My previous article gave electric cars a conditional two thumbs up as a way of reducing man’s level of carbon dioxide emissions.  The condition is that fossil-fuel-based energy production, which represents about 70% of the total current global energy production, is phased out as EVs are phased in.

A complete makeover of our power plant infrastructure is a daunting task from an economic perspective.  The amount of energy consumed by man is already tremendous, and the demand is going to increase dramatically as certain populous countries develop and cars begin to go electric.  If fossil fuel power plants are to be shut down, what can they be replaced with?

At present, there is only one alternative that can meet the high demand: nuclear power plants.  Solar and wind, while renewable and green, are only effective in certain locations and even then do not give nearly as much bang for your buck.  Put simply, we cannot, at present, expect to meet more than 10% of our global energy production demands with wind and solar.

While nuclear plants do create radioactive waste, the waste can be contained, in contrast to coal plants, which release CO₂ directly into the atmosphere.  The sheer amount of waste in the case of nuclear is comparatively so much less because it is 750,000 times more mass efficient then coal.  One kilogram of coal, when burned, can power a 100-Watt light bulb for eight hours.  The fission of one kilogram of enriched uranium can power the same bulb for 690 years.

Why is nuclear power so much more efficient than coal power?  It has to do with the nature of the reaction.  Burning coal is a chemical reaction known as combustion.  A fission reactor houses nuclear reactions, which involves the division of atomic nuclei.  Fission is actually an illustration of the most famous equation in the world, Einstein’s E = mc².  The equation says that if mass is converted into energy in its entirety, one kilogram becomes 9*10¹⁶ Joules, which could power the 100-Watt light bulb for 30,000,000 years.

In a nuclear reactor, only a tiny fraction (about 0.002%) of the mass of the uranium is converted into energy.  As such, nuclear plants only begin to tap into the promise of E = mc².  Over time, should man figure a way to release all of the energy within the mass of a given spec of matter in a controlled fashion, it would represent a quantum shift for society.  Man’s energy crisis would be replaced by a bottomless pit of energy.  Sadly, this dream sits so far into the future that it is not worth pondering. 

Returning to the current reality, if nuclear power plants can meet global energy demand, are so efficient, and do not dump massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then why do we not use them exclusively?  The reason comes down to politics and public perception.

When an airplane crashes halfway across the world, every major media outlet worldwide is sure to cover it.  They will however not bother to cover the thousands of fatal car crashes that occur in the same time span.  As a result, the public is typically more fearful of flying than driving, even though it is statistically safer to fly per distance traveled than to drive.

There have been only five noteworthy disasters at the over five hundred nuclear power plants worldwide over the course of the past half century.  Four of them affected hundreds of people (leaving them dead or afflicted with cancer due to radiation).  The other one is that of Chernobyl in 1986. The WHO estimates that the Chernobyl disaster was responsible for 9,000 deaths. 

Even if we include Chernobyl in the statistical analysis, there have been more deaths linked to coal mining than to nuclear disasters per energy produced by each method.  This fact would not be easily perceived by a quick pass through any newspaper, which for months has been reporting about the devastating disaster in Fukushima, which from a nuclear standpoint, was essentially averted.  The newspapers were however very keen on following a rare success story of trapped miners.

The reality is that large-scale energy production is a dangerous practice, and regardless of the production method, strict safety standards must be adhered to.  What we must put ahead of anything else is the equilibrium of our biosphere.  Our fossil fuel energy production over the past century has had a global effect on the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.  We must produce energy by an alternative means to fossil fuel burning, and in the short term, the only viable option is nuclear power.

If we are serious about minimizing our impact on our planet, we must situate this out-of-sight, out-of-mind issue in plain sight.

There was a time when, in my view, the subject of this article would have seemed too trivial to bother with – how naive I was.  Thanks in large part to misinformation campaigns by oil pushers, the public at large remains grossly oblivious to climate change issues. 

When false science permeates the media it leads to confusion amongst many, which can lead to frustration on their part.  The long-term consequence of misinformation is an apathetic society.  Apathy is a sad but accurate description of how a large proportion of the North American population feel about climate change.

The electric car on its own is not really a green solution.  Traditional gas-guzzling cars have internal combustion engines that convert fossil fuels into energy to power it, while outputting significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the process.  Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so-named because it transforms the Earth’s surface into a greenhouse, trapping sunlight in, and gradually causing the surface temperature to increase.

What many fail to recognize is that an electric car, which requires no fuel, does require electrical energy; the first law of thermodynamics stipulates that the energy must come from somewhere.  Electric car batteries are charged by plugging them into the local electrical grid, like a cell phone battery.  The big question is then what powers your grid?  Globally, the answer is fossil fuels 70% of the time.  If you live in an area that is powered by coal for example, you are no further ahead environmentally by swapping for an electric vehicle.  You are simply diverting the CO₂ spewing from your car engine to your local power plant.

On the other hand, if you live in an area that gets its power from a non-fossil fuel source (Nuclear, Hydro, Wind...), then you are indeed reducing your carbon footprint effectively.  If you are in this 30% minority, you should commend your government for it.  If we are serious about curbing our carbon output, then as electric cars are phased onto our roads, fossil fuels must be phased out of energy production.

Are you ready to plug in?

As an engineer, I prefer the electric car over the internal combustion version on many levels, but mostly because the design is simpler.  Electric cars have far fewer parts, and thus require less work to assemble and less effort to maintain.  On the flipside, some parts are incredibly expensive.  In particular, the car battery remains a cost issue.

The car battery is at the center of the electric car debate as many key parameters are directly affected by its design.  Fuel-powered cars can drive around 600 km on the highway with one tank of gas.  Also, they can be refuelled in about five minutes.  Optimizing these two parameters has been the primary goal for electric car technology over the past decade, and major strides have been made.  30 km on one charge has been increased to 150 km for more recent designs – not ideal for a long road trip, but completely adequate for all other purposes.  Also, batteries can now be charged in minutes instead of hours.

Car performance is another issue that driving enthusiasts bring up.  The reality is that 98% of the population have no need to get to 60 mph in less than 10 seconds.  What today’s auto consumer wants is a car that gets them from A to B safely and affordably.  If two cars are virtually equal in these two regards, the public will choose the one that is more environmentally friendly.  Unfortunately, only the aforementioned 30% of people are in a position to make this choice and have it mean something.

Someone forgot to tell the makers of the Telsa Roadster that electric cars aren't supposed to be sexy

The coming decade will bring a Honda Civic-like car that plugs into the electric grid for all of its power.  Once they are mass-produced on the same order as combustion cars, and battery technology matures, the electric car price will be similar to that of the gas-guzzler.  Couple that with the rising oil prices (and dwindling supply), and it is not far-fetched to predict that half of the cars on the road by 2030 will be fully electric.

You may have noticed that I did not bring hybrids into this conversation.  While they represent a useful technology, I tend not to support overly complex designs.  Buying one car with two energy systems is like buying a 2-in-1 VCR/DVD player.   Having twice the number of parts can lead to twice the amount of repairs.

What we need to make a real dent in our carbon dioxide emissions are power plants that do not emit them.  Only then can electric cars be considered green.  I stated this point to some friends of mine recently when a car commercial came on during some sporting event.  The notion had never occurred to them, and so I thought it was a worthy one to pass on to my readers.