Share
Stuart Nathan
Features editor
Power play
It’ll come as no surprise that electric vehicles are near the top of the list of stories we cover on The Engineer. For all sorts of reasons, the development, testing and deployment of all the different varieties of electric vehicles — plug-in hybrid, range-extender, all-electric, fuel-cell powered — is a hot topic, and it’s something we’re following closely.
But whenever we feature an electric vehicle story, we can be sure that one issue above all will be raised: the source of the electricity. While proponents of electric vehicles, especially in government, invariably say that their development is vital if we’re to become a low-carbon economy, it’s completely true that electric power is not, of itself, low carbon. Far from it: you have to generate the electricity somehow, and if, as at the moment, that electricity is generated in a fossil fuel-burning power station, then switiching from petrol to electric power doesn’t reduce emissions at all. It just shifts them somewhere else.
The argument always comes up that money spent on developing electric vehicles is therefore wasted. It’s not solving the problem, therefore the (now scarce, we’re told) development money should go on the root problem: low-carbon electricity (or hydrogen) generation. This week, we’re running a poll on this very subject — go here to register your opinion — and as I write, more than two-fifths of respondents believe that fuel cell development is a waste of time while the environmental cost of hydrogen generation remains high.
This attitude ignores some important factors, however. Most obvious is the advantage of developing both the vehicles and the low-carbon generation of power or hydrogen concurrently: once the technology for one is in place, then the other will be ready at the same time. Leave off the development of the vehicles, and there would be a gap, possibly decades long, until they would be roadworthy. The low-carbon power stations, whatever form they take, would either be over-specified, as they’d be planned to generate power for vehicles that don’t yet exist; or they would be sized for demand that excludes electric vehicles, meaning they’d struggle to catch up. And during the gap, cars would still be running on fossil fuels, increasingly scarce and just as polluting as ever.
There’s also an argument that shifting emissions isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Large point sources of emissions are always easier to deal with than small, diffuse sources. If power stations or hydrogen generation stations were equipped with carbon capture and storage — another technology which needs to be developed concurrently with electric vehicles and low-carbon power — then the emissions from transport would still be reduced; the fuel consumed in engines would effectively be ‘pre-burned’ and the carbon removed, rather than belched out along the length of the motorway system.
The low-carbon generation problem could be solved sooner rather than later, if energy secretary Chris Huhne is correct and the new fleet of nuclear power stations starts to come on-stream in 2018. And other potential large sources of low-carbon power — offshore installations of 10MW+ wind farms, tidal stream turbines in the Pentland Firth — could arrive soon after. But if we don’t keep up development of the vehicles to be powered by that electricity, then we’ll be faced with problems just as big as the ones we have now.
Technologies that generate, transmit and consume energy are linked together in a complex web; you can’t change one without affecting the others. Assigning funding to developing the various different aspects of this web is a tricky business. But it’s difficult to see how one area can be prioritised over another. It has to be done together, and it has to be coordinated.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (15)
Roelof Reineman | 11 Aug 2010 1:12 pm
A rather dated (2006) PDF I found, funded by Tesla, shows that even if you'd still use the current power plants, you'd still get less CO2 per km driven when comparing the EV with the ICE car.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
Given that probably big advancements have been made to both the EV and the ICE and the numbers are probably a bit dated by now.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Mortimer | 11 Aug 2010 1:35 pm
All of this has been trawled over endlessly. The bigger problem is the rapidly approaching closure of a significant part of the UK's generation fleet. It should just about coincide with the next election.
The focus on electric cars seems to me to be a distraction. The case for more rail electrification (faster, cheaper and more reliable trains, zero emissions at the point of use, regeneration options plus the longevity of the catenary equipment) would be a better bet. It remains a mystery to me that the power generators, rail infrastructure owners, train operators and catenary manufacturers have not been able to develop some sort of composite approach to financing more rail electrification (they all benefit long term).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
A. W. Black | 11 Aug 2010 1:45 pm
I feel the question is unfairly worded. 'Pointless' no but 'of less value than other things' yes.
Renewable power is useful right now with no need for electric vehicles / fuel cell technology to be available, the inverse is not true therefore it makes more sense to focus the majority of research on renewable / low carbon power generation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 Aug 2010 1:54 pm
A new fleet of nuclear power stations to come on-stream in 2018? Better get digging now, eh? The UK's last nuke took 7 years to build, excluding the public inquiry...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Martin | 11 Aug 2010 2:32 pm
I find this debate boring, mainly because most of a vehicles emissions (average 80%) is from the manufacturing and disposal of a vehicle. So why are we bothering with the lowest emissions, the in service emissions.
Surely it makes more sense to reduce the emissions of the manufacturing and disposal stages as this obviates the need for many people to rely upon domestic electricity.
We are painfully aware that fuel cell technologies will take around 30 years to fully develop, about the same for full electric vehicles due to battery constraints. Has anyone factored the emissions to both the environment and the people manufacturing the rare earth motors, this manufacturing kills people in their countries of production.
With so much life and improvements left with internal combustion engines it makes sense to further develop these until the newer technologies emerge as economically viable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom Foreman | 11 Aug 2010 3:23 pm
Battery, Motor & Controller Technology are all up to speed for electric vehicles. Just the cost remains high without mass production to drive down these costs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
patrick | 11 Aug 2010 3:52 pm
I drive a 17 year old 4X4 which has paid it's production C02 yeas ago. this vehicle runs on Bio diesel made from waste veg oil with an estimated C02 per K at 60grms. Difficult to get any lower emissions even with electric which shows that it's not the vehicle but the fuel you use that makes a difference.
Research into renewables like Algae makes more sense than electric cars given the huge No. of vehicles already on the roads, the worrying trend is for diesel car manufacturers to put in emission controls which preclude the use of Bio fuels so that in years to come many vehicles will be stuck with fossil fuel!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ken Chicken | 11 Aug 2010 3:53 pm
Life is simple - I trust other engineers realise it. Nuclear (or any other large)electric plant need a base load to run efficiently. with the demise of the UK's 24 hour industry we have been "wasting" the night-time generation by lighting empty streets.... Battery cars (re-charged at night) can provide the useful base load when offices and industry are closed - thus enabling the cost effective use of the fuel waste we produce.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian | 11 Aug 2010 3:58 pm
There is only one system of power generation needed to fuel the worlds need for energy - It is Nuclear Power with Nuclear Fission power stations in the short term and Nuclear Fusion power stations middle to long term.
Whatever objections can be held against Nuclear Fission on the grounds of radioactive active isotopes produced in the nuclear fission reaction does not apply to the clean nuclear fusion reaction where 2 heavy hydrogen atoms (dueterium and Tritium) are joined to produce an alpha particle which is the nucleus of a Helium atom.
In practice the developed world will have to go over 100% nuclear and supply electical power to developing countries not stable enough to have nuclear power.
The earlier comment that 80% of vehicle emisions comes from manufacturing and disposing of the vehicle is a 'cop out' as that energy comes from the energy needed to extract raw materials, recycle used materials and process the materials into vehicles - energy coming from fossil fuels that will be replaced by emmission free generated nuclear power.
It is also a 'cop out' because it fails to take into account the vehicle manufacturers interest in making vehicles as disposable consumable items that are disposed of when the vehicle rusts!!
As an undergraduate Metallurgist studing corrosion metallurgy in 1972, I was taught that vehicle manufacturers could produce cars that didnt rust for a slight premium but it was against their interests to do so. At the time only 2 car companies attempted to corrossion proof cars - Rover and Citroen - The old Rover had aluminium boots, bonnets and front fenders that were bolted in place, body panels that could not rust when damaged by stone chippings or, in the case of the boot, keys. The new Rover model in the 1970's went back to all mild steel bodywork and got a reputation for being rust buckets in comparison to the old Rover. The Citroen BX had many plastic panels that could not rust but in the early models the plastic faded. Car chassis, frames and body panels that could have easily been long life with ferritic or austenitic stainless steel for a slight premium in raw material cost - a cost premium that could have contricuted to weight reduction due elminating corrosion and the associated losses in design strengths.
On a more practical point of view - the Philippines has a love affair with the WW2 jeep. They are extended in length as the Jeepney, the garishly decorated people carrying transport of the Philippines that is iconic to the Philippines or kept as the similarly iconic Jeepy as personal transport. There are literally thousands of cottage industries there rebuilding them until there is virtually nothing left of the original jeep!! cottage industries that make replacement body panels by hand in C/Mn or Austenistic Stainless Steel for people prepared to pay for corrosion resistant chassis and body panels. Virtually all the Jeepney's are now austenitc stainless steel and so are the better maintained jeepy's.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
P Field | 11 Aug 2010 4:16 pm
Anything Chris Huhne says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. New nuclear will take at least 10 years before full output and as regards electric cars it's flogging a very dead horse. Spain leads the way in public opinion on electric cars. They hoped to sell 2000 this year and to date hardly any have sold.
The clue to viability and cost effectiveness of any "green" technology, is always to monitor the bribes. Feed-in tariffs, renewables obligation,scrappage schemes etc you name them. Electric cars will be given a £5000 bribe in the UK to be payed for by the taxpayer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment