To rev into the future, e-cars need a lot of tweaking

ECO CARS HAVE never been entirely convincing. And recent research has only added to the doubts.

Certainly, hybrids and electric cars produce fewer CO2 emissions than normal vehicles as they motor along the street.

But that is scant consolation for the extra energy consumed — and the extra emissions produced —  in the process of manufacturing them; especially their banks of batteries, which eco cars need several sets of in their lifetime.

Also, while the exhaust of an electric car might be clean, production of the electricity to charge it up is often produced by ...  an oil-fired power station. For good reason, the exhausts of those are known as smokestacks!

Already, the eco friendliness of eco cars is at best marginal, and possibly negative.

It is to that already iffy baseline you must add the result of the latest research, published in a journal called Atmospheric Environment. 

Their study notes that exhaust emissions are not the only, nor the most toxic, pollution from cars. 

BETTER FUEL CONSUMPTION

So-called non-exhaust emissions from motor vehicles include particles from brake linings, tyres and bits of bitumen from the road.

These, the latest study shows, are larger and more toxic than the exhaust emissions from modern cars.

And, lo and behold, eco cars — which are heavier because of their battery banks — produce more of these particles than conventional vehicles.  This doesn’t just make eco cars less ideal in the overall balance; it means they produce more toxic particles than even “dirty” diesels.

In sum, “they are likely to be key factors in the extra heart attacks, strokes and asthma when air pollution levels surge.”

Further, exhaust emissions from conventional fuel-burning cars have been dramatically reduced — above all by reducing their fuel consumption per km (better design, maintenance and renewal; better roads and traffic flows) altogether better-than halving the toxins produced per vehicle per km versus the levels just a few years ago. While hidden downsides in electric and hybrid vehicles, and upsides in conventional vehicles,  warrant caution in the evaluation of eco cars, it does not condemn them.

Hybrid and electric car technology is still embryonic, and the direction it is pioneering will evolve and could eventually deliver significant gains.

The same applies to the initial enthusiasm for unleaded fuels. The alternative octane enhancers never have been and are not less toxic than lead. But one day they might be.

And, in the meantime, they do allow the use of catalysers, which do (or at least can) reduce the toxicity of exhaust fumes.

In the context of climate change (which is as real as science gets), all efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and toxic emissions deserve attention and support, but their credibility needs scrutiny, and recognition that technology has not yet found a “silver bullet” that makes the road transport of seven billion people eco-harmless.

And remember, if you have a sting in your nose or a tickle in the back of your throat, all kinds of cars — petrol, diesel, hybrid or electric — are only one part of the cause.

The list of things that have a significant ill-effect on the “atmospheric environment” is long and motor vehicles are not at, or even near, the top of it.