, so as soon as established parties are not representing the interests of people they will get squeezed out by new parties.
I think what helps Norway, is that we don't view our constitution and political system as an immutable document. We have been far more willing to tinker with the system and improve it than in the US. I think this is down to the fact that getting where we are today is a very gradual historical process.
When our constitution was written it was not a full democracy. It still involved a king with considerably political power. In the US, the country begins with a pretty good constitution very early on. This I think has enforced the myth that there is no need for regular updates and improvements.
In Norway we traditionally secured this by strong limitations on the usage of political ads. Hence you could not fund yourself to political popularity. The other mechanism is that starting a new party is very easy in Norway, so as soon as established parties are not representing the interests of people they will get squeezed out by new parties.
I think what helps Norway, is that we don't view our constitution and political system as an immutable document. We have been far more willing to tinker with the system and improve it than in the US. I think this is down to the fact that getting where we are today is a very gradual historical process.
When our constitution was written it was not a full democracy. It still involved a king with considerably political power. In the US, the country begins with a pretty good constitution very early on. This I think has enforced the myth that there is no need for regular updates and improvements.
"In principle, the US government represents the will of the people."
I think US government has always represented mostly the rights and benefits of native capital.
There is nothing wrong with this, IMO, just as long as it is understood that where in Europe the nationalistic movements which picked up their wind from the US and French examples, thus leading to the modern nation states, where fueled by popular sentiment, the US independence was a semi-private project by an oligarchic clique.
Note: taking care of native capital is one of the best recipes for power and independence, which then facilitates all sorts of nice benefits for all around, but it's not everything that is required for building a good life for all.
I think US government has always represented mostly the rights and benefits of native capital.
There is nothing wrong with this, IMO, just as long as it is understood that where in Europe the nationalistic movements which picked up their wind from the US and French examples, thus leading to the modern nation states, where fueled by popular sentiment, the US independence was a semi-private project by an oligarchic clique.
Note: taking care of native capital is one of the best recipes for power and independence, which then facilitates all sorts of nice benefits for all around, but it's not everything that is required for building a good life for all.
just even thinking about 'capital' is wrong. we'd be so much in better shape now if we dropped that idea (in all forms incl state capitalism) already.
Dude, all improvements to modern life since the middle ages have been due to capitalist advances. It predates and I would claim was a key factor in scientific revolution as well, in making resources available to clever gentlemen of leisure and learning.
If you don't like capitalism, may I suggest it is not the process of prosperity creation itself, but the lack of percieved fairness that troubles you?
If you don't like capitalism, may I suggest it is not the process of prosperity creation itself, but the lack of percieved fairness that troubles you?
It's called lobbying and it works in favor of the big money/oil companies. I don't want to name names, but "Bush administration".
The planet needs to move away from fuel and turn to sun/wind/waves. It is a slow change, but we can't wait for the oil companies to drain every last dollar/euro/yen/.. from us, before 'they do us a favor' on switching to sun/wind/waves.
The planet needs to move away from fuel and turn to sun/wind/waves. It is a slow change, but we can't wait for the oil companies to drain every last dollar/euro/yen/.. from us, before 'they do us a favor' on switching to sun/wind/waves.
>the norwegian government is owned by people
Nope. Still a monarchy.
Nope. Still a monarchy.
Norway also has proportional representation, so politically it is very unlikely to get a political duopoly and the system encourages cooperation.
Norway seems to be progressive and open-minded about this kind of thing. They have a massive sovereign wealth fund which has built up on the back of a successful national oil industry. However, last year they announced their intention to divest from oil and gas stocks. Whether or not this is to try and make the fund more environmentally and socially responsible, or if they genuinely believe that these are poor investment choices is an interesting question.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/16/oil-and-gas...
[edit: add link]
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/16/oil-and-gas...
[edit: add link]
Don't they have some requirement by law to always look to the next 50 years or something rather than the usual politician outlook of "however long I am in office for, to benefit me the most."
I would imagine over the next 50 years oil and gas is going to be a worst investment than renewable simply because by then it will have largely run out?
Then again when companies such as BP are increasing their investments into renewable energy sources it makes sense to see Norway doing the same.
I would imagine over the next 50 years oil and gas is going to be a worst investment than renewable simply because by then it will have largely run out?
Then again when companies such as BP are increasing their investments into renewable energy sources it makes sense to see Norway doing the same.
The sovereign wealth fund has a full time philosopher on it's staff; policy decisions are required to have an active input from said philosopher around a number of issues, in particular ethics.[0]
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113340298608010935
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113340298608010935
You're confusing two unrelated matters.
All of the oil companies pay the same 78% tax rate in .no. The state-owned one also pays its profits, but the profits are a rounding error compared to those 78%.
All the oil that's pumped from below the seafloor is sold. Selling more oil to domestic drivers wouldn't really increase the world's oil price, or state's tax revenue.
All of the oil companies pay the same 78% tax rate in .no. The state-owned one also pays its profits, but the profits are a rounding error compared to those 78%.
All the oil that's pumped from below the seafloor is sold. Selling more oil to domestic drivers wouldn't really increase the world's oil price, or state's tax revenue.
> oil company is majority owned by the government
You are correct. Thats in Norway in the US its the other way around.
The US federal government in general is a textbook case study in regulatory capture (recent new head of the EPA, the FCC, etc).
US politics is actually very receptive to public opinion. Tobacco and alcohol lobbies are fighting tooth and nail against marijuana legalization, especially since it currently limits company sizes in most states, effectively shutting them out of the market. But they are on the verge and/or have already lost that fight.
So no, the US record on environmental issues isn’t the result of an industry takeover of government. It’s the result of effectively lobbying the public, and making “damaging the environment” part of people’s perceived identity in some quarters.
Just look at the appeal of Trump’s focus on coal: the industry has about 50000 workers left. That’s far less than solar or wind, or Tesla alone. But coal plays to a certain image of masculinity and self-interest that is far more common in the US.
So no, the US record on environmental issues isn’t the result of an industry takeover of government. It’s the result of effectively lobbying the public, and making “damaging the environment” part of people’s perceived identity in some quarters.
Just look at the appeal of Trump’s focus on coal: the industry has about 50000 workers left. That’s far less than solar or wind, or Tesla alone. But coal plays to a certain image of masculinity and self-interest that is far more common in the US.
The US is one of the world's biggest Oil producers. China has to import oil, but can mine its own coal and produce electricity from that. So China has an incentive to get off oil more than the US does.
It helps that China is a major producer of "rare earth" metals - that's the stuff you need for the accumulators. So they don't have a problem to get the accumulators in massive quantities.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/279953/rare-earth-produc...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/279953/rare-earth-produc...
Rare earths(lanthanum specifically) are only required for NiMH batteries. Li-ions are made up of common elements.
Electric motors on the other hand work much better with added rare earths, although it's still not a strict requirement.
Electric motors on the other hand work much better with added rare earths, although it's still not a strict requirement.
Climate change is a political and verging in religious question in the US; it's something that you believe or don't believe in. This isn't really the case elsewhere (there is SOME climate change denialism in Europe and elsewhere, but it's way more fringe, and in politics mostly confined to libertarians and other weirdos).
The US's current political problem RE climate change could be regarded as temporary and will quite likely be resolved in 2020, but until the unique dynamic where half the country refuses to believe that climate change is a thing goes away, the US is always going to struggle on this stuff.
The US's current political problem RE climate change could be regarded as temporary and will quite likely be resolved in 2020, but until the unique dynamic where half the country refuses to believe that climate change is a thing goes away, the US is always going to struggle on this stuff.
What are you basing this on? Europe just signed up to complete the massive Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to keep on getting natural gas from the worst state actor in the entire world while cutting out any leverage their most vulnerable EU partner states had over Putin.
In addition, Germany, in particular, repeatedly shielded and promoted disastrous diesel fuel to give their large automakers a boost in the market. Not only was diesel over electric a terrible idea for carbon emissions but a huge environmental disaster for micro-particulate emissions that cause so many health problems in large urban areas.
Finally, we also have, once again, mostly Germany, phasing out carbon-free nuclear in favour of building new coal plants to give cheap energy to their heavy industries.
Europe is great at promoting its green image to its credulous fans but the reality is a lot more mixed.
In addition, Germany, in particular, repeatedly shielded and promoted disastrous diesel fuel to give their large automakers a boost in the market. Not only was diesel over electric a terrible idea for carbon emissions but a huge environmental disaster for micro-particulate emissions that cause so many health problems in large urban areas.
