scroll_lock's recent activity

  1. Comment on Climate policy is working – double down on what’s succeeding instead of despairing over what’s not in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion, calls to action Tone: dismissive of apathy and doomism: optimistic Opinion: yes lots but also I’m right ha ha ha Sarcasm/humor: a little...
    • Exemplary
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information, opinion, calls to action
    • Tone: dismissive of apathy and doomism: optimistic
    • Opinion: yes lots but also I’m right ha ha ha
    • Sarcasm/humor: a little bit, not much

    My takeaways were that we(average people) are still dependent on our ruling class to incentivize and enact large, sweeping changes, and they're still acting too slowly.

    This is technically true, but implies — wrongly!! — that the “ruling class” is both monolithic (it isn’t) and indifferent to public sentiment (it absolutely isn’t).

    The public does have to incentivize politicians to do things. That’s what it means to live in a democracy. Theoretically you don’t want politicians acting too independently of public sentiment, and the way they gauge public sentiment is a mixture of polling and direct feedback from constituents (surveys, town halls, etc.). In practice, specific projects and solutions require specific and targeted pressure campaigns aimed toward relevant stakeholders in government and industry. These don’t necessarily have to be combattive—they can be collaborative—but politicians can’t necessarily initiate all those things. They don’t know the answer to every problem. It’s our responsibility to advocate for solutions. Think of advocacy less as screaming into the void and more as informing officials of actionable processes to do something that benefits their constituents.

    Many politicians want green solutions. When you delve into the nitty gritty details, high-level desires (“net zero by 2050”) are ridiculously complicated. When we consider why politicians are “acting too slowly” we have to consider both the obvious pessimistic answers (influence from anti-enviro groups, personal financial stakes in fossil fuels, etc) as well as the generally more universally applicable reasons (such as that many climate solutions so far are complex and expensive and won’t be implemented until we solve those sub-problems). And often one of the biggest problems is that there literally is not enough data showing that a hyper-specific solution actually solves a problem in a particular circumstance… or that we know it does, but it has some other externality that makes it difficult for a politician—who represents all their constituents—to stand behind. Enviro activists including myself have a tendency to be dismissive of those externalities when they’re things like “wind farms are ugly” (cool opinion bro), but much of the time a specific solution is not so cut and dry. High-speed rail projects are essential for decarbonization, but they do have legitimate localized problems like the demolition of existing properties, complex engineering, and physical divisions to the landscape. Even if someone agrees with HSR in principle (which they should), and most people do, solving the problem of “this new HSR project has to change the automobile and pedestrian routings in this area for safety reasons” is a subjective matter. Do we need a pedestrian bridge? Tunnel? What about wildlife? Car tunnel or bridge? Should the train be elevated? Sunken? What if every cost-effective pedestrian rerouting would require the demolition of a historic building? Exactly how would government fund the more expensive solution that, say, doesn’t end up destroying that historic building? That’s an example of something local that activists can engage with stakeholders on—advocating for best practices that support the mission (HSR) and solve the externality (access changes, unintended destruction of local landmarks).

    Americans elected Joseph Biden in 2020 along with a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate. Those officials knew that the constituents who elected them – and even many who didnt – wanted climate action. So they wrote the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) to devote trillions to infrastructure including hundreds of billions to low-carbon rail, bus, and micromobility transportation solutions. They also wrote the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which invests billions and billions into clean energy specifically—everything from solar and wind research and rebates to a massive push toward EV charging infrastructure (which is increasing like 5% month-by-month!!), and so much more. Well the EV charging might be the BIL, I don’t remember. But the IRA is HUUUUGE for green energy. It has kickstarted a chain reaction and each year we will only see more progress.

    That’s federal. In the US there is also the state level, which is far less politicized and far easier for individuals to engage with – literally anyone can schedule a meeting with State Representatives. I did this just yesterday. We had a great conversation and my rep committed to supporting the policy I proposed and writing letters to the state agencies who could enact it. Sure, politicians are a “ruling class” because the bureaucratic system we live under gives them the ability to sign off on stuff. But they’re extremely influencable by “regular people” if you make any effort to engage.

