• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    in reality, none of them have that magic trick.

    Yes they do. It’s called an electric motor. But that requires revitalizing infrastructure in order to accommodate fast charging across an urban landscape so utility trucks can top up whenever needed. And, of course, a company like Cummins being willing to make them.

    But we can’t get off that oil teat.

    • thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s called walking, better than any car. Having cars in major cities is so stupid. And before you say contractors need to have trucks, sure the do. But, I’m tired of companies sending out service vehicles to make almost 200 mile round trips, just so the competitor doesn’t get the job.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        This is about utility vehicles, which are needed in cities even with robust transportation systems. Cargo still needs to be hauled the last mile.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Okay and everywhere else?

        I’d love for cities to go full on mass transit. Even bringing in light freight to business areas so restaurants and the like could just use a handcart. But there’s a lot of people and businesses in the US that will never cover.

    • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      2 years ago

      You still need to get that electric from somewhere and like half the country still runs on either coal or oil.

      Earlier this year I saw that NY State is outlawing gas stoves and gas and oil (hot water) heaters in new residences. The funny thing is that NY State gets over 50% of its energy from oil fired energy plants. So instead of smaller places using gas and oil maybe a few times a day, they’re going to be putting increased loads on an already stressed system (at least in the case of NYC, where this is largely targeted since it contains a good amount of the state’s population). They’re not really helping anything.

      • nikita@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Electric appliances are generally more efficient than appliances powered directly by non renewable sources though. And a single oil/gas powerplant is probably more energy efficient than thousands of individually gas and oil powered appliances. So just changing to electric appliances will already reduce emissions.

        And it sets the city up to upgrade to renewable energy in the future.

        • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          We should be moving away from gas and oil entirely instead of just saying “no one can install these in your homes anymore”, it’s just shifting the load.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            If you insist on waiting for that magical “silver bullet” That will fix everything with no downside, you’re not getting anywhere. You’ll never improv. Things will never get better. You’re frozen in over-thinking.

            “No more new gas hookups” is a tiny step forward. By itself, not too significant and would take over a century to have an impact. Nevertheless, it is a step forward. As we talked more such steps, we’ll be able to move right along

            You could also argue “no new gas hookups” as a consumer protection thing, whatever is the consumer of that. You’re saying that we don’t expect the new infrastructure to be productive long enough to justify the cost

            Then there’s the medical impact, at least for inside appliances. You may try to argue it but the best medical knowledge has a strong correlation of childhood asthma and other lung problems with indoor gas appliances.

            • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              The problem is “public health” vs “private funding from businesses with interest” and we know the latter almost always wins. It’s two steps forward and one step back, which is still progress, but self defeating progress.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            That’s never been how technology shift or legislation works though. Everything comes in phases.

            • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              True, but we both know that the oil and gas industry has a stranglehold on the US in pretty much every way, shape, or form. It seems like this is just another “look we’re doing something good for the environment!” when in reality it’s just “theater”.

      • Rusticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        You probably don’t know that having a gas stove in your house is the benzene/cancer equivalent of a cigarette smoker sitting in your fucking kitchen blowing smoke in your face while you cook dinner.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        A. That powerplant is far more efficient

        B. There’s no reason NY can’t change to renewable sources.

        • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          The problem is that tens (or probably hundreds) of thousands of gas stoves and oil burners still exist and are used daily, this also doesn’t cover restaurants or commercial businesses, so the impact is pretty minimal.

          Your “B” suggestion is hilarious because if they wanted to they could have done it already, there are (at least) two nuclear reactors in NY State IIRC, but they have been constantly blocked at every turn from building new ones for the past few decades by the oil and gas industry. Hydroelectric plants are already in use, along with wind turbines. If it was as simple as “build renewable power plants” don’t you think we would have done that everywhere by now (where it’s feasible, obviously)?

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            So because we haven’t done it yet, we shouldn’t do it now? That’s just the inverse of we do it this way because we’ve always done it this way. Both are piss poor reasons not to change now.