Friday 18 September 2015 saw Dieselgate break. This was the culmination of a growing dissonance between real-world nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and official values for cars and vans. The rupture was created by governments picking a technology, for the purposes of decarbonisation, where too much was taken on trust within a fragile governance system. The industry said, rightly, that technology existed to solve the NOx emissions. The sad reality was that this technology wasn’t deployed in a way that actually reduced NOx enough in practice, and Europe has been dealing with the air quality consequences ever since.
Equivalent failures must not happen as we try new routes to decarbonisation, especially as a generation has been lost with the diesel experiment. Many air quality problems have been solved even with internal combustion engine technology, with the simpler challenge remaining of updating the car parc. But decarbonisation is harder, and that is why the promise of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) – the leading contender in light-duty vehicle CO2 reduction – is rightly being scrutinised in exhaustive detail.
Mr Bean actor and car collector Rowan Atkinson’s recent intervention, saying he felt “duped” by the green claims of BEVs, caused a stir, not least because the article appeared in The Guardian, a well-regarded, environmentally conscious UK newspaper. Much electronic ink has been spilt since, including a subsequent ‘fact check’ by Simon Evans, a climate journalist, in the same publication. In the spirit of open enquiry and technology neutrality, and given the importance of the topic, we decided to perform a ‘fact fact check.’ In doing this, Emissions Analytics’ only motive is to get as close to the truth as possible, and to acknowledge where we have uncertainties.
In headline, most of what Simon Evans wrote is true, including:
BEVs won’t solve all the problems associated with car use. Our comment: very true, and may in some specific cases make them worse.
BEVs reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds on a lifecycle basis relative to combustion engine cars in the UK, and the benefits are growing. Our comment: performing accurate lifecycle analysis is exceedingly hard, and the answer is sensitive to your choice of model and input assumptions. The two-thirds claim is in the range of plausible estimates, even though Emissions Analytics’ work put the estimate closer to half currently. Nevertheless, the point stands.
Emissions from producing batteries are significant, but are quickly outweighed by the in-use emissions from gasoline and diesel cars. Our comment: how quickly depends on the true lifecycle emissions of the battery, vehicle and fuel, but it is most likely to be in the two to seven year range in the UK (with a wider range across Europe). Given that a car typically lasts about 13 years, anywhere in this range could be deemed quick.
Hydrogen is not a mainstream and proven technology in the same was as BEVs are currently, although it may improve too. Our comment: we agree – it is predicted to improve, and may emerge as the preferred solution for freight transport where the size of the battery is problematic.
Battery electric technology is the most energy efficient of the alternatives. Our comment: true, noting that efficiency is an important but not the only consideration.
Batteries may well outlast the rest of the vehicle. Our comment: data on battery longevity is encouraging on the whole.
Lithium-ion batteries do not contain rare earth elements. Our comment: batteries often contain scarce materials, and rare earths are used in electric motors.
However, there is one sentence in the article that we should focus on in particular. Not that it is incorrect, but that it is true in a dangerous way:
“Indeed, without a widespread shift to EVs, there is no plausible route to meeting the UK’s legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050…” [To clarify, in context “EVs” meant BEVs, excluding hybrids.] This sentence is important because it is a fact, but it is a fact by definition. In other words, legislation defines BEVs as zero emissions. Bingo! But are they actually zero emissions? No, as Simon Evans correctly points out. The manufacturing and electricity-generation emissions are defined out of the equation. The manufacturing emissions are mostly parked offshore; in practice most of them occur in China, where battery materials and processed before they can be utilised.
So, we have a rapidly looming echo of Dieselgate. You cannot define your way to decarbonisation. Repeating the assertion that BEVs are zero emission doesn’t make it any more true. BEVs in the UK are lower carbon than any current alternative – that is true. But they come at a cost and with consequences – economically, geopolitically, environmentally, ethically – that make them no more than a highly promising and valid alternative alongside many others.
Let’s not wake up on Tuesday 18 September 2035 to find that we have applied gargantuan resources, failed to reduce CO2 enough, and created new unpleasant side-effects.
So, Rowan Atkinson may be right for the wrong reasons, and others wrong for the right reasons. The truth is that Europe, and the world, perhaps cannot afford another Dieselgate.