3 ms·

I downvoted you because your comment doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. Barring some kind of technological silver bullet, "saving the planet

by akamaka 11y ago

I downvoted you because your comment doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. Barring some kind of technological silver bullet, "saving the planet" is ultimately a problem of politics and economics. The next problem, of how we can maintain our lifestyle without breaking the emission limits that we set, is what inventions like this one help with. I expect that piston engines will continue to have some applications for as long as I'm alive, so improving them is a good thing.

Torkel 11y ago
I would add technology to your list of things we need to save this planet. And I'd say it's useful to know that making things that burn fossil fuel more efficient is not a viable solution to the problem of global warming. We are now beginning to have good products on the market that are sustainable: electric and solar. Making internal combustion engines more efficient seems a dead end. Or worse - making them more efficient may delay the move to what is actually sustainable. Side note: I regret adding my comment about downvotes. But I will leave it to preserve sense of thread and to remind me not to go there again.
- akamaka 11y ago
  I didn't have time to elaborate, but I chose not to mention technology on purpose. Unless some inconceivable technological leap happens which makes energy cheaper than $15 oil or coal, technology won't be enough to save the planet. Right now, if one country limits the amount of oil it uses, that just makes oil cheaper for another country which hasn't set limits. 50 years from now, Saudi Arabia could be still burning its last drops of oil to produce electricity, while the rest of the world has moved on to. So yes, you're correct that improving internal combustions engines might not help at all, but that seems to be true of any other technology, too. The only thing that will save out planet is our ability to organize ourselves globally to drastically cut emissions. Side note: don't take the downvotes here personally. HN is a place where quality discussions happen, and a lot of folks would prefer to simply downvote something they don't agree with rather than clutter up the whole thread with responses. :)
  - abainbridge 11y ago
    The solar and wind stuff keeps getting better. We're already at an inflection point where the renewables are cheaper than the fossil fuels, in some areas. Oil is going to have continue to get cheaper if it wants to stay ahead. The longer Saudi keep their oil, the worse this gets. It's a vicious circle for them - they want to sell it all now, because the selling it in the future will be harder. This cycle ends in it being too expensive to get the oil out of the ground. The Chinese don't like the fact that coal mining kills 1000s of their citizens each year, nor do they like the smog. They know growth in their economy has to come from an alternative fuel. Making a better engine might slightly perturb the virtuous path we're on. If it does, it will slightly delay the trend away from fossil fuels. But mainly it is irrelevant.
tajen 11y ago
GP is correct and more relevant than you think, because fuel efficiency is immediately linked with the hope of avoiding global warming. Unfortunately people believe too much that "we can maintain our lifestyle without breaking the emission limits that we set", and the truth has to be reminded: We can't. We need to reduce our lifestyle. Live closer to workplaces so we don't need the car at all, which requires a complete rearchitecture of the cities where jobs are knit with housing and public transport, like Sydney or many places in Europe. US people have a difficulty understanding this, because petrol have been so cheap and untaxed for so long that they've built their cities around "1 car, 1 person" - and now they secretely hope for fuel efficiency improvements "to maintain their lifestyle". No, sorry, they're just killing the planet. "What about China, who pollutes much more?" Yes, they should be allowed to reach their economic development, because US should pollute much less per inhabitant. An American emits 6x what it should, a Chinese person 1/6th. This is why GP wrote this warning. And it's important because some people still don't believe it. Similarly, cigarette packets still have to remind "Smoking kills", because a lot of smokers aren't persuaded yet.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  OK, nice talking and all, but we need solutions applicable in real world, not something looking nice on paper (we ALL know this is best, and I hope most see it's unrealistic to expect mankind to behave like this... we never did and never will). So I could say OP is more off than you think, and he could say... whatever. The worse the situation will get, the more people will be willing to sacrifice their well-being, invest in groundbreaking expensive new tech etc. We are not there yet, not the nations holding most of cash in their pockets. Oh, and don't get fooled - you can put any cancerous lung photos on cigarette packages, I don't know a single smoker that would change their habit based on this. They ALL know it's bad and can kill you and go on nevertheless, don't treat people like stupid children.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  No offense but this fairy tale ideal that the city centric bunch always comes up with completely ignores that so many items people want or use in everyday life won't be made in their own city let alone one near by. Throw in the higher costs of living in the city both financial, mentally, and physical, and I still have a hard time justifying it. Improving efficiency helps everyone because there is not going to be any overnight and likely within one generation shift to another lifestyle. You will never have all the jobs needed within a city to support all the people who live there. As in, your electronics, your food, and many other items, will be produced elsewhere and have to be sent there. The only things cities can self support usually are services. Cars became popular not because fuel is cheap, they became popular because they represent the freedom to go where you want when you want. You are not restricted to some bus or train line whose routes and times are determined by a government agency. So efficiency of the internal combustion engines is a needed move simply for the reason that not everyone can be put on the same schedule to change to the next means of individual travel.

