Comments by "Psiberzerker" (@Psiberzerker) on "Why Synthetic Fuel Could Replace Electric Cars" video.

  1. "Synthetic Fuel" implies that gas, diesel, ethanol, and ATF (Aviation Turbine Fuel) are natural fuels. They aren't, they're derived from natural mineral deposits, but so is polyethylene. How "Natural" something is has nothing to do with how "Clean" it burns, and EVS have a lot of pollution associated with them, even if the Lithium Ion batteries don't catch fire, and burn the whole car. Honestly, for political, and economic reasons, we're having the wrong conversation here. Everyone wants a Porcshe, but the device you're reading this on got shipped to your city in several stages of inter-continental freight. That's what we need to clean up first. Just assuming you get your 100% green German engineered supercar, and drive it guilt free. How many barrels of Bunker is burned to get it to your dealer when you pick it up? Bunker, incidentally, is one of the most "Natural" fractions, used in container ships, and the like. (It's basically waste oil after you distil the profitable fractions like gas, and diesel, so it's cheap AF.) It also burns like coal.
    1
  2. While we're trying to sell each other Top Gear cars, none of us is ever going to buy, nobody's talking about Concrete, to drive it on. Asphalt, you know how clean, and green Paving is? So great, maybe some day you'll have half a million dollars to buy a supercar, and drive it on the pavement which is about 38% of global warming. (At least the Synthetic portion of it.) The heat that all that carbon dioxide, and water vapor is absorbing isn't coming directly from the sun. It's coming from pavement, and rooftops warmed by the sun. (At least over cities, and highways, where most of the automotive emissions are concentrated.)
    1