Misconceptions about electric vehicles

Carbon impact  

1. Are emissions linked to battery manufacturing taken into account in the carbon footprint of a VE?

The carbon footprint of a product is calculated by accounting for significant greenhouse gas emissions over the product's entire life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials to its end of life. Thus, to calculate the carbon footprint of a car, we consider not only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated during the use of the vehicle, but also the GHG emissions generated upstream (battery manufacturing, electricity production to power the car, etc.) and downstream (end-of-life vehicle treatment, battery recycling, etc.).)

2. Threshold distance: after how many kilometres is an electric car better than a combustion engine car in France? Or rather, why is this question poorly phrased?

Producing an electric car emits more greenhouse gases (CO₂e) than an equivalent ICE car (Internal Combustion Engine), mainly due to the manufacturing of batteries. This would be a problem for the climate if this excess CO₂e were not more than offset by the reductions in emissions during the use phase of the car. This is indeed the case, since over its lifetime in France, an electric car emits 2 to 3 times less CO₂e than an equivalent ICE car. In fact, the question is poorly phrased and serves mainly to discredit electric vehicles through its semantics. Our assessments show that an electric car needs to be driven around 30,000 to 50,000 km (i.e. approximately 3 years of average use) to be better for the climate than an equivalent ICE car. However, a car will travel around 200,000 km over its lifetime (battery life is absolutely no obstacle to this, on the contrary^[1]), so any electric vehicle put on the road today instead of a combustion engine vehicle will undoubtedly reduce emissions over its lifetime. The only point of concern could be households' "second" vehicles, which are driven very little, typically less than 3,000 km per year. But in practice, the low cost per kilometre of electric cars is a strong incentive to use them, so much so that these second vehicles can become the primary ones in terms of usage.

3. What about elsewhere? Are electric cars better than combustion engine cars everywhere in the world?

The climate benefits of electric vehicles compared to combustion engine vehicles come from their much lower energy consumption over their lifetime (despite the higher emissions involved in manufacturing electric vehicles). The more decarbonised electricity production is, the wider the gap becomes. Even so, when charged from an electricity mix dominated by coal, as in Australia, China or Poland, electric cars already have lower emissions than combustion engine cars over their lifetime. Electric cars are therefore already better for the climate than ICE cars in most countries around the world, and this is all the more true given that almost all countries aim to decarbonise their electricity mix over time, i.e. by the end of a vehicle's life (approximately 12-15 years). In only about 20 countries are electric cars less environmentally friendly than combustion engine cars (assuming that the electricity mix does not change). These countries include India, certain countries in Africa and the Middle East, and island countries such as Cuba, Haiti and Indonesia.

4. Let's return to France: is an electric car better for the climate, regardless of its weight?

No, not necessarily, because a heavy electric vehicle means more material and a larger battery to meet its energy needs. This results in more emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicle (which accounts for the majority of its carbon footprint, unlike ICE vehicles) and, of course, from its use due to this increase in weight. In this respect, replicating the SUV model in the electric field is a perfect example of a "false good idea": an Audi a-tron has a carbon footprint almost twice that of an electric Renault R5 over its lifetime (200,000 km). We need to think about cars that consume less energy, regardless of their energy source, and to do this, we need to make them lighter. However, the current trend is towards increasingly large and heavy vehicles that consume more energy: in 30 years, the weight of our cars has increased by an average of 30% in France^[2].

5. What is the carbon impact of charging stations?

Charging stations are essential for the development of electric vehicles. With around 2.3 million stations (150,000 of which are public, the vast majority being private) in France, and a target of 7 million stations (400,000 of which will be public) by 2030^[3],^[4] it is legitimate to question their environmental impact.

Life cycle assessments (LCAs) reveal that the carbon impact of a charging station varies considerably depending on:

• Its power (in kW)
• Its technical characteristics (mounting system, accessories, number of charging points, etc.)
• The installation work required (electrical connections, addition of transformers, distribution boards, etc.). This work can be significant and increase the charging station's carbon footprint.

