Electric vehicles (EVs) manufacturers are having a hard time persuading UK drivers to make the switch, not helped by bad press and unscrupulous politicians. But, even if we get the facts straight and ignore the party politics, can we truly say the UK is ready for this major change?
Better to drive the cars we’ve got?
We might have expected avowed car-lover, graduate engineer and early EV adopter, Rowan Atkinson to be a forward-looking champion, but in fact the conservationist in me finds much to sympathise with in his recent sceptical article in The Guardian. In it, he explains that he has begun to question the environmental credentials of electric cars.
He suggests that, because of emissions created in electric car production, there’s something to be said – while we wait for better technology – for continuing to drive existing cars. A big part of the problem, he says, has been the throw-away culture, planned obsolescence and consumer marketing and economics of car production.
As we’ll see, he’s not entirely correct. So, are our politicians working hard to combat driver resistance to EVs? On the contrary.
Clean air: a new front on the culture war
The recent by-election at Uxbridge was apparently decided by a refusal of a segment of the electorate to accept the extension of the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ), a measure to curb pollution and emissions by charging higher-polluting vehicles for driving in all London boroughs. Cynical Conservative campaigning implied that everyone would be affected. This led to a by-election success that has been seized upon by Conservative culture warrior strategists as a suggestion that the votes of motorists in general can be swung by easing up on environmental policies that impinge on them.
Just last week, Rishi Sunak announced a review of low traffic neighbourhoods and declared he is “on the side of the motorist”. Now he is being lobbied by his MPs to delay the forthcoming ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, and there are suggestions that the government is wavering on imposing emission-free targets on car manufacturers leading up to the ban.
Durable car ownership
This was the title of a book and a philosophy centred on one particular vehicle in all its variants – the Morris Minor, a wonderful utilitarian vehicle. Battery technology: not too critical – it had a crank handle! I once used mine for two weeks when the starter motor was away being repaired. The Minor had no electric windows either but operating the mechanical window winder wasn’t especially onerous.
The UK government plans to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030 (in the EU it’s 2035). Up until that date, and possibly up until the 2050 climate target, there will still be some internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles on the road, and Atkinson’s advice seems to be particularly relevant for this time.
What he could also have mentioned, and it’s part of the RAC’s advice, is that fuel and emissions can be saved by driving cars less rapidly. Typically, ICE cars are most efficient at 45 to 50mph. A saving of up to 30% is possible at those speeds rather than at 70mph. Unfortunately, although national speed limits were introduced in previous fuel crises – such as during the 1973 oil crisis, when a temporary maximum national speed limit of 50 mph for all roads was introduced – similar measures do not appear to be under consideration for the current crisis.
The devolved Welsh government may yet be the first to demonstrate leadership on this, by introducing wider 50mph speed limits than those it already has in force – offering emissions benefits for the climate as well as immediate pollution and air quality improvements.
There may also come a time when differential and slower speed limits for ICE vehicles may help to promote the adoption of EVs.
A life cycle view of vehicle emissions
We can, then, mitigate the damage done by ICE cars by driving them for longer and more slowly. But the medium and longer-term plans are for them to be phased out in favour of EVs. But what about Atkinson’s objection that EV production initially creates unacceptably high emissions?
The batteries used in EVs are storage devices, not producers of electricity. The electricity they require can be generated by fossil fuels or by low-carbon alternatives such as solar panels. But, as Atkinson has come to realise, however low emitting the car may be to run, it’s also important to consider the impact of producing EVs in order to compare the overall life cycle assessment (LCA) of emissions.
An LCA is an assessment which considers all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the construction, use and disposal of vehicles. It is commonly expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) which includes the GHGs CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20).
Electric vehicles make up for their initial deficit
An LCA takes into account the initial carbon cost of a new EV, which is admittedly high. But viewing the cost as spread over the life of an EV deals with Atkinson’s concerns. In other words, although there is an initial CO2 cost in the construction phase of an EV (Atkinson quotes Volvo as saying this is nearly 70% higher than for an equivalent ICE vehicle), eventually an EV in use recovers the deficit. Volvo estimated this could take between 40,000 and 70,000 miles of driving.
A 2021 LCA study based on medium-sized electric, hybrid and ICE vehicles – considering an in-use lifetime of 16 years and a distance covered of 240,000 km – in each stage of their life cycles, using tCO2e, offered the following results:
- EV – 39tCO2e
- Hybrid – 47tCO2e
- ICE – 55tCO2e
In other LCA studies, in a worst case emissions scenario, an EV with a battery produced in China, transported to Europe, charged and driven in Poland, which relies heavily on coal-fuelled electricity, is estimated to emit 30% less CO2 than a petrol vehicle. Whilst an EV with a battery produced in Sweden charged and driven in Sweden, electricity provided largely by nuclear and hydro, can emit around 80% less CO2 than petrol. Somewhere between these two, in the UK where a significant proportion of the electricity grid relies on the fossil fuel gas, the reduction in emissions is 60%.
This sounds like good news for EVs. Unfortunately, in the UK there are serious obstacles standing in the way of a smooth and timely changeover.
Electricity-production still fossil-fuel based and charging stations scarce
The electricity needed to charge EV batteries can be generated by fossil fuels or low carbon means. Of the two countries that have amongst the highest take-ups rates of EVs in Europe, both benefit from low carbon electricity production:
- Sweden is one of the global leaders in decarbonisation, with clean energy sources – including hydropower, nuclear, wind, and solar – representing more than 90% of the country’s electricity mix.
- Norway is another low carbon energy produce; almost 90% of its electricity is generated by hydropower.
The situation is different in the UK, where only 43% of our electricity comes from renewable sources.
Added to this is the current poor provision for EV charging. The inadequate public network of EV chargers, and provision for domestic charging, has been well documented and has resulted in ‘range’ anxiety in drivers of EVs. Charging at home is possible from the UK electricity grid, but a significant proportion of UK homes do not have available off-road parking.
Overnight charging from solar panels would also require the use of back-up batteries, which are more costly. Car parks covered with solar panels in supermarkets or retail parks have also been suggested but are not yet widely available.
A problem with UK grid capacity
An additional problem experienced in the UK concerns the limitations of the national electricity generation and the grid distribution infrastructure, which simply isn’t currently equipped to deal with the additional demands of EV charging either via public chargers or at home. The criticality of the current grid is perhaps best (and ironically) illustrated by the fact that it was necessary to fire up coal power stations to deal with the surge in demand caused by air-conditioning in June this year, with temperatures reaching 30°C.
Along with the increased demand on the grid for EV battery charging, it is also planned to use electricity for future production of ‘green’ hydrogen, for air and ground source heat pumps and in the transition to ‘green’ steel making.
Are we guilty of assuming that there is a capacity for electricity provision equivalent to the ‘magic money tree’?
Other possible constraints
Many rare minerals – also known as critical raw materials (CRMs) – are closely linked to developing clean technologies. They are irreplaceable in solar panels (cadmium, tellurium, indium, gallium), wind turbines (cobalt, copper, manganese and nickel, rare earth elements). Lithium and graphite are important elements in Li-ion batteries for use in EVs and as back up for low-carbon solar and wind-electricity generation. There is already a clear risk in terms of the supply chain for CRMs.
China dominates the supply of many of these minerals (along with the supply of solar panels). It has recently introduced an embargo on export of germanium and gallium. Many industrialised countries are evaluating their own future requirements for CRMs and will be competing for these resources in world markets. The EU is proposing a common bulk purchasing arrangement, which will not include the UK.
A recent announcement by Tata to build a battery plant at Bridgwater may be linked to current plans for lithium extraction and production in Cornwall. This may go some way to securing a domestic supply of the metal when developed.
In a recent study, the amounts of metals, excluding steel and aluminium, in EVs and ICEs were compared. An EV was found to need copper, lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, and graphite, totalling over 200kg. An equivalent conventional car needs copper and manganese totalling less than 40kg.
Quite independent of the metal content, a trend to producing larger and heavier EVs has been noted, which reduces their climate advantage.
Electric vehicles: not yet?
In many respects, EVs are a good, climate-friendly idea, but perhaps the time for a mass and rapid adoption of EVs has yet to come. There are particular issues in this country, even aside from having a government prepared to weaponise environmental issues. If, however, the decarbonisation of the electricity supply and of steel production, the supply of CRMs, and adequate charging infrastructure can all be assured, then such future developments may make the argument for EVs compelling.
Sadly, the time frame is unclear and many predictions appear optimistic. But until we come up with answers to the emissions created by our love affair with cars, we will be driving ever onward in the direction of a potential climate catastrophe.
