Written evidence from David Golightly (ELV0071) 

                                        Electric cars and their part in future transport.

        Switching to a general use of electric cars with our current ability to generate our electricity supply will not help decarbonise road transport. It will exacerbate the problem. When we can more than meet our existing electricity consumption requirements by non carbon producing methods. Then wholesale electric cars could then have their place in our transport solution. I will now explain this statement.

        In Britain in recent years, on a low consumption day, (warm and sunny). With favourable weather conditions (windy and sunny). We can just about creep to around 50% generated by non carbon methods. Our wintertime situation confirms the current energy generating situation. Despite not having any severe winter weather in recent years. Even with our carbon emitting generating stations and our non-carbon emitting stations spinning together at full bore. The supply industry have needed to warn of power cuts, simply because they struggle to keep up with demand. Imagine how bad it would be if we all needed to charge the batteries of our cars. That of course doesn’t take into account the other current headline grabbing claim that all our houses will be heated by heat pumps. Again, another colossal drain on our existing power generating capability.

         For a long time, we have been going flat out to build wind turbine and solar panel farms to try and make the change over to what has been termed either non carbon producing or renewable energy. We are struggling to make sufficient progress and are currently running out of companies prepared to invest in any more wind turbine fields. Additionally, problems have been discovered with existing wind turbines which may result in one of the biggest manufacturing companies collapsing. Apart from anything else, the cost in monetary terms is enormous. A cost that will drive us to try and manufacture more ‘things’ and use more energy to meet that cost.

      Something that definitely needs exploring carefully, are claims that over 50% of our energy last year was generated by ‘renewable’ means. What does this term ‘renewable’ actually mean. The CEO of the Drax wood pellet power station proudly proclaimed “By switching from burning coal to burning wood pellets, we have now moved to the renewable class of generating energy. This move will help the government meet its targets.” This was despite accepting that Drax produces more carbon emissions now, than before the switch. The carbon output at Drax power station is so bad, Drax is now pushing hard for more grants to enable it to use carbon capture to reduce the levels it pumps into our atmosphere. The governments own watchdog is currently investigating why the carbon emissions at Drax are so bad, when it was promised a reduction not a gain. The ‘renewable claim’ of course is the assertion that. If you burn trees that create carbon emissions, then you grow more tree’s that ‘eat’ carbon molicules, you balance the process. In theory a great idea especially if it’s all waste product you’re burning and not healthy trees, which seems debatable. Also, good if you didn’t need huge carbon producing ships to transport the wood pellets all the way across the Atlantic Ocean. Good if you didn’t have to consume huge amounts of carbon emitting energy to demolish and rebuild the power station. Good if you didn’t have to wait many, many years before the trees began ‘eating’ significant amounts of the carbon molecules. Don’t forget that to achieve this ‘renewable’ power you are producing more carbon emissions than before you started. It all seemed like a good idea to someone in government when a headline story was required. Instead of all this additional carbon being produced, they could have left the power station burning locally produced coal. They could have planted the carbon ‘eating trees’ anyway and could still be doing so. The colossal amount of money saved could have been used to help people reduce their electricity consumption. Things such as improved home insulation. Recycling hot water systems etc. These measurers alone would have reduced our carbon emissions from Drax because we would have consumed less power. Instead of simply increasing the problem.      

           The story of Drax power station highlights the dangers of coming up with an answer without fully understanding the implications. The same is the case with electric cars and I fear the same poor end result will occur.              

              As a nation we have come to expect and rely on an ever-present electricity supply, both domestically and industrially. Our lives have become used it. Here are some facts that some people are probably not aware of. When you produce electricity, you have to use it, if you don’t the system will self destruct. With fluctuating demand in mind, we have different power sources available to produce that electricity. There is coal, the stable 24/7 supplier. It takes time to build up to maximum output and time to cool down. At the other end of the scale is gas which once lit, takes minimum time to reach operating temperature. (Anyone who has cooked on a gas stove will know what I mean).  So, coal provides the base requirements and gas is there for almost instant increases at peak times such as evening mealtimes. Nuclear, wood pellets, solar panels, wind turbines and hydro electric all have their part to play. Even if we achieve great levels of non carbon emitting generation, we will still need a flexibility in that supply. The less the demand on it the easier the problem becomes. Certain groups claim many of the generating means others are carbon free. As it stands this is a nonsense. If you take into account the manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of every system, from wind turbines to nuclear. They all presently create varying levels of carbon emissions. It must also be remembered that there are emission penalties with every change yet change has to happen. So, all change needs to be measured, not headline grabbing.            

       Irrespective of car manufacturers advertising claims, a battery doesn’t ‘power’ a car. The power is generated elsewhere and is merely stored in the battery for release when required. If that power comes from the national grid, until things change substantially, at least 50% of it will be from ‘dirty’ carbon emitting fuel. An electric car is not emission free. Not by a long way. Even if it’s close at point of use.

            Electric cars require considerably more energy to move them than their internal combustion powered equivalent, simply because of the size and weight of the batteries. This is where basic physics come into play.  This can easily be understood by pushing a small child up a hill in a push chair and then trying to push an older person up the same hill in a wheelchair.  Those heavier batteries require components such as wheels tyres and suspension to be heavier to carry those batteries around. It’s simple exponential growth. The bigger and heavier the batteries the bigger and heavier the structure required to carry them.  If around 50% of your electric power is generated at the power station by ‘dirty’ fuel and you require close to 100% more of that same ‘dirty’ energy, because of the weight and size problem, you are simply going backwards. The situation is getting worse because customers are now demanding a greater range between charging so more and bigger batteries are being fitted and the car gets heavier still. You can see how it becomes a self-perpetuating problem.

            Another negative point about the electric car is the substantial increase in the energy required to manufacture the cars and their batteries in the first place. Then there is the energy required to install the recharging network as well as the complications of supplying it to everybody.

     These larger and heavier electric cars will understandably cause greater damage to our road surfaces and infrastructure requiring more energy to both repair and even build more robust structures in the first place.

     That said electric and hybrid cars could have their place in cities to assist in combating air pollution and that would be a good place to start. Installing the charging infrastructure should be much easier and so also require less power. Electric city cars would be mandated to be smaller and slower and with a smaller operating range. Therefore, their batteries would be smaller, keeping them relatively lighter. They would consume less energy and with less weight and size, road and building damage would be reduced. This would not only reduce air pollution, but it would also reduce noise pollution. Plus being smaller they would reduce congestion and make parking easier. Development of batteries would continue and our attempts to generate more electricity by carbon free methods would also continue. Then if we achieve successes with both we can look at rolling out more smaller electric cars that won’t be demanding so much energy. The possibility of council owned electric cars that can be leased for a set time, similar to bike etc should be examined. That could make the charging infrastructure more manageable and less intrusive. 

       In tandem with the above move to city electric cars all petrol and diesel engine cars should be mandated to be smaller and lighter with better aerodynamic efficiency and reduced speed. What on earth is the point of having an engine that will power your vehicle to 150mph. To attain that speed the engine it’s self will require more energy to just to move itself around.  If by engine efficiency, aerodynamic efficiency, plus weight and speed reduction you can travel twice as far on a given amount of petrol or diesel fuel, you will automatically halve those vehicles emissions in use. Half the fuel equals half the emissions. So why not legislate to make that happen almost immediately with IC engined cars. Less energy will be required to produce such cars. Manufacturers used to make smaller lighter cars years ago so already possess the knowhow. Advances in design already exist to help with safety in crashes. Smaller, lighter cars that are restricted on speed are generally safer as they have less energy to dissipate. This is all common knowledge, but legislation is required to make it happen. If you doubt my argument just compare the actual on road fuel consumption of a current Range Rover (Approx 2 ton and poor drag co efficiency) against that of a Toyota Yaris (Approx 1ton and much improved drag level). The Yaris will travel around three times as far on the same amount of fuel. If you then consider manufacturing energy requirements as well as items like replacement tyres. Well, if you really wish to cut our emissions it becomes a no brainer. The equivalent electric Range Rover is now over 3 ton. Just imagine the energy requirements of that beast and in most cases that is just to support some one’s ego. That same ego boost is already happening with a section of electric cars. They are becoming power draining status symbols. ‘Look how much money I have available to waste.’ Well, what about the energy waste? Legislation is required.   

        In recent years, cars have been fitted with more efficient and cleaner petrol and diesel engines, simply because of government legislation.  Sadly, at the same time, because of the lack of legislation and the public misnomer of ‘bigger is better’ most cars have got bigger and heavier at the same time. A simple example is car seats. Nowadays many car seats have electric motors to adjust and alter them and those electric motors add a great deal of unnecessary weight. Simply banning such things would reduce our carbon emissions. Would it be so difficult to adjust a seat by pulling a lever, just as we used to do. If legislation demanded smaller and lighter cars, plus a continued drive to improve the IC engine efficiency, there would gains to be had by sticking with what we already have, but if we need to change make sure what we change to, is better.

