Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?

Zakharra wrote:Pretty much, yes. It's going to take time to change the mentality of the population so they can accept the more modern stuff. That's why I think they will have to go through the intervening steps from steam to the IC engine even with its problems (although with the technological database they have they can reduce that damage by a lot).

Why go through the hassle of changing popular opinion on two technologies? As soon as the Proscriptions are lifted, people are going to go for all sorts of electric motor driven labor saving devices; selling, "an electric car as just another electric motor driven labor saving device," instead of selling, "electric motors are fine for little stuff but you need a smelly, poisonous, IC engine to get anywhere."

Zakharra wrote: That's my thought too. In time, people will want to have their own private transportation. Unless you want cities that are -huge- and restrict all transportation to the public type, I fail to see the benefit of that.

Electric cars can provide personal transport, but a good many cities do restrict personal transportation within city limits to muscle-power or public transit.

Some, like London, have a quota for private vehicles with a hefty charge for entry passes just to get on the waiting list for entry -- London has efficient subway and omnibus mass transit, plus a plethora of taxicabs for the rich and impatient.

Zakharra wrote:A growing economy will demand that the common person have access to their own vehicles.

"Access" doesn't require ownership nor internal combustion engines. For example, National Car rental has hassle-free rental stations in some big cities that allow rentals for just a few minutes to long-term with just a tap of a credit card.

Zakharra wrote:it lets people spread out so you don't need to have everyone packed into factory town apartments 10 to a room and sleeping in shifts. A growing economy will demand that the common person have access to their own vehicles.

You either have a very distorted view of cities, or you're just indulging in hyperbole. A city with with decent mass transit won't have that kind of crowding, even if the book of Pasquale hadn't acculturated Safeholdians to better public hygiene practices.

Most importantly, every argument for IC-powered personal transport inside a city can be met with a combination of efficient mass-transit and electric vehicles. Every argument for personal transport outside of cities is amenable to similar solutions; park-and-ride centers, "piggy-back" commuter trains, etc, that eliminate or at least discourage long-distance personal transport. There's no reason anyone should need to take their private vehicle any further than the nearest mass-transit stop.

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:Pretty much, yes. It's going to take time to change the mentality of the population so they can accept the more modern stuff. That's why I think they will have to go through the intervening steps from steam to the IC engine even with its problems (although with the technological database they have they can reduce that damage by a lot).

Why go through the hassle of changing popular opinion on two technologies? As soon as the Proscriptions are lifted, people are going to go for all sorts of electric motor driven labor saving devices; selling, "an electric car as just another electric motor driven labor saving device," instead of selling, "electric motors are fine for little stuff but you need a smelly, poisonous, IC engine to get anywhere."

Zakharra wrote: That's my thought too. In time, people will want to have their own private transportation. Unless you want cities that are -huge- and restrict all transportation to the public type, I fail to see the benefit of that.

Electric cars can provide personal transport, but a good many cities do restrict personal transportation within city limits to muscle-power or public transit.

Some, like London, have a quota for private vehicles with a hefty charge for entry passes just to get on the waiting list for entry -- London has efficient subway and omnibus mass transit, plus a plethora of taxicabs for the rich and impatient.

Zakharra wrote:A growing economy will demand that the common person have access to their own vehicles.

"Access" doesn't require ownership nor internal combustion engines. For example, National Car rental has hassle-free rental stations in some big cities that allow rentals for just a few minutes to long-term with just a tap of a credit card.

Zakharra wrote:it lets people spread out so you don't need to have everyone packed into factory town apartments 10 to a room and sleeping in shifts. A growing economy will demand that the common person have access to their own vehicles.

You either have a very distorted view of cities, or you're just indulging in hyperbole. A city with with decent mass transit won't have that kind of crowding, even if the book of Pasquale hadn't acculturated Safeholdians to better public hygiene practices.

Most importantly, every argument for IC-powered personal transport inside a city can be met with a combination of efficient mass-transit and electric vehicles. Every argument for personal transport outside of cities is amenable to similar solutions; park-and-ride centers, "piggy-back" commuter trains, etc, that eliminate or at least discourage long-distance personal transport. There's no reason anyone should need to take their private vehicle any further than the nearest mass-transit stop.

Gracious, Harold, don't you think that Safehold is going to be tired of social engineering? First the inquisition prevents people from doing their own thinking; next Charis tries to decide what kind of energy the rest of the planet will use or whether or not there will be cars; all for the betterment of humanity, of course.

I don't know whether or not there will be personal transportation in the sense of automobiles. But RFC has made the comment, in one of the pearls, I think, that Safehold is a mountain of innovation waiting to explode (not exactly his words, but the core of his thought). Well let it happen. Merlin can't and shouldn't control it. Charis can't control it. Let's let people do their own thinking and watch and see what the results will be.

Don

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:Pretty much, yes. It's going to take time to change the mentality of the population so they can accept the more modern stuff. That's why I think they will have to go through the intervening steps from steam to the IC engine even with its problems (although with the technological database they have they can reduce that damage by a lot).

Why go through the hassle of changing popular opinion on two technologies? As soon as the Proscriptions are lifted, people are going to go for all sorts of electric motor driven labor saving devices; selling, "an electric car as just another electric motor driven labor saving device," instead of selling, "electric motors are fine for little stuff but you need a smelly, poisonous, IC engine to get anywhere."

Electric motors aren't efficient for providing power for vehicles, especially at the tech level Safehold is at and will be for awhile. Even now, I think the electric cars are only used for personal transportation, not for hauling heavy loads (trucks and such).

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote: That's my thought too. In time, people will want to have their own private transportation. Unless you want cities that are -huge- and restrict all transportation to the public type, I fail to see the benefit of that.

Electric cars can provide personal transport, but a good many cities do restrict personal transportation within city limits to muscle-power or public transit.

Some, like London, have a quota for private vehicles with a hefty charge for entry passes just to get on the waiting list for entry -- London has efficient subway and omnibus mass transit, plus a plethora of taxicabs for the rich and impatient.

But they can't eliminate them entirely because people want and need them. Not having to depend upon public transportation is a plus for a lot of people. Especially if you need to go somewhere now or have a lot of stuff to get.

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:A growing economy will demand that the common person have access to their own vehicles.

"Access" doesn't require ownership nor internal combustion engines. For example, National Car rental has hassle-free rental stations in some big cities that allow rentals for just a few minutes to long-term with just a tap of a credit card.

Safehold is a long ways from having credit cards and such. Your point doesn't take away from mine, for many people, ownership (or at least possession of) a vehicle would be a necessity to thrive.

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:it lets people spread out so you don't need to have everyone packed into factory town apartments 10 to a room and sleeping in shifts. A growing economy will demand that the common person have access to their own vehicles.

You either have a very distorted view of cities, or you're just indulging in hyperbole. A city with with decent mass transit won't have that kind of crowding, even if the book of Pasquale hadn't acculturated Safeholdians to better public hygiene practices.

Most importantly, every argument for IC-powered personal transport inside a city can be met with a combination of efficient mass-transit and electric vehicles. Every argument for personal transport outside of cities is amenable to similar solutions; park-and-ride centers, "piggy-back" commuter trains, etc, that eliminate or at least discourage long-distance personal transport. There's no reason anyone should need to take their private vehicle any further than the nearest mass-transit stop.

Why not? Why should people have to depend upon mass transit? The idea I responded to was that high density cities are good because they are a more efficient use of the land and suburban areas are bad because they are an inefficient use of the land. In his eyes at least. That means you have to pack people into the cities, which empties the countryside. I've already stated I would hate living in a city. I much prefer the countryside and having a personal vehicle allows me to live in the country and still have a decent life. I'm not dependent on others for transportation and I can go places I want without having to bother others (and haul as much as I want too).

The state I live in has a population of just over 1.6 million people (Idaho) Except in Boise, the park-and-ride centers, "piggy-back" commuter trains, etc, you mention won't work because people live spread out. 1.6 million people spread out across the entire state. Unless you force people to live much closer to the cities, personal transportation is a necessity. Or you just want to 'eliminate or at least discourage long-distance personal transport' Why limit or discourage long distance travel?

n7axw wrote:...Charis tries to decide what kind of energy the rest of the planet will use or whether or not there will be cars; all for the betterment of humanity, of course.

Charis doesn't have to try to decide what the rest of the planet should use, it just has to decide what Charis will use (and the crown will subsidize) and let the rest of the planet follow their example or not, as they choose.

To: Zakharra & Weird Harold.
Good discussion.
Harold; unlike Germany, public transport in Rural US is almost non-existent. Why would I drive 150 miles and swap to public transit.
Zak; on the electric motor. I presume you're posting about the small personally owned vehicles.
I grew up in Baltimore City when we had electric streetcars. The B&O, PennCentral and a few others had electric driven engines. AmTrak still uses electric driven engines.
Both use a continous supply of electricity from overhead wires or the third rail.
The problem is storage on POEV's.
I remember a story about electric roadways where your battery got you to the embedded rails and you raised your conductor to the overhead line, much like the old streetcar. Check electric public transportation out online.

