Living Car Free - A New Term For Cars--DOGIES

Why not? Is it heretical to point out what horrible things autos have done to the nation and the planet? Do such suggestions anger the gods of Detroit? Why would anyone take such umbrage at the rantings of a few of us car free nuts if it wasn't a religious matter?
Perhaps this discussion list should be also renamed to make it fit your preference. How 'bout "Car Free Nuts?"

Perhaps this discussion list should be also renamed to make it fit your preference. How 'bout "Car Free Nuts?"

Hey I've missed you! Where you been spewing your venom lately?

Be careful--Brian's trying to usurp your position as Chief Defender of the Car Faith.

:p ;)

Why not? Is it heretical to point out what horrible things autos have done to the nation and the planet? Do such suggestions anger the gods of Detroit? Why would anyone take such umbrage at the rantings of a few of us car free nuts if it wasn't a religious matter? If it's simply political, you can safely ignore us. BUt since cars are a key part of the American religion, we're not allowed to speak ill of them. It's OK if we "suggest some alternatives" while bowing towards the superiority of the auto. But to damn them? To curse the lords of speed and power? This is heresy.

So, trucks only for delivery of goods, and no private autos? Disabled people can ride in bicycle rickshaws. Do factories that spew pollutants get to stay in business?

Moderation is usually a much more workable solution.

So, trucks only for delivery of goods, and no private autos? Disabled people can ride in bicycle rickshaws. Do factories that spew pollutants get to stay in business?

Moderation is usually a much more workable solution.

But you know, this isn't what we want to happen, it's what WILL happen, barring unforeseen technical miracles in the next generation. The auto lifestyle can't be sustained without cheap fuel. Furthermore, the planet's weather can't be sustained without some alternative to private autos (along with getting rid of the spewing factories.)

(OT, I wonder if this is the first time the word "spew" has been used three times in one BF thread?) :)

(OT, I wonder if this is the first time the word "spew" has been used three times in one BF thread?) :)

Outside of ss/fixie? ;)

But you know, this isn't what we want to happen, it's what WILL happen, barring unforeseen technical miracles in the next generation. The auto lifestyle can't be sustained without cheap fuel. Furthermore, the planet's weather can't be sustained without some alternative to private autos (along with getting rid of the spewing factories.)

(OT, I wonder if this is the first time the word "spew" has been used three times in one BF thread?) :)
Electric cars that run on batteries would meet the demands of the average commuter, and I'm sure these would take place of their gas counterparts are fuel becomes less affordable. It's the hydrogen fuel cell cars that are highly impractical and hideously expensive. There are electric city cars that can get 30-50 miles per charge that are fairly affordable availible now, and there are the more expensive, exotic electrics that can get 200 miles per charge like the Tesla Roadster. The technological innovation that needs to happen is a way to make high performance batteries cheap. Combine less expensive electric cars with higher fuel prices, and I imagine that you would see more people adopting them.

Electric cars that run on batteries would meet the demands of the average commuter, and I'm sure these would take place of their gas counterparts are fuel becomes less affordable. It's the hydrogen fuel cell cars that are highly impractical and hideously expensive. There are electric city cars that can get 30-50 miles per charge that are fairly affordable availible now, and there are the more expensive, exotic electrics that can get 200 miles per charge like the Tesla Roadster. The technological innovation that needs to happen is a way to make high performance batteries cheap. Combine less expensive electric cars with higher fuel prices, and I imagine that you would see more people adopting them.

Except of course that the electricity is generated in coal-burning plants. And most of the generating plants planned for the next 20 years in the US and China are coal plants, so this problem won't change soon. At this time, we simply don't have a replacement for fossil fuels used in either transportation or electic power. Technology does work miracles, so we shall see....

....but don't hold your breath!

So, trucks only for delivery of goods, and no private autos? Disabled people can ride in bicycle rickshaws. Do factories that spew pollutants get to stay in business?

Moderation is usually a much more workable solution.

