Skip to main content


@gerrymcgovern

I am finding it very interesting that when pushing back on the idea that renewables aren’t the magic bullet everyone has been told that they are, the respondents immediately resort to accusation of Luddite or the dichotomy without proof that the alternative means living in caves and using candles.

This is an expected response. But I think it’s rather funny because I live almost entirely car free.

I don’t need a car to carry out daily activities.

..

reshared this

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

And because of this, I don’t spend money on gas I could get rid of the car and avoid all the other expenses of insurance and storage, but I also don’t suffer wear and tear on the vehicle. Necessarily the manufacturing for fuel and car parts for maintenance plus the waste consequences of driving a car I don’t produce.

..

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

Kev Polk as proposed urban designs that are car free and largely ecologically self-contained.

In one of YouTube videos, he talked about his paper napkin calculation that a city built around these principles would save 90% of the existing expenditure on transportation.

This would include not only vehicle operation costs, but the infrastructure costs born by the city.

Both residents and the city save lots of money.

edenicity.com/

This entry was edited (18 hours ago)

Lorraine Lee reshared this.

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

Because the global industrial economy will always choose economic pathways it profits from and always argue that there is no alternative, it is very important to communicate that there are alternatives and what those alternatives look like.

Because an urban design like this would be orders of magnitude less expensive than all the money being thrown into renewable. And if you’re talking about dropping the cost of a comfortable standard of living by 90% that’s kind of a big deal.

This entry was edited (1 day ago)
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

Beyond this, I tend to like to watch down to earth, which is a YouTube channel produced in India. One of their bread-and-butter topics is housing construction from local materials, typically or frequently packed earth designs.

There are a couple of techie channels that show housing produced this way, you know with all the technological bells and whistles on it so people think it’s very clever

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

But the most interesting thing about this is that these are not mud hut, hovels. They are very lovely modern houses where the bulk of the materials to construct the house came from the ground.

Insert here the commentary about buildings with a very large thermal mass to them, and the automatic environmental conditioning this provides for the building interior

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

I spent several years of my life building such houses. Because they are designed for climates with temperature differences between winter and summer, but without extremes, a typical cross-section of the wall looks like this, from the inside:
Facade made of wood or sand-clay mortar. Alternatively, diffusion foil. Wooden supporting structure filled with straw as insulation. Inside, again, sand-clay plaster. Total thickness around 50 cm.
in reply to Plsik (born in 320 ppm)

@plsik
Kind of construction used documented by down to earth is a lot less complicated. In India, for instance, the thermal mass helps moderate and insulating the interior from extreme heat outside.

They have one particular episode where they contrast, traditional building with the shelters, most of the urban poor have now which are tin roof shanty. There are lots of simple measures that could be used even for those kinds of dwellings such as painting the roof white

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

Yes, I learned a lot about building physics directly from practical experience, so I understand that in a climate with high temperatures, it is excellent to have solid walls. Ideally made of rammed earth. This is how houses used to be built in our country too. These methods were used because of poverty and the availability of local materials and because it was possible to do it yourself. Even today, there are many houses made of unfired clay bricks in my area.

GhostOnTheHalfShell reshared this.

in reply to Lorraine Lee

@lori
Kev Polks is an interesting character and if you can tolerate YouTube, it's useful to watch his videos. He may provide some alternative access on his site, but he has an engineering background I believe in the communications or satellite engineering. He also has a large body of real experience living. He's also done the off the grid self-sufficient thing so he is very aware of the demands.

He also invites people to critique and or improve any plans he's so far published

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

One of the key difference between a monopoly market and a competitive market is the fact that in a monopoly market entry and exit costs are high, while in a competitive market they are low. By entry costs they mean how much it costs to set oneself up in a certain line of business. Exit costs, I think, have something to do with closing shop, selling or tearing down plant and facilities, environmental cleanup, and the like. Here, I am applying the concept not to entering or exiting being in business for oneself, but to exiting or entering the automotive lifestyle, which is to say entering or exiting the car-free lifestyle. Let’s say you attempt to pro-rate (per daily commute, say) the multiple financial burdens of the automotive lifestyle–car price, loan interest, loan gotcha clauses, insurance premiums, insurance deductibles (probabilistically pro-rated, I guess), tax, title, registration, part$, $ervice, police $itations, turtle wax--the whole ball of whacks. Let’s say for the sake of argument that your best guesstimate turns out to be more than bus fare. At first glance, it would appear to be a no-brainer. But there’s a catch. If you stop driving your car you stop paying for gas and probably most of wear-and-tear (since you have an unstuffed garage to put the car in, riiiight?). You should also qualify for one of the lower mileage brackets for insurance purposes. But you still need to keep your plates etc. current; the lion’s share of that cost, of course, being that insurance is a prerequisite for registration. The obvious solution is simply to sell your car. The catch this time is that now you’ve taken the plunge and committed yourself to a 100% car-free lifestyle. By forking out $ on keeping your car “legal” you “keep your options open” for eventualities ranging from road trips to bus driver strikes to J.O.B. interviews not within walking distance of a bus stop.

GhostOnTheHalfShell reshared this.

in reply to Lorraine Lee

@lori
All very true. Being able to dump the car completely is contingent and some degree on being able to rent what you need when you need it.

Zip/CityCarShare offered those alternative and I think enterprise and GM also offers things like this, but circumstantially that's not necessarily available to everyone.

In this case, the possible alternative would be to have a community vehicle share system in the same way farmers share equipment

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

I guess the pushback comes from hearing so much oil/car bought "experts" explaining how renewables are a poor substitution and will end in ecological disaster.
Renewables alone won't cut it. An electrical car is still a car.
Re-designing cities around public and light electric transportation, regenerative agriculture, eco minded construction...Having what all of us really need, in full, within planetary boundaries, is possible. Scarcity is manufactured.

reshared this

in reply to Juan Per¢ent,🇲🇽 🍉,🇻🇪

The thing to notice about the contest between big oil and big renewable so to speak is that both of their industries are extremely damaging and in order to dig up the copper and aluminum to build out a new grid requires exponential growth in that extraction. These processes have permanent ecological consequences and all of them are bad.

I say big renewable because the chief industry benefiting from the explosive growth in renewables has been international mining.

This entry was edited (18 hours ago)
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

Neither of these factions care at all about devoting any resources and research to figuring out how to live really comfortably from local environments. They ask us to continue living in the global supply chain in the global economy is destroying the planet you can do nothing else

We should not fall for a false economy of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin saying pick my side because my side is better.

This entry was edited (18 hours ago)
in reply to Juan Per¢ent,🇲🇽 🍉,🇻🇪

Check this link cleantechnica.com/2026/01/26/l… Less extraction. How much mass you need per MWh of energy produced favours renewables by factors of 1000's: oil can be burnt once, but a solar panel lasts years.. Burning Carbon produces diffuse residue, wind and solar mostly solid, contained residue, might be recycled. Renewables can still improve in efficiency, oil has hit its limits. Locality of production also has implications in energy sovereignty and imperialism...
in reply to Juan Per¢ent,🇲🇽 🍉,🇻🇪

@dacig
Seem to be under the impression that that I don’t know those figures about fossil fuels

I would suggest you understand the extraction and purification part of all the raw materials that go into renewables.

That stone coffin you show for burying expired renewables comes with it is amount in the purification, toxins and even many times more extraction.

Plus this involves scraping away for us plus the topsoil to get out the ore.

..

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

@dacig
So that Heidi little coffin, you’re showing a renewables comes with it the mountain of or that was reduced to toxic waste now leeching into the ground water in rivers and streams in the area of the minds or in the refinement plants.

In order to transition, which can never be 100% and could never be 100% recycled requires exponentially more mining and refining with exponentially more toxic shit poisoning the living skin of the planet that create our climate.

in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell

Before throwing so much money into yet another planet killing supply chain, it behooves us to look into alternatives that eliminate the need for all this energy and all this mining.

The cheapest cleanest energy is the stuff we never burn and the stuff we never dig up.

One thing I will tell you is that the giant corporations aren’t going to throw anything into it because that pathway that completely separate economic pathway does not profit them

This entry was edited (8 hours ago)

Lorraine Lee reshared this.