[dataway]

One thing to bear in mind is that there are two camps when it comes to EVs. The "pollution" camp, and the "All fossil fuel use is bad" camp.

The first camp has good intentions, but ignores electric source pollution and the fact that the sum total of the effect on the environment is based on how the power is generated, transported and distributed. They also ignore the tremendous gains made in efficiency and improvement of the ICE.

The second camp is the radical/political camp which has an un-reasoned, emotional approach that fanatically abhors all things fossil. There is no conversation with them, their position is not based on reason or critical thought.

The anti-fossil camp cares naught about vintage cars, or the minuscule amount they are driven, the less fortunate that have to drive older cars, or any other reasoned argument you can provide.

The pollution camp is in a hurry. They want change immediately and discount the ever decreasing amount of pollution in our air due to improvements in ICE design. Unfortunately their influence is probably reducing the amount of effort going into the continued improvement of the ICE by scaring manufacturers into diverting disproportionate resources into EVs. Manufacturers are not investing in EV research because they care about environmental issues, they are doing so in the expectation of legislation requiring these changes. They will invest in whichever way they think the legislative wind is blowing regardless if the science makes any sense. They are not in the business of educating people, but are there to sell cars in whatever form the government mandates.

We are ending up with a lopsided development scenario ... fossil fuel cars will be around for several more decades, they will be the majority of vehicles for probably the next two decades, but research dollars are being diverted prematurely to an auto segment that is in part arising to help solve problems with fossil fuel autos that might be much less of a problem in the future if development continued apace on the ICE.

In other words we are trying very hard to solve a problem that might not be nearly as drastic if we didn't divert so many resources to solving it instead of continuing to improve existing technology. Sure there will be a large place for EVs, but will there be so large a place in 20 years that we can sacrifice ICE development in the meantime?

[Douglas Willinger]

Worse are the enemies of ethanol fuel. They say nothing about the horrifically lax quality and labeling standards of "E-85" (allowed to vary as low as 51% ethanol, and NO octane posting- a scheme to thwart its market expansion as well as protect overpriced racing fuel). They pretend that CO2 emissions are so bad that we must pretend that ethanol is worse by looking at dated production efficiencies while neglecting to say the CO2 emissions of transporting petroleum from overseas or its refinement. They so focus upon CO2 as to neglect that ethanol is a cleaner-burning fuel. And they manipulate the hobby to so oppose mandatory ethanol content as to overlook the lack of choice from the "E-85" misregulation. How about a true E-70 fuel with 105 posted aki octane? And how is ruling out ethanol better for the environment than non-hybrid electric cars with larger battery packs? Or, better than retrofitting existing old cars for ethanol. Or the silliness of new turbo and supercharged cars not allowing higher ethanol content fuels? Or the wasteful destruction of older cars? Where is their science for such policies?

It almost seems to be some weird conspiracy to induce a methane jolt from the excessive battery and new electric car production.

Originally Posted by dataway

One thing to bear in mind is that there are two camps when it comes to EVs. The "pollution" camp, and the "All fossil fuel use is bad" camp.

The first camp has good intentions but ignores electric source pollution and the fact that the sum total of the effect on the environment is based on how the power is generated, transported and distributed. They also ignore the tremendous gains made in the efficiency and improvement of the ICE.

The second camp is the radical/political camp which has an un-reasoned, emotional approach that fanatically abhors all things fossil. There is no conversation with them, their position is not based on reason or critical thought.

The anti-fossil camp cares naught about vintage cars, or the minuscule amount they are driven, the less fortunate that have to drive older cars, or any other reasoned argument you can provide.

The pollution camp is in a hurry. They want change immediately and discount the ever decreasing amount of pollution in our air due to improvements in ICE design. Unfortunately their influence is probably reducing the amount of effort going into the continued improvement of the ICE by scaring manufacturers into diverting disproportionate resources into EVs. Manufacturers are not investing in EV research because they care about environmental issues, they are doing so in the expectation of legislation requiring these changes. They will invest in whichever way they think the legislative wind is blowing regardless if the science makes any sense. They are not in the business of educating people, but are there to sell cars in whatever form the government mandates.

We are ending up with a lopsided development scenario ... fossil fuel cars will be around for several more decades, they will be the majority of vehicles for probably the next two decades, but research dollars are being diverted prematurely to an auto segment that is in part arising to help solve problems with fossil fuel autos that might be much less of a problem in the future if development continued apace on the ICE.

In other words we are trying very hard to solve a problem that might not be nearly as drastic if we didn't divert so many resources to solving it instead of continuing to improve existing technology. Sure there will be a large place for EVs, but will there be so large a place in 20 years that we can sacrifice ICE development in the meantime?

[mgarblik]

I may have posted this nugget before but will again. In the early 1920's, cars were almost equally split in sales three ways. Gasoline powered, electric powered, and steam powered. It was decades before government intervention and tilting the playing field to "create" a winner. At the time, gasoline powered vehicles won the first round of the battle. 100 years later, I would be in favor of a renewed battle. Gasoline powered, vs. Diesel, vs Hydrogen, vs Hybrid, vs EV. May the best method of propulsion win. But when you have the game heavily manipulated by all the players involved, a level playing field where the market determines the winner can't happen. Without immense help from government grants, bailouts, rebates, credits, and other ploys, electric cars would have to survive on their own merits. I like choices, not to be told what I have to spend my money on if I wanted a new car.