Who said anything about a solution? I was pointing out that calling cars evil or attacking them gets you attacked as a heretic. You come back and claim I'm trying to make crippled kids crawl around. You're arguing with a straw man.

If we're going to talk about solutions, that's an entirely different thread. My own view is that the car culture will burn itself out when it runs out of ff's. But whether it does or not doesn't change the fact that it's destroyed most of the country and threatens to destroy the world. And it doesn't mean I have to bow down to the car as the symbol of freedom and goodness. I hate the things.

....but don't hold your breath!

at some point we'll have to hold our breath's - either as sea levels rise or as air quality gets worse. :eek:

we really can't have our cake and eat it too... at some point we'll need to redesign how we live as much as the stuff we use to live. we can't keep driving - we'll be living on an island with no trees and big stone heads before too long.

to me this is a design problem. we've designed ourselves into it, and we'll need to design ourselves out of it. this could mean miracle fuel cars... but a more likely solution would be to pull in the reigns on far flung development and find a way to design our communities with walking and cycling in mind for short trips and public transport (or even private rentals) for long trips.

Disabled people can ride in bicycle rickshaws. Do factories that spew pollutants get to stay in business?


i love it when this bit enters the argument.

[sarcasm on]sure, disabled people can have cars and atv's and snow mobiles so they can ride all over yellowstone in the winter. all the able bodied people will be forced to walk or bike or run to work and for groceries.

you'll be genetically tested at birth - if your DNA matches a set of key indicators you will be forced to move about under your own power -we'll have a national database and a 5 day waiting period to buy cars and trucks. we'll have bike powered fire trucks, and llama powered ambulances, and even develop kid powered chariots that will be used pull elderly (but not genetically disabled) parents around. we'll even bring back horses - but only the rich will be able to afford these, because most of our agricultural lands will be used to grow fuel stock to fuel the cars and trucks that obese, overweight, and genetically defective americans need to move around to the remaining and far flung commercial developments out in 'suburbia', as they shop for 3d HD tv and the latest wiistation games that they can play in the comfort of their own homes.

there will also be a strict code of cycling conduct - every commute is a race - if you get dropped on your commute you are forced to do community service wrenching on cars. (this will be enforced by re-purposing congestion pricing cameras to do facial ID on all cyclists... if they pick you up getting passed you'll get a summons in the mail, even if you are towing a ton of bricks to your new masonry job)

bike car topping will only be allowed if you are disabled but have a prescription for medical use of a bicycle. (so don't think you can drive to your saturday group rides or mtb trail rides).[/sarcasm off]

Who said anything about a solution? I was pointing out that calling cars evil or attacking them gets you attacked as a heretic. You come back and claim I'm trying to make crippled kids crawl around. You're arguing with a straw man.

If we're going to talk about solutions, that's an entirely different thread. My own view is that the car culture will burn itself out when it runs out of ff's. But whether it does or not doesn't change the fact that it's destroyed most of the country and threatens to destroy the world. And it doesn't mean I have to bow down to the car as the symbol of freedom and goodness. I hate the things.

You're beautiful when you're angry! :D

But you're right. Cars are an immensely stupid choice in the world today. And pointing this out to people gets you nothing but harrassment--even on a bicycle forum.

I know one reason you're mad: Alaska--the state with the fewest cars--is the first state being devastated by global warming. Of course the other 49 will follow soon enough. But nobody wants to hear that.

i love it when this bit enters the argument.

[sarcasm on]sure, disabled people can have cars and atv's and snow mobiles so they can ride all over yellowstone in the winter. all the able bodied people will be forced to walk or bike or run to work and for groceries.

you'll be genetically tested at birth - if your DNA matches a set of key indicators you will be forced to move about under your own power -we'll have a national database and a 5 day waiting period to buy cars and trucks. we'll have bike powered fire trucks, and llama powered ambulances, and even develop kid powered chariots that will be used pull elderly (but not genetically disabled) parents around. we'll even bring back horses - but only the rich will be able to afford these, because most of our agricultural lands will be used to grow fuel stock to fuel the cars and trucks that obese, overweight, and genetically defective americans need to move around to the remaining and far flung commercial developments out in 'suburbia', as they shop for 3d HD tv and the latest wiistation games that they can play in the comfort of their own homes.

there will also be a strict code of cycling conduct - every commute is a race - if you get dropped on your commute you are forced to do community service wrenching on cars. (this will be enforced by re-purposing congestion pricing cameras to do facial ID on all cyclists... if they pick you up getting passed you'll get a summons in the mail, even if you are towing a ton of bricks to your new masonry job)

bike car topping will only be allowed if you are disabled but have a prescription for medical use of a bicycle. (so don't think you can drive to your saturday group rides or mtb trail rides).[/sarcasm off]

I'd like to thank you for the use of the sarcasm tags. I could have been lost without them. But my question was serious, even if the tone was a bit sarcastic. I now realize this is not the appropriate place to pose such questions.

Except of course that the electricity is generated in coal-burning plants. And most of the generating plants planned for the next 20 years in the US and China are coal plants, so this problem won't change soon. At this time, we simply don't have a replacement for fossil fuels used in either transportation or electic power. Technology does work miracles, so we shall see....

....but don't hold your breath!
Sure we do. It's called nuclear energy. I know there is a problem with waste storage, but currently in the works is a system to recycle said waste, and re-use it as fuel. France gets nearly 80% of their electricity from nuclear power, and there isn't any good reason we can't do the same. Irrational fear of nuclear energy is something we really must overcome if we want future generations to enjoy the lifestyles we have now.

Sure we do. It's called nuclear energy. I know there is a problem with waste storage, but currently in the works is a system to recycle said waste, and re-use it as fuel. France gets nearly 80% of their electricity from nuclear power, and there isn't any good reason we can't do the same. Irrational fear of nuclear energy is something we really must overcome if we want future generations to enjoy the lifestyles we have now.

Future generations will have a much cifferent lifestyle than we now. I too hope they enjoy it.

I don't think the fear of nuclear energy is irrational, although it may be overstated sometimes. Waste storage is only one of the problems. There have been several serious accidents involving nuclear plants, including one incident that left a big chunk of Ukraine uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years or so. On a practical level, I don't see how we're going to get hundreds of nuclear plants online all over the world. That's what we'd need to do in order to meet current demands, not even thinking about future needs (with or without electric cars) for an expanding population enjoying the lifestyles we have now.

We can't have an expanding population. Somehow, people need to realize that an increasing population is not a good thing for anyone. As for Chernobyl, that killed 56 people, and while it did make that area toxic, the other only notable reactor incident was Three Mile Island in 1979, and that was internally contained. Coal burning plants are part of a problem that threatens our entire planet. Something needs to be done, and unless cold fusion is ever made a reality, then there really is no better source of fuel to power the world.

I'd like to thank you for the use of the sarcasm tags. I could have been lost without them. But my question was serious, even if the tone was a bit sarcastic. I now realize this is not the appropriate place to pose such questions.

what did people do before cars? we've lived on this rock for far longer than the auto has been around.

what did people do before cars? we've lived on this rock for far longer than the auto has been around.

Better get yourself a few head of cattle and a couple of acres...

Better get yourself a few head of cattle and a couple of acres...

That might not be necessary. We do have a lot of technology that will make the post-automobile world easier and more pleasant than the pre-automobile world was. For example, telecommuting will be easier than riding horseback to the job. For that matter, modern bicycles are easier to ride and faster than the hobbyhorses and highwheels of the pre-auto age. As for food production, modern organic agriculture techniques promise that more food can be grown per acre without fossil fuels than with them, although that food will probably be somewhat more costly. Notice that I'm only talking about technology that already exists for replacing fossil fuels. If we get serious about researching new technologies, things could get better yet.

But one thing to keep in mind, Brian, the sooner we start trying, the better off we'll all be. I hope people don't let their love of the auto get in the way of coming up with things they might love even more.

We can't have an expanding population. Somehow, people need to realize that an increasing population is not a good thing for anyone. As for Chernobyl, that killed 56 people, and while it did make that area toxic, the other only notable reactor incident was Three Mile Island in 1979, and that was internally contained. Coal burning plants are part of a problem that threatens our entire planet. Something needs to be done, and unless cold fusion is ever made a reality, then there really is no better source of fuel to power the world.

Everybody mentions accidents as a problem with nuclear power, but I have a lot of other questions about it: Do you think we can build and fuel enough plants to replace the existing coal plants, plus the 700 new coal plants that are scheduled for the next five years? How many reactors will we need? How long does it take to license, finance and build new nuclear plants? How much do they cost? Who will pay for them? Are there enough engineers and technicians to design and run them all? What will we do about countries that we don't want to have nuclear materials, like North Korea, Libya, Pakistan and many others? How will they get power? What about poor countries in Africa? Will we help them to build plants? What will we do with the water used to cool the reactors? Will the heat of hundreds of plants contribute to warming?

Why not? Is it heretical to point out what horrible things autos have done to the nation and the planet? Do such suggestions anger the gods of Detroit? Why would anyone take such umbrage at the rantings of a few of us car free nuts if it wasn't a religious matter? If it's simply political, you can safely ignore us. BUt since cars are a key part of the American religion, we're not allowed to speak ill of them. It's OK if we "suggest some alternatives" while bowing towards the superiority of the auto. But to damn them? To curse the lords of speed and power? This is heresy.
Let's talk about pragmatism, not heresy.

We've had a car culture in place for around 100 years, if that. We've built up a network that favours private automobile use and puts non-drivers at a serious inconvenience in most communities (at least in Canada and the U.S.) Motor fuel is still relatively cheap and private vehicle transportation is extremely convenient. People use cars so the network reflects this use.

In a lot of larger cities, there is a public transportation network in place, but for those in rural areas or impoverished cities, such a network may be lacking or insufficient. Some communities are bike-friendly and have good pedestrian facilities; others have a hostile attitude to those not in motor vehicles. This is the reality. It's not easy for everyone to go car-free. In some cases, it's not even possible to go car-free.

If you want to talk about the problems cars have caused, please go one step further and offer a practical solution. Don't just talk about getting people out of cars and on bikes or into public transit vehicles; show us how this can be done. There are some cities where positive steps are taking place. But the move away from a car-based system will not happen overnight.

I now realize this is not the appropriate place to pose such questions.

That's right, this is the home of the self proclaimed Car Free Nuts. You are just realizing it now?

And pointing this out to people gets you nothing but harrassment--even on a bicycle forum.


Bicycle Forum? Certainly not this discussion list. Bicycling issues are seldom mentioned in the over-the-top/foaming at the mouth rhetoric of the self proclaimed Car Free Nuts.

Better get yourself a few head of cattle and a couple of acres...

and before then? ;)

what is the economy for?
how do we measure "quality of life" and "standard of living" - GDP? - which gives you bonuses for how many trees you cut down, rivers you dam up, and coal you extract?
life expectancy?
# of people covered by health insurance?
longevity?
# of vacation days?
paid materinity leave?
child survival rate?
base education level?
# of cars in the garage?
square footage of average house?

and before then? ;)

You win.

But you're right. Cars are an immensely stupid choice in the world today. And pointing this out to people gets you nothing but harrassment--even on a bicycle forum.

As well as in planning meetings... :( I need a new career...

If you want to talk about the problems cars have caused, please go one step further and offer a practical solution.
www.cnu.org

That's right, this is the home of the self proclaimed Car Free Nuts. You are just realizing it now?

Why do you come to a forum to spew this crap when the description for the forum is as follows:

Did you give up your car for good? Is your bike and public transportation the only way you travel from point A to point B? If your only mode of transportation is your bike, discuss your car-free lifestyle here.

Where is YOUR discussion of YOUR carfree lifestyle? To me, car-lite is an understandable deviation. Car-obsessed is not.

:( I need a new career...
Or maybe you just need a new city!

