this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
489 points (94.5% liked)

Bicycles

3146 readers
13 users here now

Welcome to !bicycles@lemmy.ca

A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!


Community Rules


Other cycling-related communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Globally, only one in 50 new cars were fully electric in 2020, and one in 14 in the UK. Sounds impressive, but even if all new cars were electric now, it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world’s fossil fuel car fleet.

The emission savings from replacing all those internal combustion engines with zero-carbon alternatives will not feed in fast enough to make the necessary difference in the time we can spare: the next five years. Tackling the climate and air pollution crises requires curbing all motorised transport, particularly private cars, as quickly as possible. Focusing solely on electric vehicles is slowing down the race to zero emissions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I'm going to call bullshit, the biggest sources of emissions for logistics and transport aren't consumers. It's industry use, including airlines and sea freight.

Even if you don't include sea freight, then passenger cars are still only 45% of total transport emissions.

The title is even very clearly worded as an opinion, with it being "important" being intentionally subjective language. Get some bicycles and shit, support cyclist infrastructure, but also definitely support electric rail, planes, and freight.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think electric planes are practical without some serious battery tech to get the weight down. I'm more interested in just reducing use of planes generally. So get high speed rail on land and slow down shipping a little and harness wind power where possible. Most things can take an extra week or so to arrive, and local logistics can use either hydrogen (collected using solar/wind power) or batteries.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Bro that was news like a year ago

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a41453056/eviation-electric-aircraft/

Not to mention there are also Hybrid planes since like 2011 with Boeing's Diamond EA36 E Star or more recently the EAG's 70+ seat hybrid plane announced in 2020.

The readily available technology aside, I agree the world could be run a lot more ethically and efficiently.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

can carry nine passengers up to 250 miles...It’s not clear yet that this transition will be possible for much larger passenger jetliners, but short- and medium-range planes could make the switch with much less pain.

It's an interesting proof of concept, but like EVs, it's not going to scale well to larger vehicles. We need significantly better battery tech (e.g. maybe the solid state lithium batteries Toyota and others are working on) to make that a reality.

Hybrid aircraft are certainly interesting though, and I think hybrid in general is the way to go. Electricity is generally better at acceleration (i.e. takeoffs), and fossil fuels have lower weight per unit of energy so they're better for sustained power (e.g. cruising altitude). I'm a huge fan of hybrid cars, and think they're way better than EVs for transitioning. You don't need to give up range, yet you get better fuel economy. However, my understanding is that we're talking like 5% better fuel economy, not 30-50% as in cars, so it's going to be a marginal improvement.

Lifting a bunch of heavy stuff into the air is always going to be more costly energy-wise than moving it along land. So we should be focusing on fast ground transportation instead of more efficient air transportation because we already have good solutions for ground transportation (high speed rail, bullet trains, etc) and just need to pay the upfront cost to get it off the ground (ha!). Aviation imo should be limited to things that need to be fast, and rail should be out main form of long distance transportation.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think the only reason it isn't being used at a larger scale is because airlines are finite and the big names on the industry would rather rely on time-proven machines built 30 years ago. Even if they only converted half their domestic fleets now: imagine the cost savings on decreased fuel costs associated with lower demand? Problem is, the cost of new planes doesn't justify the savings over time, yet.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Maybe? I'm not an aerospace engineer, but everything I've read indicates that the weight of the batteries would prevent airplanes from transitioning because it would be too much of a trade-off. Hybrid airplanes seem promising, but I've seen numbers from 5% reduced fuel (not meaningful) to 40% or more (seems a bit too optimistic).

Better battery tech is coming (Toyota claims as early as 2027), so maybe that will improve the outlook for electric airplanes.

Even if we had better battery tech today, it would still take years for airplanes to incorporate it properly. So I think we should be building out better rail systems. We have that tech now, and we'll want it even if we have electric planes.