Submitted by HydrolicKrane t3_112888r in technology
Bojackhoman t1_j8mq0cy wrote
Reply to comment by orphf13 in EU lawmakers approve effective 2035 ban on new fossil fuel cars by HydrolicKrane
How are you so sure there's a 0% chance? I said the MAY be, not are the best way. Any ban hurts technology progress. ICOs might make a comeback from some amazing discovery. Obviously not likely but still.
I agree my arguments are weak and don't seem to hold up. (I eyed on some studies just now).
orphf13 t1_j8quhtp wrote
I understand basic physics and I'm an engineer in the automotive space. It's pretty easy to tell that ICE has writing on the wall (ICE by the way, ICO isn't a thing).
We've basically worked out every possibility for the ICE. Efficiency is theoretically limited, we know what it's limited to, and we're pretty damn close to that. It's provably impossible to progress on efficiency, and even if we did, they would still be putting out more carbon and NOx than any xEV.
Hydrogen ICE still produces NOx, eFuels require an abundance of clean green energy to be even remotely worth it and those are basically the two paths forward for the ICE. For commuting and medium distance, BEVs are the clear winner, they're also just more profitable than ICE cars, and as more models become available, cheaper for consumers too, so everyone's going to switch anyway.
This ban is enhancing tech progress, as we'll be adopting and improving a clearly superior technology faster with the ban than having to wait for consumers to decide while we continue to pass of the costs of using carbon emitting fuels to the next generations (when they'll have to deal with climate catastrophes rather than advancing tech as a functional society).
Bojackhoman t1_j8qyopy wrote
Thanks for a nice summary, although I disagree with your last point. But does not really matter. To me you just named all the reasons a ban is not needed, the EV tech seems superior in it self.
orphf13 t1_j8r1o7r wrote
It’s called a consumer protection law. If a climate catastrophe happens and we go to war over what resources are left, that would be detrimental to human technological advancement.
There’s no possible way to advance the tech, so bans direct resources to things that will help.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments