homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » No need to worry about climate change. The people in charge say God's in control (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: No need to worry about climate change. The people in charge say God's in control
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Battery technology is also important for transport - which is rapidly becoming the next sector that will need large-scale de-carbonisation. Electric vehicles for more than a few applications require batteries able to supply enough power to run the vehicle at 70mph with decent acceleration, duration for at least 200 miles, and rapid recharge. We're almost there for cars, the recharge time being the big issue to be addressed. But, long-distance buses and trucks are a long way behind.

Electric trains will become standard across the civilised world for moving between cities, and electric buses and trams for moving within them.

Producing more of what we need, nearer to where we need it, is the next step. Fabbing things has taken longer than we anticipated, and the same for vertical farms. But it's coming. The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Battery technology is also important for transport - which is rapidly becoming the next sector that will need large-scale de-carbonisation. Electric vehicles for more than a few applications require batteries able to supply enough power to run the vehicle at 70mph with decent acceleration, duration for at least 200 miles, and rapid recharge. We're almost there for cars, the recharge time being the big issue to be addressed. But, long-distance buses and trucks are a long way behind.

My brother has just fitted air- con to two brand new battery powered full sized buses, for Glasgow (I think).

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12336 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
batteries able to supply enough power to run the vehicle at 70mph with decent acceleration, duration for at least 200 miles, and rapid recharge. We're almost there for cars, the recharge time being the big issue to be addressed.

"Almost there" is a bit of an overstatement, although there's certainly progress. What is required is something that matches gasoline for convenience, which means a range of >300 miles, and a recharge time of two minutes or thereabouts.

What Tesla has right now is the ability to provide ~170 miles of range in half an hour. An enforced half-hour stop every two hours on a long drive is a deal-breaker. It's fine for a commute pattern (drive half an hour or an hour, plug in car for the day, drive home, plug in overnight) but not good enough for long-distance.

(And that's with a new battery pack - if you routinely rely on fast charging, because you do a lot of long-distance driving, you'll see the battery pack limit your charge rate further.)

Tesla claim that they will be able to increase the charge rate by a factor of something like 3-4 in the next several years. I'd guess that that was going to start pushing up against some pretty hard edges in battery chemistry.

Probably you can't get acceptably fast charging without exchangable battery packs (swapping out your discharged battery for a freshly-charged one at the "gas" station) and the logistics of that are non-trivial.

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Battery technology is also important for transport - which is rapidly becoming the next sector that will need large-scale de-carbonisation. Electric vehicles for more than a few applications require batteries able to supply enough power to run the vehicle at 70mph with decent acceleration, duration for at least 200 miles, and rapid recharge. We're almost there for cars, the recharge time being the big issue to be addressed. But, long-distance buses and trucks are a long way behind.

It always seemed to me that requiring electric cars to have a range of 200-300 miles was more a psychological requirement than an engineering one. Along the lines of 'an internal combustion engine car can travel ~300 miles before refueling, therefore anything with significantly less range between charges is an inferior option'. In practical terms the average driver doesn't drive anywhere near 200 miles in a typical day so there's nothing particularly important about that specific distance for most drivers. People don't want cars that can drive 200 miles or 300 miles, they want cars that can drive an unlimited distance, which is more a function of refueling/recharging infrastructure than vehicle range.

That said, the fact that the 200 mile range is a psychological requirement makes it no less real.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10177 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the problem is that powering up an electric car is going to take longer than refuelling with petrol unless one continually replaces the battery. If you have to do that every 200 miles, it is going to get pretty boring pretty quickly.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9021 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That said, the fact that the 200 mile range is a psychological requirement makes it no less real.

<translator hat on>

The term for that is Range Anxiety.

<translator hat off>

It would appear to be a bit easier to top up with a jerrycan of fuel than to get a battery recharge in the middle of nowhere. Although after yet another tanker drivers' strike here last week...

[x-post]

[ 02. June 2017, 14:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16613 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the problem is that powering up an electric car is going to take longer than refuelling with petrol unless one continually replaces the battery. If you have to do that every 200 miles, it is going to get pretty boring pretty quickly.

Driving more than 200 miles at a stretch is already boring. Taking a half-hour break to recharge a vehicle's batteries every three or four hours may be inconvenient and slow your overall progress, but I don't think it's going to make an already boring process even more boring.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10177 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My vehicle needs refuelling about every 130 miles, so I see the inside of petrol stations more than most.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9021 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's a psychological number, but still has meaning for longer distance driving. 200 miles is about 3h driving time assuming you can maintain the speed limit on motorways. Which is slightly longer than the recommended time between stops - so 200 miles is the distance you would like to put in on a journey before pulling over for a break, which is when you would also recharge the car, if it could be done in the 15 mins it takes to drink a coffee and visit the loo.

