Electric Vehicles | Consumer Action
To get an EV or not: that is now a poor question
Why questioning EVs as a choice is now the stuff of jokes
Published June 2023
In a recent opinion post for the Guardian, the writer and actor, Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) explained how he felt increasingly duped after being an early adopter of EV. Predicating his arguments on his electrical engineering degree and lifelong passion for motoring, he presents the reasons for feeling that EVs are not the environmental panacea they are claimed to be.
His argument starts with a dislike for the UK government’s proposed ban on the sale of new petrol/diesel vehicles from 2030. And after segwaying into the carbon intensity of the manufacturing process of EVs, the promise of solid state batteries, hydrogen and synthetic fuels, he ends with an assertion that our honeymoon with the EV era has ended.
The article generated a lot of comments and reactions, many of which are reflective of a very british approach to the EV argument. This is the country (along with some in Europe) where people still drive and prefer manual transmission cars. To say that British culture has a penchant for the old may not be entirely true as the country is home to some of the best universities and cutting-edge research teams in the world.
With the acceleration in the adoption of EVs, these arguments against EVs are now no more than the natural last stand typical with outgoing ideas. We had similar arguments as horsepower gave way to petrol power. They are sure to continue as MPG gives way to MPGe. As with all arguments, however, the key to avoiding becoming confused is to understand the frailties of the points of view they promote.
Here’s a look at some of the frailties of current arguments against EV adoption.
EVs production is carbon intensive
This is a perennial argument against EV and one that Mr Bean himself makes. The problem with it is that it is rooted in a flawed way of comparing things. Often deliberate and sometimes not so; this approach tries to amplify the impact of one option as though the other option is completely devoid of the same limitations.
Everything we produce has a carbon cost. Everything. Singling out rare earth metals or Li sourcing as problematic whilst ignoring the gold standard of carbon emissions - fossil fuels that power ICE vehicles lead to erroneous conclusions.
IEA analyses of the total CO₂ emissions per vehicle lifetime for a midsize vehicle show a marginally high CO₂ rate in the production of EVs associated with the battery manufacturing process. This increase is however rendered insignificant by the enormous amount of CO₂ that is associated with the operation of ICE vehicles.
My old car still runs
One of the really clever part of government policies around EVs is that the ban on the sale of ICE vehicles applies only to new vehicle sales. No one is suggesting that old cars should be cornered on the streets and shipped to the knacker's yard en masse. Older ICE vehicles will continue to be used for many decades to come.
Our society has simply figured out that we don't need to burn environment-destroying fossil fuels to get around. So all new cars should be EVs, and the use of old ICE cars should be allowed but discouraged to move people into EVs that don't contribute so much to carbon emissions at a time we are trying to reduce emissions elsewhere. It really is that simple.
Hydrogen is the solution
Very few environmentally conscious folks argue against hydrogen as an alternative fuel for vehicles. Most, in fact, see a future where hydrogen is part of the solution to decarbonising our economy. Hydrogen is definitely a solution, but it is not ready.
If all the funding for EVs today is diverted to hydrogen, it will still not be ready for years. That is because the challenge with hydrogen is technological, not economic. We simply haven't figured out safe, efficient hydrogen-fueled mobility on the industrial scale that global mobility relies on.
Elon Musk famously called hydrogen fuel cell cars an an extremely silly solution on the basis of its efficiency, safety and other factors. The fact that he sells EV is a moot point, his arguments are sound. And with leadership positions at the rocket science company SpaceX and the EV manufacturer Tesla, he’s probably better qualified to make such assertions than most other contributors in this field.
We should invest in synthetic fuels
The synthetic fuel argument is one of the least presented yet most interesting arguments for the future of cars. Synthetic fuels in cars produce as much carbon as petrol/diesel cars do, but their greendentials are based on the fact that they are produced synthetically from carbon that would otherwise have been pumped into the atmosphere.