Zakharra wrote: Electric motors aren't efficient for providing power for vehicles, especially at the tech level Safehold is at and will be for awhile. Even now, I think the electric cars are only used for personal transportation, not for hauling heavy loads (trucks and such).

Most mass-transit at the turn of the 20th century was electric (via catenary wires) and nearly 100% of modern rail motive power (for the last 50 years) is Electric whether catenary, third rail, or on-board generation. (Except for China which still operates mainline steam locomotives, last I knew.)

Even long haul (18 wheelers) trucks are slowly being replaced by Diesel-Electric hybrids.

But the point you're missing is that Safehold doesn't have multiple millions of marks invested in multiple millions of internal combustion engines designed for fossil fuels. They can avoid the cost of replacing (or converting) that sort of installed base by skipping over a reliance on fossil fuels (by extending steam power until electric power can take over.)

Zakharra wrote: But they can't eliminate them entirely because people want and need them. Not having to depend upon public transportation is a plus for a lot of people. Especially if you need to go somewhere now or have a lot of stuff to get.

No dispute that Americans want them, but only in very rare cases do they absolutely "need" them. Many other nationalities get along just fine without the kind of gas-hogs that many Americans want.

Zakharra wrote: Safehold is a long ways from having credit cards and such. Your point doesn't take away from mine, for many people, ownership (or at least possession of) a vehicle would be a necessity to thrive.

No, Safehold doesn't have credit cards, but they don't have computers or electricity or personal vehicles right now either. The question is how Safehold will progress -- will they follow the American post-war model (where "what is good for General Motors is good for the USA," guided progress) or will the follow any of several european.

Zakharra wrote:Why not? Why should people have[//i] to depend upon mass transit? The idea I responded to was that high density cities are good because they are a more efficient use of the land and suburban areas are bad because they are an inefficient use of the land.

In a city, mass transit makes far more sense than personal vehicles: more people can be moved more safely with less pollution. If personal, private vehicles are desired, the electric grid can power them without poisoning the air; which doesn't address the congestion and safety comparison to mass-transit.

Zakharra wrote:The state I live in has a population of just over 1.6 million people (Idaho) Except in Boise, the park-and-ride centers, "piggy-back" commuter trains, etc, you mention won't work because people live spread out. 1.6 million people spread out across the entire state.

Idaho (nor any other state) currently doesn't have an efficient rail system to support intercity park-and-ride or piggy-back commuters. If it did, nobody would live more than 50 miles or so from a rail depot; where you can leave or load your personal vehicle and travel in safety and comfort to Boise, Spokane, or Seattle where you can unload your personal vehicle or rent something equivalent if you're dead set on being too self-centered to use mass-transit.

Zakharra wrote:Or you just want to 'eliminate or at least discourage [i]long-distance personal transport' Why limit or discourage long distance travel?

Because trains and other long-distance mass-transit are "greener" and cheaper (for society) than maintaining the highway network required to make timely inter-city personal transport possible.

TN4994 wrote:Harold; unlike Germany, public transport in Rural US is almost non-existent. Why would I drive 150 miles and swap to public transit.

Safehold isn't the Rural US.

Driving 50 miles or less to a rail depot and switching to public transport saves society the cost of maintaining two transportation networks; Heavy Rail is necessary to move bulk goods and raw materials. Medium and light rail should feed into the Heavy Rail system from rural areas.

Subsidizing passenger service instead of building freeways would be cheaper in the long run.

TN4994 wrote:To: Zakharra & Weird Harold.
Good discussion.
Harold; unlike Germany, public transport in Rural US is almost non-existent. Why would I drive 150 miles and swap to public transit.
Zak; on the electric motor. I presume you're posting about the small personally owned vehicles.
I grew up in Baltimore City when we had electric streetcars. The B&O, PennCentral and a few others had electric driven engines. AmTrak still uses electric driven engines.
Both use a continous supply of electricity from overhead wires or the third rail.
The problem is storage on POEV's.
I remember a story about electric roadways where your battery got you to the embedded rails and you raised your conductor to the overhead line, much like the old streetcar. Check electric public transportation out online.

