Shell Is Immediately Closing All Of Its California Hydrogen Stations | The oil giant is one of the big players in hydrogen globally, but even it can’t make its operations work here.::The oil giant is one of the big players in hydrogen globally, but even it can’t make its operations work here. All seven of its California stations will close immediately.
Looking forward to the upcoming Toyota announcement that they believe in the future of hydrogen more than ever
Toyota, and Japan as a whole, are in a tricky situation with their electric grid. It’s been developed separately by nine different companies in each region; the southern regions use 60 Hz supply cycles, where-as the northern regions (including Tokyo Electric) use 50 Hz. Add to this the populations reluctance for nuclear power after Fukushima, and you get a very fragile supply grid with limited capacity. Toyota is gunning hard for Hydrogen because Japan itself can’t support EVs and for some reason it doesn’t want to/can’t manufacture both.
I’m not sure I buy that. Yes, their electrical grid is a mismatched nightmare, that they should have taken the hit on decades ago. However I see that small chargers for things like phones can adjust to pretty much any electrical grid: why shouldn’t we expect the charger in the car to be equally flexible? Either way, it’s converting to DC
Edit: the article didn’t talk about the differences, except frequency: if the only difference is 50Hz vs 60Hz, most analog electrical stuff probably also works on both. The real problem is they don’t have interconnects nor do they have a regulatory structure allowing separate generating oroviders
My main point was about capacity, and how the separate grid(s?) hinder attempts to add the capacity needed for EVs. I wasn’t really clear on that though. mb
I thought auto ranging power supplies were typically for voltage but not frequency.
Every one I’ve seen gives ranges like 100-240v ac, at 50-60 Hz.
Then electrical grids are large complex systems defined in analog days and subject to variances for weather, usage, distances, etc, so they also need to support that variability
Even larger appliances like refrigerators, ovens/ranges, etc? Some of these might be 10+ years old.
Digital power supplies usually support most electrical grids
Analog electrical stuff must handle the allowed variability in the grid and may be able to adjust from 60Hz to 50 Hz: for example a clock probably uses a crystal to establish a reliable frequency instead of relying on the grid frequency. Some labels may include this info, especially since everything has been globalized. However it’s going to depend. Some will. Some won’t.
However analog electrical can’t usually adjust between 120v and 240v, or similar, depending on where you are. This is the part where things can fail spectacularly
They also recently announced an anhydrous ammonia engine.
They really really don’t want to do an electric car. Anhydrous ammonia is insanely toxic. You ever spill a like a few drops of gas at the pump and get it on your pants or shoe? Annoying but not a big deal. Do that with anhydrous ammonia and you’ll be in the hospital.
Going to guess this will not change their goal of 200k hydrogen vehicles by 2030. They currently have about 14k out on roads.
As two major manufacturers double down on developing hydrogen cell cars.
The complaints about electric infrastructure not being ready for widespread adoption but people championing hydrogen cell just boggles my mind.
I was excited for hydrogen back in the day but it seems like we’ve known for years that it isn’t the way to go. Why is anyone still fucking with it? Do these cars get 2,000 mile range or something?
Hydrogen will be a big chunk of the future but probably not in cars, or generally car-sized vehicles, unless we’re talking stuff like catastrophe relief (and with that ambulances, fire trucks etc) because it’s a good idea to be able to fuel those things even if the grid is down.
We’ll need hydrogen infrastructure and production anyways for steel smelting as well as the chemical industry, those are things that just don’t run on electricity, no way. With that in place hydrogen is going to be available pretty much all over, similar to how you get natural gas anywhere nowadays. And then you have an unelectrified railway somewhere, electrifying it would cost a fortune and not amortise, but a fuel cell locomotive? Sounds easy and reasonable. Flow batteries are also an option in that kind of operation but you really need a lot of space to get power output from those so they wouldn’t work for an ambulance.
So if you’re a car manufacturer with your head screwed on right you’re probably not developing and selling hydrogen cars now because they believe they’re the future, you’re doing that to have affluent liberals pay for your ticket to play in the future market of hydrogen utility vehicles.
Also of note: European car manufacturers at least seem to be completely fine with there being fewer cars on the streets. First, they can also make money off building public transport infrastructure and running car shares, secondly, cheap everyday cars aren’t that profitable, if the cars they then do get to sell are fancy with high profit margin that’s completely fine with them. Their suppliers care even less, a seat manufacturer doesn’t care whether the seat ends up in a car or a train.
