This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,064 Members

Post

Why Electric Car Hype Is Overblown

Highlights:

  • Electric cars offer no clear fuel cost savings relative to efficient internal combustion engine (ICE) options.
  • CO2 and tailpipe emission benefits are also insignificant relative to efficient ICEs.
  • Attractive car-free lifestyle options will reduce demand for city driving patterns that are best suited to electric cars.
  • Autonomous driving technology could benefit the ICE more than it benefits pure electric drive.

Introduction

Electric car mania is sweeping the globe and people are predicting the imminent death of the internal combustion engine (ICE) with increasing vigor. Even The Economist recently got in on the act. However, some simple objective analysis quickly shows that there is limited substance behind all the hype.

I should establish right up front that I do not dispute that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will see impressive growth over coming years. The only point I wish to make is that their potential for achieving the rapid and economical emissions cuts the world so badly needs is very low. Money spent on electric car technology-forcing is therefore, in my opinion, a bad investment at a time when we really cannot afford bad energy investments.

This article will outline the most important arguments in this thesis.

Fuel costs

One of the primary arguments for electric vehicles is lower fuel costs. Yes, the electric motor is inherently much more efficient than the internal combustion engine (ICE), but the generation and distribution of electricity is also much more expensive than the production and distribution of gasoline.

And no, the fuel costs of electric vehicles should not be compared to the woeful American average fuel economy of 25 mpg. Electric vehicles are built for maximum efficiency so that they can get more range out of a given battery pack. They should therefore be compared to ICE cars that are built for maximum efficiency such as the Toyota Prius and the Hyundai Ioniq (both pushing 60 mpg). Obviously, these highly efficient ICE cars present the best benchmark for electric cars, given that they are also promoted as eco-friendly solutions with low fuel costs.

For example, comparing the fuel costs for the Hyundai Ioniq hybrid and electric versions shows only a small advantage for the electric car (which is $5000 more expensive with a battery pack of only 28 kWh). If electricity was taxed the same as gasoline (to pay for things like road maintenance), fuel costs would be essentially identical. Besides, at these efficiency levels, fuel costs are typically about 10% of total car ownership costs. A 10% fuel cost advantage one way or the other will therefore translate to a negligible 1% ownership cost differential.

As discussed in a previous article,  ICE and BEV drivetrains will probably end up with efficiencies around 50% and 80% (including charging losses) respectively in the long run. The following graph was created to show the electricity price where BEV fuel costs reach parity with ICE fuel costs for a range of BEV efficiency advantages. It is clear that BEVs enjoy no obvious fuel cost advantage under normal oil prices of $30-60/barrel.

Arguably, the comparison should rather be made to average oil production costs ($20-30/barrel), given that the difference between market prices and production costs funds a large chunk of public spending in many countries. In this case, from an overall global perspective, fueling efficient ICEs can be significantly cheaper than fueling BEVs.

Emissions

The CO2 emissions of BEVs relative to ICEs depends primarily on the electricity mix that fuels the BEV. In addition, the BEV battery leads to higher embodied CO2 of about 100 kg/kWh.  The graph below calculates the electricity CO2 intensity required by BEVs to emit less CO2 than ICE cars for the same three efficiency advantages displayed above. Future battery embodied CO2 is assumed as 50 kg/kWh and calculated on a 60 kWh battery pack lasting 250000 miles.

Given that the latest IEA New Policies scenario projects an average global electricity carbon intensity of 0.42 kg/kWh by 2040 (currently 0.56 kg/kWh), it is clear that BEVs again don’t offer any fundamental advantage relative to efficient ICE cars. Beyond 2040, electricity carbon intensity will continue declining, but biofuels and synfuels will also reduce the carbon intensity of ICE fuels.

If the world finally manages to implement proper technology-neutral climate policies, CO2 intensity of electricity will fall faster. However, this will increase electricity costs, reduce oil prices and also accelerate the development of low-carbon fuels, thus keeping the ICE competitive.

In any case, at these efficiency levels, even high CO2 prices do not greatly impact car ownership economics. The graph below calculates the CO2 cost savings of BEVs at a CO2 price of $150/ton and a future BEV efficiency of 0.24 kWh/mile (including charging losses). Given that car ownership costs about $0.6/mile, potential BEV CO2 savings relative to regular gasoline are in the order of 1%.

The story is similar for other emissions. Local tailpipe emissions (e.g. NOx and PMs) from efficient ICEs are very low. For example, the graph below shows that only about 10% of total NOx and PMs of the Prius comes from the tailpipe. Incidentally, the total NOx and PMs tally for the Nissan Leaf is 75% higher than the Prius on the same site.

Scope for deployment

Battery electric drive is fundamentally best suited to vehicles driving shorter distances, i.e. commuting and general city driving. The longer the required range, the worse the economics get, especially for larger vehicles. A battery pack size estimate is given below for vehicles of different sizes with different range requirements.

At a cost of $100/kWh for batteries and $25/kW and $50/kW for a BEV and ICE drivetrain respectively, the resulting cost comparison looks like this:

BEV attractiveness fades quickly with greater range requirements due to large battery pack costs. In addition, a greater range requirement generally means highway driving at relatively constant speeds where the ICE is at its best. For example, state of the art diesel truck engines operate at 47% efficiency and can potentially reach 55% efficiency with improvements offering a relatively short payback period. Future specialized highway cars will offer similar efficiencies as discussed in an earlier article.  These applications within the ICE comfort zone will be responsible for most freight and passenger transport energy requirements by 2040 shown below.

