Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 23:37:13



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,


Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 02:33:12

Banning things rarely if ever works. I can't think of an example of the successful banning of anything besides perhaps chlorofluorocarbons, for which viable replacements were already available, that still took decades.
SeaGypsy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 03:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 06:30:12

All those bans can and probably be repealed when the number of EVs gets high enough to strain the electric grid and it's fuel supplies.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby MD » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 10:40:51

Every time there is noise of new gun bans, sales jump significantly...
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 12:55:43

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.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 15:30:38

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.

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.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 15:39:24

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.

I would call that an EXCELLENT start.

That amount would hopefully be enough to be noticeable to everyone but the rich, and change a lot of behavior, without wrecking the economy.

And if that doesn't do it -- then, IMO, announcing a series of planned $1 gasoline/diesel tax increases (say once every two years or so) until it DOES do the trick would be the next step.

Hopefully, by the time gasoline was truly getting painfully expensive, HEV's, PHEV's, and BEV's would be available (and chosen) in large enough numbers to have made enough difference to have the adoption curve at a truly meaningful level.

(And again, tax credits for the truly poor or some kind of income tax credit could be used to offset some of this if it began to hurt the economy in a meaningful way).

But since this would take a meaningful amount of political courage/leadership -- I don't see it happening in the US anytime soon. Western Europe has done this and more already, of course (in terms of the pricing of gasoline and diesel).
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 16:16:33

I expect you would have to phase it and the tax credits in slowly, say a dime every six months. Otherwise you would never find the political will to pass it and you would create a rush to economy and electric cars beyond what the car makers could meet.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 16:35:58

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.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4108
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 16:45:00

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.

I'm not. That's why I'm advocating a large, and if necessary, rapidly escalating CO2 tax on gasoline and diesel. I think if we proceed too slowly that we'll cook the planet for sure while we're waiting for things to change.

So if we don't do this, it's pray for the (in my opinion hopelessly over-optimistic) Tony Seba scenario, or the change is just too slow.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 17:24:06

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.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 17:42:14

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.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4108
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 18:50:11

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.

Only as long as there is fuel available to make them go. 8)
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby ralfy » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 20:43:53

ICEs are needed to make EVs.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 20:55:10

ralfy wrote:ICEs are needed to make EVs.

No they are not.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Pennzoil bill » Sat 11 Nov 2017, 13:15:54

I have a gut feeling that banning ICEs is another pie in the sky political stunt. I guarantee that if gasoline ever reaches $10 a gallon, electricity a KWh will not be far behind. Banning ICEs solves no problems but does make progressives happy in the same way Trump pisses them off.
Pennzoil bill
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2016, 11:33:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 11 Nov 2017, 13:33:27

vtsnowedin wrote:
ralfy wrote:ICEs are needed to make EVs.

No they are not.

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?
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby ralfy » Sat 11 Nov 2017, 21:36:39

vtsnowedin wrote:
ralfy wrote:ICEs are needed to make EVs.

No they are not.


They are used in various mining equipment, some energy sources for manufacturing, and many forms of transport, including container ships and trucks. They are even used in mechanized agriculture and to make more ICEs.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby ralfy » Sat 11 Nov 2017, 21:49:20

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?


Global industrial civilization is not only based on people driving around but on heavy equipment generally powered by diesel engines needed for mining, manufacturing, and transport to provide basic needs in general plus the materials and equipment needed for infrastructure for transport plus the vehicles themselves, including ICEs and EVs.

Theoretically, it is possible to completely move away from FF, but one study points out that that will take decades:

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-year ... il-2010-11

More important, it will require an increase in per capita ecological footprint, which current exceeds biocapacity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint

That's because the same EVs also need major development in infrastructure, from electric grids to roads. Much of both worldwide is underdeveloped.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 11 Nov 2017, 22:02:02

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.

So EV's can't drive on the same roads as ICE's? Sounds a bit odd to me.

In other words, don't blame the fact that the third world wants to build out to become the first world on EV's.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EdwinSm, Google Adsense [Bot] and 18 guests