Opinion: ICE Innovations Make The EV Unicorn A Waste Of Time And Money

“If he’s that good a hitter, why doesn’t he hit good?” – Billy Beane

EVs are hitting the mainstream with a vengeance, thanks to ambitious manufacturers and significant government backing. But can the technology stand on its own in the consumer market? This writer has his doubts – and believes current internal combustion innovations will keep the traditional gas engine competitive.

Setting the Scene

One of my favorite all-time business stories involves Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, as he headed into the 2002 MLB Season. In professional baseball, Oakland is what’s called a ‘small market’ town, and the club never had a lot of money to compete for talent like other rival cities such as New York or Boston.

That year, Beane was in real trouble trying to field a competitive team, since three of his stars had left in the off-season to make better money elsewhere. In the midst of his travails, he started talking to one of his assistant GMs, who had some interesting ideas; a guy named Paul Podesta.

Podesta wasn’t a baseball guy. He was a statistics guy – namely, a Harvard grad with a degree in economics. In general, his job was to make sense of myriad streams of financial numbers. He clustered them together, measured them, and in the end, established performance trends that lead to real-world impacts. In Billy Beane’s case, Podesta used a computer to review and value the performance of baseball players versus their cost, measured only by practical results on the field, rather than spending money based on scouts’ opinions.

In Beane’s world, only cost-efficient performance counted.

For example, in the midst of a heated meeting with his scouts about a particular player, he asked: “If he’s that good a hitter, why doesn’t he hit good?”

His point was that there were no verifiable results to confirm the cost of the particular player’s value on the field; only what was offered by the instinct and mythology offered by his scouts. Consequently, he felt that the particular player’s value wasn’t good enough to take seriously and moved on.

At the end of the day, Beane and Podesta created a new model for buying useful baseball talent for less. Then, they proved the case by creating a 2002 Oakland team that generated the longest winning streak in baseball history.

Now, what does that have to do with the internal combustion engine (ICE) and its continual innovative technologies? Well, here’s a Billy Beane-type question to turn your engine over: ‘If the EV is a good hitter, why isn’t the EV a hit?’

Wagging the Dog

In the late 1800s, several notable inventors were working on battery-powered vehicles, including Ferry Porsche and his P1 built in 1898. However, as the powered vehicle market began to evolve from the horseless carriage, by 1908, gasoline-driven internal combustion engines (ICE) became more important as the principal motive driver.

There were a couple of seminal reasons for this. First, refined fossil fuels were becoming plentiful and were beginning to be readily available to the public. And second, the ICE’s ability to create power was becoming more dependable. Together, these elements allowed for economies of scale that attracted Henry Ford to the design of the Model T with its flat-4 engine, at a final sales price of only $650.

Simply put: the low purchase price advantage of gas-powered vehicles allowed more people to own them. This was particularly evident in comparison to electric vehicles of the time, whose price points typically averaged $1750 per unit. Interestingly, and regardless of historical, industrial, and/or climatic arguments, this initial disparity in price point continues to maintain itself today.

Government & Environmentalism

Major emotional points of owning and operating personal transportation are largely based on physical independence and movement on demand. Much of the United States’ growth is due to the ICE, and its ability to support people moving from one place to another when, and why, they want to.

However, as this growth expanded decade by decade, government regulation became equally expansive. For example, by the late ’60s and early ’70s, driven by wild-eyed assertions that ‘we were all going to die’; first by the impacts of an icy blast caused by greenhouse gases that would block the sun; and later (after they accepted that they were wrong the first time), an inverse suggestion; that that Glaciers would melt, the seas would rise, crops and animals would die, and any remainder of humanity would have to live underground to survive emerged.

Clearly, none of these things have happened. However, in the midst of continual moaning and wailing by fuzzy-headed academics who needed their grants renewed regularly, various urban-centric state governments bought into the idea that they ‘needed to do something’, because that’s what bureaucrats do: ‘regulate and tax’.

More Rules

Consequently, the automotive sector, driven by dreaded fossil fuels, and its admitted ability to emit hydrocarbon as a particulate associated with greenhouse gases, found itself with a regulatory bull’s-eye on its back. The first significant national attack on the automotive sector came in the form of emissions rules established by California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1994.

This first iteration involved itself with limiting hydrocarbon emissions, referred to as Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV) Standards, relating to ICE-powered vehicles offered for sale from 1995 to 2003. Subsequently, other LEV standards emerged, further limiting emissions for other, more expansive, model years.

Faced with either leaving the car-centric California market entirely, or accept the dog food CARB was dishing up, manufacturers said ‘woof’ in unison, albeit quietly and slowly. Subsequently, other urban-centric states, and ultimately the Federal Government, saw their own Heavens Gate of un-earned revenue by attacking the automotive sector, and the EV boondoggle was fully afoot.

Infrastructure? What Infrastructure?

Obviously, the ICE can’t run without a dependable way to fill up with fossil fuel, in the same way that the EV can’t run without an electrical charging capability. However, as a practical matter, these approaches are entirely different in the real world.