    Anyway, even without you personally walking into a rep’s office, many states are making their own, COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT climate goals/policies because they have identified public sentiment as wanting this. California will literally be banning the production of gas cars in the 2030s—that’s enshrined in state law, they didn’t wait for the federal government. Just because the national Congress isn’t doing enough doesn’t mean states can’t step up. In New York and New Jersey, the states have committed billions of dollars to new rail tunnels beneath the Hudson River (the NEC is the busiest rail route in the country) to improve travel times, reduce delays, and literally double max throughput—which all ultimately gets people out of cars and airplanes (very polluting) and into trains (comparatively green, especially the NEC which is entirely electric), alongside some federal funding. But it wasn’t just the BIL, the states are really contributing here. The states of Virginia and North Carolina are—of their own volition—purchasing huge swaths of freight rail rights-of-way to extend the NEC southward and dramatically improve rail service. Those aren’t even traditionally “liberal” states. They still see the value in actions that have environmental benefits. Just a few examples. There are lots more.

    And then there is the local level, another separate element of the so-called “ruling class.” Ruling class yeah right. If you get involved in local politics you will realize just how much you can change, and also how “normal” your elected officials are. In a very big city, sure, this stuff can be complicated with long timelines. But by contributing (time or money) to nonprofit orgs (501c3 and especially 501c4 in this case, as they can lobby politicians and make candidate endorsements) that want to see climate action, you can see really major local policies be enacted. It could be anything from transportation funding for buses and bikes (reducing emissions), funding for better water management systems (reducing flooding and potentially improving efficiency/therefore reducing emissions; or better water conservation practices in dry climates), street tree planting programs (tree coverage reduces temps and absorbs carbon, and encourages biodiversity in general), and — SHOCKINGLY — the literal closure of gas and oil power plants within the city. Did you know? People hate living next to dirty fossil fuel plants. It is extremely possible to leverage that distaste politically to make local governments redevelop these polluting sites or otherwise make them pay for the damage they’re inflicting.

    My city, which currently is Philly in Pennsylvania, has just bulldozed its massive oil refinery (which by itself contributed like 1/4 of the city’s total carbon emissions) to replace it with greener industrial uses like science innovation centers and warehouses with rail access. This involves cooperation between the city and the landowner as well as a new private industrial/commercial real estate developer. You can’t build houses on brownfield land but you can sure build warehouses; and we still need that stuff. And it beats a filthy oil refinery any day of the week. This NEVER would have happened without pressure from local residents to get rid of this polluting& dangerous facility and replacing it with green ones—which actually offer more jobs and will help the local economy.

    New York City, the USA’s largest by far, is about to implement a car congestion pricing plan that will dramatically decrease car use in lower Manhattan and midtown . This will get SO many more people out of their fossil fuel-powered cars and onto the subways and buses which are perfectly reasonable for their purposes. That’s serious business. And it would likewise NEVER have happened without constant pressure from environmental groups to focus on public transit.

    Las Vegas has in the local level largely been banning water-thirsty grass turfs in favor of local foliage/rock gardens. That’s totally a result of residents’ pressure to make life more sustainable. It reduces water waste and also energy used to pump water wastefully; and it makes the environment more resilient. That, again, was the product of residents going to council meetings to demand greener policies.

    It isn’t just a big city thing. Every town can add bike lanes. Hoboken, NJ (a quite small city) has installed bike lanes on like half of streets and has seen huge increases in cycling and therefore less car use, which significantly reduces local emissions. It’s also made a ton of infrastructure changes to make walking safer and more pleasant, including daylighting intersections (increasing visibility), adding curb bulb-outs-bump-outs (shorter crossing distances), adding traffic calming measures (slowing down cars), etc. This makes walking, rather than unnecessary driving, far more appealing and therefore reduces emissions. Literally every town in the country can do this sort of thing.

    Yes “average people” is a thing insofar as I am not an elected official or an agency bureaucrat, so I don’t literally (physically) sign the legislation that does XYZ. But saying “well shucks, can’t do anything” isn’t true and isn’t helpful. You can’t solve every problem as an individual, but you don’t have to– humans are a social species and it is quite easy to find like-minded individuals to work together as a group and pursue actionable change for the climate.

    16 votes

  2. Comment on New EPA regulation requires coal plants in the United States to reduce 90 percent of their greenhouse pollution by 2039 (gifted link) in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: question Tone: neutral, a little prodding Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none In what ways has California demonstrated its environmental propositions to be infeasible? It is my...
    Comment box
    • Scope: question
    • Tone: neutral, a little prodding
    • Opinion: none
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    In what ways has California demonstrated its environmental propositions to be infeasible? It is my impression that the deadlines that are in the public consciousness have not yet come to pass.

    2 votes

  3. Comment on A golden age of renewables is beginning, and California is leading the way in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: information, personal reaction Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none I guess the numbers speak for themselves. Reaching 100% renewable generation needs at some point...
    Comment box
    • Scope: information, personal reaction
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    I guess the numbers speak for themselves.

    Reaching 100% renewable generation needs at some point for 39/47 of the past days is a great foundation.

    The graph of April 20 shows a low of about 50% generation from renewables compared to total demand. That is a best-case day right now. TBH, that is pretty good. But we still have a ways to go.

    Interesting to see how quickly battery storage peters out once engaged. Still an important part of the grid for sure.

    I think California is on a good track here. Every year renewable generation goes up. (and this chart shows that growth going a few years further back and really demonstrates the change in general.) Wind and solar growth account for the vast majority of those increases, and both technologies are expected to get cheaper and more efficient over time—especially solar, and despite the state’s recent pricing fiasco.

    The solutions the article pitches about changing hydro generation to a mostly nighttime thing, for example, sound reasonable to me.

    So many reasons to be optimistic about CA energy sustainability and security. Always glad that we have such a visionary state in the union.

    15 votes

  4. Comment on The cycling revolution in Paris continues: Bicycle use now exceeds car use in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, personal anecdotes Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none That does speak to the necessity for protected bike lanes that people physically can’t park...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, personal anecdotes
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    That does speak to the necessity for protected bike lanes that people physically can’t park cars in.

    My city has found utility in installing loading zones on the opposite side of the street (one-way street) that the bike lane is on. That way businesses and residents can still unload, and the bike lane won’t be obstructed. Actually it’s a far more constructive use of space than long-term parking… you see like 10 people go in and out for a functional purpose in an hour rather than one single car sitting there for 2 months. Big improvement.

    Some of the loading zones become regular parking spots overnight for residents. That also sounds reasonable to me.

    4 votes

  5. Comment on The cycling revolution in Paris continues: Bicycle use now exceeds car use in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none I would probably not cycle in -42C either. There’s a difference between learning how to wear proper insulating...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    I would probably not cycle in -42C either.

    There’s a difference between learning how to wear proper insulating layers in a place that gets to, idk, -10C or even -20C (and knowing that you will be warm when you’re moving on the bike), and putting yourself into dangerous situations.

    If your life is truly at risk outdoors by virtue of horrid weather, I would question whether humans should live in that place to begin with—sounds like a pretty inefficient use of our rather scarce resources as a society—but I wouldn’t judge anyone in that kind of situation for making a decision to get around in an enclosed vehicle.

    I live in a city whose climate doesn’t have any of the problems you describe, so it isn’t really a valid reason not to cycle. Even the coldest days aren’t cold if you wear an actual jacket, or a scarf, or a face covering. People are out walking in the winter all the time anyway. The reason people don’t cycle is because the city won’t bother investing in infrastructure that makes it safe.

    2 votes

  6. Comment on The cycling revolution in Paris continues: Bicycle use now exceeds car use in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Paris is a major metropolitan city. Most people in major metropolitan cities do not haul large quantities of...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Paris is a major metropolitan city. Most people in major metropolitan cities do not haul large quantities of heavy/bulky materials on a regular basis.

    I understand the use-case you describe, but this is an article about a city where, statistically, a huge percentage of people are renters or own units in condos and are therefore not making large-scale home repairs at all. That is easily the biggest quotidian task that requires “tools” which might be hard to transport. Other than that, the next most common fairly universal use-case that cannot be accomplished effectively with a bicycle while wearing a backpack and/or cargo bike is moving large furniture—a legit thing that everyone does, but not very often.

    This has been done scientifically, but you can observe it yourself on any day of the week: Most people driving around a city are going to a specific destination under 10 miles away, often under 5 miles, with little or no baggage—not more than a backpack or purse. They aren’t hauling or carrying loads of stuff. And most drivers are alone or have at most one passenger.

    There are people for whom cycling doesn’t make sense. But virtually every person commutes in some way, to some thing (job, school, or hobby). Virtually every person buys groceries. In fact those things constitute an enormous portion of trips. If people can substitute some or all of such car trips for those purposes with bike trips… society is so much better off. (And so is their physical health.)

    I do not see any incompatibility between taking a bicycle most places and taking the car a couple places where it’s really necessary. Paris is not banning cars. It’s just encouraged people not to drive absolutely everywhere.

