Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

[matticus]

Efficiency. The lightest electric cars are twice as efficient meaning heavy cars have massive global warming implications.
How can we be post oil economy when energy usage is double what is needed?

Your humble electric bicycle will be at 10 to 100+ efficiency. If the whole world owned a car as little as 10 years ago I doubt many of us would be alive now.

Less important in big picture terms; but heavier vehicles also do more harm in crashes, and wear out our (expensive) infrastructure faster.

 

[albion]

https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article...ed-for-fusion-in-breakthrough-energy-research

I was reading about sand (sodium) batteries now having massive factories for production. That one looks close. However it seems those factories also can double up on old technology. But at least that approach looks not to be fusion like. (From an entirely different galaxy.)

 

[Mr Celine]

You want to ban most EVs? Why is weight problematic?

 

[icowden]

View attachment 2620

View attachment 2618

Those are equations not an answer to the question.

 

[icowden]

Less important in big picture terms; but heavier vehicles also do more harm in crashes, and wear out our (expensive) infrastructure faster.

As to the first, that's why EVs are bristling with anti-crash tech. As to the second, I'm not sure how they affect road wear, and neither it seems is anyone else. Couldn't find a study to support or refute. I did find one page which pointed out that most wear comes from lorries, not cars...

 

[BoldonLad]

As to the first, that's why EVs are bristling with anti-crash tech. As to the second, I'm not sure how they affect road wear, and neither it seems is anyone else. Couldn't find a study to support or refute. I did find one page which pointed out that most wear comes from lorries, not cars...

In terms of (possible) increase in particulates from EVs, isn’t the point rather do EVs produce more particulates than ICE cars? No saying they do, or, don’t. But to me, that is the relevant question.

 

[newfhouse]

Is this discussion not missing the point just a little? Let's do whatever we need to do to reduce the number of sodding cars ruining our world.

(Full disclosure: I do own a sixteen year old car but use it as little as possible, typically about 1000 miles a year.)

 

[Ian H]

The bigger your car the more it costs in finite resources to both build and run, and making electric cars is costlier than making conventional ones.

 

[the snail]

As to the first, that's why EVs are bristling with anti-crash tech. As to the second, I'm not sure how they affect road wear, and neither it seems is anyone else. Couldn't find a study to support or refute. I did find one page which pointed out that most wear comes from lorries, not cars...

IIRC damage to roads is proportional to the cube of vehicle weight, or the fourth power, or something like that.

 

[Wobblers]

Those are equations not an answer to the question.

You're not a physicist, are you?

The second equation shows that the kinetic energy of an object depends directly on its mass. And kinetic energy most certainly is extremely relevant, in that it is a measure of how much damage a moving object is capable of doing.

The first equation shows that momentum is also linearly dependent on mass. That is also relevant, but in a more subtle way. A collision between between a massive object and a light object results in a large change in velocity of the light object, and a small change to the massive object. Peak acceleration on the light object are therefore much larger - thus more damage will be wrought. Which is why a pedestrian is very much worse off when in collision with a 4x4 SUV than, say, a cyclist when both are travelling at the same velocity.

ETA: interesting [1] that the forum software substitutes "w@nkpanzer" with "4x4".

[1] For some value of...

 

[Fab Foodie]

I cannot say that I condone it because I am not sure that a protest policy that just annoys and inconveniences individuals has any chance of making change at all...which is presumably supposed to be the point of protest.
To me it smacks of self indulgence and arrogance and is designed to gain the approval of those who are already committed rather than the wider population.
Publicity is one thing, but positive publicity is better.

It's direct targeting of people who's thoughtless choices have a direct and notable impact on both their local environment and globally.
Frankly a multitude of approaches are required to get the message across...every little helps....

 

[matticus]

As to the second, I'm not sure how they affect road wear, and neither it seems is anyone else.

I'd be surprised if you can find anyone saying heavier vehicles DO NOT cause more road wear than lighter ones.

 

[Ian H]

I'd be surprised if you can find anyone saying heavier vehicles DO NOT cause more road wear than lighter ones.

There was someone on Twitter (where else?) who claimed that bicycle tyres, being so much narrower, would concentrate more weight in a tiny footprint and thus wear the roads out.

 

[matticus]

There was someone on Twitter (where else?) who claimed that bicycle tyres, being so much narrower, would concentrate more weight in a tiny footprint and thus wear the roads out.

Oh dear.

But I would counter that <physics pedant hat on> by saying that heavier bikes still cause more wear than lighter (on the same tyres)!

SUVs on 25mm rubber would clearly be terrible!

 

[mudsticks]

There was someone on Twitter (where else?) who claimed that bicycle tyres, being so much narrower, would concentrate more weight in a tiny footprint and thus wear the roads out.

I mean it's plausible enough, I'm often on my local section of route 2 - there's frequently whole phalanxes of them filthy velocipedalists skittering about - and the potholes are pretty terrible.

So yes the twitterati may well have a point 🤔