By The Sustainable Petrolhead
My next car is very likely to be electric. Not because it is the best car for my needs; it is clearly not. Nor because I believe it is truly beneficial environmentally*.
In my previous blog, I made a pop at virtue-signalling North London Battery Electric Vehicle drivers, and I may well be joining them……
So why would I choose a flawed vehicle for my needs that I don’t believe is beneficial for the environment?*
(*Note- This does have to be caveated by the way it is used and the length of period of “ownership” and I will come back to this later in the blog).
It is actually because the taxation system in the UK is so heavily biased towards Electric Vehicles (BEVs) that I would be economically foolish not to take advantage of this. If I were to run a BEV as a company car, I would only pay 2% Benefit in Kind (BiK). This is compared to 8-12% BiK for Plug-In Hybrids (PHEVs) and up to 37% BiK for traditional Internal Combustion Engined (ICE) cars.
In addition, all the costs of running the car would be borne by the company, and if they bought the car new, the cost of this could be written down 100% within the 1st year against their tax bill (or at 18% per annum if bought second hand).
So, if I took a brand-new BMW i4 as a company car valued at £50,000, for example, my BiK would be about £34 per month, and the company can recover all the costs against their tax bill. This is compared to a total BiK of around £1,000 (including fuel) for the equivalently valued ICE BMW 4 Series.
However, I’ve digressed somewhat……… The core point I wish to make here is that Electric Vehicles are simply not as green as most people believe, particularly with the current Li-Ion batteries that are predominant now.
What I do not intend to do is argue that we shouldn’t change from traditional ICE cars to BEVs, but to make you aware that the choice is more nuanced than it has been presented. BEVs are not the panacea they have been made out to be. I do believe that they are part of the wider multitude of solutions for the transport sector, but government policy has been very much that EVs are the ONLY solution.
As explained in my previous blog, we HAVE to do something to counter Global Warming, and this is as good a start as we have for now.
My first major issue is the real CO2 emissions of BEVs-
The main reason that we are switching to BEVs from ICE vehicles is to reduce CO2 emissions. Whilst it is true that the CO2 emissions of the vehicle when in use are zero in the direct environment it is in (no tailpipe emissions), this does not take into account the CO2 emitted in the production of the electricity that is used to charge the batteries. In effect, what is happening is the displacement of CO2 emissions from the direct environment of the vehicle to the power station.
In addition, there is also a significant amount of CO2 produced in the manufacture of the vehicle. For BEVs, this is about 70% more than the equivalent ICE car due to the production of the batteries.
We have to look at the whole life CO2 emissions of the vehicle to truly compare the CO2 emissions of BEVs and ICE cars.
Volvo did a study of the CO2 emissions of their XC40 car- comparing the BEV version to the ICE version:
Figure 1- please see [1] in the Bibliography for the source.
This graph shows that for an equalised lifespan of 200,000kms, the lifetime CO2 emissions of the XC40 ICE compared to the BEV version under various mixes of electricity production (Global, within the EU and if totally recharged by Renewables).
You can clearly see the increase in CO2 emissions in manufacturing and, on the global and EU mix of electricity production, that CO2 emissions are displaced from the direct environment of the vehicle to the power stations producing the electricity.
And so, you can see that, currently, in the EU (including the UK in this calculation), there are still significant CO2 emissions from BEVs, and the reduction is approx. 22%, over the equalised lifespan.
Personally, I think that the equalised 200,000 km lifespan is an assumption that has to be made in this study to make the comparison but is erroneous. The average lifespan of a car is around 14 years and 200,000 miles/320,000 km, and ICE cars, if properly maintained, can easily manage 20-25 years and 500,000 km. Compared to the lifespan of the battery of a BEV is estimated at 8-10 years 120,000 miles/ 200,000kms (before the range and performance degradation become noticeable), and due to the battery being about 40% of the value of the vehicle, this, in effect being the end of life for that vehicle.
There is an argument that an older vehicle becomes greener the longer its useable lifespan, as the CO2 emissions from its production can be amortised over a larger number of years, and therefore, the CO2 emissions per annum are smaller.
