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.

Electric cars – a future of motoring?

Experts in green transport convince us we have no choice, but to switch to electric vehicles, if we are to hold up the global warming and save the planet. The transition is to be long-lasting and carried out in stages, but ultimately, between 2030 and 2050 many European countries are bound to ban sales of brand-new cars with traditional combustion engines. Before the strict prohibitions come into effect, milder measures will be taken, particularly traditional vehicles will be forbidden entry to central areas in bigger cities. In the transitional period, hybrid cars are gaining popularity. They prove economical in town, but do not perform well in terms of fuel consumption in motorway driving, even at moderate speeds. Nevertheless, they help their drivers feel less guilty.

To make it clear, I do not dare to call into question the necessity to drastically reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. We should go to any length to protect the planet if our children and grandchildren are to inhabit it. I only wonder, whether electric motoring is definitely the best option.

Electric buses running around town and charged at terminuses or in depots – I am all in. But electric (only) passenger cars? Potential buyers see several drawbacks of such vehicles.

The first aspect which puts many people off is the price – such cars generally cost twice as much as their counterparts with traditional engines. Given savings per 1 kilometre and decreased cost of maintenance, the payoff distance is between 100,000 and 200,000 kilometres. The only way to get around this is to have governments subsidising purchases of electric vehicles and thus redistributing wealth.

The second discouraging factor is the inconvenience. Range of the best-performing electric vehicles reaches these days around 400 kilometres and such distance is only theoretical, i.e. achievable in ideal conditions – driving at steady speed, on a flat road, with windows closed, aircon off, etc. Charging infrastructure is still way too meagre to facilitate charging of several vehicles. On top, charging up batteries takes much more time than filling up the car. These factors make longer journeys inconvenient. In fact an electric car is good for driving around town, while in fact a car is the least desirable way of moving about in a city and should not be promoted.

The electricity mains and installations in most houses lack capacity to facilitate charging many such cars overnight. My father, an electrician, has worked out that if two cars were charged simultaneously in the underground garage of my building, the energy consumption (around 7,500 Watts) will be around 100% allowed for the installation. The third car plugged in would blow fuses. Electric installations in buildings and the entire power grid (which is likely to conk out in the event of a heat wave in Poland) need to be adjusted if cars are to run on electricity.

If we are environment-conscious, we should realise where the electricity in our sockets comes from. As long as Poland burns coal in power plants, electric cars still contaminate air, but at power plant chimneys, not at exhaust pipes. In Norway they make more sense.

Besides, a motor vehicle does damage to the environment only in 60% between the moment it leaves a dealer’s showroom and its last trip to a scrapyard. Manufacturing and recycling account for approximately 20% of carbon footprint each. Therefore if a carmaker prompts you to buy a new hybrid or electric SUV to save the planet, do not do it. You should rather look after your current car (provided it is a small and relatively modern petrol-fuelled one), drive it as rarely as possible and keep it going in good condition as long as possible.

We have to face a bitter truth. A car will become again a luxury good on account of its detrimental impact on the environment. Electric cars are not a perfect solution. The solution is to drive less, avoid short journeys and traffic jams, drive economically, choose to go by bicycle or by public transport around town. And not to deceive ourselves.

Greenwashing

Opening disclaimer: I write it as a driver and a car-owner.

The very term appearing in the title of the post has been coined more than a decade ago, yet I, shame to confess it, ran across it in early December 2019. Back then, while browsing LinkedIn I found a post by my employer’s fleet manager, in which he had boasted of handing over to staff another batch of hybrid Toyotas (to replace petrol-fuelled vehicles manufactured between 2015 and 2017).

Regardless of automobile’s industry’s efforts and despite countless marketing campaigns, there is no such thing an environment-friendly car. You will not circumvent laws of physics, hence the bigger a car, the more energy you need to set it in motion.

Don’t also think if you buy a hybrid or an electric car, you will save the planet. The graphic to the right from the European Parliament’s webpage (I trust if has not been bought off by a lobby of carmakers) dated March 2019 shows the total carbon dioxide emission during a vehicle’s lifetime (sadly, they do not define how the lifetime is calculated). The chart informs that in a country which fully relies on carbon in electricity generation (such as Poland), an electric car is all in all more harmful to the environment than a car with a traditional combustion engine.