Or maybe you just need a new city!
That'll probably be much more the case.

Everybody mentions accidents as a problem with nuclear power, but I have a lot of other questions about it: Do you think we can build and fuel enough plants to replace the existing coal plants, plus the 700 new coal plants that are scheduled for the next five years? How many reactors will we need? How long does it take to license, finance and build new nuclear plants? How much do they cost? Who will pay for them? Are there enough engineers and technicians to design and run them all? What will we do about countries that we don't want to have nuclear materials, like North Korea, Libya, Pakistan and many others? How will they get power? What about poor countries in Africa? Will we help them to build plants? What will we do with the water used to cool the reactors? Will the heat of hundreds of plants contribute to warming?
Considering that nuclear plants really don't cost more than coal plants (they're just slightly more expensive), monetary issues aren't what prevent them from being built. So there's no real reason we couldn't build 700 of them if we really wanted to. I wouldn't worry about reactors heating up our planet, because they just boil water which turns into steam and drives a turbine. Steam doesn't trap solar radiation in the atmosphere like carbon dioxide and methane do, so they should have a minescule impact in that regard. It's a complex problem that requires a complex solution. But don't be fooled; just as there are hundreds of coal plants in the works, China alone wants to build 100 nuclear reactors, Russia wants 58, there are 30 in the works in the United States, and Japan is looking to build 12.

I think many people forget, too, that there are 104 nuclear reactors in the US, which is slighly less than 25% of the reactors world wide (438). It's a proven technology that likely is the best step forward we have.

Considering that nuclear plants really don't cost more than coal plants (they're just slightly more expensive), monetary issues aren't what prevent them from being built. So there's no real reason we couldn't build 700 of them if we really wanted to. I wouldn't worry about reactors heating up our planet, because they just boil water which turns into steam and drives a turbine. Steam doesn't trap solar radiation in the atmosphere like carbon dioxide and methane do, so they should have a minescule impact in that regard. It's a complex problem that requires a complex solution. But don't be fooled; just as there are hundreds of coal plants in the works, China alone wants to build 100 nuclear reactors, Russia wants 58, there are 30 in the works in the United States, and Japan is looking to build 12.

I think many people forget, too, that there are 104 nuclear reactors in the US, which is slighly less than 25% of the reactors world wide (438). It's a proven technology that likely is the best step forward we have.

Thanks for the info. :)

Can I ask a couple followup questions? I know steam doesn't trap solar radiation, but the reactors themselves produce so much heat. That heat is dissipated with cooling water, I believe. How many reactors could be running without contributing significantly to global warming? What about warming on a local level? You said how many reactors they want to build. How many reactors would it take to supply half the electricity demand for 2027? Is it even feasible to think of nuclear supplying half the world's power? How likely is it that people in the US and other countries will support nuclear, given the fears, which you say are irrational, but which are nonetheless very real? Of the 438 reactors in the world, how many are civilian and how many are military? Do they still use the same basic designs as Chernobyl and TMI?

Considering that nuclear plants really don't cost more than coal plants (they're just slightly more expensive), monetary issues aren't what prevent them from being built. So there's no real reason we couldn't build 700 of them if we really wanted to. I wouldn't worry about reactors heating up our planet, because they just boil water which turns into steam and drives a turbine. Steam doesn't trap solar radiation in the atmosphere like carbon dioxide and methane do, so they should have a minescule impact in that regard. It's a complex problem that requires a complex solution. But don't be fooled; just as there are hundreds of coal plants in the works, China alone wants to build 100 nuclear reactors, Russia wants 58, there are 30 in the works in the United States, and Japan is looking to build 12.

I think many people forget, too, that there are 104 nuclear reactors in the US, which is slighly less than 25% of the reactors world wide (438). It's a proven technology that likely is the best step forward we have.

I agree that nuclear is possibly the best choice (among a bunch of not-so-great choices), but I wonder: if everyone starts converting to nuclear electricity production, is there enough fuel to go around? (Breeder reactors are a possiblility, I guess, but they're pretty dirty in terms of waste.... )

BTW: water vapor is an incredibly effective greenhouse gas. It traps heat way better than CO2. Fortunately, it tends not to stay in the atmosphere very long. Unless it gets really hot and remains that way.

BTW: water vapor is an incredibly effective greenhouse gas. It traps heat way better than CO2. Fortunately, it tends not to stay in the atmosphere very long. Unless it gets really hot and remains that way.

:eek:

Of course. That's why it doesn't cool off on humid nights.

I had read this and then forgot about it. So it might be one of those feedback problems. The hotter it gets, the more water vapor there will be, and the the more water vapor the hotter it will get. And so on.....

Let's talk about pragmatism, not heresy.Don't just talk about getting people out of cars and on bikes or into public transit vehicles; show us how this can be done. There are some cities where positive steps are taking place. But the move away from a car-based system will not happen overnight.

It can if you get rid of your car overnight. Like I said earlier, the question of solutions is probably best in a different thread. I think the best approach is to simply do it. I cannot control what others do, I can only do what I can do. If enough of us start riding bikes all around and show that it *can* be done, it breaks the conventional wisdom that it cannot be done.

Thanks for the info. :)

Can I ask a couple followup questions? I know steam doesn't trap solar radiation, but the reactors themselves produce so much heat. That heat is dissipated with cooling water, I believe. How many reactors could be running without contributing significantly to global warming? What about warming on a local level? You said how many reactors they want to build. How many reactors would it take to supply half the electricity demand for 2027? Is it even feasible to think of nuclear supplying half the world's power? How likely is it that people in the US and other countries will support nuclear, given the fears, which you say are irrational, but which are nonetheless very real? Of the 438 reactors in the world, how many are civilian and how many are military? Do they still use the same basic designs as Chernobyl and TMI?
Some of these questions have no good answer that I'm aware of. Just as with anything that creates heat, I'm sure there'd be heat around the reactors on a similar scale to plants that burn things. But even hundreds of individually hot blips on the earth's surface wouldn't make anything near a noticable difference in global temps. Solar radiation accounts for almost all of the incoming energy, and greenhouse gasses trap this energy in our atmosphere. That's what heats things up. And water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but vapor emissions only tend to stay resident on a scale of days at the longest, while gasses like CO2 stay around for decades. Reactor steam emissions wouldn't build up like CO2 has, and we wouldn't suffer the same global warming consequences from it.

As for the number of reactors needed to supply half of the world's energy needs in the future... that's a truly unpredictable one. If reactors become more efficient, you wouldn't need as many. If population increase creates more demand, you'd need more. I'm not sure if there is a good answer to this question, but it's perfectly feasable in every aspect save dealing with the waste. If we can make recycling practical, then reactors should be much less of a problem than trying to store the waste.

As I understand it, the DOE is working on getting approval for a nuclear waste recycling plant right now. I'm not sure if military/research reactors are included in that number or not. Reactors that generate electricity for civilian use can certainly be civilian owned and I think in the United States most, if not all, are. As for reactor types, there are dozens of different designs. There are many reactors built in the 1970's still in use around the world, and there are also many new designs in use as well. I don't know if any Chernobyl type reactors are still in use anywhere, but it wasn't exactly a defect that caused the meltdown there anyway. It was a safety test that went horribly wrong.

I agree that nuclear is possibly the best choice (among a bunch of not-so-great choices), but I wonder: if everyone starts converting to nuclear electricity production, is there enough fuel to go around? (Breeder reactors are a possiblility, I guess, but they're pretty dirty in terms of waste.... )
I think that given the right technology, this wouldn't be a problem either. We've got a lot of weapons grade uranium and plutonium that can be converted into fuel for reactors and it is possible to recycle the fuel and reuse it again. As I recall from high school chemestry, an pencil eraser-sized peice of fuel grade uranium contains as much energy as 2,000lbs of coal or 150 gallons of crude oil. 2,000lbs of uranium contains an incredibly large amount of energy when compared to a similar amount of coal.