    And its hard to hold a conversation riding in tandem and side by side is suicidal in most places.

    If side-by-side riding is “suicidal” then the infrastructure is not supportive of cycling. Period.

    Long-term, a nice cycling network ought to have wide enough bike lanes to allow for side-by-side conversations between two cyclists. There is virtually always enough space in the street to allow this—with some reconfiguration—if it is a priority of the municipality.

    I would consider this issue fairly minor, but it is a thing that is thought.

    My town actually put in bike lanes on key streets, but my observation is that a few people use them fastidiously. Maybe it will grow but they're not very popular.

    If the bike lanes are not protected from automobiles with concrete, it should be obvious why more people do not use them fastidiously! Unprotected bike lanes are unsafe and unpleasant.

    If the roads the bike lanes are on have very fast and loud traffic, people may not really want to cycle on them constantly even if the lanes have partial protection. Usually, a concrete barrier puts people enough at ease—but if the speed limit is literally 45mph, it’s just going to be loud, and that’s a disincentive for very casual cyclists.

    If there are not enough bike lanes to constitute a “network” actually connecting people to real-world (useful) destinations, the lanes will not see much use. I think people who only drive lack an understanding of how many roads the automobile network has… and therefore that “a couple key streets” is not really a useful network in the same way.

    If your town has an extremely small population then you may not see many people in the bike lanes in an absolute sense. Or your town, if it is very car-oriented, may not have enough density for most trips to make sense.

    If your town installed these very recently and the weather has not been good, I guess that would be a reason people are not cycling.

    More broadly, if your town does not have a cycling culture, it just takes some time for that to develop. It can happen much more quickly if you support community organizations who are interested in teaching cycling (especially to families and kids) and making it fun. Once it gets going, which can be a few years, it tends to stick—as long as there is buy-in from local govt in the form of bike infrastructure.

    2 votes

  7. Comment on The cycling revolution in Paris continues: Bicycle use now exceeds car use in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none That’s pretty location-dependent. Every city/region has its own unique reasons why people aren’t cycling enough....
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    That’s pretty location-dependent. Every city/region has its own unique reasons why people aren’t cycling enough.

    In general:

    • Protected bicycle infrastructure, and long-term support for that infrastructure, is necessary. Key word “protected.” This strongly encourages people to cycle who would otherwise not consider it. Passive infrastructure won’t make the whole world switch to biking, but it removes barriers.
    • A real network of bicycle lanes makes it reasonable to cycle many places, rather than just along a couple of corridors. Each new edge/node in a network is a major benefit.
    • Socially normalizing cycling. You don’t have to convince anyone of anything. But community organizations can run events centered around bikes, especially getting kids and families on bikes, which make this normal. Group rides teach people safe routes and let them make friends. When this becomes a normal way to get around, not just for Lance Armstrong, more people will do it.
    • Development and progress toward a Vision Zero initiative including but not exclusive to cycling. This means a local plan to reach zero traffic deaths in your region. It involves building infrastructure that slows down automobiles in places where Vulnerable Road Users are present, especially in intersections, and making it structurally hard for drivers to make life-ending “mistakes” with their multi-ton vehicles. Not every street can have a bike lane, but if people feel safe outside of a car in their town, then they will consider cycling to be much more reasonable.
    • Business buy-in: bike-share services are great, bike racks at important destinations are essential—anywhere you would consider allowing automobile parking, there should be a bike rack, and you can fit at least half a dozen bikes in the same space as one car. This may involve cooperation with many local businesses. Activists can engage in educational campaigns to inform communities of the economic benefits of safer streets, including more cycling—people spend more time and money hanging out in walkable and billable places.

    There are also some larger issues like awareness of solutions like cargo bikes, bike trailers, and other attachments that are useful for parents or people hauling things.

    3 votes

  8. Comment on The cycling revolution in Paris continues: Bicycle use now exceeds car use in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: information, experiences Tone: neutral Opinion: not really Sarcasm/humor: none For the curious, the street sweepers cities can invest in for fully protected bike lanes look like...
    Comment box
    • Scope: information, experiences
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: not really
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    For the curious, the street sweepers cities can invest in for fully protected bike lanes look like this. There are actually a lot of them in the US already, but only in some cities. I think they're pretty cute. They also aren't that expensive as far as public maintenance vehicles go.

