How green is your electric vehicle, really?
Your columnist has just had the bittersweet pleasure of driving along America’s Pacific coast, wind blowing through what is left of his hair, in a new Fisker Ocean electric SUV. Sweet, because he was in “California mode”—a neat feature that with the touch of a button lowers all windows, including the back windscreen, pulls back the solar-panelled roof, and turns the car into the next best thing to an all-electric convertible. Bitter, because once he had returned the trial vehicle, he had to drive home in his Kia Niro EV, which is smaller, shorter range and has no open roof—call it “rainy Britain mode”. The consolation was that it is about a tonne lighter, and if you drive an EV, as Schumpeter does, to virtue-signal your low-carbon street cred, being featherweight rather than heavyweight should count.
Except it doesn’t. Just look at the future line-up that Fisker, an EV startup, unveiled on August 3rd. It included: a souped-up, off-road version of the Ocean, which Henrik Fisker, the carmaker’s Danish co-founder, said would be suitable for a monster-truck rally; a “supercar” with a 1,000km (600-mile) range, and a pickup truck straight out of “Yellowstone”—complete with cowboy-hat holder. Granted, there was also an affordable six-seater called Pear. But though Fisker says sustainability is one of its founding principles, it is indulging in a trait almost universal among car firms: building bigger, burlier cars, even when they are electric.
There are two reasons for this. The first is profit. As with conventional cars, bigger EVs generate higher margins. The second is consumer preference. For decades, drivers have been opting for SUVs and pickup trucks rather than smaller cars, and this now applies to battery-charged ones. EV drivers, who fret about the availability of charging infrastructure, want more range, hence bigger batteries. BNEF, a consultancy, says the result is that average battery…
2023-08-10 07:34:35
Original from www.economist.com
rnrn
