The beginning is near...

[winterwheel]

E-bikes credit: How the environmental finally learned to see a future with less driving. (slate.com)

Pressure to reduce car miles driven -- INCLUDING electric cars -- works greatly in our favor as well. 

 

[0000]

I own 2 e-bikes myself, and am very fond of them as well as my wheel of course. That said, attempting to replace "miles driven" with e-bike use not only would be a significant decrease in standard of living by being constantly exposed to the elements whilst in transport, but there are other obvious challenges that are often ignored by ideologically-motivated advocates and subsidy seekers such as the inability to leave PEVs unattended in urban environments due to prolific incidents of theft and lack of general trust in the public (which is not going away). The mental stress alone from risking your property unattended is itself a negative standard of living and health impact that can be measured in elevated anxiety levels.

What I find particularly ridiculous about subsidies for PEVs is how unnecessary they are to begin with. Electric bike technology has become basically ubiquitous today and the utility of it can be harnessed by most motivated people with access to YouTube and basic hand tools for a lot cheaper a price than the retail ebikes advertise for. Particularly DIY BBS and BBSHD kits for example. In other words, the subsidies are unnecessary and price isn't much of a barrier of entry especially in comparison to "conventional" electric vehicles.

Plus, given that most manufacturers of retail ebikes are located outside the country or countries in which these kinds of subsides are sought, advocates are simply asking to redistribute tax funds (which are massively in defecit anyway) which will just end up largely going to overseas manufacturers. Why stimulate (by force) external production? It's all kind of idiotic to me, but then again I like when the math actually works out vs the insane way in which finance, tax receipts, and government spending lurches on regardless of its unsustainable trajectory.

As for the climate, we could get into it here, but there are other places for that. If you look up what percentage of CO2 makes up the atmosphere as well as the elevated levels at which it existed and supported life tens of millions of years ago (well before IPCC started opining how fossil fuels are killing us by raising CO2 levels EL OH EL), you'd realize they're completely full of shit and the climate change via human activity agenda has nothing to do with "saving the planet" to begin with, nor does human activity materially effect the historical levels of massively elevated and dimished average temperatures on the planet over the course the ages well before humans and technology supposedly had an impact.

TL;DR: E-bikes and other PEVs are fantastic, and it's wonderful when people can conserve and save resources and money by integrating them into their (transportation) lives (particularly without the force of government subsidy); however, seeing them as a political or ideological statement is silly, and so it pretending that they are anywhere near a direct replacement for the convencience and utility of a conventional vehicle.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Vanturion
spelling

[winterwheel]

I know there are a lot of anti-government climate-denialist types here, it's too bad you all can't see past your biases to see that having climate change people as allies and green government programs that could eventually include wheeling would be a tremendous help for us.

[0000]

Is it bias, or it is unbiased recognition of facts and their obvious implications:

source: from climate.gov mind you

If you accept this is an accurate portrayal of average global temperature, show me at what point in time 500 or 300 million years ago did coal-rolling, escalades, semi-trucks, ocean tankers, or cow farts cause repeated 30+ celcius swings in global average temperatures? Ah, but homo-sapiens weren't exactly around then to cause this massive climate change...

Maybe if people weren't so heavily indoctrinated by academia, mass media, and other sources of perceived authority they'd wake up and smell the manipulation in that there are unstated agendas at play when these sources ask and demand of people to reduce their standards of living in the name of climate change, particularly and acutely in the west. It sure would be something if more people could recognize how really big lies can and are promoted, incentivized, and perpetuated over time.

Then maybe we, collectively, could, more broadly, move past slinging labels and enacting forms of tribal signaling and instead speak of facts and evidence again, particularily to inform public decision making. If only.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Vanturion

[techyiam]

1 hour ago, Vanturion said:

That said, attempting to replace "miles driven" with e-bike use not only would be a significant decrease in standard of living by being constantly exposed to the elements whilst in transport, but there are other obvious challenges that are often ignored by ideologically-motivated advocates and subsidy seekers such as the inability to leave PEVs unattended in urban environments due to prolific incidents of theft and lack of general trust in the public (which is not going away).

Depends on how the individual is raised, and the individual himself. Some may even say being confined in a cage is the one that is brainwashed into thinking that that is a higher standard of living.

