If electric cars were commonplace today and we were studying gasoline as a possible alternative, some might consider it insane.
As the automobile became a viable commercial proposition, let’s say around 1900, it wasn’t at all settled what form of propulsion would win out. Steam, gasoline, and electric vehicles all appeared to have an equal footing in the competition. But by 1910, it was clear that with the available technology, the gasoline internal combustion engine was the future of the automobile industry. It wasn’t really close, either.
Still, more than one student of automotive history has pondered what the result might be if the market had that decision to make today. Given what we know about gasoline here in the 21st century, maybe it wasn’t the optimum outcome.
So, what’s the matter with gasoline?
+ Gasoline is a toxin and a carginogen. If you cup a teaspoon of it in your hand, it can be detected in your bloodstream moments later, where it is known to cause several gruesome diseases.
+ In vapor form, gasoline is equivalent to a Class A explosive.
+ When burned as a motor vehicle fuel, gasoline poisons our groundwater and turns the air over our cities brown with photochemical smog.
+ Possibly worst of all, every gallon of gasoline we consume sends 20 lbs of carbon dioxide into the air, trapping the sun’s heat close to the earth and raising its temperature, triggering a cascade of environmental consequences.
There is nothing especially attractive about the status quo of gasoline. Its main appeal is that it is familiar to us.
What we really fear is change.
The facts are sobering.
If battery powered vehicles were the standard we would still have horses and steam locomotives powering our lives, the negatives of carbon based fuel have been for the most part manufactured, and we would be a much less safe and healthy world without that fuel.
Today’s EVs are not perfect, and they’ll never get better without research, development, and real world use.
I often see memes of EVs on tow trucks or consumed by flames, with snarky comments about EVs and their apparent dangers. I’ve also seen gasoline-powered vehicles break down, run out of gas, and catch fire. And while we need to add generating capacity for more and more EVs, most charging occurs at night, when demand on the infrastructure is reduced.
It’s great that we live in a free society where we can question and debate a y and all topics. But we need to remember that our social media is being bombarded with political polarization and misinformation that’s generated by propaganda machines run by other countries that want to create unrest in democratic countries.
And perhaps even most important to the development of EVs, we can’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “good.”
Amen.
David my biggest problem is that although the EV may be a solution for major metropolitan areas it’s not necessarily a good solution for rural areas. I also believe your position that vehicles are charged at night, when the grid is being used less, gets less creditable the more EV’s arrive in the community. I’m pretty confident that if you looked at your local grid consumption over the last 5 years, you’ll see an impact. Assume it’s minor now, but what if your local community became 100% EV in all aspects; private, commercial, first responders, how would this effect your local grid? Now expand this to a national or even world level. The technology must be fully vetted prior to being fully employed to be fully effective.
Gasoline vehicles were not “vetted” before they became commonplace, and electric vehicles won’t be either. Our system has never worked that way.
Tony, I live on and run a working farm so I see on a daily basis how EVs aren’t the holy grail, and hopefully I haven’t misled anyone to believe that’s my position. While I’d be perfectly fine with an EV pickup or SUV for my daily driver (I’m 50 miles or so from town), I wouldn’t want to have to stop using my tractor mid-day to let it charge for 12+ hours, or pull a loaded stock trailer with anything but my diesel dually.
I don’t get the fear-mongering that’s implying it’s an either/or issue (and I’m not implying that you, Tony, are doing that). In a democracy, we the people need to ensure that both EVs and ICEs can coexist and are utilized where each is best suited, which is why I keep stressing there is no one perfect solution to our propulsion needs. If you’re scared that some political faction will take away all of your liquid fuels, band together and VOTE. But don’t dismiss the march of progress because you feel threatened; we can’t afford for China to surpass us technologically in this area.
As for the power grid, it comes down to a choice: Do we invest in the grid to produce more power for our buildings and vehicles that is cleaner and more reliable, or do we invest in more oil exploration and production? Either way we’ve got a huge bill that’s coming due in the next 10 to 20 years, and I’m not convinced that putting all of our eggs into the crude oil basket is a wise decision. Again, we can have both EVs and ICEs, and probably should.