If you believe a hybrid car is a remedy, I will let you down. Manufacturing and recycling (but not maintenance) of a car with batteries is more environment-detrimental than of a traditional vehicle. The energy to charge batteries is not delivered from outside, but is generated in a regular combustion engine, which apart from propelling the vehicle must work to charge batteries. This leads to efficiencies during in-town driving when the batteries support the traditional engine when a car accelerates, so a hybrid Corolla consumes between 5 and 6 litres of petrol per 100 kilometres in town. This is 30% less than my car would do, but the consumption figures are comparable to small city cars running on petrol only. The bigger problem is that you should use a car around town as little as possible. On a motorway, at the speed of 140 kmph, the hybrid Corolla consumes over 10 litres per 100 kilometres, some 25% more than my car. The car loses its edge where use of it is justifiable.

Plug-in hybrids and electric cars in Poland rely on electricity generated from coal (with PiS government doing little to accelerate switching into alternative energy sources). Abroad, with more environmental-friendly energy mix, the lifetime carbon footprint is lower than of a traditional vehicle, yet one needs to bear in mind the distribution of the footprint. At the exhaust pipes there are no fumes, but the batteries are produced and will be probably recycled (the problem will grow big in a decade of so when electric and hybrid cars produced today will begin to reach the end of their lives) in other countries where harm to the environment will be concentrated.

Modern traditional cars are not faultless. The automobile industry cares about its profits and passing more and more stringent emission tests. To comply with norms, it comes up with several tricks to declare possibly lowest carbon dioxide emission, the infamous Wieśwagen dieselgate scandal being the most glaring example. Particulate filters, found in every diesel engines manufactured over the last 2 decades, and in most petrol engines produced recently, do retain soot (then turning into ash) before it leaves an exhaust pipe, but as ash accumulates in a filter, it slowly clogs up. The process of self-cleaning the filter consists in burning out ash. A vehicle does it when its engine is warm, at revolutions above 2,000 rpm and at steady, rather high speed. Do you believe emission of harmful particles during the process of burning out ash remnants is low??? Do you believe the ash is burnt out during standardised WLTP measurements?

What can you do to reduce your carbon footprint? Drive less!

Start from reducing to those absolutely necessary around-town journeys, where you can rely on public transport and there because of traffic density, emission per kilometre is the highest and time savings are the lowest.

Cut down (unless absolutely justified by your health) on short-distance trips. Firstly, a cold engine during first seconds after being started up emits multiple time more fumes than after it warms up. Secondly, a vehicle’s wear-and-tear disproportionally accelerates on short distances. Thirdly, walking or cycling is healthier!

If you need to go somewhere by car, try doing this when traffic is sparse. Vehicles cause less air contamination when they are driven at steady speed, without frequent stops and accelerations. Many such trips can be taken over the working week after 8 p.m. or on Saturday mornings when traffic jams are not a plague.

Change the style of driving. Eco-driving is safer and reduces emission by approximately 20% vs. normal driving and by 40% or more in comparison to aggressive (but not making a journey faster) driving. Do it wisely, i.e. do not use the highest gear at too low revolutions and do not upshift too early – this might save fuel in short-time, but will decrease the life or engine and other components.

Look after your car! Production and recycling stand for 20-25% of a vehicle’s lifetime carbon dioxide emission, so keeping your car in good condition as long as possible will be better to environment than replacing it with a new one whose exhaust-located footprint is slightly lower (carmakers will try to persuade this assertion is untrue).

Take passengers or become another driver’s passenger. A passenger car carrying 4 persons emits only 5% more carbon dioxide per passenger than a train (in Poland running on electricity produced from coal).

Closing disclaimer: I have written it all with a sense of sadness. I draw pleasure from driving. Behind the wheel I get relaxed and because I need to focus on driving all worries and kept far away from my mind. Yet I need to see further than the end of my nose and mind the future of the planet more than my personal whims.