Are electric cars really no greener?

Earlier this week, the US National Research Council (NRC) released an interesting and wide-ranging report that engaged in the thankless task of attempting to put a figure on the "hidden costs" of energy use.

In the end the researchers plumped for an annual cost in the US alone of $120bn (£73bn) in 2005, primarily from the health damage caused by pollutants released by power plants and vehicles, such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone and particulate matter.

Significantly, the researchers analysed damages arising from the energy sector's contribution to climate change, degradation to ecosystems, the risk to national security posed by relying on oil imports, and the effects of other air pollutants such as mercury. But they did not attempt to put a monetary value on these damages; perhaps they were fearful that monetising those costs would totally obliterate the US economy, albeit on a theoretical level.

Arguably the most interesting conclusion from the report, besides the fact that an estimated $120bn (£73bn) worth of 'externalities' (to given 'hidden costs' the correct economic jargon) are going unaccounted for each year, was that the US could deliver huge improvements in air quality simply by upgrading or closing a small number of its worst performing power plants.

The study showed that 406 coal plants were responsible for around $62bn (£38bn) worth of non-climate damages, and that 10 per cent of these accounted for 43 per cent of the damages. Similarly, 10 per cent of the 498 natural gas fired plants were responsible for 65 per cent of the $740m (£452m) worth of damages, suggesting that simply adopting the latest technologies and best practices could deliver huge improvements in air quality.

However, the scandalous environmental damage caused by a handful of power plants does not make for good headlines, or at least not when compared with the opportunity to suggest that electric cars are nothing but a marketing croc.

Controversially, the NRC report also assessed the hidden costs associated with different transport options, and concluded that "electric vehicles and grid-dependent [plug-in] hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher non-climate damages than many other technologies", including conventional vehicles.

It went on to note that "operating these vehicles produces few or no emissions, but producing the electricity to power them currently relies heavily on fossil fuels; also, energy used in creating the battery and electric motor adds up to 20 per cent to the manufacturing part of life-cycle damages."

The net result being that the hidden cost of using electric vehicles fitted neatly into the 1.2 cent to 1.7 cent range occupied by other fuel types.

Cue headlines to the effect of: 'Electric cars don't deserve halo yet: study' and 'Electric Cars: Bad for Your Health?'

But is it true? Do the carbon emissions associated with electricity generation and the so-called embedded carbon arising from battery manufacture really negate the much touted environmental benefits of electric cars?

Unsurprisingly, the fast expanding electric car industry is unconvinced. Keith Johnston, president of European operations at electric car firm Reva, does not take issue with the report itself. The electric car industry has long known that its carbon footprint is dependent on the extent to which electricity is generated using fossil fuels, and the report accepts that "major initiatives to further lower other emissions, improve energy efficiency, or shift to a cleaner mix of energy sources could reduce other damages as well, such as substantially lowering the damages attributable to electric vehicles". But he rejects the suggestion that electric cars might be bad for your health.

"The devil is in the detail," he notes. "The industry has always been clear that the adoption of electric cars needs to go hand in hand with the adoption of renewables, carbon capture and storage and nuclear. The thing is that, at a macro level, continuing with carbon-based energy is simply unviable. That's what discredits the suggestion that there is little difference between the different technologies."

Johnston also points out that the research is focused solely on the US, and that in some countries with less reliance on coal-fired power plants electric vehicle emissions are far lower.

"Our research has shown that on average our electric vehicles' 'well to wheel' lifecycle emissions are 59 per cent lower than petrol cars. But in France, where electricity is primarily generated using nuclear, emissions are 97 per cent lower," he argues.

However, the main issue that the report tends to underplay is the direction of travel of different vehicle technologies. The report highlights the risk that the hidden costs from conventional vehicles could well increase if we become more reliant on those powered by unconventional oil, such as that extracted from tar sands or coal, that have by far the highest environmental costs.

Equally, the report's contention that ethanol made from non-food stocks such as corn stover and switch grass had the lowest level of hidden costs may well be accurate, but its relevance is undermined by the admitted failure to address the costs associated with climate change and changing ecosystems, which many scientists regard as the primary concern with biofuel adoption.

Meanwhile, electric cars look set to lower their carbon footprint steadily as governments pursue strategies to decarbonise the energy infrastructure. "The caveat to this debate, which is often lost, is that electric cars get greener as the grid gets greener," says Johnston.

Or, to put it another way, to suggest that electric vehicles are not greener than conventional cars is mischief-making of the highest order.

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!