Also of note: European car manufacturers at least seem to be completely fine with there being fewer cars on the streets.
That’s a lot easier in countries whose cities are closer together and were devolved centuries before the car was invented.
That’s a lot easier in countries whose cities are closer together and were devolved centuries before the car was invented.
You should look at pictures of Amsterdam in the 70s, 80s, completely car-dependent. Europe made the same mistakes as the US regarding the car, difference is we noticed the mistake and what you see now is the product of decades of rolling back those decisions, first hesitantly, now quicker.
Also cities being further apart is actually an argument for more trains.
We’ll need hydrogen infrastructure and production anyways for steel smelting as well as the chemical industry, those are things that just don’t run on electricity, no way.
I’m curious how you see hydrogen being used in smelting. Hydrogen fuel cells do just produce electricity. Are you talking about something else, like combusting the hydrogen?
Iron ore + hydrogen = Iron + water. It’s used to tear oxygen off the ore, currently that’s done with carbon, generally of fossil origin. thyssenkrupp is already doing it at scale. Not all the hydrogen they use right now is green but unlike the old furnaces the new ones are ready to be carbon-neutral, they just have to switch over fuel sources no need to mess with the furnaces themselves.
It is possible to do the reduction directly with electricity but that’s less energy-efficient than going via hydrogen. For the chemical industry the situation is even more extreme they need hydrogen as an ingredient for the final product, not just as a reactant.
Yea it’s such a weird direction to go right night. Manufacturing and delivery of hydrogen for fuel cells is complex, expensive, and poses some unique dangers with the temps and pressure of the hydrogen. It’s cleaner, assuming manufacturing of the hydrogen uses green energy, but right now most energy production isn’t green.
It has its advantages but some pretty big disadvantages too. I don’t think it’s the way to go just yet. Maybe eventually but not today I don’t think.
The problem we have is energy density. Gasoline is pretty damn dense energy-wise. Storing 20-30 gallons of gas in a tank That’s easy and safe to refill is hard to replace.
Lithium ion and lithium iron phosphate batteries are slow to refill.
Hydrogen is kind of neat. You can make it from splitting water with solar or nuclear. It’s also a byproduct of the oil industry. And you can fill a tanker up or even an entire train and move fuck ton of hydrogen from one place to another. You can pipe it, people can generated for themselves and get a byproduct of pure oxygen.
But alas, it’s still hydrogen. Give it access to the air in a little bit of fire and it makes a big boom. The infrastructure is very expensive to build out, and we’re not swimming so much and renewables then it makes sense to bottle it up and sell it to people.
It can make sense for limited uses like cross country trucking (or maybe airlines) where battery will probably never have the range and you live and die by the schedule and refuel stops need to be relatively quick. Refilling semis at a limited number of truck stops with hydrogen stations can be useful if you can also get non petro-derived hydrogen. But for soccer moms and commuters it makes zero sense. Just charge smaller batteries at home and work and have a good interstate charging network for longer trips. We just need to normalize taking breaks on a road trip. It’ll help make more relaxing drives anyway and people already drive angry.
I’d just as soon see the majority of long haul trucking be replaced by electrified rail.
Likewise with a big chunk of the airline industry.
Oh absolutely. Rail is a better option for almost everything. However, some stuff will always need trucking (oversized, dangerous cargo, rural, etc.) but also the US is currently so overrdependent on roads it’s at least an intermediate tool.
I really wanted to see solar to hydrogen storage and then a hybrid fuel cell plus battery powerwall. Use all the solar that you get in the morning and not have to burn a battery pack out every 5 to 10 years.
You could do the same with the car, throw a small fuel cell plant in there a couple liters of hydrogen and a decent but not too big battery pack. When you park your car at work or at home it just sits there and slowly charges when you’re not paying any attention. If it gets into a true low state or you know you’re going to need it the next day to go further you can plug it into your home electric. It’s just absolutely reasonable to put enough solar on a lot of houses that you could be completely sufficient from the grid.
I don’t understand why people think we have to pick a single solution for all vehicles on the road. We can have BEV and hydrogen at the same time.
Consumers adopt newer technologies more readily when they aren’t holding back waiting to see which of two competing standards will win.
There are efficiencies to doing things one way versus two ways.
Plus, if one way is clearly superior, having two only adds unnecessary complexity. If hydrogen was competitive I’d say great - let’s do it all. But on its own merits it just doesn’t hold up versus the alternatives. No ones banning it but why should anyone pursue it?
Seems like the winning standard I’d ICE then as it’s worked well for over a hundred years and all the infrastructure is in place. Why should anyone pursue any other option?
Battery electric cars win over ICE because the infrastructure is right in my house. We’ve spent centuries electrifying the world. It’s also greener and cleaner than ICE. And lower maintenance.
Hydrogen just has a slight density edge. That’s it.
You’re arguing that it’s the best solution for everyone simply because it’s the best solution for you. Hydrogen has a major advantage in that you can just refill the tank in an instant which is a major factor in people’s decision not to buy a BEV and a major drawback for people who regularly drive long distances.
I just find it incredibly ridiculous that people (typically laypeople) think they have all the answers and can make calls on what’s the right or wrong decision, how the future will play out, and what the one-size-fits-all solution will be. It’s closed-minded and only prevents progress as it limits what’s possible. Companies investing in hydrogen with their own money has literally zero impact on you, so why are you arguing against it when it has clear advantages in certain instances? What do you gain?
Your right that my perspective is totally about “me” as long as you consider “me” to be people who have electricity
Instant battery change is also possible but it hasn’t been valued enough to be a factor. Just like instant fueling hasn’t made hydrogen competitive.
I assure you my closed minded layperson bullshit is not the thing that’s holding back hydrogen.
We did explore both options over the last 30 years or so. Batteries won for cars. Holding out otherwise at this point is silly.
Hydrogen might be what ends up powering long haul trucking, but I’d prefer that be replaced by electrified rail, anyway.
Who’s “we” here? Seems like major manufacturers are still pouring money into both technologies, meaning nobody but you and these other closed-minded commenters feel that they have everything all figured out and hold all the answers. GM and Honda just announced new investments into hydrogen vehicles as well.
This line of thinking is why EVs were crushed out of existence long ago until Tesla made them popular again just a few short years ago relatively speaking.
Who’s “we” here?
Public funding for research; in other words, all of us.
A bunch of companies connected to the oil industry want hydrogen to happen, because the oil industry knows they’re the only economical source of hydrogen. Even among them, Toyota is about the only one who was willing to do the full nose dive into the tech, and it’s biting them in the ass.
Forgive me but which of these major manufacturers rely on publicly funded research when designing new vehicles?
Also where’s your source for companies like GM, Honda, and Toyota being connected to the oil industry and doing their bidding when it comes to releasing new vehicles? How is it biting them in the ass? Toyota is currently on the forefront of solid state battery tech for BEVs. Perhaps you shouldn’t believe every article you read on the internet.
Forgive me but which of these major manufacturers rely on publicly funded research when designing new vehicles?
Public funding tends to go on at universities. Major manufactureres then buy the patents and take the credit.
No, they get shorter range at a higher price than batteries.
People push for it because they are either middlemen who want to sell the hydrogen and get a cut of ongoing profits, or Luddites who believe EVERYTHING must operate exactly the same way gasoline cars do or else they’ll never switch.
What, you don’t see how great it is to have two separate sets of infrastructure with little overlap in order to have a less efficient solution pushed by the oil industry?
I got the infrastructure argument when EV battery range sucked and charge times took hours. But now that EV range is getting close to gasoline cars, and charging can be done in minutes with a super charger, hydrogen doesn’t make much sense.
It could’ve been dope if only a company like Toyota made some desirable cars and built out a great station network.
I think the ideal sustainable chemical fuel would be propane generated through genetically engineered algae. Propane can easily be compressed into liquid and transported and it burns clean.
Have something like solar panels filled with photosynthetic algae producing propane that is constantly extracted as a gas. Once we have done the genetic engineering of a “steady state algae panel” it would be quite low tech to have these on your roof and store them to heat with in winter. Or use for specific large machines where batteries are not worth the embodied energy.
Algae is, at best, around 10% efficient at converting light into energy. You can use solar power to produce hydrogen at better efficiency than that, but even that’s pretty poor. The best is to just use that electricity as it is, and second best is to put it in a battery.
