Emission-free car fuel made from air and water

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Public transport is one way - relocalizing work is another. Here is a radical idea - actually build the companies close to the peoples homes and vice versa - not according to where it is cheap. But I know, that is a planned economy and that is communist....

That's not a planned economy; that's town planing ; a planned economy is where performance and growth is dictated rather than forecast, and people are 'allocated' as another resource.

Remote work happens in some cases and is getting far more prevalent, but it depends what the work is. An office, sure, but not a factory, even if that factory is making solar panels or whatever

But even without this, you just made the point that this sort of fuel technology is nonsensical because it certainly will take the 10 years you proposed for the practicality of a public transport system that you like to erect and power and fuel all the infrastructure to make this artificial oil plus the power plants that run it.

I actually agree - I didn't say it was practical; as such a system would be most practical to be inductively powered if not outright maglev, perhaps with fuel provision for emergency vehicles.

I dare say that this would probably take even longer - certainly it would take a lot longer and will be a lot more expensive than to do something rather simple as to double or quadruple or even increase by an order of magnitude the availability of public transport.

Sure. It's always worse to refit than to build in place, even to build in place in "for but not with" style for what might be anticipated; it would mean reworking practically every road, and as such, it's likely to spring up in trial cities first, and certainly not on a national scale in 10 years, but I do think that in 10 years, Chinese cities will probably have such systems, albeit with no national network for interconnection purposes.

The costs of getting 10x as many busses and 4x as many trains and 10x as many people who drive the busses is quite a bargain compared to basically increasing the number of power plants by 20 or 50 or 100% in addition to building massive numbers of high tech factories to produce oil from that power.

That's just the point. Oil will be obsolete; powering them via fossil fuel would be an unnecessary hop in the power chain compared to a simple distribution system in parallel. It's also the point that if you could (purely back-of-the-envelope numbers) reduce the total number of vehicles (meaning replacing everything from cars and bikes to buses to taxis to trains) in existence by at least half and achieve perhaps 75% utilisation at peak times any maybe 5% at minimums, it's being used a lot more efficiently. Most vehicles are idle most of the day, and most mass public transport has large slack times where it's mostly empty and as such, stops unnecessarily (a major waste of energy even with regenerative braking systems, and just as importantly a waste of time), which in most cases results in the operator running them at a loss at such times.

Do you know Physics? There is something called thermodynamics and what it says basically is that if you transform energy from one form to another, you always loose something and you always create at least "disorder".

I'm fairly sure he does - the point is that for some specific cases, it's a useful tradeoff as the storage density is huge. It doesn't mean cars can keep being used on it, but it is useful for any number of small applications where batteries are prohibitively large, expensive and inefficient. Think datacentres' backup generators - the critical point is consistency of output, while they are typically only used for maybe a day in the worst cases outside outright disasters they are designed to work in the exact case of failure of the normal system. See my earlier point about how PRT would likely be externally powered or maglev, but some fuel provision for emergency vehicles would make sense in case of far-reaching problems.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I am not interested in business owners or world leaders that seek for profit or instant gratification.

You're not interested in it, so you're going to ignore it? I didn't say I agreed with that or it was right, I was directly responding to what you said before.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I just dont get it why people always think that problems cannot be tackled right now with existing technologies but just shifted priorities of how to spend money and how to run an economy.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

That's not a planned economy; that's town planing ; a planned economy is where performance and growth is dictated rather than forecast, and people are 'allocated' as another resource.

You have a skewed image of a planned economy. But anyways - town/city planning can not "dictate" companies where to build their offices. All they can do is to make zoning rules and thats it. This still means that in reality people may live next to many offices - just not the ones they are working in, which are on the other side of the city, but rent in that part is too expensive, or there are not enough flats to rent, so people have to live across town. So a mor invasive city planning would have to be made to create a situation in which people actually are able to live close to the workplace - and I am sure many people and especially corporations would see this as contradicting "free markets" and all that.

I actually agree - I didn't say it was practical; as such a system would be most practical to be inductively powered if not outright maglev, perhaps with fuel provision for emergency vehicles.

Again, I think there is NO SENSE in putting away practical solutions to the future when whatever new technology that would make it easier is available. The future is now and we have to make changes now and not when the next thing is here, at which time, the next better thing is right around the next corner while we still drive in fossil fuel cars. Vast improvements in terms of public transportation are possible now with proven technology. Of course these busses then will still use oil, but it will be a lot less and they can be converted to anything that is going to come.

One of the big mistakes this society keeps making is to put off needed changes to a future date in the expectation of technological improvements that are going to be made by then, making that change easier. That way, things just dont change in a way that is needed in the timeframe that is needed. Its like waiting for that stupid road construction site to be finished so one can finally drive from Munich to Stuttgart - and everytime one of them is finished, another one opens. So there is only one way out - to accept that construction sites are a part of driving - or in the context of technology in general, that one has to make the changes that are needed with the technology that is already here and not push back anything to the future.

I do think that in 10 years, Chinese cities will probably have such systems, albeit with no national network for interconnection purposes.

Ah - China, with its state capitalist planned economy within the country and free market trade when it comes to other countries. Its kind of funny that such a political system may actually make important changes faster than others that claim to be better. BTW, the Chinese bought (and copied) maglev trains a long time ago and are building them for national fast transportation.

But it is good to hear that you are in for public transportation in general. I was afraid to hear that thing about personal freedom to go wherever one wants to go that is usually associated with the personal automobile.

I'm fairly sure he does - the point is that for some specific cases, it's a useful tradeoff as the storage density is huge. It doesn't mean cars can keep being used on it, but it is useful for any number of small applications where batteries are prohibitively large, expensive and inefficient. Think datacentres' backup generators - the critical point is consistency of output, while they are typically only used for maybe a day in the worst cases outside outright disasters they are designed to work in the exact case of failure of the normal system.

Sure, for these applications its fine. I guess if that would be the only applications, it would still be all right to use fossil oil, because it would mean a reduction in consumption by 99%. But the sad thing is that people will not use it that way. Jevon calls. If oil from that sort of production becomes cheap enough, people will just keep driving personal oil driven automobiles because they like it. Unless you either make that artificial oil very expensive (by taxes) or provide really cheap and good public transportation (by subsidies) or you simply keep automobiles out of certain areas (by prohibiting cars inside the city for example). In all cases however, it has to be a regulating decision made by people, the state, the government or whomever.

Which is a predicament if the state/government is corrupt or people dont trust it.

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

You're not interested in it, so you're going to ignore it?

In a way I do. I acknowledge that within the framework of the present economic political system, they do play a role, but I think that within that framework, no significant success will be reached. It is a self-erected restraining cage to make only these things happen that are "economical", that are possible to be made with a greater profit than alternatives. I dont know how this makes any sense, because there is nothing that says that things that can be made at a profit are good things, beneficial things or anything like that. People build weapons for a profit. GDP rises if ther was a catastrophe because so much stuff can be sold to rebuild. The economy is not a good basis for making decisions that have to do with human or planetary well beeing. I think, that whole "free" market neoliberal globalized economy was a huge mistake and has to be reversed, because it restricts positive development of things that actually make sense because its what cheap that counts, so of course electronics are made in Taiwan and plastics in China and oil comes from Iraq and then we are angry that there are bad working conditions in Taiwan, that the plastics from China has toxins in it and that there are wars and oil spills in Iraq. But the so-called "free" market demands that we get things from these places and prohibits countries from making the decision not to buy that crap anymore. I think it has to be a conscious decision of a democracy to say that we do not want environmental destruction and exploitative labour and thus we make rules that disallow it and keep individuals or companies from doing otherwise.
So that "instant gratification" and "profit" as a motivation is not the right way - at elast you have to add a stick to the carrot that people dangle in the face of corporations and leadership. Here you can make some profit by installing solar panels, but if you do instead build a new coal power plant, you will have to pay a large fee that we can then give those who build solar panels on roofs instead. Or something like that...

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Again, I think there is NO SENSE in putting away practical solutions to the future when whatever new technology that would make it easier is available.

...so you're advocating synthetic oil? Interesting

Vast improvements in terms of public transportation are possible now with proven technology. Of course these busses then will still use oil, but it will be a lot less and they can be converted to anything that is going to come.

The point is that it's impractical. It's expensive, slow and inconvenient, especially during low usage times when it often stops for nobody, and in the many places runs anything form hourly to daily or less, including stopping right when people need it such as at night, and is vulnerable to failures of humans to operate it.