So what is synthetic fuel? Synthetic fuels are synthetically produced petrol, diesel and kerosine produced from a combination of carbon captured from the atmosphere and hydrogen produced from renewable sources. Although their use in internal combustion engines still produces carbon emissions, the overall carbon impact is neutralised by the carbon captured in their manufacturing process.
A strong argument for the use of synthetic fuels is that they can be used in current ICE vehicles. So planes, ships and cars can keep their current engine technology and become carbon-neutral with the use of synthetic fuels. This is a big win as carbon neutrality is as good as carbon free in most cases.
The problem with synthetic fuels is that it relies on technologies that are themselves not fully developed at industrial scale - carbon capture and hydrogen fuels. But a future where cars are either EVs or synthetic fuel powered ICE vehicles is bright and attainable.
We should rethink mobility and public transport
Rethinking mobility and consuming less is a strange argument as it is something we should be doing anyway—EV or no EV. This is one of those points brought up in a comparison argument that applies to both sides but tends to be applied to only one side.
We should be rethinking mobility but we have to start where we’re at. We have millions of miles of tarred roads already designed for vehicle mobility, and any solution to improving future mobility is stuck with this reality like an inherited lawsuit - what's in is in and what's out is, you start from where you're at.
So the rethinking mobility argument is a sustainable energy argument, not an EV - ICE vehicle argument. Improving public transport is an essential part of this process of rethinking mobility. Policies around this should, however, not dismiss the real freedom that private transport affords us and how much many people value it.
EVs are still powered by fossil fuel electricity
This is the most potent argument against EVs and one that is true. The majority (61%) of our electricity still come burning fossil fuels.
Many commentators argue that an EV that is recharged regularly with electricity from fossil fuel sources is just as bad or worse than a petrol/diesel car. Some arrive at this conclusion with valid data, others fudge it but this clean-car-dirty-fuel conundrum is one that EV adopters will grapple with until we transition our electricity generation to carbon-friendly sources.
One thing that these commentators miss, however, is the fact that as EV adoption helps decarbonise the transportation sector which accounts for 23% of carbon emissions, it will have a direct effect on the power generation sector that accounts for 40% of our carbon emissions.
So to argue against buying an EV because of our current electricity generation sources is really short-sighted. That may be excusable for the average consumer who tends to have short-term considerations to grapple with, but it is unconscionable for government policymakers who are trained to understand and have long-term views.
Where will all the battery metals come from?
This was an early argument that hasn't aged well as we suspect many of the other arguments will end up being. The continued investment-in and adoption of EV have helped defuse this argument as it has for the ‘EVs catch fire more!’ and the ‘can the grid cope with the load?’ and the ‘there aren't enough charging points’ and even the dreaded range anxiety.
Battery metals are largely based on materials that are readily available, can be sustainably mined and 100% recyclable. We have used them for decades in our phones and other electronics. In fact, the hot-button, rare earth metals which feature in many arguments against EVs are described as a ‘relatively abundant group’ of metals by the U.S Geological Survey—the preeminent authority on what materials earth is made of.
The Mad Titan got one thing right
With his fictional yet utterly abhorrent genocidal tendencies aside, the Mad Titan was probably right: "As long as there are those that remember what was, there will always be those that are unable to accept what can be." To EV or not to EV is now a stale question. The choice between ICE and EV mobility is as clear as night and day.
The arguments for ICE will, however, not go quietly into the night. Your job is to read between the lines and separate the comedic, attention-seeking and sometimes completely lame arguments against EVs from the long-term strategic choices we have to make as a society on the cusp of uncharted climate reality.
Strategic gains in EV adoption will have positive ripple effects on mobility and energy generation, both of which account for 63% of our carbon emissions.
What you can do today
Rethink your own mobility options and its impact on yourself and the environment. Consider taking public transport where you can, carpool where possible and default to driving as a last resort.
Consider replacing your petrol/diesel car with an EV. They are the most carbon-friendly vehicles you can buy today, period.
Start a conversation with your elected representatives on EV policies and public transport infrastructure.