Finally, we also have, once again, mostly Germany, phasing out carbon-free nuclear in favour of building new coal plants to give cheap energy to their heavy industries.
Europe is great at promoting its green image to its credulous fans but the reality is a lot more mixed.
I believe the individual countries set their own gas prices (taxed highly). All countries buy their oil/gas on the market for roughly the same price
That doesn't change the incentives though - the taxes are there for a reason.
EDIT: what I mean is that removing the petrol taxes won't solve the set of environmental and political problems they face, but rather would likely make them worse.
EDIT: what I mean is that removing the petrol taxes won't solve the set of environmental and political problems they face, but rather would likely make them worse.
Their shipping and distribution costs are quite different though. Petrol taxes also tend to be flat - advocates for removing them always crop up, but it's a suckers bet - you wipe out say, your road maintenance income, for (in Australia) a onetime 17c on the liter drop in price (while the price just keeps going up anyway).
True, but domestic production means the revenue comes back if you aren’t a net importer.
I don't know if it really proves anything and it might be OT from your point, but, the confounding variable is that in the US - especially outside of the major urban areas - everything is just very far away in terms of miles. Lacking a car, you can expect life to be very difficult. there are still plenty of places in the US where the range of a tesla might be a borderline problem week-to-week. (though probably not as often as people think and if you plan well)
My casual observation is that smaller countries just have a lot more good options when it comes to transit because the total distances are much smaller.
My casual observation is that smaller countries just have a lot more good options when it comes to transit because the total distances are much smaller.
I think it is well known the car and petrol companies were heavy lobbyists in developing the transit architecture in the US (including zoning and so on) after the second world war. To exaggerate a bit, the entire country was designed to facilitate automobile sales.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_car_on_societ...
In the continental europe most of the urban centers predate the automobile hundreds if not thousands of years, thus the existing infrastructure does not use the private automobile as one of the key design constraints.
Not so in the US, where huge areas were populated and zoned specifically with the support of the automobile as one of the key constraints.
Once the infrastructure has been built using one design constraint, it's really expensive and difficult to unravel it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_car_on_societ...
In the continental europe most of the urban centers predate the automobile hundreds if not thousands of years, thus the existing infrastructure does not use the private automobile as one of the key design constraints.
Not so in the US, where huge areas were populated and zoned specifically with the support of the automobile as one of the key constraints.
Once the infrastructure has been built using one design constraint, it's really expensive and difficult to unravel it.
This was the one thing that really surprised me when I first visited the US in the 90s. We'd stop at a store or restaurant somewhere and the nearest neighbouring stores on either side would be 200m away, with their own huge parking lot and no pedestrian route between them. We were driving from Chicago to LA and so when we'd stop I'd want to stretch my legs, but the barriers in the way made a walk like that rally difficult. I couldn't understand why anyone would design a place like that. It was engineered around cars, not people.
Yes, and it all looks the same. We call it "Generica" :)
As an aside: this is one of the running themes in "Little Golden America", a book that chronicles a coast-to-coast American road trip underdtaken by two Soviet humorists in the 30's. The title in Russian is "Single-Story America", in reference to the flatness and uniformity of the country between the few major cities. Really fascinating account, and much of it still rings true to this day.
(My review, if anyone is interested: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2114423486)
(My review, if anyone is interested: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2114423486)
the webs we weave :o
The OP was talking about China. China is bigger than the continental US. I think the persistent myth about the US's size being some unique problem doesn't explain much.
What's more, if you think of the EU as a comparison for the US, with the individual counties as analogues for US states, it seems to explain even less. Belgium and Massachusetts are the same size but over has much better transit options than the other.
What's more, if you think of the EU as a comparison for the US, with the individual counties as analogues for US states, it seems to explain even less. Belgium and Massachusetts are the same size but over has much better transit options than the other.
In 2015, Belgium had a Population density of 363people/Km^2. Massachusetts in 2015 had 336 people/KM^2. So, pretty close. The difference is that Belgium has a much more uniform population distribution vs Massachusetts.
Secondarily, Belgium can define it's own national policy, while MA must compromise with the rest of the country, including CA, WY, MT, and NY, all of which have very different economic and practical concerns.
The US's size is not a unique problem, but, it is a problem, and the governmental structure we have chosen does pose some unique problems.
Secondarily, Belgium can define it's own national policy, while MA must compromise with the rest of the country, including CA, WY, MT, and NY, all of which have very different economic and practical concerns.
The US's size is not a unique problem, but, it is a problem, and the governmental structure we have chosen does pose some unique problems.
Boston and Munich are about the same size; yet the public transportation system in Munich is significantly better (speed, coverage, comfort of stations and trains, accessibility) than that in Boston. That does not have to be. Instead they spent a couple of billions on the big dig.
In fairness, while the Big Dig was a total crapfest while in progress, the end result made a tremendous positive difference to the walk- and bike-ability of that area. It's still not perfect (four+ lanes of angry commuters), but it's not like they could just get rid of I-93.
Totally agreed on the dollars for transit part, though. Still way too much emphasis on making cars' lives easier in Boston at the expense of everyone else.
Totally agreed on the dollars for transit part, though. Still way too much emphasis on making cars' lives easier in Boston at the expense of everyone else.
"cars' lives"
Every car at the moment contains a person. Objectifying people so it is easier to hate on them is not nice. People should realize by now that it is not just privileged rich assholes that drive cars. A well working personalized point-to-point transport system (cars plus roads) can save the person working 70 hours a week at two low paying jobs much precious time.
Every car at the moment contains a person. Objectifying people so it is easier to hate on them is not nice. People should realize by now that it is not just privileged rich assholes that drive cars. A well working personalized point-to-point transport system (cars plus roads) can save the person working 70 hours a week at two low paying jobs much precious time.
If you can afford to park in central Boston every day, you are almost certainly not that poor. A monthly parking pass is like $400-500. That's like a quarter of the pre-tax income from a full-time minimum wage job just to park at one of your jobs.
Cars just aren't a good use of space in the context of a city. A person in a car has multiplied their volume by 10 or 20. Sure, sometimes it's needed, for hauling some cargo, but I really think there are better things we could do with all the space required to support everyone owning a car (and, btw, I have one myself, so I'm not innocent) so that they can sit in traffic twice daily and a few times on weekends.
>That does not have to be. Instead they spent a couple of billions on the big dig.
So basically if MA wasn't up to it's neck in corruption it would be able to get more done with its dollars.
I assure you. Everyone in MA who pays attention knows this just like everyone knows water is wet. The problem is that nobody in MA pays attention.
So basically if MA wasn't up to it's neck in corruption it would be able to get more done with its dollars.
I assure you. Everyone in MA who pays attention knows this just like everyone knows water is wet. The problem is that nobody in MA pays attention.
Obviously the US has some structural issues, otherwise it wouldn't have these persistent failures. All I'm doing is pushing back against the simplistic "but the US is so big compared to all those tiny countries".
If you want to talk about density or uniform distribution... Why is Australian public transit so much better than American public transit?
America's governmental structure isn't unique either. There are other countries with the same kind of federalism.
And similar rebuttals can be made for virtually all other explanations.
I guess what I'm really getting at is that in the real world there are no easy solutions or explanations to problems despite the penchant in places like HN and Reddit to try to reduce explanations to a single paragraph. America's problems are likely due to a complex interaction between federalism, its geographic size, its traditional wariness of cities, its first mover advantage turning into obsolete infrastructure, and many other factors besides. But it is hard to know that the relative importance of any of those things actually is.
If you say Belgium can make its own policy, you are almost certainly making an off the cuff comment. There are dozens, possibly hundreds, of Europe-wide rules and regulations on transit that limit what Belgium can do. Belgium has to work across borders just like Massachusetts does. From Directive 95/19 on safety certification to Directive 2005/47 on the working conditions of workers on services that happen to cross a border. Since 2007 every European railway undertaking is able to off er rail freight services on every line in every EU country.
It is a mistake to paint a picture where Belgium has unlimited unilateral decision making powers.
If you want to talk about density or uniform distribution... Why is Australian public transit so much better than American public transit?
America's governmental structure isn't unique either. There are other countries with the same kind of federalism.
And similar rebuttals can be made for virtually all other explanations.
I guess what I'm really getting at is that in the real world there are no easy solutions or explanations to problems despite the penchant in places like HN and Reddit to try to reduce explanations to a single paragraph. America's problems are likely due to a complex interaction between federalism, its geographic size, its traditional wariness of cities, its first mover advantage turning into obsolete infrastructure, and many other factors besides. But it is hard to know that the relative importance of any of those things actually is.
