• GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would you say that burning fossil fuels is a sustainable solution?

    When stacked against each other, I find it kind of baffling that you would lean towards the combustion-based variant.

    • mr_washee_washee@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      well dont necessarily use diesel, use high octane fuel instead, methanol, biofuel, anything, ice cars are now way efficient than ever…but mining cobalt and lithium is way harmful…also cars arent the most harmful transportation invention in this world: how about airlines? have u ever considered taking a train instead of flying (especially country bound ?) (i always forget that i am commenting in c/fuckcars… i should consider unsubscribing from here; hating solely on cars is pointless)

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot to unpack here.

        well dont necessarily use diesel, use high octane fuel instead, methanol, biofuel, anything,

        They are all pretty bad ways of powering motors, to be honest.

        ice cars are now way efficient than ever…

        And yet they are far inferior to electric motors. Combustion necessarily comes with the lions share of the energy being wasted as heat.

        but mining cobalt and lithium is way harmful…

        It’s not great, but then again, neither is the extraction of fossil fuels from the ground. From what I can tell, it’s actually far worse than the metal extraction we’re doing.

        Consider that you may have fallen for fossil fuel industry propaganda that is trying their very best to cling on to their last years of high profits.

        also cars arent the most harmful transportation invention in this world: how about airlines?

        Apples and oranges. I’m not even really sure why you’re bringing it up.

        have u ever considered taking a train instead of flying (especially country bound ?)

        The vast majority of my long-distance traveling is done by train. My last international trip was by train, in fact! If only we invested more in trains, and stopped subsidizing flying. I love traveling by train, and I’m not exactly a fan of flying.

        always forget that i am commenting in c/ fuckcars… i should consider unsubscribing from here; hating solely on cars is pointless)

        I don’t think most people in here are solely hating on cars. They are bad, though, and that’s kind of the topic. There are other communities for hating on other harmful things in our world.

      • ssorbom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately, I say this as a train lover. They require a lot more infrastructure than planes and will always be at a disadvantage because of that. You can set up an airport pretty much anywhere and make it reachable by pretty much anyone. Whereas with the train, you need a dedicated line from point to point that you will commit to maintaining through hell and high water.

        There’s also the problem that in many countries, we are deliberately neglecting our train infrastructure and not investing in high speed alternatives that could compete with an airline over shorter distances.

        All of these factors combine to make individual trips less efficient over train. I had to cross the United States this week. To do so by train would have taken me 4 days. Doing so by plane took me 6 hours. Nobody would choose a 4-day trip over a 6-hour one unless their goal is to look out the window a lot. Which is perfectly valid. But most people don’t look at traveling itself as the experience. And in this case, I had a particular event that I had to attend.

        • mr_washee_washee@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          4 day trips need to be normalized: our capitalistic lords have made us more accepting of fast living: an average flight consommes about 7 tons of kerosene per flight, and release 3 times as much of co2 in mass, ie 20 tons, per single flight. travel by train albeit slow, but releases way less greenhouse gas. train or airplane infrastrucuture cost comparison: only an expert consultant could wager which one of both is less costly. ever wondered why we retire at 65 on average? u would say with all the efficiencies implemented in transport and the extra work time we put we would retire earlier, yet, we only work more in older age. something is missing in the loop