Andrew Gould’s letter (4 June) highlights one flaw in Rowan Atkinson’s critique of electric cars (I love electric vehicles – and was an early adopter. But increasingly I feel duped, 3 June). Another serious flaw was to suggest it would be “sensible” to use electricity to produce synthetic fuels for petrol engines, rather than use electric cars.
This would be highly inefficient. A Guardian article last month (E-fuels: how big a niche can they carve out for cars?, 5 May) noted that only about 16% of the electricity used to produce synthetic fuels ends up in car-propulsion, compared with 77% for a battery-electric vehicle. To put this another way: the electricity needed to run one petrol car on synthetic fuel could run nearly five equivalent electric cars.
Some of the inefficiency lies in the fuel synthesis process, which may well be improved over time. But most comes from the thermodynamics of the combustion engine – something that Atkinson, as a trained engineer, must surely know about.
But on one point we do agree with Atkinson: everyone should simply use their cars less, whatever the type.
Anne Wheldon and John Bayes
Reading, Berkshire
• I read Rowan Atkinson’s article on electric vehicles with great interest. I also did my first degree in electrical engineering many years ago. He has made some very good points about the wastage caused by people changing their cars unnecessarily often, and also about the enormous carbon footprint and greenhouse emissions of building new cars and making batteries. But there is also another vital element of vehicle emissions which is widely ignored, and that is the production of all sorts of tiny toxic particles of rubber, synthetic plastics, dust and roadbuilding materials from the continuous friction between tyres and road surfaces.
Heavier vehicles – such as electric SUVs – produce far more of these particles, and they get into the environment everywhere, not just into the air where they can be absorbed into people’s lungs and bloodstreams, but also washed into the soil, watercourses and, eventually, the sea.
The only answer is, as Atkinson has suggested, not to produce vehicles unnecessarily and certainly not to scrap old ones prematurely. We must also keep new ones small and light, and use them sparingly.
Nigel Shindler
London
• I worked for years analysing vehicle efficiency and support Rowan Atkinson’s arguments. Many in the industry agree that electric vehicles are environmentally a stepping stone, not the solution. But Atkinson doesn’t mention two possible quick wins. Current popular electric vehicles (in affluent countries) mimic their predecessors in size, weight, etc, but they could actually be far lighter, consuming fewer resources, and still suffice for everyday purposes.
Also, we do not need to have our own car. Shared ownership (especially with better public transport) would permit a far smaller fleet, intensely used and regularly updated, enhanced with ride-sharing. Working out efficient logistics would be a benign application of AI.
Dr Kimon Roussopoulos
Cambridge
• Rowan Atkinson is grappling with the problem that cars pollute the atmosphere and contribute to global warming whether they’re powered by electricity or fossil fuels. They are also the cause of road accidents and create a hostile environment for people out on their feet or on bicycles. The only solution is to have fewer of them. The way to do this is to develop roads fit for walking and cycling, improve public transport and, at least in towns, try to organise things so that most of our everyday needs are accessible without having to resort to motor vehicles.
Chris Barker
London
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
