Claims have been made that Electric Vehicles can largely replace oil fuelled vehicles. These claims overlook critical factors that indicate that Electric Vehicles are a partial solution at best to Australia’s liquid fuel predicament.
Energy is the economy. In my last article I described Australia’s liquid fuel predicament and summarised the potential for alternate fuels/propulsion systems to replace oil as being too little too late. Professor Mark Diesendorf from the University of New South Wales commented that Electric Vehicles (EVs) could substitute for most Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) powered vehicles and most of Australia’s oil use within two decades. Whilst highly desirable in addressing both climate change and liquid fuel dependency, such an outcome is improbable, leading to the conclusion that EVs are at best a partial solution to addressing Australia’s liquid fuel predicament.
In a thoughtful 2018 paper Professor Diesendorf argued the case that the barriers to a 100% renewable electricity (RElec) system are primarily political and institutional rather technological and economic. He concluded that a 100 percent RElec system can provide all future energy use, including for transportation and heat. Unfortunately, the analysis leading to this conclusion omits critical factors that suggest that attaining such an outcome will not be possible.
The first omission is a consideration of net energy. Net energy is the difference between the energy invested in harnessing an energy source (e.g. for the manufacture, installation and operation of a solar panel) to the energy returned from that energy source (e.g. the electricity produced from the solar panel). A more useful way of expressing net energy is as a ratio, known as the Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI), which allows a comparison between energy sources. The world as we know it has been built, including all renewable energy technologies, from fossil fuels with comparatively high EROEI values. Renewable energy sources generally have much lower EROEI values. This is not surprising given that we are attempting to replace highly concentrated sources of energy (fossil fuels) with mostly diffuse sources (solar and wind). At global scale, an aggressive adoption of RElec would require an increase in energy production of 35 percent (relative to a fossil fuel powered economy) to counter for the low EROEI of renewables. Whilst the penetration of RElec/EVs remains low the net energy effect is largely masked but will become a very real limitation at high penetration rates. A limitation which recent studies suggest would lead to a protracted economic contraction before the transition to renewable energy was complete.
Building EV fleets and the associated RElec infrastructure will require an enormous quantity of mineral resources. Several academic studies have investigated whether there will be sufficient mineral resources to support the transition to RElec/EVs and the results are not promising. Modelling suggests that the demand for 12 minerals (including tin, silver, zinc and manganese) required to building a 100 percent RElec infrastructure by 2060 would exceed current global reserves. A similar situation exists for EV batteries, with cobalt, nickel and lithium requirements for a 100 percent transition to EVs exceeding current reserves.
Whilst further exploration and technological developments may supply the required additional mineral reserves, they are unlikely to reverse the trend of declining ore grades for many important minerals. Declining ore grades require larger volumes of ore to be processed resulting in increased energy consumption per unit of mineral produced as well as placing additional demand on the environment, increasing water requirements and social costs. As an example, the energy consumption for Chilean copper has increased at five times the rate of copper production.
What do these factors imply for the future of EVs? Currently EVs make up only 0.4 percent of the global vehicle fleet but sales are expected to grow rapidly, aided by several jurisdictions who are planning to phase out ICE vehicles. Prices are expected to become more affordable with improved battery technology and economies of scale with a predicted nine-fold increase in lithium battery demand over the next decade. At some point however, given the aforementioned constraints and a projected shortfall of lithium come the mid-2020s the price of EVs could well stabilise, if not increase. EVs could very well become a victim of the ‘Law of Receding Horizons’ where the high cost of material and energy inputs pushes economic viability further into the future.
Economic viability of EVs is further threatened by current economic conditions. With the majority of EVs currently available in Australia costing $60,000 or more (compared to the average new car price of $28,000), a trend of declining car sales for several years pre-COVID, high debt levels and uncertainty about the future; purchasing an EV is unlikely to be a priority for many Australians for the foreseeable future. Additionally most EV manufacturers are a long way from making a profit. A scenario where the price that EV manufacturers require for profitability remains much higher than the price that the majority of car owners are willing (or able) to pay, over the long term, appears both plausible and likely.
The totality of these factors; declining net energy from renewables, likely inadequacy of mineral resources, increasing energy requirements for mineral production as well as current and likely future economic conditions, suggest that at best, EVs will be a minor solution to Australia’s liquid fuel predicament. Energy Consultancy Wood Mackenzie has suggested that global EV penetration rates may only reach 15 percent over the medium term. Furthermore the environmental benefits of EVs maybe overstated, with only 20 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions on a whole life cycle basis compared to ICE fuelled vehicles with double the water and land toxicity.
