Controversy: are EVs bad for you?
But of course, that costs money. The loss in revenue for all EV measures has been calculated to some €200 million a year, and many see this as a subsidy from tax payers to EV owners. It has raised some controversy about whether this is justifiable, both economically and environmentally. The Michael Moore argument ("Planet of the Humans") that we should not support EVs because they are blacker than petrol since electricity comes from coal, does of course not wash here - we are 100 per cent hydro-electric - and is not true in the US either, I believe. But it highlights what is an actual dilemma: EVs are of course not fully green, because they have to be made, and it is true that more CO2 is emitted from producing an EV than a diesel/petrol car ("internal combustion", ICE) primarily because of the battery. And longer range means automatically larger battery (not to mention the 2,5 ton e-Tron with its 95 kw battery, more than twice that of a new Leaf). So, there is a dilemma here. The very popular long-range EVs help the transition from petrol to electric. But at the same time, they are less environmentally friendly than the more modest cars which you may have to recharge more often because they have a smaller, but lighter battery.
There was an argument in a web comment recently, which I thought was interesting to look into. It said, in essence, "... and you cannot defend, in environmental terms, to replace a petrol car that has 10 years life ahead of it, with a new EV" (because of the production emissions). That argument sounds plausible, but would it hold up? Now, a car with 10 years ahead of it (meaning, statistically about 8 years old) may well find a new owner, but let us ignore that and make the calculation simple: to be justifiable environmentally, the cost (in emissions) of producing the new EV must be lower than the CO2 that it replaces, i.e., that would be spent by driving the ICE for ten years. This production cost is in fact surprisingly large: just under 10 tons CO2 (for a car weighing a bit over one ton - the example is based on a 2019 Nissan Leaf). But an average ICE driving the average of 13,000 km a year, emits about 2.75 tons CO2 annualy. So the EV has saved its production cost already after about three and a half years - the argument is false. Nevertheless, for green purposes, the battery issue is definitely something that should be improved, by changing how they are produced, or improving reusage and recycling of the rare materials in the batteries. Of course, that is still a few years ahead for the current surge of EVs.
The social dimension: Should we subsidize electric cars for the rich?
The above argument is general. But we have also had a discussion from parts of the left wing in this country, which are irritated that wealthy Tesla owners get their toys subsidised by tens of thousands of euros of tax-payer money. That the green left supports this, shows their class affiliation, they whisper: the latte-drinking EV owners who have never set foot on a factory floor. The mentioned latte drinkers just sneer back. Yet, the argument is worth considering. It is based on these claims:
(1) Whatever you say, normal people do not drive EVs. They drive petrol or diesel cars. This is quite true. In spite of the surge in EV purchases these last two-three years, about 90 per cent of kms driven are done by petrol or diesel cars, statistics show. Also, the critics follow up: People with average income do not buy new cars, they buy used cars. Only the richest buy new cars, and used car sales are almost completely for ICE cars. That is also demonstrably true, about three of four cars sold are second hand, and they are overwhelmingsly petrol or diesel. But that is of course just an effect of the number of used cars there is on the market. The surge in EV adoption only took place a couple of years ago, and they have yet to replaced by their first-time owners. If the EV share of new purchases remains stable, used cars will eventually become EV or ICE in the same proportion as new cars today.
However, that raises the reflection of how EV used car prices will hold up. All EV supporters claim that EVs have less wear and tear and require less service than ICEs, and will therefore keep their value longer (good for sellers, bad for buyers). On the other hand, it must remembered that an EV is basically a computer on four wheels. And we upgrade our PC not because it breaks down, but because the new one gives us functions we need or want. A new petrol car is more efficient, safer and better than a seven year old one, but it operates basically in the same way: It is mature technology, and functionally, you will find the old one just as useful as a new one. EVs are still in rapid development; every year introduces drastic new changes in functionality (as in battery management, e.g.) which may make a seven old machine dated almost like a seven-year old PC running Windows 7. Granted, an EV is a bit more expensive than a PC, so you would want to hold on to it longer, but the point is that this may lead to a more rapid decrease in value compared to a new one. Which is good for the buyer, and will help removing any "rich man's toy" image of normal, regular EVs.
But anyway, in order to get EVs into the used car market, they first have to enter as new cars. So, the social differentiation we see today will disappear gradually over the coming few years.
(2) Nevertheless, we do know that even among new cars, the share of EVs follow the income distribution. A statistic (from 2018) shows that among new car buyers, the 25 per cent with highest income ("the wealthy"), 56 percent bought EVs, while among those with the lowest income, only 33 percent bought EVs. Furthermore, ICEs are more used than EVs, they have a higher number kms driven. Now that is very interesting, when we just postulated that a new EV has a similar or lower cost than a comparable petrol car. So economically, it should make more sense for the price conscious to go EV. Why do fewer in that group do so?
