Isn’t this why we should embrace EVs and other cars that can use renewable energy so we don’t have to worry about the middle east and other petrostates?
It’s not that easy. Sprawl needs to be addressed. Our cities are build around cars. You can’t slap a few busses in a town expect shit to work.
I work an hour away from my home. I would take a train but there isnt one that is reliable or cheaper than driving.
Having a light rail system that connected the east coast would take centuries unless the government acted with unprecedented action and speed even then it would be decades.
I’d love more public transportation yes.
I am saying right off the bat I think biodiesel would be a more viable alternativ as it could be relatively easily adopted as the infrastructure is already in place.
Edit - I was probably a bit verbose when I wrote this. Clearly it won’t take centuries. Decade or two at the most
Edit two: I was also misinformed about biodiesel - thanks for the helpful information, I appreciate it.
Yeah, I dunno if it realistically takes that long. We pivoted from a world where cars didn’t broadly exist and public transit in the form of trams and trains was extremely common, to one where cars were hyper-dominant, in like, less than a quarter century, with nothing but publicly targeted corporate propaganda, huge amounts of government lobbying, and a post-war economy. The thing we lack isn’t really the ability to rapidly construct a large level of infrastructure, the thing we lack is the political will to make it happen. Most infrastructure needs to be rebuilt to be maintained like every 25 years anyways. I dunno, 25 years seems like a pretty fast turnaround time to me, in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider how gradually it can be done just by changing zoning laws or engineering standards and practices. I mean, centuries? That seems extremely hyperbolic.
I would just remove one word from everyone you wrote. “Unprecedented”
Look up how much time it took to build the initial interstates. Same shit in Canada and the Trans-canada highway. It didn’t take centuries to build, it won’t take centuries to fix either.
Biodiesel is not a good option imo the NOx emmisions are generally significantly higher. Also most of the oil thats used to create biodiesel is not sourced responsibly. The production procces also still creates toxic waste although usually less than normal diesel.
Source: i just wrote a report on this if you’re really interested. i can dig through my sources lmk
I’m mostly worried about the huge area consumption, tbh? Like, if you would replace all fossil oil with biodiesel, how much agricultural area would you need? Probably more than we have, I’d have to look it up, but it’s a lot for sure.
Biodiesel is not meant to replace all fossil oil and will never do so. But if you were to do so (with current oil sources) it would probably leave you with little agricultural land left.
You could use algal bioreactors instead those dont take up any agricultural land but are very expensive to operate. You would also still need to grow energy crops for the production of alcohol needed for the transesterfication step.
Biodiesel also is pretty destructive to the seals on the engine as it has higher levels of solvents the eat away at rubber. Renewable diesel is a better option, as it has higher cetane levels and can burn cleaner, and is designed as a drop in replacement for dino #2, though I don’t fully know how it’s sourced.
All I know is my truck ran like shit on B20 and not nearly as bad on R99. That, and the factory recommends reducing oil change and filter intervals by 50% on both bio and renewable. It’s a clusterfuck obscured by marketing.
The best solution right now is to build out public and alternative transit. Busses, streetcars, lrt, greenways, woonerfs, etc are far superior and cheaper than anything we could figure out for cars.
Accu trains and buses are also interesting for public transport. For trains it’s interesting for sections that can’t get electrified yet due to tunnel/bridge heights etc
Right now? Primarily hydro with a strong solar and wind showing. Roughly 10% of my power is from Fossil fuels.
You are just shifting the shit elsewhere
Even with a pure fossil fuel grid, EVs still end up producing less CO2 than ICE vehicles. However, grids aren’t pure fossil fuels which means EVs are far cleaner than Fossil fuel vehicles. Especially in my current circumstance.
Less than 8% of energy consumption in the US comes from renewable energy. Another 8% come from nuclear.
13% while being one of the fastest growing energy production sectors.
I’m just saying right now more than 80% of all energy in the use comes from non renewable / non nuclear power. I’m glad your area has great renewable energy sources in place.
I’m powered by Sharon Harris nuclear plant.
I’m not saying that EVs aren’t better, I’m saying that it’s not a magic bandaid. Obviously there is not one fix or easy fix.
I don’t need to get into my corpo hate right now because I’m tired and I just wanna mine space rocks.
