4 ms·

> The Internal combustion engine, as someone who has owned multiple Manual Mazda Miatas, is seeing the end of it's times. I really hope you're right, because t

> The Internal combustion engine, as someone who has owned multiple Manual Mazda Miatas, is seeing the end of it's times. I really hope you're right, because the internal combustion engine directly causes a substantial portion of climate change. It is not so obvious to me that it's on the way out, because petroleum companies have a vested interest in it.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Petroleum companies and the even bigger oil companies are also working hard on diversifying though; the petrol companies can (are?) investing in charging infrastructure, hydrogen, etc, and the oil magnates are buying up and investing in real estate and related projects in huge quantities.
- deeviant 3y ago
  Working hard... may be overstating it. The thing they are working the hardest, for sure, is keeping their money fountain (petrochemicals) running as long as possible. Diversifying or other future thinking, is far down the list. (As measured by investment allocations)
tzs 3y ago
It is also possible that ICE engines will remain but burning climate neutral fuel. One of the approaches people are working on for carbon capture is to use CO2 from the atmosphere to make synthetic fossil fuels. The reason fossil fuels are bad when it comes to climate change is that they are taking carbon that was sequestered long ago and putting it back into the atmosphere. Fossil fuels that are made from carbon recently removed from the atmosphere are just putting that carbon back, so cause no net change in CO2 levels. They still have the same problem with putting things like sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and various other things into the atmosphere, so it would be best to someday move completely away from them, but that is massively less urgent than reducing CO2 emissions. They don't make those other things worse and could make reducing CO2 much less disruptive so would be a win if they ever get to the point where they can be produced economically in sufficient quantity.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Climate neutral fuel only makes sense for uses, like airplanes, where batteries won't work. For one thing, synthesized fuels will be expensive. For anything that can switch to batteries, it will be much cheaper to use electricity. Expensive enough that will have to force people to switch and not use fossil fuels. Nobody will use synthesized fuels for their car unless it is some special classic or sports care. Hydrogen or ammonia will likely be cheaper to make than hydrocarbons and might work for many uses, like airplanes and ships, that can't use batteries. Hydrocarbons may be only be used for places where can't upgrade. Synthesized fuels aren't fossil fuels. If you want name, say hydrocarbon fuel.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

Petroleum companies and the even bigger oil companies are also working hard on diversifying though; the petrol companies can (are?) investing in charging infrastructure, hydrogen, etc, and the oil magnates are buying up and investing in real estate and related projects in huge quantities.

deeviant 3y ago
Working hard... may be overstating it. The thing they are working the hardest, for sure, is keeping their money fountain (petrochemicals) running as long as possible. Diversifying or other future thinking, is far down the list. (As measured by investment allocations)

tzs 3y ago

It is also possible that ICE engines will remain but burning climate neutral fuel. One of the approaches people are working on for carbon capture is to use CO2 from the atmosphere to make synthetic fossil fuels. The reason fossil fuels are bad when it comes to climate change is that they are taking carbon that was sequestered long ago and putting it back into the atmosphere. Fossil fuels that are made from carbon recently removed from the atmosphere are just putting that carbon back, so cause no net change in CO2 levels. They still have the same problem with putting things like sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and various other things into the atmosphere, so it would be best to someday move completely away from them, but that is massively less urgent than reducing CO2 emissions. They don't make those other things worse and could make reducing CO2 much less disruptive so would be a win if they ever get to the point where they can be produced economically in sufficient quantity.

ianburrell 3y ago
Climate neutral fuel only makes sense for uses, like airplanes, where batteries won't work. For one thing, synthesized fuels will be expensive. For anything that can switch to batteries, it will be much cheaper to use electricity. Expensive enough that will have to force people to switch and not use fossil fuels. Nobody will use synthesized fuels for their car unless it is some special classic or sports care. Hydrogen or ammonia will likely be cheaper to make than hydrocarbons and might work for many uses, like airplanes and ships, that can't use batteries. Hydrocarbons may be only be used for places where can't upgrade. Synthesized fuels aren't fossil fuels. If you want name, say hydrocarbon fuel.