• BehindTheBarrier@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s simple. We can go that way and effectively spend double the energy to drive a distance. I don’t think it’s exactly double but from 40% efficiency to 80% is the engine efficiency. So the number is just a simplification.

    Reducing energy use by 50% would mean less energy having to come from other sources. Which aren’t necessarily green today.

    Both solutions are improvements, but again, why go for the less efficient one when electricity is better?

    • bedrooms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Please stop talking about efficiency. It has nothing to do with net zero, nor with my point. If you don’t, I’ll treat you as someone purposefully misleading the discussion.

    • bedrooms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Honestly, are you guys payed by the lobbyists? Or are you guys copying and pasting some article downplaying efuels?

      I can’t find any other explanation on why you guys all fixate on efficiency although that doesn’t affect the net zero CO2 emission from efuels.

      And I have explained this like 100 times and somehow it always gets ignored, as if you people are doing strategic propaganda.