Remix.run Logo
edhelas 21 hours ago

All this to produce machines of 2T to displace 80kg of human on average (think about it, the battery weight more than what it actually need to move on average) and maintain/develop car dependency infrastructures.

This is the worst way of improving our efficiency and progress toward a more optimized, efficient economy and reducing massively our climate and biodiversity impact.

I want those kind of factories to produce trains, bicycles... everything that can move people in a more efficient way than those "cars".

p2detar 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is a clear reason why such factories are being built in China and if you are a USA or German citizen, you wouldn't like it.

In a BBC article from a couple of days ago [0], they hinted that China intends to take the lead into transitioning developing countries from fossil fuels to green tech. They produce batteries, EVs and solar panels. Just this year alone Pakistan of all the countries, imported 13 gigawatts (GW) of solar panels. For context - the UK has 17GW of installed solar in total.

China is aiming to take place #1 as top world economy and it is near perfect how they plan to frame it - as a climate change friendly initiative.

0 - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rx2drd8x8o

timomaxgalvin 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pakistan has better geography for solar.

trhway 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>China is aiming to take place #1 as top world economy and it is near perfect how they plan to frame it - as a climate change friendly initiative.

it is classic case of new dominant players emergence when paradigm shift happens. PC vs. mainframe, GPU vs. CPU, clean energy economy vs. fossil fuel based.

lazyeye 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How is the power being generated for all this manufacturing capacity?

mnau 15 hours ago | parent [-]

60% coal, some baseload nuclear (5%), renewables (30%). They have massive dams (14% of electricity IIRC).

Coal share is shrinking, a lot.

Today, capacity factor of coal plants is below 50% (that's why you always see China builds coal plants... that stand idle) and their coal consumption has been more or less flat for a decade. The plan is to use coal plans when wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine. Natural gas is a national security risk due to imports, but they do have a lot of coal.

seanmcdirmid 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Out west coal drops a lot and green energy is more available. They are still limited by grid in getting green energy from west to east. They should probably be building more factories in the west, but I’m guessing water resources might limit that.

mnau 14 hours ago | parent [-]

> They should probably be building more factories in the west, but I’m guessing water resources might limit that.

There are also other reasons. The name of western province is Xinjiang. They did have a plan to turn it into manufacturing hub, and it's one of the reasons why you see stuff you see.

seanmcdirmid 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I actually went to changji before, and visited my friend’s brother furniture factory, so they have manufacturing in Xinjiang. They have more potential for it than any other western province if we go by culture since Uighurs are just as industrious and educated as Han (economic competition is where a lot of the conflict stems from, if they could fix that the autonomous region would boom).

ZeroGravitas 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

BYD make busses. They have something like a 20% market share in the EU and the number of EV busses in China is mind boggling and was an early sign that China was going to win the EV market:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231206-climate-change-h...

BYD also have some kind of monorail product!

pornel 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

World's response to the climate crisis is already dangerously delayed, and we're at a point where we need anything ASAP. We've ran out of time to massively overhaul infrastructure everywhere.

The US and UK apparently can't even build a single high speed rail line any more.

Car dependency sucks, but we won't be able to fix that in the short term, but at least we can fix its oil dependence.

Cleaner grid will also need a lot of battery storage, and EV demand helps scale that up.

8note 16 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think it's a particularly different timescale to swap from ICE to EV than to drastically reduce car dependence. What makes you think there's a big difference to where swapping to electric cars is easier than avoiding cars?

JumpCrisscross 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the worst way of improving our efficiency and progress toward a more optimized, efficient economy

The worst except the others. Like sure, retooling our metropolises might be nice. But it’s also not only expensive but incredibly carbon intensive, to say nothing of not wanted by most of the world.

wbl 21 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not that expensive to put down a bike lane.

at_compile_time 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem with car-dependent cities is that they are very spread out. Why does public transit suck and why don't many people use the bike lanes? Because everything is far away.

We've built our cities this way. Our tax system encourages it (by not taxing land value directly and exempting development from taxation), and our zoning requires it (my city is almost entirely zoned exclusively for single-family detached housing). Bike lanes are nice, but they don't make a 25-km ride through endless suburbia any shorter.

