Gfamily wrote: Wed Aug 13, 2025 7:14 pm
It's an argument I've been putting forward in words for years, not quite as elegantly.
In a sense, the concept of this entertaining little video is just false. It does make a good point - and I'll come to that - but it is not the broader point that on the face it is trying to make.
So the reason that, in a sense, it is false is that electric cars were already a technology in use when ICE cars came in, but were out-competed by ICEs. Of course these early electric cars had very heavy batteries, so they had a short range and were slow. But in fact ICEs did take off in an environment were electric cars were already available. Because improving the ICE to a practical technology was, from that early stage of development, an easier thing than improving the battery to make it light enough for a practical car. The big advantage of the early ICE is that it had a much higher energy output per unit mass than any competing technology, and as time passed that advantage - initially - only got larger. Only recently have we developed EVs to the point that they can compete with ICEs, even though they still haven't equalled ICEs by that measure.
The point that we wouldn't introduce ICEs now because they depend on a network of filling stations was a silly point. The absence of a network of suitable "filling stations" is an impediment to the introduction of EVs today, even though you can (also) recharge your EV at home or work. In the past, people had to carry spare tanks of petrol rather more often than they do today, as there are few places left where you need to do that. But at least the fuel is sufficiently energy dense it is practical to do that. So in fact ICEs are relatively convenient from that perspective. And in the early years, people did fill their petrol cars at home, but that became unnecessary as it become more convenient to go to a filling station, rather than have a tank at home and take large-scale delivery of fuel.
The environmental points are complex. You might think that environmental issues are a relatively modern concern. But in fact the "great stink" was a 19th century issue that led to the introduction of a sewerage network for London. Then there was the "great smog" of 1952, which drew attention to domestic heating with coal having became a problem due to the growth and densification of the city. And I think I read that there were environmental issues as early as late mediaeval times in London due to the extent of small scale potteries and other smelly industries in the East End to support the growth of the city. ICEs, I think, were apparently an environmental problem in certain climates as early as about the 1940s, when Los Angeles started to suffer smogs due to vehicle exhausts. But ICEs were so useful that it was allowed to get worse, and other cities with the kind of climates where this can happen, Delhi, Beijing, etc, allowed themselves to become badly polluted from ICEs even though they knew perfectly well it would happen. You have to be sufficiently well-off for environmental problems to be a greater problem than poverty.
When ICEs came in, they were actually an environmental improvement on coal-powered steam engine vehicles in extensive usage at that time. That is not only on the railway, there were traction engines in use off the rails. Out cycling last month I encountered a 1920s steam-powered car. It was made in the USA. Succeeding in keeping the techonology going a bit longer than you'd expect, it was very sophisticated in comparison to the traction engines you generally see at steam rallies. But it still stank considerably more than a petrol powered car of the era.
The good point that it makes is that many technologies require a lot of development work to generate the knowledge and reduce the cost to become practical. All the clever little things that turn a good general idea in to the modern, effective, economic technology take a long time and a lot of development work to develop. The modern smartphone is of course another item we all have that illustrates the point also. The development of that was extraordinary, but now you can get incredibly cheap ones. It is a point that comes up in relation to many new electricity generation technologies. The PWR (pressurised water reactor) is our well-developed nuclear technology. And this is a huge impediment to people pointing out the very real advantages of thorium reactors. They have - like ICEs - some very annoying complications to get them working, which will make their development very expensive. Who is willing to put up the likely $50bn or so to do that, and might still fail? Small modular reactors - well in principle we already have those in nuclear submarines, though probably they don't satisfy modern civilian safety standards and that technology is being kept secret on military grounds. Again, a rather clever idea in principle. But the complications in getting them to work at an acceptable cost will require a lot of investment. Fusion is showing how intractable these problems can be.
So that is actually the main reason it would be quite ridiculous to try develop the modern ICE from scratch today, given the existence today of good alternative techonologies. If we hadn't already done that. But when ICEs came in, there were not those good alternative technologies. ICEs developed because they were the easier technology to develop.
