Seattle used to have these as well. Sadly, the US (outside of a few cities that kept their 1930’s infrastructure and updated it) can’t find it’s ass with both hands when it comes to public transportation.
Yeah, who the heck complains about either of those points? Hybrid buses have been a thing for a long time. And even if it was a plain diesel bus, it’d still be better than having dozens of gasoline cars.
We have some electric but lines in San Sebastian (Spain) too, no issues, the buses are lovely, they work fine. It has been about 4 years since they first got introduced, no major issues.
We USians are so hooked on, and controlled by, car infrastructure that we’ll come up with any lame ass excuse to undermine public transit. “Busses (or trains or any other form of public transit) aren’t perfect because of X, so we should just keep destroying our health, our communities and our planet”
First off, Diesel Busses Are equally environmental friendly as electric trains. (On long distance trips) this is due to infrastructure emissions, which are far higher for train infrastructure.
Furthermore looking at batteries: Batteries are expensive and very sensible to temperatures. They are virtually unusable in some climate zones. Furthermore a battery burns much hotter than gasoline. Much much hotter. So hot in fact that the damage to roads is immense.
In addition to that, battery driven cars and buses are extremely heavy and damaging asphalt infrastructure as well.
The best solution is to shift mobility towards Diesel driven Busses and facilitate car sharing.
It’s flexible, mich more flexible than other solutions. This makes it adaptable to many environments and situations.
And it does not force people to give up achievements of mobility.
The example in the meme is extra problematic, because steel cables and train infrastructure is heavily reliant on coal. And replacement of coal with hydrogen is not to be seen in the foreseeable future.
Modern OHLE standards are significantly less messy than they were 100 years ago. And if they really are still that bad, conductor rails work almost as well.
OHLE is a conductor too. The issue with conductor rials is that they use DC rather than AC, which means that voltage is lower, meaning substations need to be more frequent. However, the conductor rail takes up no additional space in the loading gauge compared to OHLE, so for underground systems, or systems that need minimal clearance, conductor rails are better.
“Conductors” as in any piece of metal that conducts electricity? Those overhead wires are also conductors, and will see some energy loss over their length like any other conductor.
The whole thing about trolleybuses is that they don’t pollute inside of the city. Obviously that pollution still happens somewhere, but it isn’t under your nose.
Trolleybuses can use renewable electricity from wind and solar. This works today, right now. Diesel is still fossil carbon coming out of the ground and burned. It would be a different story if we could synthesize diesel using electricity, or used 100% biodiesel, but currently we can’t and we don’t.
Or better than solar panels is cheap, clean and safe uranium nuclear power :3 And even if that power is made from diesel, the pollution happens outside of the city
What sort of “infrastructure emissions”? That doesn’t really make sense to me, once you build the infrastructure it already exists, so it doesn’t just emit on its own. Also rail infrastructure being worse than road infrastructure doesn’t makes sense. Electric trains have extremely negligible emissions (I dare say practically none in normal operation). Electric road vehicles (of any type) still have tyre emissions (and make them worse because they are heavier). Electric trains are over all the best way forward dice intercity transport.
What sort of “infrastructure emissions”? That doesn’t really make sense to me, once you build the infrastructure it already exists, so it doesn’t just emit on its own.
Let me rephrase it: infrastructure maintaining emissions.
You have to think about all the people involved in organising train infrastructure each day. It’s immense.
I can’t find the source anymore. But a german agency once published a calculation, that on a 100 km trip, the train was still emitting less, including every emissions connected to this one train ride. But the difference to a diesel Bus became basically unmentionable. Just a few kg CO2 more. But not much.
And keep in mind that a bus is much more flexible than a train.
Also rail infrastructure being worse than road infrastructure doesn’t makes sense. Electric trains have extremely negligible emissions (I dare say practically none in normal operation). Electric road vehicles (of any type) still have tyre emissions (and make them worse because they are heavier). Electric trains are over all the best way forward dice intercity transport.
Not quite. As every city is dependant on road infrastructure. It starts with the building of houses and the transport of material. You cannot use rail infrastructure for every house. It does not bring the needed flexibility. Same goes for emergency services, police, firebricks, ambulance, craftsman,… asphalt based infrastructure is irreplaceable. Might as well use it for public transport instead of creating a second infrastructure to care for.
One little new building project and a rail route in a city is blocked for 1-2 years. Car infrastructure is flexible and can evade this problem.
This seems too unbelievable for me to take your word for it. Find the source or stop spouting nonsense.
Repairing asphalt roads causes a huge amount of emissions, and the more traffic those roads see, the more often they need to be replaced.
In what world does maintaining a rail line even come close to the emissions produced by maintaining buses, trucks, and the road itself?
Asphalt is a byproduct of oil refinery. It’s literal main component is production waste. There is a ton of it.
Steel on the other hand must be produced in the so called blast furnace process. It’s the reduction of iron oxide with carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. But the hydrogen is it added separately. It’s a byproduct of the process that reacts as well reductive towards iron oxide.
You need to burn immense amounts of coal to create elemental iron.
And trails are equally time consuming and resources consuming with maintenance as asphalt streets are.
I don’t know what kind of source you want there. Do you need a link towards Wikipedia? Or can you find the production of iron and asphalt yourself?
The article you linked makes no mention of maintenance and infrastructure emissions. There’s just a single table that seems to be based on fuel emissions at the time of travel. It’s also specific to existing rail infrastructure, which is fine, but for the purposes of argument and comparison, it would be ideal to compare the most efficient bus/roadway system with the most efficient rail system. Zero-emissions trains exist, yet somehow just maintaining the rail line would completely offset that according to your argument?
Asphalt is an oil product, yes, but it still needs to be processed and turned into asphalt. That also emits pollution. So does transporting it to the destination, and all the other environmental factors with building up a road surface. You can’t just hand wave that away “because we already made a ton of it”. That’s not how sustainability works. We’re explicitly trying to reduce our reliance on oil.
You also seem to be ignoring that rail lasts orders of magnitude longer than asphalt, and don’t constantly have to be patched and repaired for pot holes.
Steel is also one of the most recycled materials on the planet. (Nearly 70% of all steel here in the US is recycled). Melting down old cars or whatever into new rail tracks uses significantly less energy than refining new metal.
The article you linked makes no mention of maintenance and infrastructure emissions. There’s just a single table that seems to be based on fuel emissions at the time of travel.
I cannot look everything up. Soooooo … trust me bro.
It’s also specific to existing rail infrastructure, which is fine, but for the purposes of argument and comparison, it would be ideal to compare the most efficient bus/roadway system with the most efficient rail system. Zero-emissions trains exist, yet somehow just maintaining the rail line would completely offset that according to your argument?
