Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

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

#41

Post by jinushaun »

hapless wrote: post #37
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…

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…

Any proper discussion on the topic of energy dependence, car and city planning must acknowledge that many Americans have this point of view. Americans like driving around everywhere and not living in dense cities. It's an inconvenient truth for policy makers trying to push for green and pro-urban policies in America.

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

#42

Post by danssig »

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 public transit is a stepping stone. It's not a workable final solution. 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.

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. We wouldn't need parking places because the cars never stop. We'd have the convenience of not having to drive.

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

#43

Post by pyre »

jinushaun wrote: post #41
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…

Any proper discussion on the topic of energy dependence, car and city planning must acknowledge that many Americans have this point of view. Americans like driving around everywhere and not living in dense cities. It's an inconvenient truth for policy makers trying to push for green and pro-urban policies in America.

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?

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

#44

Post by Typhon »

hapless wrote: post #37
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…

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…

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.

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

#45

Post by lucasjung »

tobylane wrote: post #33
ry0ohki wrote: post #27

"The same legislation passed in the 1970s to force increased fuel efficiency, for instance, has brought no new innovation to U.S. vehicle fuel consumption in two decades" I disagree with this. We've seen hybrids, pure electric and much more efficient normal engines created in the past 20 years with things like cylinder shut-off, etc. If someone from 1970 saw a Toyota Prius it would seem like something straight out of…

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

The multi-thousand dollar tax credits that made purchasing one cost-effective certainly drove its initial popularity (it's the only reason my sister bought one).

Even after the credits shrank to a level where a prius is no longer a cost-effective purchase, there are still U.S. laws (state and federal) which incentivise purchase of a prius (or other hybrid).

For example, a disproportionate number of hybrids are driven in the greater DC area. A big reason for this is because the state of Virginia allows hybrids to drive in carpool lanes with only one person (this may have changed--last I read there were lawsuits underway to challenge this policy). For people who live in the DC area, deciding where to live can involve some serious number crunching: the farther you get from the beltway, the less you will need to pay for housing, but the more you will need to pay (in time and money) for your commute. Buying a hybrid gave you a free pass to cut your commute time almost in half, allowing you to live farther away and save on housing.

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

#46

Post by simpleTruth »

gaius wrote: post #11
demallien wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. In the medium term, we can expect hybrids to play a bigger role, whilst we wait for battery technology to cover the energy density gap. In less than 20 years, simple economics are going to force us to a solution of full electric cars for urban use, and hybrids for longer trips, with the hybrid normally being charged from the wall, but using oil-based fuels for longer trips (or when the owner forgot to cha…

Hmm, the thing is tho', there isn't much upside to shifting burning fossil fuels from the engine to the power station. Sure the power station is more efficient in burning the fuel - but then you have to charge batteries too, so that efficiency goes away again. There's really not much point to electric vehicles until you can run them all on batteries charged by nuclear power.

Except coal cost's ~1/10th what refined Oil does.

1 short ton (907kg) of coal costs $71.25 as of October 2010 coal has an energy density around ~32.5 (MJ/kg). 907kg * (32.5MJ / kg ) / $71.25 = 413 MJ per $.

Compared to gas at ~3$ / gallon. So, 121 MJ / gallon / (3$ / gallon = 40 MJ per $.

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

#47

Post by jeza »

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…

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.

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

#48

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

pyre wrote: post #43
jinushaun wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any proper discussion on the topic of energy dependence, car and city planning must acknowledge that many Americans have this point of view. Americans like driving around everywhere and not living in dense cities. It's an inconvenient truth for policy makers trying to push for green and pro-urban policies in America.

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?

Of course there is a range of preference -- it's not an absolute statement. Hell, I used to live in NYC and now I live in a rural area surrounded by horses and cornfields.

But the fact that so many people choose to live in the suburbs (and now an increasing number of those are moving out to the country!) indicates that city life is unsuitable for many. Honestly, the only thing that keeps me tied to a certain distance from the city is the availability of DSL.

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

#49

Post by hapless »

Typhon wrote: post #44
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…

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."

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

#50

Post by hapless »

pyre wrote: post #43
jinushaun wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any proper discussion on the topic of energy dependence, car and city planning must acknowledge that many Americans have this point of view. Americans like driving around everywhere and not living in dense cities. It's an inconvenient truth for policy makers trying to push for green and pro-urban policies in America.

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.
Post reply on HN