by akamaka 11y ago

Torkel 11y ago

I would add technology to your list of things we need to save this planet. And I'd say it's useful to know that making things that burn fossil fuel more efficient is not a viable solution to the problem of global warming. We are now beginning to have good products on the market that are sustainable: electric and solar. Making internal combustion engines more efficient seems a dead end. Or worse - making them more efficient may delay the move to what is actually sustainable. Side note: I regret adding my comment about downvotes. But I will leave it to preserve sense of thread and to remind me not to go there again.

akamaka 11y ago
I didn't have time to elaborate, but I chose not to mention technology on purpose. Unless some inconceivable technological leap happens which makes energy cheaper than $15 oil or coal, technology won't be enough to save the planet. Right now, if one country limits the amount of oil it uses, that just makes oil cheaper for another country which hasn't set limits. 50 years from now, Saudi Arabia could be still burning its last drops of oil to produce electricity, while the rest of the world has moved on to. So yes, you're correct that improving internal combustions engines might not help at all, but that seems to be true of any other technology, too. The only thing that will save out planet is our ability to organize ourselves globally to drastically cut emissions. Side note: don't take the downvotes here personally. HN is a place where quality discussions happen, and a lot of folks would prefer to simply downvote something they don't agree with rather than clutter up the whole thread with responses. :)
- abainbridge 11y ago
  The solar and wind stuff keeps getting better. We're already at an inflection point where the renewables are cheaper than the fossil fuels, in some areas. Oil is going to have continue to get cheaper if it wants to stay ahead. The longer Saudi keep their oil, the worse this gets. It's a vicious circle for them - they want to sell it all now, because the selling it in the future will be harder. This cycle ends in it being too expensive to get the oil out of the ground. The Chinese don't like the fact that coal mining kills 1000s of their citizens each year, nor do they like the smog. They know growth in their economy has to come from an alternative fuel. Making a better engine might slightly perturb the virtuous path we're on. If it does, it will slightly delay the trend away from fossil fuels. But mainly it is irrelevant.

tajen 11y ago

GP is correct and more relevant than you think, because fuel efficiency is immediately linked with the hope of avoiding global warming. Unfortunately people believe too much that "we can maintain our lifestyle without breaking the emission limits that we set", and the truth has to be reminded: We can't. We need to reduce our lifestyle. Live closer to workplaces so we don't need the car at all, which requires a complete rearchitecture of the cities where jobs are knit with housing and public transport, like Sydney or many places in Europe. US people have a difficulty understanding this, because petrol have been so cheap and untaxed for so long that they've built their cities around "1 car, 1 person" - and now they secretely hope for fuel efficiency improvements "to maintain their lifestyle". No, sorry, they're just killing the planet. "What about China, who pollutes much more?" Yes, they should be allowed to reach their economic development, because US should pollute much less per inhabitant. An American emits 6x what it should, a Chinese person 1/6th. This is why GP wrote this warning. And it's important because some people still don't believe it. Similarly, cigarette packets still have to remind "Smoking kills", because a lot of smokers aren't persuaded yet.

saiya-jin 11y ago
OK, nice talking and all, but we need solutions applicable in real world, not something looking nice on paper (we ALL know this is best, and I hope most see it's unrealistic to expect mankind to behave like this... we never did and never will). So I could say OP is more off than you think, and he could say... whatever. The worse the situation will get, the more people will be willing to sacrifice their well-being, invest in groundbreaking expensive new tech etc. We are not there yet, not the nations holding most of cash in their pockets. Oh, and don't get fooled - you can put any cancerous lung photos on cigarette packages, I don't know a single smoker that would change their habit based on this. They ALL know it's bad and can kill you and go on nevertheless, don't treat people like stupid children.
Shivetya 11y ago
No offense but this fairy tale ideal that the city centric bunch always comes up with completely ignores that so many items people want or use in everyday life won't be made in their own city let alone one near by. Throw in the higher costs of living in the city both financial, mentally, and physical, and I still have a hard time justifying it. Improving efficiency helps everyone because there is not going to be any overnight and likely within one generation shift to another lifestyle. You will never have all the jobs needed within a city to support all the people who live there. As in, your electronics, your food, and many other items, will be produced elsewhere and have to be sent there. The only things cities can self support usually are services. Cars became popular not because fuel is cheap, they became popular because they represent the freedom to go where you want when you want. You are not restricted to some bus or train line whose routes and times are determined by a government agency. So efficiency of the internal combustion engines is a needed move simply for the reason that not everyone can be put on the same schedule to change to the next means of individual travel.