Can the automobile survive?

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,138
Reaction score
6,297
As the electric vehicle may prove as helpful as the diesel in providing an alternative to the petrol powered automobile has the time come to look at whether the car can survive?

Even without the damage it does to the climate the car has ruined city and countryside with its infrastructure. All over the world people sit in traffic jams in order to get to shops and offices when new technology means they could stay at home. Many of those who have to work away from home in manual labour or service jobs already have to use public transport.

The break with over a century of the motor car will not be easy. But it is coming..
 
As the electric vehicle may prove as helpful as the diesel in providing an alternative to the petrol powered automobile has the time come to look at whether the car can survive?

Even without the damage it does to the climate the car has ruined city and countryside with its infrastructure. All over the world people sit in traffic jams in order to get to shops and offices when new technology means they could stay at home. Many of those who have to work away from home in manual labour or service jobs already have to use public transport.

The break with over a century of the motor car will not be easy. But it is coming..
I'd argue that society needs to eliminate unnecessary commuting by white collar workers to obsolete physical offices. The car isn't the problem as much as an anti-productivity managerial class that insists on office attendance to justify their own existence. We've all suffered from endless office meetings, featuring punitive PowerPoint presentations, which only serve to keep us from our productive work. Take away the commute and replace physical retail shopping with deliveries and you have the solution to the environmental and traffic congestion woes of the car.

Car ownership allows me to have a pleasant lifestyle with a freestanding house in a quiet, uncrowded neighborhood. Suburban sprawl has its benefits. I can spend my weekends and holidays in an even more remote rural setting. Compare this to a grim existence of cramped appartments in crime plagued and unpleasant "walkable" urban neighborhoods. Take away my personal vehicular transport and that's all I'd be able to afford, as nicely gentrified townhouses are far beyond my means.

Public transit isn't a viable substitute for the personally owned automobile. Waiting for a bus or a train takes up too much time, even with frequent service. Bicycle lanes are ludicrous in a climate with as much snow, and extreme summers as mine - only wealthy recreational riders and alcoholic with permanently revoked licenses use them, and only rarely. The alternatives to the car are all implausibly inconvenient, outside of a decaying early 20th century urban context. The urban fabric in my own hometown is largely pre-World War I - inconvenient and irrelevent to how we all live today. Walkable neighborhoods were needed for the workers of smokestack industries that had largely disappeared before I was ever born. By the 1920s, and the advent of ubiquitous automobile, it was clear homes built a decade before were undesirable because the building lots were too small for individual driveways. Today, people would rather build a house 40km away in the countryside than utilize a vacant city building lot with full utilities that is essentially free. They'd sooner drive 35,000km per year than share a driveway with a neighbor or have guests parallel park on the street.
 
Last edited:
Tin Wing your experience is that of many car owners around the world. You put the case well.
But in order to allow this to continue something will have to change (assuming climate and other environmental concerns).
Cars will need to last longer and be very fuel efficient (a break through not yet achieved).
Governments may need to step in if the climate crisis worsens.
 
Tin Wing your experience is that of many car owners around the world. You put the case well.
But in order to allow this to continue something will have to change (assuming climate and other environmental concerns).
Cars will need to last longer and be very fuel efficient (a break through not yet achieved).
Governments may need to step in if the climate crisis worsens.
My previous petrol vehicle lasted nearly 20 years before succumbing to corrosion from road salt. The rust proofing was quite exceptional for that model and my annual mileages were miniscule, a total of 150KM over 2 decades. It only got about 16l/100km but that was irrelevant. I now have a truck that gets 11.5l/100km and in my excitement, I've covered a record 10,000km in one year. With my use case, insurance far outweighs the cost of petrol. With the highest power rates in North America and the inefficiency of heating a car with electric as opposed to the "free" waste heat of exhaust, I'd be insane to go electric, even with a plug-in hybrid. Conventional hybrids don't even make sense with my low annual mileage. That's the world I live in. Electric cars won't even charge a -30F, which happens every few years in my area.

As far as climate change, the human race was sold out in the Paris Climare Change Accords when India and China were allowed unrestricted CO2 emissions until 2035. To be realistic, it doesn't matter what measures are taken by the UK or other countries with declining birth rates and stagnant, deindustrialized economies. My area in America is just as much in decline as Britain, with the same absurd environmental mandates. Solar farms and wind turbines routinely go years without being connected to the power grid. Why? The tax credits to the investors far exceed the revenues from power generation. There are green energy projects where electric revenues are assigned to the landowners while the investors only keep the tax credits. We're all living in societies where income is being transfered from the working masses to wealthy politically protected elites by means of "greenwashing." The vast majority of carbon credits being traded are predicated on an environmental fiction which totally ignores the concept of "carbon debt." Some carbon credits are entirely fraudulent.
 
The 'big issue' is the insistance of government and investors in BE/Electric supremecy that one solution fits all.

The solution as far as they are concerned is that we do as we are toild, queue for mass transit systems that cannot cope and bow down to the supremacy of the overlords.

A large electrode and 30,000 volts should fix that problem.

So, the solution IS electric after all........
 
To be realistic, it doesn't matter what measures are taken by the UK or other countries with declining birth rates and stagnant, deindustrialized economies.
Actually, it does. Those countries still account for a very large proportion of carbon dioxide emissions. Remember that a large proportion of emissions in China are associated with manufacturing goods for export to Europe and North America.

We in the West shouldn't go around patting ourselves on the back too much for 'reducing emissions' when all we've done is export them to poorer countries. That's a problem that needs to be solved.
The solution as far as they are concerned is that we do as we are toild, queue for mass transit systems that cannot cope and bow down to the supremacy of the overlords.
The problem is that if we don't stop using hydrocarbon fuels, we'll wreck the planet badly enough that nobody's going to be driving anywhere anyway. And everyone knows it. Some are actively ignoring that fact, but they know it too.

Batteries are too expensive for everyone to be able to use electric cars to get around, quite apart from the serious issues associated with actually getting the materials needed to make them.

If you insist on a car-centric transport system, that means eventually you wind up in a situation where the 'overlords' can drive places, and everyone else is stuck.

If you want people to be able to get around, you need a change to living and working patterns away from one that's built on having access to cars and cheap fuel. That means public transport, and denser, walkable communities. Which can be made very desirable places; there's a reason London and New York are expensive, but rural towns are cheap.
 
Cars with combustion engines will have long future !
why ? Infrastructure !
Electric vehicle need network of charging unit
like Tesla has range of 584 km then reload (the rest has far lower range)
My old Reichsdiesel Golf has range of 1200 km, until i have to tank it.

Now there is worldwide network of petrol stations, supply by tanker, i can use.
With electric vehicle that problem there is no worldwide coverage with charging unit,
Because most nations don't have infrastructure to supply electric power for that !
only Industrial nations can have charging network electric vehicle.
if you are in Third world countries, it's game over for electric vehicle.
(yes you can charge you Tesla with electric generator running on diesel but that miss totally the point...)

what if Oil runs out ?
sooner or later this will happen, special in Middle east.
but there alternative fossil fuels:

Natural Gas either compressed or liquid
Syngas - a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide made from Coal or wood
Methanol from Plants or syngas
Ammonia see here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ammonia-fuel-cars-in-the-1970s-pros-and-cons.41859/
 
there's a reason London and New York are expensive, but rural towns are cheap.
The other thing is that while suburbs and rural towns are cheap for the owners, they absolutely aren't for the wider community. They require extensions to the electricity, water and gas networks which are expensive relative to the population of these suburbs. In general, economies of scale are not achieved here.