The sky is falling!
Wonder why all the dangers from lithium mining, fires that can’t be extinguished easily, and an electric grid that cannot support more electric vehicles without a complete makeover that will cost billions of dollars aren’t expanded upon?
The choice should be market driven, not politically forced. Take off all the Govt subsidies on all of them and see where the market lands.
This piece focused on just some of the serious problems with gasoline. You didn’t address them in any way.
“…all the dangers from lithium mining…”
Extracting and refining crude oil has its dangers, as well. I grew up near a large gasoline-producing refinery and can tell you stories. And I later lived near one of the worst oil pipeline leaks in U.S. history.
“…fires that can’t be extinguished easily…”
Gasoline fires aren’t exactly easy to put out, unless you know how.
“…and an electric grid that cannot support more electric vehicles without a complete makeover that will cost billions of dollars…”
Okay, I’ll give you that point, but we’re going to have to spend billions anyway, either to expand the grid or expand gasoline production.
“The choice should be market driven…”
Completely agree, and while we’re at it we should remove the subsidies that support the oil industry.
There’s multiple sides in this debate, and all solutions have their costs. My hope is that one day we wise up and more of us look at this objectively, because enemy countries drive one side of the argument on social media platforms in an attempt to weaken our democracy. Get ALL of the facts. No ONE solution in this matter is perfect.
For the most part this article is typical commentary about the glories of EV without really exploring the “What If’s”. Did the author consider what the effects to the environment will be once all of these batteries reach their life and are disposed of? Is there any consideration into the environmental effects mining lithium will cause? How will EV technology be employed in rural areas for farming, or in third world nations? Here’s a real reality check for those on the “climate change wagon”, even if the USA was a net zero carbon foot print the net effects would be zero because the USA isn’t the biggest polluter in the world, not even close. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to investing in new technology, but it shouldn’t be done from the consumer end it should be employed from infrastructure side. Investigate all the ways it can fail or cause more problems than it’s trying to resolve. Understand how adding EV to the environment will affect the electrical power grid. How will creating a much larger power gird effect humanity as a whole.
Have they even started to investigate how to protect this much larger power grid from interference? And what would we do if the grid did go down? What’s the backup plan in this scenario? Resolve these issues, and dozens more that aren’t even on the radar, and the marketplace will gladly jump onboard.
I agree with your statement about the power grid (see my comment above). But the gasoline supply chain is equally vulnerable to power outages: Gas pumps run on electricity , and we’ve seen issues when weather events knock out the power to them.
How we power our vehicles in the future is a complicated issue that requires exploring multiple possibilities for solutions. My biggest concern is that we will end up “putting all of our eggs into one basket,” be it ICE-powered vehicles, EVs, or anything else, for that matter.
The article fails to see benefit from carbon dioxide and seeks to promote the as yet unproven theory that carbon dioxide is the catalyst of climate change, the problem with battery power is they provide power only when charged, the charging and life span are still questionable, so yes further research may improve or resolve those issues and when perfected may be an attractive alternative to gasoline or diesel vehicles but that isn’t today. And yes consumers will tell us when it works until then the government needs to limit their response to research grants not mandates.
Rick, I’ve been driving an EV every day for the past three years. They are ready for prime time.
This is probably the world’s worst format for this conversation, you are impressed with your battery powered vehicle you’ve had for three years, congratulations, the batteries for my tools usually last 4-5, but when the battery is insufficient in torque or longevity I have corded tools, because battery powered tools are expensive and fail regularly, I consider them an expensive alternative to prime time.
Tony, I anticipated that a number of readers would be triggered by criticisms of gasoline as a fuel and launch into attacks on EVs as a defense. Such is their emotional investment in ICE vehicles. However, this piece is not really about EVs. It’s about the problems of gasoline that many car enthusiasts refuse to acknowledge.
I think we’ve done pretty well out of the petrochemicals industry over the years. If we had gone with batteries from the start, just think of how many extra coal burning power station we’d have needed. Then there’s air travel – that would have been a challenge with lead-acid batteries.
The oil era is coming to an end as it’s replaced by newer technologies – just as happened with the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, coal power and so on. It’s very early days as regards alternative fuels and how the energy is stored.
