Five Reasons Why Internal Combustion Engines Are Here to Stay

[Michael Sanches + 187]

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/11/29/five_reasons_why_internal_combustion_engines_are_here_to_stay_651051.html

I found this an interesting article. What do you think of these 5 (6) points?

(((1. Price))) I am not sure how valid this point is. Most countries have high import duties on vehicles, OR, high excise, VAT, or sales taxes specifically for vehicles. Most of these countries wave these taxes for EVs. A $20,000 ICE car with 100% taxes costs just as much as a $40,000 EV with no taxes. Alternately, a few countries give rebates for EV's.

(((2. Mining))) I don't know how accurate the figures they list are. But, if they are accurate, this would seem to be a major hurdle. However, the article doesn't account for further inventions to decrease the need for scarce resources.

(((3a. Energy Density))) For basic commuting needs I don't see this as an issue. But, it could be important for long haul trucking, trains, ships, and prop airplanes (as well as jet fuel.)

(((3b. Collateral products))) Since >50% of oil is used for non-fuel products, we will continue to drill. And, since we are drilling anyway, using ICE engines will always be only one step away.

(((4. Increasing efficiency of ICE engines))) I think this is a strong point for ICE engines and will keep them around. I bought my first car in 1971 and it was a tiny Datsun 1200 subcompact with a "tiny" 1171 CC engine. Nowadays you can buy a midsize Chevy Malibu with a powerful 1500 CC engine.

(((5. Refueling))) This horse has been flogged to death on these forums. Every argument for all sides has been made at least a hundred times. They range from this will be no problem to this will make EV adoption critically slow. Let's skip this point. I think everyone's mind is already made up on this point.

So, for all points, except for the last, how accurate do you think the article is?

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Ice will be mandated or taxed into mandatory hybrid. So yea its here to stay but outlawed as ICE alone. Hybrids are a cheap bolt on. Imagine if batteries do get to 80$/kwh as people say they will (in short order) a hybrid needs 4kwh for a plug in model and the EV motor is like 10 - 40 hp so your looking at 1200$ add on to reduce 3L/100km over 350,000km. If i did the math correct its 10,500$ saved. Now to be hybrid on the cheap youd only need enough battery for regen braking, 0-15 kph and start stop without starter. Thats probably 600$ for 1.5L/100km gain 5,250$. Mabey less if you can remove the starter and use the alternator as the start stop + charge system (small cars) 

[markslawson + 1,042]

2 hours ago, Michael Sanches said:

I found this an interesting article. What do you think of these 5 (6) points?

All those points have been made time and again by the observers of the automotive market and just as often completely ignored by the proponents of EVs. The problem is that, as well as being completely blind to the problems of EVs, those proponents are so vocal and determined that they have managed to infect upper echelons of governments who then make daft policies. If you want some idea of what will happen with these policies then look at Norway where support for EVs in taxes and road tolls foregone amount to about half the price of the car (an estimate from the London Times). As near as I can make out the result is that Norwegian families that can afford it have two cars - an EV for commuting and an ICE for serious travel. Meanwhile the poorer families have to make do with a cheap, used, aging clunker on which they have to pay taxes to support the use of EVs by rich families.

The California policy is a gift for the used car markets and car dealerships in other those states unlikely to follow suit. It is difficult to imagine states such as Texas and Utah, to draw on my cursory knowledge of American politics, bothering with EV policies. In fact, isn't Texas planning to impose charges on EVs to make up for losses in fuel taxes? Anyway, the article is largely correct but won't make much difference.. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by markslawson
correcting error..

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, Michael Sanches said:

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/11/29/five_reasons_why_internal_combustion_engines_are_here_to_stay_651051.html

I found this an interesting article. What do you think of these 5 (6) points?(

(((3b. Collateral products))) Since >50% of oil is used for non-fuel products, we will continue to drill. And, since we are drilling anyway, using ICE engines will always be only one step away.((

So, for all points, except for the last, how accurate do you think the article is?