Similarly, while public transport is a large expense - so are all of the facilities created to sustain a very large traffic of road vehicles. Of course, reducing the need for cars or road transport would not allow us to simply remove the roads and facilities that have been built, but it might reduce wear and maintenance costs. And a lot of these facilities are funded through public spending or at least by a larger population than regular drivers.
 
At least in the US, the politics of highway construction were both actively anti-city (the original plan for I84 had it going through the state's capital city with no exits and no connection to the crossing I91) and frequently racist, routed to destroy ethnic neighborhoods.
 
The other thing is that while suburbs and rural towns are cheap for the owners, they absolutely aren't for the wider community.
Well yes, but my point was that they're also cheap for the residents because they're less desirable than cities.
Cars with combustion engines will have long future !
why ? Infrastructure !
Electric vehicle need network of charging unit
Horse drawn carts will have a long future! Why? Infrastructure! Motor cars will need a network of fuel distribution.

That said, liquid fuel vehicles probably do have an enduring role for genuine rural residents. You can't run a farm from the suburbs, after all. Whether that's synthetic hydrocarbons, hydrogen, or something else remains to be seen - but the big problems are with urban and interurban transport.
 
May I suggest a look at:

 
Car manufacturers pay taxes on each worker hired.

Every hired worker pays taxes for having a job.

The work of these people justifies the existence of unions, which do not pay taxes but receive subsidies.

The person who buys a car pays up to ten different taxes depending on the country, plus the tax for driving, the environmental penalties for driving within the city, the penalties for driving with an even license plate on odd days, the penalties for parking, the parking expenses to avoid penalties, maintenance costs, cleaning repairs that include taxes paid by the owner of the car and by those who provide the services, environmental taxes for power generation, fuel transport insurance, taxes for unloading fuel at ports, tax for storing fuel and transporting it to petrol stations, taxes paid when refuelling by the owner of the car and by the owner of the petrol station, taxes for selling the car, for the buyer and seller, taxes for scrapping the car including the ecological tax, compulsory accident insurance, paid by the driver of the vehicle and by the insurer, tax for driving in other countries, including the ecological tax and ferry transport insurance.

Does anyone think that politicians are going to give up on that gold mine?

How many lawyers would be looking for work if cars disappeared?
 

Attachments

  • dinero-coche-2.jpeg
    dinero-coche-2.jpeg
    185.8 KB · Views: 14
May I suggest a look at:

That was already invented more than a century ago, it is called in various ways: railway, bus, trolleybus or tram. It means losing the freedom of the driver of a vehicle in a collective environment that can be unpleasant and even dangerous. Defenders of collective transport also like the idea of eliminating cash and forcing people who travel to inform them in advance of their destination and causes of the trip, all controlled from the headquarters.
 

Attachments

  • 311644113.jpg
    311644113.jpg
    79.4 KB · Views: 5
That was already invented more than a century ago, it is called in various ways: railway, bus, trolleybus or tram. It means losing the freedom of the driver of a vehicle in a collective environment that can be unpleasant and even dangerous. Defenders of collective transport also like the idea of eliminating cash and forcing people who travel to inform them in advance of their destination and causes of the trip, all controlled from the headquarters.
Err...this is not quite the same. Zoox's idea is more about on call smaller vehicles. The idea is basically closer to an autonomous uber. As for the rest of your comments, they are also misinformed.
 
Err...this is not quite the same. Zoox's idea is more about on call smaller vehicles. The idea is basically closer to an autonomous uber. As for the rest of your comments, they are also misinformed.
I choose freedom
 

Attachments

  • unnamed.jpg
    unnamed.jpg
    46.9 KB · Views: 5
  • el-mtico-plano-de-charlton-heston-frente-a-la-estatuaa-de-la-libertad.jpg
    el-mtico-plano-de-charlton-heston-frente-a-la-estatuaa-de-la-libertad.jpg
    80.6 KB · Views: 8
Given the hideously expensive electricity costs in my home state of Connecticut it seems more and more like you won't save any notable amount of $ on going all-electric up here. As messy as global oil supply-and-demand is, at least it's not the same as how Eversource will jack up the rates once or twice a year with nothing but some minor grumbling from our elected representatives.

