Do you want to make combustion engines in cars illegal!?
- Thread starter sk8er913
- 208 comments
- 8,604 views
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
Don't tell that to the media and fear mongers. Check out the sources behind the time in question on this timeline alone.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/...te-panic-and-crisis-both-warming-and-cooling/
This Senator had a few words to say.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
- 14,049
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
Don't tell that to the media and fear mongers. Check out the sources behind the time in question on this timeline alone.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/...te-panic-and-crisis-both-warming-and-cooling/
This Senator had a few words to say.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
I suppose this video might be of interest:
- 11,266
- Sweden
- eran0004
I don't think the planet cares much about carbon dioxide. In fact, the more carbon dioxide that's in the air, the better it is for vegetation. The polar ice might melt and polar bears and other arctic animals and plants may be in danger, but the climate has changed countless times during history and life has always adapted to it.
What would suffer the most from climate change is the human civilization. Coastal areas will be flooded, the economy will crash, people will need to relocate, it might spark conflicts about territory, mass starvation, etc. We think it's the nature that's in trouble and we will be just fine, when in fact it's the other way around.
What would suffer the most from climate change is the human civilization. Coastal areas will be flooded, the economy will crash, people will need to relocate, it might spark conflicts about territory, mass starvation, etc. We think it's the nature that's in trouble and we will be just fine, when in fact it's the other way around.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
That's a good point, and it's a shame so few people understand this. People who want to reduce emissions and pollution aren't worried about the environment. They're worried about themselves, like any other human! Our species seems to be slowly but surely setting up a very bad future for ourselves.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 4,140
- United States
As much as it would help, good luck achieving that. I wonder what would happen to the Presidential limousine if that were to happen. Swap it with a stretch P85D?
- 1,079
- Norway
I'm picturing sort of the same future. I mean sure, bio-fuels might happen, but I don't think that's a good idea personally. You can make renewable energy in areas where you can't grow things, but making enough biofuels to fuel a significant amount of cars is probably going to affect areas that can also be used to grow food. Hydrogen is also not very viable, unless they get a breakthrough that allows for a much more efficient production (isolation, more specifically) of it. Today, we either spend an obscene amount of electricity to make it, or we make it as a by-product of the fossile fuel industry.Eventually combustion engines WILL be illegal. Diesels will naturally be the first to go, in fact I expect they'll be taxed out of the market shortly due to their noxious nitrogen output.
As petroleum production shrinks over years (which from an environmental point of view it's sure to under legislation) then it will become more expensive. That in turn will take care of the "classic" market; those who can afford to run them will continue to run/fuel them. The loss of the petrol market is probably many years away though, the replacement technologies will be more than adequate by them.
My worry when I look at the US is that large infrastructure development is ongoing in order to feed their oil deficit... with such recent investment the oil giants there are unlikely to be accepting any wind-down plan soon. If they ever would, of course
- 23,800
- Philippines
If people simply live closer together, to lessen travel, that would help more.
-
Failing that, if people simply drive properly, you won't need "kinetic energy recovery".
Momentum is the key to efficient transportation. And kinetic energy recovery wastes momentum.
Instead, you want to be able to coast, engine-off, as long as possible. In other words, get up to speed, turn everything off, and glide for the next few miles. Rinse. Repeat. Then use regenerative braking only during those times where you have to suddenly slow down or stop for obstacles.
-
It works.
-
My view of the future is, that in adapting to a fuel-poor future, we might possibly see a return to velomobiles and cycle-cars. Ultra-lightweight people carriers with aerodynamic shells.
Your typical road car gets 35-50 mpg (driven properly) on the highway. A motorcycle only gets in the 60-70 mpg range, typically, because aerodynamics are crap... but it can double up on what autos get in the city because there's very little weight to accelerate and very little engine to drink gas. A velomobile would get the best of both worlds, getting in the 100's on the highway (about 150-250 mpg or thereabouts) while matching motorcycles in traffic. And with the light weight, you don't need a heavy hybrid system. Probably just a 5 kW motor and enough battery to run the accessories for a few minutes or the starter/assist motor for two or three miles.
