Problems with EVs from Safety to Efficiency

Are EVs Better Than ICE Vehicles?

There are a number of big concerns when it comes to the issue of whether electric vehicles (EVs) are better than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. One of those issues is safety; another is how to handle fires (a big problem with EVs, but not so much with ICE vehicles); a third is the manufacturing impact, and a fourth is life expectancy. This paper takes the position that when all is said and done, ICE vehicles are still far better than EVs on all four points, which means EVs should not be promoted as the better product of the two.

The first point of contention is the question of safety. EVs are routinely promoted as being safe and low-risk (Zohar et al.). There is also a lot of assumption about future improvements built into the EV promotion (Ellsmoor). However, a simple look at the record shows more problems than solutions: On the matter of safety and risk, there is the major red flag of lithium-ion batteries. As Larsson et al. explain, “lithium-ion batteries have many advantages but the window of stability is relatively small (both regarding temperature and voltage). The cells must therefore be monitored and controlled, by BMS. Overheating may cause a severe malfunction; if the temperature exceeds typically 120-150 °C, exothermal reactions within the cell can start.” In fact, EVs suddenly bursting into flames is a common sight for anyone who follows the phenomenon on social media or news sites like Zero Hedge. More importantly, the research by Larsson et al. and that quote in particular highlights the safety concerns and risks associated with lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs. They are simply too unstable to compare to the stability of fuel offered by ICE vehicles. ICE vehicles do not spontaneously combust, but EVs sure do. The need for constant monitoring and control to prevent overheating and potential malfunctions could be seen as a disadvantage compared to ICE vehicles.

The second big problem point is on the matter of handling fires involving EVs. This is not a simple process and nowhere near as easy as it is to extinguish fires of ICE vehicles. Again, Larsson et al. provide the explanation: "Evidence exists that electric vehicles burn fiercely and that the fire is difficult to extinguish…[however] The advice from manufacturers is often to let the vehicle burn or to use water or sand. Letting the vehicle burn is not a viable option in e.g. a garage, a ferry or in a tunnel” (42). This is clearly a problem for firemen as well, who have yet to come up with a suitable approach to putting out EV fires: these fires are nearly impossible to put out, and that is when EVs catch fire there is nothing left: everything is incinerated until the battery finally stops burning. This potential for fierce burning and difficulty in extinguishing such fires could be considered a significant drawback compared to ICE vehicles.

Another point to consider is the manufacturing impact and humanitarian issues related with EVs. As Miano explains, "the manufacturing of batteries emits more carbon dioxide (CO2) than the assembly of an ICE vehicle, which is due to the battery consists of many rare earth metals. ... Massive mining operations are needed, resulting in both environmental and humanitarian issues. ... Lithium mining contaminates the soil and water in these countries, causing the problem of unsafe drinking water. ... Mines operating in the DRC use child labor, nearly 40,000 children a day, to obtain cobalt." What this shows quite clearly is that there is a huge amount of environmental and humanitarian issues associated with the manufacturing of EVs, particularly the extraction of rare earth metals required for batteries and use of child labor in those mines due to the fact that labor laws are non-existent in those parts of the world. EV manufacturers do not want people thinking about this aspect of EV production because it puts a pretty ugly black eye on the whole operation. Those who like to virtue signal about driving an EV do not look good when this fact about mining is pointed out.

Finally, there is the issue of efficiency and life expectancy. When compared to the efficiency and life expectancy of an ICE vehicle, it is simply no contest. ICE vehicles are more dependable hands down. Miano states, for instance, that "Most EVs have a range of around 300 miles in 'standard conditions'. ... Cold weather, in particular, will lower the range of an EV. ... Furthermore, they concluded that charging an EV in these freezing temperatures will be 35% less effective than charging it on a comfortable day of 77 degrees. ... The life expectancy of EVs ... is still significantly lower than an ICE vehicle, which is roughly 200,000 miles, or about ten years. The reason EVs are lower is because the batteries become worn out and cannot perform as well."

This quote shows very clearly that EVs face external conditions that can significantly impact their performance and longevity. ICE vehicles are far more stable in terms of expectations: when one gases up an ICE vehicle, there is not going to be any question of not having enough fuel—or range anxiety as it is known among EV drivers. The fuel is there and it is not going anywhere. It is not going to be diminished by cold weather, and it is not going to be up and down in terms of performance based on the weather.

To summarize the reasons EVs are not better than ICE vehicles, the main issues are safety, fires that cannot be extinguished, the manufacturing and humanitarian impact, and the efficiency and life expectancy problem. EVs are touted as superior to ICE vehicles for a number of reasons, but as the above shows, the superiority is more imagined than it is evident in reality. Still the academic argument of EVs vs. ICE vehicles rages on.

From an environmental perspective, proponents of EVs argue that they offer a cleaner alternative to ICE vehicles, producing zero emissions during operation and contributing to improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This is particularly true when the electricity used to charge EVs comes from renewable sources. Critics, however, point out the environmental costs associated with manufacturing EVs, especially the extraction and processing of rare earth metals required for batteries (Miano). They argue that the overall environmental benefit of EVs depends heavily on the energy mix used for electricity generation.

On the other hand, advancements in technology have led to more fuel-efficient and less polluting ICE vehicles, but critics maintain that they still contribute significantly to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Proponents of ICE vehicles point out that their vehicles have improved substantially in terms of emissions and efficiency, providing a more immediate solution to environmental concerns (Miano).

Likewise, economically, EVs are touted for their lower operating costs, with savings on fuel and maintenance. The higher upfront cost and potential need for expensive battery replacement are, however, significant considerations. ICE vehicles, in contrast, have a lower upfront cost and a well-established maintenance infrastructure, though they may incur higher long-term costs due to fuel and maintenance.