You can't just copy the superficial traits of bikeable European cities and hope to get the same results. We need to fundamentally rethink the way our cities are allowed and encouraged to grow.

nradov 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't use the bike lanes because most of the places I go don't have secure bike parking. I'm worried my bike will be stolen, and the local police don't take bike theft seriously. Some of the local dedicated bike trails have been essentially taken over as homeless camps, which are ironically full of stolen bike parts.

aziaziazi 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Your concern of theft is a dominent reason cited for not using bikes in wester countries. Interestingly, bike theft per capita is higher in bike paradise like NL and Copenhagen while ranking in the least concerns of those users.

robocat 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is outrageously expensive.

"Building 101km of cycleways across Christchurch to cost $301m", population 405000, So that is $750 per person, which is about 1% of median earnings for a year. That is paid for mostly by car owners (via petrol tax and car tax) and a bit by home owners.

And the new infrastructure is visibly under-utilised - at best a few % of traffic. You could force people to bike using laws and economics I guess... I would be interested to see a per-trip cost analysis for cyclists.

There is just no way to economically justify bikelanes everywhere - bikes are great for some trips and some demographics.

Can you point me to a report that has a cost/benefit analysis of adding bike lanes for a city? A city that isn't "ideal" for cyclists...

nehal3m 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

301 million dollars for 101km of infrastructure is cheap compared to building highways [0]. The price of the usual infrastructure is a burden on everyone as well, not just car owners.

You shouldn't have to force anyone to choose any particular mode of transport. I think people choose what is most convenient and that happens to be cycling in urban areas where there is safe infrastructure for it.

Your question reads pretty weird to me; building cycling infrastructure makes a city more ideal for cyclists, that's exactly the point. I didn't read it yet, but I found a paper that seems interesting and in the direction of your question. [1]

[0]https://www.worldhighways.com/news/european-highway-construc... [1]https://economics.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/economics/resour...

robocat 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> is cheap compared to building highways

How about cycleways are cheap compared to building airports?

Cycle lanes are not substitutes for highways nor airports.

MrMid 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Nor the other way round, though.

pg314 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It is outrageously expensive.

Quite the opposite.

> Can you point me to a report that has a cost/benefit analysis of adding bike lanes for a city? A city that isn't "ideal" for cyclists...

https://www.benelux.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Report_Cy...

robocat 17 hours ago | parent [-]

The paper suggests biking only 118 days per year. The car ownership costs are not "saved" - the projected savings are wrong. Ownership car costs are 0.167/km and savings by riding a bicycle are 0.349/km.

Two ignored real costs of bicycling are lack of optionality (planning ahead for weather changes, locked into transport mode) and carrying capacity (groceries, children, sports equipment, etcetera). And I'd like to see other costs of cycling (wet weather gear, helmets, locks) included.

About the quality I expected.

pg314 an hour ago | parent [-]

> The paper suggests biking only 118 days per year. The car ownership costs are not "saved" - the projected savings are wrong.

Were does it suggests that? The number 118 doesn't appear anywhere in that document.

> Ownership car costs are 0.167/km and savings by riding a bicycle are 0.349/km.

Where do you get these numbers from?

> carrying capacity (groceries, children, sports equipment, etcetera)

I do all grocery shopping for a family of four with a cargo bike. I pick up and drop off children in the cargo bike. You can think up objections all day if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that some people succeed in living car-free.

Nobody is forcing you to take a bicycle. Even if you personally don't like cycling, you should still encourage others to: every cyclist you see riding around is one less car stuck in traffic with you.

> And I'd like to see other costs of cycling (wet weather gear, helmets, locks) included.

Then you're in luck. On page 24, they include a budget of 117 EUR for gear and accessories.

8note 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bike lane construction tends to be lumped in with regular road maintenance, which makes it look expensive, but the really expensive part is doing repairs on the existing roads. "Building bike lanes" for 300M is more palatable than "fixing potholes and repainting" for 300M

mnau 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Depends on where you live I guess. "Fixing potholes" would be far more palatable than "bike lanes" over here.

mkl 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This seems to be the source of that quote: https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/124611551/building-10...

Note that this is NZ dollars, and that spend is over ~16 years. I.e. ~NZ$46/year/person ≈ US$27/year/person at current rates. The article compares the costs to road and motorway costs in Christchurch.

JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> not that expensive to put down a bike lane

Scale-wise insufficient. We aren’t going to get to net zero with bike lanes.

recursive 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Who said net zero? Perfect is the enemy of good.

JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Who said net zero?

