this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
1070 points (98.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

25233 readers
4284 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago (15 children)

Evs make us reliant on lithium which just shifts the problem to another country. Additionally - the infrastructure is not there for evs.

I think the best alternative right now would be biodiesel hybrids and straight biodiesel vehicles and FUCKING SMALLER VEHICLES

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Public transportation.

The less of our lives we have to buy the less critical supply chain there is to “defend”

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

It's not that easy. Sprawl needs to be addressed. Our cities are build around cars. You can't slap a few busses in a town expect shit to work.

I work an hour away from my home. I would take a train but there isnt one that is reliable or cheaper than driving.

Having a light rail system that connected the east coast would take centuries unless the government acted with unprecedented action and speed even then it would be decades.

I'd love more public transportation yes.

I am saying right off the bat I think biodiesel would be a more viable alternativ as it could be relatively easily adopted as the infrastructure is already in place.

Edit - I was probably a bit verbose when I wrote this. Clearly it won't take centuries. Decade or two at the most

Edit two: I was also misinformed about biodiesel - thanks for the helpful information, I appreciate it.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I dunno if it realistically takes that long. We pivoted from a world where cars didn't broadly exist and public transit in the form of trams and trains was extremely common, to one where cars were hyper-dominant, in like, less than a quarter century, with nothing but publicly targeted corporate propaganda, huge amounts of government lobbying, and a post-war economy. The thing we lack isn't really the ability to rapidly construct a large level of infrastructure, the thing we lack is the political will to make it happen. Most infrastructure needs to be rebuilt to be maintained like every 25 years anyways. I dunno, 25 years seems like a pretty fast turnaround time to me, in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider how gradually it can be done just by changing zoning laws or engineering standards and practices. I mean, centuries? That seems extremely hyperbolic.

[–] Jeanschyso@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I would just remove one word from everyone you wrote. "Unprecedented"

Look up how much time it took to build the initial interstates. Same shit in Canada and the Trans-canada highway. It didn't take centuries to build, it won't take centuries to fix either.

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Your are right. I was extra when I wrote that. I will make an edit.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

The best solution right now is to build out public and alternative transit. Busses, streetcars, lrt, greenways, woonerfs, etc are far superior and cheaper than anything we could figure out for cars.

[–] Bideo_james@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Biodiesel is not a good option imo the NOx emmisions are generally significantly higher. Also most of the oil thats used to create biodiesel is not sourced responsibly. The production procces also still creates toxic waste although usually less than normal diesel.

Source: i just wrote a report on this if you're really interested. i can dig through my sources lmk

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm mostly worried about the huge area consumption, tbh? Like, if you would replace all fossil oil with biodiesel, how much agricultural area would you need? Probably more than we have, I'd have to look it up, but it's a lot for sure.

[–] Bideo_james@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Biodiesel is not meant to replace all fossil oil and will never do so. But if you were to do so (with current oil sources) it would probably leave you with little agricultural land left. You could use algal bioreactors instead those dont take up any agricultural land but are very expensive to operate. You would also still need to grow energy crops for the production of alcohol needed for the transesterfication step.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Biodiesel also is pretty destructive to the seals on the engine as it has higher levels of solvents the eat away at rubber. Renewable diesel is a better option, as it has higher cetane levels and can burn cleaner, and is designed as a drop in replacement for dino #2, though I don't fully know how it's sourced.

All I know is my truck ran like shit on B20 and not nearly as bad on R99. That, and the factory recommends reducing oil change and filter intervals by 50% on both bio and renewable. It's a clusterfuck obscured by marketing.

[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Biodiesel also is pretty destructive to the seals

Oh no!

On the engine

Oh, phew.

[–] basxto@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

🦭🦭🦭🦭

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Fuck yeah in interested change my wrong ass and uninformed opinions.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

How about better public infrastructure, like trains and tramlines? They don't require lithium, and are fully electric.

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yes, we are all in agreement on this.

[–] basxto@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

Accu trains and buses are also interesting for public transport. For trains it’s interesting for sections that can’t get electrified yet due to tunnel/bridge heights etc

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Batteries are still better because they can be recharged without oil or extra pollution.

