Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on November 9, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Public Policy

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, the number of ICE vehicles in 2050 will be only slightly lower than today’s number.

BanningICECars

He argues that global petroleum demand will be impacted more by the retirement of ICE cars than the penetration of EVs. Another 950 million ICE vehicles will be on the road by the end of next. “ICE vehicles will continue to accumulate into the fleet in the tens-of-millions per year for at least a couple of decades,” Tertzakian writes. “And the accumulation is amplified by the reluctance of them to leave the fleet.”

“ICE vehicles will continue to accumulate into the fleet in the tens-of-millions per year for at least a couple of decades.”

The average lifespan of a vehicle is 13-17 years and cars last on average more than 200,000 miles. Those numbers could rise given that conventional vehicles are becoming more reliable and scrappage rates are declining. This means ICE vehicles bought today and in the next decade will be around for some time, underpinning oil demand.

Moreover, we don’t know how a ban would affect the behavior of owners of ICE vehicles. They may keep their vehicles in the system longer than if no ban is put in place. “Banning ICE vehicles may yield a scarcity backlash,” Tertzakian writes. “People may want used ICE vehicles, raising their values. Scrappage rates would fall, keeping a larger-than-expected number of them around for longer.”

Assuming every country halts the sale of ICE engines by 2040 is already a stretched assumption. Therefore, it makes better sense to continue to promote policies that lower barriers for consumers to purchase EVs. Consumers will respond to financial incentives, such as direct rebates and tax breaks, to entice them to buy EVs. Moreover, building sufficient infrastructure is also imperative, in order to provide motorists with flexibility and certainty about recharging.

Many economists argue that governments ought to provide people with incentives to make choices that will benefit themselves and society, while giving them the opportunity to choose otherwise, since mandates can distort the marketplace and precipitate a backlash. Consider a ban on ICE vehicles in the U.S. and how many consumers might recoil at having to give up the type of cars that they have driven for decades. Consumers’ personal biases may keep them from scrapping their traditional vehicles: Even with the numerous benefits of EVs, some segments of the population may be slow in adapting to them. EVs are competing with incumbent technology that has been around for about a century, making the turnover of the global fleet a staggering task. A mandate to ban ICE vehicles could make that transition more challenging.

EVs are competing with incumbent technology that has been around for about a century, making the turnover of the global fleet a staggering task.

Current incentives to boost EVs sales have worked during the transition period while battery costs are falling, automakers are rolling out new models, and charging infrastructure is being built. EV sales in Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, the United Kingdom, the U.S., and China have performed well as a result of government programs. On the flip side, EVs make up approximately one percent of total global sales, and sales could take a hit if government incentives are nixed.

While government enticements are important for the future of EVs, sales will continue to rise as they become cheaper and consumers fully understand the cost savings. In an aggressive forecast that is widely cited, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) sees EVs reaching more than 50 percent of new sales by 2040. However, in middle of next decade, they will still make up less than 10 percent. Any ICE vehicles purchased during the 2020s may still be on the road in the 2040s even as EVs see a rapid increase in market share. As Terkazian points out, even with an entirely different landscape due to EVs becoming a greater part of the fleet, there is essentially no way to avoid the fact that ICE vehicles will be around for a very long time.

energy fuse



38 Comments on "Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire"

  1. makati1 on Thu, 9th Nov 2017 6:09 pm 

    More fantasy from the tech addicts.

  2. makati1 on Thu, 9th Nov 2017 6:27 pm 

    Another techie dream that will hit the brick wall of reality. Oops! Crash#1:

    “Las Vegas’ New Self-Driving Shuttle Involved In Accident On Its First Day”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-09/las-vegass-new-self-driving-shuttle-involved-accident-its-first-day

    At least they were not being shot at. lol

  3. Duncan Idaho on Thu, 9th Nov 2017 6:33 pm 

    It will take a while.
    We will trading with the tribe in the next valley for antibiotics and women before EV’s dominate the automobile industry.

  4. Go Speed Racer on Thu, 9th Nov 2017 6:55 pm 

    Ya it will backfire.

