ICE Ban: Apart From Being Shallow, This Discussion Is Also Highly Biased

To be frank, the word “bias” seems limited in expressing everything involved with this. After all, biased people judge something based on wrong or unreasoned premises. The discussion around banning ICEs relates more to those defending engines or trying to get rid of them out of self-interest. Without knowing which way to follow, they may just pick one and fight for it fiercely as if it was the right one. That happens because these folks have invested all they had in the path they selected. It is not only about making the right choice: it is about making sure others believe it is.

The Volkswagen Group and Renault are good examples. Like all car companies manufacturing vehicles in Europe, they were between a rock and a hard place. For several years, the European Union had been very close to sealing the ICE ban: what automakers needed to know was when it would happen. They had few options left: keep investing in combustion engines that new emission regulations (Euro 7, 8…) would eventually and mandatorily retire, sell BEVs, or try to come up with a unique solution.

Tesla started its career as a cool brand. It chose the right path for its BEVs by presenting them not as efficient appliances, but rather as attractive and fun vehicles. That helped them sell well in their market segments, particularly the Model 3 and the Model Y. Volkswagen and Renault decided to anticipate themselves by following the American brand’s example. The German automaker was trying to leave Dieselgate behind, which put a lot more pressure on its executive’s shoulders. Renault was having a hard time with Nissan, and the Alliance Carlos Ghosn created was falling apart. Theoretically, all these carmakers needed to do was put batteries in their vehicles and try to present themselves as another one of the cool kids.

The issue is that putting cells in a car is a lot harder than it looks. Automakers were used to control the most crucial component in a vehicle: its combustion engine. All of a sudden, BEVs transferred that preeminence to the battery pack. Cells may seem like commodities, but they are essential in this strategy. Any manufacturing issue with them may lead to billionaire recalls such as the ones LG Energy Solution had to carry out with the Chevrolet Bolt EV and the Hyundai Kona Electric. Quality control over something car companies were not able to manufacture had to be rigorous.

Battery packs brought several other difficulties. Would the suspension components automakers have always used be sturdy enough for such heavy vehicles? What if these components failed? How to make BEVs have enough range without spending a fortune on cells? How to keep them at the correct temperatures? It was a new game, one that demanded billions of dollars to work as intended.

Car companies thought they were ready to get rid of combustion engines. Renault even sold its powertrain division to Geely and Aramco. Everything seemed to be settled when Germany and Italy got in the way of the ICE ban in Europe to ensure synthetic fuels could be used beyond 2035, the former deadline for combustion engines.

To make matters worse, Tesla demonstrated it was not as brilliant as its fans said it was. Tesla’s “deliver now, fix later” philosophy made customers discover severe issues on their own. Computers, paint, heat pumps, motors, inverters, and a long etcetera are on the list. Tesla vehicles present lower ranges than their official EPA figures – probably the reason Horacio Pagani said his BEV was a problem. Model S battery packs, now getting out of their warranty periods, are demanding replacements due to the BMS_u029 error, which will eventually kill several of these EVs because these parts are just too expensive to replace.

Despite that, a lot of people still listen to Tesla advocates – most of which are also shareholders. It is as if those guys could present a neutral opinion on Full Self-Driving, Autopilot, racism lawsuits, environmental violations, quality and design flaws, or any of the other problems the EV maker is currently facing.

You’ll even see some of them trying to protect Tesla from the data privacy scandal Reuters revealed. They try to make it seem as if it was ok for the company to film its customers, with its employees sharing embarrassing videos and images on Tesla’s internal messaging system. All that sounded an alarm: what if legacy carmakers were following a trailblazer that had no idea where it was going? What if they were betting on something that was not mature enough? Now what?

What is now obvious is that some automakers decided to stick to the plan. When Herbert Diess was still the Volkswagen CEO, he used to bash hydrogen as a solution. The German automaker already said the current Golf is the last one with a combustion engine, no matter what. Luca de Meo recently stressed carmakers have already responded to the European Union plans and that nobody is developing combustion engines anymore. It is almost as if he said automakers have already crossed the point of no return. Like it or not, they are either fated to sell battery electric vehicles or to kick the bucket.

When Tesla fans criticize legacy automakers for refusing to go electric, they miss it big time that companies such as Volkswagen and Renault will defend BEVs with everything they have. Not because they think it is the definitive solution, but rather because they have already invested all they could in it. Just see what Ford is doing by closing factories and phasing out famous nameplates such as Focus and Fiesta. If electric cars fail, they also do.

Polestar and Volvo are in the same boat, as are multiple other companies pledging to go fully electric until 2030, 2035, or a bit later. That said, they are not neutral parties discussing the future of personal mobility: they are advocates for the solution they selected to keep them alive. In other words, they champion their own survival, nothing else.

A telling recent example came from Gerrit Marx. The Iveco Group CEO told Automotive News that synthetic fuels are “the champagne of propulsion” because of how expensive they are. The executive said they are for Porsches and Ferraris, but not for the “normal people” that need a car to get places. In his opinion, renewable fuels “will turn Europe into Cuba, where you see old cars on the roads.”

It seems the Iveco CEO thinks BEVs are the affordable alternative and that synthetic fuels will always be as expensive as they are today. It is right the opposite: batteries depend on more mines and many more raw materials coming from them, which will keep their costs high for quite a while. New mines can take years to be approved, and cells frequently use elements such as cobalt that have a limited supply. Synthetic fuels use abundant and cheap materials. What makes them expensive is their current limited production scale and fabrication methods that need to evolve. If e-fuels are seen as a viable alternative, you can bet the former will increase, and the latter will be improved.

In other words, if there is anything actually threatening Europe with becoming a new automotive Cuba – in more than one sense – that’s BEVs. As electric cars are (still) too expensive for the Average Joe, these drivers will keep their old ICE vehicles for as long as possible. Apart from promoting old combustion-engined cars on the roads, BEVs also tend to make Europe more dependent on China – as Cuba is. Most batteries are produced there. Even if you can get raw materials elsewhere, China concentrates most refining infrastructure for these minerals. BYD will soon become a major automotive player, thanks to that.

Another fallacious argument used by Marx is that synthetic fuels will be produced by Saudi Arabia, which led him to argue we’ll just buy different products from the same source. The competitive advantage e-fuels offer is that they can be produced anywhere. You do not need oil reserves to make them. Porsche opened its first synthetic fuel plant in Chile. If Saudi Arabia is the problem, it is also investing in electric cars. It is Lucid’s most important investor and will also start its own BEV brand: Ceer, previously called Velocity.

Most people may think Iveco is busy making trucks and other heavy commercial vehicles with combustion engines. However, it is currently betting on electric trucks, and it is a major Nikola partner with the Tre BEV. Electric trucks will make batteries even more expensive: their battery packs are massive, even for limited ranges. On top of that, charging these humongous battery packs will either demand hours or an absurd charging power. Tesla’s Megachargers allegedly deliver 1 MW. If battery packs already have issues dealing with 150 kW, it is reasonable to suppose electric trucks will need pack replacements more frequently than passenger cars.

Anyone promoting BEVs as the final solution has yet to answer how we will keep these vehicles running when their battery packs die. Current cell technology and chemistries mean they will last way less than the car and demand $20,000 or more for a replacement. Anyone who thinks synthetic fuels will just replace oil and keep business as usual forgets all other harmful emissions that combustion engines produce – regardless of what they burn. The solution may be somewhere between these propositions. Right now, the most helpful scenario is being able to tell who is trying to solve this and who is only willing to defend their companies and jobs. Taking them for authorities that you should listen to and support increases the present uncertainty.