Asklemmy

43917 readers

1082 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!

Open-ended question
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.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

121

Are there any green alternatives to asphalt in development? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by falkerie71@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] Jesus_666@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (2 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@lemmy.nz 4 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.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

As with all equations in civil engineering, it’s not really derived from physics so much as it’s the curve that best fits the data.

It’s kind of interesting in that way, because it’s an implicit declaration that when shit gets really heavy (pun intended), we trust empirical observations more than we trust our own theories of how things work.

I think it’s a great example of coming back to the roots of science in measurement, as a practical humility we must take seriously because everything civil engineers do is high stakes.