    The phrase I use when talking about demand for infrastructure is "If you build it, they will come." In a place where a lot of people need to get around, good designs encourage people to change their behavior and switch away from cars -- sometimes or all the time. The hardcore cyclists will bike in any conditions, but so many more people only feel comfortable doing it when there's proper infrastructure. Kids, families, seniors, and plenty of cautious adults want actual infrastructure. Not everyone has to bike, but the benefits of even a few people doing it vastly outweigh the costs to set it up.

    Though even when people do use bike lanes, naysayers remain. Someone on my city's council made a ridiculous suggestion to remove one of the most-used bike lanes in the city at a budget hearing last week. I have no idea why. Its installation has reduced car congestion (not increased it), it's used all the time by cyclists, etc. This council person was just speaking from a position of "it's not a car, so it's bad."

    11 votes

  9. Comment on The cycling revolution in Paris continues: Bicycle use now exceeds car use in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Bicycles are a form of vehicle independence. They are very simple, inexpensive machines which can go...
    • Exemplary
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Bicycles are a form of vehicle independence. They are very simple, inexpensive machines which can go quite long distances in a day. Their use also doesn't necessarily depend on the price of oil or electricity, or certainly not to the same extent as an automobile. As far as self-sufficiency goes, they offer about as much "independence" as one could possibly ask for beyond your own two feet.

    Paris' public transportation system is remarkably good, and that's one reason why going car-free or car-lite in that city is so possible. But I wouldn't say the US is a lost cause. We are inching toward a better built environment. A lot of people choose to live in inaccessible and dangerous (from a pedestrian perspective) suburbs for one reason or another, in large part because they think they need more space than they really do, and because the kinds of dense/walkable neighborhoods that support cycling are illegal to build in most US municipalities -- so the ones that exist are expensive. These things make it hard for Americans to get around with anything other than a car.

    There just hasn't been a conversation about pedestrian and bicycle safety for over 75 years, so local towns haven't invested in good designs. To some extent that is because local councils literally do not know what a "good" design is -- they simply have never considered the problem.

    But better zoning and housing policy can make it more affordable to live in somewhat more dense areas, and can offer more real "places" instead of strip malls and arterials; better street design can make it safer to make local trips in your town using a bicycle rather than a car; and thoughtful amenities for bicycles can make that more reasonable. Public transit is kind of its own conversation but is certainly related. Modern discourse on "urbanism" (including in small towns) has moved the needle in many respects as it has become much easier to find good examples of good infrastructure.

    If you have been to New York City in the past 5 years (as a large city example), you will see that it is moving in the direction Paris is. The bicycle lanes in Manhattan and Brooklyn are relatively extensive and generally pretty good. There's a lot of work to be done, but it isn't an exotic European dream. Plenty of smaller cities have demonstrated remarkable progress on pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as well.

    If you are interested in this sort of thing on the local level, I would suggest getting involved with or reading up on the material published by the organization Strong Towns. It is actually not so hard to get a bike lane built in a town or city as long as you know what to ask for and actually make the effort.

    13 votes

  10. Comment on The cycling revolution in Paris continues: Bicycle use now exceeds car use in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link
    Comment box Scope: personal reaction Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Like Amsterdam, this is the result of good policy decisions. Paris has not always been a cycling city. For many...
    • Exemplary
    Comment box
    • Scope: personal reaction
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Like Amsterdam, this is the result of good policy decisions. Paris has not always been a cycling city. For many years there is no way you would ever see me on a bicycle there. And many areas of Paris are still absolutely overwhelmed by automobiles (Arc de Triomphe is very unpleasant, and Champs-Elysees still has too many cars for my taste). But the mayor's initiatives into dedicated, safe bicycle infrastructure has made a resounding impact on the way people get around. In addition to the city's world-class metro and light rail system, effort has been made to keep the city walkable and pleasant for pedestrians.

    Because I currently live in the United States, I am always concerned with American cities. Almost universally, they have pretty poor bicycle infrastructure. In many ways they resemble Paris pre-2015 (ish). The conversation is always "BUT THE CYCLIST WENT THROUGH A RED LIGHT" or "But you can't cycle in the winter!!!1!" This completely neglects the innumerable safety problems associated with automobiles as well as the utterly irreconcilable issue of space-inefficiency, which necessarily causes absurd congestion all times of the day. (In a fairly large city, endless car traffic is a physically impossible problem to solve without either making the transportation system more multi-modal, or de-densifying to such an extent that the city becomes economically unfeasible as a location to live and work.)

