Misleading SCMP Article

[mattse]

EV is greener as we can offset the CO2 emission by using green energy (although not for HK yet), we need some sort of transportation anyway, but the pollution done by ICE cars can’t be reversed / further much reduced

Still, I would not say I protect the environment by driving an EV, but I would say I help those old chaps with airway problem by reducing roadside emission, thus reducing their disease exacerbation, hospital admissions etc, it will become prominent when the fleet of EV grows much larger in HK

For the power company part, burning coal for electricity is cheap, there is not much incentive for them to switch to green energy in HK

Energy Costs

And don’t worry about the effect of this SCMP article on the FRT waiver, they will just cut it anyway (if they want). If somebody says burning coal to get electricity for transportation is bad, the same applies to MTR vs buses. MTR won't like this comment. Plus the govt will have to admit they did too little in switching HK to green energy throughout all these years, they won't risk the potential backfire.

 

[techmaven]

I see where Beveridge, the Bernstein oil analyst gets his number. He's using the BMW 320i Efficient Dynamics version of the car which BMW reports as 135 to 124 g/km of CO2 emissions. That's using NEDC mileage ratings. That's how he gets such a low CO2 number. Upstream GHG should be 19.5%, or 24 g/km additional which mean 4 tons, not 2.2 tons. So the 320i Efficient Dynamics edition of the vehicle gets 24.6 tons of emissions.

To compare correctly then, a Model S 70 kWh gets 282 miles of range on NEDC rating scale, not 234. So instead of 38 Wh/100 miles, it's 31.5 Wh/100 miles, or 315 Wh/mile. For the 93,205 miles, that's 29,389 kWh. 0.79 kg/kWh for their HK Electric production = 23,217 kg or 25.6 tons. Add in the 5.8, and we are at 31.4 tons.

Using CLP Power mix, we get 18,515 kg, or 20.4 tons. Add in the 5.8 tons, we're at 26.2 tons. The Model S 70 kWh is then within 7% of the most efficient 320i. Note that the 328i has about 18% fuel usage which means 18% higher CO2 emissions. So a S70 beats pretty much everything in the 3 series line up except for the lowest end engine.

A Model 3, however, will be more efficient than a Model S 70 kWh, easily erasing the 7% margin... probably ending up somewhere around 15% advantage to the Model 3.

 

[markwj]

I was a guest on the RTHK Radio 3 Backchat program. The last fifteen minutes or so includes a back-and-forth discussion with the senior author of the report. You can listen here:

Backchat-Electronic Vehicles / CY Leung and the Airport

Really grateful to RTHK for giving us a chance to present the other side of the story. I was there to talk about private EVs. Also, Paul Bromley (CTO for an electric bus company), and Simon Ng (Chief Research Officer for Civic Exchange, an independent public policy think tank). I think it safe to summarise that all three of us disagreed with the report's conclusions. We have our differing views, but we all see the clear benefits of EVs, along with every environmental agency around the world.

I have lots of issues with this research paper, but it basically comes down to the authors choosing all the worst figures for EV and the best figures for the petrol car. Including:

• Choice of HKE vs CLP, despite 3/4 of the electricity in Hong Kong being generated by CLP and 70% of the EVs here being powered by CLP. The reason? The HKE fuel mix is more polluting than CLP. A simple and fair comparison would have been a 75/25 mix between CLP and HKE. This one single point exemplifies the bias in this report. There is no possible reason to choose HKE exclusively over CLP or some mix of the two, other than to misrepresent the facts.
• Use of NEDC drive cycle. Real world consumption is widely reported as 50% above NEDC rating. Particularly in terrain like Hong Kong, particularly with high levels of traffic jam and idling engines, and particularly on the Hong Kong island used in this comparison. The reason? As EVs pollutes less on the road, this severely under reports the on-the-road 150,000km lifetime benefits of EVs.
• Battery production figures. While there is arguably a CO2 hit to EVs due to the battery consumption, the authors made no allowance for the recyclability of the battery of for the use of the gigafactory renewable energy in production of Model 3 batteries (the comparison was supposedly against a Model 3 EV). In addition, no allowance was made for CO2 hit in production of the parts of a petrol car not in an EV (exhaust, catalytic converter, ignition system, engine, oil, etc).
• The author severely understated the amount of CO2 produced in the extraction, refinement, transportation and delivery of oil. They allowed 10%, where a more reasonable figure would be 30%. Even more if the oil came from oil sands.
• They don't clearly state what EV they are comparing against. It seems that they are using a Tesla Model 3 as the comparison, but that vehicle doesn't exist today - we don't know it's battery size, or NEDC rating. For the petrol car, they choose the most economic low-end BMW they can find. It would have been better to compare like-for-like. A small 4 door hatchback vs a BMW i3, or a Mercedes S500 vs a Tesla Model S. etc.
• They don't assume any improvement in time. This despite the proven historical figures of a 90% improvement in respiratory pollution (the air quality stuff we breath every day) over the past 20 years, and the government plan to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation by at least 50% over the coming ten years. They do put forward that petrol car efficiency will improve over the next ten years, but conveniently ignore the fact that we are talking about cars purchased TODAY and run on the roads for the next ten to twenty years.
• They ignore air quality emissions completely, and instead just talk about CO2 emissions.

