Should Petroleum-Powered Vehicles and Stoves Be Banned?

[Physics-Man]

Yes

No

[razelove]

Even the batteries we have now are nonsense, the energy loss in charging and discharging is pretty high. We'd be better off using induction coils in roads and highways. There would be some power loss, but it wouldn't be as bad, with zero charging. Maybe use some capacitors to hold small amounts of power for highway and city vehicles, use batteries or natural gas for rural vehicles.

You don't have to change engines or anything, just have the gas blowing into the air intake with your heating coil or radiator going through the part aerating the LNG so the part doesn't freeze.

The roads would be expensive for induction coils, the cars would be about as much as a gulf-cart with a more extensive fiberglass shell and transmission.

[Avicenna]

That would be insane. Only a corrupt totalitarian regime would do that.

[Siri137]

No. What possible reason could there be to ban them? We have plenty of fossil fuels in the ground, and we should (to quote the greatest man alive, who in turn was quoting Sarah Palin), "Drill Baby Drill"! The resources are there just waiting for us; we should take them and use them, and if any nutty "environmentalists" get in our way, we should just squash them in our petrol-guzzling 4WD's.

[Siri137]

Thanks for the MHO! :)

[kobeni]

there's a million petroleum based things. the answer isn't to ban, it's to incentivize innovation and put stresses on bad behavior

[WanderingLoveWizard]

Well at least you're using half your brain. But there's still no solid evidence that fossil fuels are harmful to the environment to the extent that would cause us any future problems, like climate change.
Real evidence I mean. Not politically charged horseshit from paid off activists.

[Astarlessnightsky]

Sure, in the long term.

However we should have started it in the 1970s/1980s... what currently being done is bullshit.

There is no real alternative,

every new car has already a giant CO2 footprint, just from the rescources gathered, transported and refined and building process, so its always best to drive the car 20~30~40 years until it falls apart and can no longer be repaired.

Also instead of switching to just other type of cars, there should be general switch towards less cars, and other modes of transportation.

[MysteriousDarkness]

@Astarlessnightsky
What would be the other modes of transportation?

[Astarlessnightsky]

Train, Metro, Tram, Bus, Bike, Just walking, Car sharing, ...

[Astarlessnightsky]

The Problem is, the cities are built for cars and for cars only, espacially in the US.

So we need a total rebuilding of cities, to be able to ditch the car and use the alternative.

[bolverk]

Not everyone can afford to do without them, or in the case of stoves the buildings they live in might not have the wiring to cope with electric hobs, and all that will happen is that people in those properties will go back to charcoal fired stoves or wood burners with the dangers that they bring Carbon Monoxide etc.

As for replacing Petroleum-Powered Vehicles I do not see that happening before the end of my life time, especially in rural areas tractors and other plant will remain diesel powered for sometime to come even though JCB have developed a Hydrogen IC power plant which is comparable to its current diesel equivalent.

[lightbulb27]

Yes, everyone ride bicycles. I'm good with it. Leave the petroleum in the ground and lets have the greatest of depressions and starve many to death... due to lack of fertilizer. it will solve a lot of problems fast, notably obesity...

it will be very bad for insects, we'll be eating them...

[Kinkyhubby]

Climate change is a big hoax, that makes billions of dollars. The planet has always gone threw ot own changes threw centuries. Electric cars are no better. Look at the damage of mining. To get the precise metals need. Looks what happen when it goes on fire. The amount of fuel need to mine those metals, amd still need to produce the electric to charge the car. Look at the replacement cost of the batteries. It is all bullshit

[najekim]

People will always need vehicles. And petroleum based vehicles will be around until the vehicle manufacturers figure out how to get EV's traveling the same distance (400+ miles) and fully re-charging the batteries in the same amount of time it takes as filling the tank.

[BCA6010]

"Protecting the environment and public health" is pure nonsense. This is 100% about controlling people and restricting mobility, which is why they lie about both constantly, and set absurd goals that couldn't be reasonably achieved in double the time even if we committed everything towards it.

[ohsheeT]

I think if we were smart we would does electric there's also ammonia that is going to be coming out and that's the thing to start buying right now stock wise because they've already tried it in big diesel rigs they've already tried it in luxury lighter ships airplanes it's just a matter of time before they get it all together

[stepyo99]

They're only going to be banned for us plebs. US hegemony runs on oil so you can bet the military-industrial complex and the elites won't have to abstain the tiniest bit. That's why they fly their private jets to Davos each year to talk about how much the underlings should be sacrificing to save their beach houses from flooding.

[purplepoppy]

Way too soon for that. Until alternative power sources have their flaws ironed out we're stuck with petrol.

[Likes2drive]

No just manage the fuel emissions better for pollution reasons, they still run power plants with it , until solar and wind power and better batteries are made we can’t get rid off it , we always need an alternative for energy not just electricity

[Anonymous]

No, we don't have the infrastructure in place yet and EVs are still too expensive for many. It took over a century to build up a Petroleum Based Economy. It will take a long time to phase out most Petroleum. Were still going to have Developing Countries turning to Cheaper Sources of energy.

[Staximus]

Only an idiot would think this. They are burning oil to make electricity at most generating stations. The power then has to be sent over the power lines for many miles, and there is a thing called electrical resistance. It probably takes more oil to make the electricity and sent it to your house for you to use for your stove and car then it would to just burn it yourself. Nuclear power is on the way out, so it's oil burning until they figure out something better.

[humanearth]

No, I think they should go back to making them run on almost any kind of fuel.

Yes cars and trucks from the 1950s and older could run on anything

[SnowedIn]

Not until there's an alternative that people can have.

[Jltakk]

Not until we install a light rail system, bring back corner stores on every town, and have a functioning national high speed railway system across every city. UNTIL ALL OF THAT HAPPENS, petrol powered vehicles are staying.

[BoopBoopBeep]

How do you address the "last mile problem" if you think rail systems are a viable solution? I still need to get from the train station to wherever.

[Agape93]

... walk?

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Agape93 In the rain carrying stuff for a briefing with the elderly and infirm beside me? Or in 100F degree heat index? Or in the inner city where I'll have to worry about getting mugged? Failure to fix "the last mile" is why rail systems fail.

[Agape93]

Our ancestors managed walking much longer distances with more chances of animal attack, mugging, murder or dying of exposure. If you are that concerned about walking to a train station in your own area, it's time to move.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Agape93 I'm not transporting 6 figures of equipment on foot through Detroit at night. I don't expect my elderly mother to walk a from a train station to her doctor. I don't expect my wife to walk from her job downtown in ANY major U. S. city to a train station at 9, 10 o'clock at night.

If I move out in the sticks then there's no rail there, or do you plan on connecting not only the cities and towns, of which there are over 54,000 in the U. S. but all the agricultural and rural areas as well? Do you honestly not see the logistics difficulty in that? Plus it would take days to get anywhere with all the stops you'd have to have along the way as opposed to a direct route. Or are we going to have a half million trains and routes going on there too? All run by unicorn sweat and leprechauns I suppose?

[Agape93]

Cry me a river. Humans did that and more for thousands of years. Choosing to stay in a shithole means you lost any right to complain about its issues.

Mom can't get to a train? She can move or find a closer doctor.

You having hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment, I'm Detroit, you'll get robbed anyways. Bad choice to stay there.

Wife walking alone? That I can understand. But if her safety is so damn important to you, why are you still in DETROIT?

All I'm hearing are excuses.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Agape93 See the difference is, YOU want a rail, people are saying I won't use one until these are fixed. You don't fix them, they don't use it, then you complain that they aren't being used.

On the other hand, I don't care if there's a rail or not. Makes no difference to me if anyone uses the ones that DO exist, so I don't have a problem to find a solution for.

Our ancestors shat in shallow holes in the dirt, too. That's not a compelling argument.

Ok, so I personally don't live in a shitebox like Detroit, but someone will always live there. Or you want there to be a rail system AND you want to abolish all major cities? I mean we can go down that route too. I want cheeseburgers to be healthier than vitamins and grow on trees so I can pluck one on my way to work. And they're steaming hot the whole time.

[Agape93]

Where on earth did I say I wanted a rail? Sounds like you need to chill out with your weird ass rant

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Agape93 Uhm, when you originally offered up "walk" when i mentioned the last rail problem. If neither of us want a rail then this seems pointless.

Also my weird ass rants are way weirder than this.

[Agape93]

That in no way indicated my stance. It was a direct response to your comment

"How do you address the "last mile problem" if you think rail systems are a viable solution? I still need to get from the train station to wherever." In which walking is a valid response.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Agape93 Fair enough. Cheers mate. Pint on me.

[Agape93]

Cheers 🍻

[Dargil]

Those who want to ban them should stop using them by example.

[Googlemyahoo]

What will they say when they ban them and carbon still increases. Its a naturally occurring element.

[LiamJHayden]

What would be the point? The energy for electric vehicles and stoves will be produced in large part by fossil fuels anyway.

[Surely]

Only when something better and less polluting comes along. Until then, make efficient us of what we have available.

[Quigly]

According to the science, getting rid of petroleum vehicles would not have a measurable affect on climate change.