Are we witnessing the beginning of the end for the internal combustion engine and thus oil refineries?

Question

The UK's national and local governments are actively proposing legislation to heavily penalise gas guzzling vehicles to encourage greater use of more environmentally friendly forms of transport such as electric or combo engines.

Answer 1

I sure hope we are. we are killing the planet off

Answer 2

Something has to power the electric motors of electric cars and that has to come from somewhere. Charging batteries is an hideously wasteful use of mains power. You could charge the batteries with solar cells but you would need to half cover the roof of your house with solar cells to do it, on a good day. On a cloudy day you would not get enough power.

The overall energy efficiency of hybrid cars is very suspect because of the necessary wasteful charging of batteries and the weight of batteries that have to be moved around. Their overall environmental friendliness is also suspect because of the lead in the batteries.

By far the best alternative to petrol/gasoline engines is the Diesel engine, which improves fuel economy by 25 to 30%. There are less obvious savings too because it takes less crude oil to make a quantity of Diesel fuel than it does to make the same quantity of gasoline/petrol.

A lot of people blather on about biodiesel fuels but the reality is that if all the farmland in the USA was turned over to growing suitable oil-bearing plants to fuel the US transport system, no food could be grown and the population would starve. However such vegetable oils can be added to Diesel fuels at say 5% to 10% without major changes to the design of most Diesel engines. This could extend the life of petroleum resources a bit.

What is likely to happen is that petrol/gasoline and Diesel fuel will get more and more expensive. This will mean that fewer and fewer people will be willing to drive about the place and most will not want to drive 40 miles or more to get to work. It also means that some forms of commerce like highly centralised supermarkets and shopping malls will become uneconomic because people will not be able or willing to drive to them.

Answer 3

Shouldnt think so but the internal combustion engine doesnt need fossil fuels to run, many years ago there was an invention which using a chemical reaction split water in to hydrogen and oxygen simple really its been used in space flights since the 60's however the oil companies bought the rights to the device for some staggering amount of money, then there was a guy in the usa who made the same invention although a different way he refused to sell the rights and was "elimintated" theses companies are talking big money here and anothe reason why this has been kept secret is by governments , they have known about this for years, but how would they collect revenue from a fuel that is available from virtually anywhere ! if this technology was available you could simply catch rain water and fill your car up

Answer 4

----------------
We have been waiting for this to happen for a long time, but it will not happen overnight.
*
Electric cars are our best hope for the future. An electric vehicle is not a 100% solution to pollution, but it comes closer than any of the other alternatives. Below are some facts most people don't know about EVs.
*
First of all, the EV is the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle - any fuel can be turned into electricity!
*
Secondly, the electric vehicle is the most efficient way to use any fuel source - because electric motors are about 95% efficient. Contrast this with an internal combustion engine, which is only 25% efficient. Fuel cells are only 25% -50% efficient.
*
Greater efficiency means that an EV can travel further on the same amount of fuel. This means that, no matter what kind of fuel is burned at the powerplant, less pollution per mile will be made by an EV than by any other type of car.
*
Plus, not all powerplants use dirty fuel! Less than 3% of electricity is made from oil, for instance. About 50% is made from coal, which is very dirty. But modern powerplants can burn coal at up to 85% efficiency, so the maximum power can be derived from the smallest possible amount of fuel.
*
Electric cars are also the only type of vehicle that fuels by wire (the electric grid is also very efficient, better than 95%.) Other cars must have fuel delivered by inefficient and polluting trucks to thousands of gas stations.
*
Also, gasoline requires large amounts of electricity to refine. Fuel cells need even more electricity to make hydrogen. Why bother making the fuel? Why not just use that SAME electricity to power an electric car?
*
Did you know you could be driving an electric car for as little as $5000 that looks, handles, and accelerates like a normal car - and saves the average driver $100 or more per month in gasoline costs? Details here:
*
http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car
---------------

Answer 5

Absolutely not! Alot of the alternate forms of fuel out there are being used in an internal combustion engine. Ethenol, bio deisel, cooking oil. Not to mention just because huge taxes are being leveied againt the gas guzzeling vehicles doesn't mean people will stop buying them. In the US SUV sales are still quite strong out pacing all other cars. Alsot the hybrid cars out there use internal combustion engines to charge their batteries. No, the internal combustion engine is here for quite some time. Thus oil refineries will still be around for quite awhile longer

Answer 6

Not a chance. Like it or not, the huge existing infrastructure supporting the internal combustion engine will be here for the foreseeable future. The amount of oil available seems to be dependent on the price per barrel. If the price goes high enough, someone will be squeezing petroleum from sea water.

I think incentives to drive more economical cars are good for two reasons: smaller engines do emit less particulate matter and greenhouse gases. Second, less demand does limit dependence on foreign oil imports. This is true of both the UK and the US.

Answer 7

we all realise teh oil reserves are, well, minimal to say the least. we use crude oil for so many other processes, as well as running your car engine.

when the oil stops, wars will start. #

and when the oil runs out completely were all up the creek sans paddle. so, making it go further seems to be the sensible option. but motorists have always been squeezed to help fill the govt coffers and this will be no exception. the difference being of course the oils going... and before it runs out we have to find a way of maufacturing a replacement synthetic...

or life as we know it, wil be all over in the blink of an eye...how long do you think society will, nay, can survive without the infernal combustion engine and electricity...

Answer 8

For Sure. Eventually.
Whatever political humming and ha-ing goes on. Chinese and overall global demands are escalating. World Oil reserves are finite, increasingly regarded as on the verge of near total depletion.
It's not an If question. I go for 10-20 years. The stuff under the melting arctic ice sheet could boost things for a while longer, as long as Global Warming can be effectively 'weathered', or turns out to be a bit of an anticlimax.
Oil and internal combustion engines are not necessarily linked, alternative hydrocarbon energy molecules; like ethanol can be used.
But I would agree that ultimately electrical powered engines seem more advanced than the controlled explosion of internal combustion.

Answer 9

The end may not be as close as you think.

During WW2 Germany got part of the way to producing oil from coal.

During Apartheid, South Africa perfected it - the technoly exists.

But it's more expensive to produce fuel from coal rather than crude.

Coal mining is dangerous as well, but there's enough deposits left to last thousands of years.

This is one reason I tend to favour nuclear power - I'm no scientist but i believe the environmental impact would be the least damaging of all the alternatives, unless we can get renewables working (wind/waves etc) more effectively.

Answer 10

enable's analyze both. A majority of individuals imagine the inner combustion engine is an priceless and strong product and they use it daily. A majority of individuals do not practice homosexuality. in truth, in accordance to Gary Gates on the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation regulation and Public coverage at U.C.L.A, in holding with 5 diverse study, purely a million.7% of yank adults perceive themselves as homosexuals. maximum individuals do not see the inner combustion engine (or ingesting milk - as really an similar question replaced into listed in yet another of your posts) as being a morale difficulty. maximum individuals of individuals do evaluate marriage as an ethical difficulty. In each and every state the position a "gay marriage" bill has been voted on by the individuals, "marriage" has been defined as between a guy and a lady. None of those votes replaced into even close! maximum individuals of individuals are adverse to permitting gay marriage, and that is in holding with moral motives. even as the inner combustion engine may not be organic, it isn't morally unnatural! that is organic for adult adult males to apply their minds and abilities to invent and construct equipment to assist consisting of his daily projects. In which have, hence, the engine is a organic use of those skills to reason and construct! "gay marriage" and engines (or ingesting milk) are literally not equivalent issues, hence, this isn't a valid evaluation.

Answer 11

Even if the internal combustion engine disappeared tomorrow, oil refineries would keep going. They produce ALL petrochemical base products, including the plastic of your keyboard.