Should we ban gasoline engines?
Debate Rounds (5)
Also, the six stroke cycle developed by Crower increases the power of the engine by injecting water after the 4th stroke. This a) produces an incredible amount of power from the expansion of steam, b) eliminates the need for a heavy cooling system, and c) reduces the amount of fuel needed, which will reduce emissions.
Using CVT transmissions will also increase fuel efficiency, as the engine can always operate at its most-efficient rpm.
If shale oil is used, a limestone scrubber can be installed in the exhaust to convert the sulfur dioxide produced due to its high sulfur content into gypsum, which can be sold to drywall companies.
You're introductory argument is centered around only diesel engines as an alternative, which while better efficiently, you still rely on oil (you mention biofuels, on which I will cover later) and thus leaves me puzzled as electric motors relying on batteries which could theoretically be recharged with renewable sources of electricity such as wind and solar. Regardless of options that are much more environmentally friendly than diesel, problems lie in how such a ban would be enforced, implemented, and regulated, as well as economic issues lying within such a drastic shift.
The idea that a massive shift could take place in the United States is impractical. Whist I'm sure not all Americans are aware of exactly how much carbon emissions and other pollutants actually leave their tailpipes, however ignorance is bliss, and with the fact that diesel engines "exhale" very visible emissions, that's an instant turn off for a lot of people. Furthermore, if every car would have to utilize a diesel engine by your argument, the price of diesel would increase drastically, which in turn would drive the price of every single item shipped by truck up as well, including food and any biological substance used to create biodiesel. Such a price increase would cause wide spread panic, and more than likely would still rely on foreign oil to meet demand, granted our largest single oil importer is Canada (see source 1), which is an ally of the United States.
This reliance on oil defeats the purpose of banning an internal combustion engine which happens to use gasoline, a more readily available fuel(at this point in time). You also point out that biofuels could be used, while this is true, biofuels can also be used in gas engines as well, however the right biofuels must be used as different plants produce more payout for the energy put in compared to the energy output. The downside to relying heavily on biofuels comes with the downsides of an increasing global and domestic population. Land is needed to produce food, and when valuable land, or worse, valuable food is used to produce fuel, prices of food increases. Taking for example corn, which is a dreadful crop to use for production of biofuel as the energy input to output ratio is abysmal. Sugarcane and switchgrass are more viable options, but again, one runs into the dilemma of land. For more information on input/output ratios, I recommend you look at source 2.
While you've supported, or at least attempted to support the idea that gas engines should be banned simply because a more reliable option exists, you don't cover how such a ban could be, or would be implemented. Would cars, lawn mowers, generators, and other such items that rely on a gasoline engines, and already exist, become illegal to posses and/or operate? Would these items have to be retrofitted with diesel engines? What about hybrid cars that use both electricity and gasoline and have better efficiency than a diesel only powered car in the same or a similar price range? My point: banning something as widespread as a gasoline engine simply because a better alternative exists is impractical.
You're shale oil/high sulfur to gypsum argument is invalid as the diesel in the United States is mandated to have a low sulfur content, not to mention you would need to develop a method to harvest the gypsum from the streets as well as who has the right to sell said gypsum.
We could lower the taxes on petrodiesel, offer tax credits for the purchase of a diesel-powered vehicle, and other incentives.
We could convert all of our farmland to produce biodiesel. The excess biodiesel could be sold to finance food imports.
Why do you only favor diesel engines over much more environmentally friendly alternatives? An electric car, recharged with electricity provided by solar or wind power would be a much more suitable alternative than just using fossil fuels to replace fossil fuels.
The final idea that all farmland should be used to grow crops for biofuels (which gasoline engines can use as well) is absurd. The United States economy would fall in on itself, causing the entire world economy to fall in on itself. Agricultural products are the largest single export, perhaps only out exported by fuel in the past two years, of the United States (Sources 1 and 2), and thus, turning all farmable land from producing food for the world, but instead crops to convert into biofuel would lead to world wide starvation due to a shortage of suitable food. This shortage, while not only leading to a possible global starvation epidemic, would certainly cause not only a rise in food prices globally, but cause a dependency on nations that would provide us with food. I personally would find a food dependency a much more dyer problem than an oil dependency.
Circling back, banning gasoline engines simply because diesel engines is an impractical approach. It's like banning a budget computer because a better (though more expensive) computer exists and is better. By such logic we should ban diesel engines as well because electric cars produce no emissions, and while we're at it ban coal and natural gas because nuclear, wind, and solar power exist and are more efficient. Lets ban people form using an oven to make toast because a toaster does the task much quicker and much more efficiently.
If you want to do an improbably think like banning gasoline engines, diesel is not the way to argue for it.
Tax incentives can be offered to push alternative energies, and in the United States are offered on the federal level, and in some states, the state level as well. This reduces the cost as with any technology, early adopters get hit the hardest when it comes to price.
This only scratches the surface of what can and can't be done, but the topic is "Should we ban gasoline engines," not, "well if banning them is silly, whats your plan." Banning gasoline engines is an impractical step to reducing carbon emissions if you're only viable alternative (at least that you wish to push) is another engine powered by the same crude oil, just at a different state in refining, but I've said that many times now.
I'd really like to hear a well formed argument as to why it makes sense to just outlaw gasoline engines, as you have brought up good points, but argued on their behalf in a very under constructed way.
TSLexi forfeited this round.
TSLexi forfeited this round.
Taylor.Gregory forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Banning certain products is always bad
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.