@mr_washee_washee @suodrazah So do wind farms. Are you opposed to them too?
@MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Here's a study from a while back about how much storage is actually needed, using the example of Australia. You can get to ~98% with relatively little storage. For the remaining 2%, you need to think about more difficult options - demand side measures, nuclear, long term storage, etc.
@MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis IIRC most studies show that long term storage is only a few percent of total energy, certainly well under 10%. So it is a viable option - if you can get past leaks, and other problems (e.g. the temptation to burn it, producing NOx pollution). And can store vast amounts of energy relatively cheaply.
Nuclear is of course a viable option. There are a few others e.g. iron-air batteries, or just building a lot more renewables than we need. Long range interconnectors help. Lithium is only helpful for short to medium term storage.
Re synthetic fuels, so far extremely expensive and limited scale. Might possibly be used for aviation in the long run (but it's easier just to fly less, and we still need a reliable, safe solution to the contrails problem). Maybe shipping too (possibly as ammonia).
@flux @QuinceDaPence Concrete and steel (for stations, track, etc) matter. So does the electricity used to maintain stations, not just propel the train. So lifecycle emissions of a train are immensely complicated, plus then you get into how to route a new rail line without destroying too many ecosystems.
Even so, clean electricity is the easy bit compared to making planes clean. More trains please.
@oo1 @mondoman712 @CouldntCareBear As regards the wider picture, I agree that some demographics / constituencies have *way* more influence than others because of first past the post, and our politics diverges dramatically from what people actually think. People are much less cruel and bigoted, on the whole, than our current politics suggests. Politicians know this but only care about the marginal constituencies, or more often their own leadership ambitions in a soon to be smaller and out of office party.
Practically speaking, plenty of people drive because public transport isn't available or is expensive. A small investment in buses, combined with modest deterrents such as ULEZ, could shift a significant number of drivers. But to get to where we need to be - 70%+ fewer miles driven - we'll have to solve a lot of other problems e.g. housing, trains, etc.
@oo1 @mondoman712 @CouldntCareBear Yes but the stuff about ULEZ is largely fear-mongering. It will be completely irrelevant in a year's time. Most of the people worried about it won't actually be affected by it. And across London as a whole it's pretty popular.
There is plenty of historical experience across many countries on this. They're initially seen as possibly a good idea, then as it gets closer, people panic, then they get enacted, then people get used to them and *mostly* support them.
@uriel238 @youpie I don't know. Safety record is somewhat mixed - Waymo *appear* to know what they're doing, while a lot of the low end semi-autonomous stuff is downright dangerous, but there were rumours about visibility problems with cyclists etc.
But my main worry is that full autonomy will lead to people driving further. If so, that'll lead to more carbon emissions.
@Atemu @Aatube This is my standard response to FUD about EV carbon emissions.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change/
EVs do improve the situation. And the electricity mix is rapidly improving in most countries, it must continue to do so, and frankly it's low-hanging fruit compared to some of the other problems. But I agree that we will have a faster transition if we have fewer cars. More and cheaper buses will get us maybe 30%, but for the rest we'll need to change cities, change housing, build new rail lines etc. A lot of degrowth measures involve large amounts of construction, social change, and political challenges. They take time, potentially more time than we have.
We need to do *both*.
@marmo7ade @queermunist Who is "they" here? Cyclists?
Plenty of cars don't stop for stop signs and traffic lights too. At least around all the crossings near where I live. Now, it's possible that there are timing issues, but AFAICS the mentality is it's okay to keep going as long as the car in front of me is moving. Regardless of the state of the lights.
@mondoman712 I can't read the article at the moment as it's paywalled. I assumed it was yet another repeat of the Emissions Analytics BS since there seem to be a few about. If there is new, credible, peer reviewed work on this, then that's a good thing and I'm sorry for dismissing it.
I believe there is a risk of perfect vs good. A small number of people will need cars long term for various reasons (equipment and some disabilities). Cars, vans, buses, and residual road freight, will need to be electric.
But most of what we need to do to get to that point i.e. making cities more accessible, safer, etc, will take significant time, construction work, political challenges and social attitude changes. We will need to change attitudes to cars, attitudes to women, BAME and disabled people. We will need to build a lot more housing (bikes don't work if you can't afford to live nearby). We will need to build segregated cycle lanes, move retail businesses around, and very possibly increase density. Carrots and sticks work, and the transformation of e.g. Paris is inspiring, but as with all such changes it's hard-fought; shopkeepers will oppose even simple easy wins like converting on-street parking to bike lanes. And many people have good reason to fear public transport (of course, many people don't have a choice; the assumption that the important people / the majority drive is a problem in itself). Making cities accessible to disabled people with mobility issues will also take time and a lot of work. For long haul, new train lines take decades.
My point is while we may be able to reduce miles driven by 30% or so with improved bus services, getting to 80% will probably take decades.
We can't ban cars overnight, but there's a lot we *can* do relatively quickly (especially on buses), and a lot that we need to make a start on.
I would not be surprised if tyres were responsible for a significant fraction of the microplastics problem. Which is just another reason why a society with fewer cars would be a better one, although it should be possible to improve tyres relatively quickly as there hasn't been much work on them until recently and they have to be replaced regularly anyway.
Given the difficulties getting to a non-car-obsessed society, and the needs of the developing world, the peak number of EVs might well be similar to the number of cars now. Degrowth is vital but not a magic bullet any more than EVs are. Degrowth is part of an overarching socialist framework, but while some demand reduction measures can be implemented quickly, many will take longer.
Audiences change. People *will* weaponise such claims to discourage *any* action.
Anyway, thanks, and good luck.
@mondoman712 No, they don't. Go read one of the rebuttals. The original, occasionally repeated pseudo-study claimed that tyres and brakes cause *hundreds* of times more particulate pollution than exhaust. This is physically impossible as both would wear down much faster than is observed.
See e.g.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aar8njoGgNY
Also this thread (use the Internet Archive):
https://twitter.com/MatthewToad42/status/1532728307908763650
https://twitter.com/MatthewToad42/status/1596861715547066370
https://twitter.com/KateFantom/status/1542246513329508352
I'm not saying tyres and brakes aren't a problem. Certainly we need to improve on them. And we need to reduce the number of cars.
But they're not as big as problem as claimed in these dubious pseudo-studies. Otherwise we'd be replacing tyres rather more often than we do.
This is just pro-petrol propaganda.
view more: next ›
matthewtoad43
joined 1 year ago
@mr_washee_washee Delaying the technologies that we know work, continuing to dig up more fossil fuels, and giving it a veneer of credibility by funding more research is a classic delayer tactic. Delay being a stage of denial.