β² 363 βΌ Wow wow wow... European Gas prices just surged 50% after Qatar said LNG infrastructure is under threat (feddit.uk) submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by NomNom@feddit.uk to c/europe@feddit.org 122 comments fedilink hide all child comments QatarEnergy, the world's largest producer of natural gas, just got bombed.
[β] reabsorbthelight@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Hydrogen has one of the highest energy densities by mass. It's a very reasonable energy storage permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) If you're launching a rocket, sure. If cost or difficulty matters in any way compared to raw mass, not really. It was talked about for cars where density kinda matters, but you could put them in a fuel cell that way instead of just burning it, and I'm not sure if it was ever anywhere close to economical. The cost probably will go down, and with any luck the cost of polluting will go up, but electricity is going to be more practical for most things. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) Electricity has gotten dramatically more expensive too. It is no panacea. In all likelihood, most of transportation will shift over to either green fuels (e-fuels) or hydrogen. Those are one-to-one replacements for fossil fuels. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I mean, to make e-fuel you still need the e (which stands for electricity). It's ~guaranteed to have lower round-trip efficiency and higher cost in a car than just a battery. Ditto for green hydrogen. Theoretically blue hydrogen or white hydrogen could be used instead, but it's not certain how much white hydrogen there is, and blue hydrogen needs carbon capture and storage which will add a lot to the cost. Gas generators are pretty much the same as ever, while renewables have gotten much cheaper than them. If your power bill went up, it's some local issue doing it. (Air-breathing aviation is the other application I didn't mention. Battery planes work but not well, so it's closer to rockets. I don't know if anyone has tried hydrogen, but that's where e-fuel comes up a lot) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn't be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated. We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You're the only person I've heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you're saying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn't matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let's all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) They're creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven't seen any evidence of malice. Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that's fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago You're a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I'm not sensing mailce per se, but I've noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it's getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I'm going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) I did not say you can't have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like "I need to cross the Australian outback". There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I'm not sure if it's still being made or they gave up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Millions, sure. But that's still a niche. It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) If you're launching a rocket, sure. If cost or difficulty matters in any way compared to raw mass, not really. It was talked about for cars where density kinda matters, but you could put them in a fuel cell that way instead of just burning it, and I'm not sure if it was ever anywhere close to economical. The cost probably will go down, and with any luck the cost of polluting will go up, but electricity is going to be more practical for most things. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) Electricity has gotten dramatically more expensive too. It is no panacea. In all likelihood, most of transportation will shift over to either green fuels (e-fuels) or hydrogen. Those are one-to-one replacements for fossil fuels. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I mean, to make e-fuel you still need the e (which stands for electricity). It's ~guaranteed to have lower round-trip efficiency and higher cost in a car than just a battery. Ditto for green hydrogen. Theoretically blue hydrogen or white hydrogen could be used instead, but it's not certain how much white hydrogen there is, and blue hydrogen needs carbon capture and storage which will add a lot to the cost. Gas generators are pretty much the same as ever, while renewables have gotten much cheaper than them. If your power bill went up, it's some local issue doing it. (Air-breathing aviation is the other application I didn't mention. Battery planes work but not well, so it's closer to rockets. I don't know if anyone has tried hydrogen, but that's where e-fuel comes up a lot) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn't be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated. We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You're the only person I've heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you're saying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn't matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let's all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) They're creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven't seen any evidence of malice. Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that's fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago You're a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I'm not sensing mailce per se, but I've noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it's getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I'm going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) I did not say you can't have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like "I need to cross the Australian outback". There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I'm not sure if it's still being made or they gave up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Millions, sure. But that's still a niche. It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Hypx@piefed.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 child) Electricity has gotten dramatically more expensive too. It is no panacea. In all likelihood, most of transportation will shift over to either green fuels (e-fuels) or hydrogen. Those are one-to-one replacements for fossil fuels. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I mean, to make e-fuel you still need the e (which stands for electricity). It's ~guaranteed to have lower round-trip efficiency and higher cost in a car than just a battery. Ditto for green hydrogen. Theoretically blue hydrogen or white hydrogen could be used instead, but it's not certain how much white hydrogen there is, and blue hydrogen needs carbon capture and storage which will add a lot to the cost. Gas generators are pretty much the same as ever, while renewables have gotten much cheaper than them. If your power bill went up, it's some local issue doing it. (Air-breathing aviation is the other application I didn't mention. Battery planes work but not well, so it's closer to rockets. I don't know if anyone has tried hydrogen, but that's where e-fuel comes up a lot) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn't be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated. We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You're the only person I've heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you're saying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn't matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let's all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) They're creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven't seen any evidence of malice. Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that's fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago You're a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I'm not sensing mailce per se, but I've noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it's getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I'm going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) I did not say you can't have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like "I need to cross the Australian outback". There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I'm not sure if it's still being made or they gave up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Millions, sure. But that's still a niche. It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I mean, to make e-fuel you still need the e (which stands for electricity). It's ~guaranteed to have lower round-trip efficiency and higher cost in a car than just a battery. Ditto for green hydrogen. Theoretically blue hydrogen or white hydrogen could be used instead, but it's not certain how much white hydrogen there is, and blue hydrogen needs carbon capture and storage which will add a lot to the cost. Gas generators are pretty much the same as ever, while renewables have gotten much cheaper than them. If your power bill went up, it's some local issue doing it. (Air-breathing aviation is the other application I didn't mention. Battery planes work but not well, so it's closer to rockets. I don't know if anyone has tried hydrogen, but that's where e-fuel comes up a lot) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn't be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated. We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You're the only person I've heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you're saying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn't matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let's all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) They're creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven't seen any evidence of malice. Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that's fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago You're a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I'm not sensing mailce per se, but I've noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it's getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I'm going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) I did not say you can't have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like "I need to cross the Australian outback". There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I'm not sure if it's still being made or they gave up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Millions, sure. But that's still a niche. It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn't be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated. We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You're the only person I've heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you're saying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn't matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let's all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) They're creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven't seen any evidence of malice. Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that's fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago You're a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I'm not sensing mailce per se, but I've noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it's getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I'm going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) I did not say you can't have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like "I need to cross the Australian outback". There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I'm not sure if it's still being made or they gave up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Millions, sure. But that's still a niche. It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You're the only person I've heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you're saying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn't matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let's all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) They're creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven't seen any evidence of malice. Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that's fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago You're a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I'm not sensing mailce per se, but I've noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it's getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I'm going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) I did not say you can't have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like "I need to cross the Australian outback". There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I'm not sure if it's still being made or they gave up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Millions, sure. But that's still a niche. It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn't matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let's all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) They're creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven't seen any evidence of malice. Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that's fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago You're a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I'm not sensing mailce per se, but I've noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it's getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I'm going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) They're creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven't seen any evidence of malice. Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that's fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago You're a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I'm not sensing mailce per se, but I've noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it's getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I'm going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago You're a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I'm not sensing mailce per se, but I've noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it's getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I'm going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) I did not say you can't have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like "I need to cross the Australian outback". There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I'm not sure if it's still being made or they gave up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Millions, sure. But that's still a niche. It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like "I need to cross the Australian outback". There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I'm not sure if it's still being made or they gave up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Millions, sure. But that's still a niche. It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Hypx@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 child) Millions, sure. But that's still a niche. It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people donβt want. If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They're slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they're cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you're not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it. In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I'd guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you're a plumber, it's a full-size van. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes. Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you're really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there's only so much you can do with that. It's a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That's it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job. Can't vs. won't might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs. Unless you add "but do all the same common trips just as quickly". Then having thousands of watts of power output matters. I think you need a more exact definition of "efficient" here. If you mean energy efficient, bikes are efficient, but human and crop metabolism is not. If you mean economically efficient, the speed and capacity issues have to be factored in. They both produce zero emissions in their end state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Hypx@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless. Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 5 months ago* I agree. Energy efficiency would be an odd way to measure it on it's own. Sure, bikes are nice in their niche, and they will probably be used more and not less in the future. And maybe that's a natural place to leave this. permalink fedilink source parent