    I think people who live in or travel through cities ought to appreciate that driving a car should not always be considered the default way to get around in such places. The full-sized automobile is an inefficient, congestion-inducing, dangerous, noisy, and frankly ugly piece of machinery to which there are many better alternatives in even vaguely dense areas. I think Paris is well on its way toward reversing the 20th century's poor decision-making and machine-first thinking. Better to replace that with human-first thinking.

    This starts with infrastructure, not manual or even automated enforcement of traffic laws (although that is still useful sometimes). Bicycles need proper, separated lanes; physical protection from automobiles; bike-specific traffic lights; bicycle parking amenities; road diets; curb extensions; and so on. Putting police officers on bikes rather than in cars also encourages enforcement of bike-specific safety issues (issues almost universally caused by car drivers) and can also keep the police force better in touch with the communities they serve. Cities also need to invest the bare minimum of maintenance, like sweeping trash from bike lanes (there are many machines that can do this). All of these factors I mention are things that cities around the world have invested huge sums of money into for automobiles, to such an extent that our society has become poorer, more stratified, and more ecologically destructive. Shifting some of that attention away from automobiles and toward bicycles is not only possible, but one of the environmentally and socially most beneficial things we can do as a species.

    26 votes

  11. Comment on New EPA regulation requires coal plants in the United States to reduce 90 percent of their greenhouse pollution by 2039 (gifted link) in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Gas is a different energy source than coal. It has different characteristics both environmentally...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: none
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Gas is a different energy source than coal. It has different characteristics both environmentally and health-wise. EPA has already signaled that they are skeptical of methane gas as an energy source for environmental reasons and the current administration has halted permitting of new gas plants. But the article does say that future (hypothetical) gas plants are seeing new regulations, which will limit future emissions:

    Under the new regulations, future natural gas plants that generate electricity at the rate of at least 40 percent of their maximum annual capacity would have to reduce their emissions 90 percent by 2032. New gas plants that generate electricity at less than 40 percent of their maximum annual capacity would be required to use low-polluting technology, such as energy-efficient turbines.

    Emphasis is mine. The purpose of this rule's application to future gas projects is to discourage utilities from switching from coal to gas. The goal is to get them to switch from goal to something actually green.

    As for the coal plants, this regulation compresses the timeline for 90% emissions reduction by a year (from 2040 to 2039). That is not "nothing." Remember that an EPA decision that would immediately put an economically significant corporation out of business would, generally speaking, be overturned in court just as quickly.

    But technically, the paragraph you're looking at is misleading. The real timeline is this:

    Under the plan, coal plants that are slated to operate through or beyond 2039 must reduce their greenhouse emissions 90 percent by 2032. Plants that are scheduled to close by 2039 would have to reduce their emissions 16 percent by 2030. Plants that retire before 2032 would not be subject to the rules.

    Emphasis is mine. The regulation compresses the categorization of plants with different life expectancies, but still presents a timeline for the near future. Plants that expect to exist for a long time have until 2032 (that's 8 years, not 15) to get to a 90% emissions reduction. And obviously that is not going to happen all at once; it will be incremental over the next eight years. That means that in as little as, say, one or two years, we could start to see some reductions.

    The article also writes:

    The E.P.A. also imposed three additional regulations on coal-burning power plants, including stricter limits on emissions of mercury, a neurotoxin linked to developmental damage in children, from plants that burn lignite coal, the lowest grade of coal. The rules also more tightly restrict the seepage of toxic ash from coal plants into water supplies and limit the discharge of wastewater from coal plants.

    That is significant. Again, hardly "nothing." And this part of the regulation would go into effect much more immediately than the emissions limits.

    It's worth reiterating that the overarching reason the EPA has to take such an incremental and narrow approach to regulation is that, as the article mentions, the Supreme Court restricted the EPA's ability to mandate a move away from coal.

    15 votes

  12. Comment on Why is your train delayed? Common signalling system faults. in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link
    Comment box Scope: summary Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Most train delays are a result of signaling system failures. The specific causes of these failures are manifold. This...
    Comment box
    • Scope: summary
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: none
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Most train delays are a result of signaling system failures. The specific causes of these failures are manifold. This video discusses a number of possible causes of physical and electrical failures that lead to delays. It also describes some of the methods signalers use to solve these problems.

