A new study argues that insufficient infrastructure doomed the first electric cars

“ALL IS ROTARY, beautifully perfect and wonderfully efficient,” said one evangelist for electric vehicles (EVs). “There is not that almost terrifying uncertain throb and whirr of the powerful combustion engine…no dangerous and evil smelling gasoline and no noise. Perfect freedom from vibration assures both comfort and peace of mind.” Translated into Twitter-ese, such views would not sound out of place from Elon Musk. But their author was Thomas Edison, pioneer of the light bulb, in 1903.

Then as now, EVs posed a competitive threat to petrol-powered cars. In 1905 most commercial vehicles were EVs. Ads aimed at affluent women touted EVs’ cleanliness, ease of use and lack of exhaust.

Yet by the 1920s, EVs were a dying breed. The standard account of their demise is that drivers were put off by their limited range and higher cost, relative to petrol-powered cars. However, a new paper by Josef Taalbi and Hana Nielsen of Lund University argues that their main disadvantage was instead a lack of infrastructure.

The authors consider various causes of petrol’s triumph in 1900-10. Cost is unlikely, since until 1910 petrol-powered cars and EVs of the same model type were similarly priced. As for range, EVs managed a respectable 90 miles (145km) by the 1910s. Had this been EVs’ principal handicap, battery-swapping stations, which replaced depleted batteries with charged ones in seconds, could have become as common as petrol stations did.

To test other explanations, the authors analysed the specifications and production sites of 37,000 model-year pairs of American cars in 1895-1942. Although petrol-powered cars were the most common, their market share varied by location. In places with the infrastructure EVs needed—smooth roads, which reduced jostling of heavy batteries, and ample electricity—production of EVs was unusually common. In areas without such capacity, petrol predominated. These vehicles’ infrastructure needs were largely met before they were invented, because many rural stores already stocked petrol for farm equipment.

The study then used a statistical model to predict how automotive history might have differed if the power grid had developed faster. It finds that if the amount of electricity America produced by 1922 had been available in 1902, 71% of car models in 1920 would have been EVs (though long-distance motorists would still have chosen petrol cars). Accounting for the extra power generation such a fleet would need, this would have cut America’s carbon-dioxide emissions from cars in 1920 by 44%.

A century later, the quantity and speed of charging stations still limit purchases of EVs by drivers worried about long trips. The infrastructure gap, however, is narrowing. Tesla, whose shares are now worth $1trn, has set up 25,000 speedy “superchargers” (though only Tesla drivers can use them). And a bipartisan bill recently passed by America’s Senate includes $7.5bn to boost charging capacity. As world leaders gather at next week’s COP26 conference to negotiate a reduction in global carbon-dioxide emissions, the study suggests that more support for EV infrastructure could have an outsized impact.■

Sources: “The role of energy infrastructure in shaping early adoption of electric and gasoline cars”, by J. Taalbi & H. Nielsen, Nature Energy, 2021; EPA; Library of Congress