Global Warming Article

Are electric vehicles really "green"?

SUBSTANTIAL COSTS, LIMITED RESULTS

Automobile manufacturers are once again under enormous political pressure to roll out electric vehicles. The Barack Obama administration and U.S. Congress have conditioned bailout funds for the beleaguered auto industry on the production of "greener" vehicles, while several Canadian provinces and U.S. states re preparing more stringent emissions standards that will punish the internal combustion engine. Considering the substantial costs that such actions will impose on consumers and taxpayers, recognition of the policy limitations is warranted.

Government mandates and subsidies for electric vehicles date back decades, while the rationale for the regulatory forcing of automotive technology has shifted over time. Air quality was the paramount concern in the 1960's, but America's supposed "dependence on foreign oil" became the driving force for electrics following the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973 (about the same time that governments, universities, Hollywood and the media were setting off alarm bells about Global Cooling and a return to the ice age). Most recently, electric vehicles have been promoted as essential to curbing the tailpipe emissions that supposedly cause today's generational cause de jour, Global Warming.

Automakers and the Canadian and U.S. governments have poured billions of dollars into electric vehicle research and development. Progress has been made, but there remain significant obstacles to be overcome before an affordable all-electric auto is ready for mass production. Meanwhile, since the mid 1960's, passenger car tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen have significantly decreased in the United States and Canada by 99%, and 95% respectively.

Compared to an internal combustion engine, an electric vehicle can produce less air pollution, consume less petroleum, and emit less greenhouse gases (GHGs). However, the degree of difference depends on a variety of factors, the more important of which include the source of the electrical power to run them, the type of battery that powers the vehicle, and the manner in which they are driven.

The actual consequences, if any, of reducing both petroleum consumption and carbon emissions are speculative. The notion that greenhouse gases cause "global warming" is theoretical, at best, and predictions about the environmental and public health effects of climate change are hypothetical. 

Thus, there is no scientific basis for believing that either increases or reductions in emissions will affect climate trends.

Nonetheless, an army of engineers is scrambling to ready electrics under the guise of averting environmental catastrophe. General Motors Corp. has scheduled the launch of its plug-in hybrid, the Chevy Volt, for 2010. The $40,000 compact is supposed to run about 40 miles on a charge of six hours. Meanwhile, Tesla Motors of California is producing an electric-powered roadster with a sticker price of $109,000.

To compare the emissions associated with the conventional and electric vehicles, researchers conduct "life cycle" assessments of carbon "intensity." Such assessments attempt to account for the amount of CO2 emissions produced during various phases of fuel production, vehicle manufacture, and use. These calculations are inherently imprecise due to the array of assumptions that must be made for a myriad of factors, such as vehicle weight and shape, battery and fuel type, and driving conditions, to name a few.

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, recently assessed the life cycle emissions of electric and conventional vehicles. Assuming present-day average greenhouse gas "intensity" of electricity, they calculated that a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 32% when compared to a conventional vehicle. But if the carbon intensity of the electricity is high, there may be virtually no difference between the two vehicles.

As the researchers note, "When charging PHEVs with electricity that has a GHG intensity equal to or greater than our current system, our results indicate that PHEVs would considerably reduce gasoline consumption but only marginally reduce life cycle GHGs when compared to gasoline-electric hybrids or other fuel-efficient engine technologies."

Other analyses have calculated a difference of about 30% in GHG emissions between burning coal to generate electricity and burning gasoline to power a conventional auto. But if the carbon intensity of the fuel source is high, there's little if any difference in the volume of carbon dioxide emissions. Taking into account the greater emissions produced during the manufacturing of electric cars and the higher losses of power during electricity transmission, there are conditions under which an electric vehicle would actually yield more CO2 than a low-emission conventional model.

As noted by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, "in regions with coal-heavy electricity generation (all using modern day scrubbers of course), the plug-in auto would not reduce CO2 emissions at all … In most locations, achieving a major CO2 advantage from plug-ins will require greatly reducing power sector carbon emissions". This conclusion was recently reinforced by a new report from the Congressional Research Service, which states that "widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid vehicles through 2030 may have only a small effect on, and might actually increase, net CO2 emissions".

To some extent, then electric cars simply represent a shift in the source of emissions from oil to coal, and from direct sources (tailpipe) to indirect sources (smokestack). Greater emission reductions would require an overhaul of the nation's electricity generating capacity. That is a costly proposition, especially for countries in the throes of recession. Fossil fuels comprise a significant portion of the electricity generating capacity in both the United States and Canada. Neither economy could manage a major shift away from carbon fuels at this point in time without devastating economic impacts.

The above information does not factor in the negative effects of so-called "cap and trade" CO2 policies which may become policy in the U.S. and possibly Canada. These would include increased bureaucracy and government reporting by businesses, higher costs associated with buying and selling CO2 contracts, and the jobs and associated tax base shrinkage caused by businesses relocating outside of the U.S. and Canada to avoid "cap and trade" rules.

OTHER ENERGY SOURCES?

To a great extent, there is currently no sensible substitute for fossil fuels. But that is not stopping governments from instituting quotas for renewable energy use to create artificial demand.

Solar power, for example, is inherently inefficient and unreliable. Even the most advanced experimental solar cells convert no more than 45% of the captured sunlight into energy; the typical efficiency is 25%. Much of the energy is lost through heat. The other limitation, of course, is that sunlight is variable, dependent on location and cloud cover.

Wind power is likewise intermittent, and the turbines require a wind speed of about 15 mph to generate electricity and 25 mph to reach maximum output. Nor is it necessarily environmentally benign. The best locations for wind turbines often are remote and thus require miles of new roads and transmission lines, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service.

Ethanol and other bio-fuels suffer a host of unintended consequences. For example, a recent study published in Science reports that the cultivation of corn for ethanol and other bio-fuel feed stocks substantially increases emissions of greenhouse gases. The study calculated that corn-based ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years, while the production of fuel from switch grass increases emissions by 50%. The excess emissions result from land conversions that are driven by demand for corn and other crops used to produce "renewable" fuels. According to the researchers, soil and plants together store 2.7 times more carbon than is present in the atmosphere. Thus, burning and plowing grasslands, rain forests, savannas, and peat land for crop cultivation releases huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Moreover, the loss of plants and soil reduces the absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that would otherwise occur. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions may be achieved by using bio-fuels derived from "waste biomass," such as wood byproducts and agricultural debris, or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands, researchers say.

BATTERY CHALLENGES

Among the most challenging obstacles to achieving an electric fleet is battery technology. The battery in a conventional car principally starts the vehicle and powers accessories. But the battery in an electric vehicle must run it all and, therefore, must be significantly more powerful and easily rechargeable. A large portion of the premium cost of an electric vehicle is the cost of the battery, which can retail for as much as $9,000. Considerable attention is now being focused on lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries. Compared to other types, the Li-ions offer greater energy density, which means that they are more compact. Currently, however, lithium is obtained from open-pit mines or extracted from salt-water ponds lined with polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Some researchers also warn that there is an insufficient supply of lithium to sustain a fleet of electrics (based on known reserves worldwide).
According to William Tahil of Meridian International Research, "Depletion rates would exceed current oil depletion rates and switch dependency from one diminishing resource to another. Concentration of supply would create new geopolitical tensions, not reduce them." Nor is there currently sufficient battery production capacity in either the U.S. or Canada. The Wall Street Journal on Dec 18, 2008, recently reported that 14 American companies are seeking $1 billion in federal aid to build a battery plant. Meanwhile, federal state, and provincial governments are doling out cash to construct the charging stations and other infrastructure needed to support an electric fleet.
Whatever the battery type, the benefits of electric vehicles, if any, depend on a critical mass of drivers behind the wheel. But there is a hefty price premium on electrics due to the cost of batteries and lightweight materials used to reduce curb weight. A $40,000 compact is doable for some, but certainly not average families. It must also be noted that
the method and cost (environmental and financial) of mass battery disposal is still largely undetermined.

Automakers are banking on subsidies and tax credits to spur sales. But there has been relatively little consumer interest in purchasing the hybrid vehicles that have been available for years. Hybrid sales accounted for just 2.4% of the new vehicle market last year. The reason for this trend is hardly difficult to understand: the internal combustion engine is affordable and highly functional; tailpipe emissions have been greatly reduced;
gasoline consumption per mile/kilometer driven continues to increase where 24 mpg city and 30 mpg highway are more the norm today for many new cars. At this point in
time, the environmental benefits of electrics simply do not appear to be commensurate with the cost for consumers. We should continue to improve upon this technology in the lab and in tests but not rush in to widespread use until all the details are understood and issues resolved. The market should dictate how this is done.

Diane Katz - Fraser Institute
March 2009

Further Reading
The Frank Beckmann Show (WJR Detroit) Global Warming Library

Top of page