True. But I’m thinking a bit in terms of “solar punk”. Batteries and fuel cells require high tech materials and very complex global production lines for manufacture and supply of raw materials or instruments etc. It’s a bit of a house of cards. So I’m trying to think how you can “democratize” the base of a local economy. Genetically engineering plants for bio fuel is one way. That allows third world countries or local cities to maintain civilization even if global trade collapses.
What part of that confuses you? Hydrogen is better for cars VS batteries in every meaningful way in 2024. Long range, quick fill ups, zero harmful emissions, don’t need to live in SFH or rely on landlord/HOA to grant you the privilege of charging your car.
Hydrogen cell cars are electric cars that don’t rely on severely underdeveloped technology of batteries we have today.
And where are you gonna get the hydrogen from? You have any idea how power inefficient electrolysis is!?
https://www.airproducts.com/equipment/hydrogen-onsite-generators
Uhh there are tons of companies making these now. You can literally drop one of these in the middle of nowhere running off solar, pulling hydrogen from the atmosphere.
Yes. Do you have any idea how much energy we’re wasting because nuclear power plants produce way more than we need because they can’t scale easily or that most green energy generation is at the time people don’t actually need it? Hydrogen is a prefect storage solution for that power.
Not really. Since grid storage doesn’t have the same weight limits as EVs, there are a hundred different viable technologies. Everything from flow batteries, to flywheels, to pumping water uphill. Hydrogen fits in there, but it’s not likely to be widespread.
You’re mostly right. But I don’t agree on the last part. Hydrogen production can’t be done in your backyard. But electricity can (and I forgive you if have no backyard, these next few points may be less relevant if that is the case).
Unlike hydrogen, electricity production is affordable, scalable, and ubiquitous. And that small detail changes the benefits dramatically.
- The idea of being your own gas station, from the grid, or from your own solar, is really compelling. No one likes being at the mercy of fluctuating energy prices, or, as in this case, unreliable and scarce availability of fuel.
- Many people don’t like going to gas stations (e.g. women and personal safety). Totally doable outside of road trips.
- If you are generating your own electricity you will need batteries anyway. Might as well put wheels on them: two birds one stone.
- Even if you don’t generate your own power, you still want power security during outage. Since the battery is on wheels, you can drive it to a place that does have power to top up.
Again, I can see that these are less compelling points if you live in a super dense area and utilities and supply chain there are really dependable. But this is hardly the case everywhere.
And then there’s the build of the car itself. Honestly, I know nothing about it, but something tells me the simplicity of battery and electric motors makes those cars more practical to build, especially if the battery itself is commoditized as part of a complete electric grid solution.
Most people in the world cannot put solar panels on their roof today. Even if you exclude all the places people don’t own cars I still think my statement will be true.
Many people don’t like going to gas stations
Honestly, and I don’t want to sound selfish here, but never having to get out at a gas station in the middle of winter again is the biggest draw of an EV for me. Especially since I rarely drive more than about 60 miles.
Hydrogen production can’t be done in your backyard
I can put two electrodes in salt water and run it off an old power brick and generate hydrogen. It’s not efficient, industrial hydrogen isn’t primarily made that way (it mainly comes from oil instead), and hydrogen has a list of other problems, but it can be done.
You… actually can.
https://www.airproducts.com/equipment/hydrogen-onsite-generators
Lots of companies make stations like these. Granted they’re not cheap.
Sure. All that’s great.
But I’m talking about infrastructure, not technology.
Infra is result of people jumping on wrong tech. Batteries don’t belong in cars in their current state of development.
Yes! A clean platform that needs METRIC GIGATONS of carbon positive infrastructure to set up and maintain. That is why I call shenanigans on your zero harmful emissions claim.
VS
We already have wires, and batteries are more than good enough for a vast swath of the everyday commuting public.
They make solar stations that will pull hydrogen right from the atmosphere. What carbon are you talking about…and you do realize the same power that would be used to make hydrogen in your example would also be charging batteries.
Hydrogen can be generated any time. Like when nuclear or solar or wind energy is otherwise going to waste. We don’t have and likely won’t have batteries that could replace it for decades.
Modern batteries are absolute shit and definitely not good enough. I think a good indication that batteries are anywhere near useful will be when you can fly on battery power across the Atlantic.
Ok chief, you know best. Better sit out buying a vehicle until the dust settles then I guess.
Meanwhile, I’ll be charging my ‘not good enough’ EV and trying not to let the fact that it doesn’t measure up to your standards weigh to heavily on me.
I already have an EV and I still think batteries in them are shit. These are not mutually exclusive.
Hmm is it a leaf perchance? I’m very very happy with the 2020 Ioniq, it’s been solid, reliable, and true to its mileage estimate (I actually get 25km more range at 100% than the advertised specs)
I’ve heard negative stories about Nissan’s battery tech - which is why I ask. Air cooling is not really helpful to lithium battery cells.
It’s also possible you just got a bad module, and/or that you just have higher standards and expectations than I do, and these are also not mutually exclusive.
I have an Outlander and I’m also getting more range than advertised specs. My issue with batteries isn’t defects in tech, but the stage of its development. There are simply no batteries that can even come close to energy storage capacity of hydrogen and unlike with gas (12-30%), hydrogen’s conversion efficiency when using fuel cell is ~60%.
We don’t have and likely won’t have batteries that could replace it for decades.
Wrong. There are tons of options for grid storage batteries that are gearing up for mass production right now.
Hydrogen is better for cars VS batteries in every meaningful way in 2024.
Lol, no.
severely underdeveloped technology of batteries we have today.
Lol, no.
Instead you rely on Shell to provide hydrogen to you when there’s no pre-existing infrastructure to deliver it and… Oh, looks like they decided to put an end to it, have fun with your brick on wheels 🤷
Instead you rely on Shell
that’s the whole point tho, for them to sell you special fuel, that you can’t get yourself, like you could with solar panels. this is more serious threat from fleets of trucks, those companies are already building their solar farms to charge their trucks. that’s somewhat catastrophic for companies selling fuel nowadays. of-course they’ll push their magic fuel solution, forcefully. who do you think pays the hydrogen shilling campaigns?
Shell is one of many companies providing hydrogen fuel stations. Infra may not be where it should be, but I blame that on all the people who jumped on battery powered cars at a time battery tech is years of not decades away from being good in vehicles.
Green hydrogen–where it’s produced entirely using renewable resources–currently costs at least twice as much as producing it from hydrocarbons. Depending on the details, it can be seven times as much. Pink hydrogen–water electrolysis powered by nuclear–is barely much better.
The vast majority of production comes from hydrocarbons. Most of it currently goes to the agricultural industry for making nitrate fertilizer.
This is entirely the petrochemical industry trying to open up a new market before it loses its current biggest one.
I get it, but cost is irrelevant if it is produced using green power that would otherwise be wasted anyway from overproduction.
Wait what? How in the fuck could an HOA prevent you from charging your car or installing a charger inside your space? The charger lives inside your garage, so it doesn’t effect curbside appearance and isn’t within what they can control.
At absolute worst, if you have no garage and street parking, wouldn’t you just be running the cord over to your vehicle? Non-commercial charging stations aren’t normally weather proof, so that wouldn’t be outside, and again, none of their business. If they have an issue with an extension cord running across your lawn, or a cable slightly larger than a hose, then they’d have to make sane rules about how long it can be left out, like not just leaving it plugged in for a whole weekend straight. Otherwise they’re making it against the rules for people to use corded yard equipment or use a hose.
I might be missing something here, but I don’t see any way an HOA could do anything against it.
No offense, but your response means you’re either the luckiest person in the world and live in a utopian HOA or much more realistically have zero experience with the stupid fucking cancer that is currently infesting more and more properties.
It took me years of paying lawyers and dealing with some of the stupidest and most stubborn people on the planet to try to install a charger near my spot in a shared garage. At my expense and with all requirements met, it was still easier to move than convince those fucking assholes that we’re in 2020 and cars use electricity.
No HOA on this planet will let you just run a cord even if you don’t consider that this would likely restrict you to level one charging and expose you to power theft.
Not to mention all the ecological damage mining for battery components does. I’m with you, hydrogen is the way to go
A huge portion of our battery materials come from the Atacama Desert. There is no life at all in a lot of it.
You do know that we get most of our hydrogen from burning fossil fuels, right?
Removed by mod
Unfortunately they’re both death sentences. It’s either public transport or climate apocalypse.
I am well aware we are doomed.
Yes, they can. They just don’t want to.
It’s not hard to see what’s happening here: a company that is almost solely based upon selling petroleum-based fuel put down a few hydrogen stations, then gave up, stating “it’s just not feasible! Look, we tried! Looks like fossil fuels are the future! Oh well, tee hee!”
