|
|
Post by eclipse on May 12, 2012 12:27:50 GMT 9.5
Amory Lovins is back; full of passion; delivering clever one liners; and sounding smug. As if a large-scale move to renewables is not only possible, but due to market competitiveness, inevitable!Amory Lovins presents "Reinventing Fire", his new TED talk which shows how to make our transport and homes and industries *so* efficient America could move to renewables *and* grow their economy *and* switch off the coal. TED Page:www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_energy.htmlWhile I remain *aghast* at his over simplistic dismissal of nuclear power and his lack of concern for reliable baseload electricity, the other stuff is pretty good. I especially liked the diagram illustrating how cars become lighter they become far more energy efficient. I was impressed with the strength of the carbon-fibre dome he presented to the audience. I'm just sad that he was so glib about clean, abundant, reliable, safe nuclear power that could provide all our energy needs! He was also a little too glib about the marketplace solving all of these issues for us. He even seems to like trucks and cars. I guess living in the USA he has to! But in less individualistic societies like Australia and Europe we can have other conversations about fast-rail and trolley buses and, over time, increasing trendy and convenient New Urbanism that can meet all our needs within a seven minute walk! |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 12, 2012 22:27:30 GMT 9.5
Amory Lovins has a history of proposing efficiency methods which require too much compromise for anyone but an ideologue to be willing to put up with (besides, his soft energy path is what we've been trying and it hasn't worked).
It is worth noting that most energy demand is in industry and that industry tends to be pretty energy efficient (especially the big users) simply due to economics so there probably isn't all that much improvement possible there.
Besides, his last energy plan hasn't worked out too well (in many ways it's what got us into the current mess) so why I should I hold out hope that this one will (especially since it doesn't seem all that different)?
|
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on May 12, 2012 22:44:26 GMT 9.5
I agree with all that, but I did enjoy his message on lighter electric vehicles being far, far more energy efficient than heavy, petroleum carrying internal combustion engine vehicles. Personally I'm against a car-dominated society. I think a mix of New Urbanism and public transport is probably going to be far more practical in the long run, with Google-styled Robot Cars acting as taxis for those trips you absolutely have to have a car. (Taxis will be far cheaper without a driver to pay salaries to! With Nevada granting google a licence to drive their robot cars around the state, they're on the way. If you owned a robot-car it could drop you outside the front door of your destination, then drive off to find somewhere to park and charge up. When you want it back just call it on your mobile!)
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 12, 2012 23:30:17 GMT 9.5
The big problem with making cars lighter is what happens when those lighter vehicles crash (it's actually the main reason cars of the same size have been getting heavier).
Public transport has its limitations as well and tends to work best in dense areas (it's usually no good in rural areas for example).
New urbanism also doesn't seem all that new (in many ways it seems more like old villageism) and insisting on everything being within working distance is pretty much a recipe for disaster, especially for those who have jobs not within walking distance (and I don't think it at all reasonable to expect people to move house every time they get a new job). Robot cars if they can get the safety aspects worked out or PRT if the infrastructure were cheap enough (you'd need a lot of it) would probably be the best options (though we'll probably always have cars, even if just as weekend toys).
|
|
|
|
Post by grlcowan on May 13, 2012 1:21:54 GMT 9.5
I agree with all that, but I did enjoy his message on lighter electric vehicles being far, far more energy efficient than heavy, petroleum carrying internal combustion engine vehicles. Personally I'm against a car-dominated society Indeed. Cars are dumb. Have you ever heard one come out in favour of gay marriage? What are they doing about overfishing? If you are against a motorist-dominated society, well, I'm not with you, and I won't give you a ride to the meeting. My web page shows the respective sizes of two cars, one BEV and one not, that are not efficient stayers-in-labs. |
|
|
|
Post by grlcowan on May 13, 2012 5:42:49 GMT 9.5
I thought my page -- www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/ -- was linked from my name, or my profile page. To be sorted out later. One other point I meant to make: electric cars aren't light. You'd be surprised how large the ratio is, although less than one, between the mass of the foreground car and the background one in the montage on that page. Also, about not giving you a ride to the meeting: I wanted that to be a link, but couldn't find it this morning. Link. |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 13, 2012 10:05:27 GMT 9.5
The Swiss postal buses
(1) deliver the mail and small packages
(2) provide public transportation for a small fee
(3) act as school buses during the school year
(4) follow all the rural routes.
Where there is a will there is a way.
|
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on May 13, 2012 10:58:33 GMT 9.5
The lack of discussion by Amory Lovins about the role of public transport was disappointing - it should have a major role in decarbonisation given that the world is becoming increasingly urbanised.
