Electric Vehicles — are we on the crossroad?
By: Ab Ka
Tags: Battery, Electric Vehicles, Environmental Issues, Sustainability

EVs are finally getting the attention they deserve. And it is amazing, but I can’t shake the feeling that it goes in the wrong direction. When and why it became “Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) is the only viable option”? If one tries to raise concerns, or, even worse, offer to consider alternative technologies, like Hydrogen (FCEV) or plug-in hybrids (PHEV), it is immediately declared a public enemy [1]. Dissent is not appropriate, blasphemy is unforgivable, heresy is punishable by anathema.

One will argue: “BEVs are offering best in class energy efficiency and CO2 footprint. And since we want to save our planet this is the way to go”.

To be frank the argument is very compelling and the numbers check out too. It is both financially and environmentally good. But I am an engineer, so I still want to compare a few options. Let’s consider PHEV. It is the easiest one to compare with BEV.

The facts about PHEV:

The PHEV is capable of driving on electricity (no fuel needed) for 30+ miles. 80% of all the journeys are below 30 miles → PHEV can run 80% of time on electricity → PHEV can offer 80% CO2 reduction compared to ICE. Even more if saving from regenerative braking, better acceleration dynamics are taken into account. PHEV needs less than 1/5th of Batteries needed for BEV. And, probably, 1/30th or less of the charging infrastructure.

In other words, we can achieve 80% of the desired outcome with 20% effort — Pareto principle in action. No-brainer in most of the situations. But we are talking about climate, right? So, 80% is not good enough. Good point, let’s discuss it further. EVs greater adoption has several bottlenecks:

People factors: range anxiety, long waiting times etc Price — not every average Joe can afford a nice and shiny BEV. Lack of infrastructure — many more charging points are to be installed to support 100% BEV vision. Batteries — perhaps, the greatest concern. There are too few factories. There is even less Lithium mined.

Of course, everything can be solved. But it doesn’t happen overnight. Time is needed to build new mines and factories, set-up logistics, train personnel, optimize workflows and ramp-up production.

To keep it simple, let’s focus on batteries. 100% BEV by 2035, means at least 8 new million BEV cars per year in the EU alone (12 million new cars sold in 2020 in the EU [2], I am extremely optimistic and assume car sharing schemes will drastically reduce new car sales). To make 8 million BEV it is required to mine at least 80 thousand tons of Lithium. Current global Lithium production — 86 thousand tons [3]. Barely enough to cover EU needs alone.

No doubt the production will be scaled up, and rich countries’ requirements will be eventually met. But currently it is a bottle-neck and it does affect our ability to manufacture BEVs quickly. The demand for batteries will be higher than supply for at least several more years. Not sure how the shortage of a single most expensive BEV component will help to address the price issue either.

Remember how PHEV needs a 5 times smaller battery? It means we can build 5 times more PHEVs than BEVs with the same amount of batteries.

It will not be totally unreasonable to assume that:

At least 2x more PHEVs can be manufactured each year (compared to BEV). By Toytota’s estimation it is 75x, but let’s be conservative — 2x. PHEV can be more affordable → easier to sell → easier to convince new buyers to replace ICE with PHEV.

200% production rate and lower price means that we can put less new ICE cars on the road EACH YEAR starting NOW. Provided that the average ICE car will be polluting for the next 12 years [4], and we will be putting much less of new ICE cars on the road, it is clear that PHEV scenario is more environmentally friendly than BEV scenario.

100% BEV vs 100% PHEV CO2 road emissions (.py script with calculation can be shared on request)

And we don’t even consider BEV production environmental impact[5]. The real difference will be even higher. But let’s follow a good European tradition of creative CO2 accounting [6], and consider territorial CO2 only.

So, PHEV will not only be cheaper to implement, but will also have better CO2 footprint. Therefore I tend to agree with Toyota’s vision, we need a mixture of technologies on the road: BEV, PHEV and FCEV. Not just BEV. It will be greener, cheaper, quicker and easier to achieve. Besides, it is simply not wise to have all the eggs in one basket (we never make terrible mistakes, right?).

One other thing that concerns me. In fact it concerns me a lot. We have a zillion of alternative battery technologies in development. None of them is likely to reach industrial scale within next 10 years. But let’s be optimistic and say we have these batteries ready for mass production in 10 to 15 years. If it happens, then who will recycle billions of Li-On batteries? What is going to happen to these batteries? Or is this the whole point? Fast Fashion meets Automotive?

To make it clear, I am not saying that we need to go 100% PHEV either. A mixture of technologies is always better. I do understand the EU plan currently has provision for other technologies too. And it is awesome. But the community mood and rhetoric puzzle me. Looks like the lobbying groups [7] are attacking companies that actually care about the environment. Companies that offer reasonable and sustainable solutions. And the public opinion is shifting towards 100% BEV.