OP is expressing dismay at EVs and suggesting building bike lanes instead. (Not in addition to.) The latter doesn’t solve the problem the former is being built to address. More bikes is nice. More EVs are necessary.

Suggesting more bikes as an alternative to EVs isn’t perfect versus good, it’s fielding rubber ducks against battleships.

jimjimjim 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Comments like these need to be included in almost any discussion about transport or in fact any discussion about any change. Most people (or both sides) dismiss ideas because they are not 100% perfect. And ignore the fact that nothing can be perfect

jujube3 14 hours ago | parent [-]

If we only do a little bit, we'll only accomplish a little bit.

recursive 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, we'd better not do a little bit. Surely then, we'll accomplish a lot.

TeMPOraL 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bike lanes and bikes aren't alternatives to most of what motorized transport is providing.

dublinben 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

30% of the US can’t drive, whether because of disability, age, financial hardship, immigration status, or any number of other reasons. Why don't you hold the current system of "motorized transport" to the same impossible standard of solving all transportation needs as you expect of bikes?

XorNot 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Because your groceries are delivered by truck. Your houses are built with materials delivered by truck. In fact your entire lifestyle and the existence of the services which support those people, is provisioned and delivered by local road transport.

acdha 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least 80% of urban car trips could be replaced since the invention of the e-cargo bike. That doesn’t mean it works everywhere, of course, but there are millions and millions of people driving a single digit number of miles, usually at slower than bicycle doors-to-door speeds, and are never carrying 3+ kids and hundreds of pounds of cargo.

TeMPOraL 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Think roads, not cars.

acdha 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I am. Most of our road costs are for suburban car commuters and for subsidized car storage. If it was business usage and transit we’d need far fewer lanes, especially since businesses would use rail transportation more if the roads weren’t so heavily subsidized.

wbl 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most car trips are very short, and commuting to a CBD is easily served by transit.

TeMPOraL 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That still doesn't solve last mile supply of stores and offices, nor does it solve construction, policing, emergency services, etc.

Each of those likely has possible alternatives to motorized transport, but they're all different alternatives. Meanwhile, today, they all share the same road network with regular civilian commute, sharing costs and mutually improving efficiency.

Put differently: instead of imagining all passenger cars replaced by bikes, imagine all roads replaced by bike lanes, then extrapolate from that.

nradov 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most middle-class people, especially parents of small children, aren't going straight back and forth between home and work. They're making other stops for day care, school, shopping, after-school activities, gym, etc. Often there are tight time constraints which make public transit unusable. Like it would be impossible to use transit to pick my daughter up from school and get her to practice on time. It's a constant juggle and the childless young urbanites who dominate HN seem to be ignorant of how regular people live.

RugnirViking 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I find it so weird that people constantly speak as though public transport is this hypothetical maybe like a moon base or something. I use exclusively public transport, bikes, and walking. My whole family (with children) does. It's just not a problem.

Children walk or cycle to and from school. By themselves. When they're very young their parents did go and pick them up sure, but then its a small school within walking distance.

We rented a car and a trailer for a couple hours recently to move a double bed. It posed no problem, and was dramatically cheaper than owning a car for a month would be even if the car itself was free.

I got a nice cabinet for my friend recently. We are going to take the drawers out and move it to his place on a bus. I don't think it would fit in your car.

TeMPOraL 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Replacing most of car traffic in a city with public transport (and bikes and such) is possible, and it can work - after it stabilizes. The transition seems extremely disruptive, which might be why people speak of it as if it couldn't work.

I'm a parent with small children. We have a car, but we only use it for inter-city commute. Everything within city bounds, we handle by public transit or walking (or electric scooters). It works because we live close to the kindergarten, and close to multiple public transit hubs, and I work remotely. It works, because we planned for it in advance.

Now, take a typical car-commuting, office-working parent of today. Like most, the place they live in is frozen in some balance between their and their spouses' jobs. Changing it would upend someone's schedule, and possibly involve kids changing schools/neighbourhoods (which isn't good for them). At that stage in life, one's combination of home, workplace, kids schools and after-school activities, is pretty much frozen in place. If they made it work with car commute, it probably can't work with public transit, and thus if you suggest the change, they'll look at you as if you came from Mars or something.

hackernewds 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Believe it or not, but the buses and trains are also being manufactured in China. if you'd visit, you'd see that they have excellent public infrastructure, with multiple redundancies

TeMPOraL 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> All this to produce machines of 2T to displace 80kg of human on average (think about it, the battery weight more than what it actually need to move on average)

Actually, if you pay attention to scales and sizes, it's so very little to achieve so much. What you're seeing is tremendous efficiencies concentrated on a small piece of land, affecting transportation on a vast scale.

acdha 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m a bike commuter, all on board for transit, etc. but too much of the world – especially North America – is built around cars exclusively and that’s not changing any time soon because doing so would require things like massive rezoning to avoid people needing to travel such long distances just to function.

If we are going to have cars, I’d prefer they be smaller, safer EVs contributing ⅓ the carbon footprint of the status quo. Every bit of savings buys years to make further changes, and it directly saves lives and improves quality of life for a billion people. Even if climate change was not happening, it’d be worth doing for the improvements in cardiovascular health, disruption of sleep patterns and other consequences of engine noise, local water and soil pollution, etc.

kristianp 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree that cars are at least double the mass they need to be. The size of cars needed for a school run or to drive to work are generally quite small, but most people seem to have giant trucks for the occasional times they go camping or carry something large.

felipelemos 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> but most people seem to have giant trucks for the occasional times they go camping or carry something large.

This is the reality in United States, but not in most of the world.

kalleboo 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Sadly though, other countries are trending the same way.

15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
nickdothutton 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unfortunately the only places in the world that I know of building new cities are UAE, Saudi, Egypt, China. I don’t think any of those are building for car-less.

foxglacier 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Saudi Arabia's "The Line" is car-free.

20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
jajko 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For the 1000th time here, even extremely well developed public transport by US standards and various financial punishments for owning cars is simply not enough for people to drop them, the convenience is simply too high.

Look at Switzerland, it has all you want - one of the best rail networks in the world, its tiny, rest of public transport is as good as western Europe can get yet... folks still keep buying new cars, highways are getting fuller every year.

Maybe some AI driven community (or even private fleet) of shared cars to be hailed in Uber style on demand would work, reducing number of cars overall and the need to own personal one(s). Not there yet.

okaram 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think anyone envisions having no cars; public transportation make it so we don't need cars, and other nudges make it so we have fewer cars than we would otherwise have.

jojobas 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Next weigh up your house, get ashamed, tear it down and live in a tent.

greenthrow 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You might as well wish that the factories produced teleporters. You're putting the cart before the horse. You have to fix the demand side first. I know there's an online demand for public transportation and bikes and if you are in that bubble it can feel like the whole world is with you, but in the real world, most people (obvs not everyone) prefers to have their own car.

kalleboo 15 hours ago | parent [-]

I think there's hope since the only thing people like more than their cars is being glued to their phones, and public transport enables you to do that during your commute.

syndicatedjelly 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why can’t both be done? Bicycles are already cheap, and an electric bike can be purchased under $1000. Not everyone is capable of limiting their commute to the ~10 mile radius an e-bike easily permits. Some of us still need cars, unfortunately. Sometimes the weather is bad, or we have things to haul around, or multiple people to move.

Is there some technology that enables high-speed travel and weighs less than a human, which seems to be an important criteria to you?

jbm 18 hours ago | parent [-]

In Japan electric bikes were relatively cheap as you say but in Canada, a bike to carry my family costs more than 5-6k, closer to 10k.

I can't even import those electric mama charis because of unwarranted concern about batteries.

Hard to support bike infrastructure when safetyism means bike routes are only for singles and the rich.

tomjen3 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A bicycle is not suitable for the 100km trip to see my parents, and the only country that can operate trains at a satisfactory level is Japan (and maybe China, but I don't trust their data).

So no, its either this or a gas car. Both are real solutions that work, today. Changing society from the bottom up is not.

tacticus 14 hours ago | parent [-]

or a bus.

But then again it's amazing how we ignore the infrastructure costs of building and maintaining the roads to run the cars everywhere.

okdood64 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds swell. But people like cars. Not realistic.

TacticalCoder 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

justinrubek 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Based on your comment, you've based your identity around something that requires packing the rest of us into traffic like cattle. Many people have died unnecessarily to support this lifestyle. Many more have their time utterly wasted as well. It continues to have drastic negative effects for all life on this planet.

I agree that development shouldn't be chosen based on political beliefs; however, your argument is not without that. I'd ask for you to look into your own biases here.

Do you truly have no individualism without owning a large metal structure and without forcing everyone else to as well? I find that difficult to understand. My individuality is so much more powerful than that.

teitoklien 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You might get downvoted a lot, but I feel the exact same way as you do. Trying to destroy cars is starting to become a political/religious belief.

A lot of people think that people stopped being religious, they dont go to the church. But 24/7 Internet, TikTok, Youtube Shorts, etc, I think brought the Church to our homes in front of our eyes 24/7, the religion is different and there are many factions, but the obsession with trying to control every part of other people’s lives is starting to comeback.

The people who strongly try to take away other’s freedom to drive cars, eat meat, or so, often like hypocrites support almond milk that is made by mass murder of pollinating bees in california, gazillions worth of water just to grow oats for oatmilk, especially in a world, where in a lot of places, water is considered to become far more scarce in 20 yrs than Crude Oil will be.

Our world has societal problems sure, environmental too, but like always its technology, better, more advanced, much preferred ones, that can fix it, not this obsession with trying to take things away from people.

The internet and being constantly glued to our phones, desks, letting activists indoctrinate people create echo chambers, is leading people to impulsively downvote everyone they disagree with, without any discussion. It has become a religious doctrine, with “sides” to pick, and the apolitical and the agnostic, treated as villains who “support the status quo”.

I hope we can come out of this, what you said about boats and living by the sea, I’ve thought of it too, individualism is a beautiful thing, a human right hard fought across generations, passed on in our societies by our loved ones, who won this for us. I hope our democratic societies can keep it, defend it.

Teever 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, the initial goal of this factory is to achieve dominance over the global automotive industry but the ultimate goal is to convert it into a machine that can spit out drones to invade Taiwain, South Korea, and Japan.

JumpCrisscross 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Source? Zhengzhou doesn’t seem like where you’d put a factory you want to protect from the combined forces of Japan, Korea and America.

ceejayoz 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You build the drones in advance of the conflict.

bojan 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's very questionable if America will play a role there. It's 50/50 that Xi will be able to do a personal favour to Trump or Musk that will keep America out of it.

saturn8601 20 hours ago | parent [-]

When the times comes to defend Taiwan (or Japan/Korea) it will be life or death for the US to react and win. If they fail, the whole house of cards will collapse for the US. Trump as stupid as he is had gotten the ball rolling in the correct direction in his first term and I don't see how he will deviate this term.

Teever 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Where do you think the Chinese will build the factories that spit out drones en masse to invade their neighbours?

JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Where do you think the Chinese will build the factories that spit out drones en masse to invade their neighbours?

Where they're currently building drones.

Teever 15 hours ago | parent [-]

In times of war factories will be retooled to best serve the needs of the military.

I anticipate that in a regional war China will need more aircraft than land vehicles, especially given that the regional adversaries they are facing are mostly island nations.

malermeister 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why do you think the Chinese will invade their neighbors?

Teever 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Because that's what authoritarians invariably do.

They abhor liberal democracies and seek to extend their domineering control over as many people as they can.

The CCP is an absolutely tyrannical organization that denies their own citizens the rights that you and I take for granted. Why would they ever desire their neighbours to have what they deny their own people?

Look no further than Hong Kong and North Korea to see what China wants for their neighbours.

South Korea only exists as it does today because Western forces repelled Chinese supported North Koreans from conquering it.

Japan only exists today because of American rebuilding after the destruction of Imperial Japan during World War 2.

Taiwan only exists as it is today because of American support.

China would have subjugated these entities and destroyed any chance of prosperity and independence that they had if not for the efforts of people who believe in individual autonomy and liberal democratic values.

China only has the power that they do to day because of authoritarians in the west who tricked the world into thinking that globalism means that we should engage in trade with undemocratic societies.

Because that's what authoritarians invariably do.

malermeister 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Did they invade Hong Kong? It's a very western viewpoint that invasion is the only way to affect change.

ceejayoz 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Hong Kong was leased from China. No invasion necessary.

They've squashed the democracy movement there, though.

malermeister 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying they're not trying to expand their sphere of influence. I just think they're not quite as gung-ho about it as western powers. They work slower and less aggressively, invasions are a last resort.

JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Now do Tibet.

malermeister 5 hours ago | parent [-]

75 years ago? If that's the closest precedent you can find, that kinda speaks for itself, doesn't it?

ulfw 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you a Russian bot account?