Today, you can run down to the gas station to fill up your ICE in no time at all, nearly anywhere you are. If you’re driving an EV, however, depending on where you’re located and what you’re doing, you have to plan the process in a bit more detail. This is particularly concerning if a road trip bumps up against an EV’s intrinsically limited range (on average 200 miles throughout the EV brand market).

According to the NACS, the association for convenience and refueling, there are currently 116,000 filling stations nationwide delivering consumer gasoline and/or diesel fuels. On average, each station offers anywhere from 2 to 16 active fueling positions. So, in the average mean, more than 1,000,000 fueling points are available nation-wide on any day.

On the other hand, according to a report from ABC News, there were 46,000 public charging stations available at the end of 2021, offering allegedly 108,000 charging ‘ports’ for nationwide electrical consumption.

Granted these stations are becoming more plentiful but, depending on which national administration is in power year over year, on average, interest between the competing power types is largely driven by urban-versus-rural operations. That means, unless you’re piddling around town, planning a trip from one side of the country to the other will largely be driven by navigating from one urban center to another. If not, then consumers will likely be forced to use alternative means of travel (like renting an ICE).

Then there’s time.

There are two options in use for commercial charging — Level 2 and Level 3. Both of them take time, and the EV industry is quite deflective when it comes to how long you’ll actually need to charge in practical terms. For example, this is a description offered by Forbes relating to Level 2 charging: “…charging can replenish between 12 and 80 miles of range per hour, depending on the power output of the Level 2 charger, and the vehicle’s maximum charge rate.”

Now let’s take a minute and consider that… “12 and 80 miles of range per hour”? Frankly, what does that even mean in terms of lost time? If your EV’s battery is flat and you’re traveling 100 miles, you mean you have to stop and wait for over an hour or more just to get to your destination? Then, you’ll have to do the whole thing over again to get home? That doesn’t make a lot of sense, particularly since nearly any late model ICE will produce at minimum of 20mpg against a 20-gallon tank, thereby only requiring half a tank for the whole round trip. And you don’t lose 2 hours of trip time to do it.

It’s true Level 3 charging can get you back on the road much more quickly, charging at a rate of 3 to 20 miles of range per minute. It’s also true these chargers are still very rare, as they require a specialized electrical infrastructure that is incredibly expensive to install and maintain. Case in point: we aren’t there yet.

Then there’s out-of-pocket cost.

According to Mach 1 Services, when using a Level 2 public charger, the average charging cost expenditure to top up a compact EV will be on the order of between $11.50 and $23. So, again assuming our 200-mile round scenario, that will resolve to around $5.75 to $11.50. But that’s on top of the lost two hours, plus finding the charging station in the first place, and then adding loiter time if all the ports at a particular public charging station are full.

Consequently then, when it comes to infrastructure limitations and direct/indirect cost dependences, are you beginning to get my point?

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

Now, this article has taken the reader the long way ‘round when it comes to the title and point of this piece: ICE Innovations. Nevertheless, it needed to be framed the way it was, so you can understand that my use of the word “obsolescence” is not just a matter of technology alone, but intrinsic elements associated with practicality, dependability, cost, and supply.

Like it or not, continual innovation of the ICE has evolved in spite of contrary decision-making largely produced by tail-waggers, and current attempts to silence the fossil fuels industry entirely. At the same time, measured on the basis of classic scientific methods, much of what we hear these days is hyperbolic, particularly when it comes to available supplies of fossil fuels.

Based on averages derived by statistical analysis, it is estimated that North American all-type fossil derivatives (gasoline, ethanol, diesel, propane, LNG) will continue to apply for centuries to come. At the same time, most reasonable scientists also accept that they ‘just don’t know’ how much fossil fuel is in the ground, but there’s a lot, and anecdotally speaking, it’s why energy development has always been considered to be more art than data-driven.

Recent ICE Innovations

In the meantime, ICE engine technologists aren’t wasting any time innovating, particularly given some of the more notable refinements of late in terms of emissions reduction, range, dependability, and manufacturing processes.

Displacement On Demand

The 2023 Chevrolet Z06 electronically shuts down selected cylinders once the engine reaches highway speed. The approach reduces fuel load and emissions, while enhancing dependability and overall range.

Variable Compression Ratio

Nissan currently offers this option in its production vehicles. Its Electronic Control Unit (ECU) actively measures and maintains optimal compression ratios to ensure reduced emissions, dependability, and maximum power, while extending range.

High-Pressure Direct Injection

Atomizes fuel, then injects the mist within the compression train to meter emission control, ensure maximum fuel use, power, and consequent extension of range.

Powered Metals

This manufacturing approach applies fine metal particles to a compression process. The result is the creation of lighter metal sub-assemblies that reduce overall engine weight. The lighter an engine, the more efficient it is. Plus, manufacturers enjoy cost reductions.

Micro-Hybrid Components

This technology integrates small electric motors that aid start/stop engine processes. These events are typically hardest on an engine’s torque curve, while also wasting fuel and emitting waste hydrocarbons. Consequently, the approach reduces emissions, enhances dependability, and engine life, thereby reducing cost of ownership.

So, at the end of the day, as suggested earlier, the ICE isn’t going anywhere, and that premise is being proven each and every day.