I don't find riding on my wheel in the pouring rain near freezing temperatures puts me in a lower standard of living. I know people who would though.

Theft is a technical, and rule of law challenge that can be overcome, if those in power are serious.

[0000]

3 hours ago, techyiam said:

Depends on how the individual is raised, and the individual himself.

Fair point, there is some subjectivity and preference involved in individuals' choices regarding transportation and energy use. -1 point for assuming gender though

3 hours ago, techyiam said:

Some may even say being confined in a cage is the one that is brainwashed into thinking that that is a higher standard of living.

Really, brainwashing? Do you really think it's brainwashing at play when people, families, businesses, tend to prefer various forms of automobiles to, say, getting on an e-bike, electric wheel, or any other PEV for that matter? Or are they simply making an informed decision based on objective measures of performance and capability/utility? There was talk of biases earlier, but using the phrase "confined to a cage" implies a significant bias in itself.

Sure there is some subjectivity involved, but there are also very clear and objective/measurable ways to compare electric wheels vs automobiles as a primary form of transportation that supports the notion that relying upon an EUC or any other PEV for that matter over traditional automobiles would present as an overall decrease in standard of living for most people. I'll take a shot at it.

(ICE) Automobile Pros by Comparison

• Ability to travel 100s of miles on a single fill-up
• Safely maintains much higher speeds basically *indefinitely ^{*until refueling}
• Filling the tank requires mere minutes of one's time
• A "full tank" doesn't *degrade an expensive battery pack (current li-ion battery technological limitation particularly in comparison to top-balancing electric wheel packs)
  ^{*govt subsidized ethanol fuel additive does degrade if not used over period of months, which an outrageously stupid an energetically inferior use of valuable arable farm land too}
• Doesn't require minutes of preparation time in the form of suiting up in motorcycle gear for relatively safe and responsible road use (and suiting down after arrival)
• Doesn't require some minimum level of fitness/balance-sense to operate
• Doesn't require as high levels of attentiveness to safely control the vehicle, especially in relatively unpredictable traffic patterns or poorly maintained roads
• Doesn't require juggling charging logistics or safe charging practices like *attended charging in order to limit risk
  *^{filling gas tank not really comparable vs hours required to charge}
• Transporting of other cargo and people is relatively safe and convenient where transportation of people and cargo is severely limited on PEVs
  • Various forms of automobiles support all kinds of uses whether personal or entrepreneurial that require 100s if not 1000s of pounds of carrying capacity
• As mentioned before you are protected from the elements in all weather conditions and comfortably to boot with both heating and cooling available to the occupants
• Modern vehicles often go a long way in protecting the occupants from other vehicles on the road who fail to obey the rules of the road for whatever reason whereas a PEV rider is vastly more exposed to these risks especially if contact between vehicles occurs
• Are the most convenient form of consumer transportation for road trips (something I've personally enjoyed on occasion)
• Enables nomadic living or extreme minimalism by being able to live out of some types of vehicles and save tens of thousands in rent over time rather comfortably (another benefit I've enjoyed)
• Enables people to live far outside of high density areas and increasingly disfunctional cities (distance often makes for good neighbors)
• Basically supports much of our modern way of life in transporting people and goods across vast distances quickly and relatively efficiently

I could probably keep going, but you get the point. For the Cons

(ICE) Automobile Cons by Comparison

• Much less fun
• "Fueling" costs are much higher
• Total Cost of Ownership is higher, but this is somewhat debatable. People don't have to own the latest and greatest, I've had a relatively nice 90s acura before for $1400 which with good mileage, reliability, and cheap registration and insurance the TCO was very low. Plus, if you count severe injuries for the unlucky and the elevated risks associated with riding a wheel, your TCO may not look so good anymore in comparison to a cheap, reliable, and efficient older ICE automobile.
• It's possible to fall asleep at the wheel
• Drivers represent a higher degree of threat to public safety and property due to moving thousands of pounds around at relatively high rates of speed

Albeit a little subjective at times above, doing the math here I'd say the scales are definitely not equal when qualifying what primary form of transport for the majority of use cases enables a higher standard of living.

3 hours ago, techyiam said:

Theft is a technical, and rule of law challenge that can be overcome, if those in power are serious.

Not interested in debating this point, but it's pretty clear those in power are serious, but not in the way you probably mean. More in the way of equalizing standards of living globally (what they really mean when they talk of equity) and global governance. One form this takes in the west is demonizing higher energy behaviors, technologies, and products such as ICE vehicles among other things.

Just because the "elites" hate that the plebs are using up all their gasoline and don't want to supply it anymore to the masses in the west while they cavort around on their carbon emission exempt yachts and personal jets, doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly start to hate on the very technologies that sustain my historically high standard of living because it's now in vogue amongst the easily-influenced to do so.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Vanturion

[techyiam]

1 hour ago, Vanturion said:

5 hours ago, techyiam said:

Some may even say being confined in a cage is the one that is brainwashed into thinking that that is a higher standard of living.

Really, brainwashing? Do you really think it's brainwashing at play when people, families, businesses, tend to prefer various forms of automobiles to, say, getting on an e-bike, electric wheel, or any other PEV for that matter? Or are they simply making an informed decision based on objective measures of performance and capability/utility? There was talk of biases earlier, but using the phrase "confined to a cage" implies a significant bias in itself

I guess you would have to talk those "some" people. 

But if I had to reason it out, perhaps some of the points that would be brought up could be as follows:

(1) in the US, about 75% of household driving trips are 10 miles or less.

(2l SUV's are the best sellers eclipsing car sales. And these suckers often weigh two tons or more.

(3) Most of the time, only the driver is in the car. When you are stuck in traffic, look to your left, and look to your right, very often, you would see only the drivers in the vehicles. And that is why HOV lanes are a thing. And you need to bring a manikin next to you to drive lone in the HOV lane. Not so on a PEV. In fact bike lanes maybe even better.

(4) The weight of the vehicle is often about ten times the weight of what is transported.  On an electric wheel, the vehicle is almost always lighter than weight of what is transported. 

(5) Rush hour traffic doesn't really affect travel time on PEV's, especially on electric wheels. EW are so compact.

(6) if one can ride like Chooch on a V13, as depicted in his latest video, one can arrives at one's destination quicker than driving.

(7) and then there is the matter of pollution due to driving, manufacturing of vehicle, petroleum production, and disposal. 

 (8) the need of a grand and expensive infrastructure of roads.

(9) the much greater severity of property damage, injuries, and the greater number of fatalities, due to the much much higher momentum at impact in collisions.

(10) much much greater energy consumption when driving.

Some may do the math and conclude that PEV's may make more sense. For longer travels, there are always trains, and planes.

Edited March 28, 2023 by techyiam

[techyiam]

1 hour ago, Vanturion said:

I've had a relatively nice 90s acura before for $1400 which with good mileage, reliability

I had one of those, the Integra. Honda made a bait and switch in their Integra lineup. The first gen Integra was a good car, a better car than the Civic by a mile. Then came the 2nd gen Integra, a mildly facelifted Civic. What a scam. They are reliable though. But after about 180 000 km's, major components would be needed to be replaced. If the AT and brake fluid were changed often, then they can last for a long time. But, the alternator, starter motor, timing belts, (80000 km's), thermostat,  fuel filter, and etc. will need to be replaced. Engine and braking performance would have degraded gradually for a while now. To restore that you would have to do a bunch of additional things. 

[0000]

3 hours ago, techyiam said:

I guess you would have to talk those "some" people. 

But if I had to reason it out, perhaps some of the points that would be brought up could be as follows:

etc

You won't get argument from me that a modern SUV is an energy-efficient way for a single person to get items from a nearby grocery store, and far greater energy consumption per mile driven is definitely a point I should have included earlier too. There is certainly something to be said about the notion of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" with regard to the waste and inefficiency in vehicle choice and civic responsibility if such a thing even exists (anymore). Many people would likely be better served if economics and efficiency was their prerogative by driving a conventional engine Prius or hybrid in lieu of their 3/4 ton pickup, range rover, or escalade.

