There’s a lot of news out lately about automakers revising or adjusting their electrification plans and the main culprit that’s often identified is demand. That’s partially true. The bigger reason? The government. Specifically, corporations are mostly rational actors and will do what makes the most sense based on prevailing regulations. This is especially true for automakers.
This is going to be one of those Morning Dumps where I’m mostly going to guide you through a thesis based on what’s out there in the news because I think it tells a cohesive story. And that story is that automakers are following the lead of the government when it comes to electrification as much as they are following consumers, even if the corporations themselves are the ones nudging the governments.
Whether it is the reduction in output for electric Fiats in Italy, the delaying of small VWs in Germany, or the weakening of rules in the UK, it’s clear that many automakers aren’t going to jump until they have to jump.
Will doing so require automakers to go back on their climate pledges? Yes and no. It’s complicated, so let’s make it slightly less complicated.
VW Will Likely Slow Mass Production Of The Cheap VW ID. 2 All
Let’s start in Germany, part of the European Union and Europe’s biggest car-producing country. Last year, Volkswagen showed off the relatively cheap VW ID. 2all concept, an obvious preview of the VW ID.2 set to debut in production form this year. At around $27,000 and with cool retro touches, the vehicle is an important car for the electrification of Europe.
There’s a whole segment of cheap EVs in Europe that’ll include the Dacia Spring, Fiat 500e, Citroen e-C3, Renault Twingo, and a whole bunch of Chinese-built cars in the 20-25k Euro range. While it’s not clear how well all these vehicles would do in America, they make a lot of sense for small European streets where size and price trump range concerns.
Volkswagen was all set to put the sub-25K EUR ID.2 into production next year. That car is now rumored to be getting pushed back a year. Why? From Automotive News Europe:
VW and other European automakers had anticipated that they would no longer be able to sell small ICE cars profitably by the end of the decade because of tough Euro 7 anti-pollution rules. After strong lobbying from the industry, EU countries have agreed not to change the existing Euro 6 test conditions and emissions limits for cars and vans, meaning that small ICE cars can continue to be built without costly upgrades that would make them unprofitable.
VW will still unveil the production ID2all in 2025 and build small numbers of the model until the full ramp up the following year.
A Volkswagen Polo, which is ID.2-sized, starts at about 22,000 EUR in Germany. There are probably a lot of consumers for those, and if VW can keep building them for a while, profitably, it’s logical for VW to keep doing that.
Of course, there’s a bit of a wag-the-dog here as the auto industry is simultaneously causing governments to slow-roll requirements and then reacting to those changes.
Italian Unions Say Fiat 500e Production Slowed Over Incentives
The new Fiat 500e looks great and will go on sale here, unlike the ID.2, although I think that’s a mistake on Volkswagen’s part (bring it here, dammit!). In fact, you should go pre-order one right now. Just do it. Don’t think about it. Just get one. What’s the worst that’ll happen?
It was expected that in 2023 about 90,000 of the new electric Fiats would be produced for Europe in Italy, but only about 77,000 were actually made after production was stopped for 20 days. Why was it stopped?
Incentives for electric vehicles announced by Italy in July but not expected to come into effect until January weighed on the production of Stellantis’ full-electric 500 models last year, the FIM CISL union said on Friday.
It makes sense and goes to show that, while demand for electric cars is rising, people are also somewhat rational actors as well, and if they know incentives are coming they’ll just wait until they can save. The potential incentives package that Italy is considering right now could see consumers saving as much as 13,000 EUR on a car according to Bloomberg.
The package, under discussion by the industry ministry, would include financial incentives worth as much as €13,750 to allow citizens with an annual income lower than €30,000 to scrap their Euro 2 models, which are more than 20 years old, in favor of new electric cars.
The aim, according to the document, would be to “change Italy’s vehicle fleet, which is one the oldest in Europe, with at least 11 million EURO 3 cars or lower-grade vehicles.” The plan would also “support low-income families and the purchase of cars made in the country”.
That’s a lot of Lire. Also, people are smart. If you’ve got a 25-year-old Fiat Uno that needs all sorts of work and the government offers you essentially 65% off a Dacia Spring you’re probably going to try and get the Dacia Spring.
Toyota, Nissan And JLR Lobbied For UK To Delay EV Mandate
Remember that headline I wrote in September about the UK rolling back its EV mandate?. This one:
The UK Just Rolled Back Its Gas Car Ban And Automakers And Politicians Are Super Mad About It
Well, guess what? Some automakers probably weren’t that mad because some automakers were behind it according to a big scoop from The Guardian:
Several of the world’s biggest carmakers lobbied the UK government to try to weaken or delay rules to accelerate electric car sales and cut Britain’s carbon emissions.
Toyota, Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) and Nissan were among the companies to ask for delays in enforcement of the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate that obliges them to sell increasing proportions of electric cars or face heavy fines, according to documents seen by the Guardian.
However, Volkswagen, Ford and Tesla argued that the ZEV mandate should be tougher.
I mean. Of course. It’s a great report and it’s interesting to hear what different automakers said:
Elon Musk’s Tesla, which pioneered electric car sales and has just been overtaken by China’s BYD as the biggest seller of EVs, said the rules were “not sufficient to drive more than organic market evolution” and said “it is possible that targets that look a stretch today will quickly be surpassed”. Ford said it “believes that the suggested trajectory can be met by many manufacturers across the UK market, and will ensure that those that are lagging accelerate their development appropriately, with the option of trading certificates to make up any shortfalls”.
Germany’s Volkswagen, the world’s second-largest carmaker, said the targets were “ambitious but seem to be generally feasible”.
This is all somewhat maddening, really. I love internal combustion and I want to always be able to have an internal combustion car for pleasure but, at the same time, most people don’t care about how a car feels and just want something nice, and an EV is often better for them and better for the environment in the long-term. Do I want an EV for a daily driver? Absolutely.
The take rate on EVs in China is a good example of how when electric cars get cheap enough, people will buy them. There are also good surveys that back up the notion that price and, to a lesser extent, infrastructure, are what’s holding back buyers. China’s mostly solved the price problem. How? First, it poured a huge amount of money into making it cheaper for consumers to buy EVs. Second, by its highly urbanized nature, it’s easier to get people to accept lower-range vehicles, which tend to be cheaper.
It’ll be harder here but, as with China, it’s going to be the role of the government to force the action. The Inflation Reduction Act is biased not towards getting people to buy EVs, but towards getting manufacturers to build EVs here using materials sourced from friendly places. And that’s a reaction to the Chinese government getting its industry built first.
There are companies like Volvo and Hyundai-Kia that are sticking to pledges to become entirely EV-only brands by the end of the decade. There are companies like Ford and GM that are mostly in but, at the same time, are cutting production or delaying vehicles to juggle current demand. And there are companies like Stellantis and Toyota, in particular, that are taking their time and are arguing for a slowdown in regulations.
Who is this good for? Ironically, Chinese manufacturers with no incentive to slow down and a lot of incentive to move into other markets. It’s good for Tesla, too, because Tesla never has made a gas-powered car and can already make cheaper EVs.
And it’s easy to say that if EVs need government support they’re not really that popular, but that’s also wrong. We live in a world where fossil fuels are subsidized by as much as $7 trillion a year and few people pay at the pump what a gallon of gasoline is actually worth. Here’s a good old piece by Jason Camissa that explains why SUVs and cars all have that weird overbite to avoid stricter fuel regulations, a reaction to government rules.
It’s the way the world works, and automakers are likely not going to make these changes on their own. It’s up to elected officials, which means, to some extent, it’s up to people to shift the Overton Window far enough that it’s untenable to not support full electrification. If that’s what you want. If you want the opposite then it’s up to you to shift the Overton Window back the other way.
How Are Automakers Doing On Their Pledges?
Well, this is a nicely timed article. Automotive News has a great wrap-up on automakers and their pledges to be carbon neutral.
The reality? If you care about limiting the warming of the planet to 1.5 degrees Celsius as many scientists think we need to do… it’s not happening fast enough. At the same time, most of those commitments are for like 15-20 years from now.
From the report:
Stephanie Brinley, associate director of AutoIntelligence for S&P Global Mobility, said automakers still have time to make their overall targets, and are unlikely to abandon them or backslide.
“I think the temptation is always there, but most of the carbon commitments are set for 2040 or 2050,” Brinley said. “It’s hard to say that if they backslide in 2024 or 2026, that they won’t be able to achieve a commitment they made for 2040. It would be more concerning if that happened in the first half of the next decade.
“But consumers,” she said, “are the wild card. They just have to start buying this stuff, and right now, prices are elevated.”
Just make the EVs cheaper! Oh, it’s too complicated to do that? Then have the government help!
What I’m Listening To As I Write This
Romy is one of two voices you hear on any The xx album and her solo work is also really lovely. The track above is from her debut solo album Mid Air and I love how happy it is. I just want Romy to be happy.
The Big Question
Who is smart? The automaker that waffles or the automaker that commits?
As a noun, I prefer pancakes to waffles. As a verb waffling is probably better than pancaking.
The industry in general (minus maybe newer startups) is entirely a slave to the regulations, it’s pretty entertaining but also sad hearing people in the industry talk about how they absolutely cannot choose a direction until it is supported by regulations, but then turn around and complain if the regulations do not support what they want, and try to change those pesky regulations, find loopholes, cheat, etc. It would be nice if there was a general push to just do the best possible in terms of emissions and such, but that’ll never happen with the current corporate structures.
I just saw E85 ethanol selling for $1.99 per gallon. Why can I not buy a new small car and put that in?
Our newest car acquisition is a 2014 Ford Expedition EL. It’s the last model year of the 5.4 three valve, and is a flex fuel vehicle, able to run on E85. Though it pains me that gas stations price E85 at the same dollars per mile equivalent to premium rather than 87 octane, I still occasionally fill that battleship with the biofuel; not only does it put some real pep in the old girl’s step, it also amuses me to think that my resultant carbon footprint is likely less than that of the Priuses (Pri-i?) and BEV’s running around, at least for that tank of gas… 😉
Around here in Michigan, the big chains price it compared to premium like you say. There are 2 independent franchise stations owned by the same guy that prices it compared to regular. I saw the sign again and it is now $1.91 per gallon which is $0.70 less than 87 octane. This is like $0.50 per gallon cheaper than the other stations that are not actually that far away.
> 2014
> old
Whut
Government subsidized race gas for the win! E85 is 100+ octane I’m pretty sure.
Studies show E85 is 23% worse for environmental damage when accounting for it’s creation than regular old gasoline. The cars also burn more of it then they would the equivalent gasoline.
That 2022 study you’re referring to made a big splash in the media, but was a bit flawed when you look into it.
Here’s the Renewable Fuels Association rebuttal, which is worth the read, IMO. Obviously they’re biased *towards* ethanol, but at least it does a good job listing the counterarguments. https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/blog/article/2022/10/the-truth-about-ethanol-and-carbon-emissions
Ethanol as a fuel came out of a desire to secure energy independence with domestic sources in the US, and dovetailed nicely timeline-wise with the oxygenated gasoline mandate (an effort to curb emissions from older, carbureted cars still on the road). The choice of oxygenate was between MTBE and ethanol, and questions about MTBE potentially causing cancer gave ethanol the opening it needed to win the fight. At that time there was no real thinking about carbon intensity reduction.
As a consequence the ethanol industry ended up using whatever the cheapest and easiest energy source was for heat in their distillation plants, rather than those with the lowest lifecycle CO2. You produce ethanol as a carbon neutral fuel, but you need to either burn the corn stover and other leftover plant bits as your heat source, or use some other renewable energy source. Now that the focus is so firmly on carbon intensity of the fuel, the ethanol industry is switching energy sources as quick as they can to get their carbon score down.
The other carbon source that the 2022 study talks about is change in land use, and that plowing fields that had previously laid fallow released captured CO2. This argument falls flat for me, because a) the land wasn’t being used for anything else (it was fallow) so you can’t be upset about displacing food production and so-forth, and b) no one would be upset if a farmer decided to put a fallow field into production for any other end use, so it strikes me as a bit contrived.
Obviously everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, but for my part I conclude that ethanol is a pretty environmentally friendly fuel already, and is only getting better.
The bad news is even if you did your MPG will drop so you get no benefit over paying $3/gal of gas.
At current prices $0.70 less per gallon is 27% cheaper. MPG is certainly going to fall but not by that much. The total lifecycle emissions are 50% less on a gasoline gallon energy equivalent basis, which takes into account the lower energy content, so emissions go down even if the cost per mile is barely cheaper.
YMMV. According to e85prices.com the current national average for fuels is:
E0 = $3.65
E10 = 2.86
E15 = $2.68
E85 = $2.19
Looking at EPA figures* most recent model FFV get about 71% of the range on E85 that they get on E0 so if E85 costs $2.19 you’d be saving money vs E0 at prices > $3.09/gal (not counting losses from the extra trips to the gas station). Assuming** a 4% hit on MPG with E10 and 5% on E15 you’re looking at saving at prices of > $2.28/gal and E15 at $2.30/gal. So at the moment E85 is the bargain at the pump but of course YMMV. I see on Gasbuddy a gallon of regular can be had for as little as $2.12/gal in Casper Wyoming so you’d need to pay less than $1.50/gal for E85 to save money there.
