Does the world have enough lithium to move to electric vehicles? • Hacker News Board

Re: Does the world have enough lithium to move to electric vehicles?

#411

Post by tyho » Sun, Jan 08, 2023, 12:32 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #358

tyho wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, train travel in the UK is more expensive than driving under any circumstances by at least a factor of two or three other than when commuting into London, where parking charges make the economics work.

You don’t include the health cost of pollution and the cost of accidents: healthcare and loss of life make driving far more expensive. That cost is not paid for by the drivers at the moment.

I'll give you the health costs and climate costs but the costs of accidents are paid by drivers through their insurance premiums.

Re: Does the world have enough lithium to move to electric vehicles?

#412

Post by roamerz » Sun, Jan 08, 2023, 6:09 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #353

roamerz wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>electric bicycles and trikes like the Aptera are much better direction for the vast majority of individual transport. I think a vast majority of people in the United States that choose to drive cars, suvs and pickups would disagree your assumption.

I don’t think we should focus on 4% of the world.

Fair enough. You focus on where you think is important and I’ll focus on where I choose to. In my case the United States is 100% of my world.

Re: Does the world have enough lithium to move to electric vehicles?

#413

Post by Hugsun » Mon, Jan 09, 2023, 2:07 PM UTC

keneda7 wrote: post #270

tomtheelder wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well for starters Sacramento is just a really poor example. Most of CA isn't. It's a consequence of hyper aggressive SFH zoning (~80% of the SCAG area is SFH, used to be even higher) and the era in which CA grew being the mid century period. There basically aren't any properly transit served and walkable areas in Sacramento. Closest would be Midtown and Richmond Grove, but they aren't really very good at all compared…

Again just like the other poster you are trying to move the goal posts. The comment did not say some. The comment said "the fact that America's most walkable and transit-accessible neighborhoods are also the most expensive and highest demand". I provided a single example that proves this statement is not a fact. edit: comment not commit

To be fair, the comment didn't say "every expensive and high demand neighborhood in america is walkable and transit accessible" either.

Never forget that most statements, especially imprecise ones like the one you quoted can be interpreted in many ways. It is very easy to find an interpretation that is incorrect, especially if you disagree with/dislike the premise.

The reason I say this is that your single example didn't seem to disprove the statement in my eyes. I read the statement as meaning that walkable neighborhoods are in most cases in much higher demand than other neighborhoods in the same region.

I don't really think either of us is wrong, more that the imprecision of the statement and language in general can be unfortunate and cause disagreement.

Also note that nobody will ever respond well to being accused of a logical fallacy. They are useful to understand what is happening and to rile people up. Not so much to convince anyone (that doesn't already agree with you) about anything.