One of the big mistakes this society keeps making is to put off needed changes to a future date in the expectation of technological improvements that are going to be made by then, making that change easier.

Note my point that it's most practical to use in new installations first.

Ah - China, with its state capitalist planned economy within the country and free market trade when it comes to other countries.

China... capitalist? Maybe in comparison to North Korea and Cuba, but that's about it

Its kind of funny that such a political system may actually make important changes faster than others that claim to be better. BTW, the Chinese bought (and copied) maglev trains a long time ago and are building them for national fast transportation.

Yes, but you can't apply large scale solutions to normal local travel, where people are often going less than the distance between major stations. That's the entire point, and you only need to look at the problems with systems like the London Underground to see that intermediate-scaled systems have their own major drawbacks too.

But it is good to hear that you are in for public transportation in general. I was afraid to hear that thing about personal freedom to go wherever one wants to go that is usually associated with the personal automobile.

That's exactly the point of public transport that doesn't stop all the time for people who don't concern the user - they would only share with individuals going to the same place.


...isn't the point of subsidies to provide services that need to be done but are non-viable? If it's possible to get the same result without them, they're pointless, and the only reason they still get paid is general ignorance and political manoeuvring by the recipients - see the whole cycle with corn in the US where the corn is subsidised so it's sold at a loss not including it, so it's artificially cheap, so it's made into corn syrup, which is sold in food products, which are heavily taxed to keep the subsidy going. People would be better off if it was ended, but it isn't going to happen. the same thing happens over here when almost every single defence contract is awarded to BAE, often at an overinflated price, because they use that money to lobby politically to keep more coming in.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

In a way I do. I acknowledge that within the framework of the present economic political system, they do play a role, but I think that within that framework, no significant success will be reached.

It's all fine to have that opinion, but motives are have to be considered and I don't think we're anywhere near deprioritizing short term profit and instant gratification.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

It's all fine to have that opinion, but motives are have to be considered and I don't think we're anywhere near deprioritizing short term profit and instant gratification.

So we better get closer to that, because the motives here are that of a minority really, at least in its excessive form. Investors and companies are the ones that are the most fixated on short term profit. They are a minority in this society and certainly a minority globally. The state or the public quite often thinks much more long term. Thats why people dont want nuclear waste, nuclear power and so on. They want a liveable future for their children (and in some cultures also for their childrens children or their descendants in the 7th generation). It can't be that the world bows to the motifs of short term gain from a minority.

Generally I dont think it makes sense to try and solve this by respecting the context of a socio economical system that fosters and creates the desire for short term profits and instant gratification. We can not solve the crisis if we try to work within that framework. It just is not possible - it will only lead to more stupidity because anything that can be done has to be profitable and fast. This limits the possible actions of a society dramatically and excludes actions that are urgently needed. It completely makes no sense to put those who want this kind of profits into positions of power and allow them to shape the world and our worldviews - The people themselves have to have the power, and I dont mean the "consumers" that advertizing tells us to be but the people that think about what they really want for themselves, their descendants and the planet.

The point is - we have to think and act outside that system.

Originally Posted by Human No More

...so you're advocating synthetic oil? Interesting

Thats bullsh*t and you know it. Synthetic oil is nowhere near an established technology. You would be right if you said that I'd prefer people using regular dirty oil and gasoline to drive busses that replace personal automobiles in cities. Not because I like petrol driven busses but because replacing personal automobiles in cities would save massive amounts of petrol and it is eventually much easier to replace 1000 busses with something more sustainable than to replace a million automobiles. Thats my concession to "practicability" if that is needed - just because I really think that completely getting rid of automobiles will not happen that easily.

The point is that it's impractical. It's expensive, slow and inconvenient

You are thinking not far enough outside the box. Lets say you ban personal automobiles from a city (and there are cities that basically do that) and then you increase the number of busses 10-fold. What do you think can happen? Already in cities like Munich you can get around very well with public transport right now, imagine how much faster and easier it would be with more busses going - not only every 10 minutes but every five minutes and in the suburbs not every 20 minutes but every 10 minutes, with additional bus lines and with express lines - all of that in a city that has much less traffic, so that busses can actually go without getting stuck. And certainly the total cost to society of such a system would be much less than using personal automobiles. Consider how much all these people have to spend on maintenance, car purchases, spare parts, gasoline, parking fees and how much happens in term of accidents, health effects of car pollution and psychological damage from waiting in traffic congestion - and then compare that to the costs of operating and maintaining a much lower number of public busses. It is actually much cheaper and more efficient overall.