For example, while a 22 kW freestanding charging station generates around 400 kgCO2e^[5] during manufacturing**,** this can rise to more than 5 000 -10 000 kgCO2e for very high-power charging stations (>150 kW).

By cross-referencing Enedis’ data^[6] on the distribution of charging stations in France with certain LCAs and assumptions regarding the impact of installation work^[7], we estimate that the total carbon footprint of the 2.3 million charging stations installed by the end of 2024 will be approximately 300 ktCO2e.

To put this figure into perspective, the total carbon footprint of these charging stations represents only about 1% of the emissions generated by the manufacturing of all ~2 million electric vehicles.

This order-of-magnitude analysis confirms that the development of charging infrastructure, while not having a zero environmental footprint, is a reasonable investment given the climate benefits of the transition to electric mobility.

6. Is the plug-in hybrid vehicle a good compromise between electric and combustion engine vehicles?

Plug-in hybrid vehicles currently seem to be the ideal solution to the climate challenge:

• It is a convenient way for manufacturers to meet their regulatory obligations (in the EU), thanks to an emissions approval protocol that significantly favours plug-in hybrid vehicles in terms of actual emissions,
• It is a reassuring technology for drivers who are concerned about environmental issues but are not yet ready to take the plunge into 100% electric vehicles.

However, this technology has real flaws that make it difficult to reconcile with the ambition of almost completely decarbonising individual mobility within 20 years:

• The electric engine is rarely used in reality. It should be noted that, according to a study by the ICCT^[8], there is a significant disparity between private cars, which use the electric motor for around 50% of the kilometres travelled, and company cars, which use it for only 11 to 15%.
• Its combustion engine is generally less efficient than the state of the art in comparable petrol/diesel vehicles...
• ... especially since the presence of two engines, plus the battery, significantly increases the weight of such a vehicle and therefore its consumption (combustion or electric).

Thus, in cases where electric mode is used very little (~11-15% of kilometres), the plug-in hybrid vehicle has higher emissions over its life cycle than a 100% combustion engine vehicle (+15% on average). If the electric mode is used more (~50% of kilometres), the plug-in hybrid vehicle offers an emission reduction of around 25% compared to an ICE car. We can therefore see that hybrid vehicles are not up to the challenge of decarbonising the sector and should be compared to the 60% reduction in emissions offered by 100% electric vehicles.

More generally, plug-in hybrid vehicles are a prime example of economic irrationality in the automotive sector: motorists' choices are most often dictated by the most demanding use case rather than the most frequent use case (e.g. purchasing a large, powerful 5-seater car for 4 journeys of over 500 km per year, when 90% of the time it is used for journeys of a few dozen kilometres with 1 or 2 people on board at most). Plug-in hybrid vehicles are a perfect example of this irrational choice, based on the seemingly good idea of combining the "best of both technologies" (electric and combustion) to cover all use cases. In reality, with rare exceptions, the situation appears to be sub-optimal both economically (more expensive and more complex to maintain) and environmentally.

Environmental impacts (other than climate change)

7. Do batteries use a lot of rare earth elements?

Contrary to what their name suggests, "rare earth elements" are not so rare on Earth in terms of quantity. These metals are in fact as abundant as nickel or copper, but much more dispersed in the Earth's crust, hence their name. Due to their similar properties, they are used in the manufacturing of high-tech products, for example in catalytic converters for combustion engine cars^[9]. Today, most electric car batteries do not contain rare earths, and although some electric motors may contain rare earth elements, alternatives exist^[10]. However, there is still an issue with raw materials, as batteries use highly critical metals, i.e. metals for which supply is a particularly important issue^[11]. Examples include cobalt and lithium, but also metals that are less critical today but could become so given the expected exponential production trajectories, such as nickel, graphite and copper. Although there is no identified risk of physical resource shortages between now and 2030-2050 (see question 22), strong growth in demand could lead to supply risks and market imbalances. The expected pressure on raw materials for battery production should naturally encourage the growth of recycling as a source of supply or new battery chemistries to reduce the use of highly critical metals.

