Summary of Outcomes
The meeting delegates suggested four key priority themes for action:
Issue 1.1 - The current transport legislative framework based on CO2 reductions are Tank-to-Wheel based. Well-to-Wheel and energy efficiency may be a better driver of change. Further debate also considered whether a specific ultra-low carbon vehicle category should be defined. A new framework should be investigated.
Selected comments from attendees:
- I would like to see energy efficiency as the target
- California gave a strong message to citizens that we want a long term target for renewable cars. We have never discussed this. We have a lack of clarity about money for fuel cell technology. The government must send the message to industry about what it expects and wants. It must also send the message to the consumer about what it wants from them.
- We need long term goals and vision: if we could have a policy-led future for oil, that would be fantastic.
- Government set policy for EV.
- Government needs to be planning ahead: we should give positive, long term signals in order to coordinate European and national funding.
- We should also be concerned with energy efficiency: should we base legislation on energy efficiency or carbon? Focussing on efficiency will reduce carbon anyway.
- Being able to measure energy and vehicle performance on a life cycle basis.
- This should be technology neutral. Picking a technology winner is not a good idea.
Issue 1.2 - Need to accelerate the uptake of ultra low carbon vehicles. The shift to generating sector energy within transport will result in initially higher purchase price for vehicles due significantly to battery systems. Over a complete life cycle basis for the vehicles it is considered that the vehicles will become cost effective in the medium term.
Selected comments from attendees:
- In order to accelerate the uptake, fiscal measures are likely to be required but this could have long term benefit to decarbonising transport.
- The barrier at the moment is that EVs cost more. To accelerate adoption, fiscal policies – of whatever type – are necessary until we can achieve economies of scale.
- It makes sense to introduce EVs: it is important that we start to introduce the EV as soon as possible.
- There’s a nuance in what clear long term policy is: people having been talking about signals. We are not asking for a global plan, but for clear signals for the market.
- One objective must be to drive down costs – achieving the critical mass is important.
Issue 1.3 - The generating sector needs to decarbonise in parallel with electrification of transport (EoT) in order for the full benefits to be seen, but note that in most circumstances even today’s mix offers significant carbon reductions with even further benefits if energy consumption is measured.
Selected comments from attendees:
- A coordinated approach across sectors is required.
- Decarbonising electricity: a strong message should be that there is little point in driving hard towards EVs if you are not getting decarbonised energy at source. We need decarbonised electricity.
- If the marginal production source is coal, we will not achieve much by going towards EVs. We should be talking about the generating sector mix on a global scale.
- We need a strong link to renewable energy.
- Even under poor generating sector mix, electrification is a low carbon solution.
- Government should be concerned with how to make more renewable energy.
Issue 2.1 - There is a strong need for countries to understand what work is ongoing in the area of EoT.
Selected comments from attendees:
- A potential solution for ensuring value for money invested in EoT will be the emergence of an intergovernmental group that coordinates and tracks the emergence of EoT.
- A lot of collaboration going on – but we need a strategic investment programme; linking collaborating partners. Government and industry linked, but government intervention is missing currently.
- Establishing a vehicle technology institute would allow battery technology to be developed. A 10 year programme?
- The G8 should make a commitment to trying; in a range of contexts: and to share the learning (common themes with above).
- Need a solid science base and Governments need to provide continuity of funding: under pressure currently in most OECD countries.
- Countries are already funding work in this area, but how can we get a co-ordinated approach moving forward?
- We need coordinated investment in this area, but the interface between the battery and vehicle is not completely known today. This is an urgent point of research and can perhaps be done through collaboration.
- Long term strategy: plan properly for the future looking at all aspects of science and technology and ensure we have a constant message.
- A key role – always – in international collaboration is sharing information about what has been tested and what has been found. There could be a significant international role for making sure the information is shared.
- Key point: maybe it is the sharing data across international projects that is as important as the individual demonstrations.
- Beware we don’t duplicate projects and learning. Recognise that different locations have different challenges. Different demographics mean that these need to be distributed so that consumers see and experience EVs as well as testing and resolving local issues
- Intergovernmental working group is recommended to move this forward.
- Relating to long term Government vision: need to recognise the consequences of the economic situation on the auto industry – at a time when we need extraordinary resources to invest in ultra LCV. We mustn’t lose courage and Governments must work with industry players (as above) to de-risk. A key role for Governments to coordinate and drive forward.
Issue 3.1 - There is a need to understand and resolve issues within EoT in order to develop the market.
Selected comments from attendees:
- Large scale demonstration to investigate technologies, resolve issues, build partnerships and gain public acceptance was seen as a positive and could provide value for money for both public and private sector investment. Accelerating the market.
- The focus of government money should be on demonstrations to leverage private sector money. Government and industry should work in harmony to achieve this – and if we do, we can do it better.
- The terminology of this statement is incorrect: there is a difference between pre-development and development research. We should not be doing development research – that should be done by those who best know how to commercially exploit it. We want to go to electric transport or very low carbon transport – that would be a better wording
- Government should be concerned with how to make more renewable energy.
- A degree of coordination globally might be useful: the debate at G8 might be 'How can we take the seeds of what is already there, coordinate what different centres in Europe, Japan and Asia are trying to do and build from there?'
- Energy Technologies Institute: wants to demonstrate issues and systems, picking off the issues we need to address.
- This should be a large demonstration (000s, not 00s).
- We are talking about a variety of demonstrated benefits.
- The concept of choosing an area (a city that is designated as low carbon, allowing us to build the low carbon infrastructure) proves the infrastructure and links with vehicles.
- Leaders of G8 to test drive EVs for one week – so that they can feel what it is like. This is a major point of demonstration.
- First tier suppliers need to get on board with these technologies – we might find that the smaller companies lead.
Issue 4.1 - Standards for systems need to be agreed across governments and industry in order to ensure that the market minimises costs and rapid uptake is feasible
Selected comments from attendees:
- Standard for the interconnector plug: there is already an existing standard for the wall side. Use the existing regulations. Not a G8 problem, but it is important.
- If G8 agree politically, we must have international standards – then it will be done.
(2465KB)
