Viewpoint
The government’s plans to end petrol and diesel vehicles on our roads will lead to low-emission autonomous vehicles and electrified powertrains, says Dave Shemmans
The announcement in July that the government plans to end the sale of all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040 grabbed the headlines. But for Ricardo, this is just the confirmation and continuation of a trend towards electrification that has been going on for some time. Fleet average fuel economy and CO2 targets, together with stricter real-driving emissions regulations, are already forcing the electrification of vehicle powertrains, with many electrified products selling fast in the showrooms.
With significant developments seeming imminent in battery technology and low-cost 48V hybrid systems, the passenger car powered only by diesel or gasoline – without any form of electrical regenerative braking or stop/start technology – will likely have retreated to niche applications long before 2040.
The imperative to reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality in our towns and cities provides the impetus for powertrain electrification of all types, but this is just one of the mega-trends affecting the design and engineering of future vehicles. In parallel with the march of electrification, autonomous vehicle technologies are being taken seriously by the world’s big automakers, as well as by the new entrants to the automotive ecosystem, such as Google and Tesla.
And with increasing technical complexity, there may well come a point where society begins to question the extremely low levels of asset utilisation represented by current patterns of ownership and use, which see private cars utilised, typically, for less than 5 per cent of the time. By 2040 it is more than probable that autonomous technologies will have changed all this, perhaps with greater use of public transport – including rail – being combined with the managed/shared operation of private cars. This concept of multi-modal interlinked transport may be as unremarkable by then as the presence of battery electric vehicles in towns and cities is today.
The government’s objectives for 2040 are laudable, although for Ricardo they merely restate a direction of travel in technological development and innovation that is already well established. At Ricardo, we have been building up our powertrain electrification and battery systems development capabilities for almost two decades, and using these skills to help customers develop the latest generation of low-carbon, clean technology vehicles while also pushing the state of the art forward to deliver the even cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles of the future. Moreover, we see the multi-skilling of our automotive teams – to incorporate knowledge of both electrified and conventional powertrain technologies – as enriching the experience and opportunities of staff. As engineers, we relish such challenges and it is often at the point where disciplines intersect that the best new ideas emerge.
And the car is just part of the picture – a single component in a wider system that provides societal benefits in terms of transportation, but brings with it challenges in terms of the environment, energy systems, and urban congestion. This is one of the reasons why today’s Ricardo global team includes an energy and environment division that employs some of the world’s leading experts on urban air-quality monitoring, and why the company assists with the planning, development and implementation of initiatives such as low-emission zones – initiatives that aim to deliver improvements in air quality based on today’s vehicle fleet.
Ricardo also offers expertise in the electrical power industries, and our energy practice assists generators, as well as grid and distribution network operators across the world – in the integration and management of renewable resources, for example. These teams are ideally placed to assist in the necessary network reinforcements and smart management technology that will likely be needed to support the recharging requirements of any mass take-up of battery electric vehicles. Our rail engineers too, being signalling system specialists, are able to contribute significant synergies to the work of our autonomous vehicle specialists. This is also true in the area of safety assessment, where the experience of our rail certification team is being brought to bear upon the key autonomous vehicle challenges of safety and customer confidence.
In essence, the clean, low- or zero-emission cars of tomorrow, offering autonomous driving capabilities and electrified powertrains, will need to be developed and deployed in a systemic manner that ensures higher levels of asset utilisation, cleaner air, more efficient use of energy, and lower traffic congestion. The linkages between these imperatives are something Ricardo has long understood, and it is why the company is more diverse in its customer and technology base than at any time in its history. By 2040, the vehicles on the highway will be one of many applications of engineering expertise that we will have helped to significantly improve.
Dave Shemmans is chief executive of Ricardo
Asset utilisation is an interesting concept. At its simplest level vehicles (by no means all of them, and probably meaning private cars used for commuting purposes only) have a utilisation of only 5%. This means that they last up to 20 times longer than one that is in use closer to 100%. Extending a vehicle’s lifetime means more recovery of the environmental cost of its production, and also reduces significantly the amount or material disposed of at the end of life. While recycling may recover some of that it is not without additional cost as well.