If you say Belgium can make its own policy, you are almost certainly making an off the cuff comment. There are dozens, possibly hundreds, of Europe-wide rules and regulations on transit that limit what Belgium can do. Belgium has to work across borders just like Massachusetts does. From Directive 95/19 on safety certification to Directive 2005/47 on the working conditions of workers on services that happen to cross a border. Since 2007 every European railway undertaking is able to off er rail freight services on every line in every EU country.
It is a mistake to paint a picture where Belgium has unlimited unilateral decision making powers.
> Why is Australian public transit so much better than American public transit?
I would guess it's because Australia is, like, 99% uninhabited and uninhabitable or borderline uninhabitable[1], which probably means they can focus resources almost exclusively on the few densely populated areas. Additionally Australia's urban population seems to be significantly higher than America's (~89% vs ~80% according to 5 seconds of Googling I just did) so there's probably greater political will for investing in urban areas, and that political will probably also isn't resisted/sabotaged by an electoral system that grants hugely disproportionate representation to non-urban areas that have little to gain from realistic/economically sensible investments in public transportation.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8ehplw/australian_...
I would guess it's because Australia is, like, 99% uninhabited and uninhabitable or borderline uninhabitable[1], which probably means they can focus resources almost exclusively on the few densely populated areas. Additionally Australia's urban population seems to be significantly higher than America's (~89% vs ~80% according to 5 seconds of Googling I just did) so there's probably greater political will for investing in urban areas, and that political will probably also isn't resisted/sabotaged by an electoral system that grants hugely disproportionate representation to non-urban areas that have little to gain from realistic/economically sensible investments in public transportation.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8ehplw/australian_...
so USA has poorer public transport than Europe because the latter has much more uniform population distribution; USA also has poorer public transport than Australia because the latter has much more skewed population distribution.
american exceptionalism at its finest. :)
american exceptionalism at its finest. :)
Public transit matters where people live. Australia, quite clearly, can more easily focus on good transportation in the small percentage of its land mass where people live.
My state, about the same land area as France has a population density of 39/sq-km, right at the median value for the states. France has density of 122/sq-km. Population density is lower here, where people actually live, than in many locations in Europe or Australia. This may, in part, explain public transportation issues in the USA.
My state, about the same land area as France has a population density of 39/sq-km, right at the median value for the states. France has density of 122/sq-km. Population density is lower here, where people actually live, than in many locations in Europe or Australia. This may, in part, explain public transportation issues in the USA.
If you want to hold America to the same standard as Australia, try finding public transportation between Sydney and Adelaide, Alice Springs, or Darwin. (There isn't any.) In the US you at least can take Amtrak to cross those kinds of distances (even if it's cheaper and faster by orders of magnitude to just take a plane instead). It's fine to point out that America's public transportation is severely lacking (which it very obviously is), but being dismissive and reductive of the pertinent facts and realities isn't a good look, and it isn't helpful to public discourse.
It's the Goldilocks syndrome. Population density has to be juuuust right to result in American transit. It couldn't possibly be due to any other factors.........
[deleted]
[deleted]
Frankly, political lobbying is strangling your country. Are there any other developed democracies that allow the level of political capture through lobbying and political donations as the US? That alongside gerrymandering and the politicisation of the judiciary and whole legal process. Not how I'd set up a democracy. The USA was far ahead of it's time for over a hundred years in many aspects of it's system of politics and governance, but right now it seems like it's really fallen far behind.
> Belgium can define it's own national policy, while MA must compromise with the rest of the country
Belgium must compromise with the rest of the EU on many topics.
Belgium must compromise with the rest of the EU on many topics.
Not to mention that Belgium's governance is composed of several governments that are semi-hostile to each other and must compromise with the rest of the country as well.
Sheer landmass is less critical for transit than population density. The US has a population density of 33 people per square kilometer; China is nearly five times more dense at 144 people per square kilometer. [1] This sparse population distribution is one of the causes of many of the difficult-to-solve infrastructure problems in the US, such as poor broadband rollout, poor transit, etc.
For what it's worth the United States is actually larger in landmass size than China: 9.834 million square km in the US vs. 9.597 million square km in China. But China has over quadruple the population.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
For what it's worth the United States is actually larger in landmass size than China: 9.834 million square km in the US vs. 9.597 million square km in China. But China has over quadruple the population.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
> The US has a population density of 33 people per square kilometer;
Yes, and they are evenly spread out across the country, right?
What you conveniently leave out, and which turns all these kinds of arguments based on a "total area / total population" numbers into absurd exercises in futility in showing anything useful, is that you have some few mega regions:
http://osnetdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2050_Map_Me...
Even a country like Germany has extremely uneven population, never mind countries like China or Russia. There is nothing special in the situation the US finds itself in at all - especially not since the enormous population shifts of the 20th century from rural areas to cities.
When I lived in the US (for a decade), the area I lived in was the SF Bay Area, several places. This is far more densely populated than area in Germany where I grew up (former East Germany). And yet, I could not do anything or get anywhere without a car. It has next to nothing to do with population density - in the US you are forced to drive for distances where you would walk, use a bike or public transit in areas with less pop. density in other countries.
Even during my brief first visit to the US end of the last millennium, which was a three month tour of the continental US (NY to Alaska, to Arizona, CA to FL) the "must... use... car!!!" bug got to me too. Towards the end I caught myself getting into the car and driving <200 feet to drop some waste into a wastebasket (from the car window of course) on a shopping mall parking lot... it seemed the natural thing to do, I had to deliberately catch myself and consciously think about what the hell I was doing to recognize the absurdity. After only two months in the country.
Yes, and they are evenly spread out across the country, right?
What you conveniently leave out, and which turns all these kinds of arguments based on a "total area / total population" numbers into absurd exercises in futility in showing anything useful, is that you have some few mega regions:
http://osnetdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2050_Map_Me...
Even a country like Germany has extremely uneven population, never mind countries like China or Russia. There is nothing special in the situation the US finds itself in at all - especially not since the enormous population shifts of the 20th century from rural areas to cities.
When I lived in the US (for a decade), the area I lived in was the SF Bay Area, several places. This is far more densely populated than area in Germany where I grew up (former East Germany). And yet, I could not do anything or get anywhere without a car. It has next to nothing to do with population density - in the US you are forced to drive for distances where you would walk, use a bike or public transit in areas with less pop. density in other countries.
Even during my brief first visit to the US end of the last millennium, which was a three month tour of the continental US (NY to Alaska, to Arizona, CA to FL) the "must... use... car!!!" bug got to me too. Towards the end I caught myself getting into the car and driving <200 feet to drop some waste into a wastebasket (from the car window of course) on a shopping mall parking lot... it seemed the natural thing to do, I had to deliberately catch myself and consciously think about what the hell I was doing to recognize the absurdity. After only two months in the country.
> Yes, and they are evenly spread out across the country, right?
Not evenly — but the population in the US is in fact much more geographically dispersed than in most of Europe, India, and East Asia. These measurements are not what you claim ("total area / total population"); here is a map of population density per square kilometer over the globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File...
It's true that there are a few areas in the US that have high density. But from a federal funding standpoint, the US unfortunately has to contend with the fact that its population is widely dispersed over a large area compared to most other highly developed nations.
Not evenly — but the population in the US is in fact much more geographically dispersed than in most of Europe, India, and East Asia. These measurements are not what you claim ("total area / total population"); here is a map of population density per square kilometer over the globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File...
It's true that there are a few areas in the US that have high density. But from a federal funding standpoint, the US unfortunately has to contend with the fact that its population is widely dispersed over a large area compared to most other highly developed nations.
The image you link to does not support your assertion: The US looks "speckled" because there is a lot of empty space, which does not have to be connected. So the others that are all-red have it actually worse. Asia has a lot more people too, so yes, that leads to higher density - but that's hardly an advantage to have to deal with over a billion people instead of a few hundred millions. They still are just as distributed - plus there are a lot fewer gaps of nothing in between! It is easier to cross over nothingness than to path a way through non-stop population, as any effort that tries to build new infrastructure through populated areas that ends up mired with legal and ownership issues and protests demonstrates.
It also does not explain the car addiction at all, because it would make much more sense to connect wide-spread centers using trains, for example.
Also, most transport is local - and as far as it is not combining it into larger "packages" (train, ship, large trucks) would be more efficient.
I'm also a bit amazed at your response. Your initial comment, the one I replied to, is only about comparing total area and total population. I find it at least a little bit disingenuous how you dug deep to come up with a new version of the argument.
