|
This is a post I wrote for a different forum, but the idea intrigues me.
When discussing energy solutions, the problem doesn't lie in the ideas--we all know ways to cut down on energy. The problem lies with practical application. The question we should be asking isn't what we should be doing differently, but how we can practically make it happen differently. Ormur, you specifically: Show nested quote +
Ormur:
single family houses that are dependent on cars as the only means of transport should be gotten rid of entirely.
this idea would cut back on a ton of wasted energy. your analysis of the way European towns work is really interesting and good. I didn't know that and its fascinating, honestly sounds fun to me because I always run everywhere. Anyway, the reason I chose for my post's example is because of this: "Good idea, but whats in it for me?" The problem comes down to money and satisfaction. If you can make it affordable and offer a more satisfying experience for a cheaper, more energy-efficient experience, a LOT of people would take that option. But honestly, in the US, I don't know how this could happen. But I can think of some stuff which would help -Efficient use of waterways -A system planned like the rail-system of European countries -A prompt rail service with an excellent PR/Graphic design section to make it seem friendly, inviting, and modern. people in the US are suckers for that -Jobs conveniently accessible by the railway -Energy-efficient houses (properly sealed, halfway underground, uses sun energy to heat water/solar panels/both) The problem with all of this are the initial costs and massive manpower required. Ways to cut down on costs: -Do it en-masse so all the supplies are cheaper -An efficient, streamlined management structure integrated country-wide -Adequate research, planning and testing for a project of this scale Manpower: -Give the people who do this a personal stake in it I can't really think of anything else. This is hard. Problems: -The United States is geographically HUGE. -We're already in huge debt. -Considerations for the already existing infrastructure -Considerations for the environment where this will be happening So, in some places, it might be better to adapt the current setup rather than make something new. To truly put something like this into motion would take years, decades even. I can't begin to fathom how to get something like this passed through congress or how to approach a congressman about it without sounding loony. Construction of buildings, consideration of placement and all that are lost on me. The more I think about this idea, the more excited I get. I should probably get started now.
For reference about the european stuff:
+ Show Spoiler +
Ormur:
Urban doesn't have to be the CBD of a major metropolis like New York. If you compare Western Europe with the US it achieves more energy efficiency for a number of reasons but density and public transport are a big one. Most Europeans don't live in large cities like New York or London but in small cities and suburbs.
However they are older, the countries have higher population densities and planning more often focuses on mass transit. Stockholm as an example has far flung suburbs or commuter towns that were specifically planned around the commuter rail system in the post-war years. They were planned to be large enough to have basic services and dense enough and small enough for the train station to be within walking distance everywhere.
With proper planning most people should be able to live as they like without being dependent on cars. In fact cities shouldn't be planned around cars at all, making everything reachable by walking, cycling or mass transit. Travel between cities and smaller urban areas should also be by train or bus. High speed rail networks can be both comfortable and efficient, provided they are powered by clean energy. Of course the US is bigger than Europe so flight would probably still be needed. Even Europeans travel far too much by airplane over short distances (and by car of course).
In regards to rural areas they are such an insignificant part of most developed countries, population vise, and yet necessary for food production that I don't have much objection to people living there. In fact globally urban dwellers are less efficient than rural dwellers because most of the latter are poor farmers whereas cities are usually wealthier and offer more opportunities for upwards-mobility, which in turn causes a larger footprint.
But in developed countries the split is between suburban and urban. As I said suburban doesn't necessarily have to be bad but it's easier to make urban areas more efficient and the kind of urban sprawl of endless cheap single family houses that are dependent on cars as the only means of transport should be gotten rid of entirely.
So, cool idea? Is my analysis correct? Agree/Disagree?
|
I think the US should worry more about national debt, imo.
|
Debt, and Corruption is why this will never happen.
|
If you can come up with an efficient and energy-saving way of getting individuals to and from their jobs without having to walk any distance AND if it's cheaper than traditional automobiles, then we'll be on to something. If it lacks accurate transportation (rail systems can only get you to any point along the rail), or if it's too time consuming (bus systems have a bunch of stops, and everybody knows time is money), or if it's more expensive than cars, it's just not going to work. Period.
