It's time to leave natural gas ASAP!

[eclipsenow]

Governments are being misled by big energy corporations. Do not be fooled – natural gas is a fossil fuel which releases CO2 when burned. But worse, the gas (methane) leaks. It’s 30 times worse than CO2 (over 100 years), but has a 70 times greater effect over just 20 years! The gas pipes leak, making natural gas as bad as coal. They’re also bad for democracy. There’s billions to be made - so natural gas companies hire straw-candidates to throw elections, and even hire actors to distort some local and state democratic processes.

It is NOT an essential “bridging technology” while we “figure out” how to store renewables. We already know! Expensive lithium batteries can bridge the first few minutes – then cheaper off-river pumped hydro can do the overnight and even some seasonal storage.

OBJECTION: all the best hydro dam spots have already been taken and the rest are environmentally sensitive? This is actually true.

ANSWER: So we don’t build them on rivers! Off-river closed-loop PHES can be built even faster than on-river PHES. In 3 to 5 years. This is because:-

A: It is off-river, so it does not have to build tricky river bypasses.

B: The upper and lower reservoirs, the tunnels and power stations can be built at the same time.

Australia has 300 TIMES what it needs in great potential locations

C: When finished the missing water is slowly pumped in from the closest river or ocean, and covered in floating plastic balls to reduce evaporation.

A review of pumped hydro energy storage - IOPscience

Don’t be a fossil-fool – we don’t need more natural gas. Indeed, we should deploy renewables ASAP and start weaning off natural gas to regain national sovereignty over our electricity prices and get away from the crazy international gas market.

 

[Sabertooth]

It's time to leave natural gas ASAP!

But I just had a new back-up generator installed...!

 

[timewerx]

If you leave natural gas, it may explode your house or suffocate you.

You need to monitor natural gas and handle it responsibly.

 

[Sabertooth]

If you leave natural gas, it may explode your house or suffocate you.

(If you are talking about my generator, it is outside.

And it is supposed to explode. It is an ICE!)​

 

[eclipsenow]

If you leave natural gas, it may explode your house or suffocate you.

Huh? I'm talking about society leaving natural gas. Disconnecting all the dangerous bad stuff and carefully installing all the good clean energy systems stuff.

You need to monitor natural gas and handle it responsibly.

Society needs to wean off all fossil fuels ASAP and not be held to ransom by the confluence of international events boosting prices over the next few years. (Not to mention climate change is a thing!)

 

[Tuur]

No, we'll just be held ransom by those that produce the materials needed.

There are two strictly engineering problems: The first is that we use fossil fuels because they're energy dense. British Thermal Units per an analogous quantity is a good measure of energy density. Popular Mechanics years ago compared the energy density of various fuels. There really isn't anything comparable. Batteries aren't as energy dense as fossil fuels. The second is that wind and solar output isn't constant, and there is a lack of energy storage. There are hydroelectric schemes and small-scale storage methods, but the hydroelectric methods take space, and other methods aren't there yet.

There is a solution, a method that releases less CO2 (even renewables release CO2 due to mining, manufacturing, construction, and maintenance), and doesn't need energy storage to make it work. It's called nuclear power. If you opt for breeder reactors, you don't even have to worry about running out of fissionable materials. These can be built with existing technology, and they work when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

Of course, it takes time to build nuclear plants, just as it takes time to research and develop energy storage methods. So even if the world builds nuclear plants, if it abandons all fossil fuels now, people will sit starving, in the dark, as they slowly freeze. That's if they don't burn something to make light and stay warm, which releases CO2 and soot into the air. Just as a growing solution to the limited range of electric vehicles is to tow a fossil fuel powered generator to recharge it.

