New Issue Brief Challenges the EV Vision: Biofuels and a Technology Neutral Strategy the Better Approach

June 12, 2023

Print This Article Share it With Friends

(Clean Fuels Development Coalition) The widespread introduction of electric vehicles as a means of reducing carbon emissions presents a far greater challenge than the public is being led to believe, according to new research by the Clean Fuels Development Coalition (CFDC).

This conclusion is presented in Reality EV: No Silver Bullet, a new Issue Brief released here this week. Reality EV’s research explains the consumer/taxpayer, infrastructure, and environmental constraints single fuel source electric vehicles (EVs) must overcome to live up to their often-claimed perfect solution. In addition, it is estimated that a $2-3 trillion dollar government/taxpayer investment is needed for EVs to replace 50% of the consumer fleet.

CFDC Executive Director Doug Durante said this research is not intended to dismiss the potential contribution of EVs but rather to put them in perspective. “EVs will clearly be a key part of our transportation mix but the reality of cost, consumer choice, re-charging, and many other factors indicates we need to make sure biofuels remain part of the mix,” said Durante.

“Mandating EVs and banning the internal combustion engine is simply bad policy, force feeding something that is not ready at the expense of the public.”

Regardless of if and when EVs meet all the challenges any new fuel would face, the brief details how the U.S. will continue to use trillions of gallons of gasoline. There are 280 million light duty vehicles registered in the U.S., with 12-15 million or more new cars sold every year. These cars have an average 15 year life span, meaning gasoline will remain the predominant fuel of the next several decades.

“Increasing the octane of gasoline with clean burning ethanol allows for automakers to produce much more efficient vehicles that can provide health and climate benefits now, not decades from now, ” said Durante.

Copies of the Issue Brief can be downloaded here for hardcopies please contact cfdcinc@aol.com. To view the print edition on line, click here. READ MORE

Reality EV: No Silver Bullet (Clean Fuels Development Coalition)
Needed: Car experts to fend off grid disaster (E&E News Enegywire)
Insights into Future Mobility (MIT Energy Initiative)
New Book Exposes EPA, Oil Industry’s Role in Ensuring the Dominance of High-Emission Fuels: Gasolinegate Debuts (Biofuels Digest)
Elon Musk: 'We need more electricity' for EV growth -- During a discussion at the Edison Electric Institute conference, the Tesla Inc. CEO said electric vehicles may not be dominant for another 20 years. (Politico Pro Climatewire)
Power companies quietly pushed $215m into US politics via dark money groups (The Guardian)
J.D. Power warns EV charging isn't keeping pace with demand (Politico Pro)
Two-thirds of North America is at risk of energy shortfalls in high summer heat, NERC says (U.S. Energy Information Administration)
LOSING POWER Warning for EV drivers as electric cars cause twice as much damage as petrol vehicles (U.S. Sun)
EVs Are Sending Toxic Tire Particles Into the Water, Soil, and Air (The Atlantic)
What If Americans Say 'No' To An EV Revolution? Allowing the "free market" to decide if EVs take-off seems a little risky (Jalopnik)
Latest NC Clean Energy report finds utilities concerned about load growth (Solar Power World)

Excerpt from Reality EV: No Silver Bullet: This Issue Brief updates our first edition three years ago—mandating what the public drives and outlawing competition was a bad idea then, and a worse idea now. A technology neutral strategy rather than government command and control is the right pathway for the United States.
...

Is it sound public policy to forgo all other options and ignore the hundreds of billions of gallons of gasoline that will be needed for decades? No.

How Did We Get Here?
...

The stated objective of EV mandates and banning internal combustion engines (ICEs) is to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) and carbon emissions while lessening petroleum consumption.
...
For you golfers out there, would you bring just one club when you take on the course? Would a carpenter bring anything less than their whole tool box to a job?
...

The reality is regardless of the high, medium, or low EV growth scenario achieved, hundreds of billions of gallons of high carbon toxic gasoline will be burned for decades. Think about that—if a ban on internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles goes into effect in 2035 as proposed in California, an ICE sold on New Year’s Eve 2034 will need to use gasoline for twelve to fifteen years (Schwartz, Hart. 2018).
...

We can decarbonize that gasoline without any of the trappings of EVs through renewable ethanol blends, using Brazil as our North Star. They are using a minimum of 27% ethanol and experimenting with 40% in a hybrid that would get
the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon.
...

The Reality of Environment: The falsehood of a zero-emission vehicle.
...

EVs run on batteries that require a range of minerals. These minerals have to be mined and processed and the material sourcing is in itself an energy intensive undertaking. Battery manufacturing is also energy intensive. Once manufactured, batteries need to be charged via electricity. With natural gas and coal still the primary source of electricity in the U.S., this has to be calculated into the total lifecycle of EVs.
...

Disposal at the end of a battery’s life is another environmental concern.
...

Finally, the increase in vehicle weight is significant— ... This increase dramatically impacts the wear on roadways, causing increases in fine particulate matter. Additional particulates are released into the atmosphere through rapid tire degradation.

Both these sources of particulates can be toxic and present a significant threat to public health. All vehicles and power sources need to be compared on a total lifecycle basis which could still be favorable to EVs but not in every situation
and not to the extent they be the only source of propulsion.
...

Is the US Power Grid Up to the Task?
...

Motorists evacuating Florida as a hurricane approaches, or Californians fleeing a wildfire would literally be risking their lives if electric power went out or was simply unavailable.
...

The additional power that needs to be generated, along with the distribution of that power will require massive investments in not just charging stations but also in transmission lines, transformers, substations and countless other capital-intensive upgrades.
...

Even in California, officials have expressed concerns as to how they can possibly fund the necessary facilities. There are 750,000 gasoline pumps in the United States. Just one level 3 fast charge public EV refueling pump can cost $50,000 (OhmHome 2022). Extrapolating these estimates, installing one pump per gasoline station would cost $37 billion and $150 billion if half of them were converted to recharge EVs.
...

The idea of city dwellers needing to share re-charging in the limited parking that comes with a New York City or LA high rise is simply impractical.

Then there is range anxiety—the bigger fear of being stranded and unable to get where one is going.
...

Car & Driver magazine reported tests showing a loss of roughly 25% of the posted range in cold weather operation with the vehicle heater running.
...

Similar range penalties are evident with air conditioning in summer weather.
...

Surveys have shown as little as 25% of the public and as much as 36% (CBS News) indicate they would consider purchasing an EV.

What that means is 60-75% have said they are not considering it. There is no way this can be translated into a 100% mandate.
...

The affordability issue is an offset of the consumer choice and acceptance issue
...

Natural gas and methanol were once seen as “the answer.” Neither survived the consumer practicality or political endurance tests. Ethanol and biodiesel continue to work through consumer acceptance and regulatory issues but have the advantage over EVs of not requiring massive changes in current vehicle and refueling infrastructure.
...

The entire tax incentive approach is confusing and convoluted, causing concern for both automakers and consumers.
...

The total cost of EV ownership also needs to be considered. The US Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory concluded the cost of ownership for an EV under current technology was as much as three times higher for an EV compared to a ICE vehicle, and even under a future scenario assuming increases in efficiency it was 20 cents per
mile more with a EV. A study by independent and highly respected consultants A.D. Little estimated the cost of ownership to be 60% higher with a mid-size EV.
...

If EV owners are not paying fuel excise taxes, it is then a hidden subsidy to them that will have to be paid for by the rest of the drivers.
...

The Georgia state legislature repealed the (tax) incentive after the cost to the state increased from $1 million in 2012 to $14 million in 2013.
...

Incentivizing oil companies to clean up their gasoline, or car makers to add a $50 flex fuel component seems to be a more practical approach.
...

And trading a dependence on foreign oil for dependence on Chinese minerals is a lose-lose.
...

General Motors is promising to go all electric yet investing billions in conventional engines. The Washington Post reported recently that Ford expects a $3 billion loss on EV development in 2023.
...

As dealerships go out of business the hundreds of millions of cars that will remain on the roads until the end of their operational life will be facing challenges to get required maintenance done.
...

So What Do We Do?

For starters, we get policy-makers to let EVs grow organically. Not by force. Let the natural demand— even with incentives and government backing— build the support system needed for any industry to develop.
...

When automobiles replaced the horse and buggy, the government didn’t mandate it, the automobile replaced it because it was a better mode of transportation.
...

Set a standard and let technology decide.

High octane, low carbon fuels made with ethanolgasoline blends can achieve significant increases in efficiency—as high as 7–10% according to Ford and other automakers. As supporting infrastructure for EVs develops, HOLC fuels can be providing immediate benefits.
...

In higher blends ethanol increases octane, allowing automakers to adjust compression in conventional vehicles to achieve reductions equal to or greater than many EVs. This source of clean octane, required under the Clean Air Act, replaces toxic compounds refiners use for octane and further reduces carbon.

Toyota Brazil has been advocating hybrids that combine the best of liquid fuels and electricity. Stellantis, the third largest car company in the world, has absorbed Chrysler among other brands and is developing an ethanol hybrid.

Flexfuel technology is standard in Brazil where blends of 27% are the baseline. India, Indonesia, and other countries are using 20% blends. Transitioning to a 30+% blend in the US can begin immediately in existing and optimized higher-compression vehicles and FFVs, saving both automakers and consumers billions of dollars compared to electric vehicles.

It will save billions more annually in reduced oil imports, consumer gasoline costs, and public health expenditures.

Innovative solutions such as the Next Generation Fuels Act introduced in both the Senate and the House would create a pathway for High Octane Low Carbon Fuels to provide a range of immediate climate, health, and cost benefits without the time to market and challenges EVs will need to overcome. Combined with enforcement of existing Clean Air Act requirements, we can produce a better fuel as additional technologies develop. READ MORE

Excerpt from E&E News Energywire: Left unaddressed, Quint (Ryan Quint, an authority on the U.S. electric grid) and other grid experts wrote in an April report, the disconnect between grid and car could “have catastrophic consequences for grid reliability,” including “cascading blackouts and widespread power interruptions.”
...

The problems identified by NERC likely won’t manifest for years, until electric cars are fixtures in millions of garages. Nonetheless, Quint said, the time to deal with the challenges is now, given how resistant automakers and electric utilities are to rapid change. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico Pro Climatewire: Tesla Inc. CEO Elon Musk implored energy companies and utility leaders Tuesday to increase the power supply and build transmission as fast as possible to avoid hindering the electric vehicle industry and ensure grid reliability.

“I can’t emphasize this enough: We need more electricity,” Musk said at the Edison Electric Institute’s conference here. “Definitely as much as possible.”

During a question-and-answer session with Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro, Musk spoke about changes the grid needs to undergo to support not only the rise of electric vehicles but the electrification of the economy as a whole. ...

Musk estimated it will take about 20 years before the number of electric vehicles on the road is equal to or higher than the number of gasoline-powered cars, ..." READ MORE

Excerpt from The Atlantic: EVs also produce emissions beyond what spews from their tailpipe. Like all cars, their tires are constantly rubbing against pavement, releasing particulates that float through the air and leach into waterways, damaging human health and wildlife. New EV models tend to be heavier and quicker—generating more particulates and deepening the danger. In other words, EVs have a tire-pollution problem, and one that is poised to get worse as America begins to adopt electric cars en masse. None of this is inevitable. EVs don’t need to be so massive and lightning-fast—these are choices that the auto industry has made. All of us will pay the price.

This pollution is the inevitable result of the tire wear that every car owner experiences over time. Composed of hundreds of ingredients that can include natural and artificial rubber, petroleum, nylon, and steel, tires constantly spit out tiny bits of material, much of it invisible to the naked eye. The rate at which your tires break down will depend on many factors, but the cumulative quantity of tire pollution, ranging from visible pieces of rubber to nanoparticles, is staggering: as much as 6 million metric tons annually worldwide, according to a report from Imperial College London. “We are generating an enormous amount of rubber wear that ends up in the atmosphere as very small particles or on the road surfaces as large particles that get washed away,” Marc Masen, a mechanical engineer at Imperial College and a co-author of that report, told me. Rougher surfaces tend to produce larger tire chunks that settle on the ground, while smoother roadways, such as freshly paved highways, generate minuscule ones that can float in the air for hundreds of feet.

Much about tire pollution is still unknown. Compared with tailpipe emissions, tire particles are more difficult to measure in a laboratory and to isolate in the real world, where various kinds of car pollution mix together, Masen said. Only in recent years has the toll started to come into view. As a form of microplastics, tire pollution hits wildlife hard: Compounds that settle on the ground gradually leach toxic chemicals into the soil and water. One study concluded that tires could be responsible for as much as 28 percent of the microplastics in global oceans; another found them to be among the largest sources of such pollutants in the San Francisco Bay. Microplastics can be consumed by tiny aquatic organisms, wreaking havoc as they travel up food chains. A University of Washington study in 2020 traced a collapse in Northwestern-coho-salmon populations to 6PPD, a chemical added to tires to slow their wearing down.

The smallest tire particles, measured in mere nanometers, can enter our lungs and spread to our organs. Various tire components have been linked to chronic conditions including respiratory problems, kidney damage, neurological damage, and birth defects—a particular concern in neighborhoods adjacent to highways, whose residents skew low-income and minority. Tire particles could also affect us through our food because their chemicals can work their way into the algae and grass consumed by fish and cows. In the U.S., tire emissions aren’t regulated at all; though more stringent rules have made cars cleaner, research reported in The Guardian last year found that in newer cars, pollution from tires is much greater than tailpipe emissions.

Electrification is poised to make these problems significantly worse. READ MORE

Tags

Transportation Fuels Policy--State Transportation Fuels Policy tires tax policy Sustainability Regulations-Federal rare earth metal/critical minerals public health policy Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Plug-in Flex Fuel Hybrid particulates octane price/value National Laboratory markets/sales market forces mandates Legislation-Federal Investing internal combustion engine (ICE)/gasoline engine ban India Illinois hybrids human rights health effects health benefits government investment GHG (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Georgia flex-fuel vehicles (FFV) ethanol/bioethanol ethanol hybrid ethanol benefits environmental policy electricity/power transmission electric grid electric car/Electric Vehicle (EV) Prices Electric Car/Electric Vehicle (EV) E30 E27 E20 Department of Energy (DOE) defossilization Carbon Intensity (CI)/Carbon Footprint California Brazil Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) batteries

Comments are closed.