Very weak tea indeed.
Hydrogen will have an important role to play in the future of green energy simply because it’s a portable high density fuel, that doesn’t require a battery to work.
The trade-off is that hydrogen takes more energy to create, then you get back. That doesn’t make a lot of sense when you’re using fossil fuels, but it would in a future with significant amounts of excess green energy e.g. wind, solar, fusion, etc.
“Doesn’t require a battery to work” is a fairly meaningless upside when it does require a fuel cell, a moisture exhaust, and a cannister of compressed, flammable gas.
You can mine hydrogen. They recently found some pretty large reserves of pure-ish hydrogen underground.
Did they stop subsidizing Shells greenwashing?
No they’ve just been subsidizing an inferior technology (batteries might be better if we had room temperature superconductors, plus the hurdles for hydrogen are so much smaller and it doesn’t rely on digging hundreds of millions of tons of rare earth metals out of the ground just to replace all the vehicles on the road today)
No, hydrogen just requires processing methane. How superior!
Only cheaper in small volumes, not in every car everywhere volumes.
You can use the same electricity you’d use to charge an electric car to separate water, but basically you’re saving the problem of having to deliver that power to every supercharger station at the time of your convenience, which is the biggest hurdle.
I live in the area with the most electric cars of anywhere and our power costs have passed the point where $6/gallon gas in a regular car is actually cheaper per mile than charging a Tesla.
ALL the power infrastructure needs to be replaced to handle multiples higher demand just to keep up.
The same can be said about transporting and storing hydrogen. You can’t just use existing infrastructure. Hydrogen has to be kept under high pressure and it leaks out of most containers since it’s the smallest element on the periodic table. Not to mention the energy density per volume (compressed) is much lower than gas.
Making hydrogen through electrolysis is possible and we’ve all seen it in school but it is pretty inefficient if you compare storing energy in a lithium battery to making hydrogen from fresh water sources. Not to mention liquid hydrogen, after being generated and compressed, must be transported which uses huge amounts of energy. And even given that, it’s pointless to talk about green hydrogen when it’s less than 1% of global hydrogen production and even optimistic projections don’t show it growing that much in the following decade. It’s also old technology meaning there isn’t much room for improvement to the process, transportation and storage problems.
Hydrogen production is dominated by the fossil fuel industry because it is much more cost effective to extract it from coal and natural gas. Something like 6% of use of these fossil fuels currently go to hydrogen production.
I’m sorry where you live the power costs are so high. Hopefully things will improve with newer power infrastructure.
You can use the same electricity you’d use to charge an electric car to separate water,
With a huge power loss, even if you just look at the hydrogen production and not the transport, storage and maintenance of the specialised facilities necessary to distribute it.
Hydrogen is super inefficient compared to electric vehicles.
Didn’t they just do this to cloud the conversation on alternative fuels and the tech was never really viable? And to like, divert investment that could have otherwise gone to other more promising green technologies?
EVs, Hydrogen Cells, Vegetable Oil, all these alternatives are here to save one thing; The Car Industry. Sounds like the problem might be mode of transport rather than fuel.
Oh, come on, I live in Copenhagen and cycle daily, but even there, cars are not going anywhere. Smelly-smokey cars, yes, but not cars in general.
Cars aren’t being eliminated completely, but we can significantly reduce their usage if we look to your home city as an example. In Copenhagen, only 44% of commutes are made by car. In the Bay Area, probably the least car-centric area of California, 85% of commutes are by car (I removed the 33% WFH, so 58/67=85%).
Yes, it does work, and it feels nice there. Though a large part of it is not about improving other ways of transportation, but about creating problems for car-owners.
So, “greater good” and all, but the situation is far from perfect even here, and people have a long way ahead, to create infrastructures where people also feel good, but not because someone is “getting punished for bad behaviour”
I dunno, man. I think it’s about time Copenhagen takes a good look at how The Netherlands has been doing things the past decade. Cycling infrastructure can do with a serious upgrade around here, and The Netherlands has proven that, yes, you totally can reduce the number of cars on the street.
It’s not the time to brag that The Netherlands have a better cycling infrastructure (that is actually debatable), the comment was about cars “going away completely”.
