Dr Gary Kendall, Senior Energy Business and Policy Analyst for the WWF Global Climate Change and Energy Programme based in Brussels, is the author of Plugged In: The End of the Oil Age.
Dramatically expanded use of plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles would be a way to a transport future that doesn't risk climate catastrophe.
The WWF report Plugged In: The End of the Oil Age considers the future of a transport sector now 95 per cent dependent on liquid hydrocarbon fuels and examines the impacts and practicalities of electric, coal-to-liquid, gas-to-liquid, natural gas and hydrogen powered transport for the future.
The report finds that vehicles running solely or partly on grid-connected electricity are more efficient and less greenhouse gas intensive than all alternatives, even with most power now being generated using fossil fuels. The report also finds that cleaner power generation and more use of renewable fuels in power generation will make it certain that the comparative efficiency and pollution advantages of plug-in transport will improve into the future, while the future of liquid fuels is one of increasing resort to dirtier sources like the Oil Sands of Canada that will take more energy to turn into fuels.
On the big challenge we face today, Dr Kendall says, “We cannot depend upon today’s dominant transport solution providers to drive the shift away from liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Other business sectors – such as power utilities for instance – will come to the fore in recognising the business opportunities of grid-connected transport. Ultimately, leadership on moving to the best transport fuel mix will need to come from governments.”
Dr Kendall provides a candid picture on the burning issue of reliance of fossil fuels on our transportation needs.
Why is WWF engaging in the transport sector?
The transport sector is 95% dependent on crude oil for its primary energy. It is the only sector so utterly reliant on oil. This fuel specificity represents a unique threat to the environment and to geopolitical stability. The recent surge of interest in unconventional oil substitutes – chiefly oil sands, coal-to-liquids, and gas-to-liquids – is an attempt to address the energy security concerns of oil importing nations but has an environmental impact even worse than crude oil over the full life-cycle. Faced with the climate change challenge, we must tackle the root cause of the problem: transport’s reliance on the internal combustion engine, which is inefficient and dependent on liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
The electrification of automotive transport can deliver significant net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per kilometre travelled, improved urban environments through reduced tailpipe pollution and noise, and enhanced energy security by diversifying primary energy sources away from crude oil. Technology is already commercially available and no significant new infrastructure is required. Even based on today’s relatively carbon-intensive power sector, transport electrification still makes sense due to the inherent high efficiency of electric vehicles.
You say electric cars are the cleanest option, but electric vehicles do not magically create their own energy. They rely on power plants supply and surely, renewable sources would not immediately meet the increased demand. How much more electricity will be needed for a mass-market adoption of plug-in cars?
First of all, the full capacity of the electricity grid is not utilised all of the time due to fluctuating demand. A recent study in the US showed that 84% of the nation’s cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs – roughly 198 million vehicles – could be replaced by plug-in hybrids without adding any new generating capacity or infrastructure, assuming that the vehicles would be charged off-peak, e.g. overnight when the vast majority of vehicles are stationary. Electric cars typically consume less than 0.2 kWh per kilometre (comparable conventional vehicles consume around 0.7 kWh per kilometre).
Another recent study showed that one million plug-in hybrids in Germany would need only 0.3% of the country’s electricity production. So of course, more electricity would be required, but not necessarily more generating capacity. And because electric vehicles are so much more efficient than conventional mechanical vehicles at converting stored energy into kilometres, the overall system demand for energy – and CO2 emissions – will be reduced.
Secondly, we must bear in mind that electric vehicles are compatible with all sources of renewable energy – including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, wave, tidal, and biomass – unlike conventional vehicles which may only use renewable energy derived from biomass. As the share of renewable energy in the power sector increases over time, electric vehicles simultaneously become cleaner.
As remaining crude oil reserves concentrate into relatively few – and sometimes unstable – countries, the major oil importing nations and international oil companies are rushing towards unconventional oils to maintain security of liquid fuel supplies. However, since the efficiency of the electric vehicle is so superior to its conventional mechanical counterpart, it makes much more sense – both for the environment and energy security – to convert gas and coal into electricity to power electric vehicles than to turn gas and coal into gasoline and diesel. So even if we are stuck with fossil fuels – not ideal – the electric pathway is better than the liquid pathway.
Aren’t electric vehicles favouring overall CO2 increase – more fossil fuel in power sector?
The electrification of automotive transport addresses a sector which is 95% dependent on crude oil and transforms it into a sector which is 100% compatible with a sustainable renewable energy future. Strategies to address emissions in the power sector exist, e.g. through supply side efficiency, carbon management, fuel switching, and renewable energy obligations. By contrast, maintaining the prevailing “lock in” to conventional vehicles means we will see more and more unconventional fuels, such as oil sands and coal-to-liquids, and therefore more CO2 emissions per unit of energy in the transport sector.
Don’t electric vehicles favour nuclear expansion and use? Does WWF support that development?
This is like saying support for telecommuting or modal shift from road to rail-based mass transit favours nuclear expansion, since telecoms and rail both increase the electricity demand. WWF does not support the expansion of nuclear power. Nuclear power and transport electrification are separate discussions.
In the face of growing energy-related problems such as climate change, nuclear power has been promoted by interested industries and certain governments as a clean source of energy which could help solve the problems. WWF strongly opposes this view, not only because nuclear energy poses a huge safety risk for humans and nature, but also because it is neither a sustainable nor an economically efficient source of energy.
A desire to realise the benefits of highly efficient plug-in vehicles which are compatible with the full range of sustainable renewable energy options does not surrender the right to strongly prefer some power generating technologies over others. By promotion of electric vehicles WWF seems to accept individual transport and to make it more “attractive” by giving it a potentially “green” cover. What about road accidents, sealing of land with roads and a very unpleasant car-friendly urban and land planning? Isn't this a fundamental breach of sustainable development criteria, public transport priority and overall need to “slow down”?
Priority for public transport and improved land-use planning is not at odds with transport electrification. Modal shift, smarter urban planning, behavioural change, integrated public transport systems and increased use of information technology solutions will all make vital contributions to sustainable development. However, private transport options will remain desirable to a certain extent and important for social and economic development and we need to provide a sustainable solution to meet that demand.
There are around 800 million road vehicles in the world today, and that number is projected to double over the next 25 years, largely driven by demand in emerging economies. On the present trajectory, those vehicles will be wholly dependent on the onboard combustion of liquid hydrocarbon fuels, leading to further extraction of fossil fuels, expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, associated CO2 emissions and increasing geopolitical tensions over diminishing resources. It is essential that automotive transport expansion not continue on this unsustainable course.
Why are electric vehicles less damaging for the environment? What about highly-efficient internal combustion engines in hybrid super-light vehicles running on bio-fuels?
Internal combustion engines are inherently inefficient. In practice, only 18-23% of the chemical energy in the fuel actually reaches the wheels. Efficiency improvements remain possible, e.g. by developing super-light vehicle bodies, improving aerodynamics, increasing the efficiency of auxiliary components, reducing tyre rolling resistance, etc. Potential efficiency gains in these areas apply in equal measure to electric vehicles, therefore they should complement – not forestall – the electrification of automotive transport. Due to the climate change challenge we need transformational change. Electric vehicles are not only much more efficient in principle than conventional vehicles – converting some 65-75% of the energy stored in batteries into motion – they are also compatible with the full range of sustainable renewable energy technologies including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, wave, tidal, etc. from which it will always be impossible to derive liquid hydrocarbon fuels (e.g. gasoline and diesel).
Hybrid electric vehicles are significantly more efficient than their conventional counterparts, but do not change the fact that 100% of the energy which drives the wheels comes from the combustion of liquid fuel in an onboard combustion engine. Some of that energy is recovered into the battery, but until that battery is capable of plugging into the grid, the basic fuel dependency remains unchanged.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are essentially electric vehicles with onboard generators – such as an internal combustion engine – which extend their range once the battery charge has depleted below a certain level. Thus, any future efficiency improvements and downsizing of internal combustion engines will also benefit the overall efficiency of plug-in hybrids. If those engines are capable of running on bio-fuels – produced from sustainable biomass – this would allow plug-in hybrids to run exclusively on sustainable renewable energy, whether in the form of electricity or liquid fuels.
What are oil sands?
Oil sands are a mixture of bitumen and sand. The province of Alberta has proven reserves of 174 billion barrels of oil, second in size only to Saudi Arabia. Oil sands production is a carbon-intensive process because it is a hugely inefficient way of extracting and refining the oil. For surface deposits, sixty foot tall excavators scrape off the topsoil and dump the sands below into trucks as big as a house. For deeper deposits, steam is produced to warm up the sands. Further energy is required to separate the tarry residue and convert it into oil. The huge mines and tailings ponds (where toxic waste water is pumped) are so large they can be seen from space. Production is currently one million barrels per day (bpd). But by 2015 the industry is aiming for three million bpd and 5-6 million bpd by 2030. Chevron-Texaco, Exxon Mobil and Shell have made multibillion-dollar investments in the oil sands in recent years with $100 billion in investment proposed by 2020.
It takes around three times as much energy to produce a barrel of oil from oil sands as it does for typical oil extraction. (85.5kg CO2 per barrel compared to 28.6kg CO2). The expansion of oil sands is the fastest growing contributor to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, yet the Canadian government is failing to regulate its carbon emissions effectively with absolute targets. Canada is set to miss its Kyoto targets. The oil sands reserves cover an area of 140,000km2 of the boreal forest - equivalent to 25 % of Alberta (approximately the size of France). The extraction of oil sands requires huge impacts above the ground with survey lines, mines, processing plants, pipelines and drilling sites. Oil sands mining has left swathes of forest removed, fragmenting the habitat of the native caribou. Shell has promised to restore the habitat, yet no reclaimed land has been certified.
Oil sands require from 2 to 4.5 barrels of water to produce a barrel of oil. The dams holding this water next to the Athabasca river are the largest in the world. The Athabasca river cannot supply the quantities of water required for the proposed expansion, and the ecological viability of the river is already threatened.
