Renewables and Cars
Perhaps one of the biggest illusions being circulated
these days is the idea that electricity is a clean fuel. It is scientifically
recognized that electricity is not itself a fuel source and needs to be
generated (so the problem with storing it) somehow, and it is often generated
by fossil fuel burning at a power station, so causing output of CO2 nasty stuff.
Such facts are often left out of debates in the media. If you disagree, here is
an example I found after only a quick look on the internet, written by Mike
Pope:
“The
widespread availability of an alternative fuel, electricity, makes it certain
that electric cars will be produced and used in ever increasing numbers,
particularly for commuting in and around major urban areas. Electricity is far
more efficient and very much cheaper to use than petrol or diesel, even at
present prices.”
Yes, the writer does later acknowledge that
electricity needs to be generated, but the damage is already done, and the
triumph of electricity is considered a fait accompli.
Now, don't get me wrong, electricity is wonderful stuff and Faraday is one of my great heroes, but the problem is not the electricity itself.
While we are about it, we may as well also point
out that the increased production of batteries needed for new electric kinds of transportation means an increase in the pollution already created by the
battery industry, and producing electric cars is already more
polluting than making the traditional internal combustion engine car.
So, what can we do?
One form of fuel that has recently been
overshadowed by the great attention given to electric is biodiesel and
especially straight vegetable oils. A few years ago, biofuels were thought to
be the solution, and subsidies could be gotten for making them, then this
changed, apparently due to a better ‘green’ awareness of what was involved in
their production. I’m not totally convinced that it was not actually a clever
fight back by the fossil fuel industry.
Biodiesel is altered vegetable oil or vegetable
oil that has been added to. The changes or additions are thought sometimes
necessary to make the oil thinner and more useable in the typical diesel engine,
although this depends on the type of diesel engine. Sometimes you will
therefore see biodiesel offered for sale in percentages of veg oil plus fossil
diesel mixtures, up to 100% vegetable.
Note that because the term ‘biodiesel’ covers
mixtures of fossil diesel with one or more of the many different kinds of
vegetable oil that exist, which all have different properties, the use of the
term even in the scientific literature is often ambiguous because we have no
idea exactly what is being tested (palm, soya, rapeseed, peanut, sunflower,
etc).
Another of the notable anomalies that I have found
in the scientific literature is that two opposed things are often stated as
fact about using biodiesel and veg oil, one is that it is more corrosive to
engine components, the other is that it has better lubricating properties so
leads to increased engine life. I think it is only some already poorly designed
components of the fuel system that can corrode in this case, and probably would
corrode also if using petrol or normal diesel.
The process of making biodiesel is not too
complicated. There is also waste vegetable oil which can be used, this needs to
be filtered, and can then go through the same processes to make biodiesel fuel
if necessary. Some diesel vehicles can already run on pure vegetable oil or
filtered waste vegetable oil without modification, but the information about
which cars can, especially modern diesels, is not easy to come by unless they
are special products designed specifically for this kind of fuel (old Mercedes
seem a safe bet). But most diesel motors already have a capacity or need little
changes to their engine’s fuel system to run on biodiesel, veg oil, or even
filtered waste veg oil.
Now, if this fuel were to be used in our existing
diesels, the dramatic changes needed in industry (new tooling, factories,
techniques, and so on), necessary to make electric vehicles, all of which will
entail more CO2 output, would obviously not be needed.
But this is not happening, it seems clear that industry
and the press are most favourable to electric vehicles as the main alternative.
Why?
Of course, the argument is that electricity is
clean. This is because the electricity can be generated by renewable non-fossil
fuel sources, such as hydro-electric, wind farms, solar arrays and so on. If we
ignore the problem of increased battery production and its pollution for the
moment, this is certainly true in theory, if renewable forms of energy
production were destined to be the sole source of future transportation fuel.
But is it?
Quite apart from the good or bad intentions of the
people in the industry, it is a matter of whether the oil industry can perform
this feat of dramatic turnaround, which seems highly unlikely due to its sheer
inertia and the vast number of people who rely on it for their incomes. So, I
suspect what is happening is that the most obvious source of fossil fuel use
and pollution is merely being removed from sight by the introduction of
electric vehicles.
These vehicles will nevertheless mainly continue
to run on fossil fuel produced in power stations, located outside of cities. And,
furthermore, these power stations are likely to be more situated in areas and
countries where people, for whatever reason, cannot complain so easily about
pollution in their local environment, so poorer areas.
In this shift to electric, there are arguments presented
against the other ‘green’ alternative, biodiesel.
Mike Pope, in the same article quoted above, neatly
encapsulates them for us:
“they are a half-way fuel of limited use by existing engines;
alternative, more efficient and cheaper fuel is available for
vehicle propulsion;
most internal combustion engines are likely to be largely
replaced within ten years;
biofuels produced in large quantities create market
distortions and food scarcity; and
their production may damage the environment and habitat for
flora and fauna.”
