Remundo wrote:in the world of transport, we will only be able to walk on 2 legs: thermal and electric.
Depriving oneself of one or the other will at best lead to failure, at worst lead to a downfall...
the French powers? They had their hour of glory, but we've only had bums at the top of the state for a while...
The government's com' dives headlong into the endless debate of imbeciles which opposes thermal to electric, like the European Union which dogmatically announced the end of thermal engines in 2035.
This is a false question, the real question is:how to decarbonize energy at large, and preferably be independent from abroad? In this game, neo-fuels have their say.
First, a question of vocabulary, if the term used is "decarbonize", this leads to the policy currently advocated by most scientific institutions, NGOs, governments since 2015: a real witch hunt aimed at the extermination of all thermal machines of "thermo-industrial civilization", as quickly as possible for the most excited or fanatical...
You should know that over the last ten years the Germans have coined a much less ambiguous neologism: "defossilize", which emphasizes the main problem: the fossil origin of carbon energies.
And which leaves the door open to non-fossil carbon energies, of biomass origin and purely synthetic.
It is these different variants of energy vectors, also including the direct use of electrical energy, hydrogen, that we must rely on.
As for proportions and geopolitics, the debate rages...