And despite improvements in battery design, I can't help but be wary about how cold climate can really sap them and decrease their lifespan.
 
Many of those who have to work away from home in manual labour or service jobs already have to use public transport.
Public transport doesn't work out here in small town US midwestern farmland because people are coming from and going to too many scattered locations.
And that includes for work, for shopping, for health care.

True, there are specific small scale, more like tiny, operations operating things such as the two days a month bus/van service to the regional city from this town & there are other similar services in other surrounding towns.

Transportation in the urban/suburban universe and transportation in the rural universe are two different realities.
 
I do not buy that the "EV is more environmentally friendly" logic .... If one were to look into the manufacturing of the EV parts, I think the "environmentally cleaner" part is just BS!

IMHO, Hybrid is the way to go ....
 
The 'big issue' is the insistance of government and investors in BE/Electric supremecy that one solution fits all.

The solution as far as they are concerned is that we do as we are toild, queue for mass transit systems that cannot cope and bow down to the supremacy of the overlords.

A large electrode and 30,000 volts should fix that problem.

So, the solution IS electric after all........
No, no, it's much more cathartic to take them on helicopter flights... Odd how they seem to never be there when the helicopter lands!
 
No, no, it's much more cathartic to take them on helicopter flights... Odd how they seem to never be there when the helicopter lands!

Excuse me, Sir, when exiting the aircraft, please watch that first step - it's a real doozie........
 
I do not buy that the "EV is more environmentally friendly" logic .... If one were to look into the manufacturing of the EV parts, I think the "environmentally cleaner" part is just BS!

IMHO, Hybrid is the way to go ....
Ah, the hybrid. The worst of both worlds.
 
As the electric vehicle may prove as helpful as the diesel in providing an alternative to the petrol powered automobile has the time come to look at whether the car can survive?
As motor vehicles have spread to the point that warbands in somalia is fully motorized, the real question is whether mass transit can survive?

As everyone knows, public transportation are large scale projects that reflects that greater social cooperation of society. In an era of transnational elites having great apathy for local investments, the professional managerial class and unions seeking to impose greater rents on all activity, increasing political polarization due to changes in the media space, large scale cooperation seems increasingly unlikely. Without a new nationalist movement only the "urbanists" that are products of PMC media-sphere is really seeking to implement a century outdated technology via sheer force of delusion. I'm sure much will be spent, but nothing shall work.

With the materials of future vehicles being sand for PV and sodium for battery, even the oil bottleneck can't stop the spread of motor vehicles.

Ultimately, steel wheels that exists to minimize rolling friction from engines that can barely put out a few horse's power is silly in a era where hundreds of hp is generated within the hub of a wheel. Efficient independent routing and system robustness is just far superior for use cases that does not involve bulk raw materials. Density is just a question of who does grade separation for computer controlled vehicles.
 
We generally don't use horses for personal transport now but there are still plenty of horses around. I suspect that if cars become obsolete as everyday transport, they'll survive and continue to evolve in sports.

In Larry Niven's Known Space stories, teleportation and flying cars have made ground cars redundant, but people race them over the old freeway systems that are left standing for this purpose.
 
We generally don't use horses for personal transport now but there are still plenty of horses around. I suspect that if cars become obsolete as everyday transport, they'll survive and continue to evolve in sports.

In Larry Niven's Known Space stories, teleportation and flying cars have made ground cars redundant, but people race them over the old freeway systems that are left standing for this purpose.