What we need is technological innovation to solve the energy problem, nothing we currently have will fill the automobile/oil niche well enough.
|
Calgary25986 Posts
I'm sorry, but your idea boils down to higher efficiency in places with higher population density? Yep, that would be great. I just don't see anything about this thread that warrants discussion.
You know what will drive change? Money. When it's twice as cheap to take the bus than to fill my car with gas then I will start to think about it. Until that day, relying on morality and guilt won't drive change. If I can spend five times as much on energy efficient materials, I am thinking of what kind of return I will get on electricity and gas bills over my lifetime to get that money back, not how much oil, coal and natural gas I will protect.
|
Well to start we can get our electricity from nuclear instead of anything else. It's clean, safe (Three Mile Island killed no one, and almost certainly harmed no one; Chernobyl was a flawed design coupled with operators overriding the safety features that did exist and almost assuredly would not happen in the US--and still only killed 30 people, all plant workers or emergency responders, and most likely didn't harm the general public ... and then weigh all this against the decades of successful operation by other commercial nuclear plants and the nuclear navies of the world), and cheap. The waste and spent fuel is not really a danger to anyone. And we have fuel for probably a million years or more. Generating electricity cleanly and cheaply (and effectively renewably) is really only a problem because we choose to make it so.
Switching to nuclear does have massive start-up costs because building a reactor is expensive, but running it is cheap.
(Ted Rockwell has a site here: http://learningaboutenergy.com/ for more).
That leaves generating energy for transport, which is trickier. Anything that can efficiently be electric can run off the grid and use the nuclear energy, but there are good reasons that cars and buses likely wouldn't switch to all-electric (batteries just don't have the same energy density that gasoline does, for one).
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Over the last month or so, I've been thinking of similar things on a personal level. My personal conclusion is that we simply produce and consume unnecessarily. Much of what we produce and consume are designed only to take our minds off the drudgery that life has become for many of us. Transportation is a huge area in terms of energy efficiency, but I'm pretty sure "making useless shit" is also a pretty big one as well.
Of course, the day consumerism dies in the united states is the day the country goes kaput.
|
People just don't understand. You know why everyone walks everywhere in Europe and cars aren't as prevalent? Things are fucking close. The entire country of France is the size of TEXAS. When I want to drive to a new city in the US I'm going to probably take a car or plane, mostly because if I didn't it would take a day of travel time on a train or bus.
Go America!
|
crate, check this article out:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
Once Thorium becomes commercially viable, most of the expense problems are solved, and we will be totally capable of switching over to nuclear with solar and wind supplementing the grid. There is no reason every building in America shouldn't have solar panels on it, btw. That would alleviate a lot of our energy problems.
As far as transportation, barring hydrogen cars finally becoming available, we'll probably have to use plug-in hybrids and the like for a little while longer. If battery technology keeps improving, too, we can eventually switch to full electric. Electricity will become guilt-free too, because we will be replacing coal and natural gas with Thorium or Uranium nuclear plants.
I'm pretty confidant the future will be much greener 
|
On August 06 2010 05:24 crate wrote:Well to start we can get our electricity from nuclear instead of anything else. It's clean, safe (Three Mile Island killed no one, and almost certainly harmed no one; Chernobyl was a flawed design coupled with operators overriding the safety features that did exist and almost assuredly would not happen in the US--and still only killed 30 people, all plant workers or emergency responders, and most likely didn't harm the general public ... and then weigh all this against the decades of successful operation by other commercial nuclear plants and the nuclear navies of the world), and cheap. The waste and spent fuel is not really a danger to anyone. And we have fuel for probably a million years or more. Generating electricity cleanly and cheaply (and effectively renewably) is really only a problem because we choose to make it so. Switching to nuclear does have massive start-up costs because building a reactor is expensive, but running it is cheap. (Ted Rockwell has a site here: http://learningaboutenergy.com/ for more). That leaves generating energy for transport, which is trickier. Anything that can efficiently be electric can run off the grid and use the nuclear energy, but there are good reasons that cars and buses likely wouldn't switch to all-electric (batteries just don't have the same energy density that gasoline does, for one).
says the physics major
But seriously, I think the drawbacks of going nuclear are far outweighed by the benefits. Yes, there's some nuclear waste that we have to deal with but I'd take that over your standard pollution any day.