The focus is on increasing the take up of non fossil fuel vehicles, is hiding what is really needed first. People will not change until the refuelling infrastructure is in place and fit for purpose and volume of use. Concentrate on this and the use of EVs etc will follow automatically. The technology for the vehicles is already largely in place the infrastructure isn’t.
If electric cars were a “must have” item like motorcars when they took over from the horse and buggy they would not need the government to fund the charging points. The expectation is the same as demanding that the government provide the railway lines in the first days of trains.
No matter which way you look at it, electric cars have no substantial advantage over modern cars. And if you want to reduce pollution, simply get rid of older cars.
As Nick Cole says, the infrastructure isn’t. However, while electric cars may well be the future and Europe seems to be determined to move as fast as possible in that direction, it is odd that the topic has been announced by governments as a fait-accompli without broad discussion.
Apart from the electrical support system required, (which can, of course, be done at a huge cost), there are massive financing and taxation issues that seem to be forgotten. Discussion is needed and possibly review of the presently planned implementation strategy that seems impossibly optimistic.
22 and a half years? Transporter beam should be well sorted by then & then the roads will only be used by people who actually like driving! Can’t wait !!
EV infrastructure would be a much better use of the billions to be spent on HS2, and would benefit everyone and the planet not just big business in London. Aah, I think I’ve just seen the problem!
Ah Public Transport, IF any one was serious about reducing pollution public transport would be ‘public transport’ not private enterprise transporting (fleecing) the public. My hours are 8-4, yet the first public transport would not get me to within one mile of work until after 9. Do I live and work in some offshore island? No, in south coast towns about 8 miles apart. Still I guess by 2040 me and my ageing motorcycle will be history!
When the politicians realise that not everyone is served round-the-clock by TfL and that it gets dark at night, maybe, just maybe, we might get somewhere.
I think the ev genie is out of the bottle, as far as I see the EV`s are as good if not better than ICE vehicles, so the infrastructure will improve, .
And were is all the ‘leky going to come from, not wind farms, or P.V. panels. The only realistic source is nuclear.
What about the alternative of Hydrogen? Surely the 44 tonners on the roads in such large numbers won’t be able to use batteries, will they? Electricity will have to be generated somewhere. I can’t see that the cost of the massive infrastructure needed would make sense. We need some clear thinking, taking into account all possibilities, not just one.
Nick summed it up in the above 3 posts. Where is the joined up thinking by the government. If you remove the IC from transport but don’t put the infrastructure to support EVs then the people will not take up the new technology. I also noted Nicks comment on HS2, while I agree it isn’t wanted by the majority of northerners (me included) and the money could be better spent . . . perhaps the idea is to move freight by train and then when near the destination off load onto trucks. this will create more jobs which will put prices up, which in turn will put wages up etc.. But since this sounds like a throw back to the 1920s maybe we should employ horse and cart.
I find the whole thing crazy, I cannot see how the power grid can handle the extra load and as has been said, you just move the problem somewhere else…
The other main issue is the infrastructure! How are we going to charge these cars?
Its reasonable if you live in a house with a drive, but what if you live in a terraced house with no designated parking space? You may have to park up the road or another street, not by your house.
How about flats with communal parking, multi storey car parks?
This weekend one of my neighbours had a party, about 20+ cars arrived, all of which would need charging and take up all (if available) charging locations used by residents, I can see people fighting over the available charge points!
Also, things like festivals, with non permanent venues, all these cars parked in fields, many needing charging for the return trip… how?
For this to work there would have to be a massive investment in infrastructure to put charging locations outside every house, in every car park etc. etc… then, who pays for the electricity?
We will have to have some kind of card system or credit cards to charge it too. What if you are a foreign drive or driving abroad? etc…
As I say, the more you think about it the bigger the problem becomes.