    Outlaw my 350 V8,
    and I pop a cap in yo ass.

  5. Go Speed Racer on Thu, 9th Nov 2017 7:00 pm 

    The movie Idiocracy depicts a people
    so stupid they don’t know what a nice car
    is. They think a useless go-cart has
    prestige.
    Looks like we are there. That dumb driverless
    van, looks so pathetic it’s unworthy of
    a clown car going to a birthday party
    of 5-year olds.
    U can keep your driverless solar panel
    bus van.

    I will keep my Mercedes Benz and
    drive it.

  6. makati1 on Thu, 9th Nov 2017 7:33 pm 

    GSR, only as long as you can buy the fuel for it. Then it goes up on blocks or is trashed. No income. No gas. No drive. lol

  7. Sissyfuss on Thu, 9th Nov 2017 8:54 pm 

    Mak, gas around here has gone up 65 cents per gallon in the last two months. Great for OPEC and the shalers but extremely deleterious to our fragile Ponzi economy.

  8. Anonymouse1 on Thu, 9th Nov 2017 8:57 pm 

    It hardly matters if there are formal, enforceable bans on oil-burners. Nor does it matter if the rising costs and unsustainable nature of car-dependency achieves the same thing w/o resorting to legal restructions.

    It matters even less if a few EVs replace a small fraction of the outgoing oil-burners, since EVs only resolve a tiny fraction of the problems cars create. So much for the writers (many) dubious contentions.

    I live in a smallish, by world standards anyhow, city, where the roads are already saturated and there is literally, no more room to expand road capacity except in the most trivial of ways. If every oil burner were to be replaced an EV in my city, congestion, accidents, the high cost of and endless delays due to endless road-maintenance, reckless driving etc, would continue as usual.

    To everyone’s credit, no one in my city, or country even, pushes retarded notions such as, ‘autonomous’ cars(that don’t even exist), would fix everything. In fact, the opposite is occurring, my city is encouraging, and actually building more dedicated bike lanes downtown, even against the endless howls of protests by pro-car sycophants.

  9. coffeeguyzz on Thu, 9th Nov 2017 10:05 pm 

    Mebbee Fred Flintstone was ahead of the curve,
    Yabba dabba doo.

  10. tahoe1780 on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 12:01 am 

    http://www.next-future-mobility.com/

    http://www.autonews.com/article/20171105/INDUSTRY_REDESIGNED/171109944/bob-lutz:-kiss-the-good-times-goodbye#

    “in 15 to 20 years — at the latest — human-driven vehicles will be legislated off the highways.”

  11. Simon on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 12:57 am 

    Reading your article mak. this accident was the truck drivers fault.

    Very soon, insurance companies will up the insurance for humans to such an extent that they will have to park up for good.

  12. makati1 on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 1:04 am 

    Simon, but there were 8 passengers in that van with no driver. A real person might have reacted different than some “programing” by realizing that that truck would likely be backing out into his lane and would react accordingly. A human is more likely to expect a human error.

    No, the insurance companies will NOT make it too expensive, but the cost of fuel might. If you are an American, you have some real pain coming. Be patient.

  13. Anonymouse1 on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 2:19 am 

    RoLF@ Simon says.

    Insurance companies have been steadily raising rates on oil burners for years now, pretty much everywhere you look. And no, phantom robo-cars have nothing whatsoever to do with that trend.

  14. Davy on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 5:09 am 

    AI vehicles will likely have localized applications. They don’t appear to be a game changer and they are not going to extricate us from our predicaments. Our predicaments are multidimensional and many are now beyond human interference like climate and extinction. EV’s if incorporated with less driving and more renewable incorporation into the grid are likely going to extend modernism. Many such strategies will allow us to keep globalism and modernism going a little longer. None of this is going to change the end results of limits and diminishing returns to complexity and consumption. In fact all the talk of the wonderful changes coming with AI vehicles demonstrates the lack of real change coming. They are just glorified smart phones titillating our love of driving and transport. Driving of any kind is not going to save us. Driving of any kind is not revolutionary. The real revolutionary thing about driving would be if we changed our behaviors and did much less driving especially discretionary unneeded driving.

