3 ms·

"More than 80 cents of every dollar spent on gasoline is squandered by the inherent inefficiencies of the modern internal combustion engine" actually the ineff

by autokad 11y ago

"More than 80 cents of every dollar spent on gasoline is squandered by the inherent inefficiencies of the modern internal combustion engine" actually the inefficiencies are spent on taxes rather than the engine itself. its really hard to read through the extremely biased article. it literally admits airplanes are more inefficient but cars are worse because they are used more. That's a special kind of logic there. I myself live in Philly which is one of few places you can exist in america without a car. I also give up a lot of freedom. it means not being able to go hiking in the woods, or pretty much anything outside the maybe 5 or 6 places in america with enough population density to warent a good mass transit system. cars in many situations also save copius amounts of time. A trip to north east philly is about an hour and a half by mass transit, 25 minutes by car. time savings that would eclipse any theoretical 10 years of life expectancy loss from cars. cars have done wonder's for economy as well.

victorhooi 11y ago
Your post is pretty inaccurate. > actually the inefficiencies are spent on taxes rather than the engine itself. Incorrect - the efficiencies are to do with basic physics, and the laws of thermodynamics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency "Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% to 30% when used to power a car. In other words, even when the engine is operating at its point of maximum thermal efficiency, of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 70-75% is rejected as heat without being turned into useful work, i.e. turning the crankshaft." > its really hard to read through the extremely biased article. it literally admits airplanes are more inefficient but cars are worse because they are used more. That's a special kind of logic there. Incorrect - what the article actually says is: "Transportation is a principal cause of the global climate crisis, exacerbated by a stubborn attachment to archaic, wasteful, and inefficient transportation modes and machines. But are cars the true culprit? " So we are talking about who contributes the most to global warming - and the answer, no matter how you look at it, is cars. Airplanes contribute around 8 percent - cars contribute some 83 percent. > cars in many situations also save copius amounts of time. A trip to north east philly is about an hour and a half by mass transit, 25 minutes by car. time savings that would eclipse any theoretical 10 years of life expectancy loss from cars. Incorrect - firstly, what exactly is the price of a life? I can tell you that to most people, if you told them, can I take 10 years off your life, you would hardly be met with joy. Secondly - this disparity you refer to isn't due to any inherent strength of cars - more, it's just to do with very poor investment in public transport in the US. If you journey outside the United States, to other lands, you will see what some good planning and smart investment in pubic transport can bring. It's like saying, here are my two children - Alice and Bob. Alice is well fed and does sports every day after school. Bob is beaten and malnourished, and we keep him chained in the basement. Here, I'm going to race Alice and Bob - gosh, Alice can run fast!
crispyambulance 11y ago
I also live in Philly and totally disagree. Owning a car here is sort of like an albatross on your neck. A car DOES NOT save time in Philly and restricts freedom more than enabling it. If you need to go to a remote corner of philly, it only takes a minute to grab an uber/taxi and you don't have to worry about parking. A bike or a motorized scooter is also a practical option because Philly is flat. I would get rid of my car if I could but need it to get to work in NJ, even so, I hardly ever use it outside of my commute.
- autokad 11y ago
  lol, get rid of your car and commute to nj, then preach to me about how much a car is an albatross.
mikeash 11y ago
Gas taxes in the US are around 50 cents/gallon, so at the current national average price of gas of a bit over $2/gallon, that's about a 33% tax. Airplanes are actually more efficient than cars the way they're used. Cars are usually single-person affairs. The average occupancy is well under two. Passenger airplanes usually fly close to full, and typical fuel efficiency is in the neighborhood of 70-120 seat-miles per gallon.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  On top of that, airplanes fly in a direct route, whereas cars are stuck following road layouts, which aren't always direct, especially if there's any waterways in the way. On the flip side, planes usually take off and land at airports that aren't that close to your destination.
surge 11y ago
> it literally admits airplanes are more inefficient but cars "Driving an SUV or even a mid-size car from New York to L.A. is worse for the planet than flying there. This is true in part because cars’ fuel efficiency has improved far more slowly than planes’, but also because of Americans’ increasing propensity to drive alone, which has made car travel less efficient and more carbon-intensive per passenger-mile in recent years." Which article did you read?

by autokad 11y ago

victorhooi 11y ago

Your post is pretty inaccurate. > actually the inefficiencies are spent on taxes rather than the engine itself. Incorrect - the efficiencies are to do with basic physics, and the laws of thermodynamics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency "Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% to 30% when used to power a car. In other words, even when the engine is operating at its point of maximum thermal efficiency, of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 70-75% is rejected as heat without being turned into useful work, i.e. turning the crankshaft." > its really hard to read through the extremely biased article. it literally admits airplanes are more inefficient but cars are worse because they are used more. That's a special kind of logic there. Incorrect - what the article actually says is: "Transportation is a principal cause of the global climate crisis, exacerbated by a stubborn attachment to archaic, wasteful, and inefficient transportation modes and machines. But are cars the true culprit? " So we are talking about who contributes the most to global warming - and the answer, no matter how you look at it, is cars. Airplanes contribute around 8 percent - cars contribute some 83 percent. > cars in many situations also save copius amounts of time. A trip to north east philly is about an hour and a half by mass transit, 25 minutes by car. time savings that would eclipse any theoretical 10 years of life expectancy loss from cars. Incorrect - firstly, what exactly is the price of a life? I can tell you that to most people, if you told them, can I take 10 years off your life, you would hardly be met with joy. Secondly - this disparity you refer to isn't due to any inherent strength of cars - more, it's just to do with very poor investment in public transport in the US. If you journey outside the United States, to other lands, you will see what some good planning and smart investment in pubic transport can bring. It's like saying, here are my two children - Alice and Bob. Alice is well fed and does sports every day after school. Bob is beaten and malnourished, and we keep him chained in the basement. Here, I'm going to race Alice and Bob - gosh, Alice can run fast!

crispyambulance 11y ago

I also live in Philly and totally disagree. Owning a car here is sort of like an albatross on your neck. A car DOES NOT save time in Philly and restricts freedom more than enabling it. If you need to go to a remote corner of philly, it only takes a minute to grab an uber/taxi and you don't have to worry about parking. A bike or a motorized scooter is also a practical option because Philly is flat. I would get rid of my car if I could but need it to get to work in NJ, even so, I hardly ever use it outside of my commute.

autokad 11y ago
lol, get rid of your car and commute to nj, then preach to me about how much a car is an albatross.

mikeash 11y ago

Gas taxes in the US are around 50 cents/gallon, so at the current national average price of gas of a bit over $2/gallon, that's about a 33% tax. Airplanes are actually more efficient than cars the way they're used. Cars are usually single-person affairs. The average occupancy is well under two. Passenger airplanes usually fly close to full, and typical fuel efficiency is in the neighborhood of 70-120 seat-miles per gallon.

Grishnakh 11y ago
On top of that, airplanes fly in a direct route, whereas cars are stuck following road layouts, which aren't always direct, especially if there's any waterways in the way. On the flip side, planes usually take off and land at airports that aren't that close to your destination.

surge 11y ago

> it literally admits airplanes are more inefficient but cars "Driving an SUV or even a mid-size car from New York to L.A. is worse for the planet than flying there. This is true in part because cars’ fuel efficiency has improved far more slowly than planes’, but also because of Americans’ increasing propensity to drive alone, which has made car travel less efficient and more carbon-intensive per passenger-mile in recent years." Which article did you read?