An alternate angle is the use of carbon neutral, sustainable fuels. Motorsport is going ahead with this and the very fact that competition is involved, progress will be fast. World Rally cars are already using this along with hybrid technology. At Le mans this year cars were racing for 24 hours using such fuels. In formula I, the FIA is mandating it 100% from 2026. The advantage with this fuel is, it can be applicable to existing cars and lorries once it is scaled up. As it would take many years to replace all the cars on the road with electric versions, alternative non carbonising fuels for existing ones should certainly be examined. (Audi are competing in Formula I for the first time simply because of this alternative fuel development.)

Hydrogen is another alternative being suggested as well. As batteries are an absolute no go for HGV’s or plant vehicles. The added battery weight would render the vehicles unable to carry a sensible payload. JCB have already developed a hydrogen powered digger with a variation of their diesel engines for these reasons. Another reason hydrogen makes good sense, is the power required to produce it, could be from surplus electricity generated by wind turbines or wave turbines during night-time hours, when public demand is low. Batteries being pushed by Mr Musk to store overnight generation are very heavy to transport. They are very expensive to buy and are a big fire risk. Also as with all modern batteries, they move our dependence from the middle east and Russia, over to China, leaving us as over exposed as ever.

Over recent years car manufacturers have perfected the art of building in obsolescence to encourage customers to buy new cars. Legislation is required to make sure everything lasts longer in the first place and all components can be overhauled and repaired. Provided it doesn’t produce excessive carbon pollution there is a lot to be said for keeping what we already have. Rather than incurring the extra pollution of disposing of our old one and the extra pollution of manufacturing and delivering a new one.

Alternatives that should be explored.

Better use of the railways should be explored.

Surely potential wave and tidal power needs more investigation. As on many occasions the greatest charging capability may not chime with the highest demand. Because of the high and low tides being fixed. It probably should be viewed as a great power source for producing for both hydrogen and carbon neutral fuels. At least the tides and waves do happen in a predictable way everyday of the year, unlike wind and solar power. 

Consider restricting HGVs on motorways to night-time hours only. This could reduce congestion for cars (cars are more efficient if they travel at a constant speed). This could also in effect almost double the use of existing motorway and remove any need to build more of them.

Instead of operating large buses in cities. (Apparently one conventional bus creates as much pollution as 40 small cars). Why not run a fleet of smaller hybrid or fully electric small buses. A single 9-seater as shown in the attached photo may well suffice at quiet times. Whilst extra examples could be deployed to cope with increased demand at rush hour time. Flexibility and minimal waste is surely the key.

Ships moved away from coal power to diesel power. They should take a step back and return to wind sail power. Relying on wind power to charge heavy batteries would be as silly as electric cars or electric aeroplanes, as the payload is compromised immediately.

Air travel in general needs reducing immediately. We can live without most of it. If governments are really serious, the reduction could begin immediately and would have far greater effect than messing about with electric cars and heat pumps.

A fine example of how a simple solution could work better in some applications, is tumble driers. To make them more environment friendly, you could mandate they all be powered by either personal wind turbines or personal solar panels. Now both these solutions require energy to manufacture deliver and install. You could instead hang your washing on a line, just as we used to do and save energy and yourself money into the bargain. Using wind and solar power without the middleman. It’s not the perfect easiest answer and won’t work for everyone, but for some it could work perfectly well and would cost little in money or ‘dirty’ energy terms. My partner and I have been doing it for many years.               

Above all, don’t chase impossible ideas because an ‘expert’ promises something for the future. For many years we have been promised nuclear fusion and we are still waiting. Just as we have been promised lightweight, cheap batteries. None are available. If they ever arrive, it maybe time for a rethink, but not before then. Electric cars will squander our energy when we should be trying hard to reduce out consumption. Gradual reduction through limits and efficiency stand a much better chance of success. If we begin the switch to EV’s as proposed by our government, we risk making our carbon emissions worse with little gain. At least with the alternatives I have proposed there are gains to be had no matter how successful our power generation swop to non carbon emitting actually is. I remember some 60 years ago my teaching saying. “Every change the government makes will please some and upset others. We have to trust that change is for the greater good of everyone.” I’m afraid that trust is not there at the moment.