Note my point that it's most practical to use in new installations first.

I dont understand this point.

China... capitalist? Maybe in comparison to North Korea and Cuba, but that's about it

Maybe you missed even the mainstream opinion about China that is openly talked about these days and are stuck in some 1980ies rethoric about the red tide and the epic battle of captialism against communism. But nowadays, everyone knows that China has "state capitalism" as its economic model, even "business week": How America Can Beat China's State Capitalism - Businessweek

Yes, but you can't apply large scale solutions to normal local travel, where people are often going less than the distance between major stations. That's the entire point

Thats why there are levels of public transportation. For long distance, you can use fast trains, like between cities. Then you have local trains in the larger urban area, then you have city trains within the cities themselves - that includes subways and street trains and then you have busses to bridge distances going down to a distance that one can easily walk in 3-5 minutes. And these systems all work better if they are well funded or are even able to operate in a context that has no congesting "alternatives" around.

...isn't the point of subsidies to provide services that need to be done but are non-viable? If it's possible to get the same result without them, they're pointless

The point of reasonable subsidies is to support or finance services, technologies or activities that are desireable for society as a whole (or even for the planet as a whole) but that are not economically viable. And the context of such subsidies is a market based economy in which they basically act in the way that they make these activities economically viable - basically by paying people or companies to do these activities. That is because in a free market economy, it is the only way to direct activities. The other way to direct the development of society, of technology and of economic activity is regulations and laws. But that instrument is given up by the people and their governments in favour of "free" market or market-liberal policies. For example one could just outright put a ban or a tax on dirty fuels, CO2 emissions, burning heavy oil in freighters or nuclear power. Germany did that in respect to sulfur content in coal and nuclear power. But sadly this is getting rare and more and more regulation is diverted to creating some weird market schemes, like carbon-trading which led to all kinds of nonsense like biofuels or paying people in Africa to burn trees and bury the charcoal.

This is the paradox - in a economy that is absolutely focussed on deregulation and market liberalism, the only remaining way of the public and/or the government to steer activities and technologies is by putting money into the game in the form of subsidies or consumer-choice. Both methods have severe limitations and can lead to the wrong results. The most severe limitations however is that this means that the public or government only can steer the developments if they have enough money to spend on this. And we all know this is increasingly not the case. As a result, the direction of development of social, technological and economic activity as well as politics is increasingly in the hand of those who have that kind of money. This means that the ideals of freedom and democracy are undermined and it is in the hands of a few to determine the course of history and the fate of the planet.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

So we better get closer to that, because the motives here are that of a minority really, at least in its excessive form. Investors and companies are the ones that are the most fixated on short term profit. They are a minority in this society and certainly a minority globally. The state or the public quite often thinks much more long term. Thats why people dont want nuclear waste, nuclear power and so on. They want a liveable future for their children (and in some cultures also for their childrens children or their descendants in the 7th generation). It can't be that the world bows to the motifs of short term gain from a minority.

I don't know, I think many would disagree with you. It depends on what you think human nature is all about.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

They are a minority in this society and certainly a minority globally.

How do you define 'them'? People who want to improve their own lot in life?

The state or the public quite often thinks much more long term. Thats why people dont want nuclear waste, nuclear power and so on. They want a liveable future for their children (and in some cultures also for their childrens children or their descendants in the 7th generation). It can't be that the world bows to the motifs of short term gain from a minority.

Really? Most people wouldn't want to ruin their own life for someone else who may not even exist yet. That means being responsible, but also taking measures to limit overpopulation. Remember that without all the current advances, 7 billion humans would strip the planet completely bare in less than a generation with substandard agricultural techniques, unchecked growth and lower population densities contributing to spread of cities; not to mention the world wars that would inevitably start.

Generally I dont think it makes sense to try and solve this by respecting the context of a socio economical system that fosters and creates the desire for short term profits and instant gratification.[/qiote]
Perhaps not, but nothing gets done for free. That's why communism always fails. People won't improve things in their assigned job in People's Soviet Tractor Factory 17 when they get the same place in the bread line no matter if they work hard or do the bare minimum, and indeed, risk being sent to the gulag if their quantity of output falls too low.