Yes, I don’t have a personal car, but recently I needed to haul a dining table and 6 chairs into my apartment. It took a Berlingo and two hours, and it would be a complete circus number even with a cargobike.
What is the argument here? Cars are here to stay forever and ever? Most daily commuters could get used to a train. It is possible for most people to live without a car, your city was just designed in a way that requires you to.
Most daily commuters could get used to a train
It’s definitely not “most”. You have to live and work near a train station for that to be viable option. It’s not about “getting used to” trains, it’s just for most commutes a train simply takes too long - because they don’t go directly to your destination.
In Denmark, which has one of the best transit networks in the world, only 13% of commuting is by public transport. 20% is by bicycle. Cars are 60%.
That’s the point, we can’t exactly just resign a city from the ground up to work with public transit especially when it’s not being pushed for by the majority
Yes but what is the alternative? Can civilians all have their own car when 10 million live in a city? What about 30 million? 100? It stops making sense the more people you have. And on top of that suppliers and transportation services use the same road, too. It is already like flying through the death star out here with half the road being eaten by transportation companies.
The higher the density of the city, the better public transit works. You can live in Tokyo or London and get by without a car, but everyone in the world can’t (or won’t) live in Tokyo-dense cities. It doesn’t make any financial sense building a subway in a city of only 100,000.
Well with the way the birthrates are going, I think population is going to stabilize.
Then you’re not looking.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate
It is still going up just much more slowly. To say we shouldn’t worry about efficiency cause there will never be that many people disregards the benefits of unloading all of these personal costs to individuals. Vehicles are expensive on top of everything.
You know that link proves my point? It shows a steady decline in population so we’re actually going to have LESS people.
So what’s more practical, slowly replacing all ICE cars or completely redesigning entire cities, bulldozing large metro blocks to reconfigure and rebuild?
A little column A, a little column B. Mostly, we can have gentle changes to our cities, like removing Single-Family Home and other exclusionary zoning, removing mandatory parking minimums, as well other initiatives to encourage higher density, mixed-use buildings, and active transportation usage.
As I just commented. How many individuals can drive cars before congestion makes it impossible? 10 million people? 20? 30? The I-10 and 101 stack interchange is already a fucken mess that can’t be expanded. How do you handle exponentially more drivers on the road each year?
Edit: you don’t even have to answer cause we already know from California, you don’t. The rich people just pay pilots to fly them and the plebs get stuck in 2+ hour traffic to go 20 miles.
How many individuals can drive cars before congestion makes it impossible
It’s impossible to answer that - there are just too many other variables, such as how far are people travelling each day on average, how many of them are going to the same destination, how many roads are there (not how many lanes, how many roads), etc etc.
A lot of the problem can be mitigated with zoning rules to encourage people not to travel to the inner city. Whatever reason they might have to go to the CBD should also be available elsewhere in the city if at all possible.
The fact is trains also have traffic issues and that tends to get a lot worse as you increase the number of train lines in your city. The efficiency of train travel is in part because not many people use that mode of transport. Cities that have 10% of travel by train now probably can’t expand that to 80%.
Diversity is the only option. Give people access to every mode of transit, and let them pick the best one. I’m not from California so I don’t know the local issues, but looking at a map I-10 has six train lines that run basically parallel to it. Trains are clearly available so why are people choosing to drive? I’m sure they have a reason. Rather than trying to add more train lines, how about figure out why people are driving that route and tackle it from that perspective? What are they heading into LA for? Can it be done somewhere else?
I was talking more about where I live. In Arizona your options are car or a slow bus. The light rail only goes to the east side and inner city. You pretty much are forced to own a car and feed into that entire complex. Its bullshit and the congestion is getting exponentially worse each year. I’ve been voting in local elections for my lifetime and nobody cares. Guessing by this comment section everyone is content being forced to participate in the car market. So go ahead, be forced to buy insurance, tires, gas, and vehicle maintenance. Be forced to drive on crowded roads during early morning hours with thousands of others. Everyone loves it I guess. Instead of, maybe voting for public transit that is so reliable you can count on a tram or train every 30 minutes so we don’t have to spend multiple thousands of dollars on a vehicle to get to work and back.
As much as I’d like to use public transport, even with traffic, taking the metro / bus is still at least 2x slower than driving here. Yes I tried, it’s that ridiculous. They are trying to improve, but progress is very slow. The whole city was designed with cars, and only cars in mind.
