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

61–66 of 66 posts

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

#61

Post by angdis »

Typhon wrote: post #56
hapless wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It wasn't until the 1960's through 1970's, the car-ownership prompted massive shifts from cities to suburbs.

Many baby boomers and those who preceded them (the "Ward Cleever" generation), can still remember the concept of having a main street. Even suburbs back then had central business districts and these are now known as "streetcar suburbs" or "inner-ring suburbs".

This way-of-life where everything so spread out so much that it necessitates driving for every little trip is a relatively new phenomena.

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

#62

Post by hackerblues »

Schultzy wrote: post #60
ericb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are three components.

Generation -> Grid -> Homes and Business

It is possible to change the type of generation without having to change the way electricity is taken out of the grid to power things. This makes it easier to make changes in the type of generation. Changing from coal to solar to nuclear just involves making a new connection between the power plant and the grid. Everything else then just works as normal.

By contrast, if we converted energy into "Dragon Tears" instead of electricity we would need to lay down a whole new Dragon Tear distribution network so that people could use that energy. Then, a scientific break through occurs and we are able to use the much more efficient "Unicorn Blood". But now we have to rip out the Dragon Tear distribution network and install a new Unicorn Blood network.

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

#63

Post by stoney »

hackerblues wrote: post #62
Schultzy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are three components. Generation -> Grid -> Homes and Business It is possible to change the type of generation without having to change the way electricity is taken out of the grid to power things. This makes it easier to make changes in the type of generation. Changing from coal to solar to nuclear just involves making a new connection between the power plant and the grid. Everything else then just works as no…

The problem with switching to electricity is that the electricity distribution network has a limited capacity. Increasing the capacity of the connection to every single dwelling would be enormously expensive (and energy consuming!), so there are limits to how much demand can easily be switched to the electrical network.

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

#64

Post by danssig »

jeza wrote: post #51
danssig wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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

Except that isn't realistic for everywhere. Even in a pretty densely populated country there will be areas that just can't justify that high frequency.

>again waiting an average time of 5 minutes. That's convenient and you don't have to drive either.

I'm living in a country that has, imo, the best public transport in the world. Even in remote areas a bus or train will be there once an hour. Normally it's 30 minutes in smaller towns and 10-15 or less as you go up. The issue is the connections. 5 minutes here, 15 minutes there. You don't have to travel very far before public transit is taking double the time it takes to go by car. I really hate driving, I feel like it's throwing my time in the trash. The issue is, as a programmer, I'm more productive in 2 solid hours than I am in four 1 hour periods.

>Would still create congestion on busy routes

Congestion shouldn't be any issue at all if everything is computer controlled. When you try to schedule at a certain time the computer can already say that you'll be picked up 10 minutes later and arrive 10 minutes later. Most congestion is caused by stupid things human drivers are doing. Get rid of human drivers and driving suddenly becomes vastly safer.

>and I suspect a huge number of these cars would be needed purely to cater for demand for about 2 hours of the day.

This could be but that would mean that, say, 80% of all public pool cars would be sitting in a central parking lot most of the day. How is that worse than now with 100% of cars sitting idle most of the day? Plus in many places every family will have 2 or more cars.

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

#65

Post by Vivtek »

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.…

I've been to some American cities where it's patently untrue as well. There are other places in Europe, where I repeat that you have obviously never been, and I'm talking about suburban Germany here, where it is not patently untrue - where, in fact, it is patently true.

So feel free to reject my underlying argument if you like. Just don't think that makes you right.

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

angdis wrote: post #61
Typhon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It wasn't until the 1960's through 1970's, the car-ownership prompted massive shifts from cities to suburbs. Many baby boomers and those who preceded them (the "Ward Cleever" generation), can still remember the concept of having a main street. Even suburbs back then had central business districts and these are now known as "streetcar suburbs" or "inner-ring suburbs". This way-of-life where everything so spread out so…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN