Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists

[PeZook]

The marginal change is the change in the total emissions and obviously an extra passenger on a bus will not reduce its total emissions. The passenger would have a marginal emission that is close to zero and so would cause plunging average emissions. Nitpicky, but you were talking about bad maths

The marginal emissions will be negative, because the passenger isn't taking his car to work.

I may have expressed myself poorly: by elliminating the passenger's car from the equation, emissions fall by the amount the car would emit, while average emissions per passengers fall as well by the fact the empty train now carries one passenger, while it previously carried none (or less).

[Akkleptos]

From what I heard Sweden runs nuclear for the most part and everyone is happy about it. And their biggest, four-reactor plant in Varberg produces enough juice to satisfy TWENTY FUCKING PERCENT of annual energy consumption of the ENTIRE country. Just one plant!

Yeah, and if your country's total population is less than 10 million that's really significant. Also, if you consider a country with 450,000 km2 of surface, where 85% of the population lives in or near the major cities (namely, Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö), well, you get the picture.

Not that I don't understand the benefits of going nuclear, but Sweden is just a bad example, comparing it with larger countries with larger populations.

I, for one, do my share by driving my Pontiac Matiz G2 everywhere, especially considering how the old buses around here pollute.

But yeah, the point here is that if public transportation is underutilised, THEN it's polluting more than vehicles. More people should use public transportation, and it should be made to use nuclear-produced energy, if possible. Of course, if it went nuclear, then we could probably have more cars, and less crowdiness.

[PeZook]

Not that I don't understand the benefits of going nuclear, but Sweden is just a bad example, comparing it with larger countries with larger populations.

Well, for larger countries, it's just a question of making more reactors

Besides, France generates something like 85% of its electricity from nukes and is the perfect example of a nuclear economy.

[dragon]

They forgot a few things. Besides pollution less cars being ran means less oil being used which in of itself is a good thing. As for coal buring plants being used well thats the fault of politcans for letting them be used. Here in Germany they have 17 nuclear plants and Germany is only about the size of Montana in land area. They also have alot of hydroelectric generators.

So almost as much power comes from Nuclear power as hard coal here

Mineral oils 33.8%,Natural gas 22.7%,Hard Coal 14.1%,Nuclear energy 11.1%,Lignite 11.7%, Renewables 6.6%

link

In Germany (as of January 2009), 17 nuclear power plants with an electric gross output of 21,497 MW are in operation. In 2008 they generated 149 billion kWh of electricity. The equipment and energy availability amounted to 80 % and 78 %.

link

I know germany wants to replace several of their older plants with modern nuclear plants

[Simon_Jester]

Devil's advocacy for a moment: what happens when we hit peak uranium?

You mean in about a billion years or longer?

Would it take as long as a billion years?

That's certainly a long enough time to satisfy anyone reasonable, I'd think, but I'd never heard anyone give such an optimistic figure before. By contrast, I've heard more pessimistic estimates on the order of a century several times.

[PeZook]

That's certainly a long enough time to satisfy anyone reasonable, I'd think, but I'd never heard anyone give such an optimistic figure before. By contrast, I've heard more pessimistic estimates on the order of a century several times.

IIRC, it's about a century for uranium itself, however:

1) You can use breeder reactors to generate electricity from uranium while also converting it to plutonium, which extends the actual fuel capacity per a given amount of uranium twice or as much as three times.

2) Modern reactors can already use material that was considered waste just 10 years ago

3) If research pans out, we can use a lot of other radioactive fuels besides uranium and plutonium

[Starglider]

If you really think about it the only problem with public transport is you can only carry what you could on your person. That is the only downside I can come up with.

There are three other huge problems with public transport; travel time (much longer for buses and trains if you have to make many changes), scheduling (particularly bad for long-distance coaches, there may only be one or two a day) and distance from endpoint (good luck getting to anywhere outside of a town centre or housing estate). Uncomfortable seating, lack of privacy (e.g. for music) and having to put up with annoying passengers (e.g. teenagers hurling abuse and litter everywhere) are three relatively minor problems.

Public transport is inherently less attractive than individual transport. On a personal level, it has only one real advantage; not having to drive means that you can theoretically employ the time for something useful, e.g. reading or using a laptop (if circumstances actually allow, I wouldn't try using a laptop on a typical bus or tram). It is rarely faster (only for intercity trains and trains vs very heavy traffic, sometimes not even then) and only sometimes cheaper (in the UK at least). The only reason to promote public transport is that as a society, the overall costs of massive car use (environmental and infrastructure, including land use for roads and parking) are becoming unsustainable. If we could find a way to make cars environmentally friendly (and ideally, automatically guided for primary routes) then we could happily eliminate rail (aside from possibly a few ultra-high-speed intercity links) and buses.

[D.Turtle]

I know germany wants to replace several of their older plants with modern nuclear plants

What? We are on track to eliminating all nuclear plants in Germany. The energy companies are trying to postpone it as much as possible in the hopes that a future government will reverse that, but so far it isn't likely. German public sentiment is strongly against nuclear plants. They are trying to replace the nuclear plants with renewable energy, which will take a couple of decades, during which time coal and natural gas plants will have to step in the gap left when the nuclear plants continue to be shut down.

There are three other huge problems with public transport; travel time (much longer for buses and trains if you have to make many changes),

Travel time over long distances with trains should be similar, if not faster, to cars, especially when you have a speed limit of 60-75 MPH like in the US. For short trips, you also have to remember that you do not have to waste money and time looking for a parking spot.

scheduling (particularly bad for long-distance coaches, there may only be one or two a day)

This is not the case if you have a proper hub and spokes system.

and distance from endpoint (good luck getting to anywhere outside of a town centre or housing estate).

This is only a problem in massive suburban spread developments.

Uncomfortable seating, lack of privacy (e.g. for music) and having to put up with annoying passengers (e.g. teenagers hurling abuse and litter everywhere) are three relatively minor problems.

These are hilariously wrong in a properly run and funded public transport system.

Public transport is inherently less attractive than individual transport. On a personal level, it has only one real advantage; not having to drive means that you can theoretically employ the time for something useful, e.g. reading or using a laptop (if circumstances actually allow, I wouldn't try using a laptop on a typical bus or tram)

I see people using laptops, reading, working on some papers, sleeping, etc all the time on trains here in Germany. In essence, when you are driving a car you can not (properly) do any work, or reading or stuff like that. In essence, if you travel by car, the time you use is unproductive time, in a train, you can use the time you are traveling productively. It is a LOT more relaxing to travel a few hours by train in comparison to traveling the same distance by car.

It is rarely faster (only for intercity trains and trains vs very heavy traffic, sometimes not even then)

Bullshit. And even when this is the case, it doesn't matter.

and only sometimes cheaper (in the UK at least).

If you are traveling alone it is usually cheaper to travel by train (in Germany).

The only reason to promote public transport is that as a society, the overall costs of massive car use (environmental and infrastructure, including land use for roads and parking) are becoming unsustainable. If we could find a way to make cars environmentally friendly (and ideally, automatically guided for primary routes) then we could happily eliminate rail (aside from possibly a few ultra-high-speed intercity links) and buses.

Lets see, you are saying that if only we eliminate the costs of car use, cars would be good! I don't think I have to add anything to that...

[Plekhanov]

The article makes no sense, seeing as buses and trains run regardless of whether I take them or not it will always be more environmental for me to take public transport which will be running anyway than a car regardless of how efficient it is.

The article seems to be trying to apply findings aimed at those who plan public transport schemes to individuals in their everyday lives.

[Starglider]

Travel time over long distances with trains should be similar, if not faster, to cars, especially when you have a speed limit of 60-75 MPH like in the US.

That is only true if you are going from somewhere within walking distance of a train station to somewhere within walking distance of another train station on the same line, and the train is an express train that doesn't stop at every station along the way, and you want to travel exactly when the train is leaving. This occurs very rarely for most people. Usually there is at least one bus or taxi journey at each end, some waiting at the station, and if any train changes are involved much more waiting. For example it takes me almost twice as long to get to the nearest international airport by walk + tram + express train vs driving, and also about twice as long to get from London to Sheffield if I take walk+tram+train+tube+train+tram+walk instead of simply 'drive' (it is also much more tiring).

For short trips, you also have to remember that you do not have to waste money and time looking for a parking spot.

I have only ever found this to be a problem in central London, which is pretty much the only place I try to avoid driving to.

scheduling (particularly bad for long-distance coaches, there may only be one or two a day)

This is not the case if you have a proper hub and spokes system.

Of course it is the case. It is not economical to run more than a few coaches a day on major intercity routes, never mind remote bus routes, and this is in the densely populated UK. It is inherently impractical to serve places such as US rural areas with worthwhile public transport.

and distance from endpoint (good luck getting to anywhere outside of a town centre or housing estate).

This is only a problem in massive suburban spread developments.

No, it is a problem if you are going anywhere other than to a museum, an office tower or someone who lives in a city centre apartment. The majority of my commercial trips are to office and industrial parks a long way from a train station, and the majority of my leisure trips are to small villages and countryside locations that would take x2 or x3 times as long to reach by public transport (in addition to the standard massive inconvenience of public transport, no luggage, having to plan routes carefully, having no flexibility in departure times, being at the mercy of random delays etc etc)

Uncomfortable seating, lack of privacy (e.g. for music) and having to put up with annoying passengers (e.g. teenagers hurling abuse and litter everywhere) are three relatively minor problems.

These are hilariously wrong in a properly run and funded public transport system.

No, they are inherent problems. Coach seating is uncomfortable because passengers have to be packed in to make it economic. Annoying passengers are a fact when you can't afford conductors as well as drivers (which the local tram system can't - and insisting that all these problems be fixed would double fares and make public transport even less competitive), plus when there is so much legal protection for assholes. Public transport inherently lacks privacy. You cannot hand-wave these problems away and I don't know why you're even trying. Honestly, people joke about the 'car religion', but cars don't need a religion, offer numerous real advantages for individuals, thus their massive popularity. It is public transport that needs a religion to rationalise its failings and try and pretend that it is somehow inherently virtuous, as opposed to a cheap and nasty solution that is unfortunately necessary due to external costs.

Public transport is inherently less attractive than individual transport. On a personal level, it has only one real advantage; not having to drive means that you can theoretically employ the time for something useful, e.g. reading or using a laptop (if circumstances actually allow, I wouldn't try using a laptop on a typical bus or tram)

I see people using laptops, reading, working on some papers, sleeping, etc all the time on trains here in Germany.

Yes, it is practical on trains (and aircraft). It is just barely practical on coaches, though in the UK they are so cramped you'd better have a small laptop. I wouldn't risk it on the trams here, as it is mobile phones and Ipods get stolen constantly, a laptop would be asking for trouble. The journey is also so jerky that it is difficult to even type properly - at least I don't get motion sickness, my wife can't even read, unless it is a long-distance train or a car on a motorway that is moving very smoothly.

It is a LOT more relaxing to travel a few hours by train in comparison to traveling the same distance by car.

I find driving very relaxing other than city centres. It is a good time to talk to my wife or friends (unlike trains, you actually have privacy for this). When I am on my own, I usually design algorithms in my head. Using laptops on trains is some compensation, but then there's the walking, trams, taxi, waiting on platforms etc that is difficult to use productively, and the journey takes at least twice as long to start with, so overall I don't get any more work done than by taking the car.

In fact the two biggest single reasons why I personally always prefer to drive are taking things with me and both predictability and flexibility of departure times. I frequently have lots of computer hardware, tools, camping gear, dogs etc in the car, I want to turn up to random industrial park in the middle of nowhere at 10am without having to spend an hour researching timetables and hoping there are no delays, and if my meeting or hike overruns by an hour I don't want to be stuck waiting two hours for the next viable set of connections home.

It is rarely faster (only for intercity trains and trains vs very heavy traffic, sometimes not even then)

Bullshit. And even when this is the case, it doesn't matter.

Ah, rampant denial.

