Skip to main content

Okay, I was wrong about electric cars

Quite recently I was getting all het up about electric cars, and how I'd quite like one if only they were priced more reasonably. I have to put my hand up right now and admit I was wrong. One of the huge differences between the approach taken by politics and science is that science has to be eager to admit mistakes and move on - and I got this one wrong on good scientific reasons.

The trouble is, as was the central theme of my book Ecologic, and will crop up repeatedly in my soon to be released business book Sustainable Business, with green issues it is all too easy to let go of logic and go for emotion. And susceptible as I am to iAnything, I let logic go out of the window in my interest in an electric car.

Rule number one with being properly green is to think holistic. I don't mean by this that you should go all fruit-loopy and do a quick meditational chant over your fuel tank, or try acupuncture on your tyres. I mean when thinking of the costs and benefits to the environment you have to take into account the whole life cycle of the vehicle, not just the running costs. So you need to include, for example, CO2 emissions from manufacture, servicing and disposal of the vehicle.

Because of the heavy carbon dioxide output in the production and disposal phases of an electric car, it only breaks even (in terms of savings over conventional cars) on emissions after driving it for 80,000 miles. But the thing is, I (and a lot of others) would only use an electric car for little bitty journeys. The sort of thing I currently use my Toyota Aygo for. It would take me at least 10 years to clock up enough mileage to just break even. The fact is, for most of us, a low emission conventional car with a small engine like the Aygo or a Polo Blue Motion would be better for the environment than an electric car. And cost about 1/3 to 1/4 the price. The only reason to go electric, I'm afraid, once you've looked at this logically is to be a poser.


  1. Your forgetting 2 Major points..
    (very bad science!)

    1)The lifetime of the vehicle is not how long you use it for but how long all its drivers use it for. If it lasts longer than the break-even (80,000 miles) then its a win.

    2)The cost of 'fuel' the sensible choice here has to be mains electric at 12p/Kwh rather than Petrol at £1.40/l. No-brainer not poser.

    Additionally: The figures are also skewed due to volume production, once ev scales up production processes get better.

    I'm afraid we can only agree on one point in your article: "Okay, I was wrong"

  2. From the Original Source:

    "ELECTRIC and hybrid cars create more carbon emissions during their production than
    standard vehicles – but are still greener overall, according to a new report."

    The figures:
    Gasoline: 24t Life 5.6t Prod
    Battery: 19t Life 8.8t Prod
    (where life = 150K Mile)
    G: (24-5.6)/150 = 0.122t / 1k mile
    B: (19-8.8)/150 = 0.068t / 1k mile

    (8.8-5.6)/(0.122-0.068)= 59.25k mile Break-even
    (a little way off from 80k)

  3. So, am I OK running Caroline, my ancient 3.5-litre gas guzzling Volvo, who's practically new even though she's clocked up more than 139000 miles? I think a lot of the problem is built-in obsolescence. I read once that 90% of all Volvos ever built are still in use. My Volvo should, baring huge mishap, last forever. If you could build an electric car as robust, rust-proof and (mostly) trouble-free as a Volvo, you'd be onto a winner.

  4. You can read an interesting counter argument to mine here and a press release on the original report here

    I stick by my comments, I'm afraid. The trouble is, the numbers in the report are themselves rather suspect.

    Firstly it seems to assume you only need one battery set, but you would need AT LEAST one replacement set, meaning you have to add an extra 4 tonnes plus to the production and more to the disposal.

    Secondly 150,000 km is still a lot for a runabout. Remember you won't be taking electric cars on long journeys down the motorway.

    Finally it is comparing it with a midsized petrol car. I am not. I am comparing with an Aygo or Polo Blue Motion, which are better than a hybrid on running emissions, and much better once you take full life cycle into account.

    The fact is the comparison is a lot closer than many are willing to admit.

  5. I expect not, Henry. I can't imagine Caroline's emissions are good. But I bet she has a great aura.

  6. Brian

    Do you remember in the old days when e mail was a nascent technology and there was a constant debate about whether it was worth putting in an e mail server or not; the cost benefit analysis never seemed to justify the investment in the additional computers required to allow everyone to have one at their desk - and hence make e mail work.

    What was needed was an act of faith that the technology would come good in the long run; those companies that took that risk gained significant advantage over those that didnt because computers could do more than just e mail and although it was hard to measure those benefits in the long run having more staff with IT skills helped businesses to compete better

    Which is a long winded way of saying that sometimes all the financial analysis in the world is meaningless if there are sufficient users willing to support another nascent technology.

    From my point of view it makes sense to have a cheaper way of travelling from A to B but if it comes at such an additional price then I'm afraid I can wait until there is no significant difference between the cost of petrol and electric cars; plus I'm not keen on buying something that has a significantly lower range than my current vehicle, whatever the environmental impact.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou