7 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Maybe the lithium can be recycled once enough of it is in circulation (and other lithium-free battery technologies complement them).  But don't forget that petroleum elephant in the room -- roadways.  And heavier EVs will cause more wear (more potholes to repair).

 

Also one of the largest sources of ocean pollutants is tire dust. EV's aren't the way, which is why walkable neighborhoods are the future.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyres-are-major-source-of-ocean-microplastics-study

4 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

they are quite willing to defend it if they see the need, and retain more than enough clout to do so.  Careful....

 

26 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Maybe the lithium can be recycled once enough of it is in circulation (and other lithium-free battery technologies complement them).  But don't forget that petroleum elephant in the room -- roadways.  And heavier EVs will cause more wear (more potholes to repair).

If I understand correctly, lithium batteries have to be dissembled by hand and have to be done in a specific way to prevent explosion. As demand, and prices, increase, I'm sure someone will figure out a more efficient way to recycle them but recycling is more of a mitigation technique. It's also not clear if lithium alternatives will actually pan out.

2 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

 

You know, you claim to be involved in practical politics, but unless you are very different there and just vent here, I don't get it.  Though when I look at the current Ohio Democratic Party, maybe I do.

 

You don't think the suburbs have the political clout to defend their lifestyle?

58 minutes ago, Dev said:

Will it though? Aren't we just trading one commodity (petroleum) for another (lithium)?

 

There's some potential to extracting lithium from seawater, which is the least scarce commodity on the planet.

31 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Also one of the largest sources of ocean pollutants is tire dust. EV's aren't the way, which is why walkable neighborhoods are the future.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyres-are-major-source-of-ocean-microplastics-study

 

That's solvable by engineering means.

22 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

You know, you claim to be involved in practical politics, but unless you are very different there and just vent here, I don't get it.  Though when I look at the current Ohio Democratic Party, maybe I do.

 

You don't think the suburbs have the political clout to defend their lifestyle?

Tell me again how it is the Left guilty of endlessly pursuing #theculturewars in our country?

 

One poster advocates for more sustainable, urban-centric development patterns, and that becomes “they are quite willing to defend it if they see the need, and retain more than enough clout to do so.  Careful....”

 

and “defend their lifestyle”

 

This type of absolutist rhetoric is what’s wrong with American political discourse today. 

 

35 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Though when I look at the current Ohio Democratic Party, maybe I do.

 

 

 

Is that you Gym Jordan...Ha!

36 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

That's solvable by engineering means.

 

Too bad solvable doesn't equate to economical.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

Maybe the lithium can be recycled once enough of it is in circulation (and other lithium-free battery technologies complement them).  But don't forget that petroleum elephant in the room -- roadways.  And heavier EVs will cause more wear (more potholes to repair).

 

Potholes are going to be a reality of life in Ohio--even if you built a road here and didn't drive on it for years, not even with a bicycle, it will accumulate potholes.

 

1 hour ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Also one of the largest sources of ocean pollutants is tire dust. EV's aren't the way, which is why walkable neighborhoods are the future.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyres-are-major-source-of-ocean-microplastics-study

 

1 hour ago, Clefan98 said:

 

 

Serious question, to what extent do you seriously think you can vote the suburbs out of existence?  Or do you really think we're on the brink of an ecological collapse so dire that it will change the calculus of what is politically possible and/or necessary?  You think that people will give up suburbs because of microplastics in the oceans (and I note that you said "pollutants" when you meant one specific form of pollutant).

 

I can already hear your keyboard warming up with "that's not what I'm talking about" or "no one said that" or some such deflection, but it clearly is what E Rocc was talking about when he talked about suburbanites defending their lifestyle.  Suburbanites vote in large numbers and will vote in large numbers against people whose aversion to autocentric development is strong enough to make them directly hostile to suburbs rather than merely promoting cities as a viable alternative and a world of plentiful options for both land uses.

 

1 hour ago, Dev said:

Will it though? Aren't we just trading one commodity (petroleum) for another (lithium)?

 

We are, in the same way that we traded one commodity (horses) for another (petroleum) more than a century ago.

 

Of course it's a trade.  The real point is that it's a very favorable trade, for both technological and political reasons.

 

Politically, the top five countries in terms of proven lithium reserves are, in order, Chile, Australia, Argentina, China, and the U.S. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/268790/countries-with-the-largest-lithium-reserves-worldwide/).  Maybe not perfect but a major upgrade on the areas responsible for most world petroleum exports.

 

Technologically, lithium batteries degrade but are not consumed the way gasoline is.  My Tesla is now 3.5 years old and charges up to 296 miles; it was 310 when I bought it.  That's not that bad a degradation rate, especially when you keep in mind that ICE cars don't stay in pristine condition forever, either, and they have a lot more ways things can break down.

I don't see how we avoid tire particulates entering the atmosphere, and I don't see how we remove tire particulates from the atmosphere once they are released. As long as we are collectively driving over 8 billion miles every day, this is going to be a massive problem. Short of hovercars, we are going to need to have contact with the roadway, and that contact is going to degrade the surface of the tire, which will be sent into the atmosphere.

 

We are having a big enough problem solving microplastics in the environment. Tire particulates and brake dust are probably not getting removed from the environment in my lifetime.

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

Politically, the top five countries in terms of proven lithium reserves are, in order, Chile, Australia, Argentina, China, and the U.S. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/268790/countries-with-the-largest-lithium-reserves-worldwide/).  Maybe not perfect but a major upgrade on the areas responsible for most world petroleum exports.

It sounds like you are proving my point for me. If only a handful of countries control a major resource, they will wield those reserves as a weapon. So instead of despotic petro-states we have now, we'll have a different set of despotic lithium-states in the future.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

There's some potential to extracting lithium from seawater, which is the least scarce commodity on the planet.

Emphasis on 'some.' Sounds like fracking but for lithium. What price does lithium need to get for this to be economically viable?

 

4 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

I don't see how we avoid tire particulates entering the atmosphere, and I don't see how we remove tire particulates from the atmosphere once they are released. As long as we are collectively driving over 8 billion miles every day, this is going to be a massive problem. Short of hovercars, we are going to need to have contact with the roadway, and that contact is going to degrade the surface of the tire, which will be sent into the atmosphere.

 

We are having a big enough problem solving microplastics in the environment. Tire particulates and brake dust are probably not getting removed from the environment in my lifetime.

 

Pretty much by definition, tire wear and tire particulates are related.  So increasing tire life, which has economic benefits, would reduce tire particulates.     Likewise brakes.   Electric cars also have regenerative braking.

4 hours ago, brtshrcegr said:

Tell me again how it is the Left guilty of endlessly pursuing #theculturewars in our country?

 

One poster advocates for more sustainable, urban-centric development patterns, and that becomes “they are quite willing to defend it if they see the need, and retain more than enough clout to do so.  Careful....”

 

and “defend their lifestyle”

 

This type of absolutist rhetoric is what’s wrong with American political discourse today. 

 

What's absolutist?   I'd say the problem with American political discourse today is the assumption of motives.   Or reading things in the most radical way possible.

 

Let's say township A passes lot size limitations and bans multifamily housing.   Is that extreme?   I would say no.

 

Let's say the residents of township B lobby the state legislature to protect their right to enact these laws.   Is that defending their lifestyle?  I would say yes.

 

Most tires' trreadwear ratings are already so high now that most of the time tires age out before they go bald.

3 hours ago, Dev said:

It sounds like you are proving my point for me. If only a handful of countries control a major resource, they will wield those reserves as a weapon. So instead of despotic petro-states we have now, we'll have a different set of despotic lithium-states in the future.

 

There is a risk that they will use them as a weapon--Chile and Argentina could potentially be anchors of a new OPEC in that sense.  (OLEC?)  But there's a limit to how much future planning should be based on catastrophizing.  The more likely scenario is that Chile, Argentina, and Australia will be happy to sell their resources on the world market (an increasingly lucrative one, from their perspective, though of course an increasingly expensive one from ours),while China and the US use most of their production in domestic manufacturing.

 

2 hours ago, Dev said:

Emphasis on 'some.' Sounds like fracking but for lithium. What price does lithium need to get for this to be economically viable?

 

How would we know this any more than we would know what kinds of improvements in fracking technology would be possible and what the economic consequences of that for oil and natgas would be back in 1980?  (Or 1960?)

 

Also, lithium prices have already increased more than fivefold in the last five years (https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium).  At this point, I think the question is more how feasible and how scalable the process is.

 

7 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Pretty much by definition, tire wear and tire particulates are related.  So increasing tire life, which has economic benefits, would reduce tire particulates.     Likewise brakes.   Electric cars also have regenerative braking.

 

They do, but the benefits of that aren't enough to make up for the stress of heavier vehicles going from 0-60 in 4.1.  My OEMs had to be replaced at 19,000 miles.

  

1 minute ago, GCrites80s said:

Most tires' trreadwear ratings are already so high now that most of the time tires age out before they go bald.

 

Heh.  I certainly hope I can say the same vis-a-vis my new ones.  But see above.

2 hours ago, Dev said:

Emphasis on 'some.' Sounds like fracking but for lithium. What price does lithium need to get for this to be economically viable?

 

https://electrek.co/2021/06/04/scientists-have-cost-effectively-harvested-lithium-from-seawater/

 

If it's in Saudi Arabia, it's likely tied into effective de-salinization, another game changer.

4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Serious question, to what extent do you seriously think you can vote the suburbs out of existence?  Or do you really think we're on the brink of an ecological collapse so dire that it will change the calculus of what is politically possible and/or necessary?  You think that people will give up suburbs because of microplastics in the oceans (and I note that you said "pollutants" when you meant one specific form of pollutant).

 

I can already hear your keyboard warming up with "that's not what I'm talking about" or "no one said that" or some such deflection, but it clearly is what E Rocc was talking about when he talked about suburbanites defending their lifestyle.  Suburbanites vote in large numbers and will vote in large numbers against people whose aversion to autocentric development is strong enough to make them directly hostile to suburbs rather than merely promoting cities as a viable alternative and a world of plentiful options for both land uses.

 

 

Affinity for private transportation isn't just a suburbs thing.  As you pointed out,  your urban neighbors would be implacably opposed to attempts to restrict or semi-forcibly reduce its use.   As for rural folks, that opposition is a given.

 

It's kind of like the "a word" in a discussion of regionalization.   It's a good way to keep people who might agree with your views on specific points opposed on general principles.

Edited May 31, 20223 yr by E Rocc
Brain lock, inadvertent word choice reversing the meaning of the opening sentence.

16 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

 

 

They do, but the benefits of that aren't enough to make up for the stress of heavier vehicles going from 0-60 in 4.1.  My OEMs had to be replaced at 19,000 miles.

  

 

Heh.  I certainly hope I can say the same vis-a-vis my new ones.  But see above.

 

That's true, EVs wear them out much more quickly.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

Affinity for private transportation isn't just a suburbs thing.  As you pointed out,  your urban neighbors would be implacably opposed to attempts to restrict or semi-forcibly reduce its use.   As for rural folks, that opposition is a given.

 

Yes, private transportation is wonderful.  Almost no one is against "private transportation" as a concept, but there are a lot of people who have criticisms for building in such a way that a private vehicle is the only alternative for transportation -- the dependence is the problem. 

 

When we collectively choose to spend almost all transportation dollars on roadways that can only be used by cars, the people who can afford them, and the people who can drive -- we effectively exclude many of the poor, the disabled, and the elderly from a path to being productive members of society.

 

Private cars are not going to disappear, but we don't need as many as we currently have and we don't need to be driving as many miles as many people already do.  We need to spend more to maintain the most important roadways and bridges, and we need to encourage behavior that reduces the maintenance costs on the already maintenance-underfunded roadways and bridges. 

17 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

The last line is bordering on Sim City Syndrome here.   While suburbanites are not nearly as prone to prosletyzing their lifestyle as urbanites (understandable, as those who actually prefer residential density need others to do so), they are quite willing to defend it if they see the need, and retain more than enough clout to do so.  Careful....

 

Hmmm....suburbanites living preferences are enshrined into our political geography through the creation of suburbs, into laws in the form of zoning regulation, into our transportation system via it's nearly singular focus on cars, into our tax system in the form of mortgage deductions, into our finance system in banks longstanding preference for financing easily commodifiable suburban tract home developments, and into our culture through all manner of media that assumes suburban living as the default mode even through it is the newest form of human habitation.

 

And if you ever attend a public meeting relating to any sort of planning or development, you'll find that they are quite vocal about proselytizing for their suburban living standards!

16 hours ago, Gramarye said:

I'm well aware that demand outstrips supply, but that's because new builds in dense, walkable, mixed-use, transit-friendly areas are probably something like 5% or 10% of total new development.  That number could become much higher to address true market demand and still be nowhere close to 100% or even 50%.

  

The old three S's: space, safety, and schools.

 

Speaking of safety (and that desire for more space), this is definitely the thread to mention that the leading cause of death for children in the USA is traditionally due to automobile crashes. 

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

Edited June 1, 20223 yr by surfohio

7 hours ago, X said:

 

Hmmm....suburbanites living preferences are enshrined into our political geography through the creation of suburbs, into laws in the form of zoning regulation, into our transportation system via it's nearly singular focus on cars, into our tax system in the form of mortgage deductions, into our finance system in banks longstanding preference for financing easily commodifiable suburban tract home developments, and into our culture through all manner of media that assumes suburban living as the default mode even through it is the newest form of human habitation.

 

And if you ever attend a public meeting relating to any sort of planning or development, you'll find that they are quite vocal about proselytizing for their suburban living standards!

 

Oh I'm aware.   If you get down to the "borderlands" suburbs that fall between Akron and Cleveland and you listen to political discussion, you will hear the word "density" pronounced like I would imagine Angie Schmitt pronouncing "sprawl".  (I hate to pick on her because I actually learn things reading her, but she's the best example I could think of).

 

This is more an example of what I'm saying than anything else.   These are "of course" principles to them, and challenging them too hard can cost victories one might otherwise win.

 

"Newest form of human habitation".   One could argue that it evolved from seeking the best of both urban and rural living.    I've done that in fact.   A big part of what kicked it into gear was rural workers moving to cities to work in war plants.   My paternal grandfather being an example.   

6 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

Speaking of safety (and that desire for more space), this is definitely the thread to mention that the leading cause of death for children in the USA is traditionally due to automobile crashes. 

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

 

But note the graph in that link.  It actually shows a steep decline in auto-related child fatalities from 1999-2011, then a shallower and bumpier decline (but still a decline) from there to 2020.

 

14 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Yes, private transportation is wonderful.  Almost no one is against "private transportation" as a concept, but there are a lot of people who have criticisms for building in such a way that a private vehicle is the only alternative for transportation -- the dependence is the problem. 

 

When we collectively choose to spend almost all transportation dollars on roadways that can only be used by cars, the people who can afford them, and the people who can drive -- we effectively exclude many of the poor, the disabled, and the elderly from a path to being productive members of society.

 

When you say "roadways that can only be used by cars," do you specifically mean limited-access highways?  Because buses and bicycles also use the roads.  The only widely-employed off-road transit system is rail, and I assume you're not talking about digging Venetian canals throughout most major metro downtowns.

 

8 hours ago, X said:

 

Hmmm....suburbanites living preferences are enshrined into our political geography through the creation of suburbs, into laws in the form of zoning regulation, into our transportation system via it's nearly singular focus on cars, into our tax system in the form of mortgage deductions, into our finance system in banks longstanding preference for financing easily commodifiable suburban tract home developments, and into our culture through all manner of media that assumes suburban living as the default mode even through it is the newest form of human habitation.

 

And if you ever attend a public meeting relating to any sort of planning or development, you'll find that they are quite vocal about proselytizing for their suburban living standards!

 

Agreed on all points, especially on zoning regulation, but this is a change in focus from what was being discussed upthread.

 

And with respect to your second paragraph, and as E Rocc already mentioned himself, that's exactly what he meant upthread, even though he specifically backed away from using the word "proselytizing":

 

Quote

While suburbanites are not nearly as prone to prosletyzing their lifestyle as urbanites (understandable, as those who actually prefer residential density need others to do so), they are quite willing to defend it if they see the need, and retain more than enough clout to do so.

 

Showing up at public meetings and voting in elections is what "defend" means in this context.

 

It's not just suburbanites, either, unfortunately, and it's not just high-density mixed-use development, either.  Over in the Akron Developments thread, we had discussion of two large new single-family housing developments proposed to be built in the Merriman Valley, one on an old golf course and one not far away.  These would be fairly good-sized homes sold at market rate.  For the public comments, I was one of the only ones suggesting that these were too important of parcels to develop as single-use single-family residential and should be redesigned for more density (and I knew that would be the case before I commented, but I wanted to at least break up the unanimity going the other way).  From most of the other public comments, you'd have thought they were importing a Delhi slum intact and parking it on the bank of the Cuyahoga.  Again, this is within the city limits of Akron, not out in some rural township, and people were saying that even single-family home development was too dense (and this is in an area that is starving for development).

 

  

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Oh I'm aware.   If you get down to the "borderlands" suburbs that fall between Akron and Cleveland and you listen to political discussion, you will hear the word "density" pronounced like I would imagine Angie Schmitt pronouncing "sprawl".  (I hate to pick on her because I actually learn things reading her, but she's the best example I could think of).

 

See my response to X immediately above.  It isn't just in the borderlands suburbs and exurbs.  I hear this even within the city of Akron itself, in our less developed areas.

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

When you say "roadways that can only be used by cars," do you specifically mean limited-access highways?  Because buses and bicycles also use the roads.  The only widely-employed off-road transit system is rail, and I assume you're not talking about digging Venetian canals throughout most major metro downtowns.

Right, we abandoned the canal infrastructure long ago and it probably isn't coming back because it's too slow.  I'm all for creating an "Ohio Venice" somewhere -- maybe on the shores of Grand Lake St. Mary's, a man-made reservoir built to supply the canal, but I'm not in favor of spending our limited infrastructure dollars on creating such a tourist attraction.

 

You imply that a kid can use any roadway, but how many roads would you let a 5-year-old bike on?  Any roadway with a speed limit over 35mph is designed for cars, not the safety of kids riding their bikes.  And that is the vast majority of roadways in Ohio.  And very very few rural routes have a public bus; only roads within the big cities are used by buses.

 

I'm talking about where we are spending our state transportation dollars -- and it's on those roadways that are designed for and used by private cars.  We should diversify our transportation options, and that means diversifying what we spend our transportation dollars on.  The current budget includes $3.8B for transportation (not including law enforcement), Of that, Ohio is spending $0.074B on public transit (1.9%) and $0.007B on rail, airports, and maritime transportation combined (0.18%).

 

We are currently spending 98% of transportation dollars in this state on roadways that are primarily used by private cars,  We should diversify that spending to provide more bus routes, more train routes (passenger AND freight), more bus-rapid-transit, more streetcars, more separated bike lines, more sidewalks (separated walking paths), and better port facilities.  I'm suggesting we try spending 75% of our transportation dollars on roads, not 98%.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

Right, we abandoned the canal infrastructure long ago and it probably isn't coming back because it's too slow.  I'm all for creating an "Ohio Venice" somewhere -- maybe on the shores of Grand Lake St. Mary's, a man-made reservoir built to supply the canal, but I'm not in favor of spending our limited infrastructure dollars on creating such a tourist attraction.

 

You imply that a kid can use any roadway, but how many roads would you let a 5-year-old bike on?  Any roadway with a speed limit over 35mph is designed for cars, not the safety of kids riding their bikes.  And that is the vast majority of roadways in Ohio.  And very very few rural routes have a public bus; only roads within the big cities are used by buses.

 

I'm talking about where we are spending our state transportation dollars -- and it's on those roadways that are designed for and used by private cars.  We should diversify our transportation options, and that means diversifying what we spend our transportation dollars on.  The current budget includes $3.8B for transportation (not including law enforcement), Of that, Ohio is spending $0.074B on public transit (1.9%) and $0.007B on rail, airports, and maritime transportation combined (0.18%).

 

We are currently spending 98% of transportation dollars in this state on roadways that are primarily used by private cars,  We should diversify that spending to provide more bus routes, more train routes (passenger AND freight), more bus-rapid-transit, more streetcars, more separated bike lines, more sidewalks (separated walking paths), and better port facilities.  I'm suggesting we try spending 75% of our transportation dollars on roads, not 98%.

 

I don't the question about where I would let a 5-year-old bike is fair, though.  A fairer question is where I'd let a 16-year-old bike, at least if we're talking about true commuting (i.e., viable replacements for road traffic).

 

https://amatsplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/AMATS-Bike-Users-Map.pdf (there used to be a much larger online-friendly version of this map but I can't find it right now, unfortunately).

 

To be clear, I wouldn't bike myself on any of the red routes in Summit County, except ones that I know have sidewalks.  My kids aren't even ready for green ones yet.

 

But rural roads are not going to be replaced with rural rails (or bike trails, at least not a primary commuter routes).  And bus routes are roads, except in the case of things like BRT, though as you note, very few rural roads have buses, either.  Therefore, rural roads are going to be roads for personal vehicles, since there's almost no other form of transportation viable out there.

 

As for your math: I haven't checked those numbers of yours myself, but if they are as you say, then what you're suggesting is increasing the non-road transportation spending in this state by a factor of 12.

18 hours ago, Gramarye said:

while China and the US use most of their production in domestic manufacturing.

 

 

This is not true of either country today.

 

18 hours ago, Gramarye said:

How would we know this any more than we would know what kinds of improvements in fracking technology would be possible and what the economic consequences of that for oil and natgas would be back in 1980?  (Or 1960?)

 

Also, lithium prices have already increased more than fivefold in the last five years (https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium).  At this point, I think the question is more how feasible and how scalable the process is.

 

Lol fracking would never have been invented if US leadership hadn't forced car dependency on everyone because it wouldn't have been needed. So yes, car dependency is bad and it's real clear that the current path for EV development is just more of the same.

 

18 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

https://electrek.co/2021/06/04/scientists-have-cost-effectively-harvested-lithium-from-seawater/

 

If it's in Saudi Arabia, it's likely tied into effective de-salinization, another game changer.

Very interesting but that doesn't prove that it's economically viable. The headline really oversells what the researchers have achieved.

 

28 minutes ago, Dev said:

Lol fracking would never have been invented if US leadership hadn't forced car dependency on everyone because it wouldn't have been needed. So yes, car dependency is bad and it's real clear that the current path for EV development is just more of the same.

 

Here's the thing about leadership and what they force on everyone: This isn't Russia or China.  Leaders were responding to the demand for suburban living, not creating it.  I think you still have this image in your head of all these miserable people trapped in the suburbs, just as too many suburbanites have this image of all those miserable people still trapped in the cities and "glad we got out."

6 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Here's the thing about leadership and what they force on everyone: This isn't Russia or China.  Leaders were responding to the demand for suburban living, not creating it.  I think you still have this image in your head of all these miserable people trapped in the suburbs, just as too many suburbanites have this image of all those miserable people still trapped in the cities and "glad we got out."

 

At the risk of spilling over to sprawl thread topics, it was more like a cultural perfect storm following WWII.  Politicians that didn't go along didn't get to be leaders.

46 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

 

This is not true of either country today.

 

 

Lol fracking would never have been invented if US leadership hadn't forced car dependency on everyone because it wouldn't have been needed. So yes, car dependency is bad and it's real clear that the current path for EV development is just more of the same.

 

Very interesting but that doesn't prove that it's economically viable. The headline really oversells what the researchers have achieved.

 

 

At this point it's engineering, not science.   More often than not, engineering finds a way.

29 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

At this point it's engineering, not science.   More often than not, engineering finds a way.

This doesn't mean anything.

 

There are limits to engineering our way out of things. We have approached that limit with many issues. We need to change the way society functions. We can't keep throwing money at the problem and thinking everything will be okay (or saying someone should throw money at the problem and then doing nothing).

 

Half of engineering is economics. If a solution to a problem even is possible, it needs to make economic sense to implement. No one is going to buy a hypothetical $30k tire to stop particulates from being released. We need to drive less.

36 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

At this point it's engineering, not science.   More often than not, engineering finds a way.

A sucker's born every minute.

  

38 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Here's the thing about leadership and what they force on everyone: This isn't Russia or China.  Leaders were responding to the demand for suburban living, not creating it.  I think you still have this image in your head of all these miserable people trapped in the suburbs, just as too many suburbanites have this image of all those miserable people still trapped in the cities and "glad we got out."

No I do not. I have the image of all the people forcibly displaced for all the highway construction that allowed the auto suburbs to be viable.

I don't think you understand what leadership is. Plowing over neighborhoods because some of your constituents bought into marketing propaganda is not leadership.

^but it is politicking!

1 hour ago, Dev said:

 

Lol fracking would never have been invented if US leadership hadn't forced car dependency on everyone because it wouldn't have been needed. So yes, car dependency is bad and it's real clear that the current path for EV development is just more of the same.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Dev said:

I don't think you understand what leadership is. Plowing over neighborhoods because some of your constituents bought into marketing propaganda is not leadership.

 

So it was "leadership" that "forced car dependency on everyone" but "not leadership" to be "plowing over neighborhoods?"

 

I don't think I'm the one using the term leadership inconsistently here.

25 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

This doesn't mean anything.

 

There are limits to engineering our way out of things. We have approached that limit with many issues. We need to change the way society functions. We can't keep throwing money at the problem and thinking everything will be okay (or saying someone should throw money at the problem and then doing nothing).

 

Half of engineering is economics. If a solution to a problem even is possible, it needs to make economic sense to implement. No one is going to buy a hypothetical $30k tire to stop particulates from being released. We need to drive less.

 

More than half of engineering is economics, it's closer to 90%.

 

One thing I've noticed in the last decade or two, the left/Democrats prefer social controls as a response to issues.  The right/Republicans are split:  some want such as a response to cultural issues, but for the most part we prefer scientific/engineering solutions.  Progress, in other words.   It's ironic who is called the "progressives" and who is called the "conservatives".

^That's because only wealthy white guys thrive under complete deregulation while everyone else suffers.

14 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

One thing *I've* noticed

 

FYI: using anecdotal evidence to prove a point is one of the first sins of intellectual dishonesty.

Edited June 1, 20223 yr by Clefan98

8 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

^That's because only wealthy white guys thrive under complete deregulation while everyone else suffers.

 

Wealthy white guys depend on bagholders like erocc to thrive.

Edited June 1, 20223 yr by Clefan98

4 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

More than half of engineering is economics, it's closer to 90%.

 

I'm not sure about this.  Or at least you have to know a lot of subtext in order to accept this.

 

For example, I see articles routinely these days about advanced photovoltaics being designed in the lab that have greater efficiency than today's mass-market solar panels.  I follow those news because, per my thoughts above, autocentric development is here to stay, and the best way to make it environmentally sustainable and green is with EVs and rooftop solar.  (This would also be more energy-secure because a distributed-generation model is more redundant.)  So I see tons of such articles, and yet the efficiency of existing widely available panels doesn't move that much. 

 

Taking your statement at face value, you'd predict that these newly designed panels in the labs are just too expensive to mass-produce.

 

But that's not it.  What I usually find when I investigate further is that these lab-produced successes are too delicate for real-world use, exposed to the elements 24/7.  If you want the construction industry to take you seriously, you have to offer them a product that can withstand heat, cold, water, etc.

 

I see similar stories with respect to batteries for EVs, with lots of articles written in breathless tones about new materials that are lightweight and hold amazing amounts of charge.  I expected for the other shoe to drop that they were just so much more expensive than existing models that made it into mass production, but again, I later learned that they were just too delicate for the extraordinary durability demands of the auto industry, which is even more demanding than the building industry (both sides need to be able to withstand heat, cold, wet, but a house doesn't need to be able to withstand motion and acceleration in the same way).

 

Now maybe what you meant is that the additional expense of hardening those materials for PVs and batteries is prohibitive, without reference to what kind of engineering that would take, but I still think of those as engineering problems, not economic problems.

If Car dependency is a good thing, truck drivers wouldn't have the highest obesity rates out of ALL job classifications.

Edited June 1, 20223 yr by Clefan98

4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

And with respect to your second paragraph, and as E Rocc already mentioned himself, that's exactly what he meant upthread, even though he specifically backed away from using the word "proselytizing":

 

 

 

Not intentionally, but "advocating" would have been a better word.

 

For the most part, they take their lifestyle for granted.   The majority of them don't get actively political, beyond the occasional grumble or misdirected "thank God we don't live there".  When I said "careful", the meaning was that riling them up would have political consequences.   Which I'd probably like LOL, not sure why I mentioned it.   :)

33 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

^That's because only wealthy white guys thrive under complete deregulation while everyone else suffers.

 

And only the regulators thrive in a planned economy.  Though when buying and selling is controlled by regulation and legislation, we all know what the first things bought and sold are.    

32 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

FYI: using anecdotal evidence to prove a point is one of the first sins of intellectual dishonesty.

 

FYI constantly reaching for the ad hominem is *not* one of the first signs of anyone who ever accomplishes anything.   

20 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

If Car dependency is a good thing, truck drivers wouldn't have the highest obesity rates out of ALL job classifications.

 

Completely irrelevant anecdotes are a sign of one who is more interesting in fooling people, or trolling, than getting things done.

Auto centric development is a value-based decision. We choose to subsidize the crap out of it because we are unaware that we subsidize the crap out it. Without the subsidies, we would not choose auto-centric development because few of us could ever afford to use it. And when we travel to the rest of the civilized world which values walkability, we marvel at it and say how much better it is. Then we come back to car-toon America and say it cannot be done here because ________ even though it was done here that way when users had to pay market price for what they used. Remember that the first motor car was invented in 1886, only two years after the first electric streetcar entered revenue service right here in Cleveland. It wasn't until the New Deal Era began busting up the electric railway syndicates and building interstate highways as public goods rather than by for-profit, shareholder-owned corporations. In our Keynesian approach to transportation policymaking, the USA has externalized so many of the economic, environmental and social costs of driving that of course we choose it because we have deluded ourselves into thinking the car is cheap when the rest of the world knows that it the most expensive and, when abused, it is also the most destructive mode of transportation.

24 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I'm not sure about this.  Or at least you have to know a lot of subtext in order to accept this.

 

For example, I see articles routinely these days about advanced photovoltaics being designed in the lab that have greater efficiency than today's mass-market solar panels.  I follow those news because, per my thoughts above, autocentric development is here to stay, and the best way to make it environmentally sustainable and green is with EVs and rooftop solar.  (This would also be more energy-secure because a distributed-generation model is more redundant.)  So I see tons of such articles, and yet the efficiency of existing widely available panels doesn't move that much. 

 

Taking your statement at face value, you'd predict that these newly designed panels in the labs are just too expensive to mass-produce.

 

But that's not it.  What I usually find when I investigate further is that these lab-produced successes are too delicate for real-world use, exposed to the elements 24/7.  If you want the construction industry to take you seriously, you have to offer them a product that can withstand heat, cold, water, etc.

 

I see similar stories with respect to batteries for EVs, with lots of articles written in breathless tones about new materials that are lightweight and hold amazing amounts of charge.  I expected for the other shoe to drop that they were just so much more expensive than existing models that made it into mass production, but again, I later learned that they were just too delicate for the extraordinary durability demands of the auto industry, which is even more demanding than the building industry (both sides need to be able to withstand heat, cold, wet, but a house doesn't need to be able to withstand motion and acceleration in the same way).

 

Now maybe what you meant is that the additional expense of hardening those materials for PVs and batteries is prohibitive, without reference to what kind of engineering that would take, but I still think of those as engineering problems, not economic problems.

 

It's what I do.   

 

Science leads to invention which leads to innovation which leads to engineering.

 

Durability, safety, and reliability are major parts of making something cost effective, which is economics when it's all said and done.

 

Example not selected at random:  you can 3D print a gun and it will fire.   It will even do so more or less accurately for a few shots without spraying or even breaking.

 

Make gun parts to super tight tolerances on CNC equipment, check the dimensions using a CMM or computerized comparator (my contributions to the process) and assemble according to documented procedures and you can make a lot of them, which will last for many, many accurate firings.

 

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Auto centric development is a value-based decision. We choose to subsidize the crap out of it because we are unaware that we subsidize the crap out it. Without the subsidies, we would not choose auto-centric development because few of us could ever afford to use it. And when we travel to the rest of the civilized world which values walkability, we marvel at it and say how much better it is. Then we come back to car-toon America and say it cannot be done here because ________ even though it was done here that way when users had to pay market price for what they used. Remember that the first motor car was invented in 1886, only two years after the first electric streetcar entered revenue service right here in Cleveland. It wasn't until the New Deal Era began busting up the electric railway syndicates and building interstate highways as public goods rather than by for-profit, shareholder-owned corporations. In our Keynesian approach to transportation policymaking, the USA has externalized so many of the economic, environmental and social costs of driving that of course we choose it because we have deluded ourselves into thinking the car is cheap when the rest of the world knows that it the most expensive and, when abused, it is also the most destructive mode of transportation.

 

We know we subsidize it.   We make that choice intentionally.   As is the case with sprawl.  The two are tightly interrelated.

 

It allows us to make use of more of the land surrounding us.   It allows us to move around it.    It keeps people working (I'm not a purist libertarian because I want to keep construction and repair skills sharp because we may need them some day).  It allows us much more independence from the powers that be than the people of the rest of the world have.  So we insist, as in this nation we have the power to do so.   That's important to us, because of our independent nature.   Which caused us to cross oceans and establish our independence by force of arms.

 

It allows us more personal space than the rest of the world expects, which is very important to us.

 

Yes, we're different from the rest of the world.   Looking at what we have accomplished I tend to suspect that's a good thing.

Edited June 1, 20223 yr by E Rocc

13 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

Science leads to invention which leads to innovation which leads to engineering.

 

Durability, safety, and reliability are major parts of making something cost effective, which is economics when it's all said and done.

 

And yet, I have been part of teams who have come up with great new products only to be told by management that we cannot afford a 3-year payback.  So some great products sit on the shelf because the bean-counters wouldn't even allow us to test the market.  Maybe the market wouldn't have cared for the improvements, or maybe manufacturing would have cost more than forecast, but we'll never know.

 

Economics trumps Engineering in different ways.