I find the effort in many comments to point out how the US is "special" and "different" from all the rest of the world very weird. I would not find it as weird if it looked like a detached analysis, but it seems to be mostly emotional. Why? So strange. What's the big deal, what do you lose, if you come to the conclusion that it's of course true that all problems are local and none are completely the same, the variability and the base problems are not actually different? What's the big deal? Isn't it enough to look for "exceptionalism" in the achievements and possibilities, why does it have to also be true for such mundane stuff at any cost (e.g. suffering quality of arguments)?
It also does not explain the car addiction at all, because it would make much more sense to connect wide-spread centers using trains, for example.
Also, most transport is local - and as far as it is not combining it into larger "packages" (train, ship, large trucks) would be more efficient.
I'm also a bit amazed at your response. Your initial comment, the one I replied to, is only about comparing total area and total population. I find it at least a little bit disingenuous how you dug deep to come up with a new version of the argument.
I find the effort in many comments to point out how the US is "special" and "different" from all the rest of the world very weird. I would not find it as weird if it looked like a detached analysis, but it seems to be mostly emotional. Why? So strange. What's the big deal, what do you lose, if you come to the conclusion that it's of course true that all problems are local and none are completely the same, the variability and the base problems are not actually different? What's the big deal? Isn't it enough to look for "exceptionalism" in the achievements and possibilities, why does it have to also be true for such mundane stuff at any cost (e.g. suffering quality of arguments)?
Not defending the OP (or continuing their line of thought), but here's an exclusivity argument for why it's difficult to build public transport infrastructure in the US.
The US is special because its cities were either built to be pedestrian-hostile, or were made so during the Depression years when the transport companies went bust.
Now, in addition to the mindset shift, I think you'd need to rebuild entire cities/metroplexes to make the public transport work.
Case in point: the South Bay Area, where I live now. Sure, you can add trains (at a huge cost). But once you get off the train station, where do you go? The sidewalks are those narrow strips separating the roadway from the parking lots adjacent to stores, they are no joy to walk on, and it will take you forever.
Where in Europe you have:
[store][sidewalk][roadway, 2 lanes][sidewalk][store]
Here, you have:
[business][parking lot][impenetrable hedge][sidewalk][roadway, 3 lanes][uncrossable median][roadway, 3 lanes][sidewalk][impenetrable hedge][parking lot][business]
Then, due to the zoning regulations you don't have stores and cafes right next to place where people live - you have huge blocks with nothing in them but houses, houses, houses.
Ditto for business districts.
It's not enough to have public transport, one needs to rethink entire cities from ground up to make them walkable, bikeable - and accessible by public transport - even if it exists.
Another case in point: Seattle. Lacking a good train system, they made the buses work with dedicated bus lanes, which make the buses fast - faster than traffic.
This works because the city has not been developed in the sad way I described above.
As for the suburban wasteland, which makes up huge chunks of the US population-wise, you can throw all your trains and buses at it, and it will be but a drop in the bucket.
Disclaimer: lived half my life in the US, half my life in urban Ukraine. Big fan of public transport, but drive most of the time - and when I don't, I bike, outrunning public transportation in most cases on distances up to 6 miles or so.
EDIT: see the urban sprawl point below[1]:
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16918434
The US is special because its cities were either built to be pedestrian-hostile, or were made so during the Depression years when the transport companies went bust.
Now, in addition to the mindset shift, I think you'd need to rebuild entire cities/metroplexes to make the public transport work.
Case in point: the South Bay Area, where I live now. Sure, you can add trains (at a huge cost). But once you get off the train station, where do you go? The sidewalks are those narrow strips separating the roadway from the parking lots adjacent to stores, they are no joy to walk on, and it will take you forever.
Where in Europe you have:
[store][sidewalk][roadway, 2 lanes][sidewalk][store]
Here, you have:
[business][parking lot][impenetrable hedge][sidewalk][roadway, 3 lanes][uncrossable median][roadway, 3 lanes][sidewalk][impenetrable hedge][parking lot][business]
Then, due to the zoning regulations you don't have stores and cafes right next to place where people live - you have huge blocks with nothing in them but houses, houses, houses.
Ditto for business districts.
It's not enough to have public transport, one needs to rethink entire cities from ground up to make them walkable, bikeable - and accessible by public transport - even if it exists.
Another case in point: Seattle. Lacking a good train system, they made the buses work with dedicated bus lanes, which make the buses fast - faster than traffic.
This works because the city has not been developed in the sad way I described above.
As for the suburban wasteland, which makes up huge chunks of the US population-wise, you can throw all your trains and buses at it, and it will be but a drop in the bucket.
Disclaimer: lived half my life in the US, half my life in urban Ukraine. Big fan of public transport, but drive most of the time - and when I don't, I bike, outrunning public transportation in most cases on distances up to 6 miles or so.
EDIT: see the urban sprawl point below[1]:
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16918434
I would argue there is a huge difference in OPs argument and that brought up by most people to claim the US is "special" and what you just wrote.
> The US is special because its cities were either built to be pedestrian-hostile, or were made so during the Depression years when the transport companies went bust.
The original argument is based on "nature", things outside of human control. Your argument is 100% under human control, a self-made problem. What perplexes me is that the "nature" (inevitability) argument always comes first, but when prodded (like I did here) there is the attempt to shift it it elsewhere. I don't like that style, as I said, this seems to be mostly emotions-driven and I don't quite get why there is this attempt at any cost to paint the US situation as "special". Everyone and everything is "special" if you dig deep enough. The point is, are the difficulties any worse than elsewhere in magnitude and complexity? I don't think so. You only argued about the US, but the point of "being special" here has the meaning of "it's more difficult", and I don't think that is justified at all.
> The US is special because its cities were either built to be pedestrian-hostile, or were made so during the Depression years when the transport companies went bust.
The original argument is based on "nature", things outside of human control. Your argument is 100% under human control, a self-made problem. What perplexes me is that the "nature" (inevitability) argument always comes first, but when prodded (like I did here) there is the attempt to shift it it elsewhere. I don't like that style, as I said, this seems to be mostly emotions-driven and I don't quite get why there is this attempt at any cost to paint the US situation as "special". Everyone and everything is "special" if you dig deep enough. The point is, are the difficulties any worse than elsewhere in magnitude and complexity? I don't think so. You only argued about the US, but the point of "being special" here has the meaning of "it's more difficult", and I don't think that is justified at all.
I agree, the "nature" argumnets are bollocks (the US is big! That's why we don't have local transit in urban centers - yeah right), and I never understood why people make them (ditto for healthcare - "we can't have it because we are big!").
As for your question:
>are the difficulties any worse than elsewhere in magnitude and complexity?
I firmly think that this is the case - a century of bad urban planning is hard to undo. You don't have that in Europe (cities are old, the layout makes public transport viable and necessary), you don't have in 2nd world countries (a lot of growth happened under central planning that bet big on public transport because it couldn't provide enough cars for its citizens).
Huge cities in the US are different from cities in Europe. Even when a European city has suburbs, taking a train to the city center makes sense because you can get around the city center without a car. That is not the case in Houston or Dallas, for example. You wouldn't want to walk there.
Yes, these problems are man-made - but they are entrenched and systemic to a scale that I'm unaware of.
I guess what I am saying here: we need to understand the scope of the problem. It's not that it's more difficult to make trains running in Dallas than it is in Paris.
It's that we need to rebuild Dallas from ground up for that train to make sense there due to the way it grew in the past 70 years.
TL;DR: screw-ups are hard to undo.
As for your question:
>are the difficulties any worse than elsewhere in magnitude and complexity?
I firmly think that this is the case - a century of bad urban planning is hard to undo. You don't have that in Europe (cities are old, the layout makes public transport viable and necessary), you don't have in 2nd world countries (a lot of growth happened under central planning that bet big on public transport because it couldn't provide enough cars for its citizens).
Huge cities in the US are different from cities in Europe. Even when a European city has suburbs, taking a train to the city center makes sense because you can get around the city center without a car. That is not the case in Houston or Dallas, for example. You wouldn't want to walk there.
Yes, these problems are man-made - but they are entrenched and systemic to a scale that I'm unaware of.
I guess what I am saying here: we need to understand the scope of the problem. It's not that it's more difficult to make trains running in Dallas than it is in Paris.
It's that we need to rebuild Dallas from ground up for that train to make sense there due to the way it grew in the past 70 years.
TL;DR: screw-ups are hard to undo.