 

[Petros2015]

DESTROY
ALL
COWS

 

[eleos1954]

Governments are being misled by big energy corporations. Do not be fooled – natural gas is a fossil fuel which releases CO2 when burned. But worse, the gas (methane) leaks. It’s 30 times worse than CO2 (over 100 years), but has a 70 times greater effect over just 20 years! The gas pipes leak, making natural gas as bad as coal. They’re also bad for democracy. There’s billions to be made - so natural gas companies hire straw-candidates to throw elections, and even hire actors to distort some local and state democratic processes.

It is NOT an essential “bridging technology” while we “figure out” how to store renewables. We already know! Expensive lithium batteries can bridge the first few minutes – then cheaper off-river pumped hydro can do the overnight and even some seasonal storage.

OBJECTION: all the best hydro dam spots have already been taken and the rest are environmentally sensitive? This is actually true.

ANSWER: So we don’t build them on rivers! Off-river closed-loop PHES can be built even faster than on-river PHES. In 3 to 5 years. This is because:-

A: It is off-river, so it does not have to build tricky river bypasses.

B: The upper and lower reservoirs, the tunnels and power stations can be built at the same time.

Australia has 300 TIMES what it needs in great potential locations

C: When finished the missing water is slowly pumped in from the closest river or ocean, and covered in floating plastic balls to reduce evaporation.

A review of pumped hydro energy storage - IOPscience

Don’t be a fossil-fool – we don’t need more natural gas. Indeed, we should deploy renewables ASAP and start weaning off natural gas to regain national sovereignty over our electricity prices and get away from the crazy international gas market.

The renewables and the technology is not able to meet the demand needed.

Are you for shutting down or severely crippling the supply chain ... and people freezing to death in the winter?

 

[eclipsenow]

No, we'll just be held ransom by those that produce the materials needed.

America is meant to be a superpower. You guys can't set up a solar panel plant and build your own wind turbines?

The first is that we use fossil fuels because they're energy dense. British Thermal Units per an analogous quantity is a good measure of energy density.

I'm no engineer - I have a social work background. But I am an old 2004 peak-oiler so I get how important fossil fuels were to the rise of modern industrial civilisation. How about the fact that for every calorie we eat when chugging down on a cheeseburger and milkshake, it took 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to grow all that, transport it and cook it?

The second is that wind and solar output isn't constant, and there is a lack of energy storage.

As a peak oiler, I was pretty sceptical about renewables for the longest time. I mean, even my signature in this forum boosts breeder reactors! But if you look at my Energy summary page you'll see I'm not anti-renewables any more - nor am I anti-nuclear. I'm for whatever ends up being cheapest.
Energy

But the problem is the NIMYism on both fronts - especially nuclear. People get really unscientific about it, and don't understand that fossil fuels like coal kill millions each year because of pollution!

There are hydroelectric schemes and small-scale storage methods, but the hydroelectric methods take space, and other methods aren't there yet.

No energy system is perfect - but coal kills millions a year, contributes to climate change, removes mountaintops and does incredible environmental damage and leaves the local environment MORE RADIOACTIVE than a nuclear power plant does!

Coal is also finite, and there are different estimates of how long we have at current rates of use. Remember, as the developing world wants to develop - rates of use could increase each year - HALVING the amount of time we have!

When Fossil Fuels Run Out, What Then? - MAHB

But it gets worse. Before the coal 'runs out' production will peak and go into decline - this is because we always use the cheapest, easiest resource first. The second 'half' of the coal age will be declining rates of ever more expensive coal.

So while I'm sympathetic to your calls for more nuclear, it's currently ILLEGAL in my country. (Australia). It also only really comes down in price with a huge, bold government push into standardisation and mass production, as in the French 1970's Mesmer plan. These days nuclear protests and legal challenges blow out the interest payments before the turf has even been dug over!

Finally, the thing that made me cheer on both renewables and nuclear. Price! Unless we get a bold government Mesmer plan to mass produce nukes, renewables win on cost. Solar panels are now 1/4 the price of nuclear on an LCOE basis. That's the cost per unit to the grid utilities which then have to charge us for all the extra services. So there's the cost to the utility, and then the cost from the utility to us the consumer which has to include the solar and wind overbuild costs, the extra transmission costs, and of course the significant storage costs.