But, I agree that the market for electric cars is for commuting, school run, grocery run etc where you're unlikely to do more than 100 miles in an entire day. But, people will want their car for the occasional longer trip as well so even if that's only a couple of times a year the "I can't do that long drive to see mum in it" would be a factor in choosing a car.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31744 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
98% of all single-trip car journeys in the US were less than 50 miles. I imagine it'll be even more than that for the UK. We're in the realm of electric cars already.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Smart (I think?) apparently do an option where you can travel by train and then hire a car at your destination.

The biggest barriers to the large-scale deployment of electric cars (apart from the oil companies...) are competing standards and network coverage (specifically, linkage of growing city networks). Plus, depending on the country, geography. Small, rich countries can get a head start. I know government plans are well afoot for national coverage in France in the coming years. A set number of charging points will be coming into effect for new builds of all kinds over the next few years.

I do almost no driving except around town and the very occasional trip, rarely more than 250 km or so in one go.

I've already downsized to the smallest affordable car I could find with cruise control (a Hyundai i10) on the basis that I'd hire something if I had a really long trip to do or a lot of stuff to carry - but I invariably make long trips by train.

I'm seriously considering a Zoe next. But then I live in a city.

[ 02. June 2017, 14:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16613 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Electric trains will become standard across the civilised world for moving between cities, and electric buses and trams for moving within them.

I entirely agree about electirc buses/trams/light rail within cities. However, trains suffer a significant problem in the required infrastructure - unless there is already an existing line between A and B building one is a major undertaking. So, there will always be a need within the transport system for medium to long distance buses that can take passengers to places which are not served by a rail line. Added to which, intercity rail is notoriously expensive and will need to be a lot cheaper for it to be used by everyone (so, again, until that happens there will need to be the less expensive option of buses).

Though, we do need to start somewhere and take things stepwise. So, start with electrifying all rail networks. Re-introduce rail-freight terminals so that the long-distance road transport of goods is shifted to electric trains. And, electrify city buses. That would shift a lot of transport off of burning fossil fuels. Then, get people off of planes and onto trains.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31744 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In practical terms the average driver doesn't drive anywhere near 200 miles in a typical day so there's nothing particularly important about that specific distance for most drivers.

But nobody buys a car to just match their typical daily usage. People buy cars to match their maximum expected usage. That's why I see so many people commuting in minivans - it's because they also drive the kids and their gear to sporting events at the weekend or something.

quote:

People don't want cars that can drive 200 miles or 300 miles, they want cars that can drive an unlimited distance, which is more a function of refueling/recharging infrastructure than vehicle range.

True, but the range is relevant too - nobody wants to make frequent stops in a long journey. 300 miles isn't a bad match for the requirements of the human bladder - you're going to have to stop about that often anyway, and even if you didn't, at one stop every 300 miles, you're not adding much time to your journey.

If you had to stop every hundred miles, the overhead of pulling off the road into a charging station etc. would start to make a significant contribution to your overall journey.

So it's not just a psychological number.

Not so long ago, I used to spend a couple of days 600 miles away every couple of months. 600 miles isn't so far - it's easy enough to have a leisurely breakfast, throw some things in a bag, refuel and grab a sandwich at the half-way point, and make it to the hotel in plenty of time to walk to the bar for dinner.

Doing the same journey in a Tesla would take an extra hour and a half for recharging, plus probably half an hour of overhead for stopping, assuming that there were superchargers in the right places (currently, there aren't, but that's a question of market penetration rather than technology).

If they speed up the charge time to 10 minutes, you're still looking at an extra hour added on the the journey, which is significant in an 8 hour journey.

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
600 miles isn't so far

[Eek!] Thus proving that you folks across the pond have a different idea of "far" to us squished-in Europeans. That's one end of France to the other!

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16613 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thus proving that you folks across the pond have a different idea of "far" to us squished-in Europeans. That's one end of France to the other!

Well, sure - and I've driven across France in a day, too, although that was quite a long time ago.

But you're right - my metric for "far" has changed since moving to the US. "Far" now means a journey that is sufficiently long that I wouldn't want to drive it myself in a day (ie. either bring multiple drivers or break the journey at the midpoint). 600 miles or so is about my personal limit, although to be honest I'd probably push it to close to 800 rather than spend an extra night in a hotel, if I was travelling alone. (The kids don't have nearly so much tolerance for sitting quietly in the car; I'd not want to plan to drive more than 300 miles in a day with them along.)

For comparison, HGV drivers get to drive for 9 hours in a day with a 45-minute break at the half-way point. IIRC, bus drivers get to drive for 10 hours, with a similar break requirement. At highway speeds, that's pretty close to my 600 miles number.

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Not so long ago, I used to spend a couple of days 600 miles away every couple of months. 600 miles isn't so far - it's easy enough to have a leisurely breakfast, throw some things in a bag, refuel and grab a sandwich at the half-way point, and make it to the hotel in plenty of time to walk to the bar for dinner.

Doing the same journey in a Tesla would take an extra hour and a half for recharging, plus probably half an hour of overhead for stopping, assuming that there were superchargers in the right places (currently, there aren't, but that's a question of market penetration rather than technology).

I'm not sure your math works on this. According to Tesla it takes ~40 minutes for one of their Superchargers to provide 200 miles worth of charge to their Model S. (46 minutes if you're driving a Model X. Both Tesla models currently available have ranges in excess of 200 miles.) So two stops at ranges of 200 and 400 miles would add up to about an hour and half. What I'm unclear on is how that translates into "an extra hour and a half" compared with a trip where you stop to get gasoline, a sandwich, and a bathroom break at mile 300? Do you save time by combining the bathroom break and the sandwich at the same time? (Ewww!) Eat the sandwich while driving? (Potentially messy, depending on the sandwich, and definitely unsafe.) I'm trying to figure out why time spent refueling and eating doesn't count when you're driving an internal combustion vehicle.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If they speed up the charge time to 10 minutes, you're still looking at an extra hour added on to the journey, which is significant in an 8 hour journey.

Again, not sure how you figure two stops of ten minutes each adds up to not just an hour but "an extra hour" when compared with a trip that includes a stop for gasoline, food, and bathroom break. Does that stuff take negative forty minutes?

I'm not disputing that the technology as it exists now would make long road trips of the type non-commercial drivers rarely make slightly longer in duration. I just think your math on this is sloppy.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10177 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What I'm unclear on is how that translates into "an extra hour and a half" compared with a trip where you stop to get gasoline, a sandwich, and a bathroom break at mile 300?

You're right - I didn't count that time. We'll allow the same 10 minute overhead for stopping, 10 minutes to grab and eat a sandwich, and another 5 for the two liquid operations. So an honest number is more like an extra hour (plus small change).

quote:
Again, not sure how you figure two stops of ten minutes each adds up to not just an hour but "an extra hour"


I was assuming three stops, charging for 30 minutes to gain 175 miles range (another advertised model S number). Then speed it up to 10 minutes charging plus 10 minutes overhead per stop.

quote:
I just think your math on this is sloppy.
Yes, it was sloppy - that's a fair call. With the assumptions I made, it should take an additional 40 minutes, not an additional hour.

If I was rich enough to keep a car purely for commuting purposes, a current electric car would seem to fit that need rather well. Trouble is, nobody I know is that rich. (Plus, of course, electric cars are currently not price-competitive with gasoline-powered ones.)

One could also consider the option of owning a commuting vehicle, and hiring a different car for long journeys, but the extra hassle involved with renting a car (car rental places are never open at the right times, plus they either have to deliver the car or I have to drive with someone else to the rental place so both the rental car and my own car can come back home) means that there would have to be a significant advantage to doing to.

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My son does this.

He lives in Heidelberg, Germany, and cycles everywhere locally - up to 50Km. If he needs a car he hops into one - which will be parked nearby. He locates them by app.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12336 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What I'm unclear on is how that translates into "an extra hour and a half" compared with a trip where you stop to get gasoline, a sandwich, and a bathroom break at mile 300?

You're right - I didn't count that time. We'll allow the same 10 minute overhead for stopping, 10 minutes to grab and eat a sandwich, and another 5 for the two liquid operations. So an honest number is more like an extra hour (plus small change).

<snip>

If I was rich enough to keep a car purely for commuting purposes, a current electric car would seem to fit that need rather well.

This is kind of interesting. The true make-or-break decision-point for you (aside from price) is an extra hour added to something you say you do (or did) "every couple of months". Well, two hours since I'm assuming a return trip as well. Depending on other driving habits this might be a wash or even come out on the pro-electric vehicle side if you factor in time not spent fueling your vehicle during the rest of the "couple of months", when an electric vehicle could be charged at home rather than needing a special trip to a fueling station.

It just seems a slim justification to base a decision on something that would slow a trip you take (or took "not so long ago") "every couple of months" from an average speed of 75 mph (600 miles in 8 hours, including factoring in a food and fueling break) to having an average speed of merely 67 mph (an extra hour). Even 69 mph (40 minutes extra) is too slow of an average speed for you, but somewhere between 69 mph and 75 mph average speed (top speed faster to make up for breaks) the trip becomes worth it.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10177 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

He lives in Heidelberg, Germany, and cycles everywhere locally - up to 50Km. If he needs a car he hops into one - which will be parked nearby. He locates them by app.

Sure - and that works for him because his bike is much cheaper than a car (both in capital cost and operating costs) so it wins over the convenience of having your own car sitting outside your home.

When I lived in London, I lived like that, too. Car-sharing services didn't really exist yet, but I would cycle everywhere, and rent a car for the occasional long journey or heavy-stuff-hauling trip. It was much cheaper than owning a car.

But once you decide you need to own some kind of car (in my case, the weather isn't compatible with year-round bike commuting here - at least for me - and whilst we do have a bike trailer for the little kids, pulling them anywhere is a serious workout), the economics change.

The difference between the capital and operating costs for a car that meets 90% of your needs vs one that meets 100% of them is usually not very large, and is usually smaller than the extra cost to rent something to cover that last 10%.

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Depending on other driving habits this might be a wash or even come out on the pro-electric vehicle side if you factor in time not spent fueling your vehicle during the rest of the "couple of months", when an electric vehicle could be charged at home rather than needing a special trip to a fueling station.

Who on earth ever makes a special trip to a filling station? I don't think I've ever done that. (My usual stop is a gas station on a corner I turn on my way to work. It adds an inconsequential time to my commute once every three weeks. I can't think of anywhere I ever drive that doesn't have a decent gas station within a couple of blocks of my normal route.)

But there's a real difference here. A large number of short delays do not add up to one large delay. If you tell me that my journey to work will take two minutes longer each way because there's a new traffic light, I'll grumble a bit, but won't actually care. If you tell me that I'll be an hour late once every three weeks, then I'll care a lot, even though it's the same total amount of time.

quote:

It just seems a slim justification to base a decision on something that would slow a trip you take (or took "not so long ago") "every couple of months" from an average speed of 75 mph (600 miles in 8 hours, including factoring in a food and fueling break) to having an average speed of merely 67 mph (an extra hour).

But it's not about the average speed at all. It's not the average that counts - it's the integral. Taking an extra hour for a longer journey is a real thing - it means I have to get up an hour earlier in the morning, for example. A few minutes on a short journey gets lost in the noise.

There's certainly also a psychological factor about enforced annoyingly-frequent breaks.

Thirdly, this all assumes the best case - that you arrive at the charger and there's a free station. Having to wait a couple of minutes until a gas pump is free isn't a big deal. Having to wait half an hour (or 10 minutes...) until someone vacates a charging station is a different matter. So depending on the capacity of the charger network, perhaps there's a risk of a greater delay.

Fourth, this assumes that you remembered to charge your car overnight. Perhaps I didn't plug the car in because the charging station is in the garage, but the kids were constructing something in the garage, so I left my car on the driveway overnight (this happens not infrequently in my house - YMMV). Randomly stopping to get gas in the middle of any errand is usually not a problem. Randomly stopping for even a "short" 20 minute emergency charge is more of a problem. Perhaps this last is unlikely enough that I shouldn't care.

None of these is an insurmountable problem, but each one adds a modest amount of guaranteed inconvenience and a larger amount of uncertainty.

So we gain modest inconvenience and larger uncertainty and range anxiety with an expensive car whose operation is a bit better for the environment. It's not really a great sales pitch.

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Depending on other driving habits this might be a wash or even come out on the pro-electric vehicle side if you factor in time not spent fueling your vehicle during the rest of the "couple of months", when an electric vehicle could be charged at home rather than needing a special trip to a fueling station.

Who on earth ever makes a special trip to a filling station? I don't think I've ever done that.
Really? Most people who go to filling stations do so for the express purpose of fueling their vehicles. Very few just happen to be there for other reasons and decide to fill up their tank.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(My usual stop is a gas station on a corner I turn on my way to work. It adds an inconsequential time to my commute once every three weeks.

Fifteen minutes by your previous estimates. Five for fueling and a ten minute "overhead for stopping". Whether that amount of time is "inconsequential" is a matter of personal judgment.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
None of these is an insurmountable problem, but each one adds a modest amount of guaranteed inconvenience and a larger amount of uncertainty.

Which is more or less my point. You were portraying an infrequent ("every couple of months") delay of half an hour or so on a long trip (something that could be just as easily provided by traffic or road conditions) as an insurmountable obstacle, making your "every couple of months" trip not worth taking.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10177 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fifteen minutes by your previous estimates. Five for fueling and a ten minute "overhead for stopping". Whether that amount of time is "inconsequential" is a matter of personal judgment[.

The 10 minute overhead was for leaving the highway, negotiating the junctions, driving at rather slow speeds to the gas station, and the reverse process. My usual commuting stop is at a gas station on a corner at which I turn, at a traffic light. The overhead associated with pulling in there is zero.

quote:
Which is more or less my point. You were portraying an infrequent ("every couple of months") delay of half an hour or so on a long trip (something that could be just as easily provided by traffic or road conditions) as an insurmountable obstacle, making your "every couple of months" trip not worth taking.
Let's remember that the "half an hour or so" is for hypothetical future technology that Tesla believes is achievable, but does not currently exist.

