EVS ARE NOT AS GREEN AS BILLED: SAFETY AGENCY

Electrics are not the answer to industry's carbon problems, writes David Booth.

I know I can sound like a bit of a broken record. And all this pooh-poohing of EVS and the infrastructure we'll need to support them is beginning to sound tiresome. I get it. But it's necessary.

Transformations as radical as those the automobile industry is undergoing are never easy. They require deliberation, caution, and most importantly, introspection. As my dear, departed mater used to say, rushing to solve one problem inevitably leads to another.

Which is why everyone should pay attention to the European Green NCAP findings released in April. Though it asks as many questions as it answers, the organization's report — How Sustainable is Your Car? — does seem to come to one glaring conclusion: Simply dumping traditional internal-combustion engines (ICES) for electric propulsion will not solve the transportation industry's greenhouse-gas problem. And EVS' reduction of CO2 emissions might not be nearly as great as we've been led to believe.

The European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP) is a safety assessment system roughly modelled on that of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Besides this new foray into emissions rating under the Green NCAP banner, Euro NCAP is also responsible for continental newcar crash testing.

Its emissions testing has been exhaustive: 61 vehicles of all types were subjected to the equivalent of 240,000 kilometres of driving, using both European

Wltc-specified laboratory testing as well as real-world, on-road RDE tailpipe-sniffing (the check system that Europe initiated after Volkswagen got caught cheating on its laboratory testing). The NCAP tests even allow for more congested traffic conditions than regulatory bodies mandate. Here's what they found.

THE BEST ICE VEHICLES ARE NOT FAR BEHIND EVS

In comparing five cars of similar size — VW'S ID.3, a Skoda Octavia Combo 2.0 TDI, a gas-powered BMW 1 Series, a compressed natural gas (Cng)-fuelled Seat Ibiza, and a Toyota Prius PHEV — it found the Skoda and the BMW emitted only about 10 per cent more greenhouse gases (GHG) over their 16-year lifetime than the all-electric ID.3. This includes emissions stemming from the production of not only the battery but the car itself, the life-cycle emissions of the electricity needed for those 240,000 km, as well as tailpipe emissions for the Ice-powered vehicles.

CLEAN ENERGY MATTERS

As you might expect, the source of the power for electric vehicles plays a huge part in how environmentally “green” they are. The higher the share of renewable energy in the mix, the greener the electric car. So, for instance, if the Volkswagen ID.3 were completely powered by renewable energy, it would have about half of the “GHG impact” of an equivalent conventional car over its lifetime.

How does that work out in the real world? According to Green NCAP calculations, the ID.3, if driven in Sweden — where the majority of the energy produced is renewable — would have a distinct advantage in terms of GHGS over conventionally powered cars. However, in Italy, “the ID.3 shows life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions similar to some conventional competitors,” while in Poland — where the majority of the country's electricity is coalfired — “the electric vehicle has become significantly worse than comparable combustion-engine vehicles.”

In North American terms, while EVS would be a boon to the average Canadian looking to reduce their carbon footprint, in the U.S.A., you might be better off driving a Land Rover. More locally, an EV driven in Quebec benefits from that province's reliance on hydro power, while the same electric vehicle driven in Alberta might well have greater lifetime GHG emissions than an ICE alternative.

SIZE MATTERS (A LOT)

One of Green NCAP'S most important findings was the effect of weight on CO2 emissions. Simply put, it's dramatic. As the researchers said, “While it is true that electric powertrains are highly efficient and the ability to recuperate kinetic energy mitigates the energy losses, the impact of mass remains obvious.” So, while the most efficient vehicle in the entire study — a 1,310-kilogram Fiat 500 EV — puts out just 31 metric tonnes of CO2 in its lifetime, a 2,150-kg Ford Mustang Mach-e pumps out almost 50 tonnes.

And therein lies the biggest indictment of the North American EV strategy. For Europeans, the Mach-e tested — with a 70-kilowatt-hour battery — is an example of egregious excess. Here at home, it's mid-sized at best. Exact determinations from this study regarding emissions for Canada-specific models are, of course, impossible. Nonetheless, anyone thinking they're reducing their carbon footprint by driving a 4,110-kg, 212.7-kwh GMC Hummer EV rather than a fossil-fuelled four-cylinder Toyota Camry needs to give their head a shake.

WINTER KILLS EV RANGE

What really sets these ratings apart from other life-cycle assessments is that while others simply present results based on officially declared consumption figures (i.e. EPA or Transport Canada range and fuel-economy ratings) Green NCAP'S finding are based on “real fuel/energy consumption.”