Automobiles have been a key invention in recent history, more so in the now industrialised world where it has become a necessity. Today, Electric Vehicles (EV) are seen as the next step of automobile evolution to combat global warming with the global industry accounting for 12 billion metric tonnes of carbon emissions annually. More and more countries are starting to move away from traditional Internal Combustion Engine vehicles (ICEV) and are shifting to EVs. For example, The UK government is aiming to completely ban ICEV sales by 2040 as part of the effort to reduce the country’s carbon emissions to zero by 2050.
There are several types of EVs on the market today; the battery electric vehicle (BEV), the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) and the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). For the purpose of this article, we will be limiting ourselves to ICEVs and BEVs only.
Are BEVs that Hail Mary pass that its enthusiasts and EVangelists are clamouring about? Are they as environmentally friendly as advertised or is there more behind the push for EV? International Business Review digs into the case to find out if it is so. The answer? YES AND NO.
The Attraction
Before we jump further ahead, let’s have a look at the reasons why EV is an attractive antidote to reducing carbon emissions in the first place.
1 BEVs operates solely on its electric motor and battery pack to get you from point A to point B. As a result, BEVs do not produce Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions at all on the road as it has no exhaust pipe while the conventional ICEVs huffs around 4.6 metric tonnes of carbon emissions annually. This means the more EVs there are on the road,the better the air quality should be.
2 BEVs are also cheaper to run in comparison to ICEVs. According to a recent study conducted by TNB Malaysia, the average annual fuel cost of ICEVs fuelled by RON95 is RM5,335 while the average for BEVs with a home charging set stands at RM4,725 per annum. (Note that electricity rates changes all the time, so these figures might change in the future).
3 Another attractive factor that plays a part in EVs popularity rise is that it is cheaper and easier to maintain due to its motor having fewer moving parts.
4 Additionally, EVs contribute to less noise pollution as the motor runs quietly and provides better performance as well as capable of recycling excess energy during its braking process which is otherwise wasted as heat with conventional ICEVs. With newer and bigger batteries, EVs are able to traverse much farther than ever before requiring to be recharged.
5 Lastly, prospective buyers are also enticed to purchase EVs thanks to Governments publishing new policies to encourage its adoption. This could come in many forms such as tax breaks as well as subsidies. Currently, the US is offering up to US$7,500 tax credit for BEV and PHEV purchased new, in or after 2010. Even the Malaysian Government has introduced policies to encourage this with its Low Carbon Mobility Blueprint 2021-2030 which include Adopting Electric Mobility in Strategic Applicationsby 2030.
The Broader View
We mentioned earlier that BEVs are greener than ICEVs on the road. This is in fact true and one that is heavily advertised by its proponents. However, this is only a piece of the puzzle and does not reflect the broader view. To do that, one must consider BEVs’ full lifetime carbon footprint, from the production cycle, use, to its disposal.
The Production Cycle
Reports concur that on average, the production of BEVs contributes to more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than the production of ICEVs. Generally, ICEV production generates about 7 metric tonnes of GHG emissions. Production of BEVs generate about as much without its lithium battery pack. When including its battery pack production however, manufacture of BEVs can generate double that amount in GHG emissions.
The rule of thumb is, the bigger the battery pack, the larger the carbon footprint in the manufacturing stage as reported by the Swedish Energy Agency in a 2019.
Now, you might be wondering why is this the case? One reason would be mining for the precious metals required for the battery manufacturing process. One such resource would be lithium, which only accounts for 1.0 percent of the battery mix. Over 50 percent of the planet’s entire lithium supply is mined from the “lithium triangle”, a region that is set around the borders of Bolivia, Argentina and Chile. This mining process also deprives the local community and environment of water. To produce a single tonne of lithium, over 227,3045 litres of water are used for the extraction process. Chile’s salt flat, Salar de Atacama is practically sucked dry as over 65 percent of its waters are used for mining operations. Water shortages are common there as the region has become one of the world’s driest locations.