*https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=alts&path=3&year=2021&vtype=E85&srchtyp=yearAfv&rowLimit=50&pageno=1
**https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml#/find/nearest?country=US&fuel=E85
The national average is pretty close to what it sells for in my region, with the majority of retailers selling for above the average and a few selling for below. I would recommend buying from the cheaper station.
The EPA figures are just based on energy content, not actually putting fuel into actual cars, so this makes perfect sense. In my experience the highway mileage loss is lower than the loss in the city. Higher efficiency gives slightly more horsepower which shows up as faster acceleration but is not needed in steady state operation. YMMV indeed, but it is probably better if you do much of your driving in rural areas and are gentle with the accelerator.
I, too, just want Romy to be happy.
(I’d also like the ID.2all in the US in some form, but that’s less likely.)
Who is smart? The automaker that waffles or the automaker that commits?
Just my 2 cents, but the smart MFR is the one that commits to both and lets the market decide.
Price and available options to replenish the tanks/batteries will ultimately rule the day. A really smart MFR would lobby the other MFR’s to do a standardized phone charger type thing and they would all invest in charging station infrastructure, and share profits based upon Percent invested. As ICE fuel stations drop off the price and availability of that fuel option will only increase the necessity of low cost electric options.
The automaker that waffles until the time is right to commit.
History is littered with companies that bet the farm on a given technology 5 or 10 years too early and got eaten up by a competitor who timed the transition right (think Blackberry and Apple/Google). Often the timing is determined by some important development that makes a technology more viable (think touchscreens small and precise enough for phone use). In this case maybe that’s solid state batteries. Or maybe we crack fusion power and suddenly hydrogen is viable at scale and BEVs become a footnote in history.
Heck, maybe Tesla nailed it when they went all-in ten years ago. I doubt it, but we won’t know until EVs reach critical mass and we see where all the manufacturers shake out.
The question of who’s smarter is not which automaker commits to selling EVs sooner, but which automaker has the best EV technology (efficiency, cost, scalability, etc.) in the medium-long term. Committing to EVs earlier may help with this as you can gain manufacturing and product planning experience, but at the cost of likely taking losses. Theoretically, an automaker could hold off on EVs and instead spend heavily on EV R&D, which could lend them a technology advantage once it’s time to commit. However, this comes at the cost of having dealers who don’t know how to handle EVs, and potential manufacturing issues due to inexperience.
Gah that same “fossil fuels are also subsidized heavily” argument. If you click through to the paper the vast majority of these supposed subsidies are of the “implicit” variety which includes “undercharging for environmental impacts”. The numbers assigned to this are made up. I could pull punches here but let’s be honest – there is no way to put a hard dollar figure on that and everywhere I see it it comes from people that have an agenda. Even the explicit subsidies are questionable as many of them are tax breaks that are available to lots of businesses. Even worse, many of the explicit subsidies apply to power generation like coal which is just as relevant to EVs as ICE vehicles (perhaps more so depending on where you charge).
On the other hand, China is subsidizing EVs heavily and directly both on the business and customer side.
If you look at the IMF analysis of fossil fuel subsidies for gasoline in the USA, initially it appears that the retail price is only about half of the overall societal cost. However, the squishy bits that make up the second half of the graph are congestion, accidents, and taxes. Obviously congestion and accidents are going to happen with EVs as well and I am not sure how taxes are considered a subsidy but the bottom line is that gasoline is priced in line with the supply cost, local pollution externality, and the global warming calculated future cost. In other words, at least the IMF data does not support that gasoline is heavily subsidized as compared to EV passenger transportation.
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies
EV manufacturing has some serious local and global externalities as well. The argument for EV adoption is that the electrical power grid is greening so that over the 10 years of EV operating life they will continually get greener (when averaged across all locations). This argument only holds water if non-carbon power sources are replacing carbon sources (solar replacing coal for example). This effort is continuing in the first world but globally, carbon emissions continue to rise. If you believe that global warming is a huge looming problem (I do), then we need to be doing much more on all aspects of industry to improve efficiency and change fuel sources.
Even if an EV is only powered by a coal fired power plant it’s greener in about 3 years of ownership vs ICE. In Norway where most of their electricity is renewable it’s just 8400 miles miles of driving. The US hit about 40% of it’s energy from carbon neutral sources in 2022.
Yeah, people need to stop using the “fossil fuels are heavily subsidized too!” argument. They really are not. “Implicit subsidy” is just a bullshit hand wave for “this is gross and nasty and I think it should cost more based on arbitrary metric xyz.”
“Yeah, people need to stop using the “fossil fuels are heavily subsidized too!” argument. They really are not.”
Multiple very expensive wars in the oil rich middle east say otherwise.
Not a subsidy. If you want to argue the geopolitical cost of oil dependency, that’s certainly a valid point (and one I might agree with), but it is not a direct payment to individuals or companies from the government to alleviate a financial burden caused by some sort of behavior that is adjudged to be in the public good.
Venezuela and Argentina have subsidies for oil, the US and Europe (afaik, but might be a few that actually do) do not.
Not a subsidy.
That is a matter of opinion:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/21/17885832/oil-subsidies-military-protection-supplies-safe
By the very definition of “subsidy” there is a good argument that the contribution of securing those supplies by the government for the benefit of the oil companies is indeed a subsidy if an indirect one:
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
“a farm subsidy”
a sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest. “she was anxious about her Arts Council subsidy”a grant or contribution of money. “the position is generously rewarded and benefits include a mortgage subsidy”
I think the main argument is right there, “a sum of money” when people hear Fossil fuel subsidy they think the government is giving cash or tax credits which isn’t true.
It would be more accurate to label the 7 billion “subsidy” as “$7billion extrinsic and estimated intrinsic cost to society”
America produces almost all of it’s own oil domestically, and imports from Canada make up the rest.
Some brainlet “journalist” can rant about indirect subsidies all they want, but the fundamental premise of their article is incoherent and unsound- US military adventurism does not actually have anything to do with meeting domestic oil consumption needs, that is already handled. Sad thing is, there is a good story there but TDS is a hell of a disease and they diverted onto a non-nonsensical diatribe instead of asking more salient questions, “why are we so busy fucking around in the middle east when we don’t need it’s oil?” would be a good start.
“why are we so busy fucking around in the middle east when we don’t need it’s oil?” would be a good start.
