Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Efficiency sometimes has a large positive benefit at reducing consumption and sometimes doesn't. Home appliances/electronics have gotten more efficient over the years, and as a result, per capita electrical use has gone down slightly.
The thing is, if the entire US started driving 50 MPG cars instead of our (20 MPG?) vehicles, we'd what, forstall global warming by a couple months? Then as demand for fuel dropped and supply increased, the price would plummet. With relatively cheap fuel, other countries where most people don't own a vehicle would start buying them and driving.
I'd say that with global demand for petrol, reducing consumption in any 1 geographic location will do little to affect overall consumption in the long term.
That said, I'm all for efficiency for efficiency's sake. There's no point in consuming something needlessly.
|
The main premise for my thought is motivated by carbon reduction.
If we have the technology to reduce,or eliminate transportation CO2,it would be in accord with climate change challenges.
We don't have neighborhood 'Ice Men' going door to door any longer,to take care of food refrigeration needs.We've moved on.
EVs have the equivalence of an ICE with a BSFC of 0.15 lb/bhp-hr.That's an engineering coup if there ever was one.You'll NEVER get 'pistons' to do that.
From a purely 2nd-law of thermodynamics point of view,it's difficult to even argue for internal combustion.
We'll likely 'desire' petroleum until it's no longer economically recoverable.It doesn't mean we have to burn it though.It's just too precious to waste on a 4-wheeled blast-furnace which wastes 66% right off the bat.
We've got a home market.The dollars we lose every year on imported energy could be spent here,for our neighbors,helping to underwrite as gentle a transition as possible away from combustion.Jobs,albeit,different kinds.