My power comes from the two sets of solar panels and batteries on my land. It is possible to do without fossil fuels. We’re not there yet for everyone, but the problems you point out are solvable, and if solar/EVs had the same amount of backing from the government over the same timeframe that gas/ICE cars have had, we would be in a very different place right now.
Mine comes from the many Hydroelectric barrages we have here in Quebec, because we ended our use of coal and methane for generating electricity. 99% of our electricity is Hydro and the rest is wind/solar. I think maybe we have one methane plant somewhere but I don’t know for sure.
The US have basically every climate on the planet at your disposal except the poles. You could create new interesting ways to generate electricity cleanly, but your government doesn’t. It baffles the mind.
And then even with coal and methane, burning it at the station in troves is still less damaging than burning gasoline or diesel in individual vehicles because of the tiny bit of carbon the stations that are well run manage to capture (It ain’t much, but it’s more than an F150 that’s for sure)
I agree that cars should become a niche thing, not used by everyone to get everywhere. That’s completely unsustainable, but it’ll take at least 20 years of good governance for the US to be connected in a meaningful way by fast, frequent, convenient public transportation. Until then, the people who are stuck unable to move closer to work for various reasons will still need to drive, and EV are a good option for more than 80% of them.
‘Other Country’ being mainly China, which happens to sit on most of the lithium deposits on Earth if I am not mistaken.
Also to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. I remember a few years back a report of huge lithium deposits being found there but uh… yeah good luck with running that operation.
I’m a big fan of hydrogen for stuff like cars. Install more than enough solar or hydro or whatever, then use the surplus energy to create hydrogen cells that can be stored long-term, so that the hydrogen itself is also created with clean, renewable energy, usable on demand.
Unless you produce hydrogen from fossil fuels, you’ll have to take energy into account as long as we don’t have massive overproduction (which we’re far, far away from). By using the less efficient process, you’ll keep us reliant on fossil fuels for a longer amount of time.
I mean it’s just not generally energy efficient compared to batteries, and the majority of hydrogen tends to come about as a byproduct of, I think it’s propane and natural gas extraction and production. Electrolysis is pretty far off from being an effective competitor to batteries. I do still think that theoretically the specific energy is high enough that it doesn’t really matter, since that seems to be like the major limiting factor keeping electric from going mainstream, and me personally, I would probably also use the oxygen made by electrolysis for some cool rocket fuel cars, also cutting down on the lack of , but everyone’s against that because “The cars would explode you psycho/moron!” and other stupid idiot considerations that I don’t care about. But yeah, generally we don’t have enough of an energy excess to be able to run cars off of it in a reasonable way. Energy density still sucks also, but then, it’s not like modern cars tend to really use a lot of their space anyways, so I don’t think that matters too much.
Oh no! No the third most abundant element in the universe! WTF are we gonna do? Use another metal with a large valency shell that makes it ideal as a dense storage medium for electrons? the horror
I honestly doubt that. There aren’t really good alternatives to oil, but EVs just need any kind of accu and lithium-based accus are what’s most economic right now.
Furthermore lithium doesn’t get consumed like oil and there gets research done into recycling it.
Oddly enough emissions standards are one of the major reasons vehicles are getting so big.
In 2012 fuel economy standards were changed as a response to the manufacturers calling everything a truck to get around regulations (seriously - they classified the PT Cruiser as a truck in the 2000s). So now standards are weighted based on vehicle footprint instead of by class.
Notice how around 2012 was when the American auto manufacturers stopped making the old Rangers, S10s, Dakotas, etc? And now that the Ranger is back it’s as big as the older F-150s and the F-150s are the size of a small airport? And as the CAFE standards get tougher over time the vehicles keep growing?
It’s easier to just make the trucks bigger every refresh cycle than to make them more efficient, so that’s what they do.
Yeah, EV’s are not, in themselves, the cure for our environmental woes. Too much electricity is still generated from fossil fuels for the carbon footprint to actually be diminished much and the environmental toll of mining for lithium also needs to be factored in. BUT, at the very least, it removes some dependence on oil in particular, where coal and natural gas are other forms of fossil fuels used to generate electricity. If nothing else, it takes some pressure off very specific regions, pressure which has contributed to invasion, war, international manipulation, extreme politics and oligarchies. It spreads the sources for resources around further.
Well, yes, but also the efficiency of the EV’s will factor in as well. Less efficient EV means more power draw for the same miles. But with things like regenerative braking and no idling, even the least efficient EV is probably more efficient then the most efficient gas powered car.
Though you can also reach that with a hybrid system like it’s done in trains. Recuperate through breaking, run motor at maximum efficiency and store excess energy.
I think it’s naive to think that the imperial core will stop with the needless wars simply because oil is no longer the hot commodity. There’s always perverse interests to use the military for power projection and resource control.
Under your current voting system, this will never change.
I for one, refuse to be shipped off in our generation’s tribute to America. Our government (Australia) is still the US’ vassal state.
Isn’t this why we should embrace EVs and other cars that can use renewable energy so we don’t have to worry about the middle east and other petrostates?
Evs make us reliant on lithium which just shifts the problem to another country. Additionally - the infrastructure is not there for evs.
I think the best alternative right now would be biodiesel hybrids and straight biodiesel vehicles and FUCKING SMALLER VEHICLES
Public transportation.
The less of our lives we have to buy the less critical supply chain there is to “defend”
It’s not that easy. Sprawl needs to be addressed. Our cities are build around cars. You can’t slap a few busses in a town expect shit to work.
I work an hour away from my home. I would take a train but there isnt one that is reliable or cheaper than driving.
Having a light rail system that connected the east coast would take centuries unless the government acted with unprecedented action and speed even then it would be decades.
I’d love more public transportation yes.
I am saying right off the bat I think biodiesel would be a more viable alternativ as it could be relatively easily adopted as the infrastructure is already in place.
Edit - I was probably a bit verbose when I wrote this. Clearly it won’t take centuries. Decade or two at the most
Edit two: I was also misinformed about biodiesel - thanks for the helpful information, I appreciate it.
Yeah, I dunno if it realistically takes that long. We pivoted from a world where cars didn’t broadly exist and public transit in the form of trams and trains was extremely common, to one where cars were hyper-dominant, in like, less than a quarter century, with nothing but publicly targeted corporate propaganda, huge amounts of government lobbying, and a post-war economy. The thing we lack isn’t really the ability to rapidly construct a large level of infrastructure, the thing we lack is the political will to make it happen. Most infrastructure needs to be rebuilt to be maintained like every 25 years anyways. I dunno, 25 years seems like a pretty fast turnaround time to me, in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider how gradually it can be done just by changing zoning laws or engineering standards and practices. I mean, centuries? That seems extremely hyperbolic.
I would just remove one word from everyone you wrote. “Unprecedented”
Look up how much time it took to build the initial interstates. Same shit in Canada and the Trans-canada highway. It didn’t take centuries to build, it won’t take centuries to fix either.
Your are right. I was extra when I wrote that. I will make an edit.
Biodiesel is not a good option imo the NOx emmisions are generally significantly higher. Also most of the oil thats used to create biodiesel is not sourced responsibly. The production procces also still creates toxic waste although usually less than normal diesel.
Source: i just wrote a report on this if you’re really interested. i can dig through my sources lmk
I’m mostly worried about the huge area consumption, tbh? Like, if you would replace all fossil oil with biodiesel, how much agricultural area would you need? Probably more than we have, I’d have to look it up, but it’s a lot for sure.
Biodiesel is not meant to replace all fossil oil and will never do so. But if you were to do so (with current oil sources) it would probably leave you with little agricultural land left. You could use algal bioreactors instead those dont take up any agricultural land but are very expensive to operate. You would also still need to grow energy crops for the production of alcohol needed for the transesterfication step.
Biodiesel also is pretty destructive to the seals on the engine as it has higher levels of solvents the eat away at rubber. Renewable diesel is a better option, as it has higher cetane levels and can burn cleaner, and is designed as a drop in replacement for dino #2, though I don’t fully know how it’s sourced.
All I know is my truck ran like shit on B20 and not nearly as bad on R99. That, and the factory recommends reducing oil change and filter intervals by 50% on both bio and renewable. It’s a clusterfuck obscured by marketing.
Oh no!
Oh, phew.
🦭🦭🦭🦭
Fuck yeah in interested change my wrong ass and uninformed opinions.
The best solution right now is to build out public and alternative transit. Busses, streetcars, lrt, greenways, woonerfs, etc are far superior and cheaper than anything we could figure out for cars.
How about better public infrastructure, like trains and tramlines? They don’t require lithium, and are fully electric.
Yes, we are all in agreement on this.
Accu trains and buses are also interesting for public transport. For trains it’s interesting for sections that can’t get electrified yet due to tunnel/bridge heights etc
Batteries are still better because they can be recharged without oil or extra pollution.
You cant recharge an ICE engine without more pollution and oil
Where does your power come from? You don’t just plug into the wall and get magic clean energy. You are just shifting the shit elsewhere.
It’s a lie told to sell you a good and you are eating it up.
Less than 8% of energy consumption in the US comes from renewable energy. Another 8% come from nuclear.
That’s petrol / natural gas / coal powering your home, factories, shops, and restaurant. Natural gas is not green, it’s greenwashed.
Right now? Primarily hydro with a strong solar and wind showing. Roughly 10% of my power is from Fossil fuels.
Even with a pure fossil fuel grid, EVs still end up producing less CO2 than ICE vehicles. However, grids aren’t pure fossil fuels which means EVs are far cleaner than Fossil fuel vehicles. Especially in my current circumstance.
13% while being one of the fastest growing energy production sectors.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
Not mine because I live in the Pacific North West which is the greenest grid in the US.
I’m just saying right now more than 80% of all energy in the use comes from non renewable / non nuclear power. I’m glad your area has great renewable energy sources in place.
I’m powered by Sharon Harris nuclear plant.
I’m not saying that EVs aren’t better, I’m saying that it’s not a magic bandaid. Obviously there is not one fix or easy fix.
I don’t need to get into my corpo hate right now because I’m tired and I just wanna mine space rocks.
I think we are on the same page. I completely agree that EVs aren’t enough or even the best solution.
♥️
You’re only 27-30% powered by nuclear or renewable.
If they could only use hog shit to power me - but don’t get me started on NC pig farms. Disgusting.
My power comes from the two sets of solar panels and batteries on my land. It is possible to do without fossil fuels. We’re not there yet for everyone, but the problems you point out are solvable, and if solar/EVs had the same amount of backing from the government over the same timeframe that gas/ICE cars have had, we would be in a very different place right now.
Mine comes from the many Hydroelectric barrages we have here in Quebec, because we ended our use of coal and methane for generating electricity. 99% of our electricity is Hydro and the rest is wind/solar. I think maybe we have one methane plant somewhere but I don’t know for sure.
The US have basically every climate on the planet at your disposal except the poles. You could create new interesting ways to generate electricity cleanly, but your government doesn’t. It baffles the mind.
And then even with coal and methane, burning it at the station in troves is still less damaging than burning gasoline or diesel in individual vehicles because of the tiny bit of carbon the stations that are well run manage to capture (It ain’t much, but it’s more than an F150 that’s for sure)
I agree that cars should become a niche thing, not used by everyone to get everywhere. That’s completely unsustainable, but it’ll take at least 20 years of good governance for the US to be connected in a meaningful way by fast, frequent, convenient public transportation. Until then, the people who are stuck unable to move closer to work for various reasons will still need to drive, and EV are a good option for more than 80% of them.
‘Other Country’ being mainly China, which happens to sit on most of the lithium deposits on Earth if I am not mistaken.
Also to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. I remember a few years back a report of huge lithium deposits being found there but uh… yeah good luck with running that operation.
It’s actually Argentina and Chile, which tips that calculus in our favour given they’re friendly western developed nations.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/lithium-reserves-by-country
Oh shoot, my info is out of date!
Thank you for the correction =)
Edit:
Potential downside: All of the lithium in Argentina goes into battery banks for bitcoin mining operations.
Their inflation rate is now around 300%, great job President AnCap.
Maybe you confused it with rare earths? China dominated that market.
But reserves don’t matter that much for market domination. Actual production and how much you control production of other countries does.
Could be, I tend to post past midnight before I fall asleep.
That’s probably the more important part.
biofuels like ethanol? less efficient and more expensive, unfortunately.
Biodiesel specifically due to it’s relatively clean manufacturing process. Cost not withstanding. Cost will go down as adoption improves.
don’t biodiesels combust particularly inefficiently?
I’m a big fan of hydrogen for stuff like cars. Install more than enough solar or hydro or whatever, then use the surplus energy to create hydrogen cells that can be stored long-term, so that the hydrogen itself is also created with clean, renewable energy, usable on demand.
I love hydrogen, but it’s a bit of a pain in the ass to transport and store.
And only 30% efficient vs 80% for batteries.
How do you figure energy extraction of both are comparable metrics?
Unless you produce hydrogen from fossil fuels, you’ll have to take energy into account as long as we don’t have massive overproduction (which we’re far, far away from). By using the less efficient process, you’ll keep us reliant on fossil fuels for a longer amount of time.
Hydrogen is a storage medium, like a battery. Not an energy source.
I mean it’s just not generally energy efficient compared to batteries, and the majority of hydrogen tends to come about as a byproduct of, I think it’s propane and natural gas extraction and production. Electrolysis is pretty far off from being an effective competitor to batteries. I do still think that theoretically the specific energy is high enough that it doesn’t really matter, since that seems to be like the major limiting factor keeping electric from going mainstream, and me personally, I would probably also use the oxygen made by electrolysis for some cool rocket fuel cars, also cutting down on the lack of , but everyone’s against that because “The cars would explode you psycho/moron!” and other stupid idiot considerations that I don’t care about. But yeah, generally we don’t have enough of an energy excess to be able to run cars off of it in a reasonable way. Energy density still sucks also, but then, it’s not like modern cars tend to really use a lot of their space anyways, so I don’t think that matters too much.
Natrium is up and comming.
Bikes, bike infrastructure, and ebikes are about as carbon efficient as you can get without just straight up walking.
But they’re not really feasible for most people because few cities have enough protected bike lanes and sensible zoning to let it happen.
So we have much easier options.
Oh no! No the third most abundant element in the universe! WTF are we gonna do? Use another metal with a large valency shell that makes it ideal as a dense storage medium for electrons? the horror
Hey friend. For context I meant lithium from other countries.
I honestly doubt that. There aren’t really good alternatives to oil, but EVs just need any kind of accu and lithium-based accus are what’s most economic right now. Furthermore lithium doesn’t get consumed like oil and there gets research done into recycling it.
Fair fair fair - a lot of good points have been made and I was misinformed about biodiesel.
…But im not attracted to the small ones.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a place for large vehicles but the tend of bigger bigger bigger needs to calm the fuck down.
Oddly enough emissions standards are one of the major reasons vehicles are getting so big.
In 2012 fuel economy standards were changed as a response to the manufacturers calling everything a truck to get around regulations (seriously - they classified the PT Cruiser as a truck in the 2000s). So now standards are weighted based on vehicle footprint instead of by class.
Notice how around 2012 was when the American auto manufacturers stopped making the old Rangers, S10s, Dakotas, etc? And now that the Ranger is back it’s as big as the older F-150s and the F-150s are the size of a small airport? And as the CAFE standards get tougher over time the vehicles keep growing?
It’s easier to just make the trucks bigger every refresh cycle than to make them more efficient, so that’s what they do.
Yeah that was a major oversight from the Obama administration. Feels bad.
Yeah, EV’s are not, in themselves, the cure for our environmental woes. Too much electricity is still generated from fossil fuels for the carbon footprint to actually be diminished much and the environmental toll of mining for lithium also needs to be factored in. BUT, at the very least, it removes some dependence on oil in particular, where coal and natural gas are other forms of fossil fuels used to generate electricity. If nothing else, it takes some pressure off very specific regions, pressure which has contributed to invasion, war, international manipulation, extreme politics and oligarchies. It spreads the sources for resources around further.
Also it moves the burning of gas from millions of these poorly efficient vehicles to a single much more efficient power plant.
Well, yes, but also the efficiency of the EV’s will factor in as well. Less efficient EV means more power draw for the same miles. But with things like regenerative braking and no idling, even the least efficient EV is probably more efficient then the most efficient gas powered car.
Though you can also reach that with a hybrid system like it’s done in trains. Recuperate through breaking, run motor at maximum efficiency and store excess energy.
Nuclear gang rise up.
They’ll go for lithium or rare earths
Yes. Glad somebody else gets it.
America always finds a reason for war. Shooting people is a national sport and too deeply ingrained in american culture.
I think it’s naive to think that the imperial core will stop with the needless wars simply because oil is no longer the hot commodity. There’s always perverse interests to use the military for power projection and resource control.
Under your current voting system, this will never change.
I for one, refuse to be shipped off in our generation’s tribute to America. Our government (Australia) is still the US’ vassal state.