A short while ago I wrote an opinion piece on electric vehicles and the availability of charging points, in particular around Rye. A number of our readers left interesting comments representing both sides of the “green” argument.
Since then, there has been no change in charging points for Rye and the one hotel that wants to install them for their customers is apparently being delayed by bureaucracy and red tape. We have not heard from East Sussex County Council on the question of kerbside chargers.
It seems certain, at least at this rate, that the demand for electric vehicles is going to be stifled by the inability to recharge them at the driver’s convenience; (and this is quite apart from the initial expense of the vehicle and the ridiculously low mileage – by modern standards – that many of them will do between charges).
Another question is, just how green are these electric vehicles? The only difference between them and others powered by the internal combustion engine, is that the former have a big battery and electric motor. Other than that, the construction is more or less similar, so there is no green benefit in the manufacture of the body, chassis, running gear and other components. The big advantage, we are told, is that they no longer burn fossil fuels and there are no harmful emissions.
But – and it is a big but – the lithium-ion batteries contain not fossil fuels, but minerals such as lithium and cobalt, found only in certain parts of the world and which have to be dug out of the ground. Although lithium can also be obtained from some brine pools.
Traditional lithium mines can operate 30 – 40 dump trucks of 40 tons capacity each, together with many digging and excavating machines. The dump trucks alone will use some 17.5 million gallons of diesel on top of the fuel used to excavate the lithium carrying ore. On top of that again is the cost (and amount of fossil fuel) in transporting and processing. Eco-friendly? Hardly. In fairness, it has to be said that the operators of some of these mines are looking at better and more eco-friendly ways of extraction, however it still has to be processed and transported and, like oil, it is a finite resource that one day will run out.
Another mineral used is cobalt. By far the largest source is found in the Democratic Republic of Congo – 100,000 tonnes in 2020, accounting for 70% of world production. China has a huge investment in the Congo cobalt production. The concern here is not only the environmental damage being caused by vast mines and the logistics to run them, but also that so much is in the hands of a potentially unfriendly power, whose actions could well dictate both the price of batteries and even the ability of companies outside China to be able to produce them at all. It should also be noted that the second largest producer, albeit with only 6,000 tonnes in 2020, is Russia.
The other factor with cobalt is that up to 30% (the precise figure is unclear) of the Congo’s production is from unofficial artisanal mines where human rights abuses are common and where children are regularly used to burrow down deep holes too small for an adult, resulting in many child injuries and deaths. Blood cobalt is the name often given to the product of these mines, but it still goes into batteries.
And one final fact: it takes approximately 7-10 years for an electric vehicle to save enough in emissions to cover the environmental damage in its manufacture – ie to become carbon neutral. At the end of that time a great many batteries will need replacing and, often, so will the vehicles themselves. And so the eco-cycle begins again without any real advantage to the future of our planet.
Image Credits: Kevin McCarthy , Facebook .
As always, I value the author’s articles, as they challenge what he perceives as the ‘green agenda’. In fact, he is looking at an agenda that is being rolled out by those in favour of ‘business as usual’. No environmentalist I have spoken to believes that electric vehicles are ‘the answer’. They are at best an incremental improvement on fossil fuel powered cars, but still part of the wider problem.
I agree with John, the extraction of minerals for the batteries of electric vehicles is a huge problem, as is the whole process of manufacturing, running and maintaining all vehicles for our private use. He hasn’t even mentioned the microplastics from tyres, with tyre wear accounting for 68,000 tonnes of microplastics in the UK, with 7,000–19,000 tonnes entering surface waters annually. It doesn’t matter how the vehicle is powered.
The answer is – of course – we need far fewer cars, and we need to travel less. The pandemic resulted in a massive decrease in public transport usage, which even now is nowhere close to pre-pandemic levels, whereas car usage is at or above the levels seen more than two years ago.
