An Argument for Selective Electrification

Whether you agree with Global Warming, Climate Change, or that pollution is a problem or not, electrification offers the strong possibility of more efficient, cleaner, and quieter equipment than what we currently rely on, and likely will rely on for generations. Whether you are passionate about or even agree with the above-mentioned concerns, electrification can lead to a cleaner world, with cleaner air as well as a quieter world. I love the sound of a V8 as much as the next person but if you drive behind a 1960s or ’70s car for a few blocks you can’t tell me that you wouldn’t mind all cars and trucks smelling like that.

The Problem in Need of a Solution

If we can agree that a cleaner and quieter operating vehicle is more pleasant than an exhaust-emitting vehicle, assuming that the net full lifecycle emissions of electric vehicles are as good or better than Internal Combustion Engines (I.C.E.), there remains a major problem. Batteries are incredibly complex, with material demands that are enormous not only in the sense of the quantity of materials required but also the quality.

As was highlighted in a recent McKinsey Insights (EV battery shortage: The market gets hotter | McKinsey) article late last year there are three key issues regarding EV battery shortages, namely: “industrialization and scale-up of gigafactories, strategies to find and retain talent, and establishment of a robust and efficient supply chain”, most notably “shortages of labour and materials”.

That said, it seems that our electric grids and battery materials are the greatest hurdles to the electrification of both on and off-road vehicles. As far as electrical grids are concerned, we already see grids with rolling blackouts, not because of electrification per se, but just because it’s very hot outside and communities are growing. If hot weather and the associated air conditioning put such strain on an electrical grid, how is the same grid supposed to supply enough energy for all the vehicles people rely on not just to travel to and from work and to see family and friends, but to transport essential goods and for first response personnel in their vehicles?

As for materials Earth.com, a staunch supporter of green initiatives including the promotion of EVs replacing I.C.E. vehicles reports (Cobalt Mining: The Dark Side of the Renewable Energy Transition | Earth.Org) that Cobalt, one of the key ingredients in many battery technologies, is incredibly polluting and dangerous on it’s own. You can also add to this the conflicts and violence surrounding Cobalt and other precious metals and hard-to-find materials.

To be clear, yes electric grids are being improved and updated, and battery technology continues to advance. Supply chains are being improved to find more efficient, ethical, and clean options for sourcing the materials that we need to build batteries as well. All this is, however, taking an enormous amount of time, and there are still years if not decades of work ahead of us.

A ‘Have Your Cake and Eat It Too’ Solution

Decades ago, long before climate and pollution were widely taken seriously by politicians and the wider public, many warehouses had a major problem with their employees. Compared to other businesses, even compared to their own front offices, there were disproportional health problems, often major, and shorter life spans for their warehouse staff. It didn’t take long when forklifts were able to be powered by batteries for companies to adopt these electric lifts and almost insistently see healthier, happier, and more efficient workplaces. Rather than cue an article on the history of this phenomenon I encourage you to find a warehouse with two or more propane-powered lifts and spend a bit of time around them. See how you feel at the end of the day. It isn’t good. Now add to that a few decades of service and closed doors and windows in the cold months and you can probably assume the long-term effects.

At that time, electrification wasn’t on many people’s minds but already, in my opinion, unbeknownst to them these warehouses were creating a model for better villages, towns, and cities. These warehouses are what green alternative supporters might call “Micro-Climates”. If different sides of a mountain can have different climates and vegetation, and the countryside and cities have different climates and vegetation, I hope you can see how a large box warehouse could be viewed as its own “Micro-Climate” compared to surrounding areas.

Many people who drive EVs today do so not because of financial savings, even with rebates they are often either very expensive or they are very unimpressive, but people buy them because they believe in the cause of saving the planet. Or at least want to appear that way. Whatever environmentalism means to you, it means something to these people. While this is well-intentioned, it’s not obvious that they are helping anything or anyone. The same for the people with electric bikes, scooters, tools, and everything else they can buy with a battery.

If you have an EV but you only drive up to about 15,000 km per year, I propose that you shouldn’t be driving an EV. At least not if your goal is a cleaner planet. Because there are limitations on battery production and output of electric grids in most places, and if you believe that having as many clean/electric vehicles on the road as possible is important, then you absolutely should not be absorbing the output of this strained system because then we are not getting the most out of what battery capacity and electric grid capacity we do have.

It's not the number of EVs vs the number of I.C.E. vehicles, it’s the mileage and tonnage driven.

Those who need the electric grid output, and gigafactory battery output the most are the people who use vehicles the most and use the most vehicles. Green investors will not like it but if 5% of “brown companies”, that is companies who pollute a lot, went to fully electric vehicles not only would that have the biggest impact on the planet, but on our cities and our personal lives as well. Cities are where the most children and seniors are found. The people who are the most sensitive to unclean air and loud noise. Yes, you will help globally, but you will also enjoy the benefits locally by focusing on the most polluting vehicles.

While ESG investors like to invest in “clean” companies, these companies don’t need the added investment to be cleaner. They will only get so clean and will only have so much of an impact on the world because they don’t pollute in the first place and never will. How much greener can you make a bank compared to a local delivery fleet? If, however, the local delivery trucks, refuse trucks (probably the most gas-emitting vehicles in the world), and taxis (cars that run all day and night), received investment to trade in their I.C.E. vehicles for EVs, this would make a comparatively huge impact in cutting emissions locally, and globally. It would cut emissions in a way that small families switching from a modern 4-cylinder Honda Civic with efficient fuel systems and a decent aftertreatment system (catalytic converter) for a Toyota Prius or Nissan Leaf could ever dream of.

Conclusion

I strongly believe, and I hope I have convinced you, not to destroy the personal EV market (e.g. Tesla, Toyota, etc.) but to invest in, encourage, and direct limited resources to the dirtiest, brownest industries. None of the before-mentioned “dirty” or “Brown” companies (local delivery and refuse in particular) came to be the way they are because people created companies to burn down the planet. They came to be this way because we want our lives to be the way that they currently are. We voted with our dollars, and that’s okay. It’s also okay to want garbage, recycling, and compost to be picked up every week by these “dirty” or “Brown” refuse trucks, but since this is what we have, and for legitimate reasons, let’s do what we can to make them a little less brown, and improve all our lives, no matter our beliefs.

Drive safe,

Kevin Gauthier