• 0 Posts
  • 83 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2025

help-circle



  • In town, you’re predominantly hit by rolling resistance and the start/stop nature of driving in town. Rolling resistance does increase by weight, but when you have 450km of range, anyway, it doesn’t really matter. The start/stop nature of in town driving is also mitigated by regen braking. The weight there isn’t free, but regen chops its effect way down.

    While regen braking is a bonus towards range, there’s a lot to be said for how the increased weight of larger batteries (that are required to provide that range) cause an increase in tyre and brake wear, increased damage to the roads themselves, and increased drain on the power network that the people use to charge these cars.

    Additionally, excluding the higher range rural, long distance highway, and everything outside of a city where you’re only ever doing short trips is missing the point of my argument, since I’m not talking about short trips and ‘just going about town’ im talking about the people who have to drive around the country to keep their equipment running.

    I will concede that electric Post vans/inner city couriers/milk+weekly grocery trucks/city taxis is 100% perfect use case for electric vehicles, considering exhaust pollution in heavily residential areas and the like, but there’s no escaping how much the battery drain, tyre and brake degradation increases with weight.

    Considering this bit “Towing heavy trailers drastically increases weight and drag. For example, towing a 3,000-lb trailer can reduce range by 40–50% depending on terrain and speed.”

    If you’re assuming you already need a trailer, just to carry enough batteries to increase the range, then you’re chasing your own tail by reducing your overall carrying capacity for minimal gains in range; bigger batteries have diminishing returns and only ever increase the price.

    Not to mention the development cost of building a trailer that has A) High enough strength and safety standards to be legal on the roads or even remotely safe to tow. B) An adequate way of connecting to the car itself (would require a whole redesign of the electric car itself to account for an external power source for use while driving) C) Any capacity at all for storage when taking the batteries into account (think of the weight of the frame and tyres required for a trailer to not only contain the batteries but the storage space, it would be like towing a caravan just to get the same capacity as a transit van, but with double the weight.

    This isn’t even remotely accounting for the material cost of the “just add more batteries” (“Why don’t they don’t just add more fuel tanks to orbital rockets?”) method of thinking, given the amount of rare earth metals that are already being dug out of open pit mines by machines that exclusively run on fossil fuels, transported by fossil fuel machines and processed using fossil fuels.

    My stance is still along the lines of “Why go after personal combustion vehicles while there are entire industries polluting more each month than every peronal vehicle does in a year?”

    It’s the same as the argument for “Reducing your carbon footprint”, which is a campaign made up by BP to deflect the blame for their actions onto their customers - saying electric cars can solve the issues of internal combustion while ignoring their downsides.






  • Ok, now compare the effect of cars with the Shipping industry, their engines run on one step above crude oil, so any shipwreck is an environmental disaster even if the cargo is something innocuous like whichever new source of micro plastics the internet has decided is the new blorbo to buy from china.

    The estuaries countries build their docks in often require trawling and dredging to reach the draft required for the boats to float, massive areas of coastline get turned into docking areas and cranes /areas for storage of containers, and then they still need waiting areas for lorries to take the containers inland.

    Not even mentioning the political manoeuvring where countries will “sell” a developing country a port under the premise of more jobs and economic stability, all for the low low cost of national debt and a developed country owning a segment of your land

    But I’m sure you’re right and that cars are worse, because they’re polluting the cities! Won’t someone think of these poor urbanites.

    Pisstaking aside I would love to see the numbers you’re thinking about, especially in terms of the impact compared to other industries such as, you know, power stations, land freight, commercial aircraft, shipping, construction, and my personal favourite target of ire: data centres (why are you arguing against cars when Zuck and Bezo are directly polluting peoples groundwater, directly drawing fresh drinkable water from the area’s municipal supplies (imagine four bottles of cola being used for every single gpt query), and drawing more power than some countries.)


  • What do you mean the point is exactly that?

    The technology does scale, not only are there national sized diesel generators that power the grid, there are diesel generators that run on the gas that landfill and farming make (That would normally escape into air as raw methane.)

    In your original post you’re suggesting that that a car is a poor choice of transport the same way a diesel generator is a poor source of power for a home.

    It ignores the point that there are specific use cases for both diesel generators and personal vehicles e.g. where there are no alternatives in rural areas or areas where the infrastructure is limited - mountainous regions, out in the bush in Aus, the scottish Highlands, the Swedish archipelagos and almost everything north of the arctic circle require both a reliable source of electricity and a personal vehicle.

    My personal argument against this kind of thinking, even as someone living in a developed country, was that almost every blue collar worker requires a vehicle to work, which cannot be replaced by public transport, given the nature of them travelling between jobsites and the requirements for carrying cargo and tools.

    I’ll agree, when living within a city that has full infrastructure, easy access to amenities and everyone who works in the city lives in the city this makes compete sense as an argument, why put a diesel generator in when you’ve got power hard wired into your house, but scale your point of view past America, and you’ll see it’s less black and white.


  • Or by having amenities within walking distance.

    I’m not arguing against public transportation, I’m saying that making a comparison between owning a car and using diesel to power your home is daft, considering that there are multiple cases where people use fuel oil to power their homes, and there’s a lot of use cases for both (especially if you look outside the first world countries or outside of the internet bubble)


  • I’m making the argument as a comparison to traditional fossil fuel cars, which are by their nature lighter, with greater reliability, lower maintenance and lower manufacturing costs.

    Also saying vans have a 450km range ignores the fact that this is a maximum, unladen with nothing but the engine running.

    I’m not saying cars are all good things and nothing can be done about it, I’m arguing that “public transport can replace all cars” requires a massive caveat of “not including freight and commercial vehicles”

    Considering the environmental impact of worldwide shipping,where you can have fruit picked in one country, shipped across the world to be packaged then shipped back around the world for sale, the impact of people having personal vehicles is negligible.


  • Genuine question but how are any of the workers supposed to cart around a ton and a half worth of tools and equipment up and down the country to keep infrastructure actively providing the residents with power, water and prevent sewage flowing through their streets, if not for a car?

    I know that cars are horrendous things in both sociological and environmental impacts, but if you don’t give a useful alternative, then what are you arguing?

    (I know electric vans exist, but if you’ve ever used one professionally then you know just how bad they are for anything that isn’t inner city short hop driving. Without even mentioning the impact of producing an electric vehicle in terms of mining the rare earth materials for the batteries and electricity, or the added mechanical strain due to increased vehicle weight)







  • After spending the past ten years or so being exposed to videos of Ukrainian, West Papuan, Hong Kong and Palestinian civilians being brutalized by their neighbouring countries, it certainly felt like a foregone conclusion that I was going to come across the video at some point.

    It was one of the reasons why I left Reddit back in the day, their userbase’s obsession with posting, upvoting and even celebrating uncensored snuff shit (especially during the 'rona times when half the posts were people celebrating the deaths of antivaxxers and random members of the American public that’d fallen for the antivax propaganda.)

    Even with the ‘this contains sensitive content’ filter being put on almost every insta post, one account straight up played it uncensored in the middle of a few memes, so now it lives alongside countless other fucked up things I’ve seen over the years of being online.

    It’s almost like these social media companies know what they’re doing, and they’re doing it intentionally. For what purpose, I can’t begin to speculate on without either sounding like some kind of schizotypal tinfoiler, or diluting the real societal problems by failing to address the millions of issues that have compounded until we got here.