With EVs, and other alternate fuels, likely to offset only a modest proportion of the energy supply lost to declining oil production we face quite a dilemma. To plan for and adapt to this dilemma requires a robust assessment of the realistic potential for EVs to replace ICE vehicles combined with realistic scenarios for future oil production. This sort of analysis is completely missing from Australian governments at all levels, even though the likelihood of Australia facing a sustained liquid fuel deficiency within the next five to ten years is frighteningly real.
A liquid fuel constrained future will be disruptive. It cannot be anything but with a barrel of oil containing the energy equivalent of 4.5 years of human labour. The depth and nature of the resulting disruption is however something that can be influenced. EVs can and will play a part, albeit limited, in a mitigation strategy. Far more important however will be redesigning our economy to function using less liquid fuel. With alternative fuels and propulsion systems being too little and too late, conservation rather than technology based ‘solutions’ will be the most important mitigation strategy in adapting to a liquid fuel constrained future.
Cameron Leckie served as an officer in the Australian Army for 24 years. An agricultural engineer, he is currently a PhD candidate.
Comments
22 responses to “Electric Vehicles, A Partial Solution At Best”
The link in my comment to Mr Leckie’s article is apparently not working. The reference is Mark Diesendorf & Thomas Wiedmann (2019). Implications of trends in EROI for transitioning to renewable electricity. Ecological Economics 176, 106726.
Cameron Leckie is cherry-picking poor research in order to support his thesis. He claims incorrectly that my research omits consideration of net energy and that renewable energy sources generally have much lower values of Energy Return on Energy Invested (known as EROI or EROEI). However, this claim has been refuted for electricity generation by several major studies, as discussed in one of our research papers (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106726).
EROI of coal-fired electricity, as opposed to coal at the mine mouth, is quite small, due in a large part to the low efficiency of conversion of coal into electricity (typically 20-40%, depending the type of coal and the age of the power station).
In transitioning to 100% renewable energy, bulk electricity will be supplied by wind and solar photovoltaics, both of which are now cheaper than bulk electricity from fossil fuels and much cheaper than nuclear electricity. EROI of wind is typically much greater than EROI of coal-fired electricity and EROI of solar PV is comparable with that of coal power. EROIs of wind and solar are increasing.
Mr Leckie also fails to take into account the very low energy conversion efficiency of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles (typically about 20%) compared with electric vehicles (EVs) (typically about 80%).
While it’s true that EVs are still expensive in terms of capital cost, the price of the dearest component, the battery, is falling rapidly. Taking account of this and the much lower fuel and maintenance costs of EVs compared with ICEs, it’s likely that EVs (at least electric cars and light commercial) are likely to become generally competitive with ICEs by the mid-2020s.
Thanks for the reference to that paper and I accept the criticism on my comment that your research omitted net energy (the particular paper I referred to do did not cover net energy/EROEI).
I should make it clear that I am all for renewable energy replacing fossil fuels, the long term survival of our species depends upon it. I also agree, as you concluded in your linked paper, that we need a steady state economy. I would argue that we need it sooner (i.e. now) rather than later. Where I disagree is with the conclusion that renewables can provide the same quantity of energy as fossil fuels can (even when efficiencies etc are considered – whilst I did not mention this, one of the papers I linked to explicitly considered the improved efficiency of RE power generation for EVs versus ICE). If renewables cannot provide the same quantity of energy then we need to use less energy (i.e. conservation).
There is also a risk factor embedded here. Even if it is theoretically possible to make a 100% transition to RE, there are many risks (war, financial crisis, pandemics, environmental disasters, political dis-function etc) which mean that it may not be practically possible. An example is COVID-19 which has negatively impacted on investment decision for mining projects.
You concluded in your paper that one of the limits to 100% RE is ‘the finite resources of materials.’ That is the primary reason why I conclude that EVs and 100% RE will replace only a fraction of fossil fuel use. Australia has some of the largest reserves of lithium in the world. Dr Simon Michaux’s analysis suggests that we need seven times Australia’s reserves to be discovered and mined to meet the demand for lithium batteries. Similar requirements exist for other minerals. And this realistically needs to happen within a decade or two from a climate change perspective.
I would be very interested in your thoughts on how the transition to 100% RE can address this issue and declining ore grades (best summarised by the quip last centuries waste rock is this centuries ore) which is/will require increased energy consumption on a large scale. These factors in my view will put a floor under improvements in EROEI for RE and cost reductions for EVs.
