• The report that this article is based upon can be viewed in its entirety in the media section - click on 'Media Releases' above.
In recent times, the oil price crisis, growing awareness of climate change combined with a rush of public sympathy that followed the movie Who killed the electric car? pushed the electric car from the sidelines to the mainstream, and made it a potent symbol of positive environmental change.
Many nations’ rationale for switching to electric vehicles is based on the triple concepts of oil shortage, energy security and a desire to reduce pollution.
However, the world’s oil shortage can be more usefully described as an energy shortage. It’s just that for the last hundred years oil has been the cheapest and most convenient form of energy in many countries.
Even the term energy shortage is not quite accurate: globally, the problem is in fact wastage of energy, and the pollution that arises as a result of this wastage. Whether a nation squanders oil or coal or biodiesel, there’s still a high cost. The best available evidence suggests that there simply isn’t enough energy to support the current lifestyle of the West, let alone the rest of the world if it adopts a Western lifestyle.
Now that life in America is built around the private car, it’s very hard to reverse the process. Americans – along with the countries that emulate America – have grown so used to using cars as their primary form of transport that they are both unwilling to change and often frightened of any alternative.
Cars have traditionally represented freedom. Many people’s fondest memories of car use revolve around recreational trips, such as a picnic, a drive in the country or a romantic date. That is, most positive discussions about the practicality and pleasure of car ownership tend to focus on the car when it is not being used as a form of mass transport.
However, for many Americans, the car’s single biggest purpose is simply getting to and from work – a task for which the private car is often manifestly unsuited.
Perception Versus Reality
There is a clear assumption behind the electric car movement that the widespread use of electric cars will ease America’s wasteful energy use. This is not true. The private car is not the biggest waster of energy in America. Rather, it’s both the cause and the symptom of a much bigger problem. In fact, despite the perception of most Americans, American homes consume more energy than American cars.
This scenario is not true for all countries: for example, in New Zealand, residential energy use for transport is about the same as energy use for housing in low-income families. Energy use for transport is higher for high-income families (mainly due to the energy used by and emissions produced by air transport).
Nor is the problem restricted to housing: recent research has shown that a major cause of pollution in Los Angeles is not from the cars, but from the ships that visit the port.
Thus, the problem is not so much the car by itself, but a package deal of wasteful cars, wasteful suburbs based around cars, together with a wasteful society based around consumption, with the car as the most obvious symbol of this waste. Changing the way that American cars are powered will not solve the built-in problems of the unsustainable American system of over-consumption.
There’s also the major issue of personal space. Not only do Americans see it as their natural right to travel in isolation from their fellow countrymen, they now seem terrified of sharing space with strangers. Because they’re terrified of sharing space with strangers, they’re panic-stricken by the thought of having to give up their cars.
If you watch American television you might rapidly form the view that America is a war zone. In a city of, say, one million homes, there is inevitably going to be a small group of violent people at any one time. However, television beams graphic images of this small group of violent people into a million homes, creating the impression that the violence is occurring right outside their doors and that it’s no longer safe to go outside.
This perception of threat induced by the news media appears to be a global problem. A recent survey in New Zealand showed that, while the murder rate had halved in twenty years, most people believed the rate of violent crime had in fact gone up.
In terms of cold, hard data, cars are a far greater threat to Americans than guns. Around 30,000 Americans die from gun injuries every year. However, over 44,000 Americans from all walks of life die in motor accidents each year.
The same Americans who are terrified to go outside, use their cars to give themselves a false sense of security, freedom and isolation from danger. A further perception in America is that public transport stations are dangerous places where criminals and lunatics lurk. However, many American car parks (such as Wal-Mart parking lots) would appear to be far more dangerous than their local train or bus station.
Losing Weight Without Dieting
For many people immigrating to America was, and often still is, driven by extreme poverty. Therefore, to most Americans, the acquisition and consumption of material possessions is their primary focus in life.
Speaking of America just before the current financial crash, Andrew Gumbel commented:
“Cutting back is not cool or sexy. Given the choice between laboriously reviving old city centres with apartment renovations and corner shops, or ripping up cornfields to create suburban developments with huge houses and monster shopping malls, most Americans opt for the monster.”
Thus, while Americans are reluctantly facing the issue of energy shortages and climate change, most of the focus in America is on maintaining the current car-based system, using different forms of energy.
The only way an obese person can really lose weight is to eat less. The only way that an excessive consumer society can solve the problem of excess energy consumption is to reduce its energy consumption to a sustainable level.
This is a really depressing concept for many Americans. It means smaller houses, less consumer products, and it means giving up the daily commute by car. That is, instead of hundreds of millions of people spending hours every day in frustrating traffic jams, the same people need to share a clean, safe, efficient form of mass transport.
The fantasy behind electric cars says that it’s going to be possible to continue the Western lifestyle of the twentieth century by changing the form of energy used to power it. That’s a bit like a fat person trying to lose weight by switching from hamburgers to French fries. The basic problem is never addressed.
There are credible reasons for gradually converting the world’s car fleet from fossil fuel powered vehicles to electric vehicles, on the grounds of economic and environmental efficiency. These advantages can be summarised as:
1. Electric cars improve the security of vehicle energy supply by avoiding liquid fuels that are often imported from hostile or politically volatile countries.
2. Electric cars offer much improved air quality in cities.
3. Electric cars offer drastically reduced traffic noise.
4. Electric cars offer fewer CO2 emissions if the electricity comes from nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind or perhaps biomass.
5. Electric cars are often more efficient than petrol or diesel cars if the electricity to power them comes from a source such as hydroelectric.
However, these advantages appear to be equally balanced by the disadvantages:
1. Globally, most electricity is produced using highly environmentally damaging sources, and much of it is produced from fossil fuels. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
2. Although there are alternative forms of electricity production that cause less harm to the environment than conventional forms, these forms are invariably far more expensive, and are therefore unlikely to be adopted en masse in the near future. Thus, the central premise behind the electric car movement – that electric cars will be powered primarily from ‘green’ sources – is essentially wishful thinking. The car driver has no control over how and where the electricity is generated. Electric cars do not stop environmental damage: rather, they tend to merely move it out of sight.
3. There is little economic or environmental justification for electric cars as a form of mass transportation when compared with efficient electric buses and trains. While electric cars are sometimes (but not always) more efficient than their petroleum-powered rivals, improving efficiency will not, by itself, solve the problem of a society that is set up with an expectation of perpetual growth, because any efficiency improvements will inevitably be overtaken by this growth.
4. The electric car scenario, as promoted in movies like ‘Who killed the electric car?’ is built upon the assumption of a vast resource of cheap electrical energy, in precisely the same manner as the petrol car model is built on the assumption of a vast resource of cheap petroleum fuel. Both models erroneously assume that a ready supply of cheap, accessible energy will somehow be available to maintain the current Western lifestyle and the lifestyles of emerging nations that are essentially copies of the Western lifestyle.
5. China is likely to be the main beneficiary of the electric car movement. Due to massive government investment, China is likely to be the first country to mass-produce electric cars at prices that are competitive with conventional petrol and diesel engines. However, these cars are likely to be produced using environmentally destructive materials and techniques, using non-renewable and polluting forms of energy.
How ‘Green’ Is That Electricity?
The most obvious example of inaccurate perceptions about the benefits of electric cars can be seen in the American Tesla electric vehicle; it’s a quick-and-slick two-seater sportscar that costs about the same as a house and has the stated purpose of: “Reducing [America’s] dependence on foreign oil.” Note that this statement of purpose doesn’t talk about reducing America’s overall energy consumption.
Because of the way electricity is generated in most places (and will be for the foreseeable future), cars like the Tesla probably waste more energy and produce more pollution than many of the cars they replace.
Also, the materials used in the manufacture of the Tesla (aluminium, carbon fibre, oil-based resins) are energy-intensive, polluting and difficult to recycle.
Most electric car enthusiasts envision a world where their vehicles are powered by ‘green’ energy sources such as wind or solar power. However, the reality is that most electricity isn’t ‘green’ and isn’t likely to be ‘green’ for the foreseeable future. In fact, the amount of green electricity (as a percentage of global generation) is going down, not up. To understand why, read the related article The Emperor’s New World.
Most of the world’s electricity comes from coal. Despite what you may have read, the amount of the world’s electricity generated by coal is going up, not down. For every wind farm that is built, there are several dirty coal plants. Moreover, electric vehicles are likely to be manufactured in Third World countries using inefficient, highly polluting energy sources.
Even in the US, 50% of electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. Australia generates 78% of its electricity by burning coal, generally in highly inefficient plants, and approximately 92% by burning fossil fuels.
While the coal industry tends to showcase modern coal plants that are more efficient and less polluting, the costs of achieving this improvement are very high. The vast majority of coal-powered plants in America, Australia and around the world use conventional ‘dirty’ coal technology. America’s power industry is currently rushing to build large numbers of conventional power plants before such technology is banned. Therefore the pollution caused by electricity generated from coal is actually likely to get worse, not better, for the foreseeable future.
Moreover, plans to store massive amounts of coal-generated waste CO2 underground are unproven and appear to be facing significant difficulties. Environmentalists are concerned that CO2 storage would simply exchange the problem of global warming for the problem of polluted underground water supplies.
The pollution caused by internal combustion engines has been well documented and well publicised, and is thus a powerful argument for ‘greener’ electric cars. However, the electric car lobby repeatedly claims that an electric car, even when powered by a conventional coal-powered plant, is both more efficient and less polluting than a conventionally powered car.
This claim is largely untrue. Moreover, while fossil fuel-powered vehicles produce a cocktail of toxic substances, coal burning produces a plethora of far more hazardous chemicals, among the worst being mercury (see panel on previous page).
The argument that electric car batteries could be cheaply recharged using off-peak electricity is flawed, for two main reasons. Firstly, the ‘cheap, off-peak electricity’ is unlikely to stay cheap for very long if the consumer demand begins approaching supply.
Secondly, most scenarios for using ‘cheap, off-peak electricity’ involve reducing the surplus capacity within the power generating system. Even though this system rarely works at full capacity, electricity networks require a large amount of spare generating capacity in case something goes wrong with one or more of the power stations in the network. If there’s a sudden demand for electricity, but no surplus capacity, the system may simply collapse.
In places like New Zealand, where over two thirds of electricity is produced using ‘green’ sources such as hydo-power, the electric car is much more impressive. However, it’s still nowhere near as impressive as using the same energy to power electric trains.
How ‘Green’ Are Electric Cars?
1. Are electric cars efficient because they’re electric, or because they’re small and light?
Many small electric cars offer impressive fuel economy. However, this has more to do with the size and weight of the vehicle than the means of powering it. Any well-designed small, lightweight vehicle that operates at low speeds will produce impressive fuel economy.
For example, the Peel P50, a tiny three-wheeled micro car manufactured in the Isle of Mann during the early 1960s, is claimed to use just 2.8 litres of petrol per 100 kilometres. If this vehicle was fitted with a modern Japanese motorcycle engine it is likely that this efficiency could be increased by perhaps 50%.
Like many modern electric cars, this miracle of efficiency is achieved by building a tiny vehicle out of lightweight materials and fitting it with a tiny engine. Such vehicles tend to be a safety risk, regardless of what type of engine powers them. For example, the Indian-built Reva G-Wiz, often called simply the G-Wiz, totally collapsed during basic EuroNCAP crashtesting (it passed a second test, in India, at a lower speed).
The second problem with using lightweight materials is that they tend to be both toxic and energy-intensive.
Fibreglass, which is a favourite of lightweight carmakers, can’t be properly recycled. Moreover, the toxic resin that binds the glass fibres together is derived from oil.
Carbon fibre – a lightweight and immensely strong fibre that is currently used to make the bodies of expensive sportscars – is expensive to produce and is made from oil. Moreover, the resin used to bind it together is also derived from oil. Unlike steel or aluminium, once carbon fibre has been recycled (in a high-energy process) the resultant fibre can’t be used for high-strength applications again.
Plastic, another favourite for building lightweight cars, is also generally derived from oil and is toxic during both production and disposal. There have been numerous attempts at making ‘green’ plastics that aren’t derived from oil, but none, to date, have been used commercially on any electric car and few commentators expect any real progress in the near future.
Aluminium is another favourite of lightweight carmakers and can be endlessly recycled. However, aluminium consumes six times the energy of steel in its production, meaning more environmental damage as well as a higher cost.
The glue that bonds aluminium parts such as the chassis to the carbon fibre structural panels has to be separated from the aluminium before it can be recycled. This is likely to significantly increase the cost of recycling.
Given that there are an estimated 700-800 million cars on the planet, the energy and disposal costs of lightweight car materials cannot be underestimated. Whereas steel car bodies are widely and effectively recycled, the widespread use of the lightweight materials described above seems likely to trigger a severe, worldwide environmental crisis.
There is also the very serious question of availability of materials such as copper. According to evworld.com, an average petrol powered car uses 45-90 pounds of copper, and an electric car uses twice this much.
This need for copper suggests that a serious shortage is possible if electric cars become widespread.
2. Will electric cars reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
The short answer is: no, not unless the current coal-based electricity generation system dramatically changes.
According to Dr. Jacob Klimstra, former senior energy and engine specialist at Wartsila Power Plants, in the Netherlands:
“Electric vehicles fuelled by old-fashioned brown coal plants have no advantage with respect to the greenhouse effect compared with crude-oil-based fuels.”
The Cost of Energy Versus the Cost of Traffic Jams
Inherent in the plans for a massive electric car fleet is an acceptance of the car as a form of mass transport, with traffic jams a normal part of everyday life.
Electric cars would significantly reduce the energy wastage caused by petrol-driven cars stuck in traffic jams, but would still require a massive amount of energy, much of it generated using ‘unclean’ power stations.
The solution to the traffic jams has always been to build more roads, but this has not solved the problem, in fact evidence suggests it has often made the problem worse. Firstly, there’s no easy corridor to build new roads, and the disruption and costs of either demolishing existing structures or tunneling beneath them is prohibitive.
Secondly, when a new motorway is built it encourages more people to get into their cars, soon creating the same gridlock they were trying to get away from in the first place. What’s more, services like public transport get fewer patrons, making them less and less economically viable. As services are cut in order to save money, they become less attractive to consumers, who instead opt for the convenience of a car, and thus the downward cycle continues.
This cycle has recently undergone a sudden reversal as high fuel prices and perceived insecurity of supply has driven a significant percentage of motorists out of their cars and into public transport. Throughout the Western world there are strong calls for public transport to be made more widespread and convenient.
This isn’t to say that cars are not an indispensable part of modern life, but their usefulness is greatest when they are used for special trips, ideally on empty roads; for example, taking sick children to the doctor, visiting a relative on a distant farm or safely returning from work at 3am.
‘The daily commute’ is often a highly stressful and hugely time-wasteful activity from both a personal and economic point of view. This is a global problem without any real solution other than a gradual shift away from using cars as mass transport and a gradual shift towards affordable, clean, convenient and safe public transport.
Running against this tide is the electric car lobby: the major personal advantage of electric cars and hybrids is that they are more efficient in stop-start traffic. However, while electric cars are more efficient in traffic jams, they will still consume vast amounts of energy if used as a form of mass transport. They will also consume vast amounts of direct energy in their creation together with vast amounts of both energy and money to build and maintain the roading infrastructure to support them. Above all, they will not solve the problem of traffic jams; rather they will simply change the way traffic jams are powered.
Furthermore, while it is undoubtedly true that the city becomes a lot cleaner and quieter, this comfort is achieved at the expense of the environment somewhere else. The problem of pollution has moved from being a localised one to being a global one; reducing the obvious pollution within a city may still increase greenhouse gases at a global level.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:
“In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
• 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming -as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
• 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
• 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
• 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue [and] making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
• 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
• 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
• 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
• 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.”
Much so-called ‘clean’ coal technology is either unproven, inefficient or simply transfers the pollution somewhere else. For example, the process of storing CO2 from coal plants (assuming it can be made to work) consumes between 15%– 30%.of the plant’s energy output. So, for every four ‘clean’ coal plants that were built, a extra coal plant would need to be built to make up the lost energy.
Powering a Tesla electric car from a typical coal plant:
In addition to massive pollution produced by burning the coal, 65-70% of the coal’s energy is wasted at the plant, leaving roughly 30-35% of the coal’s original energy (we’ll assume 35%). A further 10% of this 35% is lost in spinning reserve (emergency spare capacity), leaving 31.5%. A further 7.5% is lost in getting the energy from the plant to the consumer. This means that, starting with the 100% of energy that was in the original coal, about 29% makes it through to the consumer.
The Tesla sportscar requires 75kWh of alternating current (AC) for a full recharge, of which 22kWh (29.3%) is simply wasted.
According to Tesla’s engineer:
“Our...battery...holds 53kWh [of electricity]. The difference between [the 75kWh required at the plug and the 53kWh coming out of the batteries at the other end] is due to charging inefficiencies, including the use of air-conditioning to thermally-manage the battery during charging.”
Therefore, of the energy in the coal, around 20.5% makes it into the electric car’s engine. A further 10% is lost in the electric motor, leaving less than 18.5% of the original energy in the coal getting to the wheels.
Although the Tesla can recover some of this lost energy through brake regeneration, brake regeneration is only about 25% efficient and is only significant when the car is being braked frequently. Therefore, the Tesla, when powered by coal, is no more efficient, and sometimes less efficient, than the vehicles it is trying to replace.
In many cases, the amount of coal required to power the Tesla means that its CO2 emissions will be substantially higher, not lower, than the emissions produced by a petrol-powered vehicle. The idea that, in five years time, Teslas will be driving around using ‘green’ electricity is essentially wishful thinking. The percentage of the world’s energy produced by ‘dirty’ coal plants is going steadily up, not down.