You cant recharge an ICE engine without more pollution and oil

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

'Other Country' being mainly China, which happens to sit on most of the lithium deposits on Earth if I am not mistaken.

Also to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. I remember a few years back a report of huge lithium deposits being found there but uh... yeah good luck with running that operation.

[–] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It’s actually Argentina and Chile, which tips that calculus in our favour given they’re friendly western developed nations.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/lithium-reserves-by-country

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Oh shoot, my info is out of date!

Thank you for the correction =)

Edit:

Potential downside: All of the lithium in Argentina goes into battery banks for bitcoin mining operations.

Their inflation rate is now around 300%, great job President AnCap.

[–] basxto@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe you confused it with rare earths? China dominated that market.

But reserves don’t matter that much for market domination. Actual production and how much you control production of other countries does.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

Could be, I tend to post past midnight before I fall asleep.

[–] basxto@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

Australia has the second-largest lithium reserves in the world with 5.7 million tons.

That’s probably the more important part.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

biofuels like ethanol? less efficient and more expensive, unfortunately.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gramathy@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Lithium for now, there’s no guarantee that will continue, but in the short-medium term at least, yes.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Evs make us reliant on lithium

Oh no! No the third most abundant element in the universe! WTF are we gonna do? Use another metal with a large valency shell that makes it ideal as a dense storage medium for electrons? the horror

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Hey friend. For context I meant lithium from other countries.

[–] hakase@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm a big fan of hydrogen for stuff like cars. Install more than enough solar or hydro or whatever, then use the surplus energy to create hydrogen cells that can be stored long-term, so that the hydrogen itself is also created with clean, renewable energy, usable on demand.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I love hydrogen, but it's a bit of a pain in the ass to transport and store.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And only 30% efficient vs 80% for batteries.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

How do you figure energy extraction of both are comparable metrics?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Unless you produce hydrogen from fossil fuels, you'll have to take energy into account as long as we don't have massive overproduction (which we're far, far away from). By using the less efficient process, you'll keep us reliant on fossil fuels for a longer amount of time.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Hydrogen is a storage medium, like a battery. Not an energy source.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I mean it's just not generally energy efficient compared to batteries, and the majority of hydrogen tends to come about as a byproduct of, I think it's propane and natural gas extraction and production. Electrolysis is pretty far off from being an effective competitor to batteries. I do still think that theoretically the specific energy is high enough that it doesn't really matter, since that seems to be like the major limiting factor keeping electric from going mainstream, and me personally, I would probably also use the oxygen made by electrolysis for some cool rocket fuel cars, also cutting down on the lack of , but everyone's against that because "The cars would explode you psycho/moron!" and other stupid idiot considerations that I don't care about. But yeah, generally we don't have enough of an energy excess to be able to run cars off of it in a reasonable way. Energy density still sucks also, but then, it's not like modern cars tend to really use a lot of their space anyways, so I don't think that matters too much.

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 2 points 2 months ago

Natrium is up and comming.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Bikes, bike infrastructure, and ebikes are about as carbon efficient as you can get without just straight up walking.

But they're not really feasible for most people because few cities have enough protected bike lanes and sensible zoning to let it happen.

So we have much easier options.

[–] basxto@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I honestly doubt that. There aren’t really good alternatives to oil, but EVs just need any kind of accu and lithium-based accus are what’s most economic right now. Furthermore lithium doesn’t get consumed like oil and there gets research done into recycling it.

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Fair fair fair - a lot of good points have been made and I was misinformed about biodiesel.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oddly enough emissions standards are one of the major reasons vehicles are getting so big.

In 2012 fuel economy standards were changed as a response to the manufacturers calling everything a truck to get around regulations (seriously - they classified the PT Cruiser as a truck in the 2000s). So now standards are weighted based on vehicle footprint instead of by class.

Notice how around 2012 was when the American auto manufacturers stopped making the old Rangers, S10s, Dakotas, etc? And now that the Ranger is back it's as big as the older F-150s and the F-150s are the size of a small airport? And as the CAFE standards get tougher over time the vehicles keep growing?

It's easier to just make the trucks bigger every refresh cycle than to make them more efficient, so that's what they do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Deepus@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

...But im not attracted to the small ones.

load more comments (1 replies)