Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil? • Hacker News Board

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#51

Post by jeza » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 3:02 PM UTC

danssig wrote: post #42

angdis wrote: post #23

I think the question is wrong. It assumes that the problem is to find a "replacement" for oil, in other words, that all we need to do is replace the oil and everything else will work "the same." For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars and that every errand should involve driving somewhere (with the expectation that your destination should furnish your car with…

>For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars I think it's the abundance of ground. The last time I was in the states I realized that the entire shopping street in my city could fit in an american mall parking lot. What a tremendous waste of space, but it's cheaper than going up like is done in Europe. >Invest in public transit infrastructure Personally I think publ…

> It doesn't go anywhere anyone wants to go, it goes close to where a lot of people want to go. It doesn't know when we want to go so it just picks times and forces us into buckets.

That's why you run a network of high frequency services (every 10 minutes or better). You turn up at a stop and wait on average 5 minutes, I think most people can tolerate that. If it doesn't go where you're going then you transfer, again waiting an average time of 5 minutes. That's convenient and you don't have to drive either.

> A proper solution would be that "public transport" consisted of a network of self-driving cars that you can schedule on the internet to come pick you up and drop you where you need to go.

Would still create congestion on busy routes and I suspect a huge number of these cars would be needed purely to cater for demand for about 2 hours of the day.

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#52

Post by pyre » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 3:10 PM UTC

hapless wrote: post #50

pyre wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if "Americans don't like living in dense cities" can be called a truism though. Wouldn't that assume that in America, there are no dense cities? Wouldn't the existence of dense cities along side suburbs indicate that there is a wide range of preference?

American urban centers are primarily inhabited by the poor -- people who have no other choices. Urban gentrification is the froth on a sea of poverty.

So all of those massively expensive condos that are built in the middle of dense cities are for poor people? People complaining about how expensive real estate is 'downtown' are just extremely poor people because they can't even afford what regular poor people can?

In any case, living in suburbs doesn't account for the preference of wanting to drive everywhere. It's perfectly possible to build suburbs that are walking distance from most local stores that you would need (i.e. grocery, hardware, etc).

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#53

Post by dkersten » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 4:00 PM UTC

jeza wrote: post #47

Vivtek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've clearly never been to Europe - where quiet residential neighborhoods coexist perfectly well with a public transit system that works. The only reason we don't have a public transit system that works any more is that GM was smart enough to realize there was even more money in it for them if they bought, and scrapped, all the public transit systems in America's smaller towns and cities. And it worked. Don't wallo…

Closer to the US, Toronto and Vancouver manage to run effective public transport systems in American style cities. It's essentially a myth that you need high densities to support rail/bus services.

Having been to Vancouver and living in Europe[1], I have to agree that public transport can work very very well. My uncle, for example, lives in a small country town in Germany and it is serviced by a very regular train with which you can pretty much go anywhere (obviously the distant destinations require you to go to the closest city and transfer from there, but any local towns and villages are quickly and easily reached).

[1] Sadly, in Ireland, public transport is not so great. I have family in mainland Europe though and public transport is (generally) quite good there.

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#54

Post by chadgeidel » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 4:01 PM UTC

ry0ohki wrote: post #34

tobylane wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What US laws have had an effect on the Prius? Japan just cares more, in the right ways, such as nuclear power, future technologies.

CAFE laws probably to some extent.

IMHO - CAFE laws "encouraged" the move to Trucks and SUVs as they were categorized differently and, as such regulated differently.

No, I don't have a link at hand. Sorry.

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#55

Post by neworbit » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 4:41 PM UTC

angdis wrote: post #23

I think the question is wrong. It assumes that the problem is to find a "replacement" for oil, in other words, that all we need to do is replace the oil and everything else will work "the same." For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars and that every errand should involve driving somewhere (with the expectation that your destination should furnish your car with…

It's attractive to propose "let's build a new kind of city" or if you prefer, a new sort of living style, but this is one of the classic boil-the-ocean sort of problems that any ground-up engineering solution faces. How do we migrate people from a solution they know, like, inhabit, and own today to one that they don't know, will likely have to be educated to like, don't currently inhabit, and don't currently own? It's a tall order.

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#56

Post by Typhon » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 4:56 PM UTC

hapless wrote: post #49

Typhon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human scale cities imply human scale commerce. I assume that by "hustles and bustle of commerce" you mean those monstrous gigantic malls. It doesn't have to be that way.

"Human scale" commerce failed. Supermarkets obliterated tiny, expensive grocers everywhere that real estate prices afforded their existence. Inner cities are now "food deserts" because running a limited-selection, high-price grocery isn't practical. It didn't have to be that way, but that's how it turned out. Low prices and wide selection are more important to the average consumer than "human scale."

