Friction: FlexFuel v BEV
Following up the initial Reverse post, a highly informative source, Dave Borlace’s Just Have a Think, where one may find 399 videos exploring climate solutions raises, with characteristic pith: Are EVs really better for the climate?
A case is made that BEVs are the only transition from internal combustion (IC) powered cars that will attain climate goals.
“Better?” taps a host of references, focusing on ICCT ‘s A Global Comparison of the Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Combustion Engine and Electric Passenger Cars. In short, “Comparison” contends that only battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles have the potential to achieve the magnitude of life cycle GHG emissions reductions needed to meet Paris Agreement goals.
There’s lots to like about this ICCT study. It’s great to see Technology Assessment applied to the $Trillion choices being made without. And it’s thorough, comparing vehicle manufacture, maintenance, fuel use, fuel/electric production, and battery manufacturing.
In contrast to the Flex Your Fuel post, the ICCT study does not compare a PHEV running on E85 to a BEV, though it states, “PHEVs show 25%–31% lower life-cycle GHG emissions than gasoline cars,” and later, driving to optimize PHEV performance shows a 45% reduction in carbon emissions, some gain in this direction, p. 23.
When concluding, “Only battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles have the potential to achieve the magnitude of life-cycle GHG emissions reductions needed to meet Paris Agreement goals.” the study seems to assume current vehicle selection for trips. The study might consider scenarios such as the substitution of electrified micromobility for short trips. 50% of U.S. trips less than 6 miles are made by auto.
The combination of a PHEV’s IC engine using renewable fuel, another scenario not considered, should include the study’s forecast of improved PHEV efficiency and driving behaviors.
The study analyzed types of renewable fuels, “based on current policies and projected supply,” finding that higher renewable fuels production costs would constrain availability, though a variation of policy placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, extending to more countries, and to the U.S., would be an illustrative scenario. Reducing the relative price of renewable fuels might substantially change this study’s conclusions.
The term “charging infrastructure” pops up twice, though the economic and energy costs for BEV charging infrastructure may have been neglected when accounting fuel use, or fuel/electric production impacts. Modifying existing gasoline stations to offer renewable fuels comes at a reasonable cost.
The study pegs the carbon benefit of corn ethanol at a mere 22% lower than gasoline, though another study places the reduction, with carbon capture when brewing, at 50%. Moreover, while corn ethanol has a low carbon reduction among ethanol feedstocks, the greatest expansion of ethanol may be from algae, delivering a 90% carbon reduction (page 34). How policy may expand the demand for and thereby the availability of renewable fuels, and their carbon reduction, by transitioning beyond current feedstocks, merits a substantial expansion of technology assessment.
So that’s it for Friction! Next I’ll examine the underlying assumptions and the scenarios explored that conclude PHEVs fueled by renewable fuels are better for the climate than BEVs through 2050, exploring the study The greenhouse gas emissions of an electrified vehicle combined with renewable fuels: Life cycle assessment and policy implications.
Other topics this skein begs: Climate benefit of converting vehicles already on the road to flex fuel (E85). The climate promise of, and progress with “drop in” (gasoline equivalent) fuel. An aligned consideration of biodiesel, again for vehicles already on the road. Micromobility to substitute vehicles weighing about as much as one person for IC & BEV products weighing perhaps 20 to 25 times a person being moved. How might renewable fuels be safely scaled more rapidly than present policies/incentives, practices, and financing provide?