The report is garbage, from start to finish, and is penned by a 19+ year oil and gas industry guy.

For an independent view, just go to the US government's www.fueleconomy.gov, choose a state with comparable fuel generation to Hong Kong (or where you live), and then you can compare the figures for different types of cars for yourself. Or go to the Union of Concerned Scientist's site for a comprehensive unbiased report.

The truth is that Electric Vehicles, even when powered by dirty coal, are still cleaner than comparable petrol vehicles today. In most cases the petrol vehicle pollutes 50% to 100% more than a comparable electric vehicle. An electric vehicle purchased today will get cleaner and cleaner in the coming years (as the power generation is improved), while a comparable petrol car will simply get dirtier and dirtier. The electricity used to power an electric vehicle purchased in Hong Kong twenty years ago would today produce just 1/10th of the respiratory emissions compared to twenty years ago. Government proposals for the coming ten years will further reduce those respiratory emissions, as well as reducing carbon emissions by around 50%. Quite simply, the same cannot be said for a petrol vehicle.

It is a shame that the authors of this report chose to shoot themselves in the foot in this way. They have a valid point in that we need a cleaner fuel mix for electricity generation. Such a migration to cleaner and more renewable fuels is inevitable, and in progress. We as a community should support that, because it is not just electric vehicles that run off electricity. In fact electric vehicles are just a tiny user of electricity in Hong Kong.

 

[Vmax]

The fact that this "analyst" works for the oil industry speaks for itself. It's just so disappointing, that SCMP didn't point that out very clearly in their article.

 

[Optic]

I actually was surprised that even with the worst case EV numbers, the environmental footprint doesn't beat an ICE by a magnitude of 2. In fact after correcting for all the bad figures, it still seems close, that is a wake up call for consumers. There are good points that as HK move towards renewable energy, things will improve.

To be fair, I think Tesla's numbers are also overly optimistic too as some of below issues are not accounted for: (please correct me if I am wrong)
- charging heat lost
- nightly 1.5% vampire drain
- battery disposal issue
- heating cost during winter

The first two items can easily make up for 20% of the lost in efficiency for me since I only charge once a week and lose 15% on vampire drain. With this in mind, I guess I cannot recommend a Tesla based on environmental friendliness in HK.

 

[techmaven]

I actually was surprised that even with the worst case EV numbers, the environmental footprint doesn't beat an ICE by a magnitude of 2. In fact after correcting for all the bad figures, it still seems close, that is a wake up call for consumers. There are good points that as HK move towards renewable energy, things will improve.

To be fair, I think Tesla's numbers are also overly optimistic too as some of below issues are not accounted for: (please correct me if I am wrong)
- charging heat lost
- nightly 1.5% vampire drain
- battery disposal issue
- heating cost during winter

The first two items can easily make up for 20% of the lost in efficiency for me since I only charge once a week and lose 15% on vampire drain. With this in mind, I guess I cannot recommend a Tesla based on environmental friendliness in HK.

Charging losses are built into the calculations. Vampire drain is not. There is no disposal factored in for either car, and no reason to think that the Tesla has more of a disposal issue. Both have issues for disposal. Both vehicles have winter issues.

There are several additional factors for real world use.... The figures for the ICE vehicle are for perfect operations and the reality is very different. ICE vehicle emissions during start up and fuel economy while cold is much worse. During the lifetime of the vehicle, the ICE power train efficiency will degrade much faster, and as the owner does or does not perform maintenance, the emissions will increase accordingly. The vehicle has emissions while stuck in traffic, not moving. Start/stop systems have to guess, and the re-start uses more fuel. The figures assume start-stop is turned on and guessing well. It is possible to have start stop cause more fuel consumption. Also, maintenance emissions are not factored in, for example the motor oil, catalytic converter, and so forth was not factored in.

Finally, the Model S beats all of the other variants of the 3 series handily... Much less its actual segment competition like the 5 series or 7 series. A 5 series with a 3 liter turbo 6 cylinder gets 44 tons for just the fuel burning part. It gets much worse going to the common turbo 8's. A Model S is about half the GHG emissions of thier segment competitors. You have to go way out of segment to compete.

 

[markwj]

I actually was surprised that even with the worst case EV numbers, the environmental footprint doesn't beat an ICE by a magnitude of 2. In fact after correcting for all the bad figures, it still seems close, that is a wake up call for consumers. There are good points that as HK move towards renewable energy, things will improve.

To be fair, I think Tesla's numbers are also overly optimistic too as some of below issues are not accounted for: (please correct me if I am wrong)
- charging heat lost
- nightly 1.5% vampire drain
- battery disposal issue
- heating cost during winter

The first two items can easily make up for 20% of the lost in efficiency for me since I only charge once a week and lose 15% on vampire drain. With this in mind, I guess I cannot recommend a Tesla based on environmental friendliness in HK.

Charging heat loss and vampire drain are included in the consumption figures anyway. They allocated over 6 tonnes of CO2 for the battery production already (and made no allowance for recycling or anything other than dumping the whole battery in a landfill). Heating costs during winters in Hong Kong are minimal (and petrol vehicle fuel consumption plummets when the engine is cold). Aircon during summers is more of an issue, but that is comparable to petrol cars. Compared to the discrepancy of using NEDC consumption figures for this comparison, the factors you mention are negligible - so long as you drive the car and don't just leave it in the garage (which is what the 150,000km lifetime comparison implies).

Does anybody actually hit the fuel consumption figures that the manufacturers claim (NEDC or whatever)? Of course not. You mention your real-world experience of 20% loss of efficiency, or 15% vampire drain. Well, have a look at the real world MPG figures for the BMW 320i used in the report. 44.8–48.7 mpg claimed, 32.4 mpg average seen in the real world. That is 69% of the claimed efficiency.

On that RTHK show, the report author actually called me out when I said CLP was 30% cleaner than HKE. He said I was incorrect, and that the correct figure was 20%. Well, it turns out that he was using a figure of 0.64kg CO2e/kWh for CLP. But that is the older 2014 figure, and the correct number for 2015 is 0.54kg CO2e/kWh. He chose the bigger number either because he hasn't bothered to look up the correct number, or prefers to use the older less favourable figure.

If you fix just that one figure (HKE vs CLP), and still use all his other figures (biased as they are), the electric car comes out 1.99 tonnes CO2 better than the petrol car he chose. Fix all the other figures, and the petrol car has at least 50% more emissions than the EV that they chose. In Hong Kong, with our 'dirty' electricity generation. The report author keeps saying that Hong Kong electricity generation is dirtier than USA, but that is plain wrong. Many states in USA have significantly worse fuel mixes in their electricity generation than Hong Kong.

Do we really think that this one 19+ year veteran of the oil and gas industry, with his financial portfolio in oil stocks, knows better than all the environmental protection agencies, governments, and independent research bodies around the world? Or is he just trying to pump his own agenda?

Our electricity today is 90% cleaner than it was twenty years ago. Plans for the coming ten years will further reduce those respiratory emissions, as well as reducing carbon emissions by at least 50%. An electric vehicle purchased today will get cleaner in the coming years (as power generation improves), while a petrol car will simply get dirtier (as the engine deteriorates).

In the context of this whole report, it is interesting to look at the CLP figures in their 2014 sustainability report and compare to their 2015 report. In just one year, CLP's CO2 emissions went down 14%. They are also down 32% in SO2, 25% in NOX, and 15% in total particulates. That is really no surprise - it is on track for meeting all 2020 goals that have been clearly spelled out. We should be glad to hear that the electric cars running on Hong Kong streets are now all correspondingly cleaner, and continue to get cleaner every year as we improve our electricity generation. Shame that the same cannot be said for petrol and diesel cars. This is real vindication for the government policy of promoting EVs in Hong Kong.

 

[brucet999]

I haven't read the quoted research report, but I'd challenge the fact that a Tesla emits more pollutants …

May I respectfully point out that one cannot challenge a fact, only an assertion. Facts are, by definition, true and proven statements.

 

[Optic]

Charging heat loss and vampire drain are included in the consumption figures anyway. They allocated over 6 tonnes of CO2 for the battery production already (and made no allowance for recycling or anything other than dumping the whole battery in a landfill). Heating costs during winters in Hong Kong are minimal (and petrol vehicle fuel consumption plummets when the engine is cold). Aircon during summers is more of an issue, but that is comparable to petrol cars. Compared to the discrepancy of using NEDC consumption figures for this comparison, the factors you mention are negligible - so long as you drive the car and don't just leave it in the garage (which is what the 150,000km lifetime comparison implies).

Does anybody actually hit the fuel consumption figures that the manufacturers claim (NEDC or whatever)? Of course not. You mention your real-world experience of 20% loss of efficiency, or 15% vampire drain. Well, have a look at the real world MPG figures for the BMW 320i used in the report. 44.8–48.7 mpg claimed, 32.4 mpg average seen in the real world. That is 69% of the claimed efficiency.

On that RTHK show, the report author actually called me out when I said CLP was 30% cleaner than HKE. He said I was incorrect, and that the correct figure was 20%. Well, it turns out that he was using a figure of 0.64kg CO2e/kWh for CLP. But that is the older 2014 figure, and the correct number for 2015 is 0.54kg CO2e/kWh. He chose the bigger number either because he hasn't bothered to look up the correct number, or prefers to use the older less favourable figure.

If you fix just that one figure (HKE vs CLP), and still use all his other figures (biased as they are), the electric car comes out 1.99 tonnes CO2 better than the petrol car he chose. Fix all the other figures, and the petrol car has at least 50% more emissions than the EV that they chose. In Hong Kong, with our 'dirty' electricity generation. The report author keeps saying that Hong Kong electricity generation is dirtier than USA, but that is plain wrong. Many states in USA have significantly worse fuel mixes in their electricity generation than Hong Kong.

Do we really think that this one 19+ year veteran of the oil and gas industry, with his financial portfolio in oil stocks, knows better than all the environmental protection agencies, governments, and independent research bodies around the world? Or is he just trying to pump his own agenda?

Our electricity today is 90% cleaner than it was twenty years ago. Plans for the coming ten years will further reduce those respiratory emissions, as well as reducing carbon emissions by at least 50%. An electric vehicle purchased today will get cleaner in the coming years (as power generation improves), while a petrol car will simply get dirtier (as the engine deteriorates).

In the context of this whole report, it is interesting to look at the CLP figures in their 2014 sustainability report and compare to their 2015 report. In just one year, CLP's CO2 emissions went down 14%. They are also down 32% in SO2, 25% in NOX, and 15% in total particulates. That is really no surprise - it is on track for meeting all 2020 goals that have been clearly spelled out. We should be glad to hear that the electric cars running on Hong Kong streets are now all correspondingly cleaner, and continue to get cleaner every year as we improve our electricity generation. Shame that the same cannot be said for petrol and diesel cars. This is real vindication for the government policy of promoting EVs in Hong Kong.

Thanks Mark, current 50% emission savings sounds good! Hopefully this number improves quickly too.

 

[markwj]

Thanks Mark, current 50% emission savings sounds good! Hopefully this number improves quickly too.

It seems that HK is trying to follow the Paris plan for emissions targets. That is going to be about 50% reduction in the next ten years, as a minimum.

If you power your car from CLP, you can feel good that carbon emissions from CLP are down 14% in just one year 2014-2015. That is substantial. But, HK Electric needs to do more, and they need to do it faster.

 

[ediot]

Not sure if it's completely relevant to the local hk region, but this article's been out for a while
The Kochs Are Plotting A Multimillion-Dollar Assault On Electric Vehicles

oil companies have their fingers in a lot of pies, and they have a lot more influence than what the public sees

 

[FequalsMA]

If you power your car from CLP, you can feel good that carbon emissions from CLP are down 14% in just one year 2014-2015. That is substantial. But, HK Electric needs to do more, and they need to do it faster.

To second this, CLP has a 200 megawatt wind farm plan for Sai Kung but it seems to be on hold at the moment.

 

[lx3h]

Here's my little research and counter-arguments to Bernstein's report (photos in the link)

Key points:
1. EV manufacturers (eg. BMW for i3, Nissan for LEAF, all Tesla EVs.) are already producing their batteries and vehicles using renewable energies, and there is an uptrend in the use of solar and wind energy, eg. Gigafactory in Nevada.

2. CLP Power and HK Electric have a 2015 Carbon Intensity of Electricity Sold of 0.54kg CO2e/kWh and 0.78kg CO2e/kWh respectively. Hong Kong Grid is comparable with SERC Tennessee Valley, USA in terms of fuel mix.

3. WECC Rockies grid (eg. Mesa,* Denver, Colorado Springs) in USA produces 0.89kg CO2e/kWh, more than the highest in Hong Kong, yet EVs (including Tesla Model S 85 oldest model) driven within this grid region produces 23g CO2e/mi less than average ICEV.

4. Fuel Mix in Hong Kong will improve with time. Public consultation on future fuel mix for electricity generation in Hong Kong conducted from 19 March to 18 June 2014 has been published by the Environment Bureau in March 2015.

5. According to data from US Department of Energy, one of the most fuel-efficient ICEVs the BMW 320i using premium gasoline consumes 3.6gal/100mi, equates to 27.8mi/gal. According to Union of Concerned Scientists, the oldest Model of Tesla Model S - 85 produces about as much 'emission' as an average gasoline vehicle getting 30mi/gal. The distance covered for Tesla EVs will be even further when compared to an efficient ICEV. Meaning that the most energy consuming Tesla EV still 'produces' less 'emission' than the most efficient BMW 320i ICEV.

Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave, @Union of Concerned Scientists (2015)
http://www.ucsusa.org/…/electric-ve…/life-cycle-ev-emissions

Future Fuel Mix for Electricity Generation Consultation Document, Environment Bureau of Hong Kong (2014)
http://www.enb.gov.hk/…/node2605/Consultation%20Document.pdf

CLP 2015 Sustainability Report (p.201, 2015)
https://www.clpgroup.com/…/Report%20Arc…/SR_Full_2015_en.pdf

HK Electric 2015 Sustainability Report (p.42, 2015)
HK Electric Investments - Sustainability Report 2015

Fuel Economy of the 2015 BMW 320i, US Department of Energy
Fuel Economy of the 2015 BMW 320i



Hong Kong Fuel Mix & Carbon Intensity | Facebook

 

[gubes]

The debate will go on and on and no doubt many in the government are using every possible excuse to lower the exception on FRT.

One other thing I would like to throw into the mix. I was speaking to a NZ utility company last week. Funnily enough his numbers on NZ are similar to the numbers I came up with in HK - that is, if HYPOTHETICALLY, every car, bus and truck converted to 100% EV drivetrain, you would require around 15% more electricity from the grid. That number seems low but that is a similar number to what I calculated for HK (a lot of this is down to the efficiency of EVs).

The more interesting question is not where the electricity comes from NOW, its where it WILL come from. If for every additional MWh of electricity is cleaner than the last one (which is an assumption we should make as this was certainly the case for HK over the last 30 years) - the carbon footprint will continue to improve.

Also, if one takes a view that in future, most of the charging is done during off peak hours (12am to 7am), then you would effectively be utilizing the grid more efficiently as well. If they introduced smart meters in HK and charged consumers based on when the usage occurred, you may see a more even demand distribution throughout the day which would make the grid more efficient.

In reality, a full conversion to EV drivetrain may only require an additional 10% more electricity. I struggle to see how this wouldn't be a net win for the environment.

 

[Optic]

The debate will go on and on and no doubt many in the government are using every possible excuse to lower the exception on FRT.

One other thing I would like to throw into the mix. I was speaking to a NZ utility company last week. Funnily enough his numbers on NZ are similar to the numbers I came up with in HK - that is, if HYPOTHETICALLY, every car, bus and truck converted to 100% EV drivetrain, you would require around 15% more electricity from the grid. That number seems low but that is a similar number to what I calculated for HK (a lot of this is down to the efficiency of EVs).

The more interesting question is not where the electricity comes from NOW, its where it WILL come from. If for every additional MWh of electricity is cleaner than the last one (which is an assumption we should make as this was certainly the case for HK over the last 30 years) - the carbon footprint will continue to improve.

Also, if one takes a view that in future, most of the charging is done during off peak hours (12am to 7am), then you would effectively be utilizing the grid more efficiently as well. If they introduced smart meters in HK and charged consumers based on when the usage occurred, you may see a more even demand distribution throughout the day which would make the grid more efficient.

In reality, a full conversion to EV drivetrain may only require an additional 10% more electricity. I struggle to see how this wouldn't be a net win for the environment.

Definitely a net win for the environment if you are switching over from petroleum. The article does raise some good points regarding FRT though, (assuming he corrects his numbers), should EV still be fully exempt if the current emissions saving is 50%? Having cheaper cost to run, does it actually encourage us to drive instead of using public transit? I think if that guy argued that there should be an environmental tax attached to all cars, then it becomes a lot more credible. Perhaps the gov't should raise FRT another 50% for all vehicles to account for the fact that ICE has double EV emissions.

 

[markwj]

Definitely a net win for the environment if you are switching over from petroleum. The article does raise some good points regarding FRT though, (assuming he corrects his numbers), should EV still be fully exempt if the current emissions saving is 50%? Having cheaper cost to run, does it actually encourage us to drive instead of using public transit? I think if that guy argued that there should be an environmental tax attached to all cars, then it becomes a lot more credible. Perhaps the gov't should raise FRT another 50% for all vehicles to account for the fact that ICE has double EV emissions.

The issue that keeps coming back to trouble me is why should EV owners/drivers be penalised for emissions not under their control. Joe raised it in Singapore, now lots of people are raising it in Hong Kong.

I dismissed it initially, but the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree.

The electric car manufacturers are doing their bit. It is up to the electricity generators to do their bit as well.

We don't blame petrol car drivers when there is an oil spill - we blame the oil and gas companies. When we talk about ICE vehicle fuel consumption, we talk about on-the-road fuel consumption and don't include fuel use for extraction, transportation, refining and storage. But, when it comes to EVs, everyone jumps on the 'long tailpipe' argument.

If we hold EV owners/drivers responsible for emissions from the electricity grid, then shouldn't we also do the same for washing machine manufacturers, aircon manufacturers, TV manufacturers, etc? EVs are only a very small user of the electricity grid in Hong Kong.

Have a look at the energy usage data here:

http://www.emsd.gov.hk/en/energy_ef...hong_kong_energy_end_use_data/data/index.html

Seems that 'space conditioning' is about 1/4 of our electricity usage in Hong Kong. Transport is 2% of electricity usage, and that is pretty much all electric trains.

The FRT exemption merely levels the playing field. I'd be happy to do away with it completely - but introduce an emissions tax instead.

 

[Optic]

The FRT exemption merely levels the playing field. I'd be happy to do away with it completely - but introduce an emissions tax instead.

Emissions tax is exactly what I was getting at. FRT is to deter driving in HK, emissions tax is to push people towards EVs over ICE.

 

[markwj]

Letter to the editor, SCMP, today: Letters to the editor, April 26, 2016

Electric cars still the greener option by far

I refer to the article, “Electric shock – Tesla cars in Hong Kong more polluting than petrol models” (April 13). The Bernstein report quoted in the article presents a distorted picture, skewing the data to fit the author’s investment portfolio. Not surprising, given the report’s author’s oil and gas background and investments.

The most outrageous distortion is the choice of HK Electric in the estimation of carbon intensity, while completely excluding CLP, whose carbon dioxide emissions are 30 per cent lower. CLP generates three-quarters of the electricity, and powers 70 per cent of the electric vehicles, in Hong Kong. Correct that one distortion, and the report result is reversed.

Bernstein uses artificial fuel economy figures; production emissions are exaggerated, and the amount of carbon dioxide produced in the extraction, refinement and transportation of oil is understated.

All environmental protection agencies and governments globally recognise the benefits of electric vehicles, and support and promote their adoption. One distorted report from an oil company investor does not change that. The truth is that electric vehicles, even when powered by dirty coal, are still cleaner than comparable petrol vehicles today. In most cases, comparable petrol vehicles pollute at least 50 per cent more.

Hong Kong has already seen a 90 per cent reduction in emissions harmful to air quality from power generation over the past 20 years. Commitments for the coming 10 years will further reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 50 per cent. An electric vehicle purchased today will get cleaner in the coming years, as power generation continues to improve, while a petrol car will get dirtier, as the engine deteriorates.

The only valid point in the whole biased Bernstein report is that Hong Kong needs a cleaner fuel mix for electricity generation. Such a migration to cleaner and more renewable energy is inevitable, and in progress. We as a community should support that, because it is not just electric vehicles that are powered by our electricity grid.

Mark Webb-Johnson, chairman, Charged Hong Kong

 

[markwj]

A good letter to the editor SCMP:

Hong Kong’s bad roadside pollution makes case for electric vehicles

It is hard to believe that any intelligent person could convincingly state that electric cars are more polluting than petrol or diesel vehicles.

Nicely said.