Climate-Friendly Mobility

 

Do you believe achieving climate-neutral mobility is attainable, or should the emphasis be on climate-friendly mobility rather than strict neutrality?

The way I see it, we are already in a climate crisis. Currently, it is about finding the way to mitigate the consequences. The science is rather clear about it, we know the tools, we know the methods, and we even have the resources. We can rather quickly be almost climate neutral in just a few years. However, that would require immediate action on a wide scale. That is not possible within reasonable terms. As I see it, currently our best bet is to be as climate-friendly as possible in all fields, including mobility. 

We all know or can guess what kind of mobility is best for us and the environment. Start by walking and cycling, then electric public transport, then fossil public transport, then electric cars, then fossil cars, and at the very end – flying. Seeing that private cars, which are mainly fossil energy powered, are at their peak currently, our fastest bet with the least resistance is not to change fully our habits and ditch these cars, but switch them to shared mobility and electric cars. This would decrease our carbon footprint in this field by 1/3 or even 2/3 (depending on the source). Then we move to the next phase.

How do emissions from the transport sector contribute to overall climate change, and what is its significance in global carbon emissions?

The transport sector covers quite a lot of transport modes – cars, vans, buses, trolleys, boats, ships, and airplanes. Worldwide approximately 1/5 of all GHG emissions come from the transport sector. In Europe about 1/4. In Latvia  ~1/3. Cars and vans (light-duty vehicles) are about half of all the transport sector’s GHG emissions. That is because it is mainly fossil fuel based and internal combustion engines have proven to be quite ineffective in producing necessary movement. For example, in cars, the engine is only approximately 20% efficient. The rest is distributed as mainly heat. Even Formula 1 racecars, that are the pinnacle of combustion engines, the engine is only ~40% efficient and that is because it is a hybrid (partially electric) engine. Meanwhile, a typical electric motor has an efficiency of 95% or higher. 

There’s another aspect of switching to electric powertrain in cars. By rough estimations, if we switch to a fully electric powertrain, then about 1/3 of cargo ships will not be needed, as they transport fossil fuel for fossil cars. There are many ways we can rather easily reduce carbon emissions in the transport sector.

Can you provide a simple explanation of what zero-emission mobility means in the broader context of addressing climate change?

Zero-emission mobility means that the most suitable transport means are chosen for the task. Our habits are rather ridiculous if we zoom out a bit. Why do we need a 1.5-ton couch with a roof to travel 1-3 km? It doesn’t make sense to use a car for such a short distance, but that is what we currently see. Of course, this is just an example, but it is common. 

Zero-emission mobility means not only choosing the most suitable transport means but also changing our mindset and habits. For example, how do we travel for leisure – we fly to a place where it is hotter… How come that covering daily routes by bicycle is not cool if you’re not a student? 

Zero-emission mobility means that we have legislation and infrastructure in place. We have bicycle lanes, zero-emission zones, polluter-pays tax system. It should be as complex as it can be to be a polluter and as simple as it can get to not to be one.

How does zero-emission mobility contribute to achieving climate-neutral or at least climate-friendly transportation?

Zero-emission mobility has a direct impact on achieving climate-neutral transportation, it is a necessary part of it. To be realistic – in the nearest years, not all transport modes will be non-GHG-emitting. It will take decades for us to fully switch. But that does require to start acting on it. 

I love cycling, it is both the most efficient way to move around the city and the healthiest. The second best thing – use public transport as much as possible. Some would be surprised how less stressful they are when not driving on their daily commute.

How do electric vehicles positively impact the environment compared to traditional vehicles, and are there misconceptions you’d like to address?

Electric vehicles (EVs) have a positive impact on the environment compared to fossil vehicles (ICEVs – internal combustion engine vehicles). As EVs don’t have tailpipe emissions they contribute significantly less during vehicle use phase. Depending on the source and factors taken into account EVs are by 1/3 or up to 2/3 less polluting in the whole life-cycle. The variation mainly comes from the electricity required to charge, expected mileage in the use case, and if for ICEVs the production of fuel is considered.

Besides reducing emissions, how do electric vehicles contribute to resource conservation and reduced pollution?

One of the least know facts about EVs is that they are a much more versatile than ICEVs. There’s a potential for them to be used as portable batteries. They are easier to operate for autonomous driving. As the system design is simpler it is easier to repair them.

Another aspect that needs to be considered is the circular economy of batteries as they have 2nd purpose after they have lived in the cars. In the cars it is expected that battery is no longer good, when the health of it drops below 70% of initial energy capacity. That means that the battery or part of the battery still has about 70% left in it, before it is changed for a new one. It can still be used a stationary storage and there are already examples of such activity. However, the batteries in cars tend to last very long, hence there is no real market for 2nd use batteries, besides few special projects and DIY enthusiasts.

If it is decided that battery needs to be recycled than one can get similar statistics of recycling as with aluminium as more than 95% of the battery can be recycled for making new batteries. Volkswagen has declared that from one e-Golf battery that used to be 36 kWh, they have enough resources to supply with small amounts of additional elements to make three 58 kWh batteries for ID.3.

Can you elaborate on the life cycle of electric vehicles, covering manufacturing and disposal considerations?

Life cycle analysis of electric vehicles typically covers three major aspects: manufacturing, use phase, and disposal. During manufacturing EVs are 10%-30% heavier on the environment in comparison to ICEVs, because of the intense energy required to manufacture batteries. Even the simpler design cannot currently compensate for it. However, it must be pointed out that the process is still considered to be in early stage of development, and it is expected that in 10 years it will be better from environmental perspective to manufacture EVs than ICEVs.

In use phase typically include tailpipe emissions for ICEVs (rarely manufacturing and transporting fuels) and, as EVs don’t have tailpipe emissions, manufacturing and transporting electricity for EVs. It is estimated that EVs need between 6000 and 25000 km to be in parity with ICEVs in sum carbon footprint. After that EVs become better for environment. The more kilometers are considered, the more the image is in favor to EVs. Some studies include secondary battery in the formula, but real-life data show that the need to replace a whole battery during cars use phase is more of an outlier than necessity.

In disposal phase it is usually considered that the battery is part of circular economy and helps to bring down the footprint for future EVs. Hence disposal of both car types is taken to be similar.

What recent advancements in electrical engineering have significantly improved the performance and efficiency of electric vehicles, and how do these contribute to sustainability?

The start of EVs in modern era was possible due to portable electronic devices, such as laptops and cell phones. That sped up battery development to a state that was sufficient for use in cars. However, nowadays the development is more towards battery chemistries that are more suitable for cars differentiating between expected use case, example, budget friendly or sports purpose. Currently the most common battery type is the one that is more suitable for sports purpose than for daily driving. For example, when making budget friendlier LiFePo4 battery, the process is less energy tense and uses materials that are easier sourced.

Heat pumps are certainly a technology that has helped to spur the usage of EVs. Not so much for cabin heating as for the battery thermal management to keep the batteries at their best use case temperature for a longer period. This prolongs battery life and increases their performance even in the coldest climates.

In your opinion, what are the current technological challenges hindering the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, and how can innovation address these challenges?

We are just now seeing budget friendly cars enter market. The buying price is a major obstacle why many people don’t consider an EV. Another major obstacle is charging infrastructure. It is developing rapidly, but there are concerns that it is not happening fast enough. However there are no major technological obstacles or challenges that are hindering the adoption of EVs.

Beyond charging stations, what other infrastructural elements are essential for supporting the growth of zero-emission mobility?

There is a concern about the grid capacity, however, the pace of development does not concern grid operators. The grid almost every day gets new capacity provided by sustainable energy sources, keeping such fossil sources as gas to those moments, when sun or wind is not providing enough.

To what extent do government incentives and subsidies play a role in driving the adoption of electric vehicles and supporting the transition to climate-neutral mobility?

Any new technology needs time to get from early-adopters to mass adoption. However we are at a climate crisis currently, and cars being such a major pollutant, we need to tackle them directly. There are various ways to get to the end goal called carrots and sticks. Carrots are subsidies, helping the new and often more expensive technology to be more accessible. While sticks are legislation and taxes making it less attractive to use old technology. Currently we are seeing more carrots than sticks, but soon it is expected that there will be minimal to no carrots and major sticks.

How can investments in climate-neutral mobility, particularly in electric vehicles, contribute to economic growth and job creation?

As in any major technological shift, as is this case, there are workplaces that will be gained and workplaces that will be lost. For economies as Germany that rely heavily on ICEV manufacturing, the shift towards EVs is a threat to the current economy. However, EVs need more software and have been positioned as technologically more advanced, hence they need more people to work on software. It is a fine balance, but software can be made from anywhere, while hardware needs to be manufactured and assembled in only limited number of spaces.

What would be your key message or call to action for individuals, industries, and policymakers to contribute effectively to achieving climate-neutral mobility, particularly in the context of zero-emission technologies?

The main problem we are facing is that in our economical way of thinking there is a clear lack of ethics. We have all the technologies, know-how and resources to achieve climate-neutral mobility. There are no real obstacles besides the ones in our heads. The sooner you realize that the better you will be. Change is scary sometimes, but we need to put on our big boy/girl pants and act as necessary.