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

81–90 of 93 posts

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

#81

Post by FabCH »

coderenegade wrote: post #70
FabCH wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 loo…

I don’t think that a single-moving-piece gas turbine powered cars are currently on the market? And how many are single piston? Go carts and motorcycles maybe, but cars?

And I was using complex as a shorthand for „more things to maintain“.

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

#82

Post by toomuchtodo »

coderenegade wrote: post #62
toomuchtodo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

If you would like bet how many methanol vs battery electric cars will be on the road in 2030, 2035, and 2040, I am happy to take the battery electric side of a Long Bet [1], with $10k to the winner's choice of 501c3 charity. Let me know. If battery electric vehicles are already 1/4th of global annual light vehicle sales, and there is ~20M-30M of battery electric vehicle manufacturing capacity globally, with no methanol vehicles on the road today, what does the future look like?

BYD intends to be the largest automaker in the world in five years, and makes EVs exclusively [2]. They have already surpassed Ford in international vehicle sales. Their flash charge charging system can charge the vehicle's battery from a 10% to 70% state of charge in five minutes, and from 10% to 97% in nine minutes. Fossil fuels for light vehicle use cases are dead, and the state of the art for EVs and charging will only continue to improve.

> 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.

Take a look how many refineries are left in the world. No new ones will be built, and the existing ones will only get enough investment to keep them operating. How quickly they are taken offline is how fast ICE vehicles are phased out, because you're not running your ICE vehicles without refined petroleum products [3] [4]. They are the weak link in the chain.

[1] https://longbets.org/

[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/byd-wa...

[3] https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/global-refinery-closure...

[4] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/One-in-Five-Refin...

> WoodMackenzie: A total of 101 out of 410 refineries around the world are at risk of getting shut down over the next decade. This number represented 21% of global refining capacity. Inflated operating costs of refineries are an especially important risk factor for future profitability as well as their investments in decarbonization.

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

#85

Post by margalabargala »

FabCH wrote: post #65
margalabargala wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not talking about a seasonal tire change. I'm talking about when your tires have 45k miles on them and you need to buy different ones. Surely you don't just throw out your rims when you get new tires?

You are aware that the lifespan of a tire is significantly less than the lifespan of the car, right? Have you owned a car and driven it for more than 50k miles?

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

#86

Post by anonymars »

unnamed76ri wrote: post #71
anonymars wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's an unreasonable claim for fossil fuels to account for the vast majority of air pollution deaths But apparently it is: I certainly didn't peg desert dust to be top spot. Anakin was right https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths

The comment I was replying to saying that almost all diseases and cancers are caused by it isn’t the same thing though. Disease and cancer has been around for a long long time before the use of fossil fuels.

I think "almost all diseases/cancers [that are] linked to pollution" is a much more likely read than "almost all diseases/cancers [are] linked to pollution"

Admittedly I did smush the two together so I'd have to rethink whether "all deaths [that are] linked to pollution" is as reasonable as "all deaths [that are] linked to air pollution" -- I suspect it probably still would be because of the sheer scale of fossil fuels, but regardless, desert sand still beats fossil fuels anyway

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

#87

Post by jeffbee »

anonymars wrote: post #86
unnamed76ri wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment I was replying to saying that almost all diseases and cancers are caused by it isn’t the same thing though. Disease and cancer has been around for a long long time before the use of fossil fuels.

I think "almost all diseases/cancers [that are] linked to pollution" is a much more likely read than "almost all diseases/cancers [are] linked to pollution" Admittedly I did smush the two together so I'd have to rethink whether "all deaths [that are] linked to pollution" is as reasonable as "all deaths [that are] linked to air pollution" -- I suspect it probably still would be because of the sheer scale of fossil fue…

My interpretation of the statement was that it means all kinds of these diseases are linked to air pollution, not all cases.

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

#88

Post by FabCH »

margalabargala wrote: post #85
FabCH wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not talking about a seasonal tire change. I'm talking about when your tires have 45k miles on them and you need to buy different ones. Surely you don't just throw out your rims when you get new tires? You are aware that the lifespan of a tire is significantly less than the lifespan of the car, right? Have you owned a car and driven it for more than 50k miles?

It seems to me you are not aware you can use dish soap and pry bar, wrench or screwdrivers to mount tires on rims. Enjoy:

https://youtu.be/CbDCDOs3Vr8

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

#89

Post by [deleted] »

FabCH wrote: post #64
cgyvbunji wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by margalabargala »

FabCH wrote: post #88
margalabargala wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about a seasonal tire change. I'm talking about when your tires have 45k miles on them and you need to buy different ones. Surely you don't just throw out your rims when you get new tires? You are aware that the lifespan of a tire is significantly less than the lifespan of the car, right? Have you owned a car and driven it for more than 50k miles?

It seems to me you are not aware you can use dish soap and pry bar, wrench or screwdrivers to mount tires on rims. Enjoy: https://youtu.be/CbDCDOs3Vr8

That's fine.

It seems me you think that what you linked is both common knowledge, and common to do one one's own. And maybe it is among your peer group! But we're talking about the.population at large here. It belongs in the same bucket as brake pad replacement.

Post reply on HN