6 ms·
I see your point, my mistake. However there are still many arguments to be made for this strategy. First of all, in terms of carbon capture it is much easier to
by clvcooke 9y ago
I see your point, my mistake. However there are still many arguments to be made for this strategy. First of all, in terms of carbon capture it is much easier to capture carbon at a factory then on a boat, or any mobile vehicle for that matter. Secondly, arguing that diesel is equal is ignoring that diesel needs to be transported to and from the fueling station, and extracted from the ground, this should be factored into it's emissions (I'm not sure how). As far as I know moving electricity is far easier than moving liquid fuel, as long as you are in a preexisting industrial zone.
So I do agree, perhaps on a pure emissions standpoint they may be more equal than most think, however in terms of environmental impact batteries seem to be able to cater to technological advances (carbon capture and better manufacturing with scale) much better than diesel (which you NEED to burn to use).
- jernfrost 9y agoRefining oil also requires substantial amounts of power. From what I’ve read the power to refine a litre of gasoline e.g. requires as much power as an electric car would need to go the distance 1 litre of gasoline gives you.
- bonesss 9y agoIf refining 1 liter of gas took the energy potential of 1 liter of gas then we wouldn't be dominated by the petroleum industry... The chemical energy storage in hydrocarbons is stupid efficient compared to the alternatives. Oil refining is very energy intensive, but gasoline production is highly energy positive. Interestingly: atomic process heat for refining could tae a huge chunk of CO2 off our roadways and also improve oil production numbers significantly (20%-ish).