Dear friends

«The European decision to cease production of cars with internal combustion engines from 2035 affects a considerable number of key areas: the environment, climate, energy, transport, industry, sovereignty, domestic policy, international competition, European governance, psychology, social justice… Thus, addressing the future of the private car means tangibly affecting the very fabric of each of our lifestyles. We can therefore expect a wide range of reactions from European citizens.

Under these circumstances, how should we analyse and comment on the consequences of this important decision on behalf of the AEPL? As it is practically impossible to present the most diametrically opposed viewpoints in a single newsletter, the editorial committee has decided to… exceptionally Two articles on the same subject, each setting out arguments based on the author’s personal perspective. One of the privileges of free thought is, indeed, the ability to express an opinion freely, which should be met with understanding and tolerance. Each version reflects the views of its author alone.

The Editorial Committee 

Social progress?

Can an electric car be considered socially responsible, given that it is, on average, at least €10,000 more expensive than a petrol or diesel car, and that its price is unlikely to fall any further due to the foreseeable reduction in the availability of certain materials as this technology develops? (*)

And what about travel in low-density areas with very poor public transport links, where the car is still necessary?

What's more, even in densely populated areas, the availability of charging points is an impossible problem to solve in buildings without private parking spaces (e.g. the vast majority of streets in Brussels) or in flat blocks.

Commodities - a geopolitical risk

Electric cars raise many questions regarding the supply of the minerals needed to produce batteries and motors: the quantities required will be enormous before we can rely, even partially, on the recycling of end-of-life components.

Each car requires between 320 and 600 kg of battery, depending on the model, to which must be added the weight of the electric engine(s).

By comparison, the engine of a petrol or diesel car weighs only around 125 kg.[1]

On average, therefore, more than 460 kg of minerals are required per car for the more than one billion cars worldwide, amounting to 460 million tonnes, a quarter of which is in Europe alone. This compares with current production of these minerals, which amounts to only a few hundred thousand tonnes. This is particularly true of lithium and cobalt, but also of copper and rare-earth elements.

In its report dated 30 January 2022, the IEA (International Energy Agency) even refers to a risk of a shortage of lithium and cobalt by ‘2040’.

For several years now, China, which has almost 50% of the world's mineral resources on its own soil, has had a stranglehold on mines everywhere else in the world, and currently controls more than 88% of the world's production.

From a geopolitical perspective, the insecurity arising from dependence on this single country will be far more worrying than that relating to oil, gas and fissile materials, for which it is possible to diversify supplies. (*)

Is the electric car a green technology?

But we must also be mindful of what is happening «on the other side of the plug»

Wind turbines, which we are led to believe will generate the necessary electricity, are completely incapable of doing so. The density of offshore wind turbines is ideally limited to 5 or 6 MW per km². When this density is increased, power output decreases because the turbulence generated spreads to neighbouring turbines. Off the Belgian coast, the accepted density is twice that: 12 MW/km². Despite this, the physical limit remains: there is not enough space available to compensate for the nuclear power stations that are due to be closed, i.e. to meet current needs. Therefore, the idea that wind turbines could cope with new and very large-scale applications, such as electric cars, is quite simply impossible.

Above all, it is important to be aware that offshore wind turbines only generate electricity between 29% and 48% of the time – an average of 38% – due to wind variability, as shown by data recorded by FEBEG (for Belgium) .

(For solar panels, the situation is even worse: they only generate electricity 9% of the time (compared with a national average of 12% in France!) and their output is even more variable than that of wind turbines, depending on cloud cover, the seasons and the cycle of day and night). (see FEBEG)[2]

Unfortunately, the plan to build a 300 GW wind farm in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea will do nothing to change the fact that wind turbines generate electricity for less than 40% of the time. To believe that the scale of the project will make it possible to compensate for windless areas by interconnecting the turbines is to ignore the fact that high-pressure systems and other meteorological phenomena very frequently cover the entire project area.

Even with this mega-project, without nuclear power, the new demand can unfortunately only be met during the remaining 60% by gas-fired power stations (or even coal-fired ones, as in Germany!). It’s madness!

We must therefore compare the primary energy consumption of an electric car powered by electricity generated from gas with that of an internal combustion engine fuelled directly by gas.

The result is clear: the gas engine has an efficiency of 35% relative to primary energy, and even more than 45% for existing engine prototypes[3], whereas the electric motor has an efficiency of only 24% due to the numerous transformations that this primary energy undergoes before driving the wheels: one must take into account electricity generation (55 to 60 % maximum in the best combined cycle gas-steam turbines (CCGT)), its multiple voltage conversions (a loss of 2% at each conversion), its transmission and distribution (up to 10%), its storage in batteries and its discharge under real-world conditions (a maximum of 60%, not taking into account the need to heat the batteries in winter and cool them in summer).

