New ad campaign for snake oil – from the ICCT

The ICCT’s latest paper on electric cars does not deserve to be called a study either. The reason for this is a systematic error committed with the intention to deceive.

Sales of e-cars remain far below the expectations of campaign organizations. It is based predominantly on commercial registrations, which in turn are based on tax breaks, subsidies and government coercive measures (such as the ban on registering new cabs with combustion engines in Hamburg).
Private customers have hardly been persuaded so far.

The ICCT (International Council on Clean Transportation) thought that something had to be done about this. Without further ado, it cobbled together a new paper entitled “Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars in the European Union” and claims: The life-cycle emissions of battery electric vehicles in the European Union are estimated to be 73% lower than those of gasoline internal combustion vehicles.

The ICCT is not alone in this. Most recent studies attest to the climate benefits of electric cars. In order to achieve the result desired by their clients, the authors always use the same trick: They simply ignore which power plants actually supply the additional electricity for the new consumers.

This also applies to the new ICCT paper. Table 6 lists the emission values for electricity generation used in the calculations: 260, 78 and 112 g CO₂e/kWh.

These are past and projected emissions from the average European electricity mix (referred to in the text as the “grid mix”).

However, the average approach is incorrect for determining the emissions of additional electricity consumers because it corresponds to the absurd assumption of load-independent emissions from electricity generation. This would require all power plants to have the same level of emissions, or they would all have to be synchronously ramped up and down. Neither is the case.

Correct life cycle analyses must always apply the marginal approach. In Europe, this usually results in emissions that are around twice as high as average electricity, because fluctuations in electricity demand in both the short and long term are predominantly offset by fossil fuel power plants.

This permanently destroys the sustainability of the e-car: “E-cars are a miserable climate protection measure in Germany.” The actual emissions are so high that it is impossible to calculate the CO₂ avoidance costs of e-mobility – because no CO₂ will be avoided until at least 2045. If fossil fuel power plants are still on the grid in 2045, it will take even longer – possibly even until the end of the century.

Worryingly, many scientists are prepared to ignore these facts and apply the average approach without comment. The subsequently added green arrow in this graphic from a reputable peer-reviewed VDI study illustrates the consequences:

The position of electric cars relative to combustion engines shifts from “slightly worse” to “significantly better”. Only this sleight of hand makes the ICCT’s claim that the life cycle emissions of BEVs are 73% lower possible.

The following applies to integrated electricity grids: as long as part of the electricity is generated using fossil fuels, the e-car has no climate advantage. Therefore, every €uro invested in e-mobility is money lost for climate protection.

The ICCT has accompanied the debate on e-mobility for many years with encouraging papers that are always based on the same systematic error. Even the seemingly scientific presentation of the new paper cannot hide the fact that it is just another insubstantial marketing brochure for plug-in cars.

IInstitutions such as the ICCT produce commissioned work with politically desirable content that is intended to justify subsidies for electric cars that run on electricity that is partly generated using fossil fuels. They incite politicians with false claims to undermine market forces and press an industrial sector to misallocate capital. In this context, the authors of the ICCT paper, Marta Nagri and Georg Bieker, are not acting as scientists, but as lobby activists.