  15. Hello on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 6:02 am 

    Look at the graph. Another 1 billion cars on the road by 2050. That’s double of what we got now.

    And I thought the disruptive technology of self driving cars would reduce traffic jams.

    Damn was I wrong.

  16. makati1 on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 6:06 am 

    Another example of American insanity…

    “EPA Just Approved The Release Of ‘Weaponized’ Mosquitoes In 20 US States”

    “The Event Chronicle asks: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

    What if the mosquitos are sorted incorrectly? Do you really think that out of 20 million mosquitos, nary a biting female will get through the sorting process?
    What if the Wolbachia mutates? Something that is not harmful now could morph into something far worse than Zika.
    What if scientists believe that this gives them innate permission to conduct “field studies” of other things? Oh…wait. Apparently, they already feel they don’t require our permission to turn our neighborhoods into test facilities.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-09/epa-just-approved-release-weaponized-mosquitoes-us-states

    Americans are committing ecologic suicide … aided by their greedy corporations, like Monsanto and this new startup (2013). lol

  17. Hello on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 6:16 am 

    mak:

    don’t believe everything zerohedge is writing. They are mostly wrong.

  18. makati1 on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 6:34 am 

    Hello, they are mostly correct. Just not the propaganda you are used to sucking down as fact.

    Prove ONE article to be false. Just ONE, without using any US MSM source.

  19. Hello on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 6:44 am 

    >>> Prove ONE article to be false

    The fact that I can still go to the store to buy groceries, to the gas station to buy fuel, to use my credit card, to have a job.

    Because according to zerohedge. Hey that should not be possible anymore.

    Articels from 2009/10/11/12.
    I know you have a memory problem. Where am I from again?

  20. Davy on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 6:44 am 

    Shut up Mad Kat, prove your anti-American agenda is balanced and relevant to everyone.

  21. Lomax on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 7:21 am 

    If we were to seriously plan to switch from ICE to EV, then I would expect that energy companies are building new power stations to take advantage of all that extra demand and the profits it creates.

    They are not, there is a lot of talk out there but no money on the table.

    And that self driving clown car that drove into the truck most likely would not have hade the accident with a human at the wheel. Taking a 2Ghz processor connected to a series of $5 sensors and pretending it has AI equivalent to a 100 billion neural net processor connected to sensors developed over millions of years is dellusional.

  22. Davy on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 7:29 am 

    I wonder if that accident was a plant for economic reasons. Lots of money to be made and lost with this technology.

  23. MASTERMIND on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 9:25 am 

    Madkat goes off the freaking rails…Weaponize mosquitoes? Good God almighty…Stop reading zerohedge and tyler durden articles. I keep telling you that you are falling for fake news. And you keep digging in further…now you are grasping at straws….

  24. fmr-paultard on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 9:37 am 

    lomax i wouldn’t be so sure. you’re approaching serious and dangerous SENTAPBs territory. But you’re not in run for evaluation for supertard, you can be recruited.

    your thinking is SENT APB ish, evolution blah blah. I’m superior blah blah.

    Be careful. AI beat chess at first after decades of thinking it’s in the domain of sentient beings. And now it went after GO. NOthing is safe

  25. Simon on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 10:23 am 

    Mak. Whether a human could have prevented the accident is irrelevant, if by law it was the humans fault, then he will have to pay.

    Anon. if humans start to cause to many accidents, then the owners of the robo cars will start to sue (this is America) probably for loss of earnings, after all you all blamed the robot and stated that a human would be better, even though mak is convinced they are all fat Educationally subnormal and on drugs …. its a funny old world.
    It will happen, we may not like it, but it is coming

  26. rockman on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 10:49 am 

    “…in 15 to 20 years — at the latest — human-driven vehicles will be legislated off the highways.” In democracies only if the voting public agrees with such a law. Future sales of ICE’s will be banned only in countries where the majority of the public concurs. Same true for burning coal or any other fossil fuel. There’s ample reason for any country’s politicians to push for discontinuing the consumption of fossil fuels today. But if their electorate doesn’t agree those politicians will disappear from office and be replaced by those who will follow the wishes of the majority.

