• danielfgom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    Finally someone sees common sense. EV’s simply do not make sense. Petrol is the way to go. Just make the engines cleaner and leaner.

    For the majority of the planet, petrol is far more accessible and affordable than electricity.

    I’m sticking with petrol no matter what they say

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Internal combustion has had over a century of research and engineering going into making the engines “cleaner and leaner”. It’s like squeezing blood out of a stone, that’s why you end up with features like auto-stop (where it cuts the engine if you idle for a bit) which barely save on petrol, but it’s a saving so they throw it in. Petrol is inherently dirty.

      • danielfgom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m sure there is more that can be done. I’ve heard that Porsche have developed a cleaner fuel that can power petrol cars. I’m waiting so that what that is.

        Unfortunately the car manufacturers typically have supported the petrol suppliers, which are big powerful entities, but if they stop doing that and really focus on clean fuel, I’m sure it can be achieved.

        EV’s at the moment are NOT good for the environment and create WAY more pollution than petrol cars in their manufacturing process. Making batteries produces WAY more pollution than what petrol cars with catalytic converters will ever make in a lifetime. This is a fact.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Do you have an article or something talking about this cleaner fuel? Toyota’s approach for a cleaner fuel is hydrogen, but that’s its own disaster due to all the issues with logistics and storage, among other things.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Thanks. This relies heavily on how well carbon capture technology works out. From what I’ve been reading, it’s pretty inefficient and expensive, at least currently. Whether it can scale is an open question. Additionally, burning this fuel will release whatever carbon was captured. This may help to slow down emissions, but better battery tech looks like it’ll go much further.

              • danielfgom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Batteries and their construction if at the moment a worse alternative. And involves slave labour.

                At least C02 is already naturally occurring. Btw, humans and plants need C02 to live. Without it we die …

                • hark@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Batteries and their construction come out ahead over the life of the vehicle. There is nothing about battery manufacturing that requires slave labour. You could make the slave labour claim about anything being manufactured. As for your CO2 points, those are repeats of oil industry propaganda. Based on your point, why even bother trying to capture carbon when CO2 is so great, right? It’s a matter of amount. We need water to live, but drinking too much water will kill you.