And people need to install solar panels more places, it's not that hard
|
An inherent flaw in capitalism is that nobody takes into account systemic risk or non-$$$ considerations. Nobody thinks, "Oh when I buy this car taxes will go up to pay for the roads, I'll have to deal with congestion, global warming, drunk driving, noise pollution etc". America was purposefully marketed cars instead of more public transport and thats that. For a shitload of places it simply wouldn't be profitable.
Personally, I would love to take a train to school or work. Plenty of spare time to do homework.
Then again, I'm not a very good consumer. I don't even own furniture. You'll have a tough time convincing others to consider systemic risk. Even if they do, they probably don't see it as too risky.
Just keep up with the activism. Maybe you can find ways to get people to cut back in small ways.
|
Funny how Ormur mentions NYC as a large city with the implication that it is neither densely populated nor dependent on public transportation. The irony here is that NYC is almost exactly what Ormur is describing as an ideal city. A large portion of New Yorkers rely on public transportation for their daily commutes, not cars. And I'm not only talking about the people living in Manhattan, I'm talking about across all five boroughs. In addition, NYC is also one of the most energy efficient cities in the country as a result of the mass transit system, apartment-building housing, and the likes. But the biggest irony of all is that NYC was not a planned city.
And regarding all the mention of the national debt, yes I do agree that this is a large blockade in this 'idea' you're proposing. If such an idea were to ever go underway, it should be done once the debt is lowered to a point where the nation can spend money on public works projects.
|
On August 06 2010 05:39 sith wrote:
People just don't understand. You know why everyone walks everywhere in Europe and cars aren't as prevalent? Things are fucking close. The entire country of France is the size of TEXAS. When I want to drive to a new city in the US I'm going to probably take a car or plane, mostly because if I didn't it would take a day of travel time on a train or bus.
Go America!
Yeah right, that's why cars aren't used in Texas when people only travel in state (for example going to work...).
|
On August 06 2010 05:44 Sunyveil wrote:
But seriously, I think the drawbacks of going nuclear are far outweighed by the benefits. Yes, there's some nuclear waste that we have to deal with but I'd take that over your standard pollution any day.
And people need to install solar panels more places, it's not that hard
What drawbacks to nuclear? Other than the construction cost and the fact that people don't understand it...? The understanding can and should be fixed, the construction cost probably won't but it will be made up by the fact that operating a nuke is cheaper than any other sort of plant.
Solar panels are rather inefficient, and producing more efficient ones is costly. The best spots for generating solar are largely away from population centers, so you lose energy in transmission. Solar energy is unreliable and already more expensive than nuclear or fossil fuel power. Solar panels are great for things that just need a small amout of power in the day, but it's just not realistic to get a large amount of our energy from solar. Solar also takes vastly more land area to produce energy than nuclear or fossil fuel plants.
Wind has similar problems.
edit: LOL misread your sentence, gonna leave this up though.
|
On August 06 2010 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Debt, and Corruption is why this will never happen.
Debt and corruption will always exist due to people's greed.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 06 2010 05:49 Romantic wrote:
An inherent flaw in capitalism is that nobody takes into account systemic risk or non-$$$ considerations. Nobody thinks, "Oh when I buy this car taxes will go up to pay for the roads, I'll have to deal with congestion, global warming, drunk driving, noise pollution etc". America was purposefully marketed cars instead of more public transport and thats that. For a shitload of places it simply wouldn't be profitable.
Personally, I would love to take a train to school or work. Plenty of spare time to do homework.
Then again, I'm not a very good consumer. I don't even own furniture. You'll have a tough time convincing others to consider systemic risk. Even if they do, they probably don't see it as too risky.