That said, I don't think it's in any way accurate to hold up Chooch as a fair demographic representation of people in the US (LOL). The transportation needs of a family of 5 are not the same as a childless (presuming) college student, nor are the considerations for personal risk tolerance regarding transportation choices! Hell, I believe the population statistic of overweight and obese people in the US is roughly now 70% where safe operation of an electric wheel, particular at high speeds, favors those with above average levels of fitness and also probably skewing toward youth (to survive or recover from cutouts on a long enough timeline).

And to speak of needs, I recognize that public transportation is the often the go-to phrase for people who haven't experienced or for some have and still discount the "joys" of sharing the same cage to use your turn of phrase with people who have no problems with open drug use, profanity and other forms of indecency or vulgarity where the shared proximity making it impossible to shield innocent children, or even yourself for that matter, from various forms of "exposure". There's many related reasons new and younger parents/families moving out of the city is a common trope.

As for the need for massive amounts of roads, not only is it a moot point as they already exist and people's livelihood's and future welfare today are completely dependent upon the continued existence of this infrastructure, but much of the impetus for the creation of the interstate network was at the behest of national defense-related reasoning in the early and mid 20th century. This existing infrastructure in a kind of opposition to the "helpful" suggestions today agitating from certain notorious think-tanks on how human beings can be most efficiently be packed in close proximity to each other in their 15 minute slave pens cities.

In any case, my point is it would be great if people in general were more agnostic in viewing transportation choices as merely selecting the right tool for their needs instead of getting wrapped up in the ideological progression of the human-induced climate change narrative. A narrative that if it continues to be accepted by the public will ultimately result in less consumer transportation choice, higher costs, and greater inconvenience for comparable or even diminished capability despite the infamously touted efficiency claims of conventional form-factor full-sized EVs.

It really doesn't have to be an either-or choice. If an individual's living situation avails them the ability to avoid traffic during their daily commute via the PEV loophole, that's fantastic. It absolutely doesn't need a subsidy though, in fact the numerous and already affordable PEV options should already be a clear economic win for those fortunate enough to be able to take this route. In fact, I bet that the amount of people who, if you subsidized their e-bike or electric wheel purchases, would actually replace the bulk of their miles driven with miles on their new government-subsidized PEV, you would likely be able to count them on one hand. The 99.8% rest of them that got an extra cheap hobby PEV (if they weren't marked up to account for the subsidy) would say "thanks for the free government cheese" and continue on as they were.

On the other hand, I can guarantee you that any conventional energy the west arbitrarily decides they don't want to consume anymore will not remain in the ground. There's a whole bunch of countries out there looking to raise their standard of living who don't necessarily answer to the same bunch of narcissistic, produce-nothing, born-into-wealth predator class that spends untold amounts of resources and effort in unceasing attempts to manipulate, shape, and steer public opinion. So, in effect, there will be no saving the climate as the energy will still be used whether by other countries or attempting to mine, process, and transport massive amounts more of minerals to fuel the "EV" transition/revolution.

To put it as simple as I can: going green = getting less for more. Or put another way, a lower standard of living.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Vanturion

[0000]

2 hours ago, techyiam said:

I had one of those, the Integra. Honda made a bait and switch in their Integra lineup. The first gen Integra was a good car, a better car than the Civic by a mile. Then came the 2nd gen Integra, a mildly facelifted Civic. What a scam. They are reliable though.

Scam, what!?! 2nd gen was best gen! I actually had a heavily modified 2nd gen in addition to the winter college beater I mentioned above. Funnily enough, I had so many mods into this one including some unconventional aero mods that I was able eventually able to get 37 MPG average on a full tank commuting. My old hatchback with all of those supporting mods would have made the perfect car for an electric conversion, particularly being fully depreciated and I'd be able to get around the punishing electric vehicle registry tax we have here in WA state. Would have made the perfect highly efficient grocery-getter (sans being able to pull the driver and passenger windows back out of their door seals to reach and unlock the damn doors).

Really regret selling it now as despite everything I said above, this one would have made sense for me to convert not only financially/economically, but also as a hedge. I didn't say above, but today I see having one conventional electric vehicle in the family as a kind of protection against a potential future we may be headed towards years down the road in which gas for personal transport is rationed and transportation freedom becomes a limited commodity amongst those who are not independently wealthy. Not saying it's going to happen, but to deny the possibility given observable trends would ill-advised IMO.

2 hours ago, techyiam said:

They are reliable though. But after about 180 000 km's, major components would be needed to be replaced. If the AT and brake fluid were changed often, then they can last for a long time. But, the alternator, starter motor, timing belts, (80000 km's), thermostat,  fuel filter, and etc. will need to be replaced. Engine and braking performance would have degraded gradually for a while now. To restore that you would have to do a bunch of additional things.

The nice thing about all of these components on B18 equipped cars is that they were so popular and ubiquitous in the market, that availability of aftermarket parts and shared compatibility was insane. Basically what this translated to was some of the most bottom-dollar affordable replacement and maintenance items you could buy for a car. These hondas/acuras were also some of the easiest cars and engines to work on too.

You could absolutely make these cars run for a lifetime (if they weren't so easily stolen that is)! And so I did, until, like a fool, I sold!

Edited March 28, 2023 by Vanturion

[Robse]

14 hours ago, Vanturion said:

Is it bias, or it is unbiased recognition of facts and their obvious implications:

You forget a detail. What happened to the temperature 10 million years ago is totally irrelevant to us living humans. Thus, the shaded area is informative but otherwise useless information. What is at stake right now is how we 8 billion people are going to continue life in the only place we have to live. And by the way, it is my opinion that what is happening right now, and in general, is man-made. The only thing we humans are good at, in fact the very best, is destroying everything around us.

[Timwheel]

It sounds pretty obvious to me that global warming is real and that most of it is due to those ants that we call humans. I don't think there is much debate about that..

The change we see on the graph is still vertical, which isn't seen that much since 250 million years ago. It also does coincide with the industrial revolution and its acceleration.

That is the simplest explanation, and it is often the best.

Now, if you don't think global warming is an issue, or is caused by human, there is still incentive to better the air quality or to make sure we can produce energy in a reliable way since fossil fuels are going out anyway. Maybe not in 30 years like some said, maybe in a century... but eventually it will die out.

Cheap and readily available energy is what enabled the world to end slavery. We use something like 200 slaves worth of energy per capita in the developped world. If we can't continue to produce energy, war, violence and horrible things that we used to do when the only energy we had was chemical energy through food and digestion will ensue.

Now, we can debate on what's the best thing to do. As an engineer and a frenchman, I am pro nuclear as it is currently our best option for easily accessible, massive and safe energy. Some people, mostly from a non scientific background, are against, because getting energy from a loss of matter seems like magic, and the media don't understand that the only real nuclear powerplant accident is Tchernobyl, as nearly all deaths in Fukushima are tsunami related and not nuclear related.

Nuclear is frightening. It is close to magical. But there are some much more intelligent people than me that can make it work safely.

[0000]

6 hours ago, Robse said:

You forget a detail. What happened to the temperature 10 million years ago is totally irrelevant to us living humans.

No, rather you're missing my point entirely (deliberately?), in that the climate has changed massively and repeatedly over the course of its existence all without the input of human beings. Furthermore, just because humans arrived on the scene, that doesn't preclude that these massive changes are still taking place, and it would be absurd to think otherwise. There have been repeated large increases and decreases atmospheric CO2 composition as scientific study has shown, and the climate has always been in state of flux. In fact, massive temperature changes were often not found to be linked causally or follow from these CO2 composition changes (measurable data often conflicting with models and projections). However, knowing this to be the case, we're suppose to constantly live in fear of an avg ~1.5C warming.

Furthermore, increases in CO2 composition have historically tended to increase the amount of plant life the globe is able to sustain. So in effect, even if the ideologues at the IPCC are correct (they're not) in that anthropogenic climate change is a thing, and something must be done (nope), they have vast portions of the western world worried that we might be able to sustain more plant life (it's not Brawndo that plants crave). What would actually be of concern is rapid global cooling or a deep ice age in which feeding billions of people becomes impossible.

Then again, that used to be propaganda the malthusians used to gin up fear: it was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, and now they've moved on to Climate Change ^TM where their long-standing propaganda campaign of fear is finally being met with broader success.