And what exactly do you think would happen if that spigot were to shut off?
Oil is fungible. If it doesn’t come from the middle east the people who don’t have it, will buy it from elsewhere. Ultimately, everyone needs oil. Those who don’t have it will buy from those who do.
Not quite the same thing. My scenario was was closer to the 1973 oil embargo than a flat earth market.
Is there a waffle whiffer in your house? If you’re an automaker, the likely answer is “yes.”
Does anyone else find that Jason Camissa article confusing and annoying? Greater than 28 deg approach angle would incentivize shorter overbites and front axles pushed forward for a long dash-axle distance like my dad’s 1989 Toyota pickup, and not overbite with a shorter dash-to-axle distance like any modern truck. It almost feels like he realized he got confused and just abruptly ends the article rather than rework it so it makes sense.
Initially he seemed to indicate it would make SUV noses longer but it turns out that it just makes them chinless. The takeaway, of course, is that lobbyists created loopholes in CAFE standards so large that US manufacturers could drive giant SUVs and pickups through them.
“ it’s clear that many automakers aren’t going to jump until they have to jump.”
That has been the ongoing story with legacy automakers regarding BEVs for the last two decades.
The only reasons why legacy automakers have started making serious moves is because of Tesla eating more and more of their lunch AND government emissions regulations.
And even then, they are doing the BEV thing grudgingly. Same deal with their approach to charging networks… they avoid doing it at all. And when are forced to do it (like VW and Electrify America), they do it in a way that is inferior and half assed compared what Tesla does.
At one point I read that automakers make more profit on repairs than on automobile purchase price. EVs require less maintenance, so unless the public can swallow subscription models and over-the-air software update obsolescence (like the Microsoft computer model), their future profits from each sale will tank.
I spoke to a friend with a 2 year old Mach-E, and he says all he’s put into it is recall work.
Curious what your source on this is.
Most of the parts for autos are not manufactured in-house and are instead manufactured by third parties (Bosch, Delco, NGK, etc.).
And dealerships – in the era of COVID – are not the ones maintaining the average 12-year-old car on the road. Only about 30% of service is conducted at dealerships.
In addition to which, the automakers themselves don’t really profit from work performed at a dealership.
There could be something to say for dealerships not wanting to move to EV’s, but even there, the sales people are still getting comp’d per margin per vehicle and could move them if they wished to.
Yes, you’re starting to jog my memory. The article was researching why car salespeople were discouraged from pushing EVs. The article was from some reputable source, but I don’t remember where. I think there was an article from 10 years ago and another from 2 years ago which verified the first.
Ahem. Subscriptions would like to enter the conversation. A share of residuals might quiet the dealers. However, probably not keep those service staff jobs.
Currently, EVs are more maintenance heavy than ICEs through the first 2 years of ownership
https://www.torquenews.com/1083/study-3-year-maintenance-repair-cost-difference-between-ice-and-ev-just-235.
Year 3 the cost for the ICE exceeds the EV. That works until the EV need a battery replacement post warranty. EVs are not the panacea they are made out to be by those seeking power over the citizens.
The auto dealers definitely make more money on repairs than they do sales. The only place the mfgrs make money on repairs is parts sales. If you were trying build a car from dealer sold parts, it would cost 3-4X the price of a new car and that doesn’t include labor. BTW, the dealer marks up the price from the mfgr, probably on the order of 100%. (Based on a short stint at a motorcycle dealership a lifetime ago).
I love when the big question can be answered with just two trite, yet true, sayings.
-The fable of the tortoise and the hare. (slow and steady wins the race)
-Measure twice and cut once.
The companies that are/have recently started going balls to the wall to comply with today’s standards are gonna be kicking themselves when they gotta do it all over again.
If you can’t find the time to do it right,
How you gonna find the time to do it over?
It’s all typical corporate games, make everyone think you are going full in on EVs, make them too expensive and let the early adopters fund some of the development/transition, cut back rollout and goals while pleading and waiting for the government to double/triple subsidies with less restrictions.
I suppose it depends on the business model they are following. I think both are smart. We need a distribution of approaches, versus just one approach. Eventually, one will win, and the rest will follow. All the players you mention are big enough to not fail if their business model does. I think it’s more important to see what the smaller OEM’s are doing, cause their risks are SO much higher due to size. I feel like the question becomes:
Who won’t make it through?
Something tells me that Stellantis is going to have a major reconning coming for them. I feel they are slated to shrink, with a number of sub-brands disappearing.
I am concerned for Mazda and Subaru.
I’m sure there are going to be dozens of Chinese brands that dissappear.
I think VAG is going to shrink a bit as well, but they are big enough to absorb it.
Mazda and Subaru enjoy the backing of Toyota, and I’m sure they’ll be fine. Of course, the sooner either is allowed to use Toyota hybrid systems in a mass market car, the better.
If the competition between ICE vehicles and EVs were truly even (i.e. – remove or equalize the trillions of dollars in oil subsidies, etc.), I have no doubt that EVs would win that fight. The trouble is that the oil-industry support is in the background and most people are ignorant of what’s really going on so they just point to the obvious EV subsidies and say “spending other people’s money is bad!”, ignoring the fact that we’ve done that for decades to prop up the petroleum industry.
Anyway, thanks for the analysis of the news, Matt. I particularly like the fact that you draw attention to the complexities of the situation and the fact that corporations and people are both rational actors: “people are also somewhat rational actors as well, and if they know incentives are coming they’ll just wait until they can save.” Sort of how Ford announced the second coming of the Electric Truck in the form of the T3 and then were shocked (shocked!) that demand for the comparatively primitive F150 Lightning. <eyroll>
As for who is the smarter, I’d say the wafflers might be. “Flexibility is the key to Air Power”, as we used to say in the USAF, and maintaining flexibility in this changing market (changing regulations, incentives, demand, etc.) is the smart move.
Well now I want waffles.
Well we’re OUT OF WAFFLES!!!
So we jumped up on the table and shouted “ANARCHY!!!”
That is the only reasonable response
In our defense, someone played a Beach Boys song on the jukebox.
Lego my Eggo!
Toyota, Nissan, and JLR are the main companies currently with factories in the UK – and all three are heavily reliant on ICE vehicles (the Jag ipace can hardly count, being built by Magna Steyr in Austria).
The UK can hardly stand to lose their dwindling automotive manufacturing industry until it pivots – even if Nissan does make the Nissan Leaf in Sunderland, they also make the Qashqai & Juke (begs the question: the Juke, really?).
I suspect once JLR finally can pivot to EVs, and Toyota finally decides it doesn’t make sense to have a factory outside of the EU, that UK will quickly change their tune to try to help JLR soldier on (regardless of whomever might own them).
Dwindling is right, Honda built Civics and Accords in Swindon UK from 1992 right up until the UK shot itself in the junk with Brexit.
Think the automaker that is waflling now may be smart, cheap to build EVs aren’t a thing, expensive EVs the markets getting full. Am I thinking Toyota? Dang that sounds like Toyota, lame.
I also think the automakers there were doing ‘compliance’ cars and dropped them all kind of messed up. Like if VW still had the e-Golf, and it got like 150 miles of range due to gradual improvements in batteries, that’d not be too bad right?
Compliance Cars deserves its own write up and it’s a huge missed opportunity.
“Just make the EVs cheaper! Oh, it’s too complicated to do that? Then have the government help!”
Yes, the temptation to spend other people’s money is as strong as ever, I see. And these days not just other people’s money (taxes) but our children’s future money (debt), with compounding interest.
We’re not talking about shaking some money free from the city’s coffers to clean up graffiti or fund a soup kitchen here, we’re talking about shaking up the fundamental structure of the energy and transportation sectors of the global so-called ‘first world’ economy here – the literal fuel and connective fiber of the economy. Decarbonization can, should, and will be done, but cautiously and with much deliberation so as to minimize the negative impacts as much as possible.
Note that such a process is distinctly different from ‘pick a winner and pass laws to outlaw competitors’ (subsidizing the picked winner until the competitors go out of business is a minor variation on the same theme). That’s the functional equivalent of a toddler stomping his foot and swearing to hold his breath until he gets his way – it rarely works, and when it does the long term consequences usually come back to bite.
I assume you are equally upset by decades of subsidies to and investment in the oil industry?
PresterJohn and AltSchule do a pretty good job articulating what my take would be on that topic just a few threads above this one. Well written responses and worth the read, IMO.
I regret my comment since I really do try not to be argumentative on this site. I love cars too much.
Regarding the other commenters, thank you for pointing me to them, and I do think they make good points (like that we probably shouldn’t trust the IMF). Not enough good points to change my mind, but some. 🙂
That said, from the rest of your comment, I think we fundamentally disagree on what the government’s role is and should be. That’s okay! And that’s also not worth arguing about in an internet comment section!
I appreciate and agree with your comment. One of the things I’m trying hard to teach my kids is that “it is normal and expected for reasoning adults to disagree on matters of degree.” You and I may indeed land on different portions of the ‘No Government Intervention’ <—-> ‘Maximum Government Intervention’ continuum, and that’s fine. It’s normal and expected, and more to the point it doesn’t make either of us ‘bad’, and we needn’t proselytize and try to make a convert of the other. Diversity of opinion and reasoned debate are critical to a healthy and functioning society.
Cheers, fellow Autopian.
Lol older generations only care about “our children’s future” when it’s expedient justification for what they want to do. What about the actual world they live in? We are already seeing the beginning effects of climate change and it’s not going to fun or easy for our children.
There is a lot of opportunity to offset subsidies we take on now by developing new technologies and industries, but that’s not going to happen as long as we support lazy, unproductive industries like legacy auto manufacturing.
Throwing all your eggs in one basket is practically never a good idea, whether it’s EV, big trucks, or anything else.
I don’t know, it really pays off sometimes. Always a gamble, but gambles pay off sometimes. Tesla seems to have done quite well targeting exclusively fancy electric sedans, and even better targeting the still-narrow market of fancy electric sedans and crossovers.
Which automaker is smart?
Well the automaker that is honest about their goals of saving the environment, meaning the manufacturers that actually want to reduce emissions and aren’t just doing it for PR reasons or to meet government regulations, will do whatever they think is best for reducing emissions.(while making cars that don’t suck).
Even in 2023, it’s not abundantly clear that switching to battery electric cars is the most effective, cheapest, fastest, or overall best way to reduce emissions(without making the cars suck). Mazda thinks they can be the most effective with new combustion engine technologies(hcci) and no electrification. Toyota thinks gasoline electric hybrids are the most effective solution.
The decision to move to battery electric cars is an engineering call that is being made by politicians, not by engineers. And it’s very possible that the not-engineers are making the wrong engineering call. The automakers who honestly do want to reduce emissions will do their best to follow whichever path they think is best to reduce emissions, and that very possibly means NOT investing in electric cars.
Hey Rust Buckets…
It’s 2024 now.
Oh yeah.
It is a very optimistic assumption that any corporation cares about emissions.
Whether it’s an EV manufacturer or an oil company, they will always, always tell you that the best thing for the environment just happens to be whatever’s best for their bottom line.
Good point. I should have said “the hypothetical automaker who honestly do care about what they say they care about.”
I think it’s possible that Toyota, Mazda, and Tesla actually do care about saving the environment(not top priority, but something they care about), just because they’re kind of the only manufacturers who have proven willing to do unconventional things and take risks for the sake of reduced emissions.
“Even in 2023, it’s not abundantly clear that switching to battery electric cars is the most effective, cheapest, fastest, or overall best way to reduce emissions”
False. From a pure efficiency and emissions perspective, battery electric cars absolutely are the most effective, cheapest, fastest and overall best way to reduce emissions.
Seriously… what do you think is better? Hydrogen? LOL… not by a long shot.
“The decision to move to battery electric cars is an engineering call that is being made by politicians, not by engineers.”
Nope… that’s also false. The vehicles Tesla built was not designed or built by politicians. It was built by engineers. Politicians are simply providing incentives for the best tech out there based on actual cost, efficiency and emissions data. BEVs are also more efficient from an infrastructure point of view as they mostly reuse the existing electricity grid, as opposed to hydrogen where an all new infrastructure would need to be built.
And right now and for the foreseeable future, that is battery electric vehicles.
The only people who DON’T know this (or refuse to admit this) are people who are deliberately sticking their heads in the sand or those who profit from oil, oil related products or ICE-related products.
Okay. Let’s get actual numbers down. The EPA says that typical electric cars in 2023 should produce roughly half the lifetime CO2 emissions of comparable gas powered cars. Manufacturing, use disposal. There are many studies on the subject, all getting different numbers, but the consensus is that electric cars produce at best 50% of the emissions of a gas powered car with current battery technologies and the current US power grid.
The comparable gas cars in question are somewhat upmarket sedans mostly. Most of these cars do not get better than 30mpg.
So if any gas powered car can exceed 60mpg, according to the EPA, it has the potential to produce less CO2 than the electric cars currently on the market. Is over 60mpg possible? Yes it is possible, through hybrids, diesels, downsized cars, advanced aerodynamics, more widespread use of composites and aluminum, ect. There are hybrids on the market approaching 60mpg right now. There are 40 year old hatchbacks that approach 60mpg.
So, are there other methods that have the potential to reduce light vehicle CO2 emissions in the United States as much as or more than a switch to battery electric cars would? Yes.
Are there methods that could happen faster than a switch to electric, and would likely produce similar net reduction? Yes. For example, if they wanted to, the Big Three could all develop cars half the size of what they’re selling now in like two years. That right there would automatically get 60mpg and produce no more emissions than a Tesla, and it would require no additional infrastructure or mining of limited mineral resources that don’t exist in the US. I’m not saying that will or should happen, but it could.
So…… It is not abundantly clear that a switch to battery electric is the fastest or most effective means of reducing light vehicle emissions in the United States. But the government is treating it like it is.
“There are many studies on the subject, all getting different numbers, but the consensus is that electric cars produce at best 50% of the emissions of a gas powered car with current battery technologies and the current US power grid.”
Well there it is. BEVs chop the well-to-wheel emissions in half.
Name another vehicle type that gets close to that. And it isn’t hydrogen.
“So if any gas powered car can exceed 60mpg, according to the EPA, it has the potential to produce less CO2 than the electric cars currently on the market. ”
Only if you ignore all the CO2 emissions from extracting, transporting, refining and distributing all the extra oil-related products that vehicle will use over its life.
Based on the studies I saw from research from organzations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, a BEV will chop the lifetime emissions in half when compared to a good hybrid like the Prius.
So yes, it absolutely IS abundantly clear that a switch to BEVs is the fastest and most effective means of reducing vehicle emissions anywhere.
The EPA study is supposed to be a completely comprehensive study regarding well-to-wheel emissions. This includes the emissions associated with oil extraction, oil transportation, oil refining, fuel transportation, car manufacturing, battery manufacturing, electricity generation, electricity transmission, and everything else. The EPA also makes it very clear that this is comparing electric cars to other midsize luxury sedans that get ~30mpg. That’s where I get this 60mpg number.
“Name another vehicle type that gets close to that” Okay, easy. There are TONS of vehicles that get 60mpg or close to it. An old Honda Insight. An old Honda CRX. An old Prius. A new Prius. A Miata driven by a hypermiling enthusiast. An early 80s Isuzu diesel pickup EPA rated for 54mpg. Any diesel Volkswagen. Most any motorcycle. What about the VW XL1 that gets (no joke here) 250mpg? That’s 416% of 60mpg.
If a Tesla produces 10% less emissions than a 40 year old pickup(60mpg is 10% better than 54mpg), I’m gonna go ahead and say that the electric car is not necessarily the best way to go. Especially considering the efficiency of diesels has increased more than 10% in the same amount of time.
Also, if a Tesla produces 416% of the emissions of a ten year old Volkswagen, it’s pretty safe to say that the electric car is not necessarily the best way to go.
Can electric car emissions get better? Definitely. Can non-electric car emissions also get better? Definitely. Would switching everybody to small diesel cars produce similar results to switching everybody to battery electric cars? Very possibly. Has that route been sufficiently investigated? I don’t think so.
I’m not sure why you keep bringing up hydrogen. You are absolutely correct that hydrogen power is not the way forward, for almost any applications.
If what we care about is net CO2 emissions, don’t limit yourself to cars that produce zero tailpipe emissions(electric and hydrogen) if there is potential for other technologies to produce the same effect.
“The EPA study is supposed to be a completely comprehensive study regarding well-to-wheel emissions.”
Do you have a link to that study? Because all the non-oil-funded well-to-wheel studies I’ve read indicate that BEVs generally have half of the lifetime emissions compared to a 60mpg hybrid like the Prius.
And here is a current map of “Driving The Average EV as gasoline MPG equivalent”
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/2022-09/driving-cleaner-figure-2a.png?itok=jhyVduQa
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/driving-cleaner
And driving a BEV in the USA today is like like driving a gasoline car that gets 91 MPG on average.
And the beauty of BEVs is that as more coal plants get shut down and more cleaner energy sources are added, the BEVs themselves become ‘cleaner’.
And anyone can achieve the same thing by installing solar panels at home to offset the electricity used by the BEV.
“don’t limit yourself to cars that produce zero tailpipe emissions”
I’m not. But I’m willing to pay a lot more for a BEV because there will be lower operating costs and less maintenance down the road. Plus something like a used Tesla has WAAAY better performance than a used Prius of similar mileage and age.
So I would get a hybrid over a Tesla… but it has to be substantially cheaper to be worthwhile.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
Myth #2 right here is where I’m getting my roughly 50% number. It does say 2020 model year, so the study is no longer brand new but it’s not antiquated either.
Obviously electric cars can become greener as battery technology improves and the power grid gets better. But my point is that gasoline cars can also get better, that combustion engine development and aerodynamic development is not at a dead end by any means.
91 mpg is also achievable, even for a four seater sedan.
If you would rather drive an electric car regardless, that’s fine by me. I’m absolutely in favor of having as many options as possible on the market. That’s the whole reason I’m opposed to the government’s and the industry’s exclusive emphasis on electric cars, because a ban on electric cars removes from the market options that still may be viable options.
so you’re justification for BEVs not being as effective for reducing emissions is… the hypothetical possibility of the auto industry releasing products that any sane rational person knows they will never develop. Wow…. strong argument.
If you think a little harder, you might remember that the auto industry already has sold vehicles >60mpg, many thousands of units in fact. So maybe I’m not irrational and insane for thinking it may be possible for something that has already happened to happen again.
Wow…… strong argument.
Every time you make this argument you cite examples that do not apply today and weaken your argument by exaggerating your claims.
The only car that you cited in your earlier post that actually cracks 60 mpg is the VW XLI, which doesn’t count because it’s a concept car that never saw production. Enough said.
Everything else you mentioned doesn’t hit 60 mpg per the EPA. The new Prius gets into the high 50s and motorcycle’s aren’t cars so I don’t know why you brought them up.
Everything else you brought up are old cars that would not meet modern crash regulations or emissions tests and would not be sold as new today for a number of other reasons.
You keep forgetting this: the debate regarding electrification vs. gas powered cars is about NEW CARS! Not modern electric cars vs 40 year old cars! Or diesel powered cars that VW stopped selling because the only way it could affordably make them pass emissions was with diesel cheat devices! For crying out loud, learn to compare like for like!
For crying out loud, think! I was making a point! If we could have combustion powered cars 40 years ago that crack 50mpg, then in 2024 we could have combustion powered cars that crack 60mpg! That was my whole point!
Or do you really believe that cars have gotten less efficient in the last four decades?
XL1s were put into very limited production and sold to paying customers in the EU. They only made like 150 or something, but they were in fact production.
Honda Insights and CRXs are known for being able to crack 60mpg with the right driver.
Fine, VW sold 150 XL1s. Why only 150? It’s almost like not everybody wanted one. If people don’t buy them or there isn’t a good business case for them, they won’t get made.
I don’t care that people can hypermile their old Insights and CRX’s to 60 mpg. If they aren’t on sale today and it doesn’t reflect the driving style of the average driver, it is irrelevant data.
It doesn’t matter that 40 years ago we have cars that could crack 50 mpg. That was a different market with different expectations and regulations. If people don’t want to buy the modern equivalent of a 2024 Geo Metro because it’s too small and too slow, then there is no business case for it and nobody will make it. Guess what? Nobody is! We have no modern equivalent to the Geo Metro and Honda CRX/Insight. I used to have a 2013 Ford Focus, and I averaged 35 mpg with it. Nowhere close to 60 mpg. Now Ford doesn’t even make the Focus anymore.
You can go on and on about how in your world we SHOULD have new cars that get 60 mpg. That’s the difference between you and me: you argue about what we should have, I argue about what exists and what could realistically be built based on a) what people are willing to pay money for and b) what there is a business case for.
These conversations about EVs, sustainability, CO2 etc. are about what the world can do to improve things GOING FORWARD. Then you step in saying that we can have 60 mpg+ gas-powered cars because we used to have 50 mpg cars so why can’t we just make 60 mpg+ cars??? When confronted that this won’t happen as things sit right now, you cite a bunch of old cars, and other stuff completely irrelevant to solving the issues that governments and automakers are working on today.
Do you have a solution? Do you actually have an idea for something that could be built in 2024 that would pass 2024 regulations and sell on a large scale at a profit? Because anything else is a distraction. Ideas that have no ability to solve the problems being discussed here (“I don’t care that they don’t make a 60 mpg Honda CRX’s today; I want one and someone should be able to make them and no one can change my mind!”) only muddies the waters of discourse on here with your hypotheticals of ‘how things should be.’
Guess what? The world doesn’t work like that! The world should have no crime, yet it’s everywhere. Saying something should or shouldn’t be here doesn’t make it so. We put a man on the moon, we should have flying cars by now! Why don’t we? We have the technology for it don’t we? Oh yeah, because it’s too expensive to do profitably and even if you did, it would be difficult to do so while being compliant with modern regulations. Kind of like VW with the diesel debacle: they could sell the cars profitably OR pass emissions on them, but not both at the same time. Guess which cars are not on sale anymore today because VW can’t sell them in today’s market with today’s regulations? Diesel VWs!
If you still don’t get it, then I’m done. I don’t care about ‘proving my perspective right,’ I come here to learn, and learning means sometimes being wrong, which I have been before. But when people don’t want to learn or understand things, then I don’t see the point in trying to convince them of anything anymore. If all you want to do is talk about old cars that can get 60+ mpg and why that means something to you … it’s a free country; you do you I guess.
But it’s not only 40 year old cars that get 50+ mpg. You pointed out yourself that a 2024 Prius is EPA rated for 53mpg. Obviously 50+ mpg is possible. I’m saying that a 15% improvement is very possible, and that 60mpg+ cars could be manufactured today. Again, do you honestly believe that cars have gotten necessarily less efficient in 40 years?
My whole point was that it is very possible for combustion powered cars or other technologies to produce similar ner emissions reductions to battery electric cars.
I’m not saying we SHOULD have 60mpg cars, I’m saying that we COULD have 60mpg cars and that the government SHOULD be considering that option instead of throwing billions at battery electric cars and hydrogen.
They only sold a few XL1s because they cost like $300k because it was a crazy proof of concept carbon fiber thing in the pursuit of 250mpg. Obviously that’s over the top and 1/3 that much efficiency is already a huge improvement.
The Prius can do 50+ but not 60+. Not yet, not without weight reduction, aerodynamic improvements, or engine technology improvements. And that’s it. That’s the best that’s on the market right now. And not everyone wants to buy a Prius. If anyone can make ICE last forever, it’ll be Toyota, but they haven’t hit 60+ in a modern car yet. Nobody else is really even trying.
Expecting that gas engines will improve to the point where we can have 60+ mpg in a Prius in the near future seems very possible. Extrapolating from that that eventually we could have everyone on the road driving 60+ mpg gas-powered crossovers is another thing entirely.
However, if the federal government can force everybody out of combustion cars, the federal government can definitely force everybody out of crossovers and towards Priuslike cars.
I’m not saying this will happen, because it won’t. I’m saying it’s possible and that the government and the auto industry are very irresponsible for ignoring this possibility.
“The Prius can do 50+ but not 60+. Not yet, not without weight reduction, aerodynamic improvements, or engine technology improvements”
Good thing none of those are necessarily very difficult. I mean, the previous generation Prius is an aerodynamic improvement over the current one, which is slightly higher drag. Obviously it’s possible.
No they won’t follow the best path to reduce emissions, we have seen over 50 years that automakers care about money and that’s it. If they cared about emissions they would make vehicles that count as trucks to they can be less efficient. It’s why everything is a crossover now.
The waffles will get toasted by the EV-only brands. Why? The waffles have to keep two very different supply chains while the EV-only makers have just one. That costs money. Being a short order chef means they’re expert at nothing. Their EV’s will end up half-baked and expensive. We’re seeing this with GM, Ford and VW. Meanwhile the EV only companies are some of the best selling EV’s. They figured out the recipe and the magic sauce to make then special.
This space reserved for a heaping helping of crow.
Incidentally VAG seems to be the best suited for EV transition amongst the main line manufacturers. Maybe their position in China gave them a first row seat seeing the future and that their Dieselgate penance (Electrify America) was a blessing in disguise.
That’s my impression too. It helps they can’t go back to diesel. Having Porsche, Audi and Rolls-Royce/Bentley under their umbrella helps them to develop EV stuff since it’s an ideal fit for those brands. Then it can trickle down as tech does into their cheaper VW, SEAT and Skoda cars. Or trickle up.
Electrify America was/is a cruel joke on the EV buying public. VW got credit for installing chargers (not all of them high speed), but 40% of them are broken at any given time.
I think the whole argument has been proven by Tesla. They are profitable, the Model 3 SR is inline with new car transaction prices. No matter how many people here complain about them their sales keep growing.
They other companies waffle because their BEV products used the same philosophy as their ICE and are worse for it.
Talk to the people in Chicago who’s Teslas have to be towed home to take days to charge their cold batteries and run out of juice in less than half the stated range because cold…
I’m an EV proponent, but I think the automaker who waffles may have an advantage here, profit-wise. As long as they have money invested into an EV platform, they can make money from the people who want gassers, then later make money from the people who were waiting for the next EV breakthrough or mandates. The automaker who doesn’t want to invest in EVs at all will suffer, but I don’t think we still have anyone in that camp. Those fully committing to EVs are still playing catch-up, as far as convincing the general public. Tesla has first-mover advantage and a name that has become synonymous with EVs in a lot of minds. To convince the general buying public to buy an EV from most brands right now, you need something that is an obvious breakthrough, like massively increased efficiency, solid state batteries, or incredibly fast charging. Or you need to offer something competitive on range for a much lower price.
If Toyota actually comes out with the battery tech they’ve said they have in development, they could pivot from laggard to dominant force in EVs. And the sales of hybrids and gassers certainly help them fund that development.
I think Tesla proves the inverse of the profit issue.
That’s why I mentioned them having first-mover advantage. For better or worse, when you mention EVs to most people, the first thing to come to mind is Tesla. Unless a company can truly offer something that blows Tesla out of the water, the waffling is probably to their advantage.
It doesn’t have to blow Tesla out of the water. It has to offer the ownership experience close enough. It’s the same reason people love Apple. It’s easy to be in their ecosystem.
Toyota did not develop any battery technology alone, they partnered with Idemitsu. Toyota also wants to use it in hybrids. Other companies claim some pretty amazing solid-state breakthroughs, so I hope they are real.
The automaker that keeps options open and doesn’t go all-in on anything, while researching advances in battery density, cost, and recharging times that will help mitigate the downsides of EVs.
I still think e-fuels will have a place, but I don’t believe much research is necessary for those, just a greater abundance of cheap renewable power.
I think the e-fuels might find better success in aviation and other applications where weight is an issue until battery density increases.
You say “until battery density increases” like it’s inevitable that battery electric power will eventually become the most energy and power dense means of propulsion yet devised by humankind.
I never used the word inevitable and don’t think it will be the most power dense means of propulsion devised my humankind (that would be Mr Fusion) but I certainly believe humankind will find more and more efficient means of energy storage, be it batteries (solid state or otherwise) or via other chemical interactions yet discovered. I do not believe that combustion of hydrocarbons is our only means of going forward (pun intended) but I hope it sticks around for a while.
The reason I say “the most energy and power dense means of propulsion ever devised by humankind” is because turbine engines are the most power dense engines in common use anywhere, and hydrocarbon fuels are the most energy dense fuels in common use anywhere. If electric is going to match or surpass the impressively light weight of airplane engines, then battery electric will have become the Top Dawg in terms of power and energy density(outside of racing applications and rocketry anyways).
I’m not saying that’s inevitible but I also wouldn’t rule it out after growing up with alkaline and NiMH batteries and now seeing how small Li-Ion batteries can be with similar storage and output.
The estimates I’ve seen for replacing large scale air transport with electric based solutions (think B-737 class of aircraft) is 1kW/kg. While it’s not inevitable, we appear to have a path to get there. Nothing is denser than nuclear — or better yet, antimatter, but batteries are getting pretty good. We do need petroleum for other things, like roads, lubricants and chemical feedstock, so I don’t see oil going away any time soon either.
Nothing is denser than nuclear? I assume you’re talking about just the energy density of the fuel? Because what matters here is both the energy density of the fuel and the power density of the engine, because we need a total package that’s not too heavy.
For energy density, yes. But you did use the term “propulsion”, and last I checked we propel aircraft carriers and subs too. A technicality, I know. If you want to consider energy density for propulsion thinking about the *entire* energy path is helpful. Eventually — within the life of this web forum in my opinion — the cost to build an EV that easily outperforms an inexpensive ICE vehicle will hit parity. That’s when all hell breaks loose, and my bet is it hitting sooner rather than later.
Yes, we propel aircraft carriers and subs……. Using nuclear power trains……. That have much worse power density than comparable combustion power trains. For airplanes, cars, boats, anything, internal combustion(piston or turbine engines) typically produces maximum power density, electric is usually a bit less, and nuclear power is really low power density.
The cost to build an EV that easily outperforms an inexpensive ICE vehicle reaching parity already has happened, just not on larger scales. Electric cars cost more for similar performance, but electric RC cars cost less than gasoline for similar performance. With dirt bikes, electric just very recently reached price/performance parity with gasoline with the Surron.
A big factor here is the energy density. An electric dirt bike or RC car or drone needs to have great power density, but if the runtime is fairly short due to poor energy density that’s not that big a deal. If a car has poor runtime, that’s a really big deal when you can’t make it to Grandma’s house. If a semi truck that needs to drive 3000 miles in the next three days has poor runtime, that’s a really really big problem.
I can’t agree that nuclear power trains are less dense than internal combustion because how many times do you refuel a ship that’s nuclear vs. oil/gas fired? After all, the power units (steam turbines) are very similar. Here’s the thing though: I can, today, for a reasonable amount of money replace an ICE vehicle that doesn’t have to go 3000 miles in 3 days. Since I can run a long haul truck on fuel similar to that needed for an airliner. I can optimize my refinery to that and forgo gasoline. Or, I can optimize my long distance trucking with a hybrid turbine driven system that keeps polution out of my dense areas *and* gains the torque advantage of an electric drivetrain, then swap out the turbine for better batteries when they get where I need them to be. This is a corner case we can already handle if we want.
e-fuels for aviation is the only future in our lifetimes, this is the plan for Delta and such to be net “zero” like their climate ad campaigns. Capture X tons of methane that’s turned into e-jet fuel, when used releases the same X tons of pollution, we are “net” zero polluters!! But it won’t save the planet, but it’s a pipe dream anyway. I’m all for e-fuels to keep my fleet alive as long as possible.
A friend manages a refinery for a big US oil company and I asked him about e-fuels. Was interesting he has no knowledge about it or any plans for the company to move into that space in the near future.
That’s maybe not super surprising as I expect “e-fuels” will mostly be ethanol produced with wind or solar power.
From what I understand related to what the european manufacturers are trying to get approval for is actually methane recaptured and that is used to create a sort of synthetic gas which is similar to what we use now and cars could run it with no mods. Maybe there is some plan for ethanol, but I think most of the ideas on e-fuels are not related to ethanol.