Peak Oil News and Message Boards

A number of countries have stated their intention to ban the internal combustion engine (ICE) and shift to all electric vehicles in the next couple of decades. These announcements are encouraging on the surface. Governments are in favor of taking serious measures to reduce petroleum dependence and meet environmental goals. But using strong-armed approaches by barring one type of vehicle from consumers could spur a backlash and ironically increase ICE usage—and in turn delay peak oil demand—over the longer term. Using strong-armed approaches by barring one type of vehicle from consumers could spur a backlash and ironically increase ICE usage—and in turn delay peak oil demand—over the longer term. Peter Tertzakian, an energy economist for ARC Energy Institute, argued in recent commentary that even with bans put in place by every country in the world and deep penetration of EVs beyond 2030,

Outcast_Searcher wrote:In the coming decades, it's going to be about the relative economics of EV's vs. ICE's (assuming politicians continue to do little to nothing about a CO2 tax).

If gasoline prices rise meaningfully, I think HEV's could get a big boost. After all, they're becoming more and more readily available now, vs. projections of BEV's to come in X years -- and they offer pretty serious MPG boosts for often only $3,000 to $4,000. (So at $3 a gallon, saving 2000 gallons of gas over 8 years saves $6,000. At some point such numbers should matter in ICE's with 200,000+ mile expected average life spans.)

To me, what's dumb, is how little manufacturers make them attractive, re the dealers. Low inventory and few choices re the features customers want will steer customers toward the ICE, even as the companies' marketing might be touting the HEV. I don't know if this is the manufacturers' vault or the dealers' fault, or both -- but it is an example of how stupid it is not to have a meaningful CO2 tax -- which would really goose high mileage vehicle demand all by itself.

vtsnowedin wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:...

To me, what's dumb, is how little manufacturers make them attractive, re the dealers. Low inventory and few choices re the features customers want will steer customers toward the ICE, even as the companies' marketing might be touting the HEV. I don't know if this is the manufacturers' vault or the dealers' fault, or both -- but it is an example of how stupid it is not to have a meaningful CO2 tax -- which would really goose high mileage vehicle demand all by itself.

How about a $1.00 a gallon increase in the gas and diesel tax? I think that would accomplish as much as anything else we could do.

Subjectivist wrote:People are igniring that ICE replaced other modes of transport because the are cheaper and easier. Unless th next big thing is cleary cheaper and easier than ICE people will resist giving up what they have now.

Subjectivist wrote:People are igniring that ICE replaced other modes of transport because the are cheaper and easier. Unless th next big thing is cleary cheaper and easier than ICE people will resist giving up what they have now.

vtsnowedin wrote:

Subjectivist wrote:People are igniring that ICE replaced other modes of transport because the are cheaper and easier. Unless th next big thing is cleary cheaper and easier than ICE people will resist giving up what they have now.

When cars came in they were not cheap or easy. But they were better then a horse that could only go fifteen miles an hour for no more then four hours a day. They were also better then a rail car as they went all the way to your door and on your schedule not the railroads. Cars were not cheap or easy but they were clearly better. What replaces them will have to be better then ICE cars but if gas goes to $10 a gallon there will be better options.

Subjectivist wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:

Subjectivist wrote:People are igniring that ICE replaced other modes of transport because the are cheaper and easier. Unless th next big thing is cleary cheaper and easier than ICE people will resist giving up what they have now.

When cars came in they were not cheap or easy. But they were better then a horse that could only go fifteen miles an hour for no more then four hours a day. They were also better then a rail car as they went all the way to your door and on your schedule not the railroads. Cars were not cheap or easy but they were clearly better. What replaces them will have to be better then ICE cars but if gas goes to $10 a gallon there will be better options.

At $10/gal a moped engine mounted on a golf cart size car would still be a heck of a lot cheaper than a Chevy Bolt or whatever the next force fed EV idea is. That is why I say the ICE is not going anywhere, it has way too many advantages over the alternatives if you are willing to forego all the bells and whistles spoiled modern Americans demand in their car. Heck my first car was a frankenstein, I bought a body with no engine and installed an old motor my dad had in storage. My second car had niether a radio nor a working fuel gauge. A car is transportation, but folks today have forgotten that and are a long way down the road to beliving every car must have every electronic gizmo anyone can oack in the frame along with luxury bucket seats and Cadillac level suspense to eliminate the feel of driving through a pothole. As prices go up at some point utility vs luxury will once again become the crucial factor, and in that race the ICE is going to win hands down.

ralfy wrote:ICEs are needed to make EVs.

vtsnowedin wrote:

ralfy wrote:ICEs are needed to make EVs.

No they are not.

vtsnowedin wrote:

ralfy wrote:ICEs are needed to make EVs.

No they are not.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:And even if what you're saying is FF burning is (currently) required to make ICE's, so what? We shouldn't make the imperfect the enemy of the good. EV's are already significantly cleaner than ICE vehicles to run per mile, even if FF's generate the power. As the power mix moves toward green, the advantage tips more toward EV's. As more vehicles become EV's including buses, trains, short haul semi's (and hopefully in the longer run, long haul semi's with modular batteries or something similar), EV's look better and better re their life-cycle CO2 footprint.

(Electric long haul planes may not be practical. If we have to ban freight by air to clean up the environment -- so be it. It's not impossible -- and a big CO2 tax would be the right economic incentive if planes end up being the last hold-out).

And meanwhile, as I understand it, Tesla is striving to make its factories greener, re using lots of solar -- so that part of the carbon footprint, at least for Tesla, will get better. Hopefully green customers and economics will get the major auto-makers to do the same thing, as time goes on.

If we never did anything because it wasn't perfect on day one or the best thing we could imagine, we'd still be living in caves and die in our 20's -- as old age.

Imagine if no one would commit to building a computer until they were sure on day one that the result was an Iphone X for under $100. Now apply that thinking to EV's, and we have your attitude if they must not be built until NO engine involved in any part of their production is an ICE.

Now, why is that even REMOTELY rational or reasonable?

ralfy wrote:That's because the same EVs also need major development in infrastructure, from electric grids to roads. Much of both worldwide is underdeveloped.