The first three arguments are vague and take as
fact what needs to be explained. The last two are the real arguments against
biofuel, ones that have been repeated most often.
Now, the idea that the production of what might
have been a food crop for fuel will mean less food for people relies upon an
already discredited idea that food supply is limited, and that there is
overpopulation, or too many people on the planet. It is a variant of the
Malthusian argument.
In fact, we overproduce food and there is more
than enough to feed everyone on the planet, the real problem with people going
hungry is an economic one to do with capitalism, not a natural one, and it
cannot be solved by making food endlessly more abundant and cheaper, it can
only be solved socially, by political initiatives. Ultimately, it has nothing
to do with crops grown for fuel.
The final argument, because it is an extension of
this one, can also be dealt with similarly. Yes, it may damage the habitat if
we have more mass food production and what they call ‘monocultures’, but this
is already a problem of our existing farming practices which need to be solved,
whatever. Farming itself needs to become more sustainable.
The invention of the diesel engine was from its
inception something of a threat to the oil companies, precisely because the
engine did not rely upon fossil sources since its fuel could be grown. Diesel
originally demonstrated his engine running on peanut oil.
There are, however, other forms of fuel that are
similarly carbon neutral, such as wood gas. Vehicles with wood powered
pyrolytic converters were a standby in the US during times of war in case the
oil supply dried up. It is also a carbon neutral fuel. You can see many people
on YouTube using this technology successfully. Such technology, a bit heavy and
clunky, could be modernized with high tech.
There is also the possibility of using algae, etc.
None of these are being mooted as possible alternatives
to fossil fuel.
If you look at the history, the way new
commodities along these lines are often sold is by suggesting they are somehow morally
superior: cleaner, more efficient, cheaper and better for you and the
environment. The old outmoded technology is often considered dirty,
inefficient, expensive, and uncaring of the world we live in.
Is this true?
You might think, on this basis, that
the horse is pure evil, and the electric car is second only to Mother Theresa. But
there is some truth in this. In old London there were once traffic jams of
horse drawn carriages and there was a big problem with horse droppings. Horse
shit, though, can make a good manure for growing plants, if there was the
infrastructure in place to collect it, but apparently at the time there was
not.
At the other extreme, there is nuclear power.
Nuclear fission can generate electricity of course, for all those electric cars
with batteries, and such power stations can also be put in places out of sight. But what of their particular ‘droppings’? The nuclear accidents that we have
seen so far do not inspire confidence in this industry, and the waste it
produces, unlike dung, is not great for growing stuff and lasts for many years
as a source of deadly pollution. Unlike horseshit though, nuclear radiation,
like the emissions of electric cars, is invisible and does not smell.
With the common use of electric vehicles, the demand
will be greater for electricity, and I suspect it is also likely to mean a need
for more fossil fuel use to generate the extra capacity. Similarly, the more
the climate suffers, the more demand there will be for electricity to power,
for instance, air conditioning, and the more people are afraid of the
consequences of climate heating, the more they will want to buy more robust
vehicles such as the now very popular SUVs, that they perceive will be better able
to deal with calamitous changes in the weather. And, of course, these heavier
vehicles are more polluting.
If by some miracle it does happen that fossil fuel
use ends, and renewable sources become the only ones for energy, the only
problem left for electric transportation is the battery problem.
But this is a big problem.
Currently this tends to be put off to the future.
There is little infrastructure in place to recycle so many (as would be
necessary) large old batteries. There is some talk of re-purposing them as
household batteries after their vehicle life is over, which is possible, but
are houses able to receive such banks of batteries, and safely? Most housing is
old; many people live in flats. Will people even want to do this? And will they
need to have them? Will we need banks of batteries in the cellar instead of
coal? Where will they go in an apartment block? It would help if we could use
them in conjunction with solar panels on the roof. But if it is possible and
considered quite a good thing to be able to re-use batteries in this way, why
is it not considered possible and good to re-use old vegetable oil from the
food industry for diesel vehicles? If the latter is difficult, wouldn’t the
same kind of problems arise for batteries? And won’t the battery producers want
to make special household batteries to sell, so not want old car batteries in
the home? And then there is the house insurers, how will they react to these
potentially dangerous things in a domestic setting?
The making and recycling or dispensing with
batteries is the main concern. It is already a polluting industry. The mines
that extract the stuff needed to make the newer batteries, such as graphite, pollute
and spoil the environment, and besides:
“Batteries powering electric vehicles are forecast
to make up 90% of the lithium-ion battery market by 2025. They are the main
reason why electric vehicles can generate
more
carbon emissions over their lifecycle – from procurement of raw materials to
manufacturing, use and recycling – than petrol or diesel cars.”
A lot of its unsustainability is due to the
extraction of the raw materials needed, plus the energy used in their manufacturing.
But it is a dirty industry:
“As part of a soil cleanup planned for thousands
of properties surrounding the closed Exide Technologies battery recycling plant
in Vernon, state regulators detected lead outside Perez’s home at hazardous
levels — above 1,000 parts per million. Nearly two years later, it hasn’t been
cleaned.”
“Consider dust, fumes, wastewater and other
environmental impacts from cobalt
mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
water
shortages and
toxic
spills from lithium mining in Latin America, which can alter ecosystems and
hurt local communities; a heavily polluted river due to
nickel
mining in Russia; or
air
pollution in northeastern China”
The problems described in the first quote, note, we
already have with the recycling of traditional batteries, what happens
when we have exponentially more of them, and more powerful ones, to deal with
in the future?
By the way, Union Carbide India Limited’s most
profitable division in India made batteries, and it was an offshoot of it that
made pesticides that led to the worst industrial accident in history. It may
just be circumstantial that it involved batteries, but it is an indication of
the problems with the chemicals industry that perhaps we should not expect to
suddenly get better in terms of safety and pollution as we hugely increase
production.
But in any case, currently recycling, say,
lithium, costs five times more than it costs to extract new material from the
ground.
Consider also that electric vehicles are, because
of the battery banks, usually heavier than the equivalent petrol or diesel cars,
and so need heavier, or more, materials, to make them, and to make them safe,
and a heavier vehicle needs a bigger battery. Heavier vehicles also take a
greater toll on the road network which leads to more energy needed for road repairs.
There is also the problem of the energy needed to produce the new
infrastructure to support the new networks of charging points needed.
I suspect that this will not matter for a while,
because only the wealthy will be able to afford to buy the new electric
vehicles unless they are as powerful as golf carts, but in the long run it
could be disastrous, because not only will we have nuclear waste, but also
toxic waste from mining, pollution from battery production and recycling, and
also climate heating.
One of the hardest things to find out about in the
scientific literature, I have found, is a good relevant study of the difference
in exhaust emissions in commonly used diesel vehicles between standard fossil
sourced diesel and good quality vegetable oil or 100% veg biodiesel. What can easily
be found is papers such as ‘Biodiesel: how much pollution does it really
produce?’, written for the EU, which only confuses the issue by admitting that
the ‘surprising’ test that it refers to only used 20% vegetable oil, so it was
mixed with and made up of mainly fossil diesel in any case, and was also not
good quality fuel. We are inclined to ask why such poor-quality testing is
being carried out or referred to in the first place. The suspicion is that
something is being avoided or ignored.
One of the generally accepted advantages of using
vegetable oil as fuel for vehicles is the much lower CO2 emissions, which in
terms of climate warming is a good thing (the latter article does not even
mention this), but there are other air pollutants that fossil diesel produces,
which have been heavily highlighted recently, that we would like to know if
vegetable oils also produce.
Some literature suggests that using vegetable oil
produces higher polluting emissions of NOx (Nitrous Oxide) while other
carcinogenous substances as well as fine particles, just like fossil oil, are
less. However, this also depends on the type of diesel engine. The essay ‘Biofuels
explained: Biodiesel and the environment’ put out by the US Energy Information
Administration, says:
“Biodiesel is nontoxic and biodegradable. Compared
to petroleum diesel fuel, which is refined from crude oil, biodiesel combustion
produces fewer air pollutants such as particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, hydrocarbons, and air toxics. Nitrogen oxide emissions from burning a
gallon of biodiesel may be slightly higher than emissions from burning a gallon
of petroleum diesel.”
Even with the latter proviso about NOx, which,
note, is also ambiguous and I am not sure of its veracity, given that my
findings seem to point to studies of higher NOx emissions only for
heavy
load diesel engines and not standard road going vehicles, which are the
main concern, biodiesel seems better. And a
more
scientific university study found:
“Although nearly half the literature shows an
increase in NOx as biodiesel increases, our results did not.”
Notwithstanding, the USEA article says that the
clearing ‘and burning’ of land to grow biofuel crops such as soybeans and palm
oil trees might have a negative effect that may be greater than the benefits.
Again, we see the ambiguous ‘may’ used.
What are the facts?
In terms of CO2, because you are replacing one
growing plant with another this will not negate the benefits in this respect.
The CO2 used up in growing the plant balances out that produced when they are
burned in diesel engines (there are other factors to consider, but this is
still significant). The notion that you need to burn existing land with
plants on it is an emotive way to frame the issue, the land used presumably
need not be already used for food crops or be naturally valuable for any other
crop. Indeed, there are crops suitable for producing biodiesel that can grow on
poor hinterland and waste ground used for nothing else and which are ugly.
Maybe we will have to accept that electric as used
in trains and trams is better than millions of batteries driving around in
individual cars. Perhaps Scalextric already gave us the answer years ago. Seriously,
if there were some way main roads could be solarized and electrified cheaply so
cars did not need batteries, or such big ones, this would be a good solution
for supplying the electricity to vehicles, but I cannot see this happening in
capitalism.
Gary Tedman
