Written evidence from Wilkins BEng (ELV0007)

Request for evidence

Advice provided by an engineer whom has worked on three electric car programmes at three various manufacturers – Jaguar Land Rover, Aston Martin, Dyson. Currently not working in sector due to realisation of hypocritical nature of creating EV to save the planet when they in many ways make it worse, I have no passion for these projects.

EV CO2 non direct emissions

Construction - well known paper published by Volvo (leaders in European EV production), well understood CO2 emissions due to labour / construction regarding many manhours spend to construct car size batteries, CO2 from mining operations to obtain rare earth metals used to construct current technology car battery. The extent of CO2 emissions to simply create a state-of-the-art EV vehicle are significantly more than state of the art combustion engine vehicles.

The amount of time a combustion engine car can be used before it reaches the same level of CO2 emissions as the construction of a EV has been put at 80,000 miles, most vehicles do not reach that level of mileage until around 8 years of use.

Such as all lithium technology batteries – as mobile phones, they have a considerably small life with regard to typical life of a car, which could be up to 40 years, but typically 20 years. It is expected that EV vehicles will need a very costly with regard to CO2 credibility new battery 8 – 10 years after first use.

Power supply – An EV will only be as CO2 friendly as the grid that supplies it power, for all the push for the populus to buy EV, there is little push to make sure the power supply in 2030 will match zero CO2 credentials, Nuclear is the only net zero technology available, with very little safety nor waste product issues compared to all other available technologies. Due to the nature that nuclear can not be ramped up and down easily, the fact that wind can be not strong enough, or too strong for wind turbines and the sun (particularly in the UK) does not shine all the time, enough to generate that required, especially at night when car to be charged, for every solar and wind plant built it is inherent that a gas or coal plant is required to support shortage in supply. These concerns are exacerbated by transmission losses through sending electricity through the grid, across powerlines, through transformers.

Conclusion is that with current battery technology, construction, national power generation, EV cars offer little with regard to CO2 emissions compared with internal combustion engine equivalents, if not in fact far worse. New battery technology could prove to reverse this, however there is no vehicle manufacturer with a programme to mass produce these in advance of 2030, thus deadline should be postponed until such time that it is largely available and at such point that power generation is 100% nuclear. The government if serious about CO2 will push a substantial nuclear plant programme.

Note on direct emissions

EV are very heavy compared with internal combustion engine counterparts, this then leads to increased rubber and brake pad particulates in the atmosphere, even if you were to fix CO2 in the atmosphere for the climate, do you in turn create an increased health risk through cancer, not to over state like Mr Kahn may… (I may also note that there are concerns over long term rubber supply, heavy vehicles will wear tyres at a sufficiently higher rate – perhaps a future tyre crisis?)

Infrastructure

EV are very heavy, many EV are a multitude heavy, the collapse of aging multistorey car parks has been a news story in the past of many local newsrooms, but are we ready for the mass rebuild of many a car park in the UK to carry the weight of new vehicles. Road bridges both large and in the countryside need equal consideration. Pot holes are a massive problem on UK roads, increased weight of vehicles only makes a magnitude worse, laying of new road is not an environmentally friendly process either, needing to increase number of road rebuilds due to EV is neither environmentally friendly nor cost efficient.

Charge points, it does not need much discussing, well publicised, with low range per charge there is not the network to support wholesale move to EV transportation.

Conclusion here is that the UK economy, government debt what it is, local council debt, there is not the financial capability to support such infrastructure update programme both for short term and long-term commitment to maintain. Nor would it be sensible to take funding from healthcare, defence, borders nor many other needy departments budgets, simply to support a non-essential move to wholesale EV use.

Danger of widespread adoption of immature technology

Although of reasonably low occurrence, car batteries can catch fire, so there is a risk, in this world we currently live with have been taught to be hyper aware of any minor risk and eliminating – think reaction to COVID, mass adoption of 20mph zones even in sparsely populated areas. So we should certainly consider the battery risk here. Not least because when one does have a “thermal event” leading to “thermal run away” there is very little the fire services can do to help, all fire services are ill equipped to put out EV fire, simply because due to the construction, the chemistry involved, EV fires are very, very hard to extinguish, you pretty much have to wait until they burn out (to the ground), many attempts where fire has seemingly been put out have then re-ignited, this is of considerable risk to fire brigades and recovery services. Reports of cars igniting on charge have led to owners losing their homes as fire spread from driveway to building. We have also have had terrible environmental damage of two lost shipping containers in two years, most recent the Freemantle Highway off the Nederland’s coast. If current push for EV introduction were to be successful in 2030, that one motorway car fire in winter could close said motorway for best part of a day, after which cars held up and low on power due to keeping owners warm could then extend motorway closure for many days whilst all are recovered, I do not believe such a scenario has been catered for.

Conclusion although rare event, current EV technology is far too dangerous over internal combustion equivalents when things go wrong. And we simply can not tackle such situations with any speed nor ease in which it is required to keep people safe.

Suggestion on alternatives

EFuel technology - the capturing of carbon in the air to mix with water to create perfectly useable petrol and diesel. Use of used chip cooking oil, field grown biodiesel in diesel vehicles. These are examples of a way of making already very technologically refined, light, efficient, low CO2 emitting petrol and diesel cars run in a more sustainable way, a more financially sustainable way – for all, government through infrastructure, populus by not having to buy new cars. Funding, pushing of development / roll out could well be a fraction of infrastructure costs highlighted of heavy EV, especially as could get the engagement of capital rich oil companies onboard.

We must think very carefully on energy policy, the current course does not think broadly enough in any detail about the science and knock on effects. In the last year, year and a half we pushed many into severe poverty, some to death from cold due to increased energy prices as we import more, as renewables falter to meet demand, oil and gas turned off (rightly), but where we should have had a nuclear programme in place, we need to be self-sufficient. I hope from some of what I have highlighted you can see the same hardship and downturn effects on economy and GDP will be felt, as a similar strategy on EV vehicles comes into play.