It seems that when it comes to transport he hasn't got out of his "hypercar" rut. I'm all for increased use of carbon fibre composites, better aerodynamics and electric cars, but it's not a transport panacea.
|
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on May 13, 2012 14:12:27 GMT 9.5
Did you watch the Lovins talk? How much stronger is carbon fibre than heavy steel?  If you build it they will come. Professor Peter Newman has often documented how building good rail systems then encourages developers to concentrate New Urbanism or ecocities around and, in the case of St Leonards Station, Sydney, above the railways. It guarantees access to a steady flow of pedestrians that businesses find irresistible and can then also guarantee a good public space if designed well. This is, of course, taking the longer view. But a lot could be achieved in just 20 to 30 years. See "My other car is a Bright Green city" from the famous TED speaker and sustainability writer Alex Steffen. Why? Sources? There are many places around the world that thrive on this. Nobody said that at all. There are a number of ways around this, including fast efficient public transport like trains and trams and trolley buses which can be installed five times cheaper than trams and ten times cheaper than trains. Fast rail and cycling and car share schemes all help reduce the need for suburbia. Suburbia has so many demonstrable problems that I'm astonished you throw up a red herring about access to work when cities are the way we've pretty much ALWAYS lived for the last 10 thousand years, apart from this sad modern experiment we call suburbia. Not from a traffic, town planning, and infrastructure point of view. But they will have their place in covering any gaps in a well designed New Urban public transit system. They might give you a quick lift to the local train station and then drive off to collect another passenger. In my mind, they're the logical last missing ingredient we need to maybe drop as much personal car ownership as we have. Rather than buying an expensive car, there will probably be much cheaper car plans. How good would that be? |
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on May 13, 2012 14:15:39 GMT 9.5
I agree with all that, but I did enjoy his message on lighter electric vehicles being far, far more energy efficient than heavy, petroleum carrying internal combustion engine vehicles. Personally I'm against a car-dominated society Indeed. Cars are dumb. Have you ever heard one come out in favour of gay marriage? What are they doing about overfishing? If you are against a motorist-dominated society, well, I'm not with you, and I won't give you a ride to the meeting. My web page shows the respective sizes of two cars, one BEV and one not, that are not efficient stayers-in-labs. Not a big fan of Europe then? They use half the oil per capita of the average American. What about Tokyo? Not a fan? Oh well. What about Manhattan? What a dump. No one would want to live there or do business there!  |
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on May 13, 2012 14:28:20 GMT 9.5
Did you watch the Lovins talk? How much stronger is carbon fibre than heavy steel? If you build it they will come. Professor Peter Newman has often documented how building good rail systems then encourages developers to concentrate New Urbanism or ecocities around and, in the case of St Leonards Station, Sydney, above the railways. It guarantees access to a steady flow of pedestrians that businesses find irresistible and can then also guarantee a good public space if designed well. This is, of course, taking the longer view. But a lot could be achieved in just 20 to 30 years. See "My other car is a Bright Green city" from the famous TED speaker and sustainability writer Alex Steffen. Why? Sources? There are many places around the world that thrive on this. Nobody said that at all. There are a number of ways around this, including fast efficient public transport like trains and trams and trolley buses. Trolley buses are often overlooked, but are gold. They can be installed 5 times cheaper than trams, and 10 times cheaper than trains! Suburbia has so many demonstrable problems that I'm astonished you throw up a red herring about access to work when cities are the way we've pretty much ALWAYS lived for the last 10 thousand years, apart from this sad modern experiment we call suburbia. New Urbanism has even been reported to generate better mental health outcomes! I think you need to spend a bit of time on my Rezone page where I've collected my favourite speakers and writers on city design. Not from a traffic, town planning, and infrastructure point of view. But they will have their place in covering any gaps in a well designed New Urban public transit system. They might give you a quick lift to the local train station and then drive off to collect another passenger. In my mind, they're the logical last missing ingredient we need to maybe drop as much personal car ownership as we have. Rather than buying an expensive car, there will probably be much cheaper car plans. How good would that be? |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 13, 2012 14:28:54 GMT 9.5
If suburbia were that bad why is it so popular?
It's almost as if people find something more valuable than not having urban sprawl (fact is that people many people want some of the properties of country living as well as the advantages of city living, suburbia just happens to be the compromise between the two).