A common approach of campaigners for fossil fuels or nuclear power is to say that they support renewable energy, but they go on to claim that it’s only suitable for a niche market or is only ‘a partial solution’ for the energy sector. Then they cherry-pick articles to try and support their predetermined positions. I hope Mr Leckie is not one of these campaigners, but must say that he has given a pretty good imitation of one. May I suggest that in future he review the scholarly literature more carefully and offer some constructive suggestions instead of looking backward.
In a future submission to Pearls and Irritations, based on expert studies from around the world, I’ll outline how renewable energy can replace essentially all energy supplied by fossil fuels.
Hi, I understand that the usual way to compare different energy sources (e.g., coal vs wind) is the cost of producing producing one unit of electricity energy, i.e., the LCOE. As I understand it, the LCOE for renewables have been coming down, and expected to be lower than coal/oil (especially if the cost of carbon is counted as a cost).
That said, I also understand the drawback of renewables like wind and solar is its intermittency, and so we have to add storage cost. There may be other qualifications that need to be considered.
Evaluating the different energy sources based on “energy invested” (as the article suggests) is interesting, but why focus only on “energy invested”? Why not look at the total cost of generating one unit of electricity energy, which is what LCOE does?
So I am not sure I fully understand this article. Having said that, I am not an expert on comparing the environmental impact of different energy sources. Perhaps there are some advantages to focusing only on “energy invested” vs “all costs”.
This article contributes almost nothing to our desperate need to decarbonise the economy. We need to stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible. Full stop. All other considerations are irrelevant. Thus, we we need to move rapidly towards meeting our power and transport requirements using renewable energy, and there are options that do not depend on exploitation of some scarce mineral resources. Much transport can be run from the grid, and not all batteries depend on minerals such as lithium (which is not as rare as implied) and cobalt. Rabbitting on about ERORI is pointless when energy from the sun is abundant and essentially free.
nullifidian1, I 100% agree with you that we need to stop using fossil fuels urgently. As such we need to transition to renewable energy as soon as possible. But as Richard points out below, we cannot just transition to renewables AND carry on living the way we do now. That is the whole point of my article. If EVs are only a partial solution then conservation, i.e. using less liquid fuels (and energy more generally) has to be a primary part of any strategy as we transition to renewables.
On lithium, production is set to expand three fold over the next five or 10 years but the the demand is expected to increase 9-10 times. This is not implying that lithium is rare but it does imply that there will be a significant shortfall of supply vs demand in the foreseeable future, forcing up prices and slowing the adoption of EVs.
Given the limitations that have been identified by multiple researchers on the adequacy of future mineral resources to support the transitions to renewables and EVs it would be much better strategically to a. increase public transport and b. active transport using e-bikes and scooters as examples. This would be a much more efficient use of these resources and have better societal outcomes. For example, the minerals required for one Nissan leaf battery is the equivalent to 50 e-bike batteries and require less energy for recharging.
Energy from the sun is free, and that is great if all you want to do is dry your clothes, heat some water and you have built yourself a solar cooker. But if you want electricity from the sun, at scale and available 24 hours a day then it is far from being free.
“On lithium, production is set to expand three fold over the next five or
10 years but the the demand is expected to increase 9-10 times.”
Recycling of Litium batteries is close to 100% recovery.
I agree that focussing only on transport is not a solution to Climate change, but it is an important component of the raft of measures which need to be undertaken.
Reducing pollution within denser urban environments is an urgent need, as the research into the health of city dwellers is making quite clear.
But while we have governments focussed on financial economies and ignoring fundamental human and environmental necessities there is little hope for us.
I accept that a rapid move towards a zero carbon economy is far from straightforward and will be costly. However, I believe that the IPCC projections are conservative and that there are real dangers of tipping points that could be catastrophic. Like Greta Thunberg, I think that we should panic. The Government has not only refused to set a target, but have argued for a gradual transition, even to the insane objective of more gas production. Your arguments are less ideological, but I don’t see the urgency that I believe we need. If it means an economic contraction (which I don’t accept given that we have considerable unused production capacity), then so be it.
Good to see some support now coming through for Cameron’s original article, which I thought was well argued and based on solid research. It seems to me that the idea that we can deal with the threat of anthropogenic climate change by “just” changing to renewables and more or less carrying on as now is absurd. One aspect of which is the expectation that EVs will allow us to continue with private personal transport on demand.
As Cameron says at the end of his article, we have to “redesign(ing) our economy to function using less liquid fuel”. And, no matter how much we learn to harness the sun’s energy, we have to create a radically altered society/economy – most particularly in rich countries like Australia – which uses far less energy overall.
Energy supply and climate change are extremely important but involved, no simple ‘solutions’ and those proposed as such are misleading, either by intent or ignorance. Transport contributes just part of total CO2 emissions, land transport (where “EV”s are relevant) just part of that. Nevertheless all practical reductions should be pursued. “EV” – Electric Vehicles – are of two basic types (a) using battery storage and (b) using fuel cells. The former are what are usually referred to as EVs in Australia where uptake is inhibited by ‘range anxiety’, price and (sometimes) by concern over the source of the electricity used for recharging. There are viable options to these (below). The latter, fuel cell powered (mostly using hydrogen) have similar range to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and are the centre of Japanese government policy, have been developed by Mercedes and Hyundai among others as well as being vigorously pursued in China. Both types need a supporting distribution networks – recharging stations, hydrogen refuelling. Battery based EVs are NOT expensive everywhere. Tata’s Nexon EV is about Rs15 lakh in Delhi (under AUD 8000). It has five-star safety rating in Global NCAP crash test. As many families in cities have two (or more) cars and most travel well within EV range daily but worry about occasional rural travel, a policy to encourage replacement of one car by a low cost EV should be attractive. Negotiation with Tata or other manufacturer would be required to provide supply of low cost EVs in this country.
On the bigger scale: the overall supply of energy is fundamental to the type of society that can be sustained. There is no practical physical constraint, but choices about sources can have significant societal implications. The energy returned on energy invested (EROI, ERoEI etc.) is a fundamental measure of the usefulness of a particular source. As with interest rates in the financial world, the higher the EROI the better. Weißbach and colleagues have made very detailed evaluations of EROI for electricity generation. They estimate a value of just under 10 as necessary to sustain a modern society. Values they give for some sources are Solar PV ~4, biomass <4, wind 16, coal 35, nuclear 75. Taking out coal (and other hydrocarbons are similar) the mix of low emission technologies used will impact the type of society that is possible. Not sure how Australia's current road map looks for our future, but other countries, China included, have planned using reliable information.
An interesting collection of backward-looking and lack of imagination. In similar vein, there was a time when internal combustion engines were not seen as “a complete solution”. Places where fuel could be bought were few and far between and the engines wouldn’t run on stuff that a farmer could grow. Times changed and the economy reorganised to solve the problems.
There are constraints on growth, but energy isn’t one of them. According to Geoscience Australia, the nation’s solar energy resource is “10 000 times larger than its total energy consumption”.
https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/solar-energy
A study by the University of Technology, Sydney, put Australia’s onshore wind capacity alone at about twelve times current demand.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australia-has-potential-to-be-wind-world-leader-20171212-p4yxmj.html
In energy, we are obscenely rich.
We don’t yet have an electric semi-trailer that will run coast-to-coast on a single charge. Is that a problem with the technology or with our expectations?
We do need to reorganise our economy and build our infrastructure. There’s work to be done. What are we waiting for?
Thanks David, you said it for me. However, I will be much more succinct. When you consider that we have a nuclear fusion reactor in the sky capable of powering all earths needs for the next billion years or so, I would argue that this article is total unsubstantiated bullshit.
I was trying to be polite. Many of the references and assertions are common on denialist sites.
How is it backward looking David to examine the realistic potential for alternative technologies to replace oil? It is prudent risk management. If the answer suggests that the capacity for the alternatives is limited, which the references that I provided suggest (all of which are from literature published in scientific publications or by researchers/consultancies in their respective fields) then the logical conclusion is that we need to reduce our energy consumption.
I agree that Australia is extremely energy rich in wind and solar, both of will play an important part for the future, but that does not automatically imply that energy is not a constraint on growth. Professor Tom Murphy at his excellent site Do the Maths explains many of these constraints and limitations (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/).
You state that:
“We don’t yet have an electric semi-trailer that will run coast-to-coast on a single charge. Is that a problem with the technology or with our expectations?”
The problem is with physics (the energy density of batteries) and our expectations. Given that there is little we can do about physics the most important part of the problem is our expectations.
How is it backward looking Cameron? How is it otherwise?
The title of your article raises doubts about the questions that you’re asking. Is anything a complete solution? Was the internal combustion engine a complete solution? After all, the farmer couldn’t grow the fuel. At a time before neighbourhood service stations, that was a serious problem.
You complain about the cost of electric vehicles. That’s very backward-looking. What says that we’ll want to buy vehicles in future? If the vehicle can drive itself, won’t it be much more cost-effective to summon one that’s appropriate for the job, rather than own one (that will probably be inappropriate for many jobs)?