But neither governments nor private citizens will accept such a radical departure from the huge, heavy automobiles we have today. It'll take a few more decades and several huge oil shocks before Western buyers are ready to accept such things.
-
Failing that, if people simply drive properly, you won't need "kinetic energy recovery".
Momentum is the key to efficient transportation. And kinetic energy recovery wastes momentum.
Instead, you want to be able to coast, engine-off, as long as possible. In other words, get up to speed, turn everything off, and glide for the next few miles. Rinse. Repeat. Then use regenerative braking only during those times where you have to suddenly slow down or stop for obstacles.
-
It works.
-
My view of the future is, that in adapting to a fuel-poor future, we might possibly see a return to velomobiles and cycle-cars. Ultra-lightweight people carriers with aerodynamic shells.
Your typical road car gets 35-50 mpg (driven properly) on the highway. A motorcycle only gets in the 60-70 mpg range, typically, because aerodynamics are crap... but it can double up on what autos get in the city because there's very little weight to accelerate and very little engine to drink gas. A velomobile would get the best of both worlds, getting in the 100's on the highway (about 150-250 mpg or thereabouts) while matching motorcycles in traffic. And with the light weight, you don't need a heavy hybrid system. Probably just a 5 kW motor and enough battery to run the accessories for a few minutes or the starter/assist motor for two or three miles.
But neither governments nor private citizens will accept such a radical departure from the huge, heavy automobiles we have today. It'll take a few more decades and several huge oil shocks before Western buyers are ready to accept such things.
- 87,322
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I've had a couple of cars recently equipped with Renault's ECO2 monitor. Lots of cars have meters and glowy things that rate how economically you're driving (and Renault's includes a growing green leaf...) along with spot economy, average yadda yadda but Renault's includes miles that you've driven without using any fuel at all.
With the 90hp diesel Captur I managed just under 1 in 4, despite a 200 mile motorway run with almost no free miles. With the 90hp Twingo I was better than 1 in 3, despite utterly caning it...
- 87,322
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I actually GoPro'd it (using @homeforsummer's elderly Hero model) and took it up Blakey Ridge - effectively my back garden and where Clarkson filmed most of his i8 segment.Y'went and broke it is what.
Turns out it's not a big fan of crosswinds, but it shovels along at a lick
- 15,994
- United Kingdom
- haitch40
- Xbox?
Of course. When people say save the environment for something else it is usually cute as well.
No one ever cares about the endangered snails. Not even the environmentalists.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Just as well we're not hacking down forests that absorb the excess carbon dioxide, then.
Oh, wait...
It seems to have been all about the bees recently. I've lost count of how many bee stories seem to appear on a regular basis.Of course. When people say save the environment for something else it is usually cute as well.
No one ever cares about the endangered snails. Not even the environmentalists.
- 15,994
- United Kingdom
- haitch40
- Xbox?
But bees are important for food so they still relate to us.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Despite what we were taught in school, the rainforests are a significantly smaller part of this process than marine algae.
I keep hearing these stories, but beekeeping is such a booming industry around me that they are expecting us to become the home of the bee. For some reason they appear to be thriving in the region where a lot of coal mining takes place.
- 21
- United States
Any argument against this thread will be irrelevant sometime within the next 50-75 years when oil extraction is no longer feasible.
If you aren't happy about combustion-engine free roadways, all you'll be able to do when the time comes is cry about it.
If you aren't happy about combustion-engine free roadways, all you'll be able to do when the time comes is cry about it.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
I see you haven't read the thread.
- 586
- Whiterun
- SirDerp175
I'd rather need a rebreather to walk outside than give up combustion engines...there are too many legendary cars to give up. I'm sure at least a few oil burning petrolheads will agree.
The so-called "Door to Hell" in Turkmenistan, google it...there was probably a better way to solve this problem...
also please don't take this part of the post seriously...
also please don't take this part of the post seriously...
- 21
- United States
I have, and at no point did anyone dispute that fact.