And yes, it's on the same scale as a delay caused by bad traffic, but electric cars aren't somehow immune from traffic jams. Whatever allowance you make for traffic / weather delays with your gas-powered car is the same as the allowance you have to make for gas/weather delays with your electric car. The refuelling delay is on top of that - it's a guaranteed extra time.

But you finish by asking the wrong question. It's not whether an extra hour (or whatever) makes the journey not worth doing - it's how an electric car compares with a gas car for the journey, and without going to a battery-replacement refuelling scheme, it seems unlikely that the electric car will ever be anything other than measurably worse for that kind of journey.

The question then becomes whether its other benefits make the damage to long journeys worthwhile. There are various estimates about when electric cars become price-competitive with gas cars, but the realistic ones (that look at the normal car market, not the luxury market) suggest that in 20-30 years time, the production cost of battery packs might have reduced to the point that a standard electric car was a net win over its gas equivalent. Exactly when this happens depends on your driving patterns: people who commute 60 miles each way and charge at home will see the gains first; people who travel mostly over short distances with the occasional long trip will be the last to find it economical to switch.

Can an electric car ever become hassle-competitive with a gas car? We've addressed the long journey aspect (where I think the answer is always no, but there's scope for making it less bad). For short journeys, not having to stop for gas is clearly a benefit, although we seem to disagree about how significant that benefit is.

Can electric cars be made to require significantly longer intervals between services? That doesn't seem impossible to me, and would be a real benefit - rather more significant than the gas station thing.

Generally-speaking, if you offer someone a more environmentally-friendly option that costs them more money and doesn't work as well, then only a few dedicated environmentalists are going to take it up. Once the money and the functionality become comparable, many people will select the green option. If it's cheaper, almost everyone will buy it.

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back on the original thread topic, it's the conservative Christian base that Crooked Don is playing to here.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer

Posts: 4913 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The mistake that the interesting, but tangential to this particular thread, discussion about electric cars is founded on is at the moment fundamental. I'd love to have an electric car if it would do what my present car does, but cheaper, more environmentally friendlily and more reliably. At the moment, though, it wouldn't. All the attempts to persuade us that the inconveniences are just that, and are surmountable, only work if you're really committed, a believer in the cause.

As far as the rest of us are concerned, the enthusiasts are telling us we should be made to reorganise our lives to suit their requirements. For most people, it's hard enough to organise their lives to what they need to do, yet alone to fit in with what someone else has decided that ought to want as well.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7095 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think I fantasised earlier about what might be done if individuals set up to make their own renewable energy - Trump sending round the militia to force people to disconnect their PV panels and turbines.

And then I find here States alliance to support Paris discussion that four states, Oklahoma, Indiana, Michigan and Wyoming are passing laws which make the use of such technology uneconomic.

Why? In the land of the free, etc...

Posts: 5686 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And reading further, the idiots putting those forward did not succeed.
Than goodness

Posts: 5686 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is another sucky downside to purely electric cars if you live in a place where power outages are common. We get an average of one a week (short, I'll admit) and lengthy ones (several hours) maybe 5 or 6 times a year. We get one a few days long maybe every 7 years or so.

None of this is horrendous (unless its in extreme weather, which I'm afraid it usually is). However, the current routine annoyance of resetting all the clocks etc. in the house morphs into skepticism when I think about having to charge a car on a reliable basis.

Yes, we live in a suburb close to a major city. The problem is not rural (lack of) infrastructure. It may be aging infrastructure, I'm not sure.

Right now we keep a supply of wood in the backyard in case we have to use the fireplace for heat. Oh, and emergency candles. A shedload of candles. But I draw the line at keeping an emergency camel in the backyard.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19736 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, we live in a suburb close to a major city. The problem is not rural (lack of) infrastructure. It may be aging infrastructure, I'm not sure.

The nature of infrastructure is that it's designed to deal with an expectation of demand - building for higher demand is more expensive, so you don't do it unless you have good reason to expect it. That's almost universally true - when this town was planned in the late 50s the planners were slated for planning on one car for every three households, who would have thought there's be more than half that number?

There are two options - completely rebuild the infrastructure, or change the demand. In the case of power infrastructure the most effective option is to introduce additional generating capacity at, or near, the point of need reducing the demand on the infrastructure. Renewables coupled with battery storage does this very well, and is significantly cheaper than rebuilding the infrastructure for a central generation model.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31744 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Probably not coping so well now, but we had an infrastructure (of a different sort) planner with foresight in Bradfield who planned Sydney's Harbour Bridge in the 1920s to be 48.8m wide, so it now allows 2 train lines and 8 lanes of traffic [it had trams once] -- the thing wasn't paid off until the 1980s but I'm guessing if the penny-pinchers had their day it'd be 1 or 2 lanes each way instead of 4. And Sydney would have a few more bridges.