An electric car therefore produces 35%/24% = 1.48 times more CO₂ than a car fitted with a combustion engine and . 45%/24% = 1.9 times more, assuming the performance of the prototypes becomes standard. In the absence of nuclear power, We’re a long way from green technology.

An unrealistic schedule

Powering charging points will require at least a doubling of the existing electricity transmission and distribution networks, as well as the development of new generation capacity.

At present, wind turbines generate only 19% of the electricity consumed in Belgium. With the exception of a few countries such as Germany and some Nordic countries, the order of magnitude is similar in most other European countries.[4].

It is hard to believe that investments in power stations and transmission/distribution networks will be up and running as early as 2035, or even by 2050. One need only look, for example, at the fierce opposition to the construction of a single high-voltage power line that is due to cross the Hainaut region in southern Belgium to realise just how far local residents will go to ensure that new power stations and distribution lines are sited elsewhere rather than on their own doorstep (the «NIMBY» principle – ‘Not in my Backyard’ – is very much alive in this context!). It should be noted that this reluctance – or rather, this opposition – is also evident when it comes to the siting of onshore wind farms. Unless, of course, this is imposed by the authorities, even if it means disregarding the democratic principles we hold dear… such as banning all combustion-engine vehicles in Brussels without consultation, or making it practically impossible to challenge the nuisance caused by various installations without resorting to costly legal proceedings that are beyond the means of the citizens concerned.

E-fuels

As far as we currently understand, the production of e-fuels would involve the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen, which would then be combined with CO₂ from the atmosphere to ultimately produce methanol, a fuel that can be used in «petrol» engines with only a minor adjustment to the fuel supply system. These multiple conversions are carried out with a very low overall energy balance (maximum 10%)

However, we have just seen that this electricity cannot be generated from renewable sources in our regions. Even if huge wind farms were built in South America, for example, to power methanol plants, the quantities produced would remain negligible compared with demand and would have a very high production cost (3 to 4 times the current price of petroleum derivatives).

On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to think that new technologies could be developed here using electricity generated by 4-megawatt nuclear power stations^rd generation[5]  and that economies of scale will also help to reduce the production costs of a fuel that will emit nothing but the water vapour from which it is derived, and will return the CO₂ which had been captured locally for synthesis.

A first step towards realism!

When it comes to CO₂ «The legislator’s understanding takes precedence over that of the engineer», in defiance of the laws of physics.

The European decision to allow the construction of internal combustion engines to continue is a return to greater social, technological and physical realism.

It is to be hoped that Europe will encourage the construction of a 4-megawatt nuclear power station^rd a generation of power stations whose operational safety bears no resemblance to that of our old power stations. They will generate electricity at low cost, pave the way for numerous applications and utilise a fuel that is 100 times more abundant than the Uranium-235 used today.

The availability of this resource is estimated at several millennia (5,000 or 20,000 years depending on the hypothesis). In addition, these power plants will also make it possible to "burn" the waste from previous generations of power plants, reducing its volume by a factor of 50 and its lifespan by a factor of 1,000.

Under these circumstances, and only under these circumstances, will we be able to envisage the decarbonisation of transport, hydrogen production and – why not? – an «all-electric» future, but this will still take several decades.

Unfortunately, the huge sums (800 billion euros) being poured into the North Sea wind farm project – which will only solve the problem for 40% of the time – are diverting available funds away from the development of these new power stations.

Under these circumstances, will we continue to generate 60% of electricity from fossil fuels for much longer?.

 

(*) Some people are banking on the fact that electric cars manufactured in China will be sold at a lower price. Relying on such an assumption would further increase our dependence on that country and would amount to sacrificing our European car industry.

[1] Sources :

EDF: https://izi-by-edf.fr/blog/voiture-electrique-poids-batterie/

Le Vif: https://www.levif.be/societe/mobilite/auto/pourquoi-une-voiture-electrique-pese-t-elle-si-lourd/)

Les Echos: https://www.lesechos.fr/2016/10/la-chasse-aux-kilos-une-equation-peu-evidente-234473

[2]  https://fr.statista.com/statistiques/562844/facteur-de-charge-solaire-moyen-par-region-france/ page 16

https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/sites/default/files/pdf-actualites/windeurope-annual-offshore-statistics-2017.pdf

[3] https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-75496.html

[4] (see the Global Wind Report and the numerous references in the Wikipedia article on the subject)

[5] L'atome vert by Jean-Christophe de Mestral (isbn : 978-2828912444 )