Thats bullsh*t and you know it.

Fair enough in that I did think you were the OP at first. However, I'm the one pointing out alternate sources and you keep talking about this one

Synthetic oil is nowhere near an established technology. You would be right if you said that I'd prefer people using regular dirty oil and gasoline to drive busses that replace personal automobiles in cities. Not because I like petrol driven busses but because replacing personal automobiles in cities would save massive amounts of petrol and it is eventually much easier to replace 1000 busses with something more sustainable than to replace a million automobiles.

The point being that 1000 buses wouldn't be enough. Buses go nowhere, don't run at times that anyone would fine convenient, are overloaded at peak times and near-empty otherwise. The level of expansion required with such a system to make it a sole one would render its benefits moot. the concepts exist to replace it and even facilitate people living where they like, just that it won't happen overnight.

You are thinking not far enough outside the box. Lets say you ban personal automobiles from a city (and there are cities that basically do that)

[citation needed].
Seriously, it's an interesting concept, but I've never heard of it actually being used.

and then you increase the number of busses 10-fold. What do you think can happen? Already in cities like Munich you can get around very well with public transport right now, imagine how much faster and easier it would be with more busses going - not only every 10 minutes but every five minutes and in the suburbs not every 20 minutes but every 10 minutes, with additional bus lines and with express lines - all of that in a city that has much less traffic, so that busses can actually go without getting stuck.

My point was that 10x would not be enough.
Would they run at night?
What about people who don't live near stops?
How do large items get moved?

All of those are workable problems, yes, but you're oversimplifying the issue at hand, and the simple fact is that 10x would be nowhere near the level required.

And certainly the total cost to society of such a system would be much less than using personal automobiles. Consider how much all these people have to spend on maintenance, car purchases, spare parts, gasoline, parking fees and how much happens in term of accidents, health effects of car pollution and psychological damage from waiting in traffic congestion - and then compare that to the costs of operating and maintaining a much lower number of public busses. It is actually much cheaper and more efficient overall.

...until you realise that a large proportion (50-60%, or more in some countries) of that is tax burden. When tax revenue falls, taxes get ramped up on everything else to compensate.

[quote]I dont understand this point.[/quiote]
Making sweeping changes causes disruption. Replacing a system does this too, so this is the time to perform upgrades.

Maybe you missed even the mainstream opinion about China that is openly talked about these days and are stuck in some 1980ies rethoric about the red tide and the epic battle of captialism against communism.

Wrong. The truth is that China is still ruled by a communist party, both now and in the '1980ies'(sic). I couldn't care less where something comes from on a national level.
If by state capitalism you mean capitalism by a state, yes, but people within china still don't see the money because they are property except for a few with party connections. That's communism.

Thats why there are levels of public transportation. For long distance, you can use fast trains, like between cities. Then you have local trains in the larger urban area, then you have city trains within the cities themselves - that includes subways and street trains and then you have busses to bridge distances going down to a distance that one can easily walk in 3-5 minutes. And these systems all work better if they are well funded or are even able to operate in a context that has no congesting "alternatives" around.

'Congesting'? Are you talking about trains or buses here? you seem to be switching between the two as convenient. As I said, large scale solutions don't work locally exactly because the more stops, the more diversions, the more indirect the route, the slower and the less efficient they are. That's why the ideal model is a taxi, not a bus, with the fixed routes and improved power efficiency of a train but without the long stop/start cycles. truly mass transit is useful for interconnections between cities or countries, but it doesn't apply on the scale the vast majority of people work; who have little or no need for such scale in normal life.

The point of reasonable subsidies is to support or finance services, technologies or activities that are desireable for society as a whole (or even for the planet as a whole) but that are not economically viable.

Exactly what I just said.

But sadly this is getting rare and more and more regulation is diverted to creating some weird market schemes, like carbon-trading which led to all kinds of nonsense like biofuels or paying people in Africa to burn trees and bury the charcoal.

Something we agree on. Bureaucratising something doesn't work, and neither does placebo efforts.