There also exist zero emission cars. So this argument doesn’t work so well.
We are talking about real life applications. And that’s why it is absolutely reasonable to compare existing infrastructure. Germany has invested heavily into both, automobile infrastructure and Railroad infrastructure. So the comparison seems to be alright.
Asphalt is an oil product, yes, but it still needs to be processed and turned into asphalt. That also emits pollution. So does transporting it to the destination, and all the other environmental factors with building up a road surface.
And so does steel and concrete.
You can’t just hand wave that away “because we already made a ton of it”. That’s not how sustainability works. We’re explicitly trying to reduce our reliance on oil.
I can hand wave this off completely fine, since it would be technically possible to frac bitumen into synthesis gas as well. So asphalt is still bound carbon. And that’s alright that way.
You also seem to be ignoring that rail lasts orders of magnitude longer than asphalt, and don’t constantly have to be patched and repaired for pot holes.
This is wrong. They need to be ground down regularity, they need to be replaced regularity due to material fatigue, railroads need intense care - freed from plants regularity, much more frequent in fact than asphalt, due to its open structure.
In Addition to rails, there is need for electrical wiring above the train. This wiring is also needed to replace regularity due to material fatigue, constant rubbing of the metals onto each other.
Then we also have further infrastructure for people, so called train stations. Especially larger train stations must be heated in winter with immense amounts of gas and train stations made of glass in summer are in desperate need of cooling.
You just have to take a look at the prices for a ride. If it compares financially, then it most likely compares in emissions as well.
Steel is also one of the most recycled materials on the planet. (Nearly 70% of all steel here in the US is recycled). Melting down old cars or whatever into new rail tracks uses significantly less energy than refining new metal.
While this is correct, it is still very inefficient to melt down steel and then clean it up to recreate the requested alloys. Asphalt on the other hand can be recycled much easier. It is in fact a thermoplastic material. It needs much lower melting temperatures and is not dependant on reductive agents.
When the argument is emergency vehicles and “rail infrastructure for every house” it is clear that you are talking with an American that has no idea what they are talking about
You are talking with a European. A German in fact.
And I was not talking about rail to every house, I was mentioning the absolute necessity for asphalt streets. And that this infrastructure is far more flexible and adaptive than all the alternatives. Something irreplaceable in fact.
On the topic, the debate was never regarding if streets would exist or not. This is a moved-goalpost argument made by people who are trying to fight the pro public transport movement.
Supporting and promoting public transport doesn’t require to demolish the streets or make cars illegal. Or cars cease to exist at all. This is an irrational fear of such peopke and it is actually funny when this is the counterargument.
On the topic, the debate was never regarding if streets would exist or not. This is a moved-goalpost argument made by people who are trying to fight the pro public transport movement.
I am not against public transport. But the pro public transport movement often leans into the extreme.
Asking for the removal of individual transport (well only cars, not bicycles).
But from my standpoint, it is clear that an infrastructure, that is irreplaceable and an absolute necessity, must be used to the fullest extend. This means that the primary objective in planing transport in a city must be to fill the streets with busses, cars and bicycles.
Rail comes secondary.
Supporting and promoting public transport doesn’t require to demolish the streets or make cars illegal. Or cars cease to exist at all. This is an irrational fear of such peopke and it is actually funny when this is the counterargument.
Well, I might be a little sensitive, but some people here support a movement against individualistic solutions rather than a positively conotated idea of feasible reasonable, not ideological solutions.
This. Trams are so much nicer, carry more people, way less maintenance cost and the tracks look so good if grass grows between it, also I don’t get motion sickness on them. You don’t even need any asphalt for them which is expensive to maintain, looks worse than pretty much anything except maybe a literal pile of garbage and heats up the surrounding area.
Doesn’t work in hilly cities. That’s why San Francisco has trolleybuses too (and the historical cable cars, but those are more for tourists). They do have light rail where it does make sense though.
I don’t quite remember what they’re called but in the UK there’s both old mining trains and old cliff trains/trolleys that use toothed wheels and toothed tracks on the hill portions to go up/down hill with little issue, obviously it’s only safe for some gradient, but still with the right gearing it would be of possible
The problem with battery fires is that most batteries are made out of lithium which reacts with pretty much everything and is extremely difficult to put out.
In addition obtaining the rare earth metals for these batteries ecologically is a real challenge and it will only get worse the more we use.
I’m not saying we should abandon electric cars but we should know the benefits and drawbacks of each option before making a decision.
Obviously diesel burns and batteries don’t really explode, but the only way to put out an EV fire is to dunk the car for a few days in a tub of water. And how many of those will a fire department have? 1-5?
And the same people who gripe about overhead cables apparently have no trouble staring at a street full of idling, polluting, and noisy cars. It’s really impressive.
Because diesel catching on fire is totally unheard of.
On it’s own? Pretty much unheard of. Usually is a leak and something else set it on fire.
Batteries on the other hand plenty of cases where the battery itself was the starting point. Is usually cause by a bad design or external factors? Yes, not saying otherwise.
And tbh Diesel is the worse example you could put as requires either high pressure or a continuous exposure to a flame as you could throw a lit match on it and it wouldn’t set it on fire.
Petrol/Gasoline on the other hand…
Not always, a bad design/construction of a battery I wouldn’t call it external factors.
It doesn’t need anything external to set on fire.
But I agree that it’s not common.
On the Diesel/petrol case… it would need a leak to begin with and usually it’s not s difficult thing to design a tank/engine without leaks. Let’s be honest a battery is a more complex system to fuck up.
Yes, there have been recalls as well in some cased.
Here there is info about incidents, althought not only due to internal faillings alone, there are crashes and other stuff as well.
The usual issue is that a thermal runaway happens.
here in Santiago we have more than 1000 Electric Buses In operation, they work great.
Trolleys can’t divert trough an alternative route if the original route got blocked somehow (for example it got barricaded.) wich is a common occurrence here in Santiago.
I’m Czech and my city has a trolleybus network. Every single trolleybus has either a) diesel engine or b) battery backup, depends on their age. Hell, there are even entire lines where 1/3rd they run on batteries. But, they can be smaller, so the vehicle is lighter.
that still doesn’t adress the cost of implementing it on the more than 300 bus routes there are in Santiago or how probable is that the infrastructure would get damaged or destroyed every time there are protests.
This number, 300, doesn’t say anything. How many miles is that, excluding duplications? The inner city is easy and cheap to cover in power lines for trolleys to replace busses here, and everything other may be best kept on diesel.
What protests, lol? Repairing power lines is easy and fast and I doubt someone would target them.
its not that costly tonimplement. Why do you think they were implemented back then, instead of running everything on diesel engines?
