2 ms·

> Depending on which regulations are ultimately applied, the outlook for internal combustion engines could change dramatically once again – all the way to a sce

> Depending on which regulations are ultimately applied, the outlook for internal combustion engines could change dramatically once again – all the way to a scenario that makes it almost impossible to still register internal combustion engines after 2025 This is prescient. Government regulations in this particular area will continue to be revised as it becomes clearer that the shift to electric cars is happening rapidly, and it's obvious that this is the only lever in the fight against climate change. We wouldn't even know where to start when it comes to tackling the emissions from steel and cement (1/3rd of all greenhouse emissions). In September 2020 California banned the sale of ICE cars past 2035. In a couple of years, that'll change to 2030 or sooner. Most car manufacturers know this and some, like VW, are planning accordingly.

germinalphrase 6y ago
Bill Gates has been running around saying that we simply won’t tackle steel and cement, so we need to go hard on everything else to compensate/get to net zero.
- SEJeff 6y ago
  But Bill Gates is incorrect. The Cement industry has a plan that they think can lower cement production greenhouse gasses by 40-80%. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cement-producers-are-developing-a-plan-to-reduce-co2-emissions/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cement-producers-...
  - nindalf 6y ago
    I upvoted you but you vastly overstate what that link actually says - this 40-80% estimate is from a process that doesn't exist yet. They might discover/invent this process but there's nothing to indicate that they will. As the headline says "they are developing a plan", kinda like how people are developing a plan to power society with fusion reactors. - Right now, cement works. It's worked for 200 years. There is no incentive or pressure to change. Carbon credits specifically carve out exceptions for cement, so the cost of polluting isn't borne by them. - Even if money was found to create a new competing substance that polluted less, it wouldn't be trusted as much as cement is with it's 200 year track record. What I'm getting from this article is that there is no change afoot in the cement industry. At best the energy they use might come from cleaner sources but that it's it. At it's heart it will still remain CaCO3 → CaO + CO2
    - SEJeff 6y ago
      has a plan they think Thanks for the upvote, but it seems like I didn't misstate anything. They have a plan that they think has the potential to lower greenhouse gasses 40-80%. I'm pulling those numbers directly from the article as more or less a direct quote. How can I be overstating their own literal words? On cement being a large carbon emitter / greenhouse gas producer for the forseeable future, I think we both agree. But they have a plan!

germinalphrase 6y ago

Bill Gates has been running around saying that we simply won’t tackle steel and cement, so we need to go hard on everything else to compensate/get to net zero.

SEJeff 6y ago
But Bill Gates is incorrect. The Cement industry has a plan that they think can lower cement production greenhouse gasses by 40-80%. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cement-producers-are-developing-a-plan-to-reduce-co2-emissions/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cement-producers-...
- nindalf 6y ago
  I upvoted you but you vastly overstate what that link actually says - this 40-80% estimate is from a process that doesn't exist yet. They might discover/invent this process but there's nothing to indicate that they will. As the headline says "they are developing a plan", kinda like how people are developing a plan to power society with fusion reactors. - Right now, cement works. It's worked for 200 years. There is no incentive or pressure to change. Carbon credits specifically carve out exceptions for cement, so the cost of polluting isn't borne by them. - Even if money was found to create a new competing substance that polluted less, it wouldn't be trusted as much as cement is with it's 200 year track record. What I'm getting from this article is that there is no change afoot in the cement industry. At best the energy they use might come from cleaner sources but that it's it. At it's heart it will still remain CaCO3 → CaO + CO2
  - SEJeff 6y ago
    has a plan they think Thanks for the upvote, but it seems like I didn't misstate anything. They have a plan that they think has the potential to lower greenhouse gasses 40-80%. I'm pulling those numbers directly from the article as more or less a direct quote. How can I be overstating their own literal words? On cement being a large carbon emitter / greenhouse gas producer for the forseeable future, I think we both agree. But they have a plan!