Now here's the thing. Even nuclear needs backup. Nuclear must be serviced, and there must be spinning reserve in case nukes trip. Fine - that's easy because nukes have a capacity factor of about 95% or higher. You can mostly plan a nuclear outage for servicing and fuel management etc. I've tried to get an actual engineering paper on it, but it's a bit vague, but the ratio of backup nukes to working nukes could be as low as 30 nukes to one backup nuke. That's an enormous advantage over renewables!

BUT - on the other hand - solar is 4 times cheaper to the grid, wind even cheaper. So utilities can overbuild. Some geographical locations have wind that complements solar nicely - so it's not like they'll build solar 4 times but maybe 1.5 times the grid in solar and 1 times the grid in wind. Then add hydro storage and you're done. The thing is renewables are already happening.

By 2026, global renewable electricity capacity is forecast to rise more than 60% from 2020 levels to over 4 800 GW – equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. Renewables are set to account for almost 95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026, with solar PV alone providing more than half. The amount of renewable capacity added over the period of 2021 to 2026 is expected to be 50% higher than from 2015 to 2020. This is driven by stronger support from government policies and more ambitious clean energy goals announced before and during the COP26 Climate Change Conference.
Renewable electricity growth is accelerating faster than ever worldwide, supporting the emergence of the new global energy economy - News - IEA​

Don’t hydro dams wreck rivers and fisheries? There are satellite maps that show the potential pumped hydro storage is hundreds of times more abundant than we need - but it's just not on a river. But as we are using this for storage not POWER GENERATION - it does not have to be on a river. That frees up the available geology several orders of magnitude beyond what we would need. All you need is the right geology - a bowl shaped area on top of a hill, and then one at the base. Build the dams, tunnels and turbines and then slowly pipe the water in from a nearby river. . When counting off-river, Australia has 300 TIMES the POTENTIAL off-river pumped hydro storage required to take Australia 100% renewable. Other maps show America has 100 times. Pick the best 1% and you're done! ⁠100% Renewable Energy Group

Water use: If it's an arid area, cover the dam with plastic balls or floating solar panels to reduce evaporation. Sometimes this allows the little local rainfall to top up the dams - or draw a bit more water in from the local river now and then. But I grant that an all-renewable grid would need a LOT of pumped-hydro dams to act as batteries. Dams evaporate. How much water loss is that? The Professors below calculate about 3 litres per person to maintain our electricity system. It sounds like a lot - but it's only 10% of the water we use cooling coal power! We'll SAVE 90% of today's energy-water by switching to renewables.
A review of pumped hydro energy storage - IOPscience

 

[timewerx]

Society needs to wean off all fossil fuels ASAP and not be held to ransom by the confluence of international events boosting prices over the next few years. (Not to mention climate change is a thing!)

I agree. Mindless use of fossil fuel has major impact to commodity prices and hurts the poor the worst.

Even many Christians don't realize this or deny the truth just so they can do whatever they want. But it's hurting the poor and Jesus said indifference to the poor is a bad thing and we should help the poor instead, NOT contribute to their suffering.

 

[eclipsenow]

The renewables and the technology is not able to meet the demand needed.

Not now, but the potential is there. The box over in California graphically represents the area to supply ALL the USA's energy needs - other boxes represent other regions. Remember this does not have to be in one spot - but can be scattered across rooftops, floating solar on water reservoirs (which reduces evaporation and keeps the panels cool, helping them stay more efficient) and in deserts and brownfields. There is MORE than enough solar and wind to power our civilisation many times over. Indeed, because solar is 1/4 the price of nuclear you can overbuild it to cope with bad seasons like winter - and also store it through off-river pumped hydro. See my posts above for more on hydro. There is no technical or economic reason why America cannot be mostly renewable within a very short period of time. IF you put your backbone into it.