The upfrontninvestment might be higher, but the running costs are lower, since the electricity is far mor energy efficient and electric engines need way less maintenance than IC-engines.
Switzerland runs a lot of these buses. Also trams, normal buses , trains. For those people in the U.S., it’s a very effective and efficient system called public transport.
Gasoline vehicles also don’t tend to catch fire spontaneously while parked. That risk exists with every unattended lithium-ion battery undergoing recharging. People technically shouldn’t be plugging their phones in at night and then going to sleep, but everyone does it anyway.
Can’t wait for miles of 240V extension cords when EU makes even used non EVs illegal. Yes, millions of city dwellers in apartments totally have a garage to charge in.
There will be solutions by 2050 (the proposed timeframe for having a zero-emissions fleet). For an example, vehicles with combustion engines can still be newly registered after 2035 if they use only CO2-neutral fuels. I think EU would rather ban sale of fossil fuels than ban used cars that can technically burn fossil fuels. If only plant-based fuels are available, it doesn’t matter what the cars can technically burn.
The German big 3 are already developing cars that would only run on non-fossil fuels I believe.
Secondly, chargers near apartment buildings and on sidewalks can be added. We have plenty of time.
And I’m sure Germany will water down the regulations even more so in the end, I’m fairly sure they’ll consider new MHEVs fine after 2035.
And finally, those who can’t charge at home will do so at the charging stations. It’s not a huge issue if you have a battery with 500+ km of range. Might be an issue for i-miev and first gen Leaf owners though.
Unless we get mass producable, cheap fuel like CHOOH2, “cars can use co2 neutral fuels” is translation to “in reality no ICE cars for the mass population”
Secondly, chargers near apartment buildings and on sidewalks can be added. We have plenty of time.
And who will pay for those? My town can barely get enough money to maintain street lights, who will install and maintain the charging infrastructure on streets where it will inevitably get destroyed?
And finally, those who can’t charge at home will do so at the charging stations.
Oh yes, so now instead of 15 minute wait at a gas station I will only have to wait 2 hours before a space is available and then 30 minutes to charge, all while thinking “how much is this quick charge degrading my battery”
There’s 27 years to go till EU’s predicted (not required by law) end of ICE cars. There’s time to invest, time to innovate and hopefully time for your town to reduce crime and gain more resources.
Also HVO is pretty affordable nowadays. Maybe 20% more than regular diesel fuel at most. It is claimed to be carbon neutral. I’m sure something similar will be developed for otto cycle engines.
Also unless you’re planning to use a first gen leaf past the 2050s, quick charging isn’t very bad. All modern EVs have battery cooling and will also throttle charging when the temperature rises. The don’t full on go 350kW for 20 minutes straight.
Waiting 2 hours is solved by installing more chargers. Clearly a regional issue with fuel pumps as well because I never have to wait over 2-3 minutes.
Going with the “batteries catch on fire argument” is stupid. “Batteries are heavy and expensive” is probably more compelling. But yeah, wires are better solution for things going in fixed routes.
The ammount of water required to put out a normal car is infinitely less than the amount required to put out a battery fire.
Not to mention the extra weight, nor the retention loss per recharge meaning we need to change batteries every 2-4 years polluting a lot more, we ain’t even talking about the energy loss when doing the conversion to electric and then again to mechanical.
The electric transport is the way to go in the future, but firts it needs to have a solid foundation, and nuclear is the way to go at least in this moment. Otherwise we are only making things worse.
Wait, what‽ No. We don’t need to change batteries every 2-4 years. That’s what you do with TV remote controls and temperature sensors, not electric car batteries, LOL!
Electric car batteries are made to last at least 7 years (from a warranty standpoint) but in reality it’s more like 10. Not only that but they’re not single, gigantic objects. They’re made of lots of “cells” so if one of them is going bad you can replace just that one bad cell.
Anecdote: The batteries in my Prius lasted 15 years before I had to replace one of the cells. Then a year later I had to replace another one. A year after that I sold it so I have no idea how the batteries are doing right now but I’m sure another cell would probably need to be replaced by now 19 years in service).
I’d also like to point out that the latest electric car batteries are vastly superior to the ones in my Prius.
Electric car batteries are made to last at least 7 years (from a warranty standpoint) but in reality it’s more like 10. Not only that but they’re not single, gigantic objects. They’re made of lots of “cells” so if one of them is going bad you can replace just that one bad cell.
Sincere question, what happens with the second hand electric vehicle market? New electrics make a ton of sense, but in my mind the ‘used car’ market becomes essentially unobtainable for poor folk. If a 12 year old electric vehicle hits the market, eventually the second or third owner is going to have to replace the batteries and poor people can’t afford the 5000 plus labor to get new cells for it.
This isn’t a situation that affects me, at the moment, but there are millions of people around the globe who buy the $1000 car and drive it until it just doesn’t go anymore. I don’t see that being an option for electrics.
Sure, that replacement time isn’t 4 but 15-20 years (well, except early Leafs that didn’t have battery temperature management of any kind), but my 20 year old car’s gas tank fits just as much gas as it did 20 years ago.
If you think any ICE car is going to outlast an electric you’re mistaken. EVs have a fraction of the moving parts of an ICE car and as a result are expected to last a lot longer. 30+ years for an electric car isn’t out of the question. Especially the latest ones with their water cooled batteries.
The number of moving parts is just one (albeit a great big) factor as to why EVs are a lot more reliable and will last a lot longer than an ICE car. There’s other elements as well such as the regenerative braking… You basically have an expiration date that tells you when to replace the brake pads instead of a number of miles (or thickness). Because the brake pads themselves will never wear enough from normal driving to warrant replacement. Instead you have to figure out the replacement time based on exposure to natural radiation (LOL) and seasonal hot/cold cycles.
The magnets in the motors lose about 5% of their strength every 100 years. So again, the thing you’re accounting for when figuring out how long the motors will last is the exposure to natural radiation degrading the insulation of the wires (LOL).
I’m aware an ICE car requires more maintenance. But, two things. My gas tank doesn’t get smaller over time and good luck taking your Tesla or Chevy Bolt to an unauthorized repair shop and let them try to fix anything without access to OEM diagnostic tools. Yes, new ICE cars are also full of this bullshit, but hey, my 20 year old ICE car isn’t!
I didn’t mean it literally, but easily it could be considering how u lose performance if u use a battery powered vehicle in somewhere to hot, or to cold.
According to Geotab a Tesla will be at 90% of it’s initial State of Health (SoH) after 5 years of use while a Leaf (which is well-known for shit thermal management and poor battery quality) will be at 80%. That’s worse than their other charts which show averages of 85% SoH in an equivalent amount of time.
Regardless, even operating at 80% after five years is completely fine. The curve isn’t really linear anyway so after about 10 years the batteries will likely be operating at about 70% of their original SoH in the worst case scenario.
Also consider that the price of lithium ion batteries has dropped consistently year over year for the past decade. There was a bit of a hiccup because of COVID but that’s over now and the price is continuing to drop. That means the cost of a replacement battery pack in 10 years will likely be 60-90% cheaper (if the current trend continues) than it is today.
So? First of all, my platina already has more than 12-13 years and if I lose any performance if I lose any at all, is gonna be maybe, MAYBE %3. And the real matter is all the implications of making those batteries, contamination, and NO FUCKING IMPROVEMENT OVER A NORMAL CAR, in any case it would be worse. What’s the point of making ur car battery dependent when the energy used to charge it comes from burning the same fossil fuel as before, but now losing energy in the conversions from one kind of energy to another.
That’s without even talking about all the draconian software locks, how companies r starting to lock functions wich already come with the vehicle, how they r trying to kill the right to repair, etc, etc, etc. We don’t even know if changing batteries is gonna be allowed or if its gonna be illegal in some way as apple shenanigans already did it in Mexico where its now illegal to even install linux in a computer u already buy it since it would be “alteration without agreement”. Want a real change and really helping the planet? we need better public transport and changing how we produce electric energy as a whole, because right now just putting a battery in a car and calling it a day is just additional problems to the already present ones in traditional cars.
Yeah, what I’ve heard is that water cooling the batteries (like almost every EV does now) massively extends the life. Early Prius batteries had no cooling and the heat degraded them faster. 15 years is a pretty good life still.
On the subject of battery warranty:
The federal government requires manufacturers to offer an eight-year/100,000-mile warranty on all EV batteries. California does one better, mandating a warranty of 10 years or 150,000 miles. Some companies will cover a battery only if it completely stops working, while others will replace the battery if it falls below a certain capacity, usually 70% of the original, while still under warranty.
It’s important to note, a degraded battery, even with 50% of its original capacity is still useful. Someone who doesn’t need the range could drive it, or the battery could be taken apart, and have the cells repurposed or recycled. Lithium and some of the other rare metals used in batteries are quite valuable for recycling, and our abilities to do so are getting better every year.
Why would I want a ducking bomb under me ? No, I want I city with solar+nuclear power energizing public transport and THEN maybe u could use a battery personal vehicle to move like an autonomous trolleybus.
My problem with “electric” cars right now is where the energy comes from.
I’m aware of the Nucleon, that is why I don’t want this in my car. But, I would love to have a tiny nuclear reactor in my neighborhood substation or something
I’d be paying that anyway for renewable power given the geography of my country, where nuclear is impossible (ABSOLUTELY impossible). If someone could cut the natural gas from our energy pie and give us clean electricity as a replacement we’d be grateful, given our limited space and relative lack of renewable resources.
Just remember that “good” solutions are still preferred over “bad” solutions, and there are never any “perfect” solutions. I see too many people think electric cars are terrible because of what they’ve been told, like the batteries. For me, it’s like “Yeah, but they’re still better than ICE vehicles”. They’ll get better, they’re definitely not perfect, but they are just better
YOu can’t really stop a lithium ion battery fire, all you can do is keep it from catching other things on fire around it, you pretty much just have to let it burn out.
Yup batteries are not the way. By the time the batteries need to be replaced you might have helped slightly but probably not. Batteries is a illusion to going green right now. Just another product that has a demand and an easy market for it.
You can toss a lit match into a puddle of diesel and the match will go out. Diesel burns, but since it doesn’t evaporate as fast as gasoline, you don’t have those flammable gases hanging in the air. A trail of diesel that’s being burned at one end will not spread, unlike gasoline.
Gasoline doesn’t burn that easily, either. Cars with gas tanks don’t burst into flames while sitting powered off in a garage. Even when they get wrecked they don’t usually burst into flames.
On the other hand, gasoline is slowly causing the world to burst into flames…
Gasoline burns accidentally when fumes are released, as the stoichiometric mixture has to be pretty specific to combust.
Gasoline in a gas tank does not achieve this mixture. That’s the entire job of the fuel pump and throttle in modern cars. As the other user said, there are lots of sparks and live electricity in a car crash, it’s just not easy to set gasoline on fire or make it explode.
Diesel does not appear to achieve this vapor mixture readily at standard temp and pressure, like gasoline does, and therefore is technically safer in this specific regard.
It didn’t suck as a solution when it was implemented. The buses function like small diesel trains; they don’t have to deal with traffic, and can travel faster because they kinda lock in to the rails. It didn’t need as much land as a freeway or cost as much as a dedicated train line because you could just retrofit old buses. Plus the advantage of being able to run a standard bus route at each end of the line, no need for connecting services.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Rules:
Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
Seattle used to have these as well. Sadly, the US (outside of a few cities that kept their 1930’s infrastructure and updated it) can’t find it’s ass with both hands when it comes to public transportation.
Seattle still does.
Holy carp they’re still there! You’re right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Seattle
…we don’t anymore?
You do! I had to look it up. I haven’t seen them in a long time (I don’t get to Seattle much anymore), but they’re still in service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Seattle
“Electric buses aren’t safe because the batteries can catch on fire”
London here running hybrids for over half a decade with no issue.
Yeah, who the heck complains about either of those points? Hybrid buses have been a thing for a long time. And even if it was a plain diesel bus, it’d still be better than having dozens of gasoline cars.
We have some electric but lines in San Sebastian (Spain) too, no issues, the buses are lovely, they work fine. It has been about 4 years since they first got introduced, no major issues.
We USians are so hooked on, and controlled by, car infrastructure that we’ll come up with any lame ass excuse to undermine public transit. “Busses (or trains or any other form of public transit) aren’t perfect because of X, so we should just keep destroying our health, our communities and our planet”
There’s also an idea of doing this in highways.
Tom Scott video on it: https://youtu.be/_3P_S7pL7Yg
I always upvote Tom Scott
I hate to see misinformation being spread.
First off, Diesel Busses Are equally environmental friendly as electric trains. (On long distance trips) this is due to infrastructure emissions, which are far higher for train infrastructure.
Furthermore looking at batteries: Batteries are expensive and very sensible to temperatures. They are virtually unusable in some climate zones. Furthermore a battery burns much hotter than gasoline. Much much hotter. So hot in fact that the damage to roads is immense. In addition to that, battery driven cars and buses are extremely heavy and damaging asphalt infrastructure as well.
The best solution is to shift mobility towards Diesel driven Busses and facilitate car sharing. It’s flexible, mich more flexible than other solutions. This makes it adaptable to many environments and situations. And it does not force people to give up achievements of mobility.
The example in the meme is extra problematic, because steel cables and train infrastructure is heavily reliant on coal. And replacement of coal with hydrogen is not to be seen in the foreseeable future.
And that’s the take of the people without any knowledge of what they are rankling about.
Also overhead wires are hideous
Modern OHLE standards are significantly less messy than they were 100 years ago. And if they really are still that bad, conductor rails work almost as well.
Conductors are always connected to energy loss. I don’t mind the cables. They are not looking good, but I can live with them.
OHLE is a conductor too. The issue with conductor rials is that they use DC rather than AC, which means that voltage is lower, meaning substations need to be more frequent. However, the conductor rail takes up no additional space in the loading gauge compared to OHLE, so for underground systems, or systems that need minimal clearance, conductor rails are better.
“Conductors” as in any piece of metal that conducts electricity? Those overhead wires are also conductors, and will see some energy loss over their length like any other conductor.
The whole thing about trolleybuses is that they don’t pollute inside of the city. Obviously that pollution still happens somewhere, but it isn’t under your nose.
Trolleybuses can use renewable electricity from wind and solar. This works today, right now. Diesel is still fossil carbon coming out of the ground and burned. It would be a different story if we could synthesize diesel using electricity, or used 100% biodiesel, but currently we can’t and we don’t.
Or better than solar panels is cheap, clean and safe uranium nuclear power :3 And even if that power is made from diesel, the pollution happens outside of the city
What sort of “infrastructure emissions”? That doesn’t really make sense to me, once you build the infrastructure it already exists, so it doesn’t just emit on its own. Also rail infrastructure being worse than road infrastructure doesn’t makes sense. Electric trains have extremely negligible emissions (I dare say practically none in normal operation). Electric road vehicles (of any type) still have tyre emissions (and make them worse because they are heavier). Electric trains are over all the best way forward dice intercity transport.
And those emissions that exist happen outside of the city
Let me rephrase it: infrastructure maintaining emissions. You have to think about all the people involved in organising train infrastructure each day. It’s immense. I can’t find the source anymore. But a german agency once published a calculation, that on a 100 km trip, the train was still emitting less, including every emissions connected to this one train ride. But the difference to a diesel Bus became basically unmentionable. Just a few kg CO2 more. But not much. And keep in mind that a bus is much more flexible than a train.
Not quite. As every city is dependant on road infrastructure. It starts with the building of houses and the transport of material. You cannot use rail infrastructure for every house. It does not bring the needed flexibility. Same goes for emergency services, police, firebricks, ambulance, craftsman,… asphalt based infrastructure is irreplaceable. Might as well use it for public transport instead of creating a second infrastructure to care for. One little new building project and a rail route in a city is blocked for 1-2 years. Car infrastructure is flexible and can evade this problem.
This seems too unbelievable for me to take your word for it. Find the source or stop spouting nonsense.
Repairing asphalt roads causes a huge amount of emissions, and the more traffic those roads see, the more often they need to be replaced.
In what world does maintaining a rail line even come close to the emissions produced by maintaining buses, trucks, and the road itself?
Asphalt is a byproduct of oil refinery. It’s literal main component is production waste. There is a ton of it.
Steel on the other hand must be produced in the so called blast furnace process. It’s the reduction of iron oxide with carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. But the hydrogen is it added separately. It’s a byproduct of the process that reacts as well reductive towards iron oxide. You need to burn immense amounts of coal to create elemental iron.
And trails are equally time consuming and resources consuming with maintenance as asphalt streets are.
I don’t know what kind of source you want there. Do you need a link towards Wikipedia? Or can you find the production of iron and asphalt yourself?
For sure a car cannot compete with a trains emissions. But a diesel driven bus can. Here is a source. You might need a translator. It’s a German article. link to a german news agency. citing a study by the Umweltministerium (ministry for Environment)
I am in fact not spouting nonsense. I am merely stating the truth.
The article you linked makes no mention of maintenance and infrastructure emissions. There’s just a single table that seems to be based on fuel emissions at the time of travel. It’s also specific to existing rail infrastructure, which is fine, but for the purposes of argument and comparison, it would be ideal to compare the most efficient bus/roadway system with the most efficient rail system. Zero-emissions trains exist, yet somehow just maintaining the rail line would completely offset that according to your argument?
Asphalt is an oil product, yes, but it still needs to be processed and turned into asphalt. That also emits pollution. So does transporting it to the destination, and all the other environmental factors with building up a road surface. You can’t just hand wave that away “because we already made a ton of it”. That’s not how sustainability works. We’re explicitly trying to reduce our reliance on oil.
You also seem to be ignoring that rail lasts orders of magnitude longer than asphalt, and don’t constantly have to be patched and repaired for pot holes. Steel is also one of the most recycled materials on the planet. (Nearly 70% of all steel here in the US is recycled). Melting down old cars or whatever into new rail tracks uses significantly less energy than refining new metal.
I cannot look everything up. Soooooo … trust me bro.
There also exist zero emission cars. So this argument doesn’t work so well. We are talking about real life applications. And that’s why it is absolutely reasonable to compare existing infrastructure. Germany has invested heavily into both, automobile infrastructure and Railroad infrastructure. So the comparison seems to be alright.
And so does steel and concrete.
I can hand wave this off completely fine, since it would be technically possible to frac bitumen into synthesis gas as well. So asphalt is still bound carbon. And that’s alright that way.
This is wrong. They need to be ground down regularity, they need to be replaced regularity due to material fatigue, railroads need intense care - freed from plants regularity, much more frequent in fact than asphalt, due to its open structure. In Addition to rails, there is need for electrical wiring above the train. This wiring is also needed to replace regularity due to material fatigue, constant rubbing of the metals onto each other. Then we also have further infrastructure for people, so called train stations. Especially larger train stations must be heated in winter with immense amounts of gas and train stations made of glass in summer are in desperate need of cooling. You just have to take a look at the prices for a ride. If it compares financially, then it most likely compares in emissions as well.
While this is correct, it is still very inefficient to melt down steel and then clean it up to recreate the requested alloys. Asphalt on the other hand can be recycled much easier. It is in fact a thermoplastic material. It needs much lower melting temperatures and is not dependant on reductive agents.
When the argument is emergency vehicles and “rail infrastructure for every house” it is clear that you are talking with an American that has no idea what they are talking about
You are talking with a European. A German in fact.
And I was not talking about rail to every house, I was mentioning the absolute necessity for asphalt streets. And that this infrastructure is far more flexible and adaptive than all the alternatives. Something irreplaceable in fact.
Apologies for misidentifying you then.
On the topic, the debate was never regarding if streets would exist or not. This is a moved-goalpost argument made by people who are trying to fight the pro public transport movement.
Supporting and promoting public transport doesn’t require to demolish the streets or make cars illegal. Or cars cease to exist at all. This is an irrational fear of such peopke and it is actually funny when this is the counterargument.
No offence was taken.
I am not against public transport. But the pro public transport movement often leans into the extreme. Asking for the removal of individual transport (well only cars, not bicycles). But from my standpoint, it is clear that an infrastructure, that is irreplaceable and an absolute necessity, must be used to the fullest extend. This means that the primary objective in planing transport in a city must be to fill the streets with busses, cars and bicycles. Rail comes secondary.
Well, I might be a little sensitive, but some people here support a movement against individualistic solutions rather than a positively conotated idea of feasible reasonable, not ideological solutions.
trams!!!
This. Trams are so much nicer, carry more people, way less maintenance cost and the tracks look so good if grass grows between it, also I don’t get motion sickness on them. You don’t even need any asphalt for them which is expensive to maintain, looks worse than pretty much anything except maybe a literal pile of garbage and heats up the surrounding area.
Doesn’t work in hilly cities. That’s why San Francisco has trolleybuses too (and the historical cable cars, but those are more for tourists). They do have light rail where it does make sense though.
Lisbon is very hilly and uses trams
I looked it up and it can indeed go up to 13.5% inclination but they can only run powered cars, no attached wagons. That reduces capacity.
I don’t want to shit on trams. I don’t like this bus vs tram bashing in either direction. I’ll happily take either improvement over a sea of cars…
I don’t quite remember what they’re called but in the UK there’s both old mining trains and old cliff trains/trolleys that use toothed wheels and toothed tracks on the hill portions to go up/down hill with little issue, obviously it’s only safe for some gradient, but still with the right gearing it would be of possible
Don’t they use rubber tired trams, aka guided buses?
Nope, they use the old style
Interesting. How steep would be the steepest hill?
People need to learn the difference between „Doesn’t catch fire“ and „Doesn’t burn AS EASY AS gasoline“.
The problem with battery fires is that most batteries are made out of lithium which reacts with pretty much everything and is extremely difficult to put out.
In addition obtaining the rare earth metals for these batteries ecologically is a real challenge and it will only get worse the more we use.
I’m not saying we should abandon electric cars but we should know the benefits and drawbacks of each option before making a decision.
Depends on battery tech. LFP batteries dont use cobalt and manganese, and have have much less chance of fire when punctured for example
I didn’t mean batteries, I was talking about diesel. Should have made that clearer, my bad.
Obviously diesel burns and batteries don’t really explode, but the only way to put out an EV fire is to dunk the car for a few days in a tub of water. And how many of those will a fire department have? 1-5?
But cables ugly/s
And the same people who gripe about overhead cables apparently have no trouble staring at a street full of idling, polluting, and noisy cars. It’s really impressive.
Because diesel catching on fire is totally unheard of.
On it’s own? Pretty much unheard of. Usually is a leak and something else set it on fire.
Batteries on the other hand plenty of cases where the battery itself was the starting point. Is usually cause by a bad design or external factors? Yes, not saying otherwise.
And tbh Diesel is the worse example you could put as requires either high pressure or a continuous exposure to a flame as you could throw a lit match on it and it wouldn’t set it on fire. Petrol/Gasoline on the other hand…
Both cases are “external factors causing a fire”
Imagine your car catching fire while you are pumping fuel…
I don’t have to imagine, I saw it with my own eyes. Although it was a bike. Some random spark somewhere ignited the fumes, scary shit.
Not always, a bad design/construction of a battery I wouldn’t call it external factors. It doesn’t need anything external to set on fire. But I agree that it’s not common.
On the Diesel/petrol case… it would need a leak to begin with and usually it’s not s difficult thing to design a tank/engine without leaks. Let’s be honest a battery is a more complex system to fuck up.
Are there cases of EV batteries catching fire due to internal failings alone?
Yes, there have been recalls as well in some cased.
Here there is info about incidents, althought not only due to internal faillings alone, there are crashes and other stuff as well. The usual issue is that a thermal runaway happens.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents
add some steel wheels then its perfect
And connect them together.
Choo choo
… on tracks. Steel wheels would destroy the wheels, blacktop, and concrete.
i actually like the aesthetic.
here in Santiago we have more than 1000 Electric Buses In operation, they work great.
Trolleys can’t divert trough an alternative route if the original route got blocked somehow (for example it got barricaded.) wich is a common occurrence here in Santiago.
I’m Czech and my city has a trolleybus network. Every single trolleybus has either a) diesel engine or b) battery backup, depends on their age. Hell, there are even entire lines where 1/3rd they run on batteries. But, they can be smaller, so the vehicle is lighter.
non contiguous catenary is the best solution imo
The what? I’m not Bri*ish enough to understand that
that still doesn’t adress the cost of implementing it on the more than 300 bus routes there are in Santiago or how probable is that the infrastructure would get damaged or destroyed every time there are protests.
This number, 300, doesn’t say anything. How many miles is that, excluding duplications? The inner city is easy and cheap to cover in power lines for trolleys to replace busses here, and everything other may be best kept on diesel.
What protests, lol? Repairing power lines is easy and fast and I doubt someone would target them.
My city only really has trolleybus lines in the city center where it is cheaper and means no localized pollution
Mine – too. It’s just rational to do that for most popular and short routes.
Oh for sure people target them, just as they target buses and metro stations.
I wouldn’t even know how to find said information, there isn’t even an up to date map I could find, but here is this heavily outdated map
its not that costly tonimplement. Why do you think they were implemented back then, instead of running everything on diesel engines?
The upfrontninvestment might be higher, but the running costs are lower, since the electricity is far mor energy efficient and electric engines need way less maintenance than IC-engines.
Fortunately riots aren’t an issue in my city
yeah, but how many routes?
9 trolleybus lines, 3 of which I know have about 1/3rd without trolley wires at the end so buses go on battery/diesel
Santiago has 300 hundred lines of bus. all of them potentially serviceable by EBs.
Even if we electrified the main corridors, we would still need a lot of buses able to run the entire length of the rout independently.
and Santiago being Santiago that kind of infrastructure would be damaged on riots or something.
Okay? Doesn’t mean Trolleybuses aren’t the best compromise. Infrastructure costs money, so lets make the same argument about roads shall we?
Switzerland runs a lot of these buses. Also trams, normal buses , trains. For those people in the U.S., it’s a very effective and efficient system called public transport.
Yes Switzerland is famous for its public transport
Yeah literally, what is this post even saying
They are still running in The Netherlands, although only in 1 city.
Vancouver, Canada, still rocking these bad bois
Really sad we should have more of them their just better then battery electric.
I think trams are pretty good as well, which I know the Netherlands has a lot of
Basically the same thing but with actual rails.
What the actual fuck⁈ “Batteries can catch on fire.” Sure, whatever could go wrong with a 1000l tank of FUCKING GASOLINE.
AAAaaaaHHhh I hate people!
Gasoline and diesel can be extinguished relatively easily. Extinguishing an EV means throwing it into a tub of water for a day or two
Gasoline vehicles also don’t tend to catch fire spontaneously while parked. That risk exists with every unattended lithium-ion battery undergoing recharging. People technically shouldn’t be plugging their phones in at night and then going to sleep, but everyone does it anyway.
Doesn’t matter much for phones, but when talking EV charging… Night electricity tends to be cheaper when it’s not solar energy season.
Can’t wait for miles of 240V extension cords when EU makes even used non EVs illegal. Yes, millions of city dwellers in apartments totally have a garage to charge in.
There will be solutions by 2050 (the proposed timeframe for having a zero-emissions fleet). For an example, vehicles with combustion engines can still be newly registered after 2035 if they use only CO2-neutral fuels. I think EU would rather ban sale of fossil fuels than ban used cars that can technically burn fossil fuels. If only plant-based fuels are available, it doesn’t matter what the cars can technically burn.
The German big 3 are already developing cars that would only run on non-fossil fuels I believe.
Secondly, chargers near apartment buildings and on sidewalks can be added. We have plenty of time.
And I’m sure Germany will water down the regulations even more so in the end, I’m fairly sure they’ll consider new MHEVs fine after 2035.
And finally, those who can’t charge at home will do so at the charging stations. It’s not a huge issue if you have a battery with 500+ km of range. Might be an issue for i-miev and first gen Leaf owners though.
Unless we get mass producable, cheap fuel like CHOOH2, “cars can use co2 neutral fuels” is translation to “in reality no ICE cars for the mass population”
And who will pay for those? My town can barely get enough money to maintain street lights, who will install and maintain the charging infrastructure on streets where it will inevitably get destroyed?
Oh yes, so now instead of 15 minute wait at a gas station I will only have to wait 2 hours before a space is available and then 30 minutes to charge, all while thinking “how much is this quick charge degrading my battery”
There’s 27 years to go till EU’s predicted (not required by law) end of ICE cars. There’s time to invest, time to innovate and hopefully time for your town to reduce crime and gain more resources.
Also HVO is pretty affordable nowadays. Maybe 20% more than regular diesel fuel at most. It is claimed to be carbon neutral. I’m sure something similar will be developed for otto cycle engines.
Also unless you’re planning to use a first gen leaf past the 2050s, quick charging isn’t very bad. All modern EVs have battery cooling and will also throttle charging when the temperature rises. The don’t full on go 350kW for 20 minutes straight.
Waiting 2 hours is solved by installing more chargers. Clearly a regional issue with fuel pumps as well because I never have to wait over 2-3 minutes.
Please don’t put lithium in water; that will make it worse.
Tell that to firefighters.
Going with the “batteries catch on fire argument” is stupid. “Batteries are heavy and expensive” is probably more compelling. But yeah, wires are better solution for things going in fixed routes.
The ammount of water required to put out a normal car is infinitely less than the amount required to put out a battery fire.
Not to mention the extra weight, nor the retention loss per recharge meaning we need to change batteries every 2-4 years polluting a lot more, we ain’t even talking about the energy loss when doing the conversion to electric and then again to mechanical.
The electric transport is the way to go in the future, but firts it needs to have a solid foundation, and nuclear is the way to go at least in this moment. Otherwise we are only making things worse.
Edit for those wondering about the battery degradation: https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/
Wait, what‽ No. We don’t need to change batteries every 2-4 years. That’s what you do with TV remote controls and temperature sensors, not electric car batteries, LOL!
Electric car batteries are made to last at least 7 years (from a warranty standpoint) but in reality it’s more like 10. Not only that but they’re not single, gigantic objects. They’re made of lots of “cells” so if one of them is going bad you can replace just that one bad cell.
Anecdote: The batteries in my Prius lasted 15 years before I had to replace one of the cells. Then a year later I had to replace another one. A year after that I sold it so I have no idea how the batteries are doing right now but I’m sure another cell would probably need to be replaced by now 19 years in service).
I’d also like to point out that the latest electric car batteries are vastly superior to the ones in my Prius.
Sincere question, what happens with the second hand electric vehicle market? New electrics make a ton of sense, but in my mind the ‘used car’ market becomes essentially unobtainable for poor folk. If a 12 year old electric vehicle hits the market, eventually the second or third owner is going to have to replace the batteries and poor people can’t afford the 5000 plus labor to get new cells for it.
This isn’t a situation that affects me, at the moment, but there are millions of people around the globe who buy the $1000 car and drive it until it just doesn’t go anymore. I don’t see that being an option for electrics.
Doesn’t and won’t exist. And it might be a “conspiracy theory” but I do think it is totally intentional.
Sure, that replacement time isn’t 4 but 15-20 years (well, except early Leafs that didn’t have battery temperature management of any kind), but my 20 year old car’s gas tank fits just as much gas as it did 20 years ago.
If you think any ICE car is going to outlast an electric you’re mistaken. EVs have a fraction of the moving parts of an ICE car and as a result are expected to last a lot longer. 30+ years for an electric car isn’t out of the question. Especially the latest ones with their water cooled batteries.
The number of moving parts is just one (albeit a great big) factor as to why EVs are a lot more reliable and will last a lot longer than an ICE car. There’s other elements as well such as the regenerative braking… You basically have an expiration date that tells you when to replace the brake pads instead of a number of miles (or thickness). Because the brake pads themselves will never wear enough from normal driving to warrant replacement. Instead you have to figure out the replacement time based on exposure to natural radiation (LOL) and seasonal hot/cold cycles.
The magnets in the motors lose about 5% of their strength every 100 years. So again, the thing you’re accounting for when figuring out how long the motors will last is the exposure to natural radiation degrading the insulation of the wires (LOL).
I’m aware an ICE car requires more maintenance. But, two things. My gas tank doesn’t get smaller over time and good luck taking your Tesla or Chevy Bolt to an unauthorized repair shop and let them try to fix anything without access to OEM diagnostic tools. Yes, new ICE cars are also full of this bullshit, but hey, my 20 year old ICE car isn’t!
Good luck finding or affording gas in 20 years!
You’ll have to go down to the boat dock to fill up your ICE car because there won’t be gas stations anywhere else.