8. Are batteries recyclable?

Contrary to popular belief, Li-ion (lithium-ion) batteries are up to 95% recyclable (by mass)^[12] thanks to industrial processes^[13]. However, recyclable does not mean recycled!

To ensure effective recycling, the European Union has adopted a regulation^[14] setting certain targets: by 2032, 61% of batteries (from light vehicles) must be collected at the end of their life, and 80% of their lithium must be recovered. In addition, new batteries must contain a certain proportion of recycled materials: 16% for cobalt, 6% for lithium or nickel.

The use of recycled materials in batteries is essential for two reasons:

• Firstly, to reduce the annual global demand for mining virgin materials and their intrinsic environmental impact: recycling battery metals produces on average 80% fewer emissions than mining^[15].
• And secondly, to develop European sovereignty over critical battery metals, which are currently refined mainly in China^[16]. The NGO T&E estimates that recycling in Europe could provide ~15% of the critical metals for batteries produced in 2030, enough to power the equivalent of more than 2 million cars^[17].

The industrial recycling sector is not yet mature in Europe, as a time lag remains with the development of electric vehicles (we have to wait until enough vehicles reach the end of their life). Its development is slowed down by uncertainties about the deployment of electric vehicles and the profitability of recycling processes, which varies according to metal prices. For example, in the United States, recycling NMC (Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt) batteries is profitable, unlike LFP (Lithium-Iron-Phosphate) batteries^[18]. In China, the market is more mature (more electric vehicles in circulation) and recycling is less expensive^[17].

It is therefore crucial to stimulate the development of this industry in Europe, for both environmental and geopolitical reasons.

Finally, even if recycling were carried out optimally, it would not be enough to meet demand. And any increase in battery production will require additional mining activity. It therefore remains important to slow down the race to increase battery sizes and to scale down as much as possible!

9. Is an electric vehicle much quieter than a combustion engine vehicle?

Although not tangible, noise is a significant source of pollution. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), noise is the second most harmful environmental factor in Europe after air pollution, with more than 40% of the European Union's population exposed to road traffic noise above 55 dB^[19]. In France, according to the ADEME (French Agency for Ecological Transition), road traffic alone accounts for more than half of the social cost of noise^[20].

The noise generated by cars comes from two main sources: on the one hand, propulsion, which is the predominant source at low speeds, and on the other hand, friction (whether with the air or with the road at the tyres), which is predominant at high speeds.

Thus, at high speeds, as friction is identical between electric and combustion engine vehicles, there is no difference in noise levels. In other words, an electric vehicle on a motorway will cause roughly the same amount of noise as a combustion engine vehicle.

However, at lower speeds, a Danish study^[21] shows that electric vehicles have a noise level three times lower than equivalent ICE cars (i.e. 4 to 5 dB less). This is due to the propulsion system, which is much quieter thanks to the electric motor. In urban areas, where speeds are low and the population is dense, increasing the proportion of electric vehicles in the fleet will therefore have a significant impact on noise pollution. However, for safety reasons, these vehicles emit an artificial sound at low speeds so that they can be detected by pedestrians. This compromise is necessary because a vehicle that is too quiet could paradoxically become dangerous!

Finally, although changing the type of engine is an important lever for reducing noise pollution from road traffic, other levers can also be activated: driving style (acceleration, braking), type of tyres, type of road surface, speed reduction, etc.

10. Doesn't producing batteries pollute? And are children working in the mines?

In addition to the impact on the climate (greenhouse gas emissions) and air quality (pollutant emissions during use), it is important to consider other social and environmental impacts of electric vehicles. Like all complex electronic products, electric vehicle batteries and motors contain a significant amount of materials whose extraction and refining are not without impact. The debate often focuses on the lithium and cobalt needed to produce batteries. These issues are real: for example, the impact on water resources in the Andean salt flats (where lithium is extracted) or working conditions in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, these two metals together account for 6% of the average weight of a battery, and even less for the new cobalt-free LFP (Lithium-Iron-Phosphate) batteries that are increasingly being used in vehicles instead of the traditional NMC (Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt) batteries. Regardless of the technology, other materials such as copper (11%), aluminium (18%), nickel (24%) and graphite (28%)^[22] are used in much larger quantities, sometimes with equally significant environmental and social issues, albeit less publicised. There are many risks and controversies (waste management, water pollution, air pollution, working conditions, etc.), as illustrated by the Transition Mineral Tracker. Scaling down the size and recycling still appear to be among the key elements in responding to these issues.