There are so few disincentives to personal car use, exemplified by the cut in fuel duty by 5p per litre just six weeks ago, and prior to that the freeze in the fuel duty for the twelfth time. By comparison, the barriers to public transport just keep on mounting, with relentless reduction in bus services and rail prices soaring. Where are the initiatives to encourage carpooling or car clubs? There are none that I’m aware of.
We also need to look at planning and urbanisation, with so much development leading to more travel, due to lack of mixed usage. And of course, there’s the disparity in housing availability and cost, forcing many to work or go to school far from where they live.
There has been a boom in the sale of large gas-guzzling SUVs, with numbers more than doubling in the last six years – many people are untouched by the cost of living crisis, it would appear. Wealth inequality has a lot to answer for, I have all sympathy for the social worker or builder who has no option but to drive every day. However, making driving cheap is not the answer.
It is no coincidence that the richest man alive, Elon Musk, sells high end electric cars. Owning a Tesla is a perfect way for the rich to ‘virtue signal’ how passionate they are about the environment, neatly absolving them of any responsibility for the damage they are causing in every other way, it would seem.
It is clear, we have to move away from fossil fuels, and electric vehicles are a long overdue improvement, but right now these are still a long way off being truly sustainable.
An interesting article but as John acknowledges we are only at the beginning of our journey into an electriuc future and many of these technologies – such as batteries – as evolving extremely rapidly to use different materials with less environmental impact. Also, as previously discussed in these threads on EVs, you are missing a massive peice of the puzzle: NO TAILPIPE EMISSIONS. Pollution from cars and vans comes at a massive cost of £6 billion annually to public health. This doesn’t seem to figure in your article at all. Also, you are clearly not looking at current mileage rates: Tesla, BMW, Skoda and VW all have models capable of 350-400 miles. The Highway Code recommends you take a break of 15 minutes for every 2 hours of driving: with today’s fast chargers, that’s plenty of time for a top-up whilst you stretch your legs and get a coffee.
Another couple of points, if I may: it’s completely ridiculous to count the carbon cost of driving dump trucks from mines and not count the massively carbon intensive infrastructure used to extract, refine and sell hydrocarbons: think oil wells, pipelines, refinieries, ship tankers, road tankers, petrol stations…it’s obvious which is greener. And finally, John Minter again ignores an absoutely crucial point: you can power your EV with renewable energy very easily, either using your own solar panels and/or topping up from a green energy supplier. To suggest that this is less green than an ICE vehicle’s lifetime usage of petrol or deisel is to wilfully disregard reality.
I like electric vehicles but I really do think Dominic Manning makes some strong points, especially that the only way to substantially reduce the environmental impact of cars is by vastly reducing the distances we travel in them. Perhaps government policy on development, education and work should be shaped by the simple question: “does this demand that people necessarily travel by car?” If it does – think again.
The other issue is the assumption that, because there isn’t a tail pipe there are no emissions. Were we generating all our electricity from renewable sources I would agree. But we’re nowhere near to doing that so every additional electric car places an extra load on the grid, and at present that electricity will be generated by the burning of … hydrocarbons … at your local power station. At least as much emission, just not in your back yard!
I agree that we need to reduce car usage overall and invest in public transport and Active Travel routes – that’s what we’re trying to do with Sussex Greenways (and many thanks indeed to Dominic and the Rother Environment Group for their valuable support of our work). However, Bob, nearly 40% of UK electricity is currently generated from renewables with a governmentr target of 100% by 2035. As I keep repeating, it is VERY EASY to charge your EV from renewable energy!! Hence, zero emissions. You don’t need to be burning hydrocarbons to drive an EV. Is this hard to grasp in any way?
Hmmnn. Hasn’t the PM promised us 8 new nuclear power stations at the rate of one a year, thus making the 100% renewable sourced energy target by 2035 impossible? But then Johnson promised us a bridge to France, a bridge over the North Sea and no border of any kind in the Irish Sea so anything he says has to be taken with a pinch of salt. But then it was him who promised in October 2021 the 100 per cent renewable energy and green power in 2035, just before he discovered nuclear power! But, by some weird sleight of mind, nuclear is described as green power! But that’s if the radioactive waste can be disposed of safely. And there is no permanent disposal sight anywhere in the world.