I didn’t mean it literally, but easily it could be considering how u lose performance if u use a battery powered vehicle in somewhere to hot, or to cold.
Also, look how much degradation suffers the battery’s https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/
According to Geotab a Tesla will be at 90% of it’s initial State of Health (SoH) after 5 years of use while a Leaf (which is well-known for shit thermal management and poor battery quality) will be at 80%. That’s worse than their other charts which show averages of 85% SoH in an equivalent amount of time.
Regardless, even operating at 80% after five years is completely fine. The curve isn’t really linear anyway so after about 10 years the batteries will likely be operating at about 70% of their original SoH in the worst case scenario.
Also consider that the price of lithium ion batteries has dropped consistently year over year for the past decade. There was a bit of a hiccup because of COVID but that’s over now and the price is continuing to drop. That means the cost of a replacement battery pack in 10 years will likely be 60-90% cheaper (if the current trend continues) than it is today.
So? First of all, my platina already has more than 12-13 years and if I lose any performance if I lose any at all, is gonna be maybe, MAYBE %3. And the real matter is all the implications of making those batteries, contamination, and NO FUCKING IMPROVEMENT OVER A NORMAL CAR, in any case it would be worse. What’s the point of making ur car battery dependent when the energy used to charge it comes from burning the same fossil fuel as before, but now losing energy in the conversions from one kind of energy to another.
That’s without even talking about all the draconian software locks, how companies r starting to lock functions wich already come with the vehicle, how they r trying to kill the right to repair, etc, etc, etc. We don’t even know if changing batteries is gonna be allowed or if its gonna be illegal in some way as apple shenanigans already did it in Mexico where its now illegal to even install linux in a computer u already buy it since it would be “alteration without agreement”. Want a real change and really helping the planet? we need better public transport and changing how we produce electric energy as a whole, because right now just putting a battery in a car and calling it a day is just additional problems to the already present ones in traditional cars.
Yeah, what I’ve heard is that water cooling the batteries (like almost every EV does now) massively extends the life. Early Prius batteries had no cooling and the heat degraded them faster. 15 years is a pretty good life still.
On the subject of battery warranty:
It’s important to note, a degraded battery, even with 50% of its original capacity is still useful. Someone who doesn’t need the range could drive it, or the battery could be taken apart, and have the cells repurposed or recycled. Lithium and some of the other rare metals used in batteries are quite valuable for recycling, and our abilities to do so are getting better every year.
Nuclear is about to go away, looking at the statitics.
I thought he wanted nuclear energy in cars?
Why would I want a ducking bomb under me ? No, I want I city with solar+nuclear power energizing public transport and THEN maybe u could use a battery personal vehicle to move like an autonomous trolleybus.
My problem with “electric” cars right now is where the energy comes from.
Small nuclear reactor in your car is stupid, but I would love if every city had its own nuclear reactor. Central power and heating!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
I’m aware of the Nucleon, that is why I don’t want this in my car. But, I would love to have a tiny nuclear reactor in my neighborhood substation or something
Frankly, I don’t mind as long as I can get enough electricity at any time of the day.
So you don’t mind paying 40 cents/kWh?
That would be if we had nuclear only.
I’d be paying that anyway for renewable power given the geography of my country, where nuclear is impossible (ABSOLUTELY impossible). If someone could cut the natural gas from our energy pie and give us clean electricity as a replacement we’d be grateful, given our limited space and relative lack of renewable resources.
Yeah… not really something I want to see happening.
Ideally solar + nuclear could be the solution we need.
Just remember that “good” solutions are still preferred over “bad” solutions, and there are never any “perfect” solutions. I see too many people think electric cars are terrible because of what they’ve been told, like the batteries. For me, it’s like “Yeah, but they’re still better than ICE vehicles”. They’ll get better, they’re definitely not perfect, but they are just better
YOu can’t really stop a lithium ion battery fire, all you can do is keep it from catching other things on fire around it, you pretty much just have to let it burn out.
Which means you need to dunk it in a pool. How many of those does your local FD has? 1-5?
Yup batteries are not the way. By the time the batteries need to be replaced you might have helped slightly but probably not. Batteries is a illusion to going green right now. Just another product that has a demand and an easy market for it.
What would be a better alternative if you exclude the use of fossil fuels?
fixed overhead wires, as OP suggested?
I think we’re all aware of the costs associated with recycling batteries.
Are you aware of the costs associated with high CO2 levels?
Have to choose the lesser of two evils.
You’re aware that diesel is quite hard to catch on fire
No it’s not. It’s harder to catch fire than gasoline.
It still catches fire easily.
You can toss a lit match into a puddle of diesel and the match will go out. Diesel burns, but since it doesn’t evaporate as fast as gasoline, you don’t have those flammable gases hanging in the air. A trail of diesel that’s being burned at one end will not spread, unlike gasoline.
Okay
Gasoline doesn’t burn that easily, either. Cars with gas tanks don’t burst into flames while sitting powered off in a garage. Even when they get wrecked they don’t usually burst into flames.
On the other hand, gasoline is slowly causing the world to burst into flames…
Well yeah… You need a spark to cause a fire. To have ignition you need oxygen, fuel and a spark.
Nothing burns easily if there’s no spark.
There are plenty of sparks in a car crash.
Diesel combusts at 140 degrees. A care could reach those temps in a car accident as well if we’re making that argument.
Gasoline burns accidentally when fumes are released, as the stoichiometric mixture has to be pretty specific to combust.
Gasoline in a gas tank does not achieve this mixture. That’s the entire job of the fuel pump and throttle in modern cars. As the other user said, there are lots of sparks and live electricity in a car crash, it’s just not easy to set gasoline on fire or make it explode.
Diesel does not appear to achieve this vapor mixture readily at standard temp and pressure, like gasoline does, and therefore is technically safer in this specific regard.
Okay?
That’s why he said gasoline tho
But that’s not relevant for busses
Meanwhile in Australia:
Bitch I’m a truss
That looks pretty sick ngl
It didn’t suck as a solution when it was implemented. The buses function like small diesel trains; they don’t have to deal with traffic, and can travel faster because they kinda lock in to the rails. It didn’t need as much land as a freeway or cost as much as a dedicated train line because you could just retrofit old buses. Plus the advantage of being able to run a standard bus route at each end of the line, no need for connecting services.
Yikes
What am I looking at? A diesel bus on rails?
Pretty much. This is the O-Bahn in Adelaide. More info (and the original picture I shamelessly ganked) here: Wikipedia link
Missed opportunity not have these as 3rd rail trolleybuses on these segments
We have something similar in the UK, guided busses.
Holy shit, I didn’t know that. I always thought the O-Bahn was a unique piece of Adelaide weirdness. Adelaide has a lot of weirdness.