Are you for shutting down or severely crippling the supply chain ... and people freezing to death in the winter?

Are you for being dependent on high gas prices, overseas oil, polluting and killing tens of thousands of Americans every year, and DOUBLING the cost of your energy by coal dust pollution getting into people's lungs and costing your health care system as much as the coal electricity itself each year?

"More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.

Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality….

Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought

 

[Tuur]

I agree. Mindless use of fossil fuel has major impact to commodity prices and hurts the poor the worst.

Even many Christians don't realize this or deny the truth just so they can do whatever they want. But it's hurting the poor and Jesus said indifference to the poor is a bad thing and we should help the poor instead, NOT contribute to their suffering.

It might sound trivializing it by calling it a "church carpet" issue, but I tend to think of it that way. A "church carpet" issue is where it's clear there is a problem, but it's not so clear the best way to resolve it.

This is one of them. It's all well and good to say we shouldn't be using fossil fuels, but arriving at that solution is another matter. The current path, banning fossil fuels without a workable alternative in place, would seem to cause far more misery than it solves. It's like saying "We'll all use electric vehicles" without addressing range, charging, and how you're going to product the electricity, rain or shine. So it was that for a short time this past summer, California was asking people not to charge their electric vehicles, because there wasn't enough electricity to go around.

The same with going to electric trucks. The problem is range drops as the load increases, because it takes more energy to haul it. I don't think electric trucks is currently (no pun intended) a viable solution. Hybrid trucks are quite another thing, and I seem to recall the industry looking at hybrid vehicles first with trucks. Why? Fleet use. The idea was that hybrid trucks not only would reduce fleet fuel use, but you could use it to power tools instead of carrying a separate generator. Hybrid trucks never caught on, and it seems that the industry moved to hybrid passenger vehicles.

So, if if this is a "church carpet" issue, what color and type of carpet should we use here? I think that by focusing on renewables, we're not addressing the bottleneck of energy storage. A relatively efficient and scalable means of energy storage not only puts solar and wind on the same footing as forms of generation with constant output, but allows you to use existing generation more efficiently. Energy storage isn't as glamourous as fields of solar panels or wind turbines, but they would let those forms of energy generation be able to replace fossil fuels.

Why can't they replace them now? Because, unless you want people sitting cold and hungry in the dark, you have to have a way of supplying electricity when solar and wind can't. Right now that means biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, fossil fuels, or nuclear, and it's a lot easier and quicker to build biomass and fossil fuel generation than the other three options. This means that for places where hydroelectric and geothermal aren't options, you have to use biomass, fossil fuels, or nuclear. And biomass is simply burning other things besides fossil fuels to product electricity.

 

[John Caldwell]

Governments are being misled by big energy corporations. Do not be fooled – natural gas is a fossil fuel which releases CO2 when burned. But worse, the gas (methane) leaks. It’s 30 times worse than CO2 (over 100 years), but has a 70 times greater effect over just 20 years! The gas pipes leak, making natural gas as bad as coal. They’re also bad for democracy. There’s billions to be made - so natural gas companies hire straw-candidates to throw elections, and even hire actors to distort some local and state democratic processes.

It is NOT an essential “bridging technology” while we “figure out” how to store renewables. We already know! Expensive lithium batteries can bridge the first few minutes – then cheaper off-river pumped hydro can do the overnight and even some seasonal storage.

OBJECTION: all the best hydro dam spots have already been taken and the rest are environmentally sensitive? This is actually true.

ANSWER: So we don’t build them on rivers! Off-river closed-loop PHES can be built even faster than on-river PHES. In 3 to 5 years. This is because:-

A: It is off-river, so it does not have to build tricky river bypasses.

B: The upper and lower reservoirs, the tunnels and power stations can be built at the same time.

