6 ms·

They should probably stop investing so much in an engine that requires fossil fuels to operate.

by craftyguy 9y ago

loverofthings 9y ago
The moment fossil fuels get more expensive you'd like a more efficient engine.
- rocqua 9y ago
  Really, when fossil fuels get more expensive you'd like a non fossil fuel based engine. Efficient engines are incentivized by high fuel prices only as compared to less efficient fossil fuel engines.
  - loverofthings 9y ago
    Some stuff does not work easily with non fossil fuel based engines. What better way than to refine current tech instead of inventing a whole new one?
- smaddox 9y ago
  Not if your system efficiency is limited by transmission and storage. Chemical energy (fuel) is more efficient and cheaper to store than electric energy, and will almost certainly continue to be an important medium in a post fossil fuel world. Edit: I think I responded to the wrong post, but I guess I'll just leave this here as a general comment.
jk2323 9y ago
You realize that a "combustion engine" could be run with non-fossil fuels? From Ethanol, Buthanol or sun flour oil? Or even methanol witch could be derived from CO2 via reduction?
sz4kerto 9y ago
Stopping investing into a technology that is probably going to dominate the industry for the next 25 years might not be too smart. (EVs are coming, but they're quite far from accounting for >50% of the total vehicle sales.) It's a bit like telling Microsoft in 1990 that focusing on PCs is stupid because mobile computing is coming for sure. :)
- gisely 9y ago
  Considering that many countries have announced plans to fully eliminate gas and diesel engine production in less than 25 years (e.g. 2030 for China), I think it's quite unlikely that internal combustion engines will continue to dominate the industry for the next 25 years. Also, there is pretty big irony in the analogy that you make. Obviously, Microsoft moved too slowly to focus on mobile computing and they missed the boat. I'm hopeful that car companies which aren't focusing on EVs today will similarly be left behind in a few years.
  - lttlrck 9y ago
    The huge used car market and the fact that ICE production will continue for as long as it is profitable muddies this timeline significantly. Sure ICEs could be legislated out of existence but that’d take a huge financial injection from the authorities - direct to the consumer and infrastructure. I don’t trust any authority to get this right in any sort of timely manner nor spend a the required money to make it happen.
- kjksf 9y ago
  You call it domination, I call it slow decline. Many governments have announced that by 2040 it'll be illegal to sell cars with such engines. They certainly won't be dominating in 22 years. The question is not "is this business going to be dead" but "when this business will be dead". So it's more like telling MicroPro to to stop investing in their cash cow DOS-based WordStar and port that app to Windows, because the writing is on the wall. MicrPro and many other companies were a bit asleep at the wheel during DOS -> Windows transition and that's why there's no MicroPro anymore and there's no WordStar anymore. Transition to electric motors will take a bit longer but the window to become a significant player in new technology is not infinite.
  - BoorishBears 9y ago
    >Many governments have announced that by 2040 it'll be illegal to sell cars with such engines. Many governments? Mazda is a small company, they can't afford larger scale innovation and buying up battery factories so they're making due. ICEs are going to be around for a lot longer than the next two decades, and I'm highly doubtful they won't be dominating in 5 decades, let alone 2.
oh_sigh 9y ago
Engines don't require fossil fuels to run - they are merely the most readily available fuels at this point in time.
kylehotchkiss 9y ago
Many places in the world (Think anywhere rural in a third world country) won't have the electricity infrastructure to handle electric cars in the near future. High efficiency petrol engines are still a very welcome invention for both the environment and for the many people who depend on petrol/diesel engines to keep the world spinning.
- reedx8 9y ago
  Except for the fact that you actually don't need any sort of energy infrastructure whatsoever with electricity. All you need will be a solar panel in the near future, resulting in more homes with heat and lights, more people with access to inexpensive transportation, and a more equitable share of well being. Third world countries stand to benefit the most from electrification.
  - cellularmitosis 9y ago
    Using photovoltaics for electric heat is a lot more costly than solar-thermal water heating, so you'll likely see a mixture of those two.

They should probably stop investing so much in an engine that requires fossil fuels to operate.

loverofthings 9y ago

The moment fossil fuels get more expensive you'd like a more efficient engine.

rocqua 9y ago
Really, when fossil fuels get more expensive you'd like a non fossil fuel based engine. Efficient engines are incentivized by high fuel prices only as compared to less efficient fossil fuel engines.
- loverofthings 9y ago
  Some stuff does not work easily with non fossil fuel based engines. What better way than to refine current tech instead of inventing a whole new one?
smaddox 9y ago
Not if your system efficiency is limited by transmission and storage. Chemical energy (fuel) is more efficient and cheaper to store than electric energy, and will almost certainly continue to be an important medium in a post fossil fuel world. Edit: I think I responded to the wrong post, but I guess I'll just leave this here as a general comment.

jk2323 9y ago

You realize that a "combustion engine" could be run with non-fossil fuels? From Ethanol, Buthanol or sun flour oil? Or even methanol witch could be derived from CO2 via reduction?

sz4kerto 9y ago

Stopping investing into a technology that is probably going to dominate the industry for the next 25 years might not be too smart. (EVs are coming, but they're quite far from accounting for >50% of the total vehicle sales.) It's a bit like telling Microsoft in 1990 that focusing on PCs is stupid because mobile computing is coming for sure. :)

gisely 9y ago
Considering that many countries have announced plans to fully eliminate gas and diesel engine production in less than 25 years (e.g. 2030 for China), I think it's quite unlikely that internal combustion engines will continue to dominate the industry for the next 25 years. Also, there is pretty big irony in the analogy that you make. Obviously, Microsoft moved too slowly to focus on mobile computing and they missed the boat. I'm hopeful that car companies which aren't focusing on EVs today will similarly be left behind in a few years.
- lttlrck 9y ago
  The huge used car market and the fact that ICE production will continue for as long as it is profitable muddies this timeline significantly. Sure ICEs could be legislated out of existence but that’d take a huge financial injection from the authorities - direct to the consumer and infrastructure. I don’t trust any authority to get this right in any sort of timely manner nor spend a the required money to make it happen.
kjksf 9y ago
You call it domination, I call it slow decline. Many governments have announced that by 2040 it'll be illegal to sell cars with such engines. They certainly won't be dominating in 22 years. The question is not "is this business going to be dead" but "when this business will be dead". So it's more like telling MicroPro to to stop investing in their cash cow DOS-based WordStar and port that app to Windows, because the writing is on the wall. MicrPro and many other companies were a bit asleep at the wheel during DOS -> Windows transition and that's why there's no MicroPro anymore and there's no WordStar anymore. Transition to electric motors will take a bit longer but the window to become a significant player in new technology is not infinite.
- BoorishBears 9y ago
  >Many governments have announced that by 2040 it'll be illegal to sell cars with such engines. Many governments? Mazda is a small company, they can't afford larger scale innovation and buying up battery factories so they're making due. ICEs are going to be around for a lot longer than the next two decades, and I'm highly doubtful they won't be dominating in 5 decades, let alone 2.

oh_sigh 9y ago

Engines don't require fossil fuels to run - they are merely the most readily available fuels at this point in time.

kylehotchkiss 9y ago

Many places in the world (Think anywhere rural in a third world country) won't have the electricity infrastructure to handle electric cars in the near future. High efficiency petrol engines are still a very welcome invention for both the environment and for the many people who depend on petrol/diesel engines to keep the world spinning.

reedx8 9y ago
Except for the fact that you actually don't need any sort of energy infrastructure whatsoever with electricity. All you need will be a solar panel in the near future, resulting in more homes with heat and lights, more people with access to inexpensive transportation, and a more equitable share of well being. Third world countries stand to benefit the most from electrification.
- cellularmitosis 9y ago
  Using photovoltaics for electric heat is a lot more costly than solar-thermal water heating, so you'll likely see a mixture of those two.