This is the paradox - in a economy that is absolutely focussed on deregulation and market liberalism, the only remaining way of the public and/or the government to steer activities and technologies is by putting money into the game in the form of subsidies or consumer-choice. Both methods have severe limitations and can lead to the wrong results. The most severe limitations however is that this means that the public or government only can steer the developments if they have enough money to spend on this. And we all know this is increasingly not the case. As a result, the direction of development of social, technological and economic activity as well as politics is increasingly in the hand of those who have that kind of money. This means that the ideals of freedom and democracy are undermined and it is in the hands of a few to determine the course of history and the fate of the planet.

Are you implying that people are better funded than governments? You're outright wrong. The Masons/lluminati/reptilians/whoever don't really exist
If people could outfund a government, they'd have set up their own, as governments wouldn't be able to stop them any more.
Remember that the greatest periods of discovery and innovation come not from ordering people to do so, but giving them the freedom to improve what needed to and discover new things.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

So we better get closer to that, because the motives here are that of a minority really, at least in its excessive form. Investors and companies are the ones that are the most fixated on short term profit. They are a minority in this society and certainly a minority globally. The state or the public quite often thinks much more long term. Thats why people dont want nuclear waste, nuclear power and so on. They want a liveable future for their children (and in some cultures also for their childrens children or their descendants in the 7th generation). It can't be that the world bows to the motifs of short term gain from a minority.

This is almost certainly false - or rather, contingent of a very specific length being "short term." Deferred gratification has a limit, eventually. It might be ten years down the line, 100 years, or more, but humans are not perfectly rational in this regard.

In fact, arguably, the reason a lot of people are in poverty is because they can't defer gratification enough, but I'm too exhausted to dig out a detailed analysis of this right now.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

I don't know, I think many would disagree with you. It depends on what you think human nature is all about.

Originally Posted by Human No More

How do you define 'them'? People who want to improve their own lot in life?
[...]
Really? Most people wouldn't want to ruin their own life for someone else who may not even exist yet.

Originally Posted by Clarke

This is almost certainly false - or rather, contingent of a very specific length being "short term." Deferred gratification has a limit, eventually. It might be ten years down the line, 100 years, or more, but humans are not perfectly rational in this regard.

Of course there is a limit to everything. But I think most people would agree that it makes sense to save money in times of plenty to have it in the times of need, to create a world in which their children have a good future, to "invest" now and get benefits only 10 years later. It is not about ruining ones own life for some anonymous person but to not waste the wealth of this world now instead of allowing out children to still have a world.
From your comments I see a very bleak image of humans as a bunch of "homo economicus", as self-maximizers that only want to enjoy now and not care about what is going to be in 10 years or in 100 years when their grandchildren are alive. Nothing could be further from the truth I believe, but I have to admit that this is the image of humans that we are taught these days, but it is an ideology not a fact. And to claim that paying lets say 10 or even 50 or 100% more on electricity or not to drive a car is "ruining ones life" is just crazy.

Originally Posted by Clarke

In fact, arguably, the reason a lot of people are in poverty is because they can't defer gratification enough.

Thats only partially true int hat there are certainly a lot of people who are in that trap - especially former "middle class" people - but it is by far not the main reason of poverty. Most poverty comes from people actually not having anything they can save up and they cannot even buy instant gratification because they are more concerned about having food, shelter, water and so on. Think all the people in townships and favelas around the world, not those people complaining about loosing their homes because they cannot pay their credit card bills.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

The point being that 1000 buses wouldn't be enough. Buses go nowhere, don't run at times that anyone would fine convenient, are overloaded at peak times and near-empty otherwise. [...] My point was that 10x would not be enough.
Would they run at night?
What about people who don't live near stops?
How do large items get moved?

Those were not specific numbers, mind you - it all depends highly on the locality. Such a system cannot be rigid and the ones existing are not either. They add more capacity at peak times and reduce it during low demand times. There are even variable bus sizes going down to only 10 people-sized busses that cover the low density areas of Munich for example. It is a stacked system - in the areas and timeframes where the demand for transportation is high, there are subways, where there is less demand there are busses, then smaller busses. In the outer areas and suburbs there are "call busses" that you can order via cellphone to come to the bus stop near you - they have flexible routes and are basically similar to Taxis but for 6-15 people and they will bring you to the nearest subway/fast transit rail station. This is all well conceptualized already, but obviousy the availability is not enough yet because the demand is not high enough because people keep using personal automobiles. If an area has no automobiles, automatically demand for PT goes up dramatically and you can easily run a bus every 5 minues or every 3 minutes to a stop because it will still not run empty. Some minor inconveniences of course have to be accepted - like if you want to go somewhere in times where no one else wants to go, lets say at 4 in the night, you may have to wait some more minutes or take a longer route. But that affects only a very small minority of people while for 99% of the travellers that take the PT during the daytime and in the inner city, it works fine. And as I said - ther are concepts like these call busses that can cover those ateas and timeframes where there is just too little demand for fixed routes.

