>>13636330Wrong faggot. If we had efficient engines, it would maximize energy usage. The amount of oil consumed as a result would be far less, because you'd get more out than in. Petroleum is very energy dense, but approximately 80% of all energy from combustion is lost in heat dissipation. The remaining 20% is what makes the engine's piston turn and work. If you could get to 50% efficiency on an ICE car for example, instead of filling out up your tank every week, you'd fill it up every month. If you could get to 80% efficiency, you'd fill up your tank once every 2-3 months. That would mean, for the oil barons, the amount of energy extracted from the ground is a magnitude order less. Instead of 10-100Bn in speculation, you'd be looking at 1-10Bn in speculation.
Its literally in their best interest that vehicles are as inefficient as fucking possible and constantly need to be refilled. There's at least a dozen different ICE piston designs over the past two to three decades that have tried to come to market, but have been bought by car companies and shelved because it would impact the petroleum market bottom line AND would reduce car sales. More efficient engines means less wear and tear. Less wear and tear means infrequent servicing, which is less profits for car companies who make majority of their profits from service offerings.
Its all tied together. That's why BEVs are such a major threat to oil and car companies and why the bugerland presidency does everything in its power to ignore Tesla while favoring the ICE incumbents, even though they are the least likely to succeed given their massive supply chains and dealer networks all enshrined around perpetuating the petroleum lobby over BEV products.
