Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#61

Post by coderenegade »

FabCH wrote: post #54
cgyvbunji wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides Not really. The transmission is an e-CVT in hybrids which has no torque converter, the main part that breaks first in an automatic transmission. Unlike a regular CVT, the e-CVT has no belt, either. The e-CVT basically never breaks, so you basically never have a transmission go bad in a hybrid. On top of that, because the traction battery is so small, it's re…

Non-plugin hybrids are pointless in the context of the paper from the OP, since they don’t help with climate change.

The issue with ICEs is the fossil fuel part, not the engine part. Synthetic hydrocarbons and alcohols don't contribute to climate change at all. And alcohol fuels are both easy to make and about as good as hydrocarbons.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#62

Post by coderenegade »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #20
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, everything you post is borderline propaganda. There's probably a few people who'll keep their 2017 Mazda an little longer because of who the message is coming from. >Peak combustion vehicle sales was 2017. Peak oil was every year starting decades before I was born.

If you don’t like data and facts, I’m not for you. If you believe it’s propaganda, that’s firmly a you problem. My condolences. The data and facts stand regardless of your belief in them, like gravity. Comment as long as mods let you, doesn’t bother me in the sleightest. With all due respect, your thoughts and belief system are irrelevant to me. They are not data and facts, nor peer reviewed. Facts: Climate change is…

Fossil fuels contribute to climate change. Methanol is likely to power global shipping in the coming decades, and there's zero reason it can't also run cars. The reality is that hybrid vehicles have all of the same advantages that BEVs have, but they can also be refueled quickly without heavy reliance on centralized infrastructure. Aside from being the reason that we're all driving ICEVs in the first place, it's a compelling enough advantage that such vehicles will continue to be with us for a long time.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#63

Post by FabCH »

coderenegade wrote: post #56
FabCH wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. They have their benefits and are key to fighting climate change, but mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides. There is no way you are driving a 25 year old car without serious maintenance like exchanging the timing belt. Add the frequent oil changes and all other yearly maintenance and it does add up. Compared to a BEV, where you lit…

By the time you get to variable valve lift and timing, the complexity of hybrids is either a wash or in favor of the hybrid when compared to a traditional engine. Electronics have been integrated in vehicles for generations now, and going hybrid lets you get rid of components and reduce overall mechanical complexity. It's not "two separate systems", it's just the obvious endpoint for internal combustion engines (and…

You are not comparing complexity to an ICE though. You are comparing to a BEV.

A plug-in hybrid is a much more complex machine than a BEV.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#64

Post by FabCH »

cgyvbunji wrote: post #57
FabCH wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-plugin hybrids are pointless in the context of the paper from the OP, since they don’t help with climate change.

False, hybrids reduce fuel consumption and therefore emissions substantially, Toyota Sienna went from 22 mpg combined to 35 mpg combined when they switched it from gas to hybrid. Several wild claims from you today.

I stand by my statement. We have passed the point where burning fossil fuels more efficiently helps. If you think that is wild, you should see the wild_fires_ going on.

Going to 100 mpg is still strictly worse than a battery powered by renewables.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#65

Post by FabCH »

margalabargala wrote: post #55
FabCH wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you also need to top up the wiper fluid and clean the floor, but that and tire change is not even maintenance, it’s just part of „use“, no? I didn’t feel the need to mention something that everyone should be easily doing at home for the cost of materials alone.

Are you talking about rotating your tires? Most people do not purchase new tires and mount them onto their old rims, themselves, at home. Most people do not know how to set the bead on an automotive tire. Replacing worn out tires with new ones is no less difficult maintenance than replacing brake pads.

Both, I guess. But fine, rotating tires and changing seasonal tires at least is something every car owner should be able to do.

Either way, you need to do both on both ICE and BEV equally.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#66

Post by FabCH »

coderenegade wrote: post #61
FabCH wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-plugin hybrids are pointless in the context of the paper from the OP, since they don’t help with climate change.

The issue with ICEs is the fossil fuel part, not the engine part. Synthetic hydrocarbons and alcohols don't contribute to climate change at all. And alcohol fuels are both easy to make and about as good as hydrocarbons.

True. But we don’t have enough synthetic hydrocarbons for the current most important usage: jet fuel.

Might as well drive a quiet, renewable powered electric vehicle and let the jets use the synth.

Or take the train.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#67

Post by coderenegade »

FabCH wrote: post #66
coderenegade wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with ICEs is the fossil fuel part, not the engine part. Synthetic hydrocarbons and alcohols don't contribute to climate change at all. And alcohol fuels are both easy to make and about as good as hydrocarbons.

True. But we don’t have enough synthetic hydrocarbons for the current most important usage: jet fuel. Might as well drive a quiet, renewable powered electric vehicle and let the jets use the synth. Or take the train.

If we're talking synthetic fuels, you'd probably run cars on methanol rather than a hydrocarbon. Planes absolutely need kerosene, but cars can claw back most of the performance of petrol with alcohol fuels, and methanol is the simplest and cheapest to make. Certainly shipping seems to be going this way.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#68

Post by BrenBarn »

thelastgallon wrote: post #44
SoftTalker wrote: post #26

The fact of the matter is that the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them. As for me, no way am I trading my 20 year old, fully paid for, cheap to insure, cheap to register ICE vehicle for a new EV with payments, higher insurance, and higher registration fees.

> The fact of the matter is that the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them. This is what I used to think for decades, people are rational and they make purchases based on costs/efficiency. I learnt thats not how the world works. Humans don't work that way, they buy for emotional reasons, status, what they've bought before (the power of defaults, familiarity), signaling identity (…

What makes economic sense isn't necessarily the same as what is rational. All of what you said is factored into people's notion of "economic sense". My main takeaway from that is that we can induce people to do better things with arguments and nudges outside of "pure" economic incentives.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#69

Post by tpm »

coderenegade wrote: post #61
FabCH wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-plugin hybrids are pointless in the context of the paper from the OP, since they don’t help with climate change.

The issue with ICEs is the fossil fuel part, not the engine part. Synthetic hydrocarbons and alcohols don't contribute to climate change at all. And alcohol fuels are both easy to make and about as good as hydrocarbons.

> Synthetic hydrocarbons and alcohols don't contribute to climate change at all.

If you are able to manufacture them in a completely emissionless way. That requires huge energy input though. Certainly has its uses, but too expensive for personal cars I'd think.

What I think would make sense is to use methanol as a seasonal energy store in temperate climates. Manufacture from PV in summer, burn in winter.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#70

Post by coderenegade »

FabCH wrote: post #63
coderenegade wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time you get to variable valve lift and timing, the complexity of hybrids is either a wash or in favor of the hybrid when compared to a traditional engine. Electronics have been integrated in vehicles for generations now, and going hybrid lets you get rid of components and reduce overall mechanical complexity. It's not "two separate systems", it's just the obvious endpoint for internal combustion engines (and…

You are not comparing complexity to an ICE though. You are comparing to a BEV. A plug-in hybrid is a much more complex machine than a BEV.

This is what the person that I was responding to wrote, and it's objectively wrong:

>Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. They have their benefits and are key to fighting climate change, but mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides.

Also, much more complex is a value judgement. Complex in what way? High voltage electronics isn't exactly "not complex", and the coolant loops in BEVs are more complex than those in regular cars, because the tolerances are tighter.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you mean mechanical complexity, but even then, that's not a given for ICEs. Gas turbines can have as little as one moving part, and there are piston engines that can get away with as few as four (the piston-conrod-crankshaft assembly and a compressor wheel).

At the end of the day, a good design has the minimum amount of complexity necessary to perform a given task, and no more. Given that BEVs are fundamentally unable to replace ICEVs in several niches (e.g. those relying on on-street parking, off-roading), maybe a little more complexity is warranted? As is, they aren't a 1:1 replacement for a standard car, and that's okay, but they're being marketed as such which is a recipe for failure.

Post reply on HN