Yes, the original electric vehicle industry failed due to the limitations of lead-acid batteries. That limitation no longer exists.
It’s very depressing finding out one of my go-to websites to escape from nonsense like this and enjoy learning new things about the automotive world has been corrupted. To think grown adults DON’T know gasoline is a poison and a pollutant is lazy journalism and egotistical of the writer. Please do not ruin this website with this garbage.
Michael, I don’t think car enthusiasts are reminded often enough that gasoline is a toxin, a carcinogen, and a leading environmental hazard, judging by their refusal to acknowledge the problems and their open hostility to any solutions.
Do you love automotive history? The industry is currently going through the biggest revolution in its history, and many in the car enthusiast world are missing it. That’s a shame to me. This is history unfolding before our eyes.
Water is a toxin, if too much is ingested into any living thing it will die, your crusade is too much also, if you wish to argue harm to the environment and planet you are in the wrong forum and probably fail to have sufficient qualifications.
Rick, water is not a toxin. Our bodies are 66 percent water. What you probably mean is that our bodies have a toxicity level to water. Don’t drink gasoline. It’s bad for you.
So sorry you had to run into this dinosaur (in more ways than one) based thinking in response to your piece today. I completely agree with you. Listening to the gas only arguments is like hearing that they will never give up their horse and buggy because that’s how God wants us to get around! I believe that we will be primarily electric within the next fifteen years and I also believe that we will have a battery breakthrough as well because it will be market driven. I agree that the current battery technology is still lagging in range and certainly the weight penalty, but that will probably be overcome sooner than later. You only have to look at the change in mobile phones to see that nothing stands still in the electronics world.
As for “government mandate”, well that’s been used to eliminate child labor among other things so it’s not always a bad thing. For all our internal combustion loving friends, the California laws that forced pollution controls, while rough at first, are responsible for the very clean, efficient and powerful motors that we have today. Sadly business will often only improve a product when forced to and then, magically, the things they said couldn’t be done get done.
As for the “not sure about the bad effects of carbon or whether climate change is real”, I’m not even gonna address that nonsense.
Lastly it’s a shame that the coming of EV’s should even be turned into a political argument, because it’s not, it’s technology evolving. I’m 70 years old and love cars, in any way, shape or form and as much as I love my old cars, the future is also very exciting. And for those out there who have never driven an electric car, try it. The speed and power makes an instan believer out of a lot of people.
Keep up the good work and don’t let the hoary old bastards get you down!
Thank you, Brian. I knew exactly what to expect when I wrote this piece. It couldn’t dissuade me from writing it, of course. This hidebound thinking needs to change sooner or later.
“ Lastly it’s a shame that the coming of EV’s should even be turned into a political argument, because it’s not, it’s technology evolving.”
This. I would not be surprised to find out one day that the politicization of EVs and clean energy is being driven and perpetuated by propaganda machines in countries that are trying to weaken Western democracies.
It’s become a matter of tribal political identity for some, which is ridiculous.
I agree, the Russians take great delight in using the internet to divide populations.
Brian, I agree there have been benefits from making ICEs cleaner. And I agree EVs will continue to improve and have a growing place in the transportation portfolio. But I KNOW so of the mandates from CARB created horrible inefficiencies on our path the cleaner transportation. You only need to see how often CARb had to backpedal in the 90s because they were pushing an agenda beyond technological and market capabilities. Simply, CARB often took resources away from other more efficient endeavors.
Drew, the greater efficiency of current ICEs was forced by emissions regulations. If the Detroit automakers had their way, they would still be bolting $14 carburetors on everything. The regulatory agencies have a difficult job, complicated by the fact that no matter what they propose, one or more mfg’ers will protest that it is impossible to meet. We have been watching this play out since the ’60s.