I have to say that the Hydrogen fuel cell looks more promising as time goes on… You can use existing petrol stations and switch them over, allowing car to fill up in the conventional sense, ie: arrive at the garage and drive out 10 mins later with all the range you are used to (or similar) all the charging issues go away.
It’s my favourite at the moment.
And… we only have 22.5 years!
Electricity (from grid) is just not viable, (See Paul’s comment above). The short term (if possible) charging requires several MW to be available in the space of a few minutes. Households have (if I recall correctly) appr 16kVA with an appropriate fuse. No good for anything other than one vehicle overnight. Think of the energy density currently supplied at a petrol/diesel station and then think of the electricity needed. What about motorway services capable at present of fuelling thousands of vehicle a day, and many of those are the 44 tonne trucks, requiring way more than 7 or 8 MW every five or ten minutes. Instead of champing at the bit about the vehicles think about the infrastructure. How many power station equivalents (in energy terms) does existing fossil fuel support? The only feasible option is for some other liquid based energy source, and hydrogen by hydrolysis from local ‘renewable’ generators at a local level is by far the most sensible way of proceding. Electric (battery) vehicles are only ever going to be feasible on a large scale for personal urban and sub-urban use. What happens when someone runs out of fuel now? They walk to a petrol station fill a 5l can, walk back pour it in and off they go. Do that with several hundred kg of batteries? Lets have some rational engineering design discussions instead of pie in the sky idealism.
Petrol has app 9.7kWh per litre, while dieseal has app 10.7kWh per litre. So assuming that the efficiency of converting the energy to vehiclar motion is the same for electric compared to fossil fuels refilling a tank of tank of petrol in a car of app 70 litres provides nearly 700kWh. A tank of diesel in a truck can be anything from 200l to 1000 or even more. So what sort of power grid is needed everywhere, and where is all that power coming from? Political slogans of no diesel or petrol in 20 years time are meaningless without some serious thought on the infrastructure. Liquid or compressed hydrogen is the only viable solution, or some other environmentally sound toxic liquid, either burning directly in an ic engine or using fuel cells.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-41257407
Tidal energy site in Orkney in hydrogen ‘first’
There is a lot of what ifs in the above comments, 20 people arriving for a party would not necessarily need recharging, may be there could be a recharging system built into metaled roads, recharging as you drive, think of the new phone recharging stations available now, HYDROGEN fuel cells would solve most of the recharging problems, that infrastructure is being built up even now, look up ITM power, the future looks great, I hope I live long enough to see it all, patience folks and it will all happen, unless some ambitious war mongers spoil it all for us.
All the comments are interesting and most ask valid questions or point out items that must be in place 1st such as the infrastructure. So we become a society of electric powered vehicles who must have access to the grid and charging stations either at home or at points along the route of travel. Now, imagine our electric vehicle society in the throws or hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The power is off for millions of people. No power in the grid….NOBODY moves! Not the everyday family/persons; perhaps not even the emergency services and/or militaries needed to protect persons and property. Gasoline is definitely a problem during evacuations. But gasoline can be brought to the highways in tankers and cars can be fueled and move on out of harms way as has happened in past hurricanes in the US. I cannot even begin to fathom the prospect of moving electric vehicles without long range and rapid charge capabilities during such an event. It seems that all the “what if’s” are not being thought out. The same would apply to the autonomous ocean vessels…all the “what if’s” seem to not being taken into account.
Has anyone over here done a (publicly published w/ data, pls.) cost/benefit analysis of the collective automotive fleet going all electric in such a short (2?!! decades’) time? I’m in the U.S. where coal, oil and natural gas are still king, and our ‘bombastard-in-chief’ still talks of subsidizing the COAL industry….yet ‘our’ (multinational, really) car companies (Ford, GM) are set to largely electrify us within 5(!?!?!!!) years. Our alleged media has not even begun to talk of the trillion$ this will cost… am I missing something (besides the few springs and cogs in the cuckoo clock all us Americans MUST be missing to put up with The Donald in the White House for more than a New-York nanosecond!)? Pls. talk me down… I need to get back through the looking-glass… somebody? Please?