I do keep hoping one of these will succeed though: we have many different things that move and need multiple solutions to kick our fossil fuel habit.
Walkable cities with train systems are ideal but will take decades to build out, plus at least in the US, we have predictions of people moving away from cities
Battery seems to have won best technology for personal transportation, whether scooters, bikes cars. However will take a couple decades, or more in the face of conservative resistance to change
But what about all those trucks, aircraft, construction and farming equipment, shipping, military vehicles? That’s a lot of fossil fuel usage and a lot of experiments but no solution in sight
clearly never lived in a rural setting
I’m clearly talking about cities. Where most people live.
Where most people think their food supply line is invincible.
Rural communites still use their space inefficiently. You dont need a mile between houses. Natural resource generation takes no personal freedoms into account, nor does it take human comfort. We have one pie to share until the sun explodes. Best figure out how to share it.
You ever think that maybe farm/grazing fields are the reason rural homes are spaced so far apart?
Regardless, cars definitely contribute to climate change, but they’re a drop in the bucket compared to industrial pollution. It makes me wonder why there isn’t the same level of hyper fixation on replacing those technologies with carbon neutral solutions as replacing personal vehicles. Let’s just keep those enormous cargo ships burning bunker fuel 24/7. Hell, even large scale meat farms are quite dangerous, as methane is even worse than CO2. You’d think there’d be more of a focus on regulating and slowing down large scale meat production.
If you can’t get people to drop cars, you aren’t going to get them to drop meat for meat alternatives. Its just the piece of our culture that has been deemed easier to change since there are alrsady successful examples of it across the world. Meanwhile, what country has no meat industry and provides a first world standard of living? It may exist, I dont think so though.
Yes, I do think they are further apart due to farms and grazing. My family has a farm in Alabama that has been slowly shrinking because of costs. Does every house out there have its own farm? No! Some of the land plots for newer builds were sold off from my family’s farm, meaning it now envelopes the newer property. Are they still spaced far enough apart that you can’t even tell someone else lives on the property? Of course they are!
Either way, we’ll have these conversations until you and I are rubbing elbows on the $5 per half mile ride share to the corpse starch manufactorum.
Ah yes, so all the houses people rarely visit are located close together and the farms they have to visit multiple times a day are even further away?
Deranged thinking by someone who has never considered that their food is grown in a field rather than some factory
If you design it in an asinine way, sure. All of these houses do not have personal farms. Most of them are either carved from the farm property, or already live off of it. Like my family’s farm in Alabama. They cut pieces of the land directly off of the road and sold it to the workers so they can live near the farm. They rode mountain bikes to work and used their cars to go into town or groceries. Everyone acting like there is no alternative in this thread, or we already do things the best way, is in denial.
“You don’t need a mile between houses.”
Never lived next door to a pig farm, did you
I didn’t realize every house in rural country had its own pig farm.
Wonder if Toyota will take back all those Mirais that will be stranded on the side of the road otherwise?
I remember reading something that they are all leased, not purchased. So they cut their lease and own them already.
Need to double check that.
I’ve been on the hydrogen bandwagon for years, but the fact of the matter is, E-Fuels and HVO Diesel is an actual, viable option now, especially with efficiency reaching ever higher numbers year after year. 5 Years ago, one liter of E-Fuel was around 3-4 Euros (projected), now it’s around 80 cents.
There is nothing cheaper than just changing out fossile fuels for sustainable and carbon neutral (maybe even carbon negative, because some company’s are already thinking about putting a part of the saved carbon in the ground for long term storage, because it’s going to be cheaper with co2 taxes to just put a part of that away for good) stuff and just using existing infrastructure.
The 25-30% of people that are going to be getting EVs are easily buffered with the existing grids.
As a petrol head, I’m keen to see e fuel that cheap but haven’t seen anything like less than than 1 euro. How much is porche doing it for now?
No idea, but HVO100 is around 1,82 Euros per liter where I fuel up and it’s considered an “E-Fuel”.
Porsche projects around 2 Euros per liter in 2025. By 2025 the fossile fuel prices are expected to be above that due to the co2 taxes. However, that’s not the “final” state of the plant, which is expected to be done by 2028 for 500 Million Liters a year. 2025 is 55 Million liters a year…
Isn’t the fuel carbon neutral? Or close to it?
HydrogenNatural Gasftfy.
