The truth about the claims for electric vehicles

The British government’s pursuit of net zero by 2050 has brooked no argument, scientific or otherwise, and there has been no meaningful consultation. Previously locked into an EU energy strategy which decreed the banning of petrol and diesel cars by 2035, the government has, post Brexit, sought to be even more zealous, bringing forward the ban to 2030.

Developments at the end of March have brought the EU ban into open debate. In the face of hostility from German and other European car manufacturers, the EU has climbed down from its previous position. It will permit the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles, provided they run on carbon neutral petrol alternatives.

The problem is that these synthetic fuels are prohibitively expensive for passenger vehicles. This will no doubt prompt a further stand-off between the EU and the manufacturers nearer the 2035 cut-off. All this could leave Britain isolated by insisting the ban stays.

It is time to examine the case for electric vehicles. Workers come to it from a different perspective from that of European car manufacturers – some workers may have jobs in the industry, but mostly they rely on vehicles in their work and to get to work.

Battered

Workers are already battered by initiatives springing up all round Britain – ultra-low emission zones, clean air zones, low traffic zones. Some have campaigned vigorously against them, particularly the rapid imposition of ultra-low emission zones.

The Local Government Association, charged with implementing the net zero initiatives, has published The case for electric vehicles, which clearly articulates the government’s position. Its first sentence reads, “It is widely accepted that electric vehicles (EVs) will have lower running costs, are quieter, better for the environment and simpler to repair.” These assumptions need questioning.

The first claim, on running costs, is deliberately misleading. The true cost of running a car includes purchase price, the cost of fuel, the cost of repairs and maintenance, insurance, and an incremental component towards eventual replacement.

Battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales have been rising, accounting for 267,000 out of a total of 1.6 million new vehicles registered last year. But they are expensive; Tesla models for instance, one-fifth of the BEV market, cost from £40,000 upwards. And cheaper BEVs like the Renault Zoe, at just under £30,000, are far more expensive than their petrol equivalents: the Renault Clio for example costs £18,000.

According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, most electric vehicle sales have been for company car fleets, benefitting from tax incentives. To be on target for the 2030 cut off, EV sales would need to increase by 10 per cent year on year.

There is no evidence that the majority of individual drivers who currently buy diesel and petrol vehicles will be able to afford to change to EVs. Leasing one instead is not necessarily affordable: EV leases are about 50 per cent dearer than for petrol or diesel cars.

Battery life

The simplicity of electric motors and transmission, with fewer mechanical parts to go wrong, suggests that repairs and maintenance could be cheaper than for conventional cars. But then there’s the battery, which represents half the cost of the vehicle. Its configuration under the car means it can be readily damaged, even in a minor bump. As yet there are very few mechanics qualified to work on them – and as a result, many are written off after slight damage.

Claims for the longevity of these batteries ought to be viewed with some scepticism – are they only obtainable under laboratory conditions? A Tesla warranty, for example, covers the battery for just eight years. Many motorists want a car they can keep for longer than that. Operational factors including temperature and the use of fast chargers will reduce battery efficiency and therefore effective range.

And it is range, or rather the lack of it, which also makes EVs so unappealing to regular motorists. Manufacturers’ claims of ranges from 200 to 400 miles between charges, even if accurate, rule out even moderately lengthy return journeys without the need to recharge.

‘In some major cities as many as a quarter of charging points may be out of order at any one time…’

The present inadequate charging infrastructure requires EV drivers to plan in detail where to charge for longer journeys. But in some major cities as many as a quarter of charging points may be out of service at any one time. Motorway driving is little better; it’s a common experience to find some chargers out of service and lengthy queues at the others.

Even if far more chargers were to be installed, would the already overstretched national grid be reliable enough to support them? Government has no answer to the question of how power generation is going to keep up with the increasing demand for EVs implied by its targets.

The government asserts that no driver on an A road or motorway is ever more than 25 miles from a charging point. That’s no help to the many people driving in Wales, Scotland and the rural areas of England.

The LGA’s claim about quieter running is undoubtedly true for EVs at low speeds, but it is misleading. The greatest contributor to road noise is the sound made by tyres, not engines; and that proportion increases the higher the speed.

Environmental cost

The argument that EVs are better for the environment has to be similarly qualified. Manufacturing EVs has an environmental impact in mining lithium and cobalt, essential for the batteries. It has a terrible human cost too, although that can’t be wholly attributable to EVs.

Undeniably burning fossil fuels in internal combustion engines produces harmful emissions – particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide – as well as carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas.

Successive legislation has required car manufacturers to produce less-polluting engines. Technical advances have dramatically reduced this pollution from emissions – down by 90 per cent since 1996. But that’s not the only cause of pollution by vehicles.

A study by scientists at Imperial College, reported in the Guardian on 23 February this year, showed that over half of small particle pollution on British roads came from tyre and brake wear. A further quarter is due to the abrasion of roads and their markings. This kind of pollution increases with vehicle weight. EVs with their big batteries are significantly heavier than their petrol equivalents. That added weight also massively increases the damage to life and limb in the event of a collision.

The LGA “case”, made on behalf of the government, amounts to no more that recycling platitudes with an apparent scientific veneer. These don’t stand up to scrutiny. Laughably, they describe government policy as “…encouraging a transition away from internal combustion engines and towards ultra-low emission vehicles, including EVs, over the next 20 years”.

Compulsion

It looks as if encouragement is not working, so compulsion is now the order of the day – banning petrol and diesel cars and enforced targets for the proportion of EV vehicles sold. Yet that policy can’t avoid the reality that EVs are at present unaffordable for many workers who need to travel.

Can this change? Can EVs replace petrol and diesel cars? Battery technology is the key. It has come a long way but is not yet near being the basis of mass motor manufacture. More research and development are needed to achieve that, but the government isn’t committed.

Government policy is less about developing technology and capacity here and more about burnishing its green credentials. It talks about grants for buying EVs but fails to support firms like Britishvolt. It announces grand investment plans and lets them wither. That will have to change for Britain to take advantage of the potential of EVs.