A New Red Barchetta!

Ferrari 166 S, via Wikipedia

I was trying to think of a song about a car, and bounced around a bit before realizing the truth. Red Barchetta, by Rush, was the only option I could really go with.

My musical horizons expanded quite dramatically in my early teens, and Rush is probably the most influential band in my life – it’s mind-blowing that I’ve been listening to Rush for over forty years now. Wow.

My first exposure to Rush was the album Signals, which got me searching for everything I could find by the band. I quickly found Moving Pictures, and loved that album as well. (It’s pointless to ask my favourite Rush album... impossible decision to make, but Moving Pictures would have to be in my top five, at least.)

Red Barchetta is a song about a car (presumably a Ferrari 166 S, which was Neil Peart’s favourite car), and describes a world where many vehicles have been banned by the “Motor Law”. Great song, great album, great band, and a great place to start talking about cars.

It’s been about ten years since we bought a vehicle, so it’s probably time to start thinking more seriously about options for when we need a new one. Last time around, electric vehicles were not really a viable option for us – too new, unknown reliability, too expensive, etc. But that was a decade ago, and things have changed quite a lot.

After reading a bunch of articles about electric vehicles, and searching specifically for articles which recommended against them, I noticed something interesting.

Many of the articles “against” electric vehicles had few links to supporting evidence and tended to use language like “reasons why electric cars are bad”, “ugly truths”, and so on. I found that... interesting. Still, there were a number of points raised that seemed worthy of investigation.

It’s often asserted that electric vehicles are actually worse for the climate than gasoline cars, due to the carbon emissions from the battery manufacture process, the carbon emissions from the generation of the electricity used to charge the batteries, and the impact of the materials used in battery manufacture.

This seems serious, except it’s not true. To be fair, it may be that some sources are just old, or using outdated sources, but I found it interesting that the comparison is generally between the full lifespan of the electric vehicle (from mining to disposal) and the operation of the gas vehicle. This is inconsistent (at best), or deliberately misleading. When you look at the actual apples-to-apples comparison, the higher up-front impact of the electric vehicle is passed by the gas vehicle after less than two years of operation.

I should also note sources for this information. There is a Yale study (quoted in the article above), and – OH! Yes! Almost forgot! On the US EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) website, there’s a page dedicated to Electric Vehicle Myths, and this is covered under Myth #1 and Myth #2. It seems odd that the EPA would decide to publish such a page, unless there were a lot of misinformation and/or disinformation out there...

(As a side-note, the future credibility of previously/currently-credible, US-based sources is now a major concern for all reality-based discussions - perhaps a topic for future comment...)

Since we’re already here, though, let’s look at some of the myths. Myth #3 is that “Electric vehicle batteries are unreliable and need to be replaced every few years.” There may have been some truth in that in years past, but battery technology has been improving at a steady pace year-by-year – Just look at your phone if you don’t believe that. Batteries do fail, but the rate has fallen dramatically, compared with, say, ten years ago. It should also be noted that there are a number of new battery technologies which will keep the improvements coming fast over the next decade.

Other myths include the idea that there is nowhere to charge, that an increase in electric vehicle use will “collapse the grid”, and that the range of electric vehicles is not sufficient. While these are myths as-stated on the EPA site, there is some nuance here, depending on your circumstances. No, the grid won’t “collapse”, vehicle range has increased dramatically in recent years, and charging at home is sufficient for a majority of drivers. Still, some planning is required for long-distance trips, and there are probably people for whom an electric vehicle may not be the best choice. (I should note that I’m talking about Canada, which has twice the area and one-tenth the population of the EU, for comparison)

The last myth listed is around the safety of electric vehicles, and the horror scenario is around fire. Lithium-ion batteries can catch fire, and it can be very nasty, but it should be noted that most fires of this type have been from e-bikes and scooters, rather than cars, whose safety record is actually quite good. This is most likely due to automakers’ aversion to bad press, which led to them establishing safety standards. It should also be noted that, as battery technology continues to develop, Lithium-ion batteries may even be phased out over time, as new technologies are developed and mature, though they are likely to be with us for many years to come.

Now that we’ve looked at the vehicles, we can start looking more broadly into electricity production. This is more complicated, but can be broken down into two main parts.

Power generation depends on location, technology maturity, demand, and other factors. And though we have made progress in recent years, coal, oil, and natural gas are still our primary energy sources, though this varies widely by country. As an example (for year 2023), Norway derives the majority (~89%) of its power from hydro, which makes sense based on their geography. In contrast, India derives (~75%) of its power from coal.

Ultimately, each country needs to balance its energy needs against available capacity, and plan what is most effective for them. Overall, renewable technologies are superior to fossil fuels, but plans need to be realistic and building new capacity is both expensive and time-consuming. It should also be noted that technology has been advancing, so plans need to be continually adjusted.

One interesting point is that nuclear reactors could be used to reduce the use of fossil fuels until renewable technologies have matured sufficiently and have been implemented widely. In particular, GEN IV reactors are safer than prior reactor designs, more efficient, and can potentially use “spent fuel” (aka “nuclear waste”) from prior reactors, which helps solve another problem. They also produce spent fuel which is radioactive for a much shorter time (centuries, rather than millennia). Unfortunately, even though nuclear energy is safer than most other sources, there is a significant public perception that this is not the case.

A vital part of the equation is the importance of grid storage. This refers to energy storage used to “balance” the grid, by addressing peak demand, the intermittent nature of some types of power generation, and backup power in case of disruption.

The use of grid storage is a continuum, from zero, at which point online power-generation would always need to be able to meet peak demand, to 100%, at which point power-generation could theoretically be shut down for some period of time without interruption in service. In practice, it’s vastly more complicated than that (of course), and a critical consideration is the cost and reliability of the storage. If we had cheap, reliable, long-term (measured in weeks or months) grid storage, there would be no problem. In the real world, however, grid storage tends to be expensive and short-term, though that is changing due to the decreasing cost of batteries and other grid-storage technologies.

As a side-note, one interesting way that electric vehicles could factor into this equation is that a fleet of electric cars represent a possible option for additional grid storage, since most cars spend most of their time parked.

To summarize, I found that most of the points raised against electric cars were either no longer relevant or were actual disinformation. While it’s important to acknowledge valid concerns around the use of electric vehicles, I found no meaningful way in which you can support an argument suggesting that gas vehicles are generally superior.

The next step is to figure out how hybrids fit into this whole equation. That should be easy, right?

Cheers!