Let's hope that by 2040, 90% are BEVs and fossil chemicals are only used to create products other than fuels.

You did read that the executive of Planning Center said "some strategies cross over to BEV preference". So, it's just one of many possible strategies as the diesel emissions and stringent regulations may cross paths. This is just pie in the sky possibilities.

The rationale per regulations is the BEV operates pollution free. We know it doesn't. It's analogous to a extended grid power, be it a clothes dryer or auto. Sure, if the gird was pollution free and affordable a good deal even if horrible through put of energy to end user. However, rating an electric motorefficiency and comparing that to ICE is a false dichotomy. Even comparing the efficiency of power plant to the engine efficiency is false. It has to be well to wheels. The cost of distribution, investment, inconvenience, cost of infrastructure change, disposal costs, and the entire pollution stream. This all tabulated for the miles per gallon. Not some theoretical MPG based upon electric motor efficiency for pollution. The EPA has a very poor benchmark to measure their legal directive.

Considering the extremely low cost infrastructure change required for ethanol. The effortless transition and convenience with a very short distribution supply chain shouldn't that scenario prove to be a fierce competitor? You know if given a realistic objective regulation environment. This fuel alone has the flight path to become carbon negative. So, how could the grid compete even in its most optimistic configuration? Diesel? We should be optimizing high blend ethanol engines and the production process and sell that technology to the world.

The cost of driving one mile in a BEV depends on how much you drive it during its operating life. If you only drive it 150.000 miles it will be more expensive than a similar gasser/diesel. However, if you drive the BEV over 500.000 miles something that is easy for a self driving taxi BEV then BEVs are already less costly to drive per mile than gassers/diesels.

With a fully self-driving Model 3 you can drive it for as little as 20 cents per mile if you drive it 100,000 miles per year for 10 years. You can get below 35 cents per mile all costs included with a diesel or gasser.

The other thing that will make BEVs cheaper to drive per mile is the decrease in battery costs. However, this cost will take time to matter because batteries only improve their energy density by about 5% per year. In high volume production battery costs drop by the rate of improvement in energy density because high wh/kg batteries require less raw materials for their manufacturing and raw materials is like 70% of all cost when making batteries in high volume.

The BEV cost advantage will start when Tesla turns its Tesla Network online sometime in 2018 and offer taxi services to everybody at a much better price than human operated taxi services. And Tesla can keep lowering their prices all the way down to 20 cents per mile and still make money.

For VW to compete with Tesla they need to launch a VW Network with fully autonomous BEVs. They may be able to do that by 2020 if they really work hard on it. However I am pessimistic and think the old automakers may need until after 2022 before they are able to launch a Tesla Network competitor.

I used to think the BEV held the autonomous car market, but now more skeptical. The refueling cost advantage for BEV will evaporate as cost of power is projected to increase per road tax load, green power needed investment cost, required infrastructure and regulations compliance cost. The energy efficiency of the BEV is not that impressive when stacking up the well to wheels losses. Refueling time would advantage the liquid fuel and gas vehicles.

Solar is not projected to accomplish much and wind requires a heavy investment with a boat load of expensive infrastructure and higher polluting back up generation. Meanwhile biomass has been estimated to be more than enough to meet entire energy needs of planet going forward to 2050. So, my thinking is their is no silver bullet solution. It's wise to optimize or exploit the strengths of each energy source. Meaning not to over sell solar and wind as the end all meets all of humanity. At best it will be an ever increasing small percentage.

Biomass has the advantage to be moved from a GHG pollutant. Meaning nature's decomposition of biomass will pollute more than man's careful deconstruction of the fuel to gain power. Adding this advantage to increasing the percentage of wind, solar, and biomass renewable energy/power within the farming and processing of ethanol and given the huge improvements of efficiency gain possible within the processing of ethanol itself, well, the fuel should gain to the rating of carbon negative. This will happen at the same time the ICE/hybrid technology will maximize the fuels use. Same for gassified biomass power plant efficiency gains.

People falsely think that wind or solar is pollution free. It is not and the fuel is not free. First the cost of infrastructure is huge to make it possible. Manufacturing emissions are high. There is a replacement cost as well. Backup power often suffers high emissions. Also, emissions are not all bad. Meaning nature is the biggest emitter of emission upon earth. Nature is the behemoth and were a tiny mouse. We should think in terms of benign emissions or earth friendly. Man's influence upon nature can be positive. A force of good. We watch and read to many negative stories.

T is just another lobbyist spreading lies on the internet on behalf of people with evil intentions. Alternatively he is just another imbecile nobody.

Trees. I like your reasoning. People forget too that Copper isn't cheap. The ingredients that go into high powered magnets and electronics isn't cheap. We cannot expect to cover the earth with Solar collectors and Wind turbines -- we should do as much as we can here though. I am optimistic about the Solar/Wind power future. I also think Nuclear has a Big future.

Frankly, we all need to drive less. We need to Mandate improvements in the common household Dryer. It is outdated Electric Resistive technology. We need 7+ Cubic Ft. HeatPump Dryers that are cost effective and really work. A lot of these engineers at the Auto Companies building useless Apps should be called into service to fix the Household dryer dilemma.

Political actors can only delay the ongoing move away from fossil fuels. Any country where fossil fuel interests are able to delay the switch will suffer permanent ongoing losses into the future from their lower economic participation in the displacing technologies. Propping up fossil fuels is economic treason.

Stan. The lines have crossed only for miniscule segments of the population. It is not practical to the Commoner.

I side with Trees as I believe that the HEV in it's various configurations is the Future. Extended battery-only capabilities is a nice feature, but you will see over time that the efficiency gains of the generic HEV with onboard ICE technology will be so effective that the extra components required for the PHEV will not be necessary from a cost/benefit POV to the Commoner.

The products exist and are clearly cost competitive but somehow it is a debate. Hard to make a man believe something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.

Some are referring to hard market analysis data and others to editorials, internal promotions, or future projections. The former is hard data that companies spend money on production models the latter is market speculation that, of course, is serious stuff, but like the prototype model may not make it to production. It's a moving target. We are on a slippery slope of change that could go many ways or slow down to basic bread and butter products. For example the classic Uber app really takes most of the AV benefit away. Purchase price may reign most important factor or maybe safety? Pollution concerns should dwindle as technology is handling that well at all fronts. We may see the car market become more or less a staple. Meaning no distinction and only a service. Competition would then race to lowest cost service. This would reinvent manufacturing to the few lowest cost producers in the world. The service winner would depend on availability, cost, cleanliness, and utility worthiness of vehicle. People would care less if it's powered by battery, ICE, fuel cell, or any combination. They prefer it to be quiet and environmentally temperature controlled and filtered air. Maybe a water tap and waste dispenser. WiFi enabled with work desk or entertainment system.

An internal combustion engine is a simple device to transfer internal energy U of the gases contained inside the cylinder to the piston. However, not all the work so transferred is available at the drive shaft for actual use. For achieving clean burn fuel efficient internal combustion engine, a new operating cycle is created as shown in Figure 1 below plotted in a U-V diagram instead of a p-V diagram. With the U-V diagram as a road map, the goal of clean burn fuel efficient internal combustion engine can be easily achieved. A state is denoted by two state variables U and V instead of by a constant. At state (U1, V1), the beginning of an adiabatic compression stroke, V1 = 15.6 ft3, T1 = 311o K (assumed for this discussion). The internal energy U1 at state (U1, V1) is equal to cvT1 = 95.73 Btu. The new engine operating cycle transforms fuel chemical energy Q into mechanical work done W first by a piston-cylinder assembly to transform heat addition Q into indicated mechanical energy of the reciprocating piston. The expansion stroke of the new engine cycle begins from state (U3, V3) and ends at state (U4, V4) transforming (U3 – U4) into equal amount of indicated power output. Based on internal energy balance, the indicated power output is equal to (U3 – U4)/U3 or (T3 -T4)/T3.

Figure 1

The Difference Between U-V Diagram of Figure 1 And the p-V Diagram

The U-V diagram is an accurate model of a reciprocating internal combustion engine cycle. It shows how the work done W and heat addition Q change the internal energy of the working fluid. The compression process from state (U1, V1) to state (U2, V2), increases U1 to U2 with U2 = U1(V1/V2)k-1. With the air as working fluid, k is equal to 1.4. A combustion process from state (U2, V2) to state (U3, V3) increases U2 to U3 with U3 = U2 + (W + Q) where W and Q are compression work done and heat addition taken place simultaneously before the moving piston reached the end of compression stroke such that all products of combustion are compressed into V3 before the expansion stroke begins. The combustion process converts the hydrocarbons into HO2 and CO2 quickly at the speed of molecules. An adiabatic expansion stroke from state (U3, V3) to state (U4, V4) reduce U3 to U4 with (U3 – U4) transformed to an equal amount of mechanical work engine output.

In Figure 1, V2 and V3 are equal to V1/16 and V1/18 respectively for this discussion. At state (U2, V2), U2 = U1(V1/V2)0.4 = 290.2 Btu. The upper limit of U3 Is 650.0 Btu such that the combustion temperature 2112o K (650/0.3078) is below the critical temperature of NOx formation. The Q addition is equal to 359.8 (650-290.2) Btu. For all internal combustion engines, the brake power conversion efficiency is equal to the indicated power efficiency minus the friction loss of the cylinder-crankshaft assembly. The indicated power efficiency is equal to 68.5. The friction loss of the cylinder-crankshaft assembly is about 20 percent of indicated power to have a net brake power efficiency of 61.7 percent. A small internal energy is transformed into compression work to compress the products of combustion into V3. In the case of gasoline and diesel cycles, combustion process take place at the beginning of expansion stroke where W and Q have different signs and the fuel has no time to burn completely and there are unburned hydrocarbons in the working fluid within the cylinder. There is no technology available to eliminate such efficient internal combustion engine, these unburned hydrocarbons are prevented to form by having a combustion process taken place before the moving piston reaching the end of compression stroke. For automotive application, the rotating shaft of the new engine is connected to a drive shaft of the vehicle to provide whatever brake power to operate the vehicle. An electricity generator can be connected to the engine shaft to provide electricity to every household, or every community at unbelievably low price.

INSUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The equation of state U2/U1 = (V1,V2)k-1 has been derived from the law of conservation of energy. This equation of state is then used to compute the change of U due to change of V and vice versa. For achieving high fuel efficiency without engine out emissions, a combustion process begins at state (U2, V2) and ends at state (U3, V3). This clean burn fuel efficient internal combustion engine can be used to drive an electricity generator. Furthermore, this new engine can greatly reduce construction and operation costs. It can also generate electricity locally to avoid power loss though electrical grid. Existing reciprocating engines can be retrofitted to operate as the clean burn fuel efficient internal combustion engine. The urgent problem of air pollution and fuel shortage can be solved within a short time.
Specific fuel consumption