Where in Seattle do the buses have their own lane? I can only think of the tunnel downtown and a bit of road south of it through the southern industrial area (but I think that has given way to link). It isn’t much when you consider where metro and soundtransit go.
> The US looks "speckled" because there is a lot of empty space, which does not have to be connected. So the others that are all-red have it actually worse. Asia has a lot more people too, so yes, that leads to higher density - but that's hardly an advantage to have to deal with over a billion people instead of a few hundred millions.
There is plenty of research around public transit indicating the opposite: higher density increases transit viability, because public transit requires high demand per kilometer in order to be financially viable. For example, to quote this [1] highly cited paper:
"There are well documented empirical thresholds of density below which transit is unpractical for users and financially unsustainable for operators."
Or even just the opening line of the introduction:
"The counterpoint to the correlation between low-density sprawl and automobile dependence is that between high density and more transit use."
Connecting through "nothingness" is not an advantage: it costs actual money to build transit even through "nothingness" — labor and materials are not free, and even what you term "nothingness" is typically owned by someone and land rights still need to be acquired — and no one wants to go there. It would be cheaper to build transit between Popular Point A and Popular Point B if the vast "nothingness" between them was removed altogether — aka, high density.
> They still are just as distributed
You're taking the "sparse population distribution" argument pretty far out of context. The point is that they're sparse, not the total landmass size.
> I find the effort in many comments to point out how the US is "special" and "different" from all the rest of the world very weird. I would not find it as weird if it looked like a detached analysis, but it seems to be mostly emotional. Why? So strange. What's the big deal, what do you lose, if you come to the conclusion that it's of course true that all problems are local and none are completely the same, the variability and the base problems are not actually different? What's the big deal? Isn't it enough to look for "exceptionalism" in the achievements and possibilities, why does it have to also be true for such mundane stuff at any cost (e.g. suffering quality of arguments)?
Thanks, but I think my posts in here have been pretty data-focused and detached.
1: http://courses.washington.edu/gmforum/Readings/Bertaud_Trans...
There is plenty of research around public transit indicating the opposite: higher density increases transit viability, because public transit requires high demand per kilometer in order to be financially viable. For example, to quote this [1] highly cited paper:
"There are well documented empirical thresholds of density below which transit is unpractical for users and financially unsustainable for operators."
Or even just the opening line of the introduction:
"The counterpoint to the correlation between low-density sprawl and automobile dependence is that between high density and more transit use."
Connecting through "nothingness" is not an advantage: it costs actual money to build transit even through "nothingness" — labor and materials are not free, and even what you term "nothingness" is typically owned by someone and land rights still need to be acquired — and no one wants to go there. It would be cheaper to build transit between Popular Point A and Popular Point B if the vast "nothingness" between them was removed altogether — aka, high density.
> They still are just as distributed
You're taking the "sparse population distribution" argument pretty far out of context. The point is that they're sparse, not the total landmass size.
> I find the effort in many comments to point out how the US is "special" and "different" from all the rest of the world very weird. I would not find it as weird if it looked like a detached analysis, but it seems to be mostly emotional. Why? So strange. What's the big deal, what do you lose, if you come to the conclusion that it's of course true that all problems are local and none are completely the same, the variability and the base problems are not actually different? What's the big deal? Isn't it enough to look for "exceptionalism" in the achievements and possibilities, why does it have to also be true for such mundane stuff at any cost (e.g. suffering quality of arguments)?
Thanks, but I think my posts in here have been pretty data-focused and detached.
1: http://courses.washington.edu/gmforum/Readings/Bertaud_Trans...
Already in your first paragraph you chose to twist everything around. It is NOT more dense overall, there just are more dense areas. I refer to my previous comments, since nothing new was brought up.
> You're taking the "sparse population distribution" argument pretty far out of context.
May I suggest a mirror?
> Thanks, but I think my posts in here have been pretty data-focused and detached.
Not at all, unless you think that going out of your way to find any "data" at all and then pretending that it shows what you say it does (which it doesn't do - at all!) is "data-focused and detached".
There is nothing in the US situation that makes it any more difficult than for the rest of the world. No, the US does not have "special" problems that make transportation more difficult than elsewhere, apart from self-inflicted wounds (another commenter mentioned car-oriented city designs). Of course everybody and everything is "special" if you look deep enough, but this was about "special" (as in more) difficulty compared to other places.
Also you keep moving your target. I still take your ridiculous very first comment as setting the tone - after all, it is what you yourself first brought up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16918557
In response to being called out on that argument you came up with ever more elaborate attempts to disguise what you said and pretend you had a different argument. Own up to having made a very bad "argument" and stop this nonsense. We have a "paper trail" of what you said, stop pretending it ever made sense.
> You're taking the "sparse population distribution" argument pretty far out of context.
May I suggest a mirror?
> Thanks, but I think my posts in here have been pretty data-focused and detached.
Not at all, unless you think that going out of your way to find any "data" at all and then pretending that it shows what you say it does (which it doesn't do - at all!) is "data-focused and detached".
There is nothing in the US situation that makes it any more difficult than for the rest of the world. No, the US does not have "special" problems that make transportation more difficult than elsewhere, apart from self-inflicted wounds (another commenter mentioned car-oriented city designs). Of course everybody and everything is "special" if you look deep enough, but this was about "special" (as in more) difficulty compared to other places.
Also you keep moving your target. I still take your ridiculous very first comment as setting the tone - after all, it is what you yourself first brought up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16918557
In response to being called out on that argument you came up with ever more elaborate attempts to disguise what you said and pretend you had a different argument. Own up to having made a very bad "argument" and stop this nonsense. We have a "paper trail" of what you said, stop pretending it ever made sense.
I think abakker's point is that the US is much less densely populated compared to China and the EU. The US has much of its population distributed far distances from urban areas, which makes electric vehicles a less desirable option.
"China is bigger than the continental US. I think the persistent myth about the US's size being some unique problem doesn't explain much."
Sure, China is huge. But the vast majority of it's population is concentrated on or near the east coast. Most of China's western interior is sparsely populated, even compared to the US.
Even including the interior, the overall population density of China (137/km2) is much higher than that of the USA (35/km2).
Sure, China is huge. But the vast majority of it's population is concentrated on or near the east coast. Most of China's western interior is sparsely populated, even compared to the US.
Even including the interior, the overall population density of China (137/km2) is much higher than that of the USA (35/km2).
[deleted]
Granted I've never lived in Belgium but MA has a corrupt gravy train of a government. We're literally too efficient with our money to afford nice things. I find it hard to believe that dollar for dollar Belgian taxes do not come back around to benefit the Belgian taxpayers more than MA taxes come back around to benefit the MA taxpayers.
Belgium needs good public transport because the population are really bad drivers.
Yes, it's difficult if not impossible to live in most places in the US without a car, the only real exception I can think of is NYC.
However, it has nothing to do with the size of the country, it's in the way towns and cities are laid out.
For one thing, discrete residential and commercial zones separated by vast distances and linked by highway are the norm. This makes it impractical to walk or bike to work or shopping. In suburbia, there is no such thing as a corner deli...
However, it has nothing to do with the size of the country, it's in the way towns and cities are laid out.
For one thing, discrete residential and commercial zones separated by vast distances and linked by highway are the norm. This makes it impractical to walk or bike to work or shopping. In suburbia, there is no such thing as a corner deli...
So national policy is essentially catering to the minority that live in rural areas? That seems backwards.
It's not about real rural areas, it's sprawl largely. It's been the dominant and TOP-DOWN planned development pattern for a whole generation, and it's totally tragic. Not only from energy perspective but nearly all other variables. There's almost nothing arguably redeemable about sprawl.
https://www.strongtowns.org/ is about the best org discussing these issues and isn't coming from a left- or right-wing perspective but a sane, critical-thinking, research-based perspective.
https://www.strongtowns.org/ is about the best org discussing these issues and isn't coming from a left- or right-wing perspective but a sane, critical-thinking, research-based perspective.
> and TOP-DOWN planned development pattern for a whole generation,
I'd almost think it is bottom-up not top-down. Top down would imply some central planning, allowance for more space, livable communities, more trees, more parks and trails, mixed zoning etc. I grew up in a Soviet Union and towns and cities were designed top-down. Nice wide streets, electric trolley buses in the city that ran regularly. For all the ills and terrible things it was actually not as a bad as far as the general layout was concerned.
In US it is bottom-up because every developer buys land then tries to maximize their profit by shoving as many houses and cul-de-sacs as they can. Or as many office buildings etc. Every town wants to maximize its property taxes so they have their own interests at work. People who bought the property also now have different incentives so you have zoning and NIMBY. Ideally all these self-interests would somehow magically align to produce something great. But it often doesn't.
I'd almost think it is bottom-up not top-down. Top down would imply some central planning, allowance for more space, livable communities, more trees, more parks and trails, mixed zoning etc. I grew up in a Soviet Union and towns and cities were designed top-down. Nice wide streets, electric trolley buses in the city that ran regularly. For all the ills and terrible things it was actually not as a bad as far as the general layout was concerned.
In US it is bottom-up because every developer buys land then tries to maximize their profit by shoving as many houses and cul-de-sacs as they can. Or as many office buildings etc. Every town wants to maximize its property taxes so they have their own interests at work. People who bought the property also now have different incentives so you have zoning and NIMBY. Ideally all these self-interests would somehow magically align to produce something great. But it often doesn't.
Not all central planning mean same end result. US gov did embrace suburban sprawl.
Bottom-up planning example would be post-USSR where people converted community gardens into suburbs on their own. Without any central planning or viable infrastructure.
Bottom-up planning example would be post-USSR where people converted community gardens into suburbs on their own. Without any central planning or viable infrastructure.
> US gov did embrace suburban sprawl.
Yeah but they didn't directly design cities the way a top-down developer would do. They are some planned communities in US. I live next to one, and it is a different feel to it definitely. But it is not a common thing at all.
At the federal level there are tax incentives and credits and subsidies and those affect everything but it is still very much a local "maximize my profit" kind of deal. Uncle Sam doesn't care if there are enough play grounds or parks for given area and population density.
I think that you are trying to say that the incentives (say cheap mortgages) and subsidies for oil and car manufacturers resulted in suburban sprawl? But that's more of a nasty side-effect than a direct policy or law. In other words we got the bad part of top-down influence without the good part of it.
> Bottom-up planning example would be post-USSR where people converted community gardens into suburbs on their own.
I jokingly say that overnight they become more capitalist and laissez faire than most countries in the West.
Yeah but they didn't directly design cities the way a top-down developer would do. They are some planned communities in US. I live next to one, and it is a different feel to it definitely. But it is not a common thing at all.
At the federal level there are tax incentives and credits and subsidies and those affect everything but it is still very much a local "maximize my profit" kind of deal. Uncle Sam doesn't care if there are enough play grounds or parks for given area and population density.
I think that you are trying to say that the incentives (say cheap mortgages) and subsidies for oil and car manufacturers resulted in suburban sprawl? But that's more of a nasty side-effect than a direct policy or law. In other words we got the bad part of top-down influence without the good part of it.
> Bottom-up planning example would be post-USSR where people converted community gardens into suburbs on their own.
I jokingly say that overnight they become more capitalist and laissez faire than most countries in the West.
You say the planned community has a certain feel, you are swimming in an ocean of zoning.
They got special exceptions from the county to do their own thing and not have obey the existing ones. So it is more like an island.
Sorry, I meant that zoning is very much a form of top down planning. It's just pervasive.
There can be even more structure, but when a town or city simply blocks medium density residential structures, that's pretty top down.
There can be even more structure, but when a town or city simply blocks medium density residential structures, that's pretty top down.
> Yeah but they didn't directly design cities the way a top-down developer would do. They are some planned communities in US. I live next to one, and it is a different feel to it definitely. But it is not a common thing at all.
Top-down developer can design it any way he wants. Top-down just means it's planned and not anarchistic like in ex-USSR.
Even policy of not enforcing parks, playground or allowing lesser population density is top-down development. Policy of building highways to accommodate sprawl is top-down as well.
Meanwhile bottom-up in ex-USSR style means ex-community gardens converted into suburbs without central water/sewage, no proper road network etc. While some developers put in over-the-top density highrises in questionable locations. Again, without proper infrastructure to support them. In both cases, it's incentives from people or developers without any support and sometimes even acknowledgement from the government.
> I jokingly say that overnight they become more capitalist and laissez faire than most countries in the West.
I'd say that with 100% straight face. We're definitely much more capitalist than western europe and definitely competing with US on many fronts.
Top-down developer can design it any way he wants. Top-down just means it's planned and not anarchistic like in ex-USSR.
Even policy of not enforcing parks, playground or allowing lesser population density is top-down development. Policy of building highways to accommodate sprawl is top-down as well.
Meanwhile bottom-up in ex-USSR style means ex-community gardens converted into suburbs without central water/sewage, no proper road network etc. While some developers put in over-the-top density highrises in questionable locations. Again, without proper infrastructure to support them. In both cases, it's incentives from people or developers without any support and sometimes even acknowledgement from the government.
> I jokingly say that overnight they become more capitalist and laissez faire than most countries in the West.
I'd say that with 100% straight face. We're definitely much more capitalist than western europe and definitely competing with US on many fronts.
Post WWII, our (USA) policy has been to loot urban areas to subsidize sprawl.
There's BOTH factors, but the master-plans and zoning that require sprawl by forcing major separation between residential, commercial, industry etc. — all that was top down. And by top-down, I mean at the local city planning level, not the federal level per se… except the federal policy helped finance the sprawl…
Also, these big developers are sorta top-down too. They are big powerful entities setting things up for the people who actually use the developments instead of iterative development.
There's a ton of ridiculous patterns built into development that relate to the way it is financed etc. and that along with zoning etc. creates insane sprawl.
https://www.strongtowns.org/ does a remarkable job at addressing all these issues, not taking a dogmatic top-down or bottom-up or whatever view.
Also, these big developers are sorta top-down too. They are big powerful entities setting things up for the people who actually use the developments instead of iterative development.
There's a ton of ridiculous patterns built into development that relate to the way it is financed etc. and that along with zoning etc. creates insane sprawl.
https://www.strongtowns.org/ does a remarkable job at addressing all these issues, not taking a dogmatic top-down or bottom-up or whatever view.
I didn't say it was a good idea...but yeah, most of America by area is totally dependent on cars for access, because more of America is private property, spread far apart. Not a great use of public transit. In many places, the roads themselves are the only real public property.
That minority controls a non-trivial portion of the nation's political power -- just look at the 2016 presidential election for evidence. I'm 100% for clean energy and reducing/eliminating fossil fuel use, but I also recognize the reality that electric vehicles just don't yet have the capability -- and more importantly, infrastructure -- to replace gas- and diesel-powered cars/buses/trucks. Telling rural Americans to piss off is just as bad as asking urban Americans to deal with the smog IMO.
It would be a good start if we replaced ICEs wherever possible, i.e. in cities. The majority of the people lives in cities, almost all car trips are well below fifty miles. If EVs work 100% of the time for 20% of the population that would already be a huge win for the environment and their sales could fund the R&D necessary to make them viable for the rest.
The majority live in Sub-urban/rural areas. Even urban, non-city center areas are not easily servable by buses. See Houston (or anywhere in Texas).
So we should just abandon our rural areas? That seems backwards.
It's already happening for loads of other, often good reasons. It's called urbanization. You can try to resist the future but you cannot stop it. You might just as well embrace it. How exactly does that seem backwards?
The situation is already problematic for agriculture. Further decreasing population density in rural settings just makes that worse (e.g. instead of going to the grocery store 10 miles away that happily supports a population of 5,000 people, you instead get to drive 2 hours to Costco in the nearest city to get enough groceries to make the trip worthwhile)
Just don't forget that even those urbanites still need resources that come from rural areas, like food. Yes, the service/information economy is clearly the future. But being able to domestically supply essentials to the service/information sectors is overall a good thing from several perspectives, including environmental health.
When China is the dominant economic superpower I doubt they will care much about abandoning the rural United States.
How about inside the major urban areas though? The vast majority of people live in cities, which also means they will mostly drive inside the city itself, which means relatively short distances. There's no reason why that demographic couldn't switch to electric cars, or why the government isn't helping them go for more eco friendly alternatives.
Yes which is why efficient public transport start with city planning. American cities are not built for public transport. They are built for cars.
You need to redesign American cities. The most obvious thing to change is zoning laws. Residential areas, offices and stores need to be more mixed.
Another issue is that many problems exist simply because it is too easy to drive. With easy driving you end up with donut cities where anything of importance is located in a ring around the outskirts of the city. That kills the ability to utilize public transport effectively.
If you discouraged driving more activity would be forced into neighborhoods and into the downtown area, which would make public transport functional. It is much easier to feed people with public transport into a downtown area than into a ring on the outskirts.
You need to redesign American cities. The most obvious thing to change is zoning laws. Residential areas, offices and stores need to be more mixed.
Another issue is that many problems exist simply because it is too easy to drive. With easy driving you end up with donut cities where anything of importance is located in a ring around the outskirts of the city. That kills the ability to utilize public transport effectively.
If you discouraged driving more activity would be forced into neighborhoods and into the downtown area, which would make public transport functional. It is much easier to feed people with public transport into a downtown area than into a ring on the outskirts.
The US is this way because we've zoned and developed it this way, not because of the geography. If zoning changed to allow higher building density in cities, especially major cities, you'd see much less sprawl, and better support of walking, biking, and transit.
In the US, we are forced to drive because we force ourselves to drive.
In the US, we are forced to drive because we force ourselves to drive.
The nordics have canada level pop density and are still doing better.
And, still, bigger part of GDP in Europe and China is about burning oil.
But, how are they making electricity? Coal?
About 66% is coal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
But it's on a downtrend. I believe it's a lot easier to clean up centralized sources of pollution (power plants) than diffused ones (vehicles).
I'm mostly worried about batteries and the politics and rare earth metals.
But it's on a downtrend. I believe it's a lot easier to clean up centralized sources of pollution (power plants) than diffused ones (vehicles).
I'm mostly worried about batteries and the politics and rare earth metals.
China has traditionally had the opposite problem: cars had decent enough emission equipment while coal plants would frequently disable their own (coal contributed to more of Beijing’s problem than vehicle emissions, mainly because of poorly operated heating plants). With the crack down on pollution, that is changing, though the real clean up happens when they move off coal (to NG, renewables, and nuclear).
Decoupling transport traction from point-of-use fuel source, and centralising what emissions do remain, are both net gains. There is some net total efficiency improvement in going from fuel-based to electric traction, even with coal-fired generation.
All told, the process moves toward fossil-free energy by multiple mechanisms.
All told, the process moves toward fossil-free energy by multiple mechanisms.
Please stop linking to Bloomberg.
The auto-play video at least is muted, but when you go and press the pause button it... unmutes the video. Then you have to press it again to actually pause.
Fuck these guys and their dark patterns.
The auto-play video at least is muted, but when you go and press the pause button it... unmutes the video. Then you have to press it again to actually pause.
Fuck these guys and their dark patterns.
Bloomberg remains a well written and research news organization. Most news sites attempt to monetize their content somehow.
You point out a valid problem, but, this is hacker news, and it is completely possible to find a technical solution to your problem that doesn't involve ignoring a major news channel. Try U-block, or ghostery, the combination of which seems to prevent the video from playing entirely on my system.
EDIT: Clarity of phrasing
You point out a valid problem, but, this is hacker news, and it is completely possible to find a technical solution to your problem that doesn't involve ignoring a major news channel. Try U-block, or ghostery, the combination of which seems to prevent the video from playing entirely on my system.
EDIT: Clarity of phrasing
I’m more likely to click a Bloomberg link than most traditional news sources on HN. I believe the video can be scrolled past without interacting with it.
I use this to stop videos (although some sites have still found ways around it by making a "click to read" that plays the video.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/autoplaystopper/ej...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/autoplaystopper/ej...
Better than the NYT/WSJ/etc links that slam you right into paywalls.
Use this bookmarklet:
javascript:window.location.href='https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);What's sad is that the majority of electric buses being purchased both in America and around the globe aren't manufactured in the US.
We have a Silicon Valley company, Tesla, that kicked off the world-wide move to battery powered autos. Why is there not a US company recognized as the leader in buses?
There are a few California companies on this list but they're tiny. Here in Michigan the leading player is French and they're self-driving as well. I wonder how American manufacturers failed to grab this market. Detroit should have owned this industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_bus_makers_an...
We have a Silicon Valley company, Tesla, that kicked off the world-wide move to battery powered autos. Why is there not a US company recognized as the leader in buses?
There are a few California companies on this list but they're tiny. Here in Michigan the leading player is French and they're self-driving as well. I wonder how American manufacturers failed to grab this market. Detroit should have owned this industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_bus_makers_an...
John Delorean's project before the stainless steel car was a city bus, aiming for the level of comfort of inner-city buses. At the time, GM city buses had no air conditioning, windows that didn't open, and were generally unbearable. He claims, in his autobiography, that GM intentionally made shitty buses to push people to car ownership (which made a lot more money per passenger than bus sales) and sold them to city councils with as many expensive lunches as it took. GM saw the threat from his bus and sent saboteurs to cut the fuel lines of his prototype the night before the launch at the industry show. The last part is hard to credit, but it certainly made sense for GM to fill the world with uncomfortable buses.
> Why is there not a US company recognized as the leader in buses?
The US barely uses buses! It'd be surprising if a US company _was_ big in buses, really. Bus innovation mostly happens in countries with extensive public transport systems, as you'd expect; in all but a few cities, the US's is very limited.
The US is also not particularly enthusiastic about tackling global warming relative to the rest of the developed world, or at least it isn't consistently; the Obama administration was quite good on this, but the Bush II and Trump administrations are practically denialist.
The US barely uses buses! It'd be surprising if a US company _was_ big in buses, really. Bus innovation mostly happens in countries with extensive public transport systems, as you'd expect; in all but a few cities, the US's is very limited.
The US is also not particularly enthusiastic about tackling global warming relative to the rest of the developed world, or at least it isn't consistently; the Obama administration was quite good on this, but the Bush II and Trump administrations are practically denialist.
That might be true for city buses, but I think every public school operates at least one school bus. Especially in the rural parts of the country. School buses seem like an easy target for electrification ("think of the children", etc.).
>Why is there not a US company recognized as the leader in buses?
Culture, policy and structure.
Culture: The US considers public transport to be "for the poor". How many investors and founders in SV take the bus to work? Buses are seen as an outdated mode of transportation. Why create a company for a technology that you expect to be replaced by hyperloop/flying cars/ jetpacks.
Policy: Chinas political leadership made a decision that they want electric buses in their cities and that they want them to be built in China. Then, they created the environment that would enable this using directives or subsidies or whatever.
Structure: China is the manufacturing hub of the world. They have good engineers and they know how to make stuff. They have a deep, cheap, local supply chain. Things that the US may not have as much.
Culture, policy and structure.
Culture: The US considers public transport to be "for the poor". How many investors and founders in SV take the bus to work? Buses are seen as an outdated mode of transportation. Why create a company for a technology that you expect to be replaced by hyperloop/flying cars/ jetpacks.
Policy: Chinas political leadership made a decision that they want electric buses in their cities and that they want them to be built in China. Then, they created the environment that would enable this using directives or subsidies or whatever.
Structure: China is the manufacturing hub of the world. They have good engineers and they know how to make stuff. They have a deep, cheap, local supply chain. Things that the US may not have as much.
> What's sad is that the majority of electric buses being purchased both in America and around the globe aren't manufactured in the US.
Detroit should have gotten started on this, sure. But who in Detroit? There just aren't that many American coach builders left in the transit space. GM's bus division got sold off in the 80s, and eventually got sold to Volvo. Flxible eventually went out of business in the 90s (not helped by safety issues). Mack got out of coach building ages ago (and is owned by Volvo these days). Neoplan just built German designs, and went out of business about ten years ago. NABI just built Ikarus (Hungarian) designs and got bought out and shut down by Volvo. Ford and Kenworth haven't built buses in ages. Crown imported some Ikarus buses, but they went out of business a while ago. Blue Bird doesn't do transit buses to the best of my knowledge. Gillig is still around but has mostly been a bit player in the Bay Area at least.
That said, Reagan's Buy American mandate has ensured the opposite, at least within the public transit sphere. Major components that are not American made need waivers if DOT funds are used.
Trolley coaches (what many may think of when they think of electric buses) are pretty rare in the United States. Out here our trolley coaches are mostly Orion (Canadian, bought by Mercedes-Benz, now defunct) and New Flyer (Canadian). Both assembled their vehicles in the United States. Hell, even our decrepit Skoda buses were assembled in San Francisco.
Battery electric buses are almost unheard of in the United States (unsure if this the chicken or egg part of the problem), and the only ones I've seen in person were in Madrid and those were tiny.
Diesel-electric hybrids are becoming quite a bit more common, and for the diesel part of the hybrid equation you'll generally find American motors (e.g. Cummins, Detroit Diesel).
So, sure, it'd be nice to see American companies leading the way with electric buses (at least domestically). I'd argue there's just not enough critical mass for that to happen. It's the same reason Sukhoi's SSJ hasn't sold well. They have such minimal presence outside of Russia that it's hard to get parts and support for them. Even Mexico's Interjet which has reportedly been quite happy with their SSJs has had to ground them.
Detroit should have gotten started on this, sure. But who in Detroit? There just aren't that many American coach builders left in the transit space. GM's bus division got sold off in the 80s, and eventually got sold to Volvo. Flxible eventually went out of business in the 90s (not helped by safety issues). Mack got out of coach building ages ago (and is owned by Volvo these days). Neoplan just built German designs, and went out of business about ten years ago. NABI just built Ikarus (Hungarian) designs and got bought out and shut down by Volvo. Ford and Kenworth haven't built buses in ages. Crown imported some Ikarus buses, but they went out of business a while ago. Blue Bird doesn't do transit buses to the best of my knowledge. Gillig is still around but has mostly been a bit player in the Bay Area at least.
That said, Reagan's Buy American mandate has ensured the opposite, at least within the public transit sphere. Major components that are not American made need waivers if DOT funds are used.
Trolley coaches (what many may think of when they think of electric buses) are pretty rare in the United States. Out here our trolley coaches are mostly Orion (Canadian, bought by Mercedes-Benz, now defunct) and New Flyer (Canadian). Both assembled their vehicles in the United States. Hell, even our decrepit Skoda buses were assembled in San Francisco.
Battery electric buses are almost unheard of in the United States (unsure if this the chicken or egg part of the problem), and the only ones I've seen in person were in Madrid and those were tiny.
Diesel-electric hybrids are becoming quite a bit more common, and for the diesel part of the hybrid equation you'll generally find American motors (e.g. Cummins, Detroit Diesel).
So, sure, it'd be nice to see American companies leading the way with electric buses (at least domestically). I'd argue there's just not enough critical mass for that to happen. It's the same reason Sukhoi's SSJ hasn't sold well. They have such minimal presence outside of Russia that it's hard to get parts and support for them. Even Mexico's Interjet which has reportedly been quite happy with their SSJs has had to ground them.
Here in Los Angeles, LADOT has a handful of battery electric buses in their fleet, for the short DASH routes near downtown [1]. LADOT is the smaller, municipal counterpart to the county's Metro system. The buses themselves are a bit shorter than an average city bus, though that is typical for DASH. I wouldn't call them tiny.
I guess that because they're so quiet, when the bus makes a turn, a loudspeaker on the front of the bus calls out, "Bus is turning right." Pretty funny to hear the first time.
[1]: https://la.streetsblog.org/2017/01/12/electric-dash-buses-to...
I guess that because they're so quiet, when the bus makes a turn, a loudspeaker on the front of the bus calls out, "Bus is turning right." Pretty funny to hear the first time.
[1]: https://la.streetsblog.org/2017/01/12/electric-dash-buses-to...
Well tiny is relative, they were probably 25-30ft long which is fairly standard in the US. Meanwhile San Francisco has 40 ft and 60 ft hybrid and trolley coaches.
Seattle + King County has battery-electric busses now. They had a trial run over the past few years but this year they’re rolling out more BEV busses without the hype vinyl wraps (I.e. they’re permanent): https://www.kiro7.com/news/all-electric-zero-emission-buses-...
Well, BYD has a factory with a capacity for 1500 electric buses per year opened in California last year: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/07/c_136662718.htm
So I imagine the majority of their buses sold in the US in the near future will be built there. Of course that's a small proportion of the number of buses they sell in China...
That's some good capacity, comparable to the Tesla model 3. What's their secret to success?
Well, to be fair that's the theoretical capacity. But if I'm being snarky, BYD considers employing American workers a feature (helps selling buses to the state), while Elon considers it a bug.
I think Proterra is doing a pretty good job.
Completely off topic but it just occurred to me that I haven't seen the "X is killing the Y" rhetoric recently and I'm grateful for that.
One interesting feature of articles like this that I don't really get is that they often leave out a huge huge quality of life benefit that electric vehicles bring: reduced urban machine noise.
Even hybrid busses help a lot, and as a passenger it’s lot more comfortable to not feel the engine vibrating the whole bus when you are stopped in traffic. It seems that all the newer busses in London are hybrid or electric now, which seems like an easier target to reach than going full electric.
The visceral excitement from the noise and vibration is a key part of auto marketing, and automakers are struggling to sell cars without it. Some people enjoy the attention they get from their loud, smelly cars - old Porsches, Harley Davidson motorcycles, and large trucks come to mind. Which is why some EVs play engine noises from internal speakers.
This sounds so bizarrely immature to me - like the trolls that sabotage their vehicle's noise suppression. I wonder if they realise they catch people's attention because the onlookers are simply waiting for them to leave so they can resume hearing themselves think.
Also, I thought EVs make noise to alert pedestrians and bicyclists, because the general public isn't used to quiet cars yet and honking the horn is likely to have the wrong effect.
Also, I thought EVs make noise to alert pedestrians and bicyclists, because the general public isn't used to quiet cars yet and honking the horn is likely to have the wrong effect.
The engine noises I heard from the BMW i8 were ridiculous - not that they were bad but just because it seems so childish. It's like you're a 5-year-old sat on a chair making BROOM! BROOM! noises.
An example is on this YouTube video [0]. First you can hear the electric acceleration, then the driver then slows down and switches on the engine noise. It even simulates the noise of gear changes...
[0]: https://youtu.be/yerTSDJtJmM?t=6m29s
An example is on this YouTube video [0]. First you can hear the electric acceleration, then the driver then slows down and switches on the engine noise. It even simulates the noise of gear changes...
[0]: https://youtu.be/yerTSDJtJmM?t=6m29s
I think that sound is pretty cool! It also works as some kind of feedback.
You already do get a lower level of feedback from the noise of the electic motor. It doesn't make much noise but it does change in pitch as you go faster. Plus you have the speedometer and the colour of the dashboard changes colour I think as you speed up.
But buses? I'm sure it's good to care about drivers' concerns but for a public commodity like buses the aesthetic concerns are naturally less prominent than for personal items.
Hey some pickup trucks also play enhanced engine noises from internal speakers in order to sound "throatier" to buyers :)
don't worry about the noise. At least here in France we've got you covered with scooters all over the place, including the heart of town! these things seem to be mostly unregulated since the 80s or so when it comes to noise and "stinky" emissions... :|
Here in Berlin a good chunk of the scooters I see are already electric. I don't think that the noisy two stroke engines will live much longer.
I really hope you're right.
Yes! I really wish they banned gas powered scooters and made people get electric ones. It's difficult to actually have a conversation when walking along the street in Paris. The scooters seem to be several times louder than an average car.
Yep! I’m sitting on one of the new electric buses at Schiphol Airport right now. They are so quiet and smooth.
I think they said something similar about when cars replaced horses - no more hooves clop-clopping on the roads.
As a pedestrian in Old Street, London, where there are tons of hybrids, I'm a bit worried about the absence of vehicle noise. Aural feedback is great to navigate traffic safely, and the few times I've almost been hit by a car in the area, it's always been a hybrid car.
My plugin-hybrid has a speaker that generates noise for exactly this reason. It's annoying to me (it spoils a nearly-silent ride), but I understand the safety reason for it.
I think that over time, this will be less of an issue, for a couple of reasons: First of all, people will be more accustomed to near-silent vehicles, and their situational awareness will adapt. Also, technology—both in the vehicle (to detect pedestrians), and for those with vision problems that otherwise need to rely on hearing—will prevent collisions.
I think that over time, this will be less of an issue, for a couple of reasons: First of all, people will be more accustomed to near-silent vehicles, and their situational awareness will adapt. Also, technology—both in the vehicle (to detect pedestrians), and for those with vision problems that otherwise need to rely on hearing—will prevent collisions.
It is clear that China, in particular, has embraced a future-oriented way of thinking in managing its society. While I quite fundamentally disagree with some of what the leadership does in terms of human rights & democracy, it is certain that they are taking bold and progressive steps in technological areas.
I should learn Chinese - I expect it to be the key language in 30 years.
I should learn Chinese - I expect it to be the key language in 30 years.
as machine translation is a field of machine learning research with the largest budgets and even though it's not perfect it's already pretty good, in 30 years it will likely be solved and it may not really matter which language you know
Machine translation is AI-hard. If this happens in 30 years we might as well have reached the singularity as computers will understand natural language and all of its meaning completely.
If Google Translate hasn't surpassed OP's ability to speak Chinese in 30 years then I'll eat my hat.
Can't wait until Japan adopts the same all electric design.