We are told that electric vehicles, cars in particular, will be good for the environment. But what exactly might this mean? It is true that end use emissions will be significantly reduced when we move from fossil fuels to green energy sources (see, however, life cycle implications below).
With a substantial (hopefully total) switch to electric cars, the general position of experts is that the cost of an electric vehicle will be significantly less that a petrol or diesel car (the switching point is unclear, but many suggest in about 10–20 years), and that the cost of using such vehicles will decline. A taxi driver of a fully electric taxi in London said recently that his fuel costs have dropped by one hundred pounds per week or $Aud178 per week, or close to $Aud10,000 per annum.Footnote1 This is substantial. In Australia, the EV Council suggests that an EV’s fuel cost will be 34.3 cents per kWh compared with average petrol cost of $1.36 per litre. This translates into 5.15 cents per kilometre for an EV compared to 14.39 cents per kilometre for an internal combustion engine using petrol, an average saving of $1,275 per annum on fuel costs alone.
Simple economics, which often drives decisions, suggests to me that the private car will be more affordable and more attractive to use. So all other things being equal, we can expect a notable increase in car kilometres travelled. However if “all other things being equal” is modified to become a reform of road pricing, such that government introduces a re-pricing of road use that reflects a position that “those who benefit” should pay an efficient (and equitable) charge for using the roads, then we may be able to contain what is expected to be a huge growth in car use. This will also be important as fuel excise on fossil fuels disappears, although we expect governments to find new charges for green energy electric vehicles. With road pricing reform this latter action can be avoided. If, for example we have a 5c/km peak period distance based charge with an average annual peak kilometres of 4,000, this amounts to $200, which is still well below the annual savings in fuel on an EV.
Thus, moving to green energy to reduce (if not eliminate) end use vehicle emissions runs the very real risk of increasing congestion significantly if governments continue to reject road pricing reform. The amount of money committed in Australia to new public transport investment is, in my view, inadequate to put a significant dent in the continuing dominance of the private car, which has always been a key objective in investing in public transport, rail in particular. Indeed the new Metro rail system in North West Sydney has resulted, to date, in a major loss of bus patronage (21% on the long haul tolled M2 services) and a small 2% reduction in car use. 2% is a still a good number, and slightly more than the loss of bus patronage, but does illustrate that one of the best new rail services is likely to have a small impact on car use as it grows in popularity as car ownership and use costs plummet over time under a green energy plan. Congestion will increase, and in itself may make some car users give up using their car, but we doubt it is enough without road pricing reform.
Beyond end use – life cycle emission concerns
Most of the world’s electricity comes from carbon and is likely to be the case for decades. Exceptions include the power generated by nuclear plants as in France for example, which emits zero carbon. Energy stored in batteries looks like being the most common way to fuel electric cars in the future, although other technologies may evolve (hydrogen, solar, wind). A big concern with battery technology is that key chemical components are sourced from extractive industries which in the main are lithium and cobalt, rare earth materials often mined in countries in Central Africa in particular where low cost child labourers working very long hours provide the manpower to extract these minerals from the ground. In addition, in China, the country with the greatest anticipated take up of electric cars designed to reduce end use emission, the likelihood of the generation source for electric cars will be fuel-burning utilities operating with coal. This seems like a continuing toxic combination and raises the more challenging question of why we seem so committed to protecting the future of the car when all so called environmentally aligned plans appear to be besmirched no matter what direction they take.
The “solution” to mobility, the ultimate reason for car use (hence the original name “automobile”), has to be found from somewhere else. While we would prefer to seek a more global dominating solution through shared mobility typified by high capacity public transport, we are seeing an almost revolutionary focus on car based sharing through ride share (e.g. Uber, Ola) and car sharing (e.g. Go get, car next door), and one wonders whether this is really a panacea for what is fairly described as a crisis of mobility aligned with ever increasing congestion on the roads and environmental pollution!
At the centre of the concern is a solution, but a complex one, shrouded in societal self-interest. It is known as sharing, and the growth in mobility sharing if achievable may be the way to tackle this dilemma. While more people in cars will certainly improve the performance of the transport network, it may have limited long term impacts on the environment as populations grow (especially in cities), and the amount of car based kilometres increases even with greater occupancy. We will inevitably have to do something about repricing the use of the car regardless of whether it is private or shared in a corporate offering, and the great appeal of the latter is that the user charge can hide the emotionally charged desire to tame traffic through congestion charging. It becomes a fee for service like any fee and can have a peak and off peak charging regime similar to electricity.
But again, this may not be enough if the energy sources (let along the abuse of child labour) are themselves inappropriate. Mobility clearly is the great challenge of the twenty-first century, redefining the meaning of space and time, and I believe that the ongoing challenge is to find better ways to move people and goods that give us more confidence in achieving appropriate congestion reduction and life cycle environmental improvement outcomes. It is not obvious that car-based initiatives will be adequate or appropriate.
Notes
1 At the time of writing $1AUD = $US0.67 and €0.62.