The critics say this shows that the wealthy can afford to have two cars. They use an ICE by preference, but can afford to get an EV for the commute, in order to drive in the bus lane and escape the road tolls. EVs are just a toy and a status symbol for the rich. Teslas, gaah.
It is also true that left-leaning people may gag over the number of Teslas on the streets of Oslo, because there are indeed a lot of them, and they are of course quite noticeable. Of course there is a status symbol show-off element here. However, it is not Teslas that actually dominate the purchase statistics, but normally-priced EVs that just look like other cars. You dont't notice them on the street unless you look closely.
It is more likely that these figures show a quite different reality: People do not buy a second car because they are rich, but because they aren't. Two-car households are generally two-income households, i.e. families, and they more often than not have to calculate before they get the second car. They certainly could not afford to spend €20-30.000 on an EV just to save €2-3 on a road toll, that just does not make economic sense - particularly as these perks are progressively reduced. But families mostly do need at least one long-range car for holidays etc., and EVs (non-Teslas) have until these last couple of years not been seen as sufficiently practical for that. So of course their ICEs will get more mileage: Both cars are used equally for daily commutes, one by each spouse, and only the ICE will be used for longer family trips in weekends and holidays.
This may also help explain the sudden surge since 2018, in spite of the prospect of reduced perks: What is new in these last couple of years is the increased availability of models that may be called "affordable long-range" EVs. We always had the Teslas whith their 400 km or 500 km range, but at prices out of reach for most people. Now, there are several models with a range of 400 km or higher at a price below €35.000, going as low as the Renault Zoe (390 km) currently at €23.000. And, if we look at the best-selling models, these are precisely those that top the statistic: Zoe, Kona, Leaf, Ioniq (Soul and e-Niro were unavailable, but are in the same category). So, what we may be seeing is that more single-car households are now accepting such models as a realistic alternative for a car that they can also use for the longer trips, even though there are still issues left that favour combustion engines. If these practical aspects are solved in the time to come, these single-car households with moderate income will also increasingly choose an EV over an ICE.
But of course, that costs money. The loss in revenue for all EV measures has been calculated to some €200 million a year, and many see this as a subsidy from tax payers to EV owners. It has raised some controversy about whether this is justifiable, both economically and environmentally. The Michael Moore argument ("Planet of the Humans") that we should not support EVs because they are blacker than petrol since electricity comes from coal, does of course not wash here - we are 100 per cent hydro-electric - and is not true in the US either, I believe. But it highlights what is an actual dilemma: EVs are of course not fully green, because they have to be made, and it is true that more CO2 is emitted from producing an EV than a diesel/petrol car ("internal combustion", ICE) primarily because of the battery. And longer range means automatically larger battery (not to mention the 2,5 ton e-Tron with its 95 kw battery, more than twice that of a new Leaf). So, there is a dilemma here. The very popular long-range EVs help the transition from petrol to electric. But at the same time, they are less environmentally friendly than the more modest cars which you may have to recharge more often because they have a smaller, but lighter battery.
 |
| EV batteries - they are bad for you |
The social dimension: Should we subsidize electric cars for the rich?
The above argument is general. But we have also had a discussion from parts of the left wing in this country, which are irritated that wealthy Tesla owners get their toys subsidised by tens of thousands of euros of tax-payer money. That the green left supports this, shows their class affiliation, they whisper: the latte-drinking EV owners who have never set foot on a factory floor. The mentioned latte drinkers just sneer back. Yet, the argument is worth considering. It is based on these claims:
(1) Whatever you say, normal people do not drive EVs. They drive petrol or diesel cars. This is quite true. In spite of the surge in EV purchases these last two-three years, about 90 per cent of kms driven are done by petrol or diesel cars, statistics show. Also, the critics follow up: People with average income do not buy new cars, they buy used cars. Only the richest buy new cars, and used car sales are almost completely for ICE cars. That is also demonstrably true, about three of four cars sold are second hand, and they are overwhelmingsly petrol or diesel. But that is of course just an effect of the number of used cars there is on the market. The surge in EV adoption only took place a couple of years ago, and they have yet to replaced by their first-time owners. If the EV share of new purchases remains stable, used cars will eventually become EV or ICE in the same proportion as new cars today.
 |
| The red line is the market share. Source: Elbil.no, from Public Car Registration |
But anyway, in order to get EVs into the used car market, they first have to enter as new cars. So, the social differentiation we see today will disappear gradually over the coming few years.
(2) Nevertheless, we do know that even among new cars, the share of EVs follow the income distribution. A statistic (from 2018) shows that among new car buyers, the 25 per cent with highest income ("the wealthy"), 56 percent bought EVs, while among those with the lowest income, only 33 percent bought EVs. Furthermore, ICEs are more used than EVs, they have a higher number kms driven. Now that is very interesting, when we just postulated that a new EV has a similar or lower cost than a comparable petrol car. So economically, it should make more sense for the price conscious to go EV. Why do fewer in that group do so?
 |
| A car for the rich, paid by our tax dollars? |
It is also true that left-leaning people may gag over the number of Teslas on the streets of Oslo, because there are indeed a lot of them, and they are of course quite noticeable. Of course there is a status symbol show-off element here. However, it is not Teslas that actually dominate the purchase statistics, but normally-priced EVs that just look like other cars. You dont't notice them on the street unless you look closely.
 |
| Or just another car? |
Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) are also an alternative as "both commute and weekend" car, but the market share for PHEVs has stood still around 15 per cent since 2016, and actually took a small plunge in 2019, supporting the argument that long-range full-electric has taken over some of that segment in the last two years.
In other words, what people want and will favour, are not flashy or star-in-the-eyes EVs, but practical tools that "can be used in the same way as a petrol car", just a normal car, at a price comparable to an ICE car. If we, as the critics suggest, cut the subsidies to raise EV prices by 50 per cent, these families would not drop the second car, they would buy two ICEs. Thus, the EV subsidy policies do favour ICE to EV replacement, which was the intention, and are to the benefit of normal families.
That does not deny that Tesla owners absolutely do benefit from the subsidies. But then the intention of the EV subsidies is not social equalization, it is to move from petrol to electric. A rich person will remain rich, and if we price a Tesla out of his range, he will not buy an e-Golf. He will buy a prestige ICE, a Porsche or similar. He may have bought a Tesla just because it is cool, that is all right, he will still help with the green change, whether that is his intention or not. The point here is that it is less and less true that EVs are cars for the rich. When they have reached more than fifty per cent adoption, they will be just cars like other cars, for normal people who drive cars.
That said, it must of course be remembered we are talking about cars against cars. Clearly, both for green and red purposes, it is better that people do not drive a car, but use public transport, or walk or bike instead. All cars, including EVs, congest the roads, wear down the road surface to whirl up particles and require parking space. So EV subsidies should of course always go in tandem with increased financing of public transport and bike lanes. But those are seldom in competition, the political forces that support green cars generally also support green transport generally. More funding to both, and less to polluting!
However, there is another factor which is not so often considered and has a social aspect. In order to have a plug-in vehicle, you must have somewhere to plug it in. The most practical, and economical, solution is to plug it into a home charger which you have in your garage, or on a permanent parking space where you can install it. But many people who live in apartments do not have a garage. That does constitute a social differentiation. So, to combine zero emission conversion (for those who need cars) with social equality, this is an issue that should be addressed, so that everyone has equal access to EV as to petrol cars including low-cost charging, irrespective to what kind of house or flat they live in. That might become even more important as EVs begin enter the lower-priced used car market in a few years, so that you can choose practical EV cars even if you are in the lower price range.
In other words, what people want and will favour, are not flashy or star-in-the-eyes EVs, but practical tools that "can be used in the same way as a petrol car", just a normal car, at a price comparable to an ICE car. If we, as the critics suggest, cut the subsidies to raise EV prices by 50 per cent, these families would not drop the second car, they would buy two ICEs. Thus, the EV subsidy policies do favour ICE to EV replacement, which was the intention, and are to the benefit of normal families.
That does not deny that Tesla owners absolutely do benefit from the subsidies. But then the intention of the EV subsidies is not social equalization, it is to move from petrol to electric. A rich person will remain rich, and if we price a Tesla out of his range, he will not buy an e-Golf. He will buy a prestige ICE, a Porsche or similar. He may have bought a Tesla just because it is cool, that is all right, he will still help with the green change, whether that is his intention or not. The point here is that it is less and less true that EVs are cars for the rich. When they have reached more than fifty per cent adoption, they will be just cars like other cars, for normal people who drive cars.
That said, it must of course be remembered we are talking about cars against cars. Clearly, both for green and red purposes, it is better that people do not drive a car, but use public transport, or walk or bike instead. All cars, including EVs, congest the roads, wear down the road surface to whirl up particles and require parking space. So EV subsidies should of course always go in tandem with increased financing of public transport and bike lanes. But those are seldom in competition, the political forces that support green cars generally also support green transport generally. More funding to both, and less to polluting!
 |
| The un-equalizer - not the car, but the garage? |
Incidentally, at the end: This last bit also concerns the idea that EVs are "urban vehicles", which the old 100-km EVs mainly were. But in the countryside, most people do own the property where they keep their car and can set up home charging. They would hardly need access to public charging in their own village, at least with a long-range car. So, in fact EVs may be easier to adopt outside the city than inside. But again, the type of car may be important. Pickups aren't that much used in Norway, but trailers are, at least for someone working on a farm, and none of the regular low-to-medium priced EVs today allow a trailer to be attached. That may be a marginal issue in the city, but possibly a priority for people who want to use their car for their farm work. So, we can only hope the producers begin taking that into account and focus on making practical family cars for the same kind of use as any other car.
In short, walking is best, biking is excellent, buses and trains preferable, but EVs are also a good thing for the reds as well as the green in the political landscape.
No comments:
Post a Comment