• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The End of the Internal Combustion Engine?

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In contrast to the usual cheerleading, this seems to be pretty sober analysis from The Economist. I grew up in the car generation, and I love getting out in my roadster with the top down. That all may be coming to an end.

The machine that changed the world

. . . To gauge what lies ahead, think how the internal combustion engine has shaped modern life. The rich world was rebuilt for motor vehicles, with huge investments in road networks and the invention of suburbia, along with shopping malls and drive-through restaurants. Roughly 85% of American workers commute by car. Carmaking was also a generator of economic development and the expansion of the middle class, in post-war America and elsewhere. There are now about 1bn cars on the road, almost all powered by fossil fuels. Though most of them sit idle, America’s car and lorry engines can produce ten times as much energy as its power stations. The internal combustion engine is the mightiest motor in history.
But electrification has thrown the car industry into turmoil. Its best brands are founded on their engineering heritage—especially in Germany. Compared with existing vehicles, electric cars are much simpler and have fewer parts; they are more like computers on wheels. That means they need fewer people to assemble them and fewer subsidiary systems from specialist suppliers. Carworkers at factories that do not make electric cars are worried that they could be for the chop. With less to go wrong, the market for maintenance and spare parts will shrink. While today’s carmakers grapple with their costly legacy of old factories and swollen workforces, new entrants will be unencumbered. Premium brands may be able to stand out through styling and handling, but low-margin, mass-market carmakers will have to compete chiefly on cost.
Assuming, of course, that people want to own cars at all. Electric propulsion, along with ride-hailing and self-driving technology, could mean that ownership is largely replaced by “transport as a service”, in which fleets of cars offer rides on demand. On the most extreme estimates, that could shrink the industry by as much as 90%. Lots of shared, self-driving electric cars would let cities replace car parks (up to 24% of the area in some places) with new housing, and let people commute from far away as they sleep—suburbanisation in reverse. . . .
 
In contrast to the usual cheerleading, this seems to be pretty sober analysis from The Economist. I grew up in the car generation, and I love getting out in my roadster with the top down. That all may be coming to an end.

The machine that changed the world

. . . To gauge what lies ahead, think how the internal combustion engine has shaped modern life. The rich world was rebuilt for motor vehicles, with huge investments in road networks and the invention of suburbia, along with shopping malls and drive-through restaurants. Roughly 85% of American workers commute by car. Carmaking was also a generator of economic development and the expansion of the middle class, in post-war America and elsewhere. There are now about 1bn cars on the road, almost all powered by fossil fuels. Though most of them sit idle, America’s car and lorry engines can produce ten times as much energy as its power stations. The internal combustion engine is the mightiest motor in history.
But electrification has thrown the car industry into turmoil. Its best brands are founded on their engineering heritage—especially in Germany. Compared with existing vehicles, electric cars are much simpler and have fewer parts; they are more like computers on wheels. That means they need fewer people to assemble them and fewer subsidiary systems from specialist suppliers. Carworkers at factories that do not make electric cars are worried that they could be for the chop. With less to go wrong, the market for maintenance and spare parts will shrink. While today’s carmakers grapple with their costly legacy of old factories and swollen workforces, new entrants will be unencumbered. Premium brands may be able to stand out through styling and handling, but low-margin, mass-market carmakers will have to compete chiefly on cost.
Assuming, of course, that people want to own cars at all. Electric propulsion, along with ride-hailing and self-driving technology, could mean that ownership is largely replaced by “transport as a service”, in which fleets of cars offer rides on demand. On the most extreme estimates, that could shrink the industry by as much as 90%. Lots of shared, self-driving electric cars would let cities replace car parks (up to 24% of the area in some places) with new housing, and let people commute from far away as they sleep—suburbanisation in reverse. . . .

If electric cars can fill the same set of needs and wants better than internal combustion, then so be it; it's all to the good, and that's how real progress happens. But that's a decision for consumers and the market to make, not Poindexters and busybodies in Washington.
 
In contrast to the usual cheerleading, this seems to be pretty sober analysis from The Economist. I grew up in the car generation, and I love getting out in my roadster with the top down. That all may be coming to an end.