Now, where these select groups of very concerned wealthy people drive a lot of funding, is into efforts interpreting an extremely small scale of geological history, the span of the 20th century, relying upon contrived and inaccurate simulations and models of CO2 as the be-all-end-all driver of climate change/warming (I can get into this later if anyone really cares), and then proceeding in various outreach campaigns to reinforce that message at every opportunity in quite obvious attempts to limit human growth and activity. I'll give you an example of how success this rhetoric has been too that should be quite telling.

6 hours ago, Robse said:

The only thing we humans are good at, in fact the very best, is destroying everything around us.

This reads exactly like someone whose been successfully propagandized by the constant march of Hollywood doom movies depicting "humans as a scourge" and the Greta Thunbergs of the world holding press conferences "you're killing us!". It's patently false and can immediately shown to logically not follow.

Example: are EUCs generally a good thing? If you're here the answer is probably yes. Who made EUCs? Humans. But Humans are only good at destroying everything around us. Right... Now how about access to clean drinking water? Sanitation? Antibiotics? Bacon? I got a million examples.

It's not just a contradictory and ridiculous point of view, it's a suicidal one. That's why I liken believing in human induced climate change as supporting a kind of suicide cult because the people who accept this propaganda often take on this very point of view, that the world is better off without human beings. If people truly believed that, they'd kill themselves. It's an absurd statement that's particularly damaging for young impressionable people (kids) who get wrapped up in this modern suicide cult and unconsciously if not consciously start limit their growth and opportunities accordingly. You and the person who agreed with you would do well to question where and why this belief has taken hold in your psyche.

6 hours ago, Robse said:

This is simply an example of local pollution (smog), not to be confused with natural and ever-changing planetary climate. Going to guess by the signs that this is an example from China who probably still lacks the same level of emission standards as many western countries. This level of local pollution also likely due to local industry/production lacking similar environment concerns and a tolerant culture of living under such conditions, another result of decades of pro-global trade, anti-labor policy in the west.

It's also a clear example, as I mentioned before, of how other countries will simply use the inexpensive and "dirty" energy we leave in the ground to raise their own standards of living. I believe the statistical rate of coal power plants being finished in China is 2 per week (needs verification though as it was something read in passing). Oops.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Vanturion
spelling

[Robse]

4 hours ago, Vanturion said:

This reads exactly like someone whose been successfully propagandized by the constant march of Hollywood doom movies depicting "humans as a scourge" and the Greta Thunbergs of the world holding press conferences "you're killing us!". It's patently false and can immediately shown to logically not follow.

Example: are EUCs generally a good thing? If you're here the answer is probably yes. Who made EUCs? Humans. But Humans are only good at destroying everything around us. Right... Now how about access to clean drinking water? Sanitation? Antibiotics? Bacon? I got a million examples.

It's not just a contradictory and ridiculous point of view, it's a suicidal one. That's why I liken believing in human induced climate change as supporting a kind of suicide cult because the people who accept this propaganda often take on this very point of view, that the world is better off without human beings. If people truly believed that, they'd kill themselves. It's an absurd statement that's particularly damaging for young impressionable people (kids) who get wrapped up in this modern suicide cult and unconsciously if not consciously start limit their growth and opportunities accordingly. You and the person who agreed with you would do well to question where and why this belief has taken hold in your psyche.

 

It's juicy well written and just before I feel it's derogatory, but on the other hand,
to be compared to a brainwashed Greta, it's nothing but comical ;-)

The picture of smog was a random one from the web. I have no idea if it's China, India or
where - which doesn't matter either. It is man-made.

By the way, we will have fish for dinner today. So I take my fishing rod down to the local fjord.
30 years ago I could catch 30-50 herring in 1 hour. Today I catch nothing. Same place.
But of course - it's just nature's way - it's not something we humans have had an influence on at all,
and in 30 years, all will be back to normal again.

I can see where this little exchange of opinion is going to take us,it changes absolutely nothing that we
end up arguing back and forth about something that we do not or will never agree on, and therefore I want
to politely say that this is my last comment to this.  end of line.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Robse
Forgot cheers icon

[alcatraz]

I admire green programs that don't rely on government funding, intervention or coercion.

We don't need another government program that sounds well-intended, costs a lot, and barely puts a dent in the problem.