Australia has 300 TIMES what it needs in great potential locations

C: When finished the missing water is slowly pumped in from the closest river or ocean, and covered in floating plastic balls to reduce evaporation.

A review of pumped hydro energy storage - IOPscience

Don’t be a fossil-fool – we don’t need more natural gas. Indeed, we should deploy renewables ASAP and start weaning off natural gas to regain national sovereignty over our electricity prices and get away from the crazy international gas market.

Don't we release CO2 when we breathe?

 

[eclipsenow]

The current path, banning fossil fuels without a workable alternative in place, would seem to cause far more misery than it solves.

It's a good thing no one is saying that then!
However, they are saying we should deploy the alternatives ASAP and THEN close down the coal and gas and oil.

The same with going to electric trucks. The problem is range drops as the load increases, because it takes more energy to haul it. I don't think electric trucks is currently (no pun intended) a viable solution.

They don't operate on exactly the same business model because the ranges are different - but as they save hundreds of thousands of dollars on diesel - a different business model will arrive. Solo drivers might have more adapting to do - but the big companies already have various strategy options open to them - whether they know it or not. They'll soon find out. EG: A nearly empty truck pulls in and needs to charge for a few hours, so the driver swaps trailers out and hooks up to a truck that's fully charged.

OR Tesla says it's 500 mile range truck will fast-charge to 80% capacity in 30 minutes. Problem solved.

I agree with you that energy storage is a vital concern. It's also an area where I think maybe governments should jump in - just because off-river pumped hydro lasts 150 years and can repay itself over that time - but most corporations want a more instant return.

Because, unless you want people sitting cold and hungry in the dark, you have to have a way of supplying electricity when solar and wind can't.

I get it - I used to be a peak-oiler, right? I was surrounded by peak energy doomers going on about the inevitability of Mad Max given how nothing could EVER replace the holy-of-hollies - oil. But they were wrong. We can build better electric transport systems like trams and trains, better neighbourhood plans like New Urbanism, and so many other things. Weaning off fossil fuels will take time - but the sooner we start the sooner we finish.

I know a lot is happening at the personal level and State level, but there could also be a role for Federal intervention. Write to your local congress person. Ask them what plans they have for clean energy. It's time.

 

[eclipsenow]

Don't we release CO2 when we breathe?

Don't we drink water to survive? Yet if I dump you in the middle of the Pacific ocean you'll drown, and water forms floods that are also a destructive force. You can die from 'water poisoning' if you drink too much! It's about balance. Try to be more nuanced in your thinking and read the science. Even climatologists will admit a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a GOOD thing because it stops the earth freezing over like the moon! So we need to get down to 350ppm, and are currently about 414 and rising!

 

[John Caldwell]

Don't we drink water to survive? Yet if I dump you in the middle of the Pacific ocean you'll drown, and water forms floods that are also a destructive force. You can die from 'water poisoning' if you drink too much! It's about balance. Try to be more nuanced in your thinking and read the science. Even climatologists will admit a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a GOOD thing because it stops the earth freezing over like the moon! So we need to get down to 350ppm, and are currently about 414 and rising!

Nah. Plant more trees.

 

[eclipsenow]

Nah. Plant more trees.

The math doesn't work with today's agricultural requirements. National Geographic is a fan of this idea but says it would take an area equivalent to the United States to store the last 100 years carbon! Meanwhile, the human population is projected to hit 10 billion in 20 years and we've already used all the good arable land. Basically, we need to clean up our energy systems, get off fossil fuels AND plant out trees. Not just any trees - but ecologically appropriate trees as we seek to increase animal habitats and stem the tide of extinctions we're inflicting on God's world.

 

[timewerx]

It might sound trivializing it by calling it a "church carpet" issue, but I tend to think of it that way. A "church carpet" issue is where it's clear there is a problem, but it's not so clear the best way to resolve it.