To make an informed choice, the first step is transparency. The European Union has recently adopted a regulation introducing the "battery passport", which will be mandatory from the 18 February 2027 for electric cars^[23]. In the form of a QR code, this will provide a wealth of information on the traceability of the battery throughout its life cycle, including the origin of the materials used, the proportion of recycled content, the battery's carbon footprint, and more.

Furthermore, in order to avoid presenting a biased view, these issues specific to minerals for batteries (in electric vehicles and many of our electronic devices) must be considered alongside the controversies surrounding the oil industry. Oil spills and human rights abuses, in addition to the armed conflicts that have punctuated the history of oil, are a sad reminder that ICE vehicles also depend on a problematic extractive industry.

11. Are electric cars better for air quality?

Within the European Union, air pollution is responsible for around 400,000 premature deaths per year, according to the European Environment Agency^[24].

Transport contributes to the deterioration of air quality due to its emissions of fine particles.

However, the measurement and modelling of fine particulate matter from vehicles is still a subject of research and analysis.

According to two studies published in 2022 (ADEME^[25] and Science of the Total Environment^[26]), there is no significant difference in "direct" particle emissions between a recent ICE vehicle and a long-range electric vehicle.

However, the second study, which also models "secondary" particles, shows an interesting potential gain for electric vehicles.

To fully understand this result, it is necessary to clarify the different sources of emissions of these fine particles.

While exhaust particle emissions have fallen significantly with the widespread use of particle filters, non-exhaust emissions are becoming predominant. Although electric vehicles emit fewer brake particles than their combustion engine counterparts thanks to regenerative braking, the trend is reversed for particles resulting from tyre-road contact and resuspension (due to their larger tyre size resulting from their greater vehicle mass).

Finally, it seems that secondary particle emissions, although very difficult to model, have a definite and greater impact for ICE vehicles. The study published in Science of the Total Environment also highlights the need for further experimental analysis to accurately estimate the total amount of fine particles emitted by electric and combustion engine vehicles.

In any case, as the ADEME points out, in order to reduce traffic-related particle pollution, it is essential to combine the electrification of the fleet with other measures such as making vehicles lighter (narrower tyres), developing eco-driving (less acceleration and deceleration), reducing speed limits (less heavy braking), promoting active modes of transport, etc.

The use of electric vehicles

12. Is it more expensive?

The question of the cost of electric vehicles often comes up in the debate, which is perfectly logical. Indeed, for a given range, electric vehicles currently have a higher purchase price than combustion engine vehicles, even with government subsidies where these exist (as in France). However, every motorist knows very well that the cost of a vehicle is not limited to its purchase price: there are also energy, insurance, maintenance, parking, tolls, etc. However, in terms of the first two components, energy and maintenance, electric vehicles are much less expensive than ICE vehicles, especially if they are charged at home. With regard to charging at public charging stations, the European AFIR regulation establishes a strict framework for transparency in charging costs, in order to ensure that information is easily comparable^[27]. For company vehicles, which are owned for a shorter period than private vehicles, the total cost of ownership (TCO) of an electric vehicle is almost equivalent to that of its combustion engine counterpart^[28].

To say that an electric vehicle is very expensive is too simplistic and reductive. Once the cost of use is factored in, the difference narrows significantly. For example, to travel 15,000 km, a motorist will spend around €1,700 on petrol for a combustion engine vehicle, compared to around €500 on electricity (when charging at home) for an electric vehicle, i.e. three times less in terms of cost of use^[29].

Finally, as the purchase price is the biggest obstacle for potential buyers, all manufacturers now advertise a monthly rental price, which allows the additional cost to be spread over several years, as would be the case with a bank loan for the purchase of a combustion engine vehicle. Another solution for switching to electric without the barrier of purchasing a new vehicle is retrofitting, which is particularly attractive for commercial vehicles and coaches (see our article on this subject, in French).

Finally, one of the gateways to electric vehicles should be the second-hand market, which is set to grow significantly (+54% in 2024 compared to 2023^[30]), particularly as the price difference compared to ICE vehicles narrows.

13. What is the average lifespan of a battery?

The lifespan of an electric car battery is not measured in kilometres but in the number of charge-discharge cycles^[31]. For a lithium-ion battery (the technology used in most electric cars), the lifespan before the battery becomes obsolete (i.e. when the battery reaches 70-80% of its original capacity, which still makes it suitable for a second life in stationary applications, for example) is estimated at between 1,000 and 1,500 cycles. Thus, for a vehicle travelling an average of 15,000 km per year, the theoretical lifespan of the vehicle's battery is between 15 and 20 years. This theoretical calculation is confirmed by several studies: Arval reports an average health status of 90% after 200,000 km travelled^[32], while Geotab also reports lifespans of over 200,000 km^[33]. In practice, this means that there is no need to change the battery during the vehicle's lifetime. It should be noted that several factors can affect battery life: climate (heat), immobilisation, charging frequency, charging power (particularly in the case of ultra-fast charging with excessive power).

14. Is the range of electric cars suitable for long distances?

One of the top three obstacles to motorists adopting electric mobility is the range of electric vehicles. Even though 98% of journeys are made within 80 km radius around the  home^[34], the need to charge to cover long distances remains a significant mental barrier. In reality, however, there are now more than 150,000 public charging points in France^[35]. This remains insufficient if we project forward to a fleet of several million electric vehicles, but the public authorities have shown increased ambition to develop this network: for example, the European AFIR regulation sets clear objectives for the expansion of the network of charging stations on major roads^[36]. However, there is considerable variation between regions and urban areas, which can cause occasional problems due to difficulties in accessing charging points (e.g. tourist stations during busy periods). In practice, long distances are in any case combined with breaks to reduce the risks associated with fatigue, regardless of the type of vehicle. Electric mobility is different in that it requires these stops to be made at locations equipped with charging points, hence the importance of positioning them near restaurants or leisure facilities. Ultimately, long distances in an electric car are entirely feasible, provided you plan your route in advance and are willing to spend a little more time on the road (about 1 to 2 hours more for a journey of between 300 and 500 km). By accepting this constraint, let's not forget that we are reducing the impact of the journey on the climate by a factor of about 3. Isn't it worth it?

15. Is it true that electric cars require less maintenance?

Electric cars are easier to maintain in several ways: fewer engine components, no wear parts (belts, hoses), no clutch system, less wear on brake pads thanks to regenerative braking, etc. These advantages more than compensate for the specific requirements of electric cars, such as the need to check high-voltage electrical circuits. Daily maintenance costs are therefore reduced by around 20% to 40% or even more^[37] and service intervals are longer (every ~30,000 km compared to 15,000 and 20,000 km for a petrol or diesel car).

16. Aren't batteries dangerous because they are prone to catching on fire?

Batteries can indeed catch on fire because of thermal runaway, which can have several causes (mechanical damage, internal short circuit, overcharging, etc.). This results in a fire that is difficult to control (metal fire), with toxic fumes being released. This is why manufacturers include numerous safety features in both the battery cells and the BMS (Battery Management System), which manages battery charging/discharging and sometimes monitors the internal temperature.

The risk of fire is inherent in batteries and should not be overlooked as it is more difficult to extinguish, but it remains much rarer than in combustion engine cars!

Tesla states in its vehicle safety report that, per kilometre travelled, there are seven times fewer fires in Tesla cars than in the average combustion engine vehicle in the United States between 2012 and 2020^[38].

17. Will there be enough charging stations?

While the 100,000th charging station in France was installed in May 2023, the roll-out of charging stations continues at a very good pace, with the 150,000 mark reached at the end of 2024, representing a 31% increase over one year. This corresponds to 230 stations per 100,000 inhabitants, or 1 station for every 9 vehicles. And here we are only talking about stations open to the public; if we add private charging points (in homes, businesses, etc.), there are now more charging points than electric and plug-in hybrid cars on the road in France^[39]!

For the future, clear objectives have been set by the AFIR regulation, which calls for the installation of fast charging stations (> 150 kW) along major European roads every 60 km^[40]. This should ensure a dense European charging network on major routes. In addition, the French government has announced a target of at least 7 million charging stations, including 400,000 open to the public by 2030^[41].

If the rollout proceeds at the right pace, the experience of queuing during holiday traffic jams should be the exception rather than the rule.

Other questions

18. Will the electricity grid be able to cope?

This question raises the issue of the power required to charge electric cars, which could jeopardise the balance of the grid (on a global or more regional scale). On this subject, models developed by RTE (electricity transmission system operator of France)^[42] indicate that the impact could be absorbed without difficulty, assuming "smart" load management (using smart grid features and tariff signals). More specifically, the additional electrical power that would be required to charge 8 million electric vehicles without management would be 8 GW during the winter peak at 7 p.m., given the proliferation of charging (for an average winter working day and compared to a situation without electric vehicles). It should be noted that France's electricity grid has a peak capacity of over 100 GW. According to RTE, it is also interesting to note that changes in other electricity uses between now and 2030 will have a similar impact in terms of reducing peak demand. With load management, the power required for 8 million electric vehicles at the winter peak of 7 p.m. would be much lower: 3.5 GW. In this case, for the same reasons as those mentioned above, the 7 p.m. peak would not increase but would decrease compared to 2016. The large-scale development of electric cars in France is therefore not unachievable for the electricity grid within the next 10 years, even assuming uncontrolled charging, provided, of course, that controllable capacity levels remain similar to current levels. However, this analysis leaves a blind spot in terms of geographical adequacy: congestion is likely to occur in the local distribution network, requiring upgrades to the distribution network. In the longer term, if we project a fleet of around 20-25 million vehicles (or more, which is not necessarily desirable), investments will of course have to be made in the network, but on a scale that electricity generation, transmission and distribution operators will be able to cope with, provided that this is anticipated^[42]. The role of public authorities will be decisive in this regard.

19. If all ICE cars are replaced by electric cars, will we need to build new nuclear power stations or thousands of wind turbines?

Electricity consumption linked to the development of electric mobility does not pose a constraint in terms of electricity production, even with a very large number of vehicles. To see this, we need only compare two figures: 12 million electric cars (including plug-in hybrids) would generate electricity demand of around 30 TWh according to RTE, equivalent to around 5-6% of current national production. How is this possible? Simply because electric motors are 3 to 4 times more energy efficient than internal combustion engines. Furthermore, this electricity consumption specific to individual electric mobility would not add to current consumption, as it would be largely offset by the general decline in consumption in the medium term for other uses (the effect of energy efficiency in industry and the residential/tertiary sectors).

20. Is it true that we will be able to recharge using induction?

Electromagnetic, or "wireless", induction charging comes in two forms: stationary and while driving. The first form would take place in a parking space and would replace the charging station as we know it today. This solution would simply eliminate the need to walk around the vehicle to plug in the cable or swipe your badge at the station: charging would start automatically. The "dynamic" form would allow you to charge your car while driving thanks to a device built into the road. This latter solution would be particularly interesting because it would make it possible to reduce the size of batteries without compromising range: if I can recharge while driving on the motorway, I don't need a large battery, just a small one for my daily journeys. Initial tests have been conducted and the results are encouraging. One of the key challenges will be nationwide deployment: this type of technology only makes sense if it benefits from a network effect, i.e. if a significant proportion of the road network is equipped with it.

21. Geopolitics: will electric vehicles create new dependencies on foreign powers?

Europe has historically built its powerful automotive industry on its mastery of a key component: the internal combustion engine. The arrival of electric vehicles represents a major change. The added value of these vehicles is largely concentrated outside the engine, in the battery. However, Europe lags considerably behind China in this field, regardless of which part of the value chain is considered. Indeed, while Europe is still involved in the production of the vehicles themselves, it is almost absent from battery production, and even more so from upstream phases such as the production of battery anodes and cathodes and the refining of materials^[43].

In response to this, European production projects are gradually emerging, but these often rely on foreign investment (for example, 90% of current European battery production is carried out by companies that are at least partly Chinese or Korean^[44]). More problematically, these investments are rarely accompanied by technology transfer, as is the case, for example, with the Euro-Chinese joint ventures VW-Gotion and Stellantis-CATL^[44].

Does this mean that the shift to electric cars will inevitably result in a loss of economic sovereignty for Europe?

Not necessarily.

Firstly, because combustion engine vehicles already represent a major economic dependency: historically, energy – largely oil for transport – has been the largest item in France's trade deficit^[45]. In the worst-case scenario, the shift to electric vehicles would therefore be a change in dependency rather than an increase in dependency.

Secondly, unlike oil, which it is unimaginable to extract in large quantities in Europe, it is reasonable to imagine relocating part of battery production, from metal refining to cell manufacturing, to European territory^[46]. However, this would require more significant action than is currently being taken, including greater support for investment in new projects, a more robust trade policy and stability in the regulatory timetable.

22. Will there be enough metals to switch to electric?

Certain metals, known as critical metals, are essential for the transition to electric vehicles, such as lithium, nickel and cobalt. According to a study by the ICCT^[47], the total battery capacity of the global road fleet could increase from 0.8 TWh today to 8.7 TWh in 2050, implying a sharp increase in the consumption of critical metals associated with their manufacture.

According to the same study, even in the most conservative scenario (unfavourable technological switch, pessimistic battery recycling scenario, strong growth in battery capacity per vehicle, etc.), the metal reserves identified in 2024 will cover more than double the demand by 2050, as shown in the following figure.

Although reserves are sufficient, this does not necessarily mean that there will be no supply risk by 2050 or in the longer term.

Indeed, the number of mining projects may be insufficient to meet the exponential demand for certain metals, deposits may become difficult to access (and metal prices may rise), and deposits may sometimes be subject to geopolitical risks (concentration of deposits in certain countries, see question 21).

It is therefore essential to activate various levers to minimise our consumption of metals:

• Vehicle battery capacity must be adapted to usage and not oversized.
• The energy consumption of the fleet must be reduced by using various levers to improve the energy efficiency of the road fleet (vehicle weight, speed, engine efficiency, etc.);
• The battery recycling industry, which is still under development, must be significantly expanded in the future (see question 8);
• Batteries that consume less critical metals (LFP batteries rather than NMC batteries and potential new generations of batteries to come) should be prioritised whenever possible.

23. What impact will the development of electric cars have on jobs?

The transition to electric cars will have a significant impact on jobs in the automotive industry. Indeed, manufacturing an electric car requires fewer parts than a combustion engine car, around 30 to 40% fewer. However, several studies show that the production of an electric vehicle requires slightly less labour than its combustion engine counterpart^[48] "If we compare an electric vehicle and an internal combustion engine vehicle on an equivalent basis, we see a difference of only a few per cent in the number of working hours required to manufacture them".

Equipment manufacturers and suppliers focused on combustion engines are particularly at risk. Nevertheless, the rise of electric cars will give rise to new jobs, particularly in the manufacture and assembly of batteries, but also in the installation of charging stations, coil winding, cable assembly, etc. New mobility services could also develop. For this transition to be an opportunity, it is necessary to anticipate and invest in the transformation of the automotive industry, particularly in (i) the creation of a competitive European battery manufacturing and end-of-life sector, in order to relocate production to Europe, and (ii) support for employees to train them in the new skills required and help them retrain.