4 ms·

This article is misleading right from the outset, and it has clearly misled a number of readers who have already commented here. combustion engine phaseout ≠ t

This article is misleading right from the outset, and it has clearly misled a number of readers who have already commented here. combustion engine phaseout ≠ total shift to emission-free vehicles What's wrong exactly with an ICE that uses clean and sustainable fuel? This is what Formula 1 is aiming for. There's nothing wrong with internal combustion per se. It's just the fuel we are currently using being harmful for the environment and unsustainable that is an issue. Although I suspect as usual this point will be particularly unpopular with the HN crowd, as it seems anything less than full electric is the Antichrist.

phicoh 5y ago
ICE is quite horrible. The situation now is a lot better than in the past. But still compared to electric vehicals, they should be banned immediately. The other part of the equation is that the selling of ICE vehicles will happen in poor countries. Who will not use sustainable fuel.
emn13 5y ago
Could you clarify how it's meaningfully different? Because just because F1 might be able to afford a certain kind of fuel in the future doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be economically relevant. If somehow alternative fuels turn out to be acceptable on price and in terms of the climate, whats to stop them being adopted? It just seems like a rather unlikely outcome. Anyhow, the article is clearly about the politics of the current transition; not about potential future technological breakthroughs.
- kgwgk 5y ago
  > If somehow alternative fuels turn out to be acceptable on price and in terms of the climate, whats to stop them being adopted? The laws banning combustion engines.
  - emn13 5y ago
    The devil is in the details - laws like that can have tons of exemptions, and likely will. If there's both a plausible alternative fuel on the horizon _and_ a plausibly problematic law, _and_ a political unwillingness to grant exemptions - then let's talk. So far, laws even vaguely in that direction seem few and far between, and even those make it might turn out to have loopholes rendering the point moot. The conventional fuel industry and popular usage is so huge that surely exemptions would be granted if necessary. Finally, there does not yet appear to be plausible alternative fuel. The risk of an overzealous restriction on ICE cars is much lower than the risk of an overly lenient ICE policy. After all, each additional ICE car sold has real, likely unavoidable, and virtually irreversible consequences. In aggregate, those consequences are pretty dire. Betting on some kind of hail mary wonder-fuel without considerable certainty of its success isn't wise. But it's also likely what society will do for quite a few more years. Under an idealized capitalist system we'd just tax the carbon and thus raise the fuel prices. However, as long as much of the electorate has ICE cars that's political suicide in most places - and competitive suicide even where the body politic might swallow that bitter bill. Consider e.g. the proposed small fuel price tax hike in France recently and the unrest that followed. Raising fuel prices isn't easy.
DoingIsLearning 5y ago
> What's wrong exactly with an ICE that uses clean and sustainable fuel? Ok well, you have: 1) NO2 emissions - which basically reduce human lifespan 2) CO emissions- don't really need to explain this one, you've seen the films with the suicides in the closed garage 3) Tailpipe particulates- basically very tiny bits of charcoal that are carcinogenic So no, claiming that the fuel was made from sugarcane, or corn, or algae, does not somehow make an ICE clean. Reminder that air pollution is responsible for 7 million premature deaths every year. [0] [0] https://m.dw.com/en/who-7-million-people-dying-yearly-from-polluted-air/a-43611307 https://m.dw.com/en/who-7-million-people-dying-yearly-from-p...
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  Which technological advances would need to be achieved for you to say that ICEs are morally acceptable?
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    An ICE with non-volatile emissions i.e. make an ICE that filters, condenses, and 'poops' solid emissions into a containerized deposit. Then by all means go to town with the Auto industry.
marcyb5st 5y ago
> What's wrong exactly with an ICE that uses clean and sustainable fuel? To name a few: 1. Terrible efficiency. ICE average at around 30% efficiency vs 90% of EVs (close to 100% if regenerative breaking is used). 2. 1000s of moving parts for ICE vs few 10s for EVs. This directly translates to cost of ownership which is a big win for EVs already now. 3. Emissions. Even using a clean fuel you generate nitrous oxides or carbon monoxide (unless you have perfect combustion which is something we didn't achieve yet even after decades of R&D). 4. Fuel logistics. Even if it's a clean fuel, you still have to transport it from the refinery to the fuel pumps. We already have an electric grid in place and we just need upgrades (a 1-off cost more or less) instead of continuously transporting stuff around.
jmgao 5y ago
> There's nothing wrong with internal combustion per se. The majority of energy in the combusted fuel goes right out the tailpipe: vehicle engines are generally only about 25-30% efficient. Combined cycle power plants that capture energy from the exhaust of the initial combustion cycle get over 60%, but it's ridiculously impractical to put one in a car.

