Two alternatives to the ICE car ban

There is a lot of push back against the proposal to ban Fossil fueled Internal Combustion Engined (ICE) cars in 2030, 2035, 2040 or whenever. 

For context, small vehicles are one of the lowest hanging fruit in terms of climate mitigation. 

It is listed as part of the first step (A) on the electrification staircase from Michael Liebreich and fellow experts in electrification. 

It is low-hanging fruit because there is already an alternative (Battery electric vehicles) which are a better vehicle in almost every way. I've got an EV and it is much nicer to drive, much cheaper to own and much more convenient when you can charge it outside your house. 

The only downsides of EVs are 

1. They can cost slightly more up front (though the gap is rapidly reducing and in some cases there is already price parity)
2. They cannot be refueled as quickly (except when the vehicle is plugged in while the user is doing something else, which is how EVs are usually refilled). 

From a liberal perspective banning things isn't ideal unless the product is really dangerous. Climate change is of course very dangerous, but the impact of emissions aren't immediate - it will affect people at some point in the future. 

Why not abandon the ban and just make passenger cars net zero in another way? 

I've got two alternative proposals for that...

Option 1: Require all fuel on sale to be net-zero

People assume that they can continue to pollute without paying the cost. That is essentially the problem here. 

My first alternative proposal is to insist that all fuels for sale contain carbon taken from the atmosphere rather than underground (geological/fossil fuels). That way there is no increase in atmospheric CO2 (assuming that the energy involved in the entire process also uses no geological/fossil fuels.  

One way to do this would be through biofuels, which are made using carbon that plants have drawn from the atmosphere powered by sunlight via photosynthesis. This is probably not viable since using plants to do this would require huge amounts of land which would impact on the production of food. Hannah Ritchie has demonstrated how unsustainable and inefficient this is. 

An alternative would be to use synthetic e-fuels (hydrocarbons). These can be made out of air (extracting the carbon), water (extracting the hydrogen) and renewable electricity. 

Essentially, this means reversing the combustion process. 

It would require huge amounts of renewable energy sources (wind and solar), of course. That might not be popular. 

However, it is possible and it is the net zero future for combustion vehicles. 

How much would it add to the cost of fuel? 

The basic issue is that clean fuel would cost at least 2x (probably 3-5x) the cost of petrol at present. 

The reason is physics. Combusting hydrocarbons releases a huge amount of energy, so doing the opposite requires a lot of energy. 

Nature has made the fossil fuels for us. To make it ourselves will require huge amounts of renewable power and will cost a fortune. 

The cost difference between running an efficient EV on cheap clean electricity and running an inefficient ICE car on expensive clean fuels will be such that you'd have to be an idiot to prefer the ICE car. 

To make things worse, ICE cars would still cause more local pollution in noise and air pollutions (though e-fuels should have fewer impurities so might burn cleaner). 

If people want to drive fossil cars so much then giving them the option to drive on e-fuels and let the various powertrains compete on a level playing field. 

Makes sense to me. 

However, the problem is that this proposed regulation could be removed just as easily as a carbon price might be removed by a future pollution-happy government. 

Option 2: Add the carbon charge to the up-front cost

The second option would get around the problems of the reliance on future enforcement of a carbon taxation or clean e-fuel regulation. 

 

This is to place an up-front carbon charge on all ICE cars. 

Essentially, this would add on the cost of future emissions generated to the purchase price of the vehicle. This could be used to invest in carbon sequestration to offset the carbon that the vehicle will emit over its lifetime. 

Calculating the up-front charge

It would be necessary to make assumptions in order to calculate an up front charge. 

We don't know how many miles a car will drive. It might be written off in an accident after 200 miles, or it might last for decades and do 150k miles. It would be necessary to pick an 'anticipated milage' charge for each vehicle. 

Different vehicles have different efficiencies as well, which could be factored in to mean that different vehicles would have a different charge. 

The other factor would be the cost of carbon to input into the calculation. 

But let's assume for my purposes here that an ICE car will generate 39 tonnes of CO2, going by this IEA analysis.

The big question, then, is how much it will cost to sequester a tonne of CO2 during the life of the vehicle. 

That is also speculative. 

At the moment, CO2 "carbon credits" are relatively cheap. This is because there is - again - low hanging fruit available. 

Replacing coal or gas electricity with solar and battery reduces emissions and is also economically sensible. 

As time goes on, those easy wins will be exhausted and we will end up having to suck carbon out of the atmosphere (with trees or big machines), turn the CO2 into a stable element (like a liquid, such as a fuel). 

How much would it add to the cost of a car? 

I'll give some rough figures depending on what the carbon price is...

• At £100 per tonne it would add £3,900 to the cost of a petrol car. 
• At £256, then the charge would be £10,000.
• At £500, the charge would be £19,500. 
• At £1,000 per tonne of carbon it would add £39,000 to the cost of the vehicle. 

How much is the cost of carbon going to be in the future? 

It will gradually increase over time, but where will it stop? 

At some point the only option will be to suck carbon out of the air (direct air capture), convert it to a liquid or something and then to bury it underground. Essentially, this means making E-fuels and burying them in the places where we used to get fossil fuels from. 

How much will this cost? No idea, but it will be somewhere between £500 and £1,000 per tonne of CO2. I expect it will be at the upper end of that, but if it is the lower end then we are still talking about £20k added to the cost of an ICE car. 

Clearly no-one is going to buy an ICE car if they are charged even a few thousand pounds more for the privilege of polluting, let alone £20k. 

Conclusion

Economists would generally agree that charging for pollution is better than banning things. Then people can choose which option they prefer. 

The problem with carbon emissions is that people don't think that they will be charged for their carbon emissions because they haven't been in the past. People are used to passing on the costs of their pollution to future generations and poor people. 

Perhaps that is reasonable. Maybe politicians will continue to give in to short-termist pressure from voters to reduce pollution costs. 

Charging up-front for pollution is one way to achieve that. 

What do you think?

How should we go about achieving net zero when it comes to passenger vehicles? 

• Should we ban things that obviously have no future whatsoever in a net zero world? 
• Or, should we only allow for fuels are clean? 
• Or, should we add the cost on up front so that buyers doing make their choices expecting to avoid the cost of their pollution? 

How should you think about EV Range?

Historically, "Range anxiety" has been a major barrier to Battery Electric Vehicle (EV) adoption. Early Nissan Leafs (Leaves?) only had about 100 miles of range after all. 

However, as battery costs have dropped more recent cars have larger batteries, meaning that even budget EVs now do around 200 miles. 

Range Anxiety vs. Charger Anxiety

Rapid charging speeds have increased as well, meaning that a charging stop doesn't mean hours of waiting but rather a brief stop of around 20-30 minutes to get you on your way. 

This reduces concern about range, since running out doesn't mean waiting for 6 hours to refill as it did with EVs made before about 2015. 

People choosing an EV should look at its maximum charging speed as well as range. There are some extra complicating factors here, but generally the higher the maximum speed the quicker the DC rapid charge. 

If you can do a rapid top-up to get to your final destination why worry about range? 

As range has increased and EV sales have outpaced new infrastructure, EV drivers are much more likely to have "charger anxiety" than range anxiety. 

This is the concern that chargers will be broken or occupied when you arrive in desperate need of a charge. 

The infrastructure will continue to improve with the sales of EVs, though sadly the two might not always be perfectly in-step and the power network requires a lot of upgrades as part of the energy transition. 

How to think about range?

Despite this, range is still a considering when looking to buy an EV. 

Electricity is much cheaper at home and rapid chargers in the UK are very expensive (up to 10x the cost of charging at home). A bigger range means less need to charge away from home. 

Furthermore, range will mean more options when it comes to where to charge. It offers more flexibility. 

However, range is rarely an issue for most people's lives. Most people drive to work and back, perhaps occasionally stopping off at a shop or something as well. 

As long as the range is sufficient to get back home on one charge and then refill the battery for the next day what difference does it make? 

Range becomes a factor for those who go on long distance journeys of several hundreds of miles, for instance to see relatives for celebrations. 

Real world range

This is where knowledge of EV batteries becomes useful. 

People who complain about EV range usually feel aggrieved because their car was advertised as getting, say 250miles range but they only got 185 before it ran out. They've been scammed! 

