Are Electric Vehicles a Solution to our Environmental Challenges?

Sunday, May 8, 2022 4:44 PM

There are many thoughts in my mind about this topic. My thoughts on electric vehicles (EVs) are imperfect and they are continually developing, but the energy behind them is constant. I believe we can and should strive be better with our technology.   

I caution the widespread application and growth of EVs. I do not believe switching from internal combustion engines (ICE) to battery powered electric vehicles is an innovative, and effective use of our valuable natural resources. I have many thoughts on this topic so I thought to let a few of them out related to efficiency, air pollution, and resources and material

Context

Global governance, attempting to address anthropogenetic climate change, have accelerated support and strategies for electric vehicles. More specifically, the dominate developed economic influences of global governance are doing this. 

For example, the United States set a target to have of 50% EV’s comprise the vehicle market by 2030. China announced a mandate that EV’s must make up at least 40% of all car sales by 2030. Many European Union countries and cities have EV subsidies, tax incentives, and coming bans on internal combustion vehicles, with an overall proposed EU market ban on combustion vehicles by 2035. Canada, citing their people’s needs of “clean air, good jobs, a healthy environment, and a strong economy” highlighted over $8 billion CAD allocated int their 2022 budget to support expansions of electric vehicles (goals of 20% of all new passenger vehicles sold by 2026, 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035), including a $3.8 billion CAD minerals strategy. 

In these discussions, the primary concern addressed is vehicle cost, especially the costs of batteries. These policies present the position that mineral exploration, extraction, and manufacturing costs will decrease rapidly as production increases to meet governmental targets for carbon dioxide emission reduction.

To be clear..

I am not against electrification; in fact, I support widespread electrification. I am against resource inefficient electrification. I am against applying technologies with potential to help address global grand challenges – climate change, biodiversity collapse, pollution, environmental injustices, cultural genocide – in manners which do not. 

I believe we can apply the technologies presented in EVs while improving many aspects of our mobility, but we must be material and resource effective. We must understand EV’s shortcomings. We must also gain more intimate connections to our natural resources, so our global community can develop in a manner that provides long term resiliency and abundance.   

Efficiency: 

Yes, electric motors are more efficient than ICE, but this does not mean EV’s are efficient. Electric motors convert electrical energy to kinetic energy with over 90% efficiency, while ICEs convert chemical energy in the fuel to kinetic energy with 11-40% efficiency.  Vehicles, however, both ICE and EV are overall not mass efficient. This is because a large mass with high friction must move to transport a relatively small payload. Consider what most vehicles are transporting - a person and their stuff. The person weighs ~70 kg (155 lbs). Their stuff, maybe ~30 kg (65 lbs). Of course, there are times with four or five people, and more stuff. That can put the range of what is being transported at 100-1000 kg (220-2,200 lbs.) 

ICE vehicles weigh about 1,500 kg (3,300 lbs), EV’s with their many batteries for increased range weigh about 2,000 kg (4,400 lbs). (note: The energy density of gasoline (petrol), 46 MJ/kg and diesel (45 MJ/kg) are much greater than leading commercialized Li-ION batteries, ~0.6 MJ/kg. Combine the energy density, with the fuel or battery capacity and the motor energy efficiency to get an estimated range. Consumers want to operate EV’s like ICE so manufactures prioritize increasing range, which means withstanding a leap in battery technologies, larger batteries.) These vehicle masses mean that of all the mass that is moving, 6-40% of the mass in an ICE vehicle is what is intended to be moved. In EV’s the figure is closer to 5-33%. The energy of the vehicle, powered by the motor, is mostly going to moving the vehicle, not the passenger or payload. 

Vehicles also have large rolling resistance. This is necessary for safety. There must be good gripping tires to maneuver and stop effetely, but this rolling resistance takes energy. Rubber on asphalt has a coefficient of rolling resistance of 0.01-0.02. By comparison, an alternative rolling dynamic, such a train’s steel on steel is 0.001. Much less energy is going into resisting forward motion, which is overall, the intention of the vehicle. 

Air Pollution: 

One of the greater “green” benefits of EV’s is the lack of tailpipe emissions. Of course, the commonly cited argument is an EV is only as green as the grid it is plugged into. While this argument negates the embedded emissions and pollution of manufacturing the vehicle, it is a valid point. 

Regardless of the grid which charges the EV, there is a manner EV’s could be used to improve air quality for many millions of people. Tailpipe emissions, as well as non-exhaust pollutants, cause the greatest health detriment in poor, high-density, high population cites (The list of the 300 cities with the worst air quality in the world is dominated by high density cities in Asia: India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. with average PM2.5 counts between 40-170 µg/m3, and PM10 counts between 68-319 µg/m3. The World Health Organization (WHO) states annual PM2.5 concentrations should not surpass 5 µg/m3 and PM10 concentrations should not surpass 10 µg/m3) The poor air quality in these cities is not from auto-emissions alone, but also from industry, open cooking, and dust. If the market allowed for EV’s to enter these markets, the benefit of zero tail-pipe emissions could improve the air quality for hundreds of millions of people.

The problem is, EV’s are not sold to such markets where these people could benefit. EV’s are sold to wealthy consumers who can afford the premium prices of new EV’s. While the largest consuming country of EV’s is China, on a per-capita metric of market penetration, wealthy, less dense places with relatively okay air quality such as Norway, Sweden, California, and Netherlands (I say relatively okay because 99% of the global population breathes air that exceeds the WHO guidelines for pollutants.) Additionally, while EV’s don’t have tail pipe emissions, they still contribute to non-exhaust air pollutants from tire wear, break wear, road surface wear and resuspension of road dust while in motion. While these pollutants may not contribute to the greenhouse effect, they are acuity more toxic and damaging than tailpipe emissions. 

Resources and Material:

Related to this point, of mass inefficiency of EV’s, are the valuable, resource intensive materials needed for EV’s - batteries. Newer, lighter weight and more energy dense batteries, such as Li-Ion batteries are intensive to make (note: as mentioned above commercialized Li-ION batteries have an energy density of ~0.6 MJ/kg, which is much greater than a lead-acid batteries (normal car battery) density of 0.14 MJ/kg). New industrial scale mining, extraction, and processing infrastructure must be implemented to supply this demand. With our current economic system, this is aimed to be delivered at the lowest cost, so corners will be cut. 

As this pattern has been, these corners may be felt environmentally and socially. Already, cobalt mining is associated with gross human rights violations in main mining locations like the Democratic Republic of Congo. Additionally, present industrial scale lithium mining in the “lithium triangle” (the boarders of Bolivia, Argentina, and Chili) is associated with soil contamination and water shortages.

Industrialization takes large energetic investments: 

• What energy - human and technical - is powering and embedded in these processes – is our air and climate at risk? 
• Waste may not properly be processed or disposed – is our water and aquifers at risk? 
• Communities may be imposed by industry to develop mining and processing – are our cultures, traditions, and diversity of ecosystems at risk? 
• Labor may not appropriately be compensated, especially when considering safety – are our bodies, minds, and futures at risk? 

Essentially, by scaling our “saving grace” of “emissions free” EV’s by enacting the same culture of our economic system, our land and labor will be exploited to deliver low-cost batteries. Is this a solution to any of our grand global challenges of climate change, biodiversity collapse, environmental injustice? 

As described above, most of an EV’s energy is going to moving the battery, not the intended payload. This, added up with the scale of widespread EV use and over battery life cycle, is grossly resource inefficient. The imbedded energy in the battery, the natural resources (and exploitation in the production process) would go considerably farther if these batteries were static, and not moved by an electric motor, while moving passengers and payload. 

Creative Solutions We Must Consider...

There are creative, alternative mobility solutions which utilize technologies found in EV’s but in more energy and resource efficient ways that are less polluting and more accessible. I will write of these in more detail at a later point in time (successful mobility solutions must consider the supply of material and fuel and needs for the mobility of goods, material, food and people and therefore must consider multi-dimensional factors including human, resource, and environmental densities, geology, topography and regional climate seasonality). 

But for now, consider an alternative such as an electrified rail and streetcar system. Such a system can have main veins of high frequency rail lines with off-spurs of lighter rail or streetcar systems able to move people and goods. Such can be designed to operate off a fossil grid and overall would have greater energy and resource efficiency and be less polluting of air, water and land than present passenger car and road trucking systems. If designed well, such systems would also be more convenient, accessible, and affordable. 

The batteries storing renewably sourced power, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, can be static and buffer the transit grid when the intermittent power sources aren’t supplying. This also means “less stable”, but more energy dense or longer lifespan battery technologies can be utilized. Without heavy onboard batteries, the rail car/streetcar’s can therefore be built to be lighter weight, only needing an onboard motor, the rolling resistance of rail or magnetic levitation would be much lower than rubber on asphalt and the payload would be a greater percentage of total moving mass. The resource and energy efficiency challenges of vehicles would be addressed. Additional benefits include greatly reduced non-combustion pollutants compared to auto-mobility, meaning greatly reduced compounding of polluting effects when applied in high density situations. Also, such a system reduces spatial demands for auto infrastructure including widespread paving and parking allowing for nuanced city planning for more dynamic and diverse land. Conversation from auto-centric infrastructure in addition to reduced pollution, energy and material demands could have implications on heat, noise, stormwater and flood management, as well as walkability, sociability and general improvements for individual, communal and global health and wellbeing. 

Just a few thoughts I was compelled to share. 

-Trexler