7 ms·
Every internal combustion engine in history has and will spew poison in to the air. You just thought it was slightly less than it actually was.
by switch007 11y ago
Every internal combustion engine in history has and will spew poison in to the air. You just thought it was slightly less than it actually was.
- ekianjo 11y agoEver considered that internal combustion engines actually also saved lives (and made life possible in places where it was not) ? Let's not paint the world black and white.
- cmelbye 11y agoYes, but that has nothing to do with diesel fuel vs. others, which was the point of the previous two comments.
- soperj 11y agoHonestly, where has it made life possible where it was not? Most places have been inhabited for eons, or settled before the invention of the internal combustion engine.
- tacos 11y agoHonestly, please report back with a plan that gets the USA from 30 million people in 1860 to 300+ million people today without using the internal combustion engine.
- gumby 11y agoor freed (cumulatively) billions from backbreaking labor.
- odonnellryan 11y agoThis is more important. Also, transporting people when they'd die/have horrible conditions otherwise. I think it is a silly argument to say it helped people by helping them exist in the first place. It is a weird argument for a larger population, which probably isn't a great thing.
- gumby 11y ago> larger population [...] probably isn't a great thing. Julian Simon would have strongly disagreed and he put his money where his mouth was in his famous bets with Erlich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon
- odonnellryan 11y agoYes, but he actually got lucky. Given the average of any 10-year period in the last 100 years I believe Simon would have been wrong.
- jessaustin 11y agoIt might not have been Simon's good luck, because Erlich's luck when it comes to prediction has been consistently bad.
- gumby 11y agoCan you show some data online to back that up? I'm genuinely curious.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- soperj 11y agoYes, I was talking about that. But if you want an answer, many of the first cars were electric, if they went with the electric engine instead things wouldn't be exactly the same, but would have allowed the US to increase to 300+ million no problem.
- tacos 11y agoI'm sure the electric planes, tanks and aircraft carriers would've made for some interesting historical footnotes in 1939. Assuming we hadn't already all starved due to the lack of food being produced by the electric farm tractors.
- soperj 11y agoYou may have starved. Everyone else would have continued to rely on the steam tractors that were in use well into the 30s. I'm sure most aircraft carriers would be powered the same way nuclear subs are powered now.
- tacos 11y agoAh yes. Wake up a few extra hours before sunrise to load crisp, clean-burning coal into a furnace. Then fiddle with dials waiting for it to come up to pressure without exploding. Then drag a cast iron boiler and tons of water (!) on tiny wheels across muddy fields, generating 15 horsepower. Built to scale!
- harperlee 11y ago(replying to soperj's sibling post) > Honestly, where has it made life possible where it was not? Antarctica! But yeah, I think the parent was just making a point :P
- rorykoehler 11y agoHard drugs make the pain go away but they also slowly kill you.
- Grishnakh 11y agoIt wasn't "slightly less", it was many, many times less. And there was no reason for it; it was entirely possible to engineer the vehicles to use the proper amount of AdBlue to keep the emissions within spec, they just wouldn't have been able to go 10,000 miles between refills.
- Retric 11y agoSure they could, they just needed a larger tank.
- Grishnakh 11y agoWell yes, but the question is just how large. In a small car, there probably simply wasn't enough room without completely changing the chassis design. But really, WhyTF do you need a 10k mile service interval? No one expects to drive 10k miles without refilling the fuel tank. No one even expects to drive 10k miles without refilling the windshield washer fluid tank! Car companies don't expect people to drive 10k miles and then take their car to the dealership to put more windshield washer fluid in for them; any moron can refill that tank with a $1.50/gallon bottle from Walmart. But somehow people aren't competent to refill their AdBlue tank and need ridiculously-long service intervals? But they can be trusted to refill their fuel tanks with a highly-flammable and toxic substance (one with poisonous fumes, no less) every week or two?
- PantaloonFlames 11y ago> In a small car, there probably simply wasn't enough room without completely changing the chassis design. I am not an expert, but based on my understanding, the issue was not chassis design, but cost. http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/30/vw-diesel-fix-would-have-cost-335-per-vehicle/ http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/30/vw-diesel-fix-would-have-... The reclaiming system would add to the cost of the vehicle, and operating it properly would also decrease fuel economy. Both would tend to decrease sales. So this was strictly about profit for VW. > WhyTF do you need a 10k mile service interval Because people want their cars to support their lifestyle, not vice versa. > But somehow people aren't competent to refill their AdBlue tank and need ridiculously-long service intervals? But they can be trusted to refill their fuel tanks with a highly-flammable and toxic substance The issue is not one of consumer trust. It's practicality. Gasoline filling stations are everywhere. Now: where can a consumer buy AdBlue or whatever the brand of urea is required by VW? No one wants a car that implies more complexity in their life.
- PantaloonFlames 11y ago> you just thought it was slightly less than it actually was. (where "slightly" = 40x)
- switch007 11y agoThanks. This site seems to indicate it was "up to" "nearly" 40x. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/internation... An EU perspective (and EU rules) http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/21/all-top-selling-cars-break-emissions-limits-in-real-world-tests http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/21/all-top-sell... has results no where near 40x. None of that of course is "slightly less", but that wasn't my point.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]