*nods* Yup. I meant the electric car. The electric streetcars would be feasible, kind of but only in a city area (and likely be powered by a smoke belching coal fired power plant anyways). The countryside? Not feasible at all, not to mention there is loss of power the farther you go from the power plant. I believe that's why there aren't cross country electric trains early on. Power loss and they'd be one hell of a fire hazard. Steam engines and the later diesel-electrics were a lot more efficient and effective and not nearly the danger. All of this is assuming the starting point Safehold is in atm. Not until their batteries and electric engines are a lot better, would electric vehicles be feasible for public use and ownership. It would also demand that the cost of electricity stay low too.

The nearest town (7,400 population) is 6 miles away. The nearest small city (46k population) is about 45 miles and the nearest large city (210k population) is 75-90 miles away. If I drive a vehicle to those places, why would I park to use public transportation? As far out as I and many others live in the Panhandle, public transportation isn't feasible at all. Unless we all moved to the city.

Weird Harold wrote:

TN4994 wrote:Harold; unlike Germany, public transport in Rural US is almost non-existent. Why would I drive 150 miles and swap to public transit.

Safehold isn't the Rural US.

Driving 50 miles or less to a rail depot and switching to public transport saves society the cost of maintaining two transportation networks; Heavy Rail is necessary to move bulk goods and raw materials. Medium and light rail should feed into the Heavy Rail system from rural areas.

Subsidizing passenger service instead of building freeways would be cheaper in the long run.

There is another major difference.
Type of governing authority.
When I was in Germany, you walked to the local station, got on a unicar and it took you to another station where you transfered to a two car train which took you to a major hub.
All government transport.
In the US, if a line doesn't produce major profit revenue, the private company closes it.
The Charisian Empire can build and maintain public transit and lease rail use to private companies.

TN4994 wrote:...
In the US, if a line doesn't produce major profit revenue, the private company closes it.

The Charisian Empire can build and maintain public transit and lease rail use to private companies.

The US originally subsidized rail construction and still subsidizes Amtrak. There is still a fixation on profitability that has gutted passenger rail service in the US. What cuts into rail profits the most is air travel, but the freeway system hurt passenger rail nearly as much.

Zakharra wrote:The idea I responded to was that high density cities are good because they are a more efficient use of the land and suburban areas are bad because they are an inefficient use of the land. In his eyes at least.

Not inefficient; destructive. I mean, as a means of storing people overnight between their time at their jobs, it's inefficient, and that's about the only thing you can do with a suburb, but that's much less of a complaint than the destructive part.

Very sparse settlement -- that less than 1 house per 10 acres -- doesn't have much ecological effect. Dense settlement obliterates what was there, but doesn't use very much land area per person. Suburbs tend to obliterate what was there -- cut down all the trees, drain the wetlands, replace all the native plants with Lawn(tm), etc -- and use a lot of land area. Then they turn into a resource sink for transportation, roads, sewer, etc; one could almost imagine they'd been thought up as a way to make sure the right people got the majority of the public spending while making serious real estate profits and selling lots of cars, with a sideline in housewares and lawn care and other aspects of competitive property presentation. (That being pretty much exactly what happened, post-WWII.)

Zakharra wrote:That means you have to pack people into the cities, which empties the countryside.

Well, no. It means you should do one or the other. Given a lot of existing development, that probably means trying to put actual town centres and suchlike into suburbs.

Zakharra wrote:I've already stated I would hate living in a city. I much prefer the countryside and having a personal vehicle allows me to live in the country and still have a decent life. I'm not dependent on others for transportation

You are totally dependent on others; there's an entire petrochemical industry, and an entire automotive industry, which these days hauls in the chip fabs and VSLI ICs, too, absolutely required to provide you with that personal vehicle and the energy to run it. That involves millions and millions of other people; it's just kinda indirect. (This goes for everyone; the human trick is ganging up on problems. Trying to have an industrial civilization all by your own self is much too challenging for anybody.)

Zakharra wrote:The state I live in has a population of just over 1.6 million people (Idaho) Except in Boise, the park-and-ride centers, "piggy-back" commuter trains, etc, you mention won't work because people live spread out. 1.6 million people spread out across the entire state. Unless you force people to live much closer to the cities, personal transportation is a necessity. Or you just want to 'eliminate or at least discourage long-distance personal transport' Why limit or discourage long distance travel?

It's not so much long distance personal travel as peak oil hit in about 2005, plus the carbon load in the atmosphere. The real or replacement cost of gas has never been reflected in the pump price. So personal long distance travel, and the setup where a sixty mile commute can seem entirely reasonable, is presently improperly priced. Shifting to a setup where it's properly priced with the current infrastructure doesn't actually help, because the price goes way up and the problems remain. Shifting to a better infrastructure might help.