Classic short-sighted thinking was a 2 lane each-way tunnel in Sydney which got congested from the moment it opened.

[ 02. June 2017, 22:20: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posts: 7212 | From: Albury, Australia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the case of power infrastructure the most effective option is to introduce additional generating capacity at, or near, the point of need reducing the demand on the infrastructure.

This is the oft-stated support for net metering for rooftop solar. Whilst on the face of it being able to force the utility to buy power from you at retail prices looks silly, having distributed solar generation does reduce the peak loads on the grid (and like always, you have to size things for your peak).

When lots of people have solar, this stops being true, but for a market with a modest amount of rooftop solar, the signs are at least correct.

Whether net metering comes close to matching the magnitude of the benefit to the utility, I don't know, but at least it's simple for people to understand.

(Lamb Chopped: demand is way up. Houses are bigger than they used to be, there are more houses than there used to be, more people have central air conditioning,... Heavy users of electric power often have power-shedding agreements with the utility, where they pay a lower price per kWh in return for agreeing to reduce their load (to some specified power level) in ~10 minutes if the power company calls up. IIRC, if the power company actually has to invoke this, they pay quite a lot more money...

[ 02. June 2017, 22:24: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Forgot to thank Crœsos and Leorning Cniht for their exchange...

I've always thought I needed a car that could do at least 650 kms as I often drive that far, and am not one to stop unless I have to [yes, I know the advice but I find I am fine -- most times I stop once for a meal at the 450 km mark]; but, especially as I get older, while the thought of an extra hour or so annoys me (being an impatient sort) I'm sure I could cope if I thought about it. And if it's better for the environment...

Now they only need to add refuelling stations along the major highways in Oz which is a task in itself.

Are they quite prevalent in the US and Europe? Do you often find your charger is taken? My friend in San Jose has a charger at home which does his day trips, but what about longer ones...

Posts: 7212 | From: Albury, Australia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We live on a street which was made for horses (if that) and our services doubtless date back nearly as far. Three months ago one of the big transformers in our backyard went up in flames at midnight--I couldn't get hold of the electrical company, so had to call the fire department, and of course it was out by then and they thought I'd lost my mind. They kept trying to get me to say it had simply arc'd and crackled. But I watched it, and we had a sheer sheet of orange flame for about a minute, as large as a bedsheet and almost as regular in shape.

Come to think of it, a camel might be safer than electrical.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19736 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re electric cars.
Not practical in some climates. The batteries just don't hold up in really cold weather. I'm coming to the opinion that cars themselves are a problem. Suburban neighbourhoods are designed in many places to essentially require them: no stores, parks or other places to walk. Basically flawed by design. If you do manage to walk somewhere, streets are often dangerous to cross, and you have to cross parking lots full or cars.

Bicycling is also fraught with problems in car-priority cities. Car drivers place cyclists in danger, want them to behave like cars in some situations, and clearly want them to not behave like cars in others.

I think generally discouraging car travel would help enormously. More congestion charges, and I wouldn't be adverse to a per mile or per km travelled fee for cars to discourage use.

There are environmental and public health benefits to discouraging cars. Too many people are in bad physical condition and could use with walking. Children don't even walk to schools in many places. Or they don't walk to transit. Or they do not cycle.

We have a service for disabled people who call for pickup at their door for "access transit". The bus/vans hold about a dozen. I see no reason that this sort of car pooling shouldn't be readily available for all. Flat fee, subsidized, in this city. Such as this is completely reasonable for a public policy reason of discouraging car travel, which is already subsidized with road construction costs, subsidies to fossil fuel companies etc.

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 10501 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the case of power infrastructure the most effective option is to introduce additional generating capacity at, or near, the point of need reducing the demand on the infrastructure.

This is the oft-stated support for net metering for rooftop solar. Whilst on the face of it being able to force the utility to buy power from you at retail prices looks silly, having distributed solar generation does reduce the peak loads on the grid (and like always, you have to size things for your peak).

When lots of people have solar, this stops being true, but for a market with a modest amount of rooftop solar, the signs are at least correct.

Which is another example of the infrastructure not being ideal, but what we have. Put simply, the power network is designed to take power generated in a small number of large power stations and distribute it to a large number of small users. Which doesn't cope well with a large number of small generators distributing to a large number of small users. Which is why I said batteries are needed, because that removes the redistribution side of the load on the network. Within a small neighbourhood a local network can be created with renewable generation and battery storage which supplies the needs of the properties participating, with additional power from the main grid as needed. This reduces demand on the aging infrastructure of the main network, but doesn't add the problems of feeding power back into the network. Most new domestic renewables installation in the UK (at least) now either include a battery making each home a very small version of that neighbourhood network, or "feedback" power only as far as their neighbours (because the transformers that step down the grid voltage to domestic voltages are very inefficient at stepping it back up, so feedback works best if the power generated is kept within that lower voltage section of the network).

