this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
122 points (96.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43952 readers
776 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Asphalt used on road surfaces are byproducts from fossil fuel. With the ultimate goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuel to combat climate change, are there any good alternatives for road surfaces? I don't think I've ever heard of a viable replacement of asphalt in the works, or even a plan to replace it in any environmental discussions before. At least, not enough for me to notice.

Extented question would be: what are some products derived from fossil fuel that are used in everyday life, but still lack viable alternatives you don't see enough discussions about?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gregoryw3@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Also another factor is heavy vehicles. I don’t have the article or video, but I remember hearing that a majority of road damage comes from heavy vehicles. I believe the video was also comparing roads to Rome roads where it wasn’t that they were built better (although volcanic ash did help) it’s that horses and people are way less heavy than the 3,000+lb vehicles we have going almost 24/7.

Less road damage would mean less containments/pollution and less need for repair. So the future might be seeing more public transit and more rail transit for materials/products which would mean wherever we need to add more road or re do sections we would replace it with the greener option or potential normal asphalt since it wouldn’t need to be touched for another 20,30,40+ years.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

that a majority of road damage comes from heavy vehicles

Specifically, wear and tear on the road surface scales with the fourth power of vehicle weight.

As a worked example, this means that if we compare a 3-ton cargo van and a 1½-ton sedan, the cargo van weighs twice as much as the sedan, but it does sixteen times as much damage to the road.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

[–] Jesus_666@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Axle load, actually. In theory a 1.5-ton car with two axles and a 3-ton truck with four equally loaded axles would cause the same amount of damage. A 1-ton unicycle would cause more damage than the truck.

Note, though, that this is a rule of thumb. A 50-ton tank is still a 50-ton tank even if you manage to make it have fifty tiny axles. But for fairly average motor vehicles under fairly average conditions it's close enough to be useful for planning.

[–] haydng 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Surely that's damage-per-axle? So it'd be two 1.5-ton cars to match the trucks 4 axles

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

It could be, but I wouldn’t assume that it is.

I remember when calculating bridge wear, we were discussing the truck arriving on the bridge in terms of impact. It could be the damage somehow comes mostly from the first wheels to encounter the material.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)