    2 votes

  14. Comment on Rooftop solar panels are flooding California’s grid. That’s a problem. in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: information, comment response Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none It was a good comment and you’re asking a good question. The answer is ultimately not a matter of...
    Comment box
    • Scope: information, comment response
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: none
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    It was a good comment and you’re asking a good question. The answer is ultimately not a matter of percentages but of cost of implementation, which is location-specific in much the way nameplate capacity is.

    I’m also kind of speaking about the future in a vague way and not right now (because right now, the generation gap is immense).

    There are economic and political reasons that some tech will be employed in some area—not just its theoretical efficiency. And in some places there may even be greater perceived or actual value in overbuilding renewable infrastructure to account for rogue efficiency drops, even if that means a certain amount of idle equipment.

    As a point of comparison, civil engineers design structures to withstand theoretical “100-year events” (or 200, or 50, or 10000…) based on the value of the structure relative to the cost/risk of various solutions. In these cases the issue isn’t that they can’t build a dam a thousand feet high, it’s that an actuarial table tells them not to. But they could, if sufficiently motivated, ignore such a table (in either direction).

    The other thing I neglected to mention is nuclear power, which is admittedly hard to modularize (though people are attempting). A place like Germany has willingly chosen not to invest in nuclear energy for political reasons mostly, and thus has shot itself in the foot as far as “renewable stability” is concerned. Like most problems, we create them ourselves.

    Very long-term (end of the century), there will very likely be a viable method of generating electricity using fusion. We are already decently far along. That’s not really a climate change solution though. Too far out.

    4 votes

  15. Comment on Amazon grows to over 750,000 robots as world's second-largest private employer replaces over 100,000 humans in ~tech

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: information, personal perspective Tone: neutral Opinion: I suppose so Sarcasm/humor: none US unemployment is extremely low right now, at around 3.8%, so I have a hard time...
    Comment box
    • Scope: information, personal perspective
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: I suppose so
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    US unemployment is extremely low right now, at around 3.8%, so I have a hard time believing that there are “less jobs [fundamentally] available”.. I see how automation can be a problem in an extreme situation, but inefficient societal uses of resources (such as to pay workers to do a menial task) is not ideal. It is more useful for effort to be expended in places where humans excel, which appears to be the case here (or at least could be the case).

    There are so many ways society can spend capital. Any of those ways will put food on the table. I’m certainly not opposed to government intervention in order to ensure that people aren’t left without a support mechanism—New Deal-type work to do useful things while also providing employment. I just think there is a tendency for progressive minded people on our website to “CORPORATION BAD” in these discussions when what’s happening is just the market shifting over time. (I say this as someone very skeptical of corporations… see my ~enviro threads.)

    5 votes

  16. Comment on Amazon grows to over 750,000 robots as world's second-largest private employer replaces over 100,000 humans in ~tech

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: prompt Tone: neutral Opinion: not explicitly Sarcasm/humor: none Has Amazon laid off 100,000 people doing menial labor? Or have 100,000 people found different, perhaps...
    Comment box
    • Scope: prompt
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: not explicitly
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Has Amazon laid off 100,000 people doing menial labor? Or have 100,000 people found different, perhaps better-paying jobs, perhaps doing something with AI over the course of three years? That company has incredible turnover as people change jobs for unrelated reasons. The article is unspecific.

    6 votes

  17. Comment on Rooftop solar panels are flooding California’s grid. That’s a problem. in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: underlying my comment, yes Sarcasm/humor: none Enhanced geothermal systems could supply consistent energy in cases where traditional wind and...
    Comment box
    • Scope: information
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: underlying my comment, yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Enhanced geothermal systems could supply consistent energy in cases where traditional wind and solar can only take part of the demand. Newer geothermal technology doesn't need to exist everywhere or cover 100% of electricity use; it just needs to cover the generation gap between solar+wind real capacity and consumer demand.

    With those three sources in tandem, the amount of long-term energy storage required (sand batteries, etc.) for a community becomes relatively small. Not nothing, but far more feasible.

    It is also worth noting that solar cell efficiency has increased over time, both in laboratory settings and in consumer-available products. New types of solar cells, such as perovskites, now have higher theoretical efficiencies than silicon cells. (They aren't expensive either. In this case, the work that remains to be done mostly has to do with extending the lifetime of the cells.)