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31744 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We have a service for disabled people who call for pickup at their door for "access transit". The bus/vans hold about a dozen.

Demand Responsive Transport or something like it. This has a hard time getting off the ground so long as people still have their own car for the sort of reasons Leorning Cniht has mentioned.

The nearest I've seen to it is the Dolmuş share taxi system in Turkey: small networks of Peugeot vans that operate set routes round a city with regular (or sometimes ad hoc) stops - really practical and friendly. When I got back home I wondered about the practicalities of such a system here and instantly ran up against problems of regulation of all sorts plus the need for a critical mass of people without their own cars. It might happen over time though.

[ 03. June 2017, 09:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16613 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leorning Cnit:
quote:
True, but the range is relevant too - nobody wants to make frequent stops in a long journey. 300 miles isn't a bad match for the requirements of the human bladder...
Small children. People with urinary tract infections. Old men with prostate cancer. Pregnant women.

There are more of them around than you might think, and that's before you take into account people like my husband, who likes to break the monotony of long journeys by visiting tourist attractions along the way.

Also you are making the common mistake of confusing distance travelled with journey time. Maybe in the wide-open spaces of America you can travel 300 miles before you need a loo stop, but in more crowded countries it depends on where you are and how good the roads are.

And your bladder is not the only consideration. My Other Half and I always have rest stops every one and a half to two hours on long journeys (sometimes more often than that if negotiating the traffic is particularly traumatic). That's every 80-130 miles or so, assuming the driver is trying to keep to the speed limit and there are no holdups. Nowhere near 200 miles, let alone 300.

[Yes, I know the speed limit on motorways is 70, but I've never experienced a journey on a motorway where I was able to do 70 all the way without slowing down for anything. I have therefore assumed a maximum theoretical speed of 65 mph and even that is probably over-generous.]

Posts: 3717 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On my regular journeys south to visit my mum - just shy of 300 miles - I usually stop 3 or 4 times. I just don't have the mental stamina for driving extended periods. And while it would be nice to think I could knock off the distance in 4 and a half hours, it's never taken less than 6, even with just stopping to swap drivers.

Extending it to 7 hours isn't an issue.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8413 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We have a service for disabled people who call for pickup at their door for "access transit". The bus/vans hold about a dozen. I see no reason that this sort of car pooling shouldn't be readily available for all.

We have that too -- "Dial-a-Ride," it's called. Primarily to get the elderly to medical appointments. The only trouble is, it's fairly punctual picking up and delivering people to their appointments, but sorely lacking in getting them home again.

My father's lady friend took Dial-a-Ride to a medical appointment one time and ended up waiting the entire afternoon to be picked up again. She was still waiting at closing time. The receptionist ended up giving her a lift home.

--------------------
"We're not in Wonderland anymore, Alice." – Charles Manson

Posts: 10056 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Small children. People with urinary tract infections. Old men with prostate cancer. Pregnant women.

Doesn't matter. You size infrastructure for peak demand, not average. The fact that there exist people who would not want to drive 300 miles at a stretch without stopping - either because they need to urinate more frequently, or because they like stopping at tourist attractions - is irrelevant. When you're choosing a car's design range, you don't want to aim for the average, or you'll irritate half of the people. You aim for something that will accommodate almost everyone.

quote:

Also you are making the common mistake of confusing distance travelled with journey time. Maybe in the wide-open spaces of America you can travel 300 miles before you need a loo stop, but in more crowded countries it depends on where you are and how good the roads are.

Well, sure. I was assuming highways without excessive traffic. Yes, if you're going somewhere on smaller roads, or in traffic, then it's different. But almost every time I drive a few hundred miles in one go, it's mostly on highways. YMMV.

quote:
And your bladder is not the only consideration. My Other Half and I always have rest stops every one and a half to two hours on long journeys
That's great - you should do whatever you need to do to complete a journey safely and as pleasantly as possible. For some people, that will involve lots of stops, and for others, it won't.

The reason I'm invoking the bladder is that it pretty much imposes a maximum time between stops. People's desire for frequent coffee, popping in to local tourist attractions or whatever will vary considerably. You've told us how often you like to stop; my preference is for much less frequent stops. That's OK - people differ. But most people aren't going to be able to go more than 4-5 hours during the day without emptying their bladder, so that places an upper limit on the range needed in a car. Unless you do something crazy, more or less everyone is going to have to stop about that often.

Assuming, of course, that the refueling process is quick, and that it's easy to find a refueling station, then there's no real advantage to a range of much more than 300 miles.

Most gas-powered cars seem to size the fuel tank to get somewhere between 300 and 400 miles on a full tank. (There are a few that have a longer range.)

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Virtually all highways in the U.K. have 'excessive traffic' unless you travel at 3am!