  27. dave thompson on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 12:46 pm 

    What will happen to diesel trucking in the wonderful world of our collective EV future?
    Battery driven heavy semi trucking across the US ain’t in the cards as I can tell. AND what happens at the refinery? All that gasoline will still be produced as long as the refinery process is in place.

  28. Anonymouse1 on Fri, 10th Nov 2017 1:14 pm 

    RoFL@Narrativeman.

    You are too much, narrativeman, truly. Maybe places like that actually exist, somewhere, definately not in the militarized petro-dictatorship you live in.

    ‘democracies’, lol. Good one.

  29. Kenz300 on Sat, 11th Nov 2017 9:14 am 

    All electric vehicles will be cheaper to produce and will require less maintenance. People love to save money.

    As production of EV’s ramps up the prices will fall making them the vehicles of choice.

    Cheaper WINS !

  30. Cloggie on Mon, 13th Nov 2017 9:30 am 

    Thumbs up for America, thumbs down for China:

    http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/uno-klimakonferenz-bonn-china-scheitert-als-neue-klima-weltmacht-a-1177675.html

    In the run-up to the UN climate conference in Bonn-Germany, China had positioned itself as the new “climate change super power”.

    Things don’t look good at all though. After 3 years of planetary emission stagnation, CO2-emission are rising again, mostly thanks to China.

    Here the surprise: of all countries it is the US that most reduced emissions between 2000 and now:

    2014:

    China: 30%
    USA: 17%
    EU-28: 9%

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2017-04/2014_emissions_0.png

    (Despite the splendid US reductions, Europe of 500 million is still by far the most energy efficient)

    Even der Spiegel calls China “dubious” in matters of climate protection.

    http://tinyurl.com/ya8ew3oc

    Der Spiegel this week brings a special issue about China, where in it says that China already is de facto the new #1 and that the West should “wake up”.

    Hear, hear.

  31. Davy on Mon, 13th Nov 2017 10:38 am 

    You read your graph wrong. The US is at 15% not 17%

  32. JuanP on Mon, 13th Nov 2017 11:26 am 

    The average Chinese still produces less than half the CO2 that the average American produces. Let’s hope that Americans more than half their pollution and eventually catch up with the Chinese. If the Chinese were to pollute as much as Americans do their emissions would more than double. The solution must include drastic emissions reductions from the biggest polluters, particularly places like Australia and the USA which have grotesque per capita emissions. Every human being has the right to pollute as much as anybody else. The developed world needs to lead by example. Continental Europeans are better at this than Americans or Australians are.

  33. GregT on Mon, 13th Nov 2017 12:18 pm 

    ‘Der Spiegel this week brings a special issue about China, where in it says that China already is de facto the new #1 and that the West should “wake up”.”

    Der Spiegel needs to do a bit of waking up of it’s own. The West is offshoring it’s emissions to China, in return for cheap consumer “goods”. The numbers are misleading, and do not reflect reality.

  34. Cloggie on Mon, 13th Nov 2017 12:45 pm 

    “Der Spiegel needs to do a bit of waking up of it’s own. The West is offshoring it’s emissions to China, in return for cheap consumer “goods”. The numbers are misleading, and do not reflect reality.”

    To avoid misunderstanding… der Spiegel was talking about China as the new superpower, not about Chinese emissions.

  35. Davy on Mon, 13th Nov 2017 12:59 pm 

    widdle you are getting rusty with your comments. lol

  36. GregT on Mon, 13th Nov 2017 2:11 pm 

    “widdle you are getting rusty with your comments. lol”

    I’ll be sure to polish them up. Just for you, big boy. lol.

  37. GregT on Mon, 13th Nov 2017 2:17 pm 

    “der Spiegel was talking about China as the new superpower, not about Chinese emissions.”

    My bad. That would have been the EPA. Not the least bit surprising.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *