BEIRUT

Commentary

The environmentally safe electric car short circuits in practice

For decades, the idea of the electric car has captured the imaginations of innovators – including Henry Ford and Thomas Edison more than a century ago. Celebrities, pundits, and political leaders alike have cast these vehicles as the apotheosis of an environmentally responsible future. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has proclaimed that there will be a million electric cars on the Autobahn by 2020. President Barack Obama has likewise promised a million electric cars in the United States – but five years sooner.

Someday, the electric car will, indeed, be a great product – just not now. It costs too much; it is inconvenient; and its environmental benefits are negligible.

Many developed countries provide lavish subsidies for electric cars: amounts up to $7,500 in the U.S., $8,500 in Canada, and the equivalent of $11,700 in Belgium, and $7,800 even in cash-strapped Spain. Denmark offers the most lavish subsidy of all, exempting electric cars from the country’s marginal 180 percent registration tax on all other vehicles. For the world’s most popular electric car, the Nissan Leaf, this exemption is worth the equivalent of $82,500.

Yet this is clearly not enough. In Denmark, there are still only 1,224 electric cars. In Germany, car sales totaled 3.2 million in 2011, but only 2,154 were electric.

The numbers have forced Obama and Merkel to reconcile their projections with reality. The U.S. Department of Energy now expects only about 250,000 electric cars by 2015 – 0.1 percent of all cars on America’s roads. Merkel recently admitted that Germany will not get anywhere near 1 million electric cars by 2020.

No one should be surprised. According to an analysis by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, a typical electric car’s lifetime cost is roughly $12,000 higher than a gasoline-powered car. Recent research indicates that electric cars may reach break-even price with hybrids only in 2026, and with conventional cars in 2032, after governments spend the equivalent of $131-196 billion in subsidies.

Costs and subsidies aside, electric cars have so far proven to be incredibly inconvenient. A BBC reporter drove the 778 kilometers from London to Edinburgh in an electric Mini, and had to stop eight times to recharge – often waiting six hours or more. In total, he spent 80 hours waiting or driving, averaging just 10 kilometers per hour – an unenviable pace even before the advent of the steam engine.

Electric cars also fail to live up to their environmental billing. They are often sold as “zero emissions” vehicles, but that is true only when they are moving.

For starters, the manufacturing process that produces electric cars – especially their batteries – requires an enormous amount of energy, most of it generated with fossil fuels. A life-cycle analysis shows that almost half of an electric car’s entire carbon-dioxide emissions result from its production, more than double the emissions resulting from the production of a gasoline-powered car.

Moreover, the electricity required to charge an electric car is overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Yes, it then emits about half the carbon-dioxide of a conventional car for every kilometer driven (using European electricity). But, given its high carbon-dioxide emissions at the outset, it needs to be driven a lot to come out ahead.

Proponents proudly proclaim that if an electric car is driven about 300,000 kilometers, it will have emitted less than half the carbon-dioxide of a gasoline-powered car. But its battery will likely need to be replaced long before it reaches this target, implying many more tons of carbon-dioxide emissions.

In fact, such distances seem implausible, given electric cars’ poor range: The Nissan Leaf, for example, can go only 117 kilometers on a charge. That is why most people buy an electric car as their second car, for short commutes. If the car is driven less than 50,000 kilometers on European electricity, it will have emitted more carbon-dioxide overall than a conventional car.

Even if driven 150,000 kilometers, an electric car’s carbon-dioxide emissions will be only 28 percent less than those of a gasoline-powered car. During the car’s lifetime, this will prevent 11 tons of carbon-dioxide emissions, or about $57 of climate damage.

Given the size of the subsidies on offer, this is extremely poor value. Denmark’s subsidies, for example, pay almost $7,865 to avoid one ton of carbon-dioxide emissions. Purchasing a similar amount in the European Emissions Trading System would cost about $6.50. For the same money, Denmark could have reduced carbon-dioxide emissions more than a thousand-fold.

Worse, electric cars bought in the European Union will actually increase global carbon-dioxide emissions. Because the EU has a fixed emission target for 2020, it will offset emissions elsewhere (perhaps with more wind power), regardless of the type of car purchased: 38.75 tons of carbon-dioxide from a gasoline car, and 16 tons from the electricity produced for an electric car. But, while EU emissions stay the same, most electric batteries come from Asia, so an extra 11.5 tons of emissions will not be offset.

The electric car’s environmental transgressions are even worse in China, where most electricity is produced with coal. An electric car powered with that electricity will emit 21 percent more carbon-dioxide than a gasoline-powered car. And as a recent study shows, because China’s coal-fired power plants are so dirty, electric cars make the local air worse. In Shanghai, air pollution from an additional million gasoline-powered cars would kill an estimated nine people each year. But an additional million electric cars would kill 26 people annually, owing to the increase in coal pollution.

The electric-car mantra diverts attention from what really matters: a cost-effective transition from fossil fuels to cheaper green energy, which requires research and innovation. Electric cars might be a great advance for that purpose in a couple of decades. But lavish subsidies today simply enable an expensive, inconvenient, and often environmentally deficient technology.

Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, founded and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It.” THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).

 
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on April 18, 2013, on page 7.

Recommended

Advertisement

Comments

Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

comments powered by Disqus

Advertisement

FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE

Interested in knowing more about this story?

Click here