Quote:
Originally Posted by Marrk
I'll keep this brief because I do not wish to drag this thread too far off topic.
1) The problem with ICE cars is the fuel, not the cars.
2) EV is the wrong answer to that problem.
3) A new fuel is the correct answer to the problem.
4) Nobody has to buy a new car. They just have to fill up at a different fuel station.
5) A new fuel in ICE cars = massive savings in cost for the consumer (see #4).
6) A new fuel in ICE cars = massive reduction of damage to the environment (although not necessarily reduction to zero damage).
7) The boy genius in not a genius. He's just a tech nerd manufacturing electric cars.
Okay, that wasn't brief enough. I apologize.
|
I'd like a source on most of that. As I pointed out in an earlier post:
-you cannot solve the local pollution of ICEs using another fuel (at least not an octane-based one, don't know about hydrogen)
-you cannot solve the low efficiency of ICEs (which is capped at around 40%) using another fuel. Although any fuel that lowers the combustion temp will increase efficiency, you're still running an un-optimized heat pump to produce movement. See Carnot's law.
-finally, the economics of synth fuels or hydrogen just don't work -yet-
At the end of the day, we're comparing a tech that very much works and is hitting the market with fairly good success (and less and less government incentives), with another one that's been in the pipes for decades but hasn't been made into a marketable product yet.
By the time we find a suitable fuel to "save" ICEs -if that's even viable-, improvements to fuel cells and EVs will likely have created a gap too large to justify using ICEs.
I agree with your statement that people should just keep their cars longer (ICE or EV, for that matter), but it is what it is. Apparently, most people would rather keep up with the Joneses.