    Likewise, wind turbines are constantly changing. Efficiency improvements so far have largely come from larger wingspans, which has its limits, but simulation research indicates that slight modifications to the curvature of the blades to resemble condor wings could result in a 10% boost to efficiency. This new design requires no more space than current ones.

    Thus current production gaps from solar and wind can be expected to decrease as the technology improves. And unlike some other kinds of technology, both of these areas are promising (especially solar).

    Transmission infrastructure is always going to be necessary in some capacity to maintain a healthy grid during extreme localized weather events and other catastrophes, but I think it's quite safe to say that moving toward a semi-decentralized model using renewables is both feasible and worthwhile.

    6 votes

  18. Comment on Indiana will test a highway that can charge moving vehicles in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment reaction, opinion Tone: humorous, then informational/neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: sarcastic first sentence, the rest is serious But don't you want to drive on a...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment reaction, opinion
    • Tone: humorous, then informational/neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: sarcastic first sentence, the rest is serious

    But don't you want to drive on a wireless FREAKING roadway?

    For reference, the per-mile cost of installing catenary wires on a train track in the US is about $4.5 million per km (or $7.3 million/mile). That's expensive, but only because it's the US, where we don't know how to build infrastructure (and refuse to learn from other countries). In countries with better construction practices, like France, the cost is more like 1/3 of that. Even less in places like New Zealand.

    The base cost of building a highway in the US is apparently around $19 million/mile ($12 million/km), though I've seen estimates well over double that for the same kind of road. Being extremely generous, the paving of a single lane on a highway is in the millions per mile (a "major [arterial] road" around $1.7 million/mi according to this page; but highways are built to higher standards). That number is an underestimate because it omits the cost to destroy existing pavement to install the wires (with all associated delays), so you can probably double it. Then multiply that by at least 4 for the cost of a small highway. So ~$14 million/mi is, at the bare minimum, double the cost of electrification of a passenger railroad and would likely leave you with a lower theoretical throughput (and definitely a lower maximum speed). The additional copper wiring would skyrocket the cost to greater proportions... it would be at least as expensive as catenary wires ON TOP of the road work. Completely unfeasible.

    My calculations aren't scientific at all, but even if you are pretty lenient, the costs are exorbitant.

    5 votes

  19. Comment on Indiana will test a highway that can charge moving vehicles in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link
    Comment box Scope: summary, opinion Tone: deeply skeptical Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none An experiment in Indiana, USA to wirelessly charge electric vehicles along a highway while those...
    Comment box
    • Scope: summary, opinion
    • Tone: deeply skeptical
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    An experiment in Indiana, USA to wirelessly charge electric vehicles along a highway while those vehicles are in motion.

    Cars and trucks must be equipped with special receivers for the wireless charging to work, meaning current models are incompatible. The coils are installed underground and use magnetic fields to deliver the electricity wirelessly.

    I think this article is funny because the technical solution being described here is essentially an inefficient version of a catenary wire powering an electric train. Unlike a catenary wire, in which the train's pantograph makes contact with the wire aboveground, this experiment tries to wirelessly charge cars from underneath the pavement. It also has a speed limit of 65mph, above which it apparently doesn't work.

    The article does not estimate how much charging could happen while driving a particular unit distance along a highway. My guess is not a whole lot, but I could be wrong.

    Contactless charging is usually relatively inefficient. Copper is expensive. Building/rebuilding long stretches of highways is extremely expensive. Digging up highways to do maintenance on power delivery systems (as opposed to doing work above ground) sounds quite expensive too, not to mention how disruptive that would be to throughput compared to conventional aboveground work. And remember that highways are already inefficient and expensive in their current state. They aren't great ways to move a lot of people quickly or safely (space-inefficient, friction-inefficient, prone to crashes), and they cost more than you think to maintain. Making that whole process even more expensive to operate is probably not workable.

    So this solution is not really a solution, just a way for a state Department of Transportation to waste a lot of money on highways instead of investing in technologies that are more efficient to begin with, like... fully electrified inter-city passenger rail, and even zero-emission freight rail. Or, I don't know, the bare minimum of building more rapid charging stations along interstates, including some such stations for long-haul delivery trucks.

    Indiana could do a lot better. It chooses not to. My recommendation to residents of this state and every other state is to vote for political candidates who support funding for useful transportation projects (especially railroads) and who will subsequently appoint leaders to Departments of Transportation to carry out that mission without pretending it's 1955 where expensive car-centric infrastructure will always the solution to every problem.

    12 votes