Why EVs Are Not The Only Solution

If you listen to politicians and certain automakers, the path to a green future is a straight, single-lane highway paved with lithium-ion batteries. Governments around the world have set aggressive targets to ban the sale of internal combustion engines (ICE) by 2030 or 2035. The message is clear: Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are the future, and everything else is a relic of the past.

But is this singular focus on BEVs actually the fastest or most effective way to decarbonize transportation? Or are we letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?

I believe that a dogmatic “EV-only” approach is flawed. It ignores the realities of our infrastructure, the scarcity of raw materials, and the diverse needs of drivers. To truly tackle climate change, we need a multi-pronged approach that includes hybrids, plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), and even synthetic fuels.

The Infrastructure Gap is Real

Let’s address the elephant in the room: charging. If you own a Tesla, your experience is likely seamless thanks to the Supercharger network. For everyone else, public charging is a roll of the dice. Broken chargers, confusing payment apps, and slow charging speeds are the norm.

I recently attempted a 400-mile road trip in a non-Tesla EV. What should have been a 6-hour drive turned into a 9-hour ordeal. I arrived at “fast” chargers that were delivering a trickle of power. I waited in lines. I downloaded three different apps just to pay for electricity.

For homeowners with a garage, charging is easy. You plug in at night and wake up with a full “tank.” But for the millions of people who live in apartments or park on the street, home charging is impossible. Are we expecting these people to sit at a public charger for 45 minutes every week? It’s a massive barrier to adoption that isn’t being solved fast enough.

The Resource Problem: The 1:6:90 Rule

Toyota has been vocal about a concept they call the 1:6:90 rule. The amount of raw materials (lithium, cobalt, nickel) needed to build one long-range BEV battery (roughly 100 kWh) could instead be used to build six Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) batteries or 90 standard Hybrid (HEV) batteries.

Those 90 hybrids would reduce carbon emissions far more than a single EV. Why? because they replace 90 gas-guzzling cars with efficient hybrids, whereas the single EV only replaces one.

By putting all our scarce resources into massive batteries for cars that drag around 1,000 lbs of dead weight for 95% of their trips, we are misallocating resources. A PHEV with a 40-mile electric range covers the daily commute of the vast majority of Americans on pure electricity. It uses a much smaller battery, is cheaper to buy, and eliminates range anxiety because it has a gas engine for long trips. It is the pragmatic solution for the next decade.

Synthetic Fuels: Keeping Classics Alive

There is another technology that gets overlooked: e-fuels. Porsche and other manufacturers are investing heavily in synthetic fuels—gasoline created by capturing carbon from the atmosphere and combining it with hydrogen.

When burned, e-fuels release carbon, but only the carbon that was captured to make them. The net result is carbon neutral.

This technology is currently expensive and energy-intensive to produce. However, it offers a lifeline for the 1.4 billion combustion cars already on the road. We cannot simply scrap every existing car; the environmental cost of manufacturing replacements would be astronomical. E-fuels could allow us to decarbonize the existing fleet and keep classic cars on the road without guilt.

Furthermore, there are applications where batteries simply don’t make sense. Towing heavy loads over long distances, for example, decimates EV range. Motorsports, aviation, and shipping are other areas where energy-dense liquid fuels will likely be needed for a long time.

Diversity is Resilience

Nature teaches us that monocultures are fragile. A diverse ecosystem is resilient. The same applies to our energy transition.

If we bet everything on BEVs, we are vulnerable to lithium shortages, geopolitical tensions over supply chains, and grid instability. By embracing a mix of technologies—BEVs for urban commuters, PHEVs for suburban families, hydrogen for heavy trucking, and e-fuels for enthusiasts and legacy vehicles—we can decarbonize faster and more robustly.

The goal is to reduce carbon, not to ban engines. We should focus on the outcome, not dictate the technology.

The Takeaway:

• Public charging infrastructure is still a major barrier.
• Hybrids and PHEVs use scarce battery materials more efficiently.
• E-fuels offer a way to decarbonize existing cars.
• A diverse mix of technologies is better than an EV-only mandate.