This is one of them. It's all well and good to say we shouldn't be using fossil fuels, but arriving at that solution is another matter. The current path, banning fossil fuels without a workable alternative in place, would seem to cause far more misery than it solves. It's like saying "We'll all use electric vehicles" without addressing range, charging, and how you're going to product the electricity, rain or shine. So it was that for a short time this past summer, California was asking people not to charge their electric vehicles, because there wasn't enough electricity to go around.

The same with going to electric trucks. The problem is range drops as the load increases, because it takes more energy to haul it. I don't think electric trucks is currently (no pun intended) a viable solution. Hybrid trucks are quite another thing, and I seem to recall the industry looking at hybrid vehicles first with trucks. Why? Fleet use. The idea was that hybrid trucks not only would reduce fleet fuel use, but you could use it to power tools instead of carrying a separate generator. Hybrid trucks never caught on, and it seems that the industry moved to hybrid passenger vehicles.

So, if if this is a "church carpet" issue, what color and type of carpet should we use here? I think that by focusing on renewables, we're not addressing the bottleneck of energy storage. A relatively efficient and scalable means of energy storage not only puts solar and wind on the same footing as forms of generation with constant output, but allows you to use existing generation more efficiently. Energy storage isn't as glamourous as fields of solar panels or wind turbines, but they would let those forms of energy generation be able to replace fossil fuels.

Why can't they replace them now? Because, unless you want people sitting cold and hungry in the dark, you have to have a way of supplying electricity when solar and wind can't. Right now that means biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, fossil fuels, or nuclear, and it's a lot easier and quicker to build biomass and fossil fuel generation than the other three options. This means that for places where hydroelectric and geothermal aren't options, you have to use biomass, fossil fuels, or nuclear. And biomass is simply burning other things besides fossil fuels to product electricity.

Fortunately there are plenty of solutions!

I do my part by using bicycle as main means of transport, even using it with 25 kg worth of groceries. I use my bicycle up to 100 km distance commute in one day.

I have non-electric bicycle so it's 100% human powered. E-bikes and E-scooters are not bad either since they weigh only less 2% of cars!! Common sense would dictate E-bikes use far less electricity than cars so it shouldn't be a problem if everyone rides around on E-bikes and charge their bikes as much as they want!

It's good exercise too. Before I took to cycling commute, I had hypertension and I needed blood pressure lowerings meds. Now I don't need meds anymore and my hypertension is fully healed!

Forget about trucks. At least the energy spent in moving cargo in terms of mass is far more efficient than one person hauling his or her butt around with over 1 ton mass of steel!

There is no foreseeable energy solutions for trucks at them moment except for using AI to drive the trucks since AI is able to pay attention to far more details and do things a human driver cant to save fuel.

But we commuters can have a huge impact / contribution in cutting down fossil fuel use if we stop using cars and switch to less energy-hungry modes of transport like bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters or even motorcycles. E-cargobikes will even allow you to move as much groceries you could with car and some designs will allow you to carry one or two passengers.

We can even use public transport if we have bus or subway stations nearby. Some people use folding bike or E-scooter to get to the bus or subway station and bring their scooter along on the bus ride.

Car-pooling is also good solution but only if you fill all the seats and everyone is going the same place.

There's plenty of solutions to go around...Granted they are not as convenient, safe and comfortable as driving by yourself in your 2-ton SUV. But what would Jesus do? Deny yourself! Love/save your life and you will lose it, hate/lose your life for the Lord's sake and you will keep it for eternity!

Using bike to get to places, walking a few miles to the bus station, following Jesus around, they're all good for your health, physically, mentally, and spiritually and great for the environment as well!

 

[eclipsenow]

Fortunately there are plenty of solutions!

I do my part by using bicycle as main means of transport, even using it with 25 kg worth of groceries. I use my bicycle up to 100 km distance commute in one day.

I have non-electric bicycle so it's 100% human powered. E-bikes and E-scooters are not bad either since they weigh only less 2% of cars!! Common sense would dictate E-bikes use far less electricity than cars so it shouldn't be a problem if everyone rides around on E-bikes and charge their bikes as much as they want!

It's good exercise too. Before I took to cycling commute, I had hypertension and I needed blood pressure lowerings meds. Now I don't need meds anymore and my hypertension is fully healed!

Forget about trucks. At least the energy spent in moving cargo in terms of mass is far more efficient than one person hauling his or her butt around with over 1 ton mass of steel!

There is no foreseeable energy solutions for trucks at them moment except for using AI to drive the trucks since AI is able to pay attention to far more details and do things a human driver cant to save fuel.

But we commuters can have a huge impact / contribution in cutting down fossil fuel use if we stop using cars and switch to less energy-hungry modes of transport like bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters or even motorcycles. E-cargobikes will even allow you to move as much groceries you could with car and some designs will allow you to carry one or two passengers.

We can even use public transport if we have bus or subway stations nearby. Some people use folding bike or E-scooter to get to the bus or subway station and bring their scooter along on the bus ride.

Car-pooling is also good solution but only if you fill all the seats and everyone is going the same place.

There's plenty of solutions to go around...Granted they are not as convenient, safe and comfortable as driving by yourself in your 2-ton SUV. But what would Jesus do? Deny yourself! Love/save your life and you will lose it, hate/lose your life for the Lord's sake and you will keep it for eternity!

Using bike to get to places, walking a few miles to the bus station, following Jesus around, they're all good for your health, physically, mentally, and spiritually and great for the environment as well!

While there's a lot here I agree with - it's going to take time.
The poor often live further out in exurbia - well away from the jobs - and pay disproportionate amounts to drive their cars much further than the rich inner city dwellers. It's unfair, but they need their cars.
Ultimately I think we can infill many highways with New Urban strips to give something for the local suburbs to plug into, but this takes decades. In the meantime they'll need cars - but this is the kind of city plan I think we need to campaign for.

 

[Tuur]

Fortunately there are plenty of solutions!

I do my part by using bicycle as main means of transport, even using it with 25 kg worth of groceries. I use my bicycle up to 100 km distance commute in one day.

I have non-electric bicycle so it's 100% human powered. E-bikes and E-scooters are not bad either since they weigh only less 2% of cars!! Common sense would dictate E-bikes use far less electricity than cars so it shouldn't be a problem if everyone rides around on E-bikes and charge their bikes as much as they want!

It's good exercise too. Before I took to cycling commute, I had hypertension and I needed blood pressure lowerings meds. Now I don't need meds anymore and my hypertension is fully healed!

Forget about trucks. At least the energy spent in moving cargo in terms of mass is far more efficient than one person hauling his or her butt around with over 1 ton mass of steel!

There is no foreseeable energy solutions for trucks at them moment except for using AI to drive the trucks since AI is able to pay attention to far more details and do things a human driver cant to save fuel.

But we commuters can have a huge impact / contribution in cutting down fossil fuel use if we stop using cars and switch to less energy-hungry modes of transport like bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters or even motorcycles. E-cargobikes will even allow you to move as much groceries you could with car and some designs will allow you to carry one or two passengers.

We can even use public transport if we have bus or subway stations nearby. Some people use folding bike or E-scooter to get to the bus or subway station and bring their scooter along on the bus ride.

Car-pooling is also good solution but only if you fill all the seats and everyone is going the same place.

There's plenty of solutions to go around...Granted they are not as convenient, safe and comfortable as driving by yourself in your 2-ton SUV. But what would Jesus do? Deny yourself! Love/save your life and you will lose it, hate/lose your life for the Lord's sake and you will keep it for eternity!

Using bike to get to places, walking a few miles to the bus station, following Jesus around, they're all good for your health, physically, mentally, and spiritually and great for the environment as well!

Bikes don't work that well for logging.