That's how it turned out in America, where people had individual cars starting in the 1910s and where oil is still cheaper than in Europe.

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#57

Post by hapless » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 5:00 PM UTC

Vivtek wrote: post #40

hapless wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans don't want "human scale" cities or public transit, or else we would already have them. I realize this is not politically correct, but I like the isolation of the suburbs. I don't want to hear my neighbors or have a grocery within walking distance. I'm happy to need to drive to reach anything, because it means that the hustle and bustle of commerce stays far the hell away from my home. I hate using public tr…

You've clearly never been to Europe - where quiet residential neighborhoods coexist perfectly well with a public transit system that works. The only reason we don't have a public transit system that works any more is that GM was smart enough to realize there was even more money in it for them if they bought, and scrapped, all the public transit systems in America's smaller towns and cities. And it worked. Don't wallo…

I have been to some European countries, and that's patently untrue. Residential neighborhoods tend to contain lots of shared housing -- apartments/rowhouses with shared walls between units -- and all attendant noise and unpleasantness.

The only residential neighborhood I ever enjoyed was when I stayed with a family who lived as I do: four vehicles for four people, in a freestanding home, driving to the grocery daily. The major difference in our lifestyles is that, ignoring exchange rates, they paid easily five times as much to achieve my standard of living. I don't think they would willingly trade places with their middle class employees, living in the crowded row housing.

To put it another way, I reject your underlying argument. Yes, hundreds millions of Europeans have become accustomed to a lower standard of living than mine. No, that does not mean I will happily acclimate myself to the same standard.

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#58

Post by solid » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 5:16 PM UTC

angdis wrote: post #23

I think the question is wrong. It assumes that the problem is to find a "replacement" for oil, in other words, that all we need to do is replace the oil and everything else will work "the same." For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars and that every errand should involve driving somewhere (with the expectation that your destination should furnish your car with…

>For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars and that every errand should involve driving somewhere (with the expectation that your destination should furnish your car with a free place to park).

A major reason is the massive amount of explosive growth directed through central planning by government. This has literally made most cities designed around travel by car.

>Of course, people won't change unless there's a reason to do so. What I am saying is that "market forces" will push us towards those kinds of solutions INSTEAD of towards an oil replacement. People will be better off if they can adapt to this reality rather than hang on until the bitter end to the idea that the future will involve "happy motoring" forever.

Getting rid of government subsidy to oil through lobby, tax breaks, and the military-industrial complex would go a long way toward this goal. We are bearing the full brunt of the "moral hazard" experiment.

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#59

Post by angdis » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 5:31 PM UTC

hapless wrote: post #57

Vivtek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've clearly never been to Europe - where quiet residential neighborhoods coexist perfectly well with a public transit system that works. The only reason we don't have a public transit system that works any more is that GM was smart enough to realize there was even more money in it for them if they bought, and scrapped, all the public transit systems in America's smaller towns and cities. And it worked. Don't wallo…

I have been to some European countries, and that's patently untrue. Residential neighborhoods tend to contain lots of shared housing -- apartments/rowhouses with shared walls between units -- and all attendant noise and unpleasantness. The only residential neighborhood I ever enjoyed was when I stayed with a family who lived as I do: four vehicles for four people, in a freestanding home, driving to the grocery daily.…

"Standard of living" means different things to different people. One could say that you've acclimated yourself to a lower standard of living by burning up lots of time and money commuting and taking care of a car and large house.

I'll take a 900 sq ft walk-up with marble flooring and 12 foot ceilings in the middle of Paris IN A SECOND over any sopranos-style 4000 sq ft mcMansion made of plywood and tyvek and located 40 minutes from the nearest depressing strip mall.

Re: Out of Fuel: Why Hasn't Innovation Provided a Reliable Alternative to Oil?

#60

Post by Schultzy » Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 6:47 PM UTC

ericb wrote: post #35

nickff wrote: post #4

The answer to the why we have not found an alternative is simply that we value volumetric and mass energy density, and this graph on Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Energy_de... shows that gasoline has both of these, along with good resistance to premature ignition, and other favourable ignition characteristics. The solution will not be in finding something new, which is superior in ever…

I think a switch to electric makes the most sense. It can piggyback off our existing infrastructure, and in an engineering sense, it is only "loosely coupled" to whatever manner we use to create the electricity.

What do you mean by "loosely coupled"?

Are you saying that the electricity flowing into Volts and Leafs hitting the market doesn't really come from a polluting source or merely that it doesn't have to?

...or am I missing your point completely?