4 ms·
That makes sense, but there would be no incentive to switch to an engine that emits less carbon for the same fuel consumption (if such a thing exists)
by ChadNauseam 1y ago
That makes sense, but there would be no incentive to switch to an engine that emits less carbon for the same fuel consumption (if such a thing exists)
- AdrianB1 1y agoYou don't create carbon out of thin air, it's from the fuel, so burning the same quantity of fuel will result in the same quantity of carbon, no matter how the engine works. Therefore a tax on fuel is a tax on carbon.
- idiotsecant 1y agoIncomplete combustion is a big component of emissions, and it's exactly what you're saying doesn't exist
- cma 1y agoThose eventually degrade to CO2 so the increased warming from them compared to co2 by mass is temporary, like with methane.
- CorrectHorseBat 1y agoYes but since incomplete combustion is inverse correlated with fuel efficiency (unburned fuel is wasted fuel), it's not really a trade off. What is a trade off is NO emissions vs fuel efficiency. Burning your fuel oxygen rich will burn of more fuel, but also makes more NO (due to higher temperatures if I remember correctly).
- FrojoS 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ethanol_fuel_mixtures#E10_or_less https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ethanol_fuel_mixtures#E...
- idiotsecant 1y agoBy definition, more carbon is less efficiency. Efficiency is about how much of the hydrocarbon you turn into heat. Diesels often burn a little dirty. That's partly because diesel engines don't burn all the fuel