Holding BSME and MSME degrees, I worked for many years as an engineer in both R&D and Design/Development capacities, in the emission controls field (primarily exhaust gas aftertreatment systems). I’m not a chemist, but have substantial working knowledge of the field and learned much from similarly objective and analytical chemists in the field. As an objective, educated, and analytical engineer who questions every “sacred cow” and trusts no one and nothing without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I agree for the most part with your first two statements describing “downsides” of gasoline as a motor fuel. As for the third, pollution of groundwater (or even the air, for that matter) via burning of gasoline (Let’s include Diesel as well!) as a motor fuel is a minuscule fraction of what it was even fifteen years ago, thanks to… wait for it… scientific and engineering innovation that answered EPA’s mandates to reduce harmful emissions by upwards of 95 or even 98+% compared to a 1970 baseline. With regard to oxides of nitrogen, the precursors of ground-level O3 (ozone) and most photochemical smog, these are most certainly reduced to the same level… and it has been well-noted that smog in places like Los Angeles predates the advent of motor vehicles, due to such natural phenomena as forest fires (now also far more controllable due to… technology!) and volcanoes (not so controllable!).
As for your fourth contention regarding CO2’s ostensible contribution (or the small fraction thereof from motor vehicle combustion processes) to “a cascade of environmental consequences”, the jury (those who understand, to the extent possible, the complex causes and effects of the atmosphere’s and oceans’ temperature over time and space) is way out, man, despite governmental, quasi-governmental, and news media claims to the contrary. I’ll even wager that, could we come to some level of scientific proof that motor fuel combustion, along with that of other fuels, is causing significant increases in climate temperature, there are many upsides! As one example, would it be catastrophic if more of Canada and Siberia were to become arable farmland? By the way, there is proof archeologically that vineyards and other agriculture were present in Greenland several centuries ago, well before the internal combustion engine or even early steam engines were invented.
Yes, signicant progress has been made on the emissions and environmental fronts—with the auto industry kicking and screaming most of the way. Several illegal attempts to circumvent emissions standards are even now working their way through the court system. As an industry veteran like yourself, I think any pats on the back are problematic.
Despite the progress that has been made, it can’t be said that fossil fuel vehicles no longer represent a serious envirnomental hazard. Accordingly, I thank you for not saying that. Nor can it be said that EVs are not significantly cleaner than ICE, and I thank you for not saying that, either.
Without wanting to seem argumentative I question your statement “nor can it be said that EVs are not significantly cleaner than ICE”. Surely that would be entirely dependent on how the electricity is produced. Clean production of electricity is not a given, nor is it a given that a well running ICE is terribly inefficient and polluting. Surely production of vehicles and end of life disposal need to factor in any equation of efficiency and I’m not sure they always are. Finally the way lithium ion is produced is disgusting, not suggesting an oil refinery is clean but compared to lithium mining it is, so effectively transferring the problem to Africa is not really a solution in my opinion. I won’t attempt to deny petroleum has its issues, but find it quite a stretch to say EVs are free from them, and if somehow everyone owned an EV tomorrow, we’d be in a better place
Not so, and the math is pretty stark. A typical coal plant produces around 2 lbs of CO2 per kWh. The US national grid average is less than 1 lb/kWh. A typical EV can go 4 mi per kWh. Meanwhile, every gallon of gasoline consumed produces 20 lbs of CO2.
I don’t know what you mean about lithium mining in Africa. You must be thinking of cobalt. Most lithium is not mined in the usual sense and it does not come from Africa. Rather, it is extracted from brine pools via evaporation.
Chris, with all due respect here is the thing, By and large, car enthusiasts are less informed about EVs than EV owners or even the general public. There is an information bubble, or should I say misinformation and disinformation.
All this modern technology – it’ll never catch on.
This is awesome, thanks! Four-digit numbers!
Yes but up till then in small town MA, you didn’t have to know a number, “Blanche, connect me with the Dickinsons, please… oh, Earl on Scantic road.”
Then everyone in town was JO6-xxxx.
Now it’s 413-566-xxxx or 1-413-566-xxxx.
Must be that there pro-gress they promised. LoL
Bravo for this article.
Thank you. We can see from this dicussion that enthusiasts are poory informed about gasoline and emissions issues, and electric vehicles as well. There’s a lot of work to be done.
Holy schnikes! How do the boomers feel about electronic fuel injection and overhead camshafts?
You missed a big one, lead in gas did a lot of damage.
It looks to me like in an urban/suburban setting and a routine life (day to day not you vs neighbors) an EV works.
But probably the best bet for people in the sticks is plug in hybrid. Do electric but don’t get stranded when your best laid plans hit the fan.
If someone wants a high priced, the-in-thing car, have at it. But I do resent the hell out of my taxes helping you pay for it.
Now a big problem is storage. There are huge solar farms in the southwest making kilowatts galore. But the customer is CA, and they want the power after dark.
Bruce, gasoline does not contain lead today. The premise here was a what if today.
OK, my bad.
Still lead in gas for planes, boats, and farm equipment, but they’re outside the parameters of your premise of the choices with technology today for cars.
Boy-o-boy….You really got ’em talking today….Without getting political on this subject, inevitably, it’s going to always open up the “greed door”……and that is the nature of the beast….and a whole different chapter and I’ll leave it alone….Now, something I read a while ago got me interested…What is everyone’s take on hydrogen power?…..The JCB heavy equipment company based in the UK have been experimenting with it but, I haven’t heard anything beyond that…..Thanks for this column and the work you do….Carry on.
Aye Carumba, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this much participation, and most of it is moot. This, I believe, was supposed to be about gasoline proper, and made a stark left turn at EVs, a very controversial subject.. Back to gasoline, gas just doesn’t smell the same as good ol’ “Cherry Juice”, Clark 100 octane premium where all the muscle cars hung out and not near the solvent it used to be. My dad kept “white gas” around for just that reason. I think, quite frankly, we’re all a bit surprised that by 2024, we still use gas as our primary source, I read somewhere, there is a thing called “The Saudi Trench”, where most crude comes from, and that is over half gone. I’m amazed, we use about 370 MILLION gallons of gas every day in the US. Personally, I think we are up a major rope, as EVs can’t be used in rural settings, and the gas will run out. Time to bring out the “miracle chunk of energy” ( developed in the 60s) locked away in a warehouse in Phoenix?
Why can’t you use an EV in a rural setting? Your home has electrical service, I presume?
Ha, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t have juice, however, like many, 39 million, I live in an apt. complex and charging an EV is not an option. I do think EVs can work in a city setting, but here in the Rockies, we have “range anxiety”, and just too far between charging stations, and even then, 2-3 hour wait is too long. We have about 10 charging stations, and practically all are unused. I think, before EVs become universal, history has a habit of repeating itself, and vehicles will be mandated to get high mileage. Unless batteries could be swapped, like a forklift, I don’t see EVs as a viable alternative to gas.
These are common views but they are years out of date.
A voice of reason above the clutter. The area I live in , there isn’t a public charging station in at least 50 miles of here. Most homes aren’t equipped with a large enough service panel to install a charger. Income in this area is another limiting factor, not many can afford to go buy a new EV and pay to have a charger put in at home. Maybe someday, but not in the next 5 years for sure.
BA, no offense but that is bad info. An EV charger is a NEMA 240V receptacle. If you have a 150A service you’re good. I charge mine with the dryer receptacle as the laundry room is next to the garage. Cost $0.
What about a tiny nuclear reactor in each car… (Kidding, just wanted everyones head to explode). I do feel the PHEV’s are the happy medium at the moment and not surprisingly, Toyota seems to have a handle on what people want and when to introduce it.
PHEVs certainly have their applications, but they have a basic problem: They require essentially two drivetrains. What if we take all the extra cost and weight of the ICE portion and just install a larger battery pack? For many purposes the PHEV is a bridge product, psychological training wheels if you will.
I have been in the material handling (forklift) industry for over 50 years and own an established dealership. Many years ago we were told that electric forklifts would largely take over the industry replacing LP gas, diesel, and gasoline. Fifty years later, despite major advances in DC to AC power via converters, brushless motors and lithium batteries the big change never occurred. Today’s mandate to auto dealerships by the manufacturers for EVs have resulted in us selling them large capacity forklifts, (larger than normal due to the load centers of the platform batteries.) Guess how all the new forklifts are powered? Yep- LP gas! (and I haven’t met a dealer with any hope of the EVs being a success)
Electric forklifts currently own more than 60 percent of the market.