Sure. And I would include under 'sport' the obsessive activity of restoring old motor vehicles for the pure joy of it. Eg:
-- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN0SuqPcbLqGvImGUuOaCsLXTseGiBN02

As for "old freeway systems that are left standing", I suspect that William Gibson's so-called 'bridge trilogy' is closer to the mark. In a 'post automotive' world, raised freeway remnants and bridges in urban areas would be repurposed as housing. In 'interurban' areas, the highway system would be repurposed as mixed transport and transit rail corridors.
 

Attachments

  • under-used-roadways.jpg
    under-used-roadways.jpg
    57.8 KB · Views: 14
Some excellent points in the thread. Managerialism ruining everything. We can chalk the destruction of the biosphere (at least some of the blame) on the list of the crimes of the managerial class. That's in addition to destroying the mental health of millions of workers and making people worse friends, parents, partners, and community members. Making work horrible instead of meaningful. Removing the joy from science, engineering, education, medicine, everything that humans do for work.

Check out what will actually happen with oil production over the next 20 years. At the turn of the century about 5% of oil was used to produce oil. Now it;s 10%. That will only go up as the easy oil has been produced. Oil will go off a cliff. If we want liquid hydrocarbons they will be made from gas, and then from coal. (Of course, we have the fantasyland dwellers who think we can drill our way out of the problem. It's easy to know whose opinion is worthless because they do not have a good relationship with the facts.)

The developed world has exported carbon emissions to less developed countries. This was done to export jobs and break the power of working people. (Too bad for the USA that it made China a stronger industrial power than America. See the 6th gen fighters threads for the apoplexy of the people who get what happens when China can get close in quality and far ahead on quantity.) The emissions affect everyone so it does not matter where they are emitted.

It's not just carbon emissions. Even EVs leave tire particles all over the road and these get into the biosphere.

As an aside, it is not possible to have less energy intensive economic growth. Gross World Product tracks with energy use almost perfectly. "The Economy" is energy. Services are based around things, like cars, that generate service possibilities. Think about an economy where GWP is 10 quadrillion or whatever and 99% of it is services. People will choose to work a few years, get money and then retire, consuming mostly goods and few services. No energy, no economy.

There is not enough mineral supply on Earth to build green tech for a consumer economy. The changes are going to be deep and difficult and will only happen when there is no alternative, which is of course, when it is too late.

Here are some ideas but they are of course, all politically impossible:

1. Right to repair.
2. Right to own things. If you buy it, you own it and can do as you please with it including transfer it to another human or repair it.
3. Durable goods instead of planned obsolescence.
4. A commons where people can work instead of labor for a wage. Farmland, workshops, woodlots. Educational facilities. Makerpsaces where the public can make their own stuff that lasts instead of stuff built by corporations designed to fail. This will never happen because too many people will want it and drop out of the system. And because it will be vandalized by wastrels. If everyone owns it, then no one owns it. Maybe a members-only thing where you have to apprentice and show you can handle the responsibility before you are allowed to join. The idea of a commons enrages the right and a commons that is only open to people who will maintain it enrages the left. You know the idea is good when both are frothing at the mouth over the fact anyone would even propose it.
5. Right to work from home. Company has to prove that the workers need to be in the office. Make it easy to sue the companies that violate this. lawyers will line up to take the cases.
6. Bike paths.
7. Open source e-bikes made from cheap materials and using sodium ion or other cheap batteries.
8. Cheap bikes high enough quality to ride, low enough to not be worth stealing. Open source hardware. Anyone can take a bike and modify it, or keep it or use it. Ride one home, ride it to work the next day. Leave it at a station, pick a new one up when it is time to go home.
9. Good rail transport between cities. Good rail within cities.
10. Bike paths between cities. Way stations where people can rest and sleep if it is a long trip.
11. Open source hardware like solar Stirling engines, bikes, and wood and charcoal powered devices. Passive solar.
12. Massive housing projects all over the world. Single family and multifamily homes built to last centuries. Passive solar, heating and lighting, water and wind based cooling. Rain catching devices. Workplaces built close to housing.

Eliminate the need for automobiles. In the US, this will include dealing with the issues of inequality and crime.
 
e-bikes, not sure if you noticed the increase in battery fires from these and the continued future use while uninsured. Utopia is something of an overused word but what you describe is just that and therefor, impossible.
 
Its kinda funny, people are talking like there is a resource crisis when inexhaustable sources of energy is having stable drop in cost to below traditional sources. Material constrains are silly as long as structure materials, land and reflectors are available and the earth is a large planet, it only happens that returns on labor is not always that high. Also people always forget conservation of mass. Tell me about it when the earth runs of sand, salt and deserts.

The people of the 70s predicting imminent mass famine likely have better case than whatever goes on today.

The real crisis is when self driving vehicles becomes a thing. If you think there is congestion today, think again when the roads are filled with robots and new class of people that live in permanently moving RVs. The communist road system can truly collapse under the weight of tragedy of commons. (until someone does some obvious thing about it)

And if you think remote means anything, in an era of perfect AI fakery, the only way to build trust is face to face. Travel will become more important than ever.

Dust off your VTOL plans, the world will need it! :cool:

I can see how future generation complaining how rotorcraft noise ruined everything good and sensible in this life~
 
The problem with face to face communication is that it is OLD. Many of those making up the current generation place more stock in disembodied images and text as trust building.

They cry if someone of indeterminate origin say's something hurtful. They are cajoled into posting images of themselves by the same sources and THEN go postal or end their own lives due to the fallout.

How far into the future, with ai deciding what is true or how we should look/appear, do you truly believe face to face will survive? As far as faith in the unknown goes, we seem to be descending to the point where belief in the lie is everything and to differ is considered foolish. Perhaps communism will have a place after all.

I ordered some nuts and seed for the wildlife, two bags of each.

First parcel with one bag of each gets here fine while the second is left outside the building (With four flats) and the driver say's, "Handed to resident".

A Hamazon driver I catch doing the same thing say's "Is deliver". I say not. He say's "Look satnav, is deliver".

Truly evolving in an obverse direction.

Bloody sad.

How many makers of docusoaps care about facts when their audience does not. After all, opinion is fact, right?
 
Some excellent points in the thread. Managerialism ruining everything. We can chalk the destruction of the biosphere (at least some of the blame) on the list of the crimes of the managerial class. That's in addition to destroying the mental health of millions of workers and making people worse friends, parents, partners, and community members. Making work horrible instead of meaningful. Removing the joy from science, engineering, education, medicine, everything that humans do for work.
So you don't want managers?
 
So you don't want managers?
GTX:

Yeahhhhh, I'm gonna need you to come in on Saturday, mmmkay? I need each TPS reports to have a cover sheet. Didn't you get the memo I sent stipulating that each TPS reports have a cover sheet?
 
Managers like most interest groups, have parts of self interest at odds with the rest of society.

Unlike the Capitalist - Consumer - Labor conflict which have reached some kind of equilibrium with plenty of history of successful and failures to study from, managers, especially those that are unelected under government currently lacks effective counterbalancing pushback and there is no general knowledge on how to make the system work.
 
The Managerialist system works perfectly. Capitalists get lower returns on capital, consumers get worse products at higher prices, and workers get paid less to work in worse conditions at work. Meanwhile the Managerialist Borg assimilates all and grows. The logic of Managerialism is that it solves problems by creating more problems that it then solves by creating more problems. It's endless growth for the sake of growth. The fact that everything else is choked off is irrelevant to the Borg. They only know what they do. Grow at the expense of everything else. There is no balancing the Borg, there is only assimilation.
 
I'd argue that society needs to eliminate unnecessary commuting by white collar workers to obsolete physical offices. The car isn't the problem as much as an anti-productivity managerial class that insists on office attendance to justify their own existence. We've all suffered from endless office meetings, featuring punitive PowerPoint presentations, which only serve to keep us from our productive work.
not for engineering and technical industries.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom