matthewtoad43

@mr_washee_washee Delaying the technologies that we know work, continuing to dig up more fossil fuels, and giving it a veneer of credibility by funding more research is a classic delayer tactic. Delay being a stage of denial.

@mr_washee_washee Either way, the technologies already exist and need to be deployed rapidly.

The alternative is burning more fossil fuels.

Which is both more expensive and *vastly* more dangerous. We need rapid progress towards sustainability, because it's the *total* carbon emitted that matters.

Emissions must peak by 2025 at the latest (in fact they must peak as soon as possible). The UK, for instance, has agreed to reduce its emissions by 68% by 2030 (compared to 1990), a target that it will almost certainly miss according to the last CCC report.

@mr_washee_washee I've seen people argue that nuclear actually has the lowest material requirement overall. I'm not entirely convinced by that argument though!

By all means reduce the number of cars, but some of the things we will need to do to achieve that will take significant time - especially fixing housing and building more rail.

However there will still be vehicles, even if they are only buses.

@mr_washee_washee How do you propose to balance the grid without wind?

Solar panels are indeed mostly silicon, but they're not entirely made of silicon. They also use "minor metals" (indium, gallium etc) in smaller quantities. They certainly use copper, steel and aluminium.

The inverter for a solar panel might contain rare earths. The big ones for long range HVDC interconnectors very likely do.

Whatever we build will involve some amount of mining.

However given the enormous cost of the status quo, renewables are a step forward.

@mr_washee_washee @suodrazah So do wind farms. Are you opposed to them too?

@rm_dash_r_star @notapantsday Unfortunately batteries with nickel are still pretty widely used. However it's definitely going in the right direction.

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/trends-in-batteries

In any case digging up fossil fuels is also pretty dirty, and has been known to pollute indigenous people's drinking water, steal their land, and on occasion pay for private militias and government troops to put down protests.

Obviously electric buses are preferable to electric cars. Public transport is worth investing in.

Also on batteries, iron-air is promising for grid storage, but not likely to be used for vehicles.

@rm_dash_r_star @notapantsday Is LMFP actually available in quantity? Wikipedia suggests not.

The problem with sodium ion batteries, apart from lower density, is that they have a shorter lifespan. On the upside they're easier to recycle. IIRC there was some recent research that might fix the lifespan problem.

@flux @QuinceDaPence Concrete and steel (for stations, track, etc) matter. So does the electricity used to maintain stations, not just propel the train. So lifecycle emissions of a train are immensely complicated, plus then you get into how to route a new rail line without destroying too many ecosystems.

Even so, clean electricity is the easy bit compared to making planes clean. More trains please.

@mondoman712 I can't read the article at the moment as it's paywalled. I assumed it was yet another repeat of the Emissions Analytics BS since there seem to be a few about. If there is new, credible, peer reviewed work on this, then that's a good thing and I'm sorry for dismissing it.

I believe there is a risk of perfect vs good. A small number of people will need cars long term for various reasons (equipment and some disabilities). Cars, vans, buses, and residual road freight, will need to be electric.

But most of what we need to do to get to that point i.e. making cities more accessible, safer, etc, will take significant time, construction work, political challenges and social attitude changes. We will need to change attitudes to cars, attitudes to women, BAME and disabled people. We will need to build a lot more housing (bikes don't work if you can't afford to live nearby). We will need to build segregated cycle lanes, move retail businesses around, and very possibly increase density. Carrots and sticks work, and the transformation of e.g. Paris is inspiring, but as with all such changes it's hard-fought; shopkeepers will oppose even simple easy wins like converting on-street parking to bike lanes. And many people have good reason to fear public transport (of course, many people don't have a choice; the assumption that the important people / the majority drive is a problem in itself). Making cities accessible to disabled people with mobility issues will also take time and a lot of work. For long haul, new train lines take decades.

My point is while we may be able to reduce miles driven by 30% or so with improved bus services, getting to 80% will probably take decades.

We can't ban cars overnight, but there's a lot we *can* do relatively quickly (especially on buses), and a lot that we need to make a start on.

I would not be surprised if tyres were responsible for a significant fraction of the microplastics problem. Which is just another reason why a society with fewer cars would be a better one, although it should be possible to improve tyres relatively quickly as there hasn't been much work on them until recently and they have to be replaced regularly anyway.

Given the difficulties getting to a non-car-obsessed society, and the needs of the developing world, the peak number of EVs might well be similar to the number of cars now. Degrowth is vital but not a magic bullet any more than EVs are. Degrowth is part of an overarching socialist framework, but while some demand reduction measures can be implemented quickly, many will take longer.

Audiences change. People *will* weaponise such claims to discourage *any* action.

Anyway, thanks, and good luck.

@mondoman712 No, they don't. Go read one of the rebuttals. The original, occasionally repeated pseudo-study claimed that tyres and brakes cause *hundreds* of times more particulate pollution than exhaust. This is physically impossible as both would wear down much faster than is observed.

See e.g.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aar8njoGgNY

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/running/do-electric-vehicles-produce-more-tyre-and-brake-pollution-than-petrol-and/

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/24/uk-environment-secretary-proven-wrong-on-ev-tires-brake-pollution/

Also this thread (use the Internet Archive):

https://twitter.com/MatthewToad42/status/1532728307908763650

https://twitter.com/MatthewToad42/status/1596861715547066370

https://twitter.com/KateFantom/status/1542246513329508352

I'm not saying tyres and brakes aren't a problem. Certainly we need to improve on them. And we need to reduce the number of cars.

But they're not as big as problem as claimed in these dubious pseudo-studies. Otherwise we'd be replacing tyres rather more often than we do.

This is just pro-petrol propaganda.