A farewell to combustion engines

It happened. On Wednesday the European Parliament passed a resolution as a result of which brand-new cars with combustion engines would not be registered in the European Union since 2035. Traditional blachosmrody will give way to electric or hydrogen-fuelled engines.

The quest for limiting carbon dioxide emission, cleaner air and environment protection is inevitable and commendable, but is switching to electric cars the right direction? Does the future of motoring many have relished on, make sense?

The basic idea behind going electric is the lack of CO2 emission at a vehicle’s exhaust pipe. But have the proponents considered the total lifetime carbon footprint of electric cars and their traditional predecessors, given:
a) bigger environmental impact of battery manufacturing,
b) even worse impact of battery recycling,
c) imperfectly short usable lives (both in terms of years and mileage) of batteries?

The automotive industry will be forced to make a technological stride until 2035 which will:
- decrease costs of producing electric vehicles,
- increase their ranges and
- shorten charging times,
but 13 years appears to be a little time.

If we are to make use of electric cars conveniently, the coming decade is to be spent on building charging infrastructure, including adjusting installations in buildings with car garages. Unless kWh consumption per kilometre is decreased by that time, energy generation capacity and electricity grids would require significant upgrades. Countries which have invested in renewable energy generation will become beneficiaries of “going electric”, while those lagging behind, like Poland, might sadly end up… burning fossil fuels to produce electricity, under which scenario the carbon footprint would… increase.

In assessing whether electric car is environment-friendly, you must find out where the electricity for it comes from. If from a coal-burnt power plant, think twice…

I hope by 2035 fast charging which would not shorten battery life would become prevalent so that car users no longer complain about charging times which last hours, which is particularly inconvenient during long-distance journeys.

Laws of physics are hard to be circumvented. You ought to remember an electric car is around 300 kilograms heavier (batteries are much heavier than a traditional engine, whose weight is not small anyway), which means more energy is necessary to set it in motion.

Looking at the above, you should sense my scepticism towards electric vehicles. If so, you are right, but I consistently claim engineers ought to focus on hydrogen and politicians should have the courage to tell people they will need to abandon their unhealthy driving habits.

Given the peril of the climate catastrophe, car ownership should become a luxury and a vehicle should be considered as a liability, rather than an asset. Its usage habits ought to be changed. Firstly – short-distance journeys around town, where a car can be easily substituted by going on foot, cycling or public transport should be eradicated. Secondly, car ownership should be taxed, while the tax rates should depend on a car’s weight (yes, the bigger your car, the more you should pay) its fuel efficiency or life-cycle carbon footprint (don’t turn a blind eye on environmental impact of battery production and predominantly recycling) and household status – second and next cars in the same household should be up to higher tax rates.

Our approach to motoring will require a change in mentality which is slowly under way, with many younger people no longer treating a vehicle as a status symbol, with many deeming it to be a costly burden. The change will, however, not take place overnight and many will remain unconvinced.

I fear the recent radical move of the EU will become a water to the mill of far-right anti-EU parties which will gain some support from defiant car-ridden individuals. I realise the climate change clock is ticking, but if we also know each revolution eats its own children, would it not be wise to consider a green evolution, rather a green revolution? An evolution would consist in a march towards a zero-emission world, probably too slow given the rising temperatures. But a painful revolution, accompanied by social anger could involve taking steps back to combat the unrest and reaching the ultimate goal not as quickly as planned.