Electric Vehicle Sense And Nonsense

As in so many policy issues, the discussions about electric vehicles are often dominated by cliches and aphorisms, which have far too much sway over decision-makers. This is typical and reflects the way so many repeat claims that they approve of without bothering to investigate their validity. Humans are prone to bias after all, and those who think they aren’t are self-delusional.

This type of behavior led many astray in the peak oil debate, for instance repeating the mantra “oil is finite” without realizing that it is actually renewable, not finite, but also that this wasn’t relevant. Whale oil isn’t finite but we can hardly run our modern society on it. And somehow those who thought petroleum was finite and thus a peak was imminent never asked themselves why its finite nature hadn’t caused production to peak decades earlier.

The sad but unsurprising reality is that Republicans have a knee-jerk opposition to electric vehicles and Democrats a knee-jerk advocacy, with both sides cherry-picking data (or anecdotes) and trotting out cliches, rather than engaging in a serious discussion of the costs and benefits of electric vehicles. Unfortunately, the public and media tend to embrace what is said uncritically, even when it seems clear that a large dose of salt is needed. This post will discuss a number of specific instances as cautionary tales.

First and foremost, breathless headlines should be taken with a grain of salt. Thus,”It’s Done. The Future Is Battery-Powered Electric Cars” from Bloomberg New Energy Finance seems to overstate the case because, it notes, 23 countries have reached the ‘tipping point’ of 5% sales share, at which point, they assert, “after which adoption picks up dramatically.” Given that the electric vehicle industry is in its infancy, the reliability of a couple years’ data in proving a trend is questionable; also, note that there are 195 countries in the world, meaning 172 are not at the tipping point. The relevance of which is overstated by ignoring the size of the markets in the 23 and 172 countries.

Similarly, the New York Times informs us, “In Norway, the Electric Vehicle Future Has Already Arrived.” The authors assure us “Norway’s experience suggests that electric vehicles bring benefits without the dire consequences predicted by some critics.” But the story content describes how “…the line to recharge sometimes backs up down the off-ramp.” This is an interesting data point, but the fact that Norway has used massive incentives to support EV purchases, it is hardly instructive as to how ‘the future’ will spread worldwide. (The complaint about lack of charging infrastructure should not be taken as an insurmountable obstacle or likely to reverse government policies towards EVs, at least in that oil-rich nation.)

Contrast this with stories about poor sales of EVs, such as the headline “Auto Buyers Resist EV Sales Push as Growth Slows, Inventory Rises,” which is misleading in implying poor sales when the story explains sales have grown 51% this year (through September), just not as fast as hoped by the industry (and advocates).

The next problem could be characterized as a ‘field of dreams’ issue, namely the implication that if you build them, people will buy them. For example, a lot of focus is on investment in manufacturing capacity, such as: “Nissan invests $2.5 billion for electric vehicle production at U.K. plant” on UPI.

Similarly, reports of the number of electric vehicle models are used to imply consumer acceptance, such as in the IEA’s Global EV Outlook 2023, “The number of electric car models rises, especially for large cars and SUVs, at the same time as it decreases for conventional cars,” (p. 23) inform us of supply, not demand. More models might increase the possibility that a consumer will find one they prefer over a gasoline powered vehicle, but not necessarily. Somewhere there is a buyer who thinks, ‘I’d go electric, if only they had tail fins,’ but I would guess that’s a minority.

But as the earlier story pointed out, inventories of unsold EVs are growing in the U.S. suggesting that the market might be nearing saturation. There is definitely buyer resistance to the combination of higher prices and mediocre performance, leaving the question of whether EVs will move beyond the niche of wealthy buyers and second or commuter vehicles to totally replace gasoline power cars, as many governments are insisting must take place.

In addition, we have the Meryl Streep problem (‘It’s complicated’) where writers talk about a number but ignore either the context or the components involved in deriving that figure or both. Thus, “…two [EV] models from the market leader are cheaper than many fossil-fueled alternatives.” That’s not the same as saying EVs are cheaper than comparable ICE vehicles. Although prices for some EVs have dropped recently, they still appear to be significantly more expensive than similar ICEs; the 2023 Ford F-150 lists at $34k, while the F-150 Lightning (EV) lists at $50k, although I can’t guarantee their options are identical.

The same problem arises with stories about the relative GHG emissions for EVs versus ICEs. The actual results depend on: a) where the battery was made; b) where the vehicle was made; c) the emissions from the (mostly) power used in making them; d) the emissions used in generating the power to charge the battery; and e) how many miles the comparable vehicles are driven. Since EVs have more emission in their manufacture, if they are driven less, then the per-mile emissions are relatively higher.

But most stories treat this is an either/or issue, that is, one number applies to all vehicles. A report from CarbonBrief actually addresses this issue, acknowledging the different factors involved while criticizing a recent report that claims EVs in Germany are dirtier than diesel vehicles.

But others are less sophisticated. A Guardian op-ed said, “In its latest report, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, with “high confidence”, that EVs have lower greenhouse gas emissions than conventional cars.” Aside using the imprecise term ‘lower’ the author treats this as an either/or question. A Hummer EV will involve lots more greenhouse gas emssions than a Prius hybrid and more important, in cost/benefit analysis of supporting EVs as climate change policy, these numbers are crucial.

There are related issues like range anxiety and vehicle fires that lend themselves to cherry-picking according to everyone’s political bias, where the reality is either uncertain or much more complicated that portrayed in the media and amongst advocates and opponents. But that is something for a later post.

Nissan boosts British electric vehicle production with government support – UPI.com

In Norway, the Electric Vehicle Future Has Already Arrived – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Teslas are now cheaper than the average new… | Canary Media

2023 Ford F-150® Truck | Pricing, Photos, Specs & More | Ford.com

2023 Ford F-150® Lightning® | Electric Truck | All Electric & All F-150

Factcheck: How electric vehicles help to tackle climate change (carbonbrief.org)

Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles | Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars | The Guardian