Here is something on Wikipedia on these concepts: Demand responsive transport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moving of large items for personal use can be done by car sharing concepts, the demand for transport of very large items over short distances would have to remain for now with trucks - large distance can be done by rail of course.

Understand that this is not something new or freaky - there are very solid concepts on that which were calculated and modelled by urban planners with sophisticated mathematical and numerical simulations and calculations. Its not something I am making up here out of nothing or out of my ideology - not the least because my ideology is one that would not even require that amount of public transport anyways

Originally Posted by Human No More

...until you realise that a large proportion (50-60%, or more in some countries) of that is tax burden.

The tax burden is always there and will always be there as long as there is something like public infrastructure. Currently I pay about 100EU a year on car tax plus something like 30% of the gasoline price. Compared to about 600 EU for insurance, the remainder of the gasoline, repairs, spare parts, buying that car and so on. This is not 50%. And in turn, I can use for free all the public roads and parking lots. If there would be no tax, you would have to pay a private company a fee for road use or for parking - whats the difference...

Wrong. The truth is that China is still ruled by a communist party, both now and in the '1980ies'(sic). I couldn't care less where something comes from on a national level.
If by state capitalism you mean capitalism by a state, yes, but people within china still don't see the money because they are property except for a few with party connections. That's communism.

No, thats ideology on your side. It shows that you have not an inkling of an idea what communism really is. It makes not much sense to discuss this topic unless you get a bit educated on the concepts behind these topics. In short - communism in the Marxist definition means that the surplus of production is managed democratically by the people that produced it. China is basically the opposite of that - the surplus is appropriated by a few people that call themselves "communist party" and then used for whatever they think is a good idea. That ruling elite is not much different from the ruling elites of "Capitalist" countries in which a few people called investors or CEOs appropriate the surplus created by the workers in the company and do withit whatever they think is a good idea. There is NO fundamental difference in the organization here. In both cases, the workers that produce the surplus only get paid as much as the ones taking the surplus think they have to give them to keep them working - so neither the worker in western countries see a lot of the money nor do the people in China - unless they have some way of forcing the ones that pay them to work to give them more money. In a western society that has a surplus of workers (jobless people) the leverage of the workers is as low as in China which has a similar problem.

Are you implying that people are better funded than governments? You're outright wrong. The Masons/lluminati/reptilians/whoever don't really exist
If people could outfund a government, they'd have set up their own, as governments wouldn't be able to stop them any more.
Remember that the greatest periods of discovery and innovation come not from ordering people to do so, but giving them the freedom to improve what needed to and discover new things.

You conflate two things there - freedom of people (to do discoveries) and the freedom of economics. They are similar only in letters, but it is a fundamental difference. The freedom to exploit others (economic freedom, deregulation, "free" markets) is something very different than a situation in which people have the freedom to make choices and innovations - for that they also need to be provided with the means to do so, hence a certain participation in the distribution of the surplus of a society as a whole. I dont say states are nowadays a good way to do this, but this is the only task they really have - to level the playing field so that all people have equal chances in life. That all people can have a good education if they want, have a reasonably well paying job, access to childcare, healthy food and so on. That no one is discriminated because of race, gender or inheritance. This is sad that I have to recite fundamental values that are part of many constitutions here. And to give all people equal chances to do so, the state - or any other social or public institution - has to redistribute a certain amount of surplus, wealth or property for example by providing people born in poor families with free or affordable education, healthcare, food and childcare of a quality that is comparable to that of a person who is born in a rich family. Same with gender etc. Isn't that fair? In any case it is constitutional. And why exactly do people call this "socialism" nowadays, spitting that word out like it is a bitter rock?
On the other hand there are institutions that are not bound to these issues, that are not only able to, but actually compelled to exploit people and the environment to the best they can in the interest of stockholders. Those are the economic institutions. And the only way to prevent them from going too far with that is, if people, the public or their instrument of power - the state (ideally - as I said, nowadays the people have often lost that instrument to businesspeople) step in and stop this. But if one insists on not using regulation or taxation, the public is left with no power, because as you said, the people dont have the funds to steer the actions of such an institution in the way they want it to go.
And these institutions are financially extremely powerful. See this one as an example: 25 US Mega Corporations: Where They Rank If They Were Countries - Business Insider
They dont need some Illuminati to tell them anything - they just have immense power and do what they are made to do - make profit no matter what the cost, drive innovation and development into a direction that increases their profit. There is no need for a secret conspiracy here.