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12336 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096

 - Posted      Profile for simontoad   Email simontoad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I skipped over some posts, so apologies for the repeat if indeed I am repeating what was said above.

One thing about advances in technology is the changeover cost. A base model Toyota Corolla hatch petrol would cost me $25,000 on road today. I might be able to negotiate a trade in of $6-7,000 on my present car. I'd still have to borrow to buy the new car, and I don't want to. I work in a low income job and I would prefer to spend the money on other things, like booze.

I do have a small environmental conscience, in that I vote and do stuff for the Greens around election time, but it doesn't really motivate me. Social justice does that. But if I'm not looking forward to having to buy an electric car, how many more of the teeming millions simply won't do it without a very large carrot or a plank of wood?

[ 04. June 2017, 02:11: Message edited by: simontoad ]

--------------------
The opinions expressed above are transitory emotional responses and do not necessarily reflect the considered views of the author.

Posts: 690 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

I do have a small environmental conscience, in that I vote and do stuff for the Greens around election time, but it doesn't really motivate me.

One should also consider the environmental impact of throwing away a perfectly good car in order to buy a more efficient one. Depending on how much you drive in a year, it may not even make environmental sense to replace your car, quite aside from the financial considerations.

I gather that the emissions associated with the manufacture of a car are on the same scale as its lifetime tailpipe emissions.

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm thinking it probably has to cost more to drive and park than public transit to change behaviour, to get people to stop driving. Rough calculation suggests it would have to cost 33 cents per km (20 cents per mile) to equal costs of transit here. Either charge that, or somehow make the cost of driving high enough to discourage use. I haven't included fuel costs as raising that doesn't seem to alter behaviour.

We have to get cars to stop being the main transport method. Electric cars operate more cleanly, but manufacturing and sourcing all the parts and materials is a pollution source.

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 10501 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd love to catch the bus. Though if I ever had to work past 17:13 I'd be stuffed and need to pay for a taxi as the buses stop then.

While the bus seems expensive per trip or week-on-week, if I factor in car insurance [compulsory third-party and accident] and maintenance it would be cheaper. Perhaps if I lived in a big city I could get away with it, if I could afford the rent[!], but out here I need a car to get to most places anyway-- or give up on my bushwalking as public transit tends not to take you to the start of trails. Not sure if I'm being selfish here in wanting to indulge in such a recreation -- we do carpool in the bushwalking club.

Back to not needing to worry... I do not have kids but I worry enough about my nieces and the world they, or their children, will inherit. What upsets me most is I refuse to believe most high-profile holding-office deniers are that stupid to doubt it...I can only think they could care less about future generations [which is worrying if they have children] or they have so much faith in industry and innovation that they know they'll be safe, come what may -- and stuff those on low-lying islands or lands at risk of desertification or whatever. I know the distant poor and in danger are always harder to worry about than the neighbour on your doorstep, but to so utterly dismiss others seems so inhumane.

Posts: 7212 | From: Albury, Australia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Weather Channel went after Trump on climate change (Pop Sugar)! [Big Grin]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17253 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

We have to get cars to stop being the main transport method. Electric cars operate more cleanly, but manufacturing and sourcing all the parts and materials is a pollution source.

I think you'll find that cars are the most efficient transport method in areas of low population density.

If all the world were a city, then we'd be better off with no cars and some form of public transport.

The issue for transport systems is partly the need to cope with all types of journey - rural-to-rural, rural-to-city, city-to-rural, within-city, between-city. And those annoying intermediate-density suburban areas (where so many people end up living) that are neither one thing nor the other...

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 2867 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure Russ, cars are efficient if you leave out all other costs including environmental damage and costs of roads. BTW, I do know a little about sparse population. I'm living in in Saskatchewan which is 8 times bigger than Ireland, with 1/6 of the population, for a density of 1.9 people per square mile versus Ireland's 73.4 (if wikipedia has correct numbers).

We are in the process of doing it all wrong in Saskatchewan. The provincial gov't (a conservative one, Sask Party) shut down the provincial bus company last week because it did what conservatives gov't do, rack up deficits and shovel money at friends at everyone's expense. The total subsidy of $17 million to the Sask Transportion Company (bus company), is just about enough to build about 4 miles of highway. Which is really stupid. Link if interested.

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 10501 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Sure Russ, cars are efficient if you leave out all other costs including environmental damage and costs of roads.

'cause where you're from, buses fly?

So before your right-wing government destroyed your bus service, how often did your bus service run? (This one's a real question.) I'm curious, because I don't see how enough people can want to go to the same places at the same time to make a bus service rational in such a rural area.

Posts: 4478 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I do rather like the press reports that Trump finally decided to leave the Paris climate agreement because he wanted to get back at Macron for his handshake.

That's so incredibly stupid that it is believable.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9021 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools