Each manufacturer has his favourite model, especially the one that he is trying to sell. All are now engaging into it, and the consumer is bombarded with marvellous press articles, from the redaction or infomercials, about the benefits of a variant or another.

Researchers also make their contributions, although with a strong tendency to dress well established technologyies with a new green veil, saviour of the planet, such as the recent announcement of the EPFL (Swiss federal institute of technology in Lausanne) about a charging station for electric and hydrogen vehicles. Almost always their economic assessments are either lacking, or are desperately short of the rigor that their science should impose. The technical-scientific marketing remains oddly infirm in regard to these aspects.

Each variant has its advantages and disadvantages that need to be evaluated from three points of view: economic, energy efficiency, and environmental.

In the following, a rough energy comparison (“back of an envelope” calculation) is made that considers the use of a medium size automobile to meet the needs of a consumer for a 100 km journey. In comparison are vehicles: with hybrid and conventional explosion engine, all-electric powered by batteries charged either from the mains or by a fuel cell operating with hydrogen, and H₂-vehicle with either an embarked fuel cell or a thermal engine burning H₂. The hydrogen has to be produced by electrolysis, and then stored at the charging station.

The results are seen on the table below (click on it to enlarge, a spreadsheet can be downloaded here to change the parameters at will).

Energy requirements

It appears that, under the current and possible future electricity supply conditions in Switzerland, the hybrid vehicle, with 29.4 kWh per 100 km is the most efficient from an integral energy point of view, that is to say, taking into account the production conditions of the electricity that will be consumed. With the current electricity production mix in Switzerland the all-electric needs 32.6 kWh/100km. Such a solution can only be justified in a country like Norway, with almost all its power supply stemming from hydraulic sources (23.4 kWh/100 km), and having already electric outlets installed in car parks that are used to pre-warm engines in the Winter time.

The favourable position of hybrid is reinforced if, in addition, one considers that the additional investment that is needed as compared to a conventional combustion engine is only of a few thousand Swiss francs per vehicle, and that no other production and distribution infrastructure is required to meet the needs of the market.

For all-electric vehicles, additional investment is to be made for charging systems. Remember that to recharge a vehicle so that it can travel 200 km you have to use all the available power of a detached house (about 5 kW) for 4 to 6 hours, and that meanwhile, doing the dishes, laundry, cooking and ironing cannot be made. If we had to increase the powers available to all housing, investments in the country could be enormous.

From my last electric bill I take that the price of the electricity mix that we consumed (Kaiseraugst AG, Switzerland) was 18.4 cents per kWh (with VAT 8%: 19.8).

The current pump price of petrol is 1.60 to 1.80 Swiss franc per litre. After having removed the 8% VAT and the fuel tax of 73.12 cents the price before tax amounts to 85-95 cents per litre, that covers the costs of oil extraction, refining, and distribution, as well as benefit margins of all intervening parties, none of them receiving any subsidy or tax rebates. This price can be converted into about 8.3 – 10.6 Swiss cents per kWh[1].

The energy cost to travel 100 km will be, net of all consumer taxes:

Petrol:                      4.5 to 5.3 Fr         (including infrastructure)

Hybrid:                    2.3 to 2.6 Fr         (including infrastructure)

All-electric:              ~ 3.5 Fr                (insufficient existing infrastructure)

Hydrogen:               5.8 to 10.5 Fr       (+ huge infrastructure)

At that price and on a basis of a vehicle life of 200,000 km, the hybrid saves about 5,000 Fr as compared to a petrol vehicle, which almost compensates the higher purchase price. There remains a doubt about the longevity of the batteries used for both hybrids and all-electric.

In any case, I hope that all support for a hydrogen based solution evaporates now in a large detonation, not the least considering also the hazards of letting consumers handling that explosive gas.

Taxation is aimed at pumping out of the private economy the funds required for the functioning of the state. It necessarily skews the economic analysis of the consumers, but for public economic considerations, tax free costs and prices must be used.

It is imperative that the state remains neutral about which technologies should be used or avoided. Only safety standards established on the basis of risk analysis must count for e.g. NOx, CO and other pollutants, noise, etc. that are confronted with tolerable long-term toxicity thresholds. If the risks are deemed acceptable there is no reason to tax one way more than the other. Nothing is clean‑tech, or rather everything deserves this label if the set safety standards are satisfied. For example, as the climate is not in danger of being seriously changed by carbon dioxide emissions we can avoid thinking that the planet will be saved by taxes or carbon certificates.

If mobility is a good source of taxation, it would be better to charge a fee per km, possibly modulated by the weight and the rated power of the vehicle (which are the major factors for wear and tear of the roads). There is no need for a complex “road-pricing” system. It would not be more complicated than reading the water and electricity meters of the homes. At the end of the month, the consumer would pay around 50 Swiss francs for the 1000 km which he will have travelled, and he will know how to reduce this bill.

But if the state wants, as currently and wrongly, to prefer one technology then it introduces mechanisms of taxation and subsidies that will encourage consumers to not do certain things and to do others. All are not enjoying them but all are counting on the benefits that are provided by the official corruption – otherwise named subsidies, tax modulations, and certificates – that is put in place to convince or to coerce investors and consumers. Such state planning aims at a target that is almost never moving as expected. Alas it works for so many parasites, despite of the fact that it is not legitimate to attribute such a role to the state. If in addition these schemes go against common sense, so we will have complicated and rotten our life, and made it more expensive; and above all, we will have one more demonstration of the incompetence and the crass stupidity of those who want to intervene for everything and everywhere.

[1] Did you know that when you fill your tank with 50-litre petrol, your store about 470 kWh as thermal reserve (1.68 gigajoule). When used, 2/3 will be heat losses and 1/3 mechanical energy for propulsion. For a hybrid car these proportions are reversed.

Merci de compartir cet article