3 ms·
People should be allowed to make/buy sportscars with combustion engine. These alone don't move the needle of carbon emissions. Make trucks and average peoples c
by igortg 4y ago
People should be allowed to make/buy sportscars with combustion engine. These alone don't move the needle of carbon emissions. Make trucks and average peoples car 100% electric and that's it.
- djaychela 4y agoWhy should sports cars be exempt? Ex-rally driver here, who competed at up to international level, for the record, so I'm no anti car person.
- sho_hn 4y agoThe argument I hear on occasion is that appropriate use of sports cars (i.e. actual sport use) can be regulated to use synthetic fuels as the amount of fuel required is relativity small, and sports car owners/operators are generally wealthy enough to pay for the more expensive fuel (and willing to do so to keep their hobby/passion intact). Koenigsegg with their hybrid powertrains makes that argument now and then and points out the parts of the perf spectrum/application space better served by the ICE due to the energy density of the fuel and what it does for weight. In this context an EV sports car could actually have the worse CO2 footprint due to the high upfront costs during battery manufacturing and the low number of miles driven/short lifetime of a vehicle like this. It may never hit the "break-even" vs. a synthetic fuel powered ICE sports car, unlike your standard commuter car which - given good cell chemistries, reasonable battery size, a production location with a good energy mix and proximity to the location of use to avoid shipping emissions, all of which seem to be improving - can hit this reasonably easily now within average vehicle lifetimes. I'm no expert on these arguments and it depends a lot on monitoring entire supply chains and monitoring use (e.g. the aviation industry does a lot of PR with SAFs and in reality they make hardly a dent there right now), but as an engineer I do find the "let's do the actual math and see what makes sense" mindset a good one.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xyzzyz 4y agoAverage person’s car alone doesn’t move the needle either.
- xeromal 4y agoYeah, I remember reading that the worst offenders are the bunker fuel burning transport ships we use to receive all our consumer goods.
- xyzzyz 4y agoAverage transport ship doesn’t move the needle either. My point is that the trick of narrowing the category under the consideration, and claiming (truthfully) that this category’s impact on emissions is trivial, is a trick that can be applied to anything, not only sport cars.
- fooker 4y agoThe category of transport ships moves the needle by more than 3%, which is problem worth solving.
- tastyfreeze 4y agoCrew ships and transport ships are pretty nasty. In the summer my island town of 15k gets 4 to 9 crew ships visiting. That is like and extra 4 to 9 million cars driving around all day. Sure, on a global scale the impact of a single ship doesn't account for much. But, it is orders of magnitude more than my driving. The focus of personal vehicle emissions is misplaced if the goal is to reduce overall emissions quickly. The focus should be of the worst emitters first. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.4277147/a-cruise-ship-s-emissions-are-the-same-as-1-million-cars-report-1.4277180 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_shipping#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DOf_total_global_air_emissions%2Cwhich_damages_crops_and_buildings.?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_shipp...