Right now it costs 1 barrel of oil to extract 9 barrels of oil from the ground and that ratio is decreasing. One barrel of oil (and I believe about 5 gallons of water) only gets you 3 barrels of tar sand oil, for example, which is only profitable when oil is above $60 a barrel (and that's not even factoring in the insane losses of natural capital assocuated with tar sand processing).
Now keep in mind that personal road vehicles probably aren't even the greatest fossil fuel users in the next 50 years, there's industry and the production of plastics (which have become a critical part of our medical technologies and will be considered a more important use for fossil fuels when scarcity begins).
Many countries will choose to ban combustion engines in personal (non-commercial) vehicles in the next half-century.
- 23,800
- Philippines
They can't.
The economy is typically consumer-driven... and the automobile is closely tied to the consumer-driven economy. This is not just in the purchase, fueling and maintenance of the automobile. They also affect the way we buy consumer goods, where and how we do that, and the mobility provided also multiplies the earning capability of the car owner... allowing them to get higher paying jobs that are further away, for example, or giving them more free time off the road (because driving is often faster than commuting, except in very densely populated city centers) between the house and the office to buy consumer products or use related services like restaurants, theaters and the like.
The only way to ban combustion engines is to provide a cheaper alternative and/or to rebuild city centers to make walking and commuting easier.
I don't doubt the use of combustion engines will become circumscribed in some way... but all-out bans will be tough, and would have a crippling effect on the consumer economy if the country instituting the ban hasn't prepared for it thoroughly.
(Also, consider that ICEs can use biofuels, artificial petroleum, compressed natural gas, propane, etcetera...)
The economy is typically consumer-driven... and the automobile is closely tied to the consumer-driven economy. This is not just in the purchase, fueling and maintenance of the automobile. They also affect the way we buy consumer goods, where and how we do that, and the mobility provided also multiplies the earning capability of the car owner... allowing them to get higher paying jobs that are further away, for example, or giving them more free time off the road (because driving is often faster than commuting, except in very densely populated city centers) between the house and the office to buy consumer products or use related services like restaurants, theaters and the like.
The only way to ban combustion engines is to provide a cheaper alternative and/or to rebuild city centers to make walking and commuting easier.
I don't doubt the use of combustion engines will become circumscribed in some way... but all-out bans will be tough, and would have a crippling effect on the consumer economy if the country instituting the ban hasn't prepared for it thoroughly.
(Also, consider that ICEs can use biofuels, artificial petroleum, compressed natural gas, propane, etcetera...)
- 21
- United States
They've already banned certain higher-watt light bulbs, even though the alternatives on the market are all much more expensive.
They also raised the corporate average fuel economy standards using the justification that higher cost cars that get better fuel mileage will save money in the long term. The same logic could easily be applied to EVs.
They also raised the corporate average fuel economy standards using the justification that higher cost cars that get better fuel mileage will save money in the long term. The same logic could easily be applied to EVs.
- 13,895
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I see that you're assuming that combustion engines only work with petrol, diesel and other crude oil derivatives.
The modern combustion engine is a wonderfully practical device. How about simply finding something else to fuel it with? The great thing is that it's extremely flexible, just about anything that burns can be used to fuel a combustion engine, as Niky has pointed out.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
I'm not disputing your facts or your logic, I agree that oil is running out and it will continue to get more expensive. However, if you read the first few pages of the thread, you'll find that what you've just said is totally irrelevant to the OP and ensuing discussion.
Also, what niky said.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
I was being a little tongue-in-cheek, though thanks for the link - I'd not seen that statistic before.
That said, a third of oxygen production (and one assumes CO2 absorption) is still a significant land-life contribution, and I suspect the loss of it to deforestation and desertification is still problematic. As is ocean acidification, which isn't great for algae.
There's been a big deal made about it here recently thanks to a few bee diseases being discovered in big colonies and the recognition that some pesticides are also killing them off. As significant pollinators a big drop in bee population wouldn't be a good thing.
Similar threads