Lets see, you are saying that if only we eliminate the costs of car use, cars would be good! I don't think I have to add anything to that...

I'm glad you agree then. My entire point was that proponents of public transport often subscribe to the insane notion that public transport is somehow inherently better than cars, for individual users. It is not, most of the time for most people it is inherently inferior, which is why cars are so popular in the first place. If you're trying to promote public transport, at least be honest and say that the reason why you want to build it is that the real costs of cars are unaffordable.

[Surlethe]

Let me rephrase Starglider's point. Individuals enjoy all of the benefits of cars and experience few of the actual costs, while individuals experience many of the costs and enjoy few of the benefits of public transportation, which distorts incentives and makes cars more popular.

[Starglider]

Let me rephrase Starglider's point. Individuals enjoy all of the benefits of cars and experience few of the actual costs, while individuals experience many of the costs and enjoy few of the benefits of public transportation, which distorts incentives and makes cars more popular.

Of course individuals enjoy the benefits; who else is there who can enjoy benefits other than 'individuals'? Cars are relatively dangerous, the infrastructure takes up a lot of space and the pollution affects everyone (although as this thread points out, public transport isn't automatically an improvement in that sense). The effects of foreign energy dependence and likely future effects of spiking oil prices also affect everyone.

The basic problem is a tragedy of the commons; car benefits are entirely personal, while a large part of the costs are spread over the population as a whole. For any one person, giving up a car is a major net loss. Your wording should be something about internal benefits vs external costs, rather than 'individuals'; accuracy aside, you are ensuring that feverently individualist (e.g. American) readers don't even consider your arguments.

Personally I am not opposed to public transport improvements, but I would prefer to focus engineering effort on mitigating or removing the drawbacks of cars, rather than massive rail projects or yet more bus lanes. Fortunately the rest of the world pretty much agrees with me on this.

[sketerpot]

3) If research pans out, we can use a lot of other radioactive fuels besides uranium and plutonium

India is already building thorium breeder reactors, although they haven't come online yet. Thorium is more abundant than uranium.

[D.Turtle]

You make some fair points. I'll concede the argument for now.

[Starglider]

You make some fair points. I'll concede the argument for now.

If it's any consolation, my wife used to be a big fan of public transport (she's German), but the longer she has spent in the UK (and in real life instead of university), the more she prefers to travel by car, even though she doesn't like driving. The final straw was taking the Eurostar to a ski resort in France early this year, we're never doing that again. Anyway, she said that public transport would probably be fine if you were a single person who lived in Berlin and never left, since it's subsidised to the hilt and thus relatively effective there.

[ray245]

You make some fair points. I'll concede the argument for now.

If it's any consolation, my wife used to be a big fan of public transport (she's German), but the longer she has spent in the UK (and in real life instead of university), the more she prefers to travel by car, even though she doesn't like driving. The final straw was taking the Eurostar to a ski resort in France early this year, we're never doing that again. Anyway, she said that public transport would probably be fine if you were a single person who lived in Berlin and never left, since it's subsidised to the hilt and thus relatively effective there.

So in other words, it's all about making the public transport system more effective than the status quo?

[Starglider]

So in other words, it's all about making the public transport system more effective than the status quo?

In a sense, but that's inherently impossible outside of city centres (no matter how much subsidy you use), unless you take active measures to kneecap cars (punitive taxation, allowing roads to decay etc). I include high speed intercity rail in the above, since it's great for people who live in one city and want to go to another, but not so useful for people who don't live in city centres.

[ray245]

So in other words, it's all about making the public transport system more effective than the status quo?

In a sense, but that's inherently impossible outside of city centres (no matter how much subsidy you use), unless you take active measures to kneecap cars (punitive taxation, allowing roads to decay etc). I include high speed intercity rail in the above, since it's great for people who live in one city and want to go to another, but not so useful for people who don't live in city centres.

Well for one, that's one measure adopted by our local government where we have a rather high tax on car ownership and road taxes, while bearing in mind that we have no real rural areas to speak off down here as a city state.

Although that does piss off a large amount of people.