Fast charging stations offer a partial solution, but will substantially increase fuel costs for BEVs. Fast chargers themselves are relatively expensive,  imply peak-time charging with higher electricity prices, and may require expensive electricity transmission to remote locations. For example, Tesla’s superchargers now cost customers in California about $0.20/kWh – a price equivalent to $3.36/gal (excl. taxes) in a current hybrid that is half as efficient as a BEV. Tesla claims that they will make no profit at this price and long queuing times at supercharging stations suggest that more expensive capacity buildouts are actually required. More pessimistic assessments easily arrive at substantially higher fast charging costs.

An additional very important trend is that telecommuting, small electric vehicles and doorstep delivery services will steadily displace short-distance car travel over coming decades. People will eventually realize just how silly it is to haul 2 tons of metal over 50 miles of roadway day after day to go and do computer work that could be done just as efficiently from a home office. I have previously estimated the truly enormous economic benefits of telecommuting and small electric vehicles in this article.  The shear magnitude of these advantages and the great attractiveness of car-free neighborhoods and city centers will eventually take away most of the short-trip BEV sweet spot.

Autonomous vehicles

The greater capacity utilization potential offered by autonomous vehicles has led to great optimism regarding synergies with BEVs. Unfortunately, this optimism is unfounded because no clear fuel cost advantage exists relative to the highly efficient ICE options that would certainly be deployed for such high-utilization applications.

If anything, full autonomy will favor ICEs because traffic flow will be much smoother, greatly enhancing ICE efficiency and longevity. The clear BEV advantage of strong and efficient acceleration will be negated because autonomous vehicles will strive to minimize g-forces. In addition, high-utilization autonomous vehicles will regularly travel more than 300 miles per day, requiring either a costly large battery pack or lots of costly fast chargers that increase daytime peak load.

The future for ICE drivetrains

The next article will describe how ICE and (potentially) fuel cell vehicles might adapt in the longer term future to maximize efficiency, while minimizing costs and emissions. As a result, these vehicles will remain highly competitive with BEVs even as battery costs come down. The current deployment of BEVs in the US at a time when subsidies cover the entire battery pack cost gives a rough idea of how this could turn out: Good performance in the luxury/performance segment where battery pack costs are moderate compared to overall vehicle costs and rapid acceleration is highly valued, but poor performance in the mass-market where customers are mainly interested in low costs and convenience.

Schalk Cloete's picture

Thank Schalk for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Schalk Cloete's picture
Schalk Cloete on September 18, 2017

I explained how I think personal mobility will change over coming decades. My view is that most city car travel will be replaced by telecommuting, small electric vehicles and doorstep delivery services, and that car-free neighborhoods and city centers will eventually become the norm. Autonomous driving technology may actually accentuate these trends, although that is quite uncertain. Please see my two previous articles on these topics:
http://www.theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/2389162/future-personal... and http://www.theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/2389167/future-personal....

Obviously it is not possible to provide hard evidence that these trends will play out over the next couple of decades. But I see this happening around me with friends and colleagues working from home more often (while connected to the company’s network and communicating via video chat with screen sharing when required), regularly biking to work even though they can easily afford to drive (with a strong increase in the number of e-bikes), and increasingly shopping virtually just because it is so much more convenient. The financial and health benefits from my own car-free lifestyle have compounded nicely for several years (financial freedom and zero sick-days for the past 8 years).

Also note that I certainly do not write off BEVs. They will grow nicely, especially as second family cars and in the luxury/performance segment. All I’m saying is that cars and trucks with ICEs will be shifting more and more to highway travel as the decades progress, with driving patterns smoothed out even further by some degree of autonomy. If BEVs are to kill the ICE like the fans insist they will, they will have to do so on the highway, hence my use of highway efficiency.

The main variable in this future scenario is the BEV efficiency advantage under such smooth driving conditions. I’m quite confident that ICE vehicles will eventually reach 50% efficiency through sophisticated compression ignition, waste-heat recovery and more advanced hybrid systems allowing the ICE to operate in its optimal range almost all the time. F1 has reached the 50% efficiency milestone already.

BEVs will not be able to go much above 80% wall-to-wheel efficiency and will remain substantially heavier when carrying battery capacity suitable for completely practical long-distance travel. Hence my range of BEV efficiency advantage from 1.5x to 2x used for the most important results presented in this article.

Schalk Cloete's picture
Schalk Cloete on September 18, 2017

Wow, this is turning out to be much more difficult that it should be. Please see the two links in the second paragraph of the “How low can the costs go?” section in my new article that was published today.
Prius Two Eco: Insurance: $3,855, Maintenance: $3,178
Leaf S: Insurance: $4,183, Maintenance: $2,722
Total: Leaf saves $26/year in insurance and maintenance.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on September 20, 2017

I agree, with the condition that the degree of decline in dual drive train costs will control the amount of ‘sweep’.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on September 20, 2017

Cost to own will include lifetime maintenance, fuel, costs, etc. Insurance addresses on the sticker cost, i.e. the size of the check to replace.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on September 20, 2017

There are other factors driving costs.  Emissions is one of them.  If fine-grained control over engine operating conditions is required to meet future emissions levels, neither the pure ICEV nor mild hybrid is going to qualify any more.  Emissions may force everything to HEV, and fuel economy regs push onward to PHEV.

The mild (start-stop) hybrid is coming in a big way; Volvo will electrify all its models to at least that degree in a few years.  It’s a small step from that to launch assist, and electrification of all accessories is a natural progression.  Once you have multi-kW of power available, the only thing in the way of expanding its use is the size of the battery—which is getting cheaper all the time.  I don’t see any natural end point for this.

Pages

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »