https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/highway-interchange-ho...
Our cities were designed to be spread out to make them less susceptible to atomic weapons in the 1950's (not a joke).
So... Yes, we need cars. It really is a long way for many of us.
I agree that very common suburban and rural vehicles, respectively, are SUVs and pickup trucks. But I am curious what portion of urban drivers use a vehicle that most of the time far outclasses their average use case. I would like to find data on this but it seems to me like often people own a vehicle for the extreme outlier use case.
It's like condoms - better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Sometimes someone dies as an immediate result, and for some it means waiting for another 5 minutes.
I think non-fossil-derived synthetic fuels have the potential to become a major player in the overall transportation picture.
Liquid fuels have significant energy density advantages. Producing them synthetically should allow for removal of various impurities that cause pollution issues today. And not pulling them out of the ground would get around the non-renewable angle.
To be clear though, I think this situation is different from the big Ethanol push we've had in the Midwest the past 20 years.
Everything I've seen about Ethanol is that it is ridiculously inefficient in terms of inputs vs outputs and basically just exists as a subsidy program for farmers to ensure we have enough food supply to avoid ever having shortages.
But I think synthetic fuel could be a big thing in the coming years, particularly since all automobile infrastructure already centers around easily refillable liquid fuels.
IC and Fossil fuels still win out (particularly if you swap to gas turbine) but the numbers are much closer.