Rowan Atkinson’s op-ed in the Guardian criticizing electric vehicles definitely created a bit of eye-rolling. Who, after all, is Mr. Bean to advise us on the issue? Actually it turns out he has degrees in “electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems.” That matters but ultimately the substance of what he says is the only relevant factor.
The title of his piece in the Guardian was “I love electric vehicles – and was an early adopter. But increasingly I feel duped.” As you might imagine, this was the equivalence of passing gas in the climate change church and met with quick outrage. The Guardian, to its credit, published a critical piece by Simon Evans of Carbon Brief who basically says Atkinson is flat-out wrong. The dispute between the two is worthy of consideration, both on the substance but for what it tells us about the nature of the debate over the energy transition.
Atkinson’s points can be summarized as: EVs are great, but they are not the ‘environmental panacea’ they are claimed to be; they reduce local pollution, but their manufacture is energy intensive; the battery weight makes them undesirable for heavy trucks; and alternatives appear to be looming, including solid-state batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, and synthetic fuels, so why invest in a technology that appears to be a dead end?
Evans raises a number of objections but I love his reference to “repeatedly debunked talking points” by which he means, ‘I disagree and found citations to others who also disagree.’ It’s worth noting that at least a couple citations are to Twitter posts, but the claim that Atkinson’s points have been repeatedly debunked assumes a level of precision and certainty that is absent.
The reduction in emissions from switching to EVs from ICEs is one of the main disagreements, where Atkinson cites Volvo in saying greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are nearly 70% higher which Evans refutes by saying “emissions from producing batteries, while significant, are quickly outweighed by the CO2 emissions from fuelling petrol and diesel cars.”
It might be misleading to reference only the emissions from manufacturing, but Atkinson is also making the valid point that not buying a new car avoids a lot of emissions. Evans rebuttal is imprecise and thus misleading. The reality is that battery manufacture is very energy intensive resulting in a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, depending on where they are made. Since many are made, all or in part, in China with its heavy reliance on coal for power, the greenhouse gas emissions are significant.
Most studies show that EVs reduce emissions by between one- and two-thirds, depending on where they are built and operated, among other factors. For example, M.I.T. researchers found that for comparable vehicles, switching to an EV reduces emissions from 350 to 200 grams per mile (citation below), or less than half. In effect, Atkinson’s point that it is misleading to think that EVs are ‘clean’ is correct and Evans is disingenuous in his response.
In the grand tradition of modern pundits, who are said to observe a battle and shoot the survivors, I would agree with Evans that Atkinson is too optimistic about the potential of alternatives. Libraries could be filled with the technologies that appeared viable and even attractive but did not prove economical in the real world. My years at M.I.T. (and just reading the news) left me very skeptical of the ‘next big thing,’ whether it was lithium-air batteries or heat mining. There’s many a slip twixt lab and road, as Charlie Dickens might say.
Evans also falls down on the economics front, when he insists that “Despite elevated electricity prices, EVs are still much cheaper to run than petrol cars in the UK.” It is not clear what ‘cheaper to run’ means; possibly this only refers to costs after the purchase has been made and the car ‘is run.’ But electric vehicles are not generally competitive with comparable gasoline powered cars, which is why enormous subsidies are necessary to sell them.
And Evans’ complaint that Atkinson wrongly dismisses battery-powered heavy duty trucks as ‘non-starters’ because “manufacturers sold 60,000 electric trucks last year and now have 220 heavy-duty vehicle models on the market” doesn’t hold up. The number of models on the market is largely irrelevant (topic for another post) and the IEA’s data refers to medium and heavy-duty trucks, the former being a more attractive (or less unattractive) target for electrification. More telling, the market share for electric trucks according to the IEA, Evan’s source, was above 0.5% only in China. Funny how he left that out.
So, overall the game must be awarded to Atkinson, but I would give both gentlemen a yellow card for ignoring the elephant in the room, namely hybrids, plug-in or otherwise. They achieve significant remissions reductions (260 g/mile according to the aforementioned M.I.T. study, versus 200 for EVs and 350 for ICEs), do not suffer from range anxiety and cost only slightly more than conventional vehicles. Later posts will go into more detail, but the evidence to date seems to increasingly suggest that the lithium-ion battery electric vehicle will prove to be the compact fluorescent lightbulb of the 21st century—a product with some environmental benefits but which is overly hyped by proponents, and probably due to be replaced by something better down the road.
I love electric vehicles – and was an early adopter. But increasingly I feel duped | Rowan Atkinson | The Guardian
Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles | Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars | The Guardian
Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars? | MIT Climate Portal
Read the full article here