phicoh 5y ago

ICE is quite horrible. The situation now is a lot better than in the past. But still compared to electric vehicals, they should be banned immediately. The other part of the equation is that the selling of ICE vehicles will happen in poor countries. Who will not use sustainable fuel.

emn13 5y ago

Could you clarify how it's meaningfully different? Because just because F1 might be able to afford a certain kind of fuel in the future doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be economically relevant. If somehow alternative fuels turn out to be acceptable on price and in terms of the climate, whats to stop them being adopted? It just seems like a rather unlikely outcome. Anyhow, the article is clearly about the politics of the current transition; not about potential future technological breakthroughs.

kgwgk 5y ago
> If somehow alternative fuels turn out to be acceptable on price and in terms of the climate, whats to stop them being adopted? The laws banning combustion engines.
- emn13 5y ago
  The devil is in the details - laws like that can have tons of exemptions, and likely will. If there's both a plausible alternative fuel on the horizon _and_ a plausibly problematic law, _and_ a political unwillingness to grant exemptions - then let's talk. So far, laws even vaguely in that direction seem few and far between, and even those make it might turn out to have loopholes rendering the point moot. The conventional fuel industry and popular usage is so huge that surely exemptions would be granted if necessary. Finally, there does not yet appear to be plausible alternative fuel. The risk of an overzealous restriction on ICE cars is much lower than the risk of an overly lenient ICE policy. After all, each additional ICE car sold has real, likely unavoidable, and virtually irreversible consequences. In aggregate, those consequences are pretty dire. Betting on some kind of hail mary wonder-fuel without considerable certainty of its success isn't wise. But it's also likely what society will do for quite a few more years. Under an idealized capitalist system we'd just tax the carbon and thus raise the fuel prices. However, as long as much of the electorate has ICE cars that's political suicide in most places - and competitive suicide even where the body politic might swallow that bitter bill. Consider e.g. the proposed small fuel price tax hike in France recently and the unrest that followed. Raising fuel prices isn't easy.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago

> What's wrong exactly with an ICE that uses clean and sustainable fuel? Ok well, you have: 1) NO2 emissions - which basically reduce human lifespan 2) CO emissions- don't really need to explain this one, you've seen the films with the suicides in the closed garage 3) Tailpipe particulates- basically very tiny bits of charcoal that are carcinogenic So no, claiming that the fuel was made from sugarcane, or corn, or algae, does not somehow make an ICE clean. Reminder that air pollution is responsible for 7 million premature deaths every year. [0] [0] https://m.dw.com/en/who-7-million-people-dying-yearly-from-polluted-air/a-43611307 https://m.dw.com/en/who-7-million-people-dying-yearly-from-p...

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
Which technological advances would need to be achieved for you to say that ICEs are morally acceptable?
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  An ICE with non-volatile emissions i.e. make an ICE that filters, condenses, and 'poops' solid emissions into a containerized deposit. Then by all means go to town with the Auto industry.

marcyb5st 5y ago

> What's wrong exactly with an ICE that uses clean and sustainable fuel? To name a few: 1. Terrible efficiency. ICE average at around 30% efficiency vs 90% of EVs (close to 100% if regenerative breaking is used). 2. 1000s of moving parts for ICE vs few 10s for EVs. This directly translates to cost of ownership which is a big win for EVs already now. 3. Emissions. Even using a clean fuel you generate nitrous oxides or carbon monoxide (unless you have perfect combustion which is something we didn't achieve yet even after decades of R&D). 4. Fuel logistics. Even if it's a clean fuel, you still have to transport it from the refinery to the fuel pumps. We already have an electric grid in place and we just need upgrades (a 1-off cost more or less) instead of continuously transporting stuff around.

jmgao 5y ago

> There's nothing wrong with internal combustion per se. The majority of energy in the combusted fuel goes right out the tailpipe: vehicle engines are generally only about 25-30% efficient. Combined cycle power plants that capture energy from the exhaust of the initial combustion cycle get over 60%, but it's ridiculously impractical to put one in a car.