Thats nonsense - approx 85% of crude oil is refined into fuel products. Another 1-2% into lubricants which in particular are used in ICE engines. 

U.S. Refinery Yield (eia.gov)

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by NickW

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 12/2/2020 at 8:57 PM, NickW said:

Thats nonsense - approx 85% of crude oil is refined into fuel products. Another 1-2% into lubricants which in particular are used in ICE engines. 

U.S. Refinery Yield (eia.gov)

Nick - only just saw this.. you might have misread the stats. In the ones you cite there are no plastic products so I think that reflects the crude oil that goes into refineries.. not total crude oil output.. 

This statement by an academic... In 2017, 50% of all crude oil produced worldwide was refined into fuel for transport, most as gasoline.

So there is some justification for the original statement but, in fact, it may well be wrong anyway and you much closer.. plastics often don't come directly from oil but other fuels, and do you count the fuel used as an energy source.. it gets complicated but anyway, here is an article on the issue  enjoy.. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - only just saw this.. you might have misread the stats. In the ones you cite there are no plastic products so I think that reflects the crude oil that goes into refineries.. not total crude oil output.. 

This statement by an academic... In 2017, 50% of all crude oil produced worldwide was refined into fuel for transport, most as gasoline.

So there is some justification for the original statement but, in fact, it may well be wrong anyway and you much closer.. plastics often don't come directly from oil but other fuels, and do you count the fuel used as an energy source.. it gets complicated but anyway, here is an article on the issue  enjoy.. 

I except there will be variation around that figure from country to Country but there is no way globally its below 50% or anywhere near that figure. 

A lot of plastic is made from gas rather than oil. CH4 is relatively easy to convert into ethylene which is the basic building block  of plastic manufacture. 

Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids		5.2	5.0	5.0	4.9	4.8	3.9	2007-2020
Finished Motor Gasoline		40.7	44.6	46.7	46.7	47.0	48.8	1993-2020
Finished Aviation Gasoline		0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	1993-2020
Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel		4.7	3.8	5.2	5.6	5.7	5.7	1993-2020
Kerosene		0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	1993-2020
Distillate Fuel Oil		38.1	35.6	32.0	32.0	32.1	31.4	1993-2020
Residual Fuel Oil		1.3	1.3	1.8	1.5	1.3	1.3	1993-2020
Naphtha for Petrochemical Feedstock Use		1.0	1.1	1.1	1.3	1.1	1.2	1993-2020
Other Oils for Petrochemical Feedstock Use		1.1	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.6	0.7	1993-2020
Special Naphthas		0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	1993-2020
Lubricants		1.1	1.0	1.0	1.1	1.0	1.1	1993-2020
Waxes		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1993-2020
Petroleum Coke		5.5	5.3	5.2	5.2	5.0	5.2	1993-2020
Asphalt and Road Oil		2.0	2.4	2.5	2.6	2.5	2.3	1993-2020
Still Gas		4.2	4.3	4.3	4.2	4.2	4.2	1993-2020
Miscellaneous Products		0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.5	1993-2020
Processing Gain(-) or Loss(+)

Anyway when did you start relying on the Gruniard for sources of information😁

However taking this from the article backs up the point I was making as regards usage today. 

The industry predicts petrochemicals will grow from 16% of oil demand in 2020 to 20% by 2040 largely to supply the feedstocks for making plastics. The environmental consequences of making even more plastic from crude oil will be significant. More plastic pollution will enter watercourses and the ocean, while amping up production will accelerate global emissions.

Edited December 4, 2020 by NickW

[markslawson + 1,042]

15 hours ago, NickW said:

I except there will be variation around that figure from country to Country but there is no way globally its below 50% or anywhere near that figure. 

I had ended up agreeing with you.. your original objections is probably right, just you had the wrong stats.. anyway, there's no point in further discussion on this at least, leave it with you..