Internal combustion has had over a century of research and engineering going into making the engines “cleaner and leaner”. It’s like squeezing blood out of a stone, that’s why you end up with features like auto-stop (where it cuts the engine if you idle for a bit) which barely save on petrol, but it’s a saving so they throw it in. Petrol is inherently dirty.
I’m sure there is more that can be done. I’ve heard that Porsche have developed a cleaner fuel that can power petrol cars. I’m waiting so that what that is.
Unfortunately the car manufacturers typically have supported the petrol suppliers, which are big powerful entities, but if they stop doing that and really focus on clean fuel, I’m sure it can be achieved.
EV’s at the moment are NOT good for the environment and create WAY more pollution than petrol cars in their manufacturing process. Making batteries produces WAY more pollution than what petrol cars with catalytic converters will ever make in a lifetime. This is a fact.
Do you have an article or something talking about this cleaner fuel? Toyota’s approach for a cleaner fuel is hydrogen, but that’s its own disaster due to all the issues with logistics and storage, among other things.
Thanks. This relies heavily on how well carbon capture technology works out. From what I’ve been reading, it’s pretty inefficient and expensive, at least currently. Whether it can scale is an open question. Additionally, burning this fuel will release whatever carbon was captured. This may help to slow down emissions, but better battery tech looks like it’ll go much further.
Batteries and their construction come out ahead over the life of the vehicle. There is nothing about battery manufacturing that requires slave labour. You could make the slave labour claim about anything being manufactured. As for your CO2 points, those are repeats of oil industry propaganda. Based on your point, why even bother trying to capture carbon when CO2 is so great, right? It’s a matter of amount. We need water to live, but drinking too much water will kill you.
No, I won’t. If you say you’ll hold an opinion “no matter what they say”, that means you’re never open to changing it, even if change occurs. I.e. you can’t think for yourself.
Because I have enough common sense to know this tech is not ready. Neither are the energy grids. If we reach a point one day when the tech is ready and the grids can handle it, then I’ll be open to it
Finally someone sees common sense. EV’s simply do not make sense. Petrol is the way to go. Just make the engines cleaner and leaner.
For the majority of the planet, petrol is far more accessible and affordable than electricity.
I’m sticking with petrol no matter what they say
Internal combustion has had over a century of research and engineering going into making the engines “cleaner and leaner”. It’s like squeezing blood out of a stone, that’s why you end up with features like auto-stop (where it cuts the engine if you idle for a bit) which barely save on petrol, but it’s a saving so they throw it in. Petrol is inherently dirty.
I’m sure there is more that can be done. I’ve heard that Porsche have developed a cleaner fuel that can power petrol cars. I’m waiting so that what that is.
Unfortunately the car manufacturers typically have supported the petrol suppliers, which are big powerful entities, but if they stop doing that and really focus on clean fuel, I’m sure it can be achieved.
EV’s at the moment are NOT good for the environment and create WAY more pollution than petrol cars in their manufacturing process. Making batteries produces WAY more pollution than what petrol cars with catalytic converters will ever make in a lifetime. This is a fact.
Do you have an article or something talking about this cleaner fuel? Toyota’s approach for a cleaner fuel is hydrogen, but that’s its own disaster due to all the issues with logistics and storage, among other things.
Here you go
https://www.topspeed.com/porsche-synthetic-fuel/#:~:text=Porsche is developing eFuels%2C a,traditional gasoline in combustion engines.
Thanks. This relies heavily on how well carbon capture technology works out. From what I’ve been reading, it’s pretty inefficient and expensive, at least currently. Whether it can scale is an open question. Additionally, burning this fuel will release whatever carbon was captured. This may help to slow down emissions, but better battery tech looks like it’ll go much further.
Batteries and their construction if at the moment a worse alternative. And involves slave labour.
At least C02 is already naturally occurring. Btw, humans and plants need C02 to live. Without it we die …
Batteries and their construction come out ahead over the life of the vehicle. There is nothing about battery manufacturing that requires slave labour. You could make the slave labour claim about anything being manufactured. As for your CO2 points, those are repeats of oil industry propaganda. Based on your point, why even bother trying to capture carbon when CO2 is so great, right? It’s a matter of amount. We need water to live, but drinking too much water will kill you.
Tell me you are incapable of critical thinking without telling me you are incapable of critical thinking.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1142087_toyota-exec-says-evs-won-t-top-30-wants-new-engines
Er…you might want to rethink that statement.
No, I won’t. If you say you’ll hold an opinion “no matter what they say”, that means you’re never open to changing it, even if change occurs. I.e. you can’t think for yourself.
I pity you.
Because I have enough common sense to know this tech is not ready. Neither are the energy grids. If we reach a point one day when the tech is ready and the grids can handle it, then I’ll be open to it
Nah, he’s right.