Referring back to my caveat at the beginning of the blog (*)… The tipping point for EVs to become more environmentally friendly than the equivalent ICE is around 48,000 miles or 77,000 km [3]. Given that a lot of EVs are currently leased (both private and business vehicles), and these leases are generally for 2-3 years and 24-36,000 miles at maximum, you can see that this tipping point is not reached when the lease finishes and a brand-new BEV turns up, perpetuating a cycle that is less green (more CO2 emissions overall) at this point than the equivalent ICE car. Only if taken for four years and 48,000 miles does it equalise, let alone improve on the ICE car emissions.
So, in summary, a BEV is only the greener option if you keep and use it for more than four years and 77,000 kms.
My second major issue with BEVs is weight.
One of my engineering heroes is Colin Chapman, who founded and ran Lotus from inception in 1948 until his untimely death in 1982. His engineering mantra is, famously, “Simplify, then add Lightness”.
All Lotus Road and Race cars under his aegis were incredibly light, allowing them to be very fast and agile with much smaller engines and less power than their contemporary competitors, resulting in the winning of multiple races and championships from F1 to the Indy 500, amongst many others.
Lightness is a core component of efficiency- the lighter a vehicle, the less energy is consumed over any given distance and speed compared to a heavier vehicle.
We seem to have lost this art of making things as light as possible in general in car design- as more systems are required by legislation (eg. crash protection) or demanded by the market (eg. air conditioning, sound systems), the larger and heavier vehicles become. This can simply be seen by the ever-increasing size and weight of the next generation of a particular brand and model- nowadays, VW Polos are larger and heavier than the original Golf, a size up in the range.
Added to this is the huge weight of the battery pack required to give BEVs a reasonable range. The simple reason for this is the energy density of today’s Li-Ion batteries is about 1/100th of petrol, and hence you have to have huge numbers of these battery cells to give commensurate performance and range.
It has to be noted that Electric drivetrains are significantly more efficient (~80%) than ICE drivetrains (~35%), allowing BEVs to immediately claw back approx. half of the deficit due to energy density, but there is still a significant shortfall that hasn’t been recovered.
This is then compounded by another issue- in a front-end crash, the mass of the engine (in a front-engine car) can be ignored upon impact as the car does not have to “carry” it any further. Therefore, the design of the safety structure (eg. crumple zones) and the dissipating of the energy of the crash does not need to take this into account. Because most BEVs have their batteries in the middle of the car (to protect them), this mass still has to be taken into account, and so this has to be taken into account meaning larger and heavier safety structures, further increasing the weight of a BEV.
This means a BEV tends to be 30-40% heavier than the equivalent ICE car.
We have got to the point that smaller BEVs are nearly 2 tonnes in weight, and the new Volvo EX90 full sized SUV BEV is over 3 tonnes before being loaded with passengers and luggage. Quite frankly, it is more a truck than a car.
Today, even Lotus seems to have lost the knack for producing flyweights. The new Eletre SUV BEV weighs in from 2.5 tonnes and is the antithesis of everything that Lotus stood for under Chapman. It is the first “Chunky” Lotus (Chapman’s nickname behind his back….). It is also brilliant, according to all the reviews.
Compare these to the truly brilliant Audi A2 of 1999- a car way ahead of its time, which weighed around 830kgs, only needed small engines to have sufficient performance, amazing fuel economy and still have enough space for four adults to travel in comfort. Given its aluminium structure, meaning that there is no rust, there are still a significant proportion of these vehicles on the road today, 18 years after it stopped being made. This, in my opinion, could be argued to be one of the greenest cars around due to its long lifespan and flyweight efficiency.
This excess weight of BEVs creates two major issues-
- More energy is required to power a heavier vehicle requiring more batteries adding to the weight (a vicious circle)
- More wear & tear on consumables like tyres and roads
Now, the wear & tear issue has a nasty side-effect- increased levels of particulates from tyres and the road surface. These particulates are, in effect, both similar in size to and quantity of the particulates that would have been emitted from diesel engines. This has a major impact on city centre air quality and subsequently an effect on respiratory health.
Imperial College has been researching the impact of tyre particulates in particular [4] due to the increasing weight of vehicles (and, in particular, the extra weight of EVs).
In summary, due to their extra weight, BEVs are nowhere near as efficient as they should be and, due to increased tyre and road wear & tear, may not actually improve city centre air quality and have an unexpected adverse effect on respiratory health.
My third major issue with BEVs is the real-world range.
This is also a function of the poor energy density of Li-Ion batteries compared to petrol. True range is always smaller than claimed, a significant reduction in range when in colder environments.
I regularly drive long distances up to Scotland to visit family and across the UK and Europe for both work and recreational reasons. The practical range limitations of virtually all EVs and the significant degradation of their range in colder weather means that, at the very least, I would have to plan these journeys much more carefully, and these journeys would be longer to take into account the recharging time, which is never as quick as refuelling an ICE car.
BEVs actually suit most passenger vehicle users because the vast majority of journeys are less than 10 miles, and this is one of the reasons BEVs are currently in pole position to replace ICE cars when the restrictions on selling new ones start in 2035.
Compounding the relatively limited ranges of BEVs compared to ICE cars are the major infrastructure issues, particularly in the UK, leading to significant and realistic “range anxiety” amongst BEV drivers.
Firstly, we have nowhere near enough charging points- there are currently over 53,000 public charging points in the UK, up 46% from November 2022 [5]. However, this lags significantly behind the actual requirement. It is estimated that we will need over 300,000 by 2030. We need to build around 60,000 a year, and we are currently building less than 20,000 a year
Combined with frequently broken charging points where they are out of action, it means that at popular recharging points, there are frequent delays in starting to charge your BEV. Given the difference in what we are actually building to what we need, these issues are only going to get worse unless we have a major investment in rolling out sufficient numbers of public charging points.
Of course, some people have space at either home or work (or both) to have charging points installed, but most people living in cities have to park on the streets and don’t have the required space and/ or facilities to install a charger.
One of the major reasons for Tesla’s success to date was that, in addition to the cars being very good, they invested significantly in their propriety charging network in the markets they entered, ensuring that they have always had sufficient charging capacity for the cars they have sold into each of their markets.
Part of the issue in the UK is the energy mix in Electricity production. In 2022, the overall mix was [6]:
- Gas- 38.5%
- Wind- 26.8%
- Nuclear- 15.5%
- Biomass- 5.2%
- Coal- 1.5%
- Solar- 4.4%
- Imports (mixed)- 5.5%
- Hydro- 1.8%
- Energy Storage- 0.9%
The good news is the increase in renewable energy, which, if including nuclear energy, totals 48.5% of total electricity generation.
The bad news is the lack of investment in nuclear over the past 50 years. Historically, nuclear provided 20% of our requirements and basically covered “base load”. The last nuclear power station we opened was Sizewell B in 1996, and whilst there are some in build now, they are still not nearing completion. A number of the older nuclear power stations have already closed (for example, Sizewell A), and all the other existing nuclear power stations, apart from Sizewell B, are due to close in the next decade as they are well over their original planned lifespan. This means we are losing the majority of the 15.5% left of our nuclear capability.
In the last 30 years, partly due to privatisation of the energy utilities (and therefore, cost is a bigger priority than strategic energy mix) and due to prolonged planning application processes for nuclear power stations (allowing nimbyism) has meant that Combined Cycle Gas Power Stations were the preferred solution in the 1990s until the move to renewables. These were approximately one-tenth the price of a nuclear power station and took three years rather than 30 to build and switch on. Of course, these are fossil fuel solutions that we want to phase out.
Renewables outwith Nuclear (wind, solar, etc.) are a major focus now, but can never produce “base load” as they are variable- requiring the wind, sun, etc., and if there are days of insufficient of each, they won’t produce enough electricity. The best use of these is for “Top Up” of electricity needs. Hydropower can potentially be a base load, but this is a very small proportion of our energy mix.
Finally, the National Grid is currently at 98% capacity at present and, given that we are losing the majority of our nuclear electricity generation, without replacing it with like-for-like base load supply, but instead less reliable renewables (wind & solar). With the wholesale adoption of BEVs the electricity demand is going to surge, and the grid simply will not be able to cope.
There is anecdotal evidence that if one company, Royal Mail (admittedly with one of the largest UK fleet of vehicles), decided to fully switch to BEVs, the National Grid would not be able to cope and would simply fall over.
Also, I’ve known of quotes from the National Grid for new connections to supply expected electricity requirements of not weeks or months, but many years if not decades….
In summary, BEVs don’t have comparable ranges to ICE cars, and these are reduced when it is cold. The recharging network isn’t sufficient and will continue to lag further and further behind the requirements and finally, the National Grid capacity is insufficient for the increase in demand as BEV numbers increase.
My final major issue with BEVs is the cost.
A brand-new Nissan Leaf is over £31,000, and the Mini Electric is £34,000.
A BMW i5 starts at just under £75,000.
There are a few, mainly from Chinese like BYD, BEVs that are coming to the market at lower costs, but in general, these are expensive vehicles, particularly for smaller models from traditional car manufacturers when compared to their ICE counterparts.
Part of the reason is the significant cost of the batteries, estimated at 40% of the initial cost of a vehicle.
Combine this with the longevity issue, where a battery is going to show clear degradation in performance after 8-10 years/ 200,000kms (as explained above) and would need to be replaced (at huge expense).
In addition to this, the insurance costs of BEVs are rocketing- apparently by over 70% this year due to the cost of repairing/ replacing the batteries in a BEV that has been in an accident [7].
Not to mention the increasing costs of recharging, either at home or at the public.
All of this combines to mean that a BEV, run by someone who doesn’t have a fully subsidised company car, has the potential to cost significantly more to run than an equivalent ICE car, particularly as it gets older and the battery degrades. And be worth less at trade-in due to the longevity and battery degradation worries.
We’ve yet to see BEVs in the market long enough to see whether they can be run feasibly on “bangernomics” as basically, cheap “throw-away” vehicles at the end of their useful life. But given the vehicle complexity and (again) the cost of the batteries combined with the precious metals they contain (that potentially be recycled), maybe these vehicles will never get to this stage and be a “cheap” run-around.
This can be seen to be regressive to those on a tight budget but who rely on their cars as they live and/ or work in areas without sufficient public transport links to be a reasonable alternative. These people will also feel the increasing taxation on ICE cars, for example, ULEZ being extended throughout London, bite significantly harder for them too. This is a subject for a future blog.
In summary, not only is the initial cost of a BEV comparatively high but also worries about the longevity and cost of the batteries means that BEVs that are not run as company cars are potentially expensive to run, especially as they get older.
Please note that the issues I am raising in this blog are about today’s predominantly Li-Ion battery-powered cars. There is plenty of developments and new research achievements that mean that the future is bright for new types of batteries (eg. solid-state) that will be significantly less energy intensive (and CO2 emitting) to manufacture, significantly lighter and therefore have a higher energy density. Also, the hope is that they will have increased longevity and also be cheaper to produce.
There are also other technologies, like Battery Swap Technology, that will also assist in mitigating the biggest flaws. This, however, requires all manufacturers to standardise their battery connections and sizes to truly work as a solution (along with other requirements with regard to infrastructure). I will return to this as part of a future blog.
Hence, over the medium to long term, this would allow BEVs to close the gap or maybe surpass ICE cars as genuinely superior solutions sometime in the near future.
We also have to be wary of committing to one potential solution above all others and going down a “cul-de-sac” legislation-wise that means that better solutions are ignored and/ or we realise that, for all our best intentions, we have a solution that actually makes things worse overall.
Bibliography:
[2] https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/sustainability/average-vehicle-age/
[7] https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/consumer/electric-car-insurance-cost
Comments (2)
Comments are closed.
Peter Zanatta
December 21, 2023The major concern/block I see is the infrastructure. In the event people do actually make the switch then our national grid here in the UK just simply will not cope.
Jess Guy
January 8, 2024Really informative blog. As someone who will not be purchasing a company car, nor lives in an area with easily accessible charging points, a BEV is simply not an option for me. Definitely a “food for thought” post, thank you.