The machine that changed the world

. . . To gauge what lies ahead, think how the internal combustion engine has shaped modern life. The rich world was rebuilt for motor vehicles, with huge investments in road networks and the invention of suburbia, along with shopping malls and drive-through restaurants. Roughly 85% of American workers commute by car. Carmaking was also a generator of economic development and the expansion of the middle class, in post-war America and elsewhere. There are now about 1bn cars on the road, almost all powered by fossil fuels. Though most of them sit idle, America’s car and lorry engines can produce ten times as much energy as its power stations. The internal combustion engine is the mightiest motor in history.
But electrification has thrown the car industry into turmoil. Its best brands are founded on their engineering heritage—especially in Germany. Compared with existing vehicles, electric cars are much simpler and have fewer parts; they are more like computers on wheels. That means they need fewer people to assemble them and fewer subsidiary systems from specialist suppliers. Carworkers at factories that do not make electric cars are worried that they could be for the chop. With less to go wrong, the market for maintenance and spare parts will shrink. While today’s carmakers grapple with their costly legacy of old factories and swollen workforces, new entrants will be unencumbered. Premium brands may be able to stand out through styling and handling, but low-margin, mass-market carmakers will have to compete chiefly on cost.
Assuming, of course, that people want to own cars at all. Electric propulsion, along with ride-hailing and self-driving technology, could mean that ownership is largely replaced by “transport as a service”, in which fleets of cars offer rides on demand. On the most extreme estimates, that could shrink the industry by as much as 90%. Lots of shared, self-driving electric cars would let cities replace car parks (up to 24% of the area in some places) with new housing, and let people commute from far away as they sleep—suburbanisation in reverse. . . .

I suspect that most will want a little electric run about. But for years my car sat in the garage, while I would take a taxi to the office or dinner. It's just too practical. I literally only used the car, when I wanted drive through the mellow sunny county side or over a mountain pass in a convertible. Now I drive almost every day, but it's mellow sunny here all the time here.
 
Yeah combustion tech brought us a lot of opportunity, but it's 200 year old technology. You're telling me we don't have the genius and advancement level to do better? Of course we can. There are already models for self-driving cars and transport grids being experimented with in Europe.

But having the tech is not the same as having the will to implement it. As long as business firms control government, we will never progress beyond our current level. The infrastructure in the U.S. is aging and in some places crumbling. Domestic priorities have taken a back burner for 20+ years now. We need to rethink what we're doing as a nation.
 
Yeah combustion tech brought us a lot of opportunity, but it's 200 year old technology. You're telling me we don't have the genius and advancement level to do better? Of course we can. There are already models for self-driving cars and transport grids being experimented with in Europe.

But having the tech is not the same as having the will to implement it. As long as business firms control government, we will never progress beyond our current level.

Technological change is always unexpectedly corrosive. I suggest you read the entire Economist article.
 
Technological change is always unexpectedly corrosive. I suggest you read the entire Economist article.

I did and I don't agree with it.

Nothing can be more corrosive than what's happening to the world's ecology right now, not to mention human health in areas where particulate pollution is high.
 
I did and I don't agree with it.

Nothing can be more corrosive than what's happening to the world's ecology right now, not to mention human health in areas where particulate pollution is high.

Then we'll have to disagree. I think the world is much cleaner now than it was 50 years ago, and government and businesses are relatively powerless in the face of profound technological change.
 
Then we'll have to disagree. I think the world is much cleaner now than it was 50 years ago, and government and businesses are relatively powerless in the face of profound technological change.

The delay of the electric car rolling out in the U.S. says otherwise. Corporations have profound influence on government and market behaviors. Sure, once a product is available, consumers have some level of control over supply; but a product has to be authorized and regulated to hit the market first, and regulation is where corporations have all the power.

The financial system can be manipulated to create or suppress conditions. We don't live in a free market world.
 
The delay of the electric car rolling out in the U.S. says otherwise. Corporations have profound influence on government and market behaviors. Sure, once a product is available, consumers have some level of control over supply; but a product has to be authorized and regulated to hit the market first, and regulation is where corporations have all the power.

The financial system can be manipulated to create or suppress conditions. We don't live in a free market world.

As you wish. We disagree.
 
Then we'll have to disagree. I think the world is much cleaner now than it was 50 years ago, and government and businesses are relatively powerless in the face of profound technological change.

Depends on what part of the world

China has vastly higher levels of pollution and have environmental controls that would be about where the US or Canada were in the 70s on average. The pollution is not just coming from vehicles but also includes multiple coal powered boilers for heating in the winter that exist in older communities in many more northern cities (as in 20 years or older) India is the same

Europe and North America yes are by far cleaner than they were 50 years ago. But that cleaning was not done by natural technological change but government mandates on pollution controls. From those in vehicles to coal power plants. Going back about 15 years ago. I worked as an emissions tester for Coal power plants. The difference in particulate matter collected from a 50 year old plant, to one built within 10 years was immense. Easily visible on the filter to the naked eye, let alone to instruments (in this case an analytical scale) That change was not brought about from the goodwill of the companies that owned the power plants but the state and federal governments mandating them
 
Depends on what part of the world

China has vastly higher levels of pollution and have environmental controls that would be about where the US or Canada were in the 70s on average. The pollution is not just coming from vehicles but also includes multiple coal powered boilers for heating in the winter that exist in older communities in many more northern cities (as in 20 years or older) India is the same

Europe and North America yes are by far cleaner than they were 50 years ago. But that cleaning was not done by natural technological change but government mandates on pollution controls. From those in vehicles to coal power plants. Going back about 15 years ago. I worked as an emissions tester for Coal power plants. The difference in particulate matter collected from a 50 year old plant, to one built within 10 years was immense. Easily visible on the filter to the naked eye, let alone to instruments (in this case an analytical scale) That change was not brought about from the goodwill of the companies that owned the power plants but the state and federal governments mandating them

Yes, and . . . ?
 
In contrast to the usual cheerleading, this seems to be pretty sober analysis from The Economist. I grew up in the car generation, and I love getting out in my roadster with the top down. That all may be coming to an end.

The machine that changed the world

. . . To gauge what lies ahead, think how the internal combustion engine has shaped modern life. The rich world was rebuilt for motor vehicles, with huge investments in road networks and the invention of suburbia, along with shopping malls and drive-through restaurants. Roughly 85% of American workers commute by car. Carmaking was also a generator of economic development and the expansion of the middle class, in post-war America and elsewhere. There are now about 1bn cars on the road, almost all powered by fossil fuels. Though most of them sit idle, America’s car and lorry engines can produce ten times as much energy as its power stations. The internal combustion engine is the mightiest motor in history.
But electrification has thrown the car industry into turmoil. Its best brands are founded on their engineering heritage—especially in Germany. Compared with existing vehicles, electric cars are much simpler and have fewer parts; they are more like computers on wheels. That means they need fewer people to assemble them and fewer subsidiary systems from specialist suppliers. Carworkers at factories that do not make electric cars are worried that they could be for the chop. With less to go wrong, the market for maintenance and spare parts will shrink. While today’s carmakers grapple with their costly legacy of old factories and swollen workforces, new entrants will be unencumbered. Premium brands may be able to stand out through styling and handling, but low-margin, mass-market carmakers will have to compete chiefly on cost.
Assuming, of course, that people want to own cars at all. Electric propulsion, along with ride-hailing and self-driving technology, could mean that ownership is largely replaced by “transport as a service”, in which fleets of cars offer rides on demand. On the most extreme estimates, that could shrink the industry by as much as 90%. Lots of shared, self-driving electric cars would let cities replace car parks (up to 24% of the area in some places) with new housing, and let people commute from far away as they sleep—suburbanisation in reverse. . . .

I've thought it amazing that the same basic engines propels vehicles that propelled them a hundred + years ago. We've tried electric, steam, turbine, rotary, and still IC V8 prevails.

Chevy produced a V8 in 1913 or so. I think it was OHV.
 
Even with massive advances in battery technology, the best available batteries
are still much less energy dense as a gasoline engine, even with the carnot losses.
I think we may still have IC engines as on board battery chargers for a while,
but once people see what 4 hub electric motors can do, they will not go back to the older technology.
I see the energy being carried as a liquid hydrocarbon for quite a while.
How that energy gets to the ground, will continue to improve.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and . . . ?

From your previous posts it was seeming to suggest that technology regarding the environment and electric cars were just appearing and not the result of policy pushing for such change
 
The delay of the electric car rolling out in the U.S. says otherwise. Corporations have profound influence on government and market behaviors. Sure, once a product is available, consumers have some level of control over supply; but a product has to be authorized and regulated to hit the market first, and regulation is where corporations have all the power.

The financial system can be manipulated to create or suppress conditions. We don't live in a free market world.

Electrics didn't roll out sooner because they ran less then a hundred miles between charges, took 10-12 hours to refill, were unattractive, and cost a bundle. Technology is catching up, but still has a ways to go. And electrics still have a small part of the market.
 
From your previous posts it was seeming to suggest that technology regarding the environment and electric cars were just appearing and not the result of policy pushing for such change

I don't believe those are questions I have addressed.
 
If electric cars can fill the same set of needs and wants better than internal combustion, then so be it; it's all to the good, and that's how real progress happens. But that's a decision for consumers and the market to make, not Poindexters and busybodies in Washington.

Yep.

I don't believe anyone subsidized Henry Ford when he set out to replace the horse and buggy.
 
Yeah combustion tech brought us a lot of opportunity, but it's 200 year old technology. You're telling me we don't have the genius and advancement level to do better? Of course we can. There are already models for self-driving cars and transport grids being experimented with in Europe.

But having the tech is not the same as having the will to implement it. As long as business firms control government, we will never progress beyond our current level. The infrastructure in the U.S. is aging and in some places crumbling. Domestic priorities have taken a back burner for 20+ years now. We need to rethink what we're doing as a nation.

I'm sure Nikola Tesla would have invented an electric horseless carriage over 100 years ago if he has access to batteries like we use today.
 
The delay of the electric car rolling out in the U.S. says otherwise. Corporations have profound influence on government and market behaviors. Sure, once a product is available, consumers have some level of control over supply; but a product has to be authorized and regulated to hit the market first, and regulation is where corporations have all the power.

The financial system can be manipulated to create or suppress conditions. We don't live in a free market world.

That's why its important to scrutinize what politicians actually accomplish, good and bad, instead of voting by the 5 minute sound bites and dirty politics.

Blame the voters at large.
 
Electrics didn't roll out sooner because they ran less then a hundred miles between charges, took 10-12 hours to refill, were unattractive, and cost a bundle. Technology is catching up, but still has a ways to go. And electrics still have a small part of the market.

Even Tesla's first Roadster was purposely built as a sports car, because a normal type car would be too expensive. I believe it went for something like $150k didn't it? This way he had a base of rich people to sell to.

Teslas are still too expensive for the common citizen, but the gap is closing.
 
Electrics didn't roll out sooner because they ran less then a hundred miles between charges, took 10-12 hours to refill, were unattractive, and cost a bundle. Technology is catching up, but still has a ways to go. And electrics still have a small part of the market.

Even Tesla's first Roadster was purposely built as a sports car, because a normal type car would be too expensive. I believe it went for something like $150k didn't it? This way he had a base of rich people to sell to.

Teslas are still too expensive for the common citizen, but the gap is closing.
 
Even Tesla's first Roadster was purposely built as a sports car, because a normal type car would be too expensive. I believe it went for something like $150k didn't it? This way he had a base of rich people to sell to.

Teslas are still too expensive for the common citizen, but the gap is closing.

The Tesla gap would close much more slowly if it wasn't for the major subsidies, both to the consumer and to the company.
 
The Tesla gap would close much more slowly if it wasn't for the major subsidies, both to the consumer and to the company.

Just the same. The subsidies are not needed.
 
Back
Top Bottom