Just keep up with the activism. Maybe you can find ways to get people to cut back in small ways.
It's called an externality and economists do think about these things. It just doesn't have enough political leeway yet.
Anyways, thoughts like the OP are fairly one dimensional and impractical, and don't really address actual problems. I mean, if everyone just stopped eating beef and farmers didn't have to raise cattle, they would save an enormous amount of energy. What good is an idea like that? Why are we even discussing this?
|
On August 06 2010 05:39 sith wrote:
People just don't understand. You know why everyone walks everywhere in Europe and cars aren't as prevalent? Things are fucking close. The entire country of France is the size of TEXAS. When I want to drive to a new city in the US I'm going to probably take a car or plane, mostly because if I didn't it would take a day of travel time on a train or bus.
Go America!
I don't want to label your post as dumb but ...it is. Everyone in Europe walks everywhere.....and the reason things are close...wtf
I give you 4 reasons why do people walk and use public transportation:
1. cars are expensive (gas and purchase price)
2. someone doesn't drive (there are a lot of people that just haven't learned to drive and they might even be in age where they don't feel they need to learn it anymore)
3. you can't get drunk when you have to drive
4. in my city, i get easier and faster to work by subway than by a car (traffic and shit)
There are probably like 5 another reasons better than things are "fucking close". Doesn't really matter if the place you want to go to is 30 km (19 miles) or 500 km (312 miles) away - still the best way to get there is car in US and in EUROPE. Also if i go 1 mile disatnce in city, i would better take car and everyone i know does.
only thing i agree with you on: Go America
|
On August 06 2010 06:03 crate wrote:
What drawbacks to nuclear? Other than the construction cost and the fact that people don't understand it...?
So what do you plan to do with the massive amounts of radioactive waste, that would be continuously produced if everyone switches to nuclear energy?
Nuclear energy is only cheap if you don't consider the costs of waste dispatch in the long run.
Btw to say that Chernobyl did only kill 30 people is horribly misguided.
|
On August 06 2010 05:49 Romantic wrote:
An inherent flaw in capitalism is that nobody takes into account systemic risk or non-$$$ considerations. Nobody thinks, "Oh when I buy this car taxes will go up to pay for the roads, I'll have to deal with congestion, global warming, drunk driving, noise pollution etc". America was purposefully marketed cars instead of more public transport and thats that. For a shitload of places it simply wouldn't be profitable.
Personally, I would love to take a train to school or work. Plenty of spare time to do homework.
Then again, I'm not a very good consumer. I don't even own furniture. You'll have a tough time convincing others to consider systemic risk. Even if they do, they probably don't see it as too risky.
Just keep up with the activism. Maybe you can find ways to get people to cut back in small ways.
Considerations like that are called negative externalities and can be mitigated with excise taxes.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 06 2010 05:49 Romantic wrote:
An inherent flaw in [b]capitalism!??[/b[ is that nobody takes into account systemic risk or non-$$$ considerations. Nobody thinks, "Oh when I buy this car taxes will go up to pay for the roads, I'll have to deal with congestion, global warming, drunk driving, noise pollution etc". America was purposefully marketed cars instead of more public transport and thats that. For a shitload of places it simply wouldn't be profitable.
Seriously, it's a flaw with only capitalism!?
That's a limitation of the human mind. People in general don't think beyond, several steps. For cars, of concern are: how much does it costs, where and how can I use it, what are its dangers, what are its comforts. Drunk driving and traffic congestion is factored into the equation. Noise pollution is a function of where you live and work and people pay attention to that. One extra car on the road doesn't add much to the equation.
What is left?
A. Taxes will go up to pay for roads.
Taxes were already leveed to pay for roads. Part of buying the car is a registration fee, which incidentally goes to pay for roads.
B. Global Warming
Exhaust pollution and smog might be an issue. Global warming is still unconvincing.
C. America was purposefully marketed cars.
America was purposefully helped into cars by its sprawling country. Ensenhower and the US interstate system helped along with that.
Public transportation makes sense in the biggest cities. Destroy the suburbs and that'll destroy the need for most cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