Another key component is Cobalt which accounts for 3 percent of the battery mix. 70 percent of the world’s Cobalt supply is mined from The Democratic Republic of Congo. Unfortunately, the republic’s mining operations was found to be artisanal in 2015. This had the effect of workers not officially employed by the company nor state. As a result, child labour in the mines were made common. Not exactly an environmental issue but certainly a moral one. Nevertheless, refining and extracting these precious metals accounts for over 60 percent of GHG emissions to produce the battery. The battery factory location matters as well, with many are situated in China, Korea and Japan. The European Environment Agency (EEA) reported that battery produced in China results in triple the amount of carbon emissions released than in the US.
The Use Cycle
Now that we have established that BEVs emits more GHG in its production cycle that ICEVs, let’s look at the usage cycle. Multiple reports corroborated that the earlier discussed carbon investment is later offset during the use cycle. Despite being greener in its production cycle, even the most efficient ICEVs will continue to emit GHG during its lifetime as you would continue to burn through fossil fuels to keep the vehicle running. Meanwhile, despite generating its own carbon footprint during charging sessions, BEVs will offset its initial GHG emissions as it goes through its lifecycle.
The question then becomes a matter of when? When would BEVs achieve parity with its ICEV cousin in terms of emissions before finally producing less than it? According to Volvo in a 2021 report, this is down to where specifically the BEV is located as different countries have different energy mix production. Therefore,
if Volvo’s XC40 recharge model is in a country where its energy is mainly generated by coal, the XC40 recharge would need about 100,000 km to achieve the breakeven point in GHG emissions with its fuel guzzling sibling.
If instead, the country relies on a more green source of energy in its energy mix, the impact
on the environment would be much smaller. One of the countries that is ready to transition quickly to the EV programme would be France, where it only produces 9 percent of its energy from burning fossil fuels thanks to its 56 nuclear power plants. Driving one of Volvo’s BEVs there would result the crossover point to be around 50,000 kilometres. According to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), even in countries with largely coal-dependent power grids like India and China, BEVs are still emitting less carbon emissions than its ICEV counterpart with 37 – 45 percent lower, 19 – 34 percent respectively.
The End Cycle
Here’s where the technology so far has not come up to scratch nor the requirements that the market demands at the moment. Currently, BEVs on the market uses lithium-ion batteries which uses a liquid electrolyte solution. This presents a set of drawbacks at the end of a BEVs lifecycle. Lithium-ion batteries require protection and management circuits to prevent overcharge and over discharge which results in its design being complex. This makes recycling efforts quite difficult and could potentially explode if it was improperly disassembled. To makes matters worse, there is still not a single standardised method to do it. The good news is that reports suggest that material recovery through recycling can reduce GHG emissions by
23 percent and use less energy to reproduce compared to new metal production. Is It The Silver Bullet We’re Looking For?
Well, nothing is ever as simple as one answer to solve all of our problems. To recap, international reports claim that BEVs produce a lot more carbon emissions than ICEVs at the outset but soon evens out and beats the competition later in its lifecycle. However, will our precious metal be able to keep up? Presently, the rate at which we are burning through resources such as lithium and cobalt to produce lithium-ion batteries is unsustainable, while mining activities have had devastating effects on local environments.
Despite these issues, things are looking up. Earlier this year, Toyota has perhaps unearthed the holy grail with its breakthrough solid-state battery technology which can hold more charge, quicker to charge and is safer than the current lithium-ion chemistry thanks to having no flammable liquid electrolyte in its chemistry make. It instead uses solid electrolytes which also act as a separator between the anode and cathode. This results in solid-state batteries being less susceptible to overheating and catching fire. However, costs still present a major stumbling block for this as well as for now, Toyota is only planning to implement the technology on hybrids instead of BEVs.
Even so, if this development could lead to better BEV batteries and a standardise method to recycle them, then we may have a shot at truly revolutionising theautomobile industry.