The key point is that neoliberalism (aka market liberalism, economic liberalism) is creating alternative structures of government int he form or economic institutions (corporations etc) that are not ruled democratically and that do not have human rights in their constitution but rather the imperative to increase profits. These institutions are given power and subsequently gain more power and eventually take over formerly democratic governments. The endgame of this is that these "private" forms of governance replace nation states or democratic institutions, creating a world in which it is not longer "one person - one vote" but "one dollar - one vote" and in which the constitution reads "the first law is to make as much profit as you can, no matter what the cost, there is no other law".

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Of course there is a limit to everything. But I think most people would agree that it makes sense to save money in times of plenty to have it in the times of need, to create a world in which their children have a good future, to "invest" now and get benefits only 10 years later. It is not about ruining ones own life for some anonymous person but to not waste the wealth of this world now instead of allowing out children to still have a world.
From your comments I see a very bleak image of humans as a bunch of "homo economicus", as self-maximizers that only want to enjoy now and not care about what is going to be in 10 years or in 100 years when their grandchildren are alive. Nothing could be further from the truth I believe, but I have to admit that this is the image of humans that we are taught these days, but it is an ideology not a fact. And to claim that paying lets say 10 or even 50 or 100% more on electricity or not to drive a car is "ruining ones life" is just crazy.

I don't think that's the only way humans can be by any means, but this type of society is (at least I think, can't really know) extremely difficult to transition out of because that would involve so much cooperation. I understand what you mean about sacrificing now to have more later, but that doesn't always work in the world of money, where creditors have all the power.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

I don't think that's the only way humans can be by any means, but this type of society is (at least I think, can't really know) extremely difficult to transition out of because that would involve so much cooperation. I understand what you mean about sacrificing now to have more later, but that doesn't always work in the world of money, where creditors have all the power.

Thats true - it is hard and the creditors have so much power and they determine also what we are taught about "human nature" (namely that homo economicus thing) and that we are all taught that individualism and competition are not only "human nautre" as well, but also are leading to some sort of good way to live together and achieve things. What a nonsense that is and I think in this case people basically have to be woken up. The management courses are full of crap but they also over and over emphasize that cooperation (or "teamwork") is the best thing since sliced bread. They know that cooperation works a lot better than competition within a group. Sadly they utilize cooperation only within the group they define - a workgroup, a company, a state - and outside of that - in a surge of paradox thinking - they still think that competition is natural. Why should it be? And this is part of why this society behaves so stupidly, why China insists on burning coal, why the US still builds nuclear bombs and Iran wants some too. And its the same with companies that let people work overhours and exploit people and nature not to make a better product overall, but to make a product sell better than that of the other company that does the same. So most of the effort then does not actually go into making for example Coca Cola tasate better or more environmentally friendly, but to produce advertizement and to reduce production costs so that the Coca Cola shareholders can make more money with Coke than with Pepsi. This is stupidity. It is also "free market economy". It spends billions of dollars and countless working hours of people on competition that only results in roughly the same marketshare of the product for years.
I dont like state control too much at all, but seriously - the states are the only institutions that have at least some chance to actually prevent such a nonsense. The state and some mythical awakening of all people who then all decide to not support any of these companies anymore - neither with their pension plans (that they dont even know about what companies they support) nor by buying products of the company (and all its subcompanies that they are not aware of belonging to the same company) - and all that in contrary to a massive amount of PR and in lack of abundant alternatives that are not part of similar companies.

[Moco Loco]

I basically agree with you there, though it is sad that any revolutionary thinking will probably only come with an actual revolution, and it would have to involve the whole world.