The way that we've always lived has not been the modern city, but the small village.
|
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on May 13, 2012 15:32:04 GMT 9.5
If suburbia were that bad why is it so popular? It's almost as if people find something more valuable than not having urban sprawl (fact is that people many people want some of the properties of country living as well as the advantages of city living, suburbia just happens to be the compromise between the two). The way that we've always lived has not been the modern city, but the small village. Suburbia is a ridiculous experiment in 'half city, half country' that in many places results in bland alienated boxes that people just go home to sleep in. They are not country living and have no connection to the local landscape and rural activities of agriculture and homesteading. They are a mockery of all that and are quite often named after the very things they destroyed. Duck Crossing has no ducks, and Emu Plains will have no emus. That sort of thing. But forget the irony of these names, the fact remains that suburbia results in a car-based lifestyle that is soon going to be increasingly difficult to fuel after peak oil; it destroys neighbourliness and community by putting people in cars instead of in trains together; and it alienates us from a deeper connection to the people who supply our goods and services. Here's a 4 minute Youtube presentation on the subject I find compelling. It summarises a few years of reading I did on the subject into a few clear soundbytes. There are even other, more considered 'villages-town' concepts. The standard New Urbanism above is more about the shape of a city rather than the number of people and professions. Like many existing denser cities, it just tries to maximise accommodation near shops and services and employment opportunities and transport. However, there is a bold new concept called "Village Towns" and that is what you seem to be responding to? It tries to measure the number of people living there into walled, car-free Villages of 500 people who all live inside the walled Piazza, and walk outside to hire a car. With 20 other Villages around the central Town, the Village Town concept plans to have 10,000 people. All living locally, and sourcing their food from local farms and produce. Check out this Sydney TEDx 2009 talk by Claude Lewenz of the Village Town movement. It's 20 minutes and third down on the right hand column. This roughly co-ordinated local economy, almost semi-planned (democratically) seems to be what you were responding to. It does have some factors that might ask you to move house if you change your job. (This is to do with the fact that some housing is guaranteed at a cheaper rate for teachers and artists living in the Guilds. Yes, you read that correctly. Guilds!) tinyurl.com/68mgh4wI think there's some great ideas in the Village Town movement, but I'm not rushing to move into one! I'll be fascinated to see how it works out though. One was going to be built south of Sydney but they've since found more interest in America. Anyway, all of this is a bit of a distraction. We could start a whole thread all about the wonders of New Urbanism, but I originally wanted to discuss the activism implications of Amory Lovin's TED strategy and our response. But now I see there is an advocacy / activism thread I've started a conversation over there. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 14, 2012 2:05:40 GMT 9.5
Suburbia is a ridiculous experiment in 'half city, half country' that in many places results in bland alienated boxes that people just go home to sleep in. Has it ever occurred to you that some people just want a box to go to sleep in? Though from the point of view of bland alienated boxes apartments are probably closer to that ideal (if you can call it that). They are not country living and have no connection to the local landscape and rural activities of agriculture and homesteading. Quite true, but a lot of people don't so much want those parts of country living (the Australian dream was defined to include a house on a 0.1011714106 hectare block after all, there is appeal to many people in having a backyard and some semblance of distance from the neighbours, density does have its own problems). But forget the irony of these names, the fact remains that suburbia results in a car-based lifestyle that is soon going to be increasingly difficult to fuel after peak oil; I wouldn't be so sure about peak oil actually doing in suburbia (though it may cause those on the fence between suburbs or inner city), especially with electric cars already in existence (true, they can't compete with fossil fuels now, but they seem like they'd be good enough if we had to use them) and the possibility of synthetic hydrocarbons (not to mention all the fossil fuels in the Arctic and Antarctica and the possibility of converting coal to oil, just because we don't like the idea doesn't mean it won't happen). it destroys neighbourliness and community by putting people in cars instead of in trains together; I don't see all that much community in people sitting quietly when I travel by train so I really can't see the argument here (and you'll probably find that most CBD workers in the big Australian capitals took public transport from the suburb they live in to the city). and it alienates us from a deeper connection to the people who supply our goods and services. Suburban businesses have repeat customers about as often as businesses in the inner city so I'm still not seeing the point. |
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on May 14, 2012 12:23:02 GMT 9.5
Hi Anon, yeah, sorry, my previous sentence was not that convincing. The emphasis of New Urbanism is walkability. It's more about living locally and walking past your *friends* in the local bookstore and grocery store and coffee shop. It's about women feeling safe to walk home from the station because there are so many community minded, 'neighbourly' people walking with her, because the crowds are 'big enough' to have enough eyes watching. It's about reaching that critical mass of people using public transport to make the walk home safe, and the many spontaneous over-lapping relationships one has by living in well constructed New Urban districts rather than driving home right up the driveway into the double garage of our isolated McMansion. This Science Show episode from 12th December 2009 discusses the importance of friendships on mental function. Apparently being an part of an active community can increase your own memory by 10%, decrease many risk factors to your health, and they even mentioned the importance of the right kinds of architecture and town planning to increase person to person contact as an automatic part of our lives. www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/group-behaviour-improves-health/3094482Or, as the Harvard Business Review says: hbr.org/2010/05/back-to-the-city/sb1 |
|
