Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 2983 – 2988

The 8th International Conference on Applied Energy – ICAE2016

Can Electric Vehicles Deliver Energy and Carbon

Reductions?
Patrick Moriartya*, Stephen Jia Wangb
a,b
Department of Design, Monash University, Caulfield East 3145, Australia

a,b
International Tangible Interaction Design Lab, Monash University, Caulfield East 3145, Australia

Abstract

Electric vehicles (EVs) are often thought to be an important means for reducing both the greenhouse gas emissions
and energy consumption of global transport, particularly for road passenger transport. They are potentially more fuel
efficient than comparable internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), particularly in urban areas, because of
regenerative braking. It is well-recognised that the energy efficiency of EVs decreases with the range the batteries
must provide (because of rising battery mass), and that greenhouse gas comparisons with ICEVs depend on the grid
electricity source. However, this paper argues that comparing EVs and ICEVs is much more complex than generally
recognised. Uncertainties occur in both primary energy use and greenhouse gas emission calculations. Further, it may
not be legitimate to evaluate these terms on a simple vehicle-km basis, because of spillover effects.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of ICAE
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy.

Keywords: Carbon emissions; electric vehicles; energy efficiency; energy storage; spillover effects

1. Introduction

Global transport is both a major consumer of world oil output, as well as a leading source of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, particularly from carbon dioxide (CO2). Reducing both energy use and GHG
emissions from transport could thus play an important part in solving both the global fossil fuel
(particularly oil) depletion and climate change challenges the world increasingly faces. Electric vehicles
(EVs), here taken to include full battery EVs as well as plug-in hybrid EVs, are often regarded as an
important means of solving both problems [1]. Additionally, they are seen as helping ameliorate urban air

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 61 3 9903 2584; fax: +61 3 9903 1440

E-mail address: [email protected].

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.713
2984 Ling Xiong and Stephen Jia Wang / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 2983 – 2988

pollution. Other researchers [e.g. 2-4] have argued that significant barriers to EV adoption remain because
of a variety of social and technical barriers.
Ma et al [5] compared the GHG emissions from EVs and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs)
on a full life cycle basis for Californian and UK grids. They found, as expected, that EVs performed
comparatively better in California than in the UK, because of the less fossil fuel-intensive grid. They
further found that EV performance improved for low-speed urban driving conditions, and that the GHG
costs of vehicle manufacture were higher than for ICEV manufacture, mainly because of battery
manufacture. Onat et al [1] did an energy and GHG analysis for each state in the US for ICEVs, EVs and
hybrid EVs. They found that both EVs and hybrids had lower full life cycle energy consumption than
ICEVs for the US overall, and also lower carbon emissions. However, hybrids were superion to EVs for
energy consumption in nearly all states. Finally, Hawkins et al [6] summarised their findings as follows:
‘We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global
warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of
150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater
eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle
supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy
consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules.’

Nomenclature
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2-eq carbon dioxide equivalent
EV electric vehicle
GHG greenhouse gas
ICEV internal combustion engine vehicle
IEA International Energy Agency
N 2O nitrous oxide
PEB pro-environmental behavior
PV photovoltaic cell
RE renewable energy
V2G vehicle to grid

This paper re-examines the extent to which EVs can effectively address the global climate change and
fossil fuel depletion problems. Because only 4.4% of electricity generated worldwide in 2013 was from
oil [7], EVs can undeniably help delay the onset of ‘peak oil’. But this paper argues in the following three
sections that it is not possible to say definitively whether a major shift to EVs would help save either
energy or GHGs compared with continuation of conventional petrol or diesel fuelled vehicles.

2. Energy efficiency comparisons

 Ling Xiong and Stephen Jia Wang / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 2983 – 2988 2985

Comparing the energy efficiency of different internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) is easy; just
compare vehicle-km for each vehicle per litre of petrol used, for example. But for EV vs ICEV
comparisons, both petrol and electricity must be converted to primary energy terms—for instance crude
oil for ICEVs and coal for electricity from coal-fired electric plants.
But a difficulty arises when converting electricity to primary energy for different non-fossil fuels. For
thermal electricity production in nuclear or geothermal power plants, primary energy is always calculated
from the heat energy used to generate the electricity, just as for fossil fuel power stations. For non-thermal
renewable electricity, such as that produced by hydro plants or wind turbines, different authorities use
different conversion methods [8]. The International Energy Agency (IEA) [7] convert hydro, photovoltaic
cell (PV), and wind electricity on a 1:1 basis. In contrast, BP converts hydroelectricity to primary energy
in the same manner as for nuclear electricity ‘on the basis of thermal equivalence electricity in a thermal
power station assuming 38% conversion efficiency in a modern thermal power station’ [9].
It follows that the primary energy efficiency calculated for a given EV will vary greatly depending on
the source of the non-fossil energy. In a grid using 100% nuclear power, the efficiency would be identical
to that of a grid using 100% hydroelectricity if calculated by the BP method, but much lower if the IEA
method was used. Clearly, this is an unsatisfactory result. It also makes ICEV vs EV energy efficiency
calculations arbitrary for grids using significant amounts of primary renewable energy (RE) electricity.
The problem can only get worse if, as expected, wind, hydro, and especially PV electricity, supply ever
higher percentages of global electricity.
A further complication arises if there is a need for energy storage. The share of nuclear electricity is
falling, and even the International Atomic Energy Association does not forecast its share to increase
much, if at all [10]. Although carbon capture and storage is relied on heavily in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change scenarios for climate mitigation, it is a largely unproven technology [11], and
further, has high energy costs [12] and long lead times for implementation.
It follows that RE will need to assume a major role in long-term climate mitigation [13]. However, the
RE sources with the most potential, wind and solar electricity [14], are both intermittent sources, and so
will require some form of energy storage if electricity supply is to match demand at all times. At present,
electricity production from these sources is small enough [9] to be assimilated into existing grids (where
nearly all power comes from fossil fuel, hydro, and nuclear plants), but this will have to change. Energy
storage, perhaps using energy carriers such as hydrogen or methanol, will significantly decrease the net
electricity available from a given gross wind and solar energy output. The primary energy costs for EVs
powered from these intermittent sources will therefore rise.
One suggested way to reduce the need for energy storage by electricity utilities or residences is to use
‘vehicle to grid’ (V2G) storage. With V2G storage, EVs would be plugged into the electricity grid, and
would store energy in their battery packs, and sell such stored electricity to the grid when electricity
demand exceeds generated supply [15]. But such an approach would conflict with the proposal for
extensive car-sharing, which would greatly reduce the number of vehicles owned. At present, vehicles are
on the road for only 4-5% of the time [3]. Inevitably, the shared vehicles would now be used more
intensively (i.e. driven more km annually), so that their parking time would also be reduced. The
opportunities for daytime charging and grid energy storage would thus be reduced. Night-time charging
of batteries would be needed, but, if solar energy is to be the dominant energy source in future, night-time
is when the grid would need to draw power from vehicle batteries, not supply it.

3. Greenhouse gas emissions comparisons

The problem identified in the previous section can be avoided if ICEV vs EV comparisons are done on
the basis of CO2, or more generally, GHG emissions, usually expressed as equivalent CO2 (CO2-eq). But
2986 Ling Xiong and Stephen Jia Wang / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 2983 – 2988

then a new problem emerges: in nearly all published comparisons, non-fossil fuel electricity (RE and
nuclear), it is assumed that these sources generate zero GHG emissions, that they are ‘zero carbon’
sources.
But this is far from the case. While it is true that these sources directly generate negligible GHGs, such
is not the case for their indirect emissions. Hydroelectricity is by far the largest source of RE electricity,
and much of the remaining untapped potential lies in the tropical regions of Africa, Latin America and
Asia [11, 16]. If reservoirs behind tropical dams contain decaying vegetable matter (such as happens if
forest is submerged) significant emissions of both CO2 and methane (CH4) can occur. The CO2 arises
from aerobic decay; the CH4, a potent GHG, from anaerobic decay. During the early years of operation,
the CO2-equivalent emissions can rival that of a natural gas powered plant with the same electricity
output [17]. Geothermal plants can likewise emit some GHGs [11]. In both cases, it is important to
subtract baseline emissions (emissions before the electricity plant was built) to obtain a fairer picture of
emissions.
For other RE sources, GHG emissions arise from the inputs for constructing RE plants, or in the case
of bioenergy, for growing the biomass. Since fossil fuels still account for 86.3% of all commercial energy
[9], most energy inputs for constructing and maintaining the renewable energy devices are still derived
from fossil fuels. Significant nitrogenous fertilizer inputs will be needed for improving the annual yield
per hectare of bioenergy, particularly on the marginal soils that will remain after global food and fibre
needs are satisfied. But fertilizers produce nitrous oxide (N2O), a potent and long-lived GHG [18].
Crutzen et al [19] have even controversially argued that because of N2O release from fertilized soils,
biomass fuels could produce similar or even higher levels of CO2-eq than fossil fuels.
It might be thought that for a country such as Norway, with nearly 100% of electricity generated from
hydro, replacement of existing oil-fuelled road vehicles by EVs would lead to large reductions in
transport GHGs. But it must be remembered that Norway is part of a wider European grid, and exports
surplus hydroelectricity to other countries. It is probable that the more hydro Norway consumes, the more
electricity will need to be generated from fossil fuels in other parts of the European grid to replace
Norwegian hydro imports.

4. Spillover effects for EVs

So far the comparisons have been based on comparisons of primary energy use and GHG emissions per
vehicle-km for EVs and ICEVs. However, such comparisons will not be valid if spillover effects occur.
Positive spillover occurs if ‘promotion of one pro-environmental behavior (PEB) raises the likelihood that
individuals will adopt other PEBs’ [20]. Negative spillover occurs when introduction of a specific PEB
(such as waste recycling) leads to lower adoption of other PEBs by individuals. Negative spillovers are
related to other concepts such as ‘energy rebound’ and ‘moral licensing’ [21].
Klöckner et al [22] specifically examined such effects for EVs in Norway. EVs are selling well in
Norway, given that various vehicle taxes are lower or waived, as also are road tolls and car parking costs.
They found that if households have only an EV, they do drive it less than conventional car owners.
However, most household purchases of EVs are as an addition to the household fleet, not as replacement
vehicles. These EV-owning households drove their EVs more than expected, most likely because of the
subsidies already mentioned for EVs. Hence a negative spillover appears to be at work, which renders
direct comparison of energy or CO2-eq per vehicle-km for EVs and ICEVs problematic.

5. Discussion and conclusions

 Ling Xiong and Stephen Jia Wang / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 2983 – 2988 2987

EVs are definitely superior to ICEVs for reducing transport oil use and local air pollution. Given that
electricity costs are also much lower than petrol costs per vehicle-km, EVs would also have lower
operating costs, particularly in Europe, with its high petroleum-based fuel costs [7]. Electricity grids can
(and usually do) operate on a variety of fuels, easing the transition to EVs running on entirely non-fossil
electricity. As expected, the literature is equivocal on the primary energy and GHG benefits of EVs. If a
kilometre range matching ICEVs is needed, then the increased battery mass will both lower EV energy
efficiency, and raise GHG emissions. GHG emissions will also depend on the mix of fuels used to power
the grid. Both energy and GHG comparisons will also be sensitive to the assumed lifetime vehicle-km and
the driving cycle.
This paper has raised several other questions not usually addressed in the many studies examining the
relative energy use and GHG emissions of EVs vs ICEVs. First, energy efficiency comparisons are
complicated by the conflicting methods used for primary electricity sources such as hydro, solar, or wind.
This problem can only become more serious if wind and solar electricity dominate future energy supply
[23]. The energy costs of storing these intermittent energy sources are a further complication. Second, for
GHG comparisons, the direct emissions of some RE sources add another source of uncertainty. Further, if
increased use of EVs in a RE-rich country like Norway leads to lower RE electricity exports, then the
system-wide GHG benefits of EVs must be lowered accordingly. Third, a new, apparently ‘green’
technology like EVs generate spillover effects, further complicating comparisons.
Overall, the conclusion must be that the energy and GHG benefits of EV introduction are less than
usually assumed. Only when inter-connected grids are dominated by RE electricity sources will it be safe
to claim EV superiority.
2988 Ling Xiong and Stephen Jia Wang / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 2983 – 2988

References

[1] Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O. Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and
energy footprint analysis in the United States. Applied Energy 2015;150:36–49.
[2] Steinhilber S, Wells P, Thankappan S. Socio-technical inertia: Understanding the barriers to electric vehicles. Energy Policy
2013;60:531–539
[3] Sovacool BK, Hirsh RF. Beyond batteries: An examination of the benefits and barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs ) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition. Energy Policy 2009;37:1095–1103.
[4] Moriarty P, Wang SJ, Eco-efficiency indicators for urban transport, Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and
Environment Systems 2015; 3(2): 183-195.
[5] Ma H, Balthasar F, Tait N, Riera-Palou X, Harrison A. A new comparison between the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles. Energy Policy 2012;44:160–173.
[6] Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and
electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 2013;17:53–64.
[7] International Energy Agency (IEA), Key world energy statistics 2015. Paris: IEA/OECD; 2015.
[8] Moriarty P, Honnery D. A hydrogen standard for energy accounting? Int. J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:12374-12380.
[9] BP. BP statistical review of world energy 2016. London: BP; 2016.
[10] International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) Energy, electricity and nuclear power estimates for the period up to 2050.
Vienna: IAEA; 2012.
[11] Moriarty P, Honnery D. Rise and fall of the carbon civilisation. London: Springer; 2011.
[12] Anderson K. Duality in climate science, Nature Geosci 2015;8:898–900.
[13] Moriarty P, Wang SJ, Assessing global renewable energy forecasts, Energy Procedia 2015; 75: 2523-2528.
[14] Moriarty P, Honnery D. What is the global potential for renewable energy? Renew & Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:244–52.
[15] Turton H, Moura F. Vehicle-to-grid systems for sustainable development: An integrated energy analysis. Technol Forecasting
& Soc Change 2008;75:1091–1108.
[16] World Energy Council (WEC). World energy resources: 2013 survey. London: WEC; 2013.
[17] Fearnside PM. (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric dams: controversies provide a springboard for rethinking a
supposedly clean energy source. Clim Chang 2004;66(2–1):1–8. doi:10.1023/B:CLIM. 0000043174.02841.23
[18] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge UK and
New York, USA: CUP; 2014.
[19] Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming
reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos Chem Phys 2008;8:389–395.
[20] Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Weber EU, Raimi KT, Vandenbergh MP. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental
behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob Environ Change 2014;29:127–138.
[21] Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Soc & Person Psych
Compass 2010;4/5:344–357.
[22] Klöckner CA, Nayum A, Mehmetoglu M. Positive and negative spillover effects from electric car purchase to car use. Transp
Res D 2013;21:32–38.
[23] Moriarty P, Honnery D. Can renewable energy power the future? Energy Policy 2016;93:3-7.

Biography
Patrick Moriarty (research: energy, transport, global futures) is Adjunct Associate
Professor; Stephen Jia Wang (research: Tangible Interaction Design, behavioral changes for
sustainability) is Senior Lecturer, Director of ITIDLab and Program Director in Interaction
Design, both in the Department of Design, Monash University, Australia.