For example: https://theconversation.com/robot-take-the-wheel-waymo-has-launched-a-self-driving-taxi-service-147908
Your questions look to the past. Try asking the questions of the future.
For example: https://www.sciencealert.com/this-gigantic-high-tech-sailboat-uses-the-power-of-the-wind-to-transport-7-000-cars The energy is used, but it’s harvested as the vessel travels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-tech-ghost-ships-will-set-sail-sans-sailors/
Costs decrease if the vessel has little or no crew. Sailing is slower than ships powered by bunker fuel. We might need to adjust our delivery time expectations.
Given enough numbers, you can “prove” practically anything (if only to yourself). We certainly need to change the way that we use energy. Whether we need to reduce the amount of energy that we use, you haven’t proved.
We are surrounded by thousands of times as much energy as we use. We need only figure out how to use it no faster than we can harvest it.
David, your response suggests you may not have understood Cameron’s insightful summary of problems facing electrification of transport. He highlights an extreme shortfall on the resources needed for the transition, drawn from the peer-reviewed literature. If you would like more details on a global scale, i can recommend Simon Michaux’s lecture from last month: https://youtu.be/n_gvvj56rzw
Christopher, I reckon I understood well enough. To some extent, I even agree.
Issues begin with the title. Does it matter that part of a solution is “A Partial Solution”? Does the author show where anyone has implied that electric vehicles are a total solution? What is the point of those words, if not to mislead the reader? The title compromises the integrity of the article from the beginning.
As to research; there’s enough around to cherry-pick that which fits given beliefs. I have neither time nor inclination to pick every nit, so I’ll concentrate on one measure: ERoEI. This article is a case in point:
https://4thgeneration.energy/bang-for-your-buck/
The author advocates nuclear power. To be clear, I think nuclear is a silly way to generate electricity. The point is that the outcome depends on assumptions. Something similar could be said of energy density.
There’s a strong tendency to begin with a desired outcome, then tailor analyses to suit. This article is a case in point:
https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/ross-garnauts-superpower-case-is-not-impressive/
For mine, the economist Garnaut is more credible than the social scientist Trainer.
It begins with the questions. In the past, there were those who confidently predicted that the horse wouldn’t be replaced (but we might have a manure problem). The subject article ignores developments outside its narrow scope. Can we expect tomorrow’s answers if we ask yesterday’s questions?
I agree that we need to use energy differently. That we need to use less energy isn’t established.
We need to make a great many changes. Vested interests will resist. The opportunities are vast.
Thanks Cameron. I agree.
“Conservation rather than technology based ‘solutions’ will be the most important mitigation strategy in adapting to a liquid fuel constrained future.”
Would you add ‘environmental remediation’ (including wide scale soil conservation and repair) and perhaps alternative fuels (hydrogen?) as other key strategies?
Conservation seems to imply good governance and a degrowth political economy… That will be another challenge for Australia.
Hello Dufa, I 100% agree that environmental remediation, including soils, is critical to our future (my PhD topic is on soil science).
I am not sold of hydrogen. Like EVs it will play a part but I think its unlikely that it will be a major one. Last time I looked around 99% of hydrogen production was from fossil fuels. Whilst there is a lot of research and projects into producing hydrogen from renewables it appears that we are expecting an awful lot from renewables (e.g. replace fossil fuels for electricity generation, replace oil as a liquid fuel, replace natural gas for hydrogen production plus increase energy production to support growth plus support the increased energy requirements for mining of the minerals required for renewables and broader society). If we had a century or two to do this we might be okay but realistically we probably have only a decade, possibly several years less, before which we will face a liquid fuel ‘crunch.’
Possibly the biggest hurdle we face though is as you say good governance and the economic growth paradigm.
While the low net energy of renewables has been neglected, fossil fuel net energy is declining rapidly as the high net energy sources are depleted, and increasingly marginal net energy fossil fuel resources exploited. We are facing a net energy cliff, in which renewables will be at least as good, if not better EROEI as fossil fuels. This does not mean they are viable as substitutes for all uses, but that we are facing the consequences regardless of which energy source we use.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-03-12/the-real-energy-return-of-crude-oil-smaller-than-you-would-have-imagined/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711114846.htm
I agree Karey. This is why we face a predicament. Our current/legacy fossil fuel based energy system is unsustainable (from both a climate and sufficiency perspective) and the alternatives are likely to be able to replace only a fraction of this energy. With sensible policy and commitment we could still maintain a civilisation that maintained a decent standard of living but it would not be an economy that would ‘grow’ in the sense that we define growth today nor would it be organised the same way as it is today. Our profligate use of energy is the main problem which is why conservation is so important.