In fact, they have not been scammed. They just weren't informed (perhaps a salesperson actively misled them but the information would be out there). 

EV range is not a fixed amount but rather one that varies depending on several factors. 

Here is real range of the 'long range' version of the MG4 (there is now an extended range with an even bigger battery).  

This comes from the excellent resource that is the EV Database website. Do check this database before buying an EV. 

You can immediately see that the range can be twice as much pootling around the city in the summer compared to doing a highway drive at 70mph on a particularly cold Winter's day. 

An ICE car will also get different range depending on driving conditions but no one really thinks about it much. They are so inefficient (due to waste heat) that a little bit extra inefficiency hardly makes any difference. And they waste so much heat that they don't suffer so much from cold once they get going. 

The equation for range is a simple one. How much energy is stored in the battery and how efficient is the car at converting the energy into miles. 

The larger the battery and the higher the efficiency the longer the range. 

Efficiency varies depending on speed (above 60mph efficiency really drops off) and low temperature also reduces efficiency because some power needs to go into keeping everything suitably warm. 

So it isn't just battery size that determines range. 

Aerodynamics matters too (low and long saloon cars being more efficient than massive slab SUVs). Weight is very important of course. Heat pumps will also help with efficiency when it is very cold as well because they take less energy to achieve the desired temperature.  

The most efficient EVs include:

Long slippery saloons:

• Tesla Model 3 
• Hyundai IONIQ 6 

Smaller, lighter cars: 

• Mini Cooper 
• Corsa Electric 
• Skoda Citigo (and identical cars) 

Essentially these are well-designed cars that are aerodynamic and keep weight limited. 

The least efficient EVs include:

Big bois: 

• Mercedes-Benz G 580 (over 3 metric tonnes!)
• Volkswagen ID. Buzz (basically a van)

Sporty flashers:

• Audi e-tron S
• Lotus Eletre R

Essentially these are cars that emphasise either size or speed and have no regard for efficiency. 

The efficient cars above (the best) are twice as efficient as the ones below (the worst). 

What range do you need? 

We got the Standard Range version of the MG4 (51kWh) because it is perfectly adequate for us. We can visit our immediately family and return on one charge without any issue. 

We may take one holiday driving trip per year which goes beyond that range and it is no problem to charge on such journeys. 

A car with a battery size of 45-55kWh will be fine for most people, and most budget cars will be around this size going forwards. 

However, some people might have long commutes, regular long journeys or family who live further away. For them a longer range vehicle may make more sense (60-100kWh). 

The downside of a bigger battery is that it is more weight for the car to carry, which reduces efficiency and therefore range. 

Conclusions?

The right car depends on numerous factors, such as lifestyle and various preference (including aesthetic). There is no single "right" answer. This is why car companies produce numerous models and variations. 

Many people can now ignore the issue of range for a new EV. The range of a standard model will be adequate and charging speeds are sufficient to cover the occasional longer journey. 

However, those who need a longer range car (regularly making longer journeys) then the following considerations are more important because they will impact upon range:

• Battery size 
• Total weight of vehicle
• Efficiency of equipment (possibly including a heat pump if driving long distances in winter)
• Aerodynamics (shape) 

Holiday journey with an Electric Car

A few months ago we bought what was - at the time - the cheapest BEV car available. 

By car I mean a proper car that you can drive anywhere like on the Motorway, not a quadricycle or anything like that. 

There are now some cheaper ones available for sale on pre-order, with less good features, but the point remains that our car isn't a special one with long range or anything like that. It is just a basic/standard EV.

We have a driveway and can charge the car at home, which is very convenient. 

The car has a range of about 200 miles, which is fine for almost all of the journeys that we do. 

The only exception is where we go on our annual holiday. We book a cottage somewhere in the UK, and for these trips the journey there and back will certainly exceed the range of the car. 

Since we have just had our first such trip (to Pembrokeshire) I thought I would write up the experience. 

Part 1: Trip to Wales (Pembrokeshire)

We started with the car at 100%. 

The cottage we were staying at was just out of the reach of the car. Well, perhaps we could have made it driving very economically. But we didn't want to take the risk, so had to stop to charge on the way. 

When going to stay at a cottage we always stop at a supermarket on the way to pick up our supplies and so I looked for a supermarket with chargers nearby. 

Tesla have opened some of their chargers up to non-Tesla owners and they are much cheaper than rival companies, so they are an appealing option. 

I found a Tesla location near a Lidl on the edge of Cardiff so we headed there. Katy did the shopping while I charged the car. 

While the car was plugged in I managed to have my flask of tea, take the dog for a little walk, and still get back to the Lidl before Katy had finished shopping. 

22 minutes charging. 

17kwh of electricity for £6.97.

Charging at the destination 

The best time to charge is while you are doing something else, like sleeping, eating or shopping. 

We booked a cottage which had an EV charger so that we could charge easily enough while parked. 

From this charger we took on 41kWh for £19.90 and then (before leaving) 6.92kWh for £4.44. 

It was a bit disappointing that we had to download an app, and that the cost was similar to the (much faster) Tesla charger. Also, there was a fee to connect and also an idle fee - a fee for having the car plugged in while fully charged. To me that didn't make sense on a slow charger in the middle of nowhere on private land, but that is the deal that the owner signed up to. 

It turned out there were plenty of chargers in car parks we visited so we could have probably got away without booking a cottage with a charger, but it made planning easier and it was one less thing to worry about.  

At any rate, it worked and we filled up the car during the stay.  

Good job that we filled up too as we used the car most days to go out for walks in the surrounding area. 

Journey home 

Disappointingly my attempt to leave with 100% was thwarted because for some reason the charger did not charge at its full potential. Plus we packed up and left a little earlier than planned, so we left with 85% charge instead of a full battery. 

We aimed for a Tesla charger at Newport (Celtic Manor Resort car park) and arrived with plenty of contingency in case we needed to travel on to the next set of chargers for some reason. I had alternative options planned - Ionity chargers that were more expensive but which I could have paid for out of our Octopus home energy account credit surplus.  

Only 17 minutes of charging, and again took on 17kwh of electricity. This time it cost £7.14.

It took less time to get the 17kwh, probably because the battery was at a lower percentage when we arrived. EVs often charge fastest when they are nearly empty.

The A Better Route Planner (ABRP) App indicated that we needed to charge to 68% to arrive home with 10% left (which I wanted to do to provide some contingency).

We had our hot drinks and snacks in the car and then stretched our legs.    

Katy was still walking the dog when I disconnected the charger because we reached our target of 68% battery, so I then had to wait for them to return. 

We arrived home with 18% battery left so it turned out that charging to 68% was not necessary. 

I think this was because I got better efficiency from the car than ABRP assumed. I got 4miles per kWh which is very good for an MG4 doing motorway driving. I just set the Adaptive Cruise Control to 68mph and let the car do the rest, except when there was some overtaking to do when I might have tickled the accelerator to exceed 68mph. 

Summary

Overall, my summary would be the following: 

• It is perfectly fine to do a long journey in a standard MG4 in the UK. It doesn't have a huge battery or super-fast charging speeds but it has enough of both to be perfectly suitable. 
• You may still need to do a bit of planning before going on a road trip with an EV in the UK. Look for rapid chargers on the route, ideally Tesla or others which are cheap, reliable and fast. But there will probably be several suitable options along the route.
  Don't leave yourself with only one option in case it is full or broken when you get there! 
• Tesla chargers are great - no problems at all with the Tesla app (set up with payment card in advance). Lots of other Tesla's there and a couple of other brands of car as well (Volvo, Mercedes).
• It would be good to have more charging options off the motorway. As time goes on there will be more options and they will hopefully then get cheaper due to competition, meaning less planning is required. 
• The more people buy electric cars the more incentive there will be for companies to build new rapid chargers for them. 

The total cost of charging away from home was £38.45. That would have bought us about 225 miles of petrol in our old hatchback, and we will have got well over 300 miles of driving from the electricity. 

So even on the worst case scenario - charging away from home - it is cheaper to drive an EV than a petrol car. And it is much cheaper to charge at home using our solar panels, which we do for the rest of the year. 

So the only real downside of having an electric car turned out not to be a problem at all!