Normal Johnson blustering rubbish! Like all the hospitals we’re going to build. I think he’s forgotten that it takes at least 10 years to build a Nuclear Power station from consultation, planning and building before it will produce a watt of electricity
Well, I think it’s impossible to grasp, Nick, although car manufacturers may argue differently. Please consider:
If renewables offer around 40% of power available on the grid then that 40% is being pumped into the grid, all the time. It’s not being saved up in any way.
The day you stop using a conventional car and switch to a new electric one, you place EXTRA load on the grid.
We’re already using all the renewable power that we generate, so where’s the power for your new car going to come from?
From a hydrocarbon power station; it doesn’t matter what your supplier is telling you.
I do agree that you would be right if and only if we were able to generate enough renewable power to cover all current needs PLUS all the additional demands from new electric cars.
I read all the green arguments, a lot are written by people in a position to switch to electric cars, unfortunately I’m not one of them, if and it’s a big if I could afford to switch to a green car where would I charge it?
I live in a first floor flat with no drive or garden, I do have a parking space in a private car park but I can only imagine the cost of a charging point.
The parking space is allocated to me all the time I live here but is not exclusive to my property and would be reallocated to who ever is waiting for a space to become available.
It’s all very well all these suggestions for the grand problem but there are millions of small problems that will need solving closer to home first.
You can switch to a renewable supplier such as Octopus and charge your car at night when there is SURPLUS power from offshore wind (because wind is stronger at night and usage is minimal). So its not an extra load on the grid at all – on the contrary, you get paid to take it because they don’t yet have the storage facilities. That will change as electrolysers to convert it into hydrogen became more widespread.
Thank you, Nick Hanna. You make a most interesting and helpful point on overnight charging.
As an observation, we recently enjoyed a short holiday in Yorkshire. We were self catering outside of the normal tourist areas and so we were driving about 50-80 miles a day to visit various places. The journey up there was just short of 280 miles. Like most holiday cottages, our accommodation didn’t have an overnight charging point. My diesel car has a range of around 600 miles, so leaving on a full tank and topping up once while we were there easily covered our mileage without anxiety about running out of fuel. Just how would this holiday have been possible with an average EV? And, perhaps more importantly, what will be the effect on visitors driving to our own area in the future?
If your accommodation had a standard 3-pin plug and off road parking, then you could have used an Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) cable to charge the car overnight.
Yes, we need far more EV charging points, both public and private. The Building Regulations as of 15th June finally allow for this, see: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infrastructure-for-charging-electric-vehicles-approved-document-s . About time, I say.
This part of the country is way behind everywhere else and near barren of EV charging points, much to ESCC’s shame.
I’m very interested in Tony Edward’s comment – I live in a street side terraced house with no off road parking (often can’t even park outside my house so no possibility even of running a lead from my house across the pavement – illegal anyway). And as he points out, if you rent or are allocated a parking space you are not in a position to put in a charging point. I’m also interested in Nick Hanna’s point re cost of charging. I live (have done for 40 years) in a village with no gas so am totally reliant on electricity for all my household usage. I have Economy 7 (to charge up my night storage heaters – biggest use of electricity, heat my water, run my washing machine & dryer) and have, usually 2 year contracts, sometimes 3. When my last one was coming to an end in March 2021 I checked prices, not just with my provider at the time, EDF, but also Octopus, Ovo, etc, etc. EDF had put in a 91% increase on my night rate and the other providers’ prices were even higher. As I am exceedingly careful with how and when I use electricity at least 70% and sometimes more of my total usage is at the night rate. So at a stroke my annual bill went up by a third – £200. So please Nick, when you’re getting paid to charge your EV at night (because usage is ‘minimal’) please remember that you are being subsidised by electricity users like me.