Internal combustion cars vs. electric vehicles: a dilemma for the “engineer” in the “strategist” in… me

I’m not in the automotive industry. I have no hidden interests, I don’t sell batteries or fuels, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to change their car. I’m writing this article from an outsider's perspective, based on what I found through desk research, with all the limitations that entails. But above all, I’m writing it because I have a simple question – a question that the "engineer" in me asks, the one that still wants to find rational, technically sound solutions.The engineer in… the strategist in… me… Matryoshka ;-)

This discussion isn’t about finding a final, convergent answer. It’s more of an open, divergent conversation that requires challenges and questions. It's clear that both camps – internal combustion vehicles and electric vehicles – have strong arguments. But with the new technologies knocking at the door, it's possible that combustion cars powered by low-emission synthetic fuels could be just as good or even better than electric cars. Let’s see how things are today and how they could look in the future.

Today: Who pollutes more?

Before jumping into the future, let’s see who wins the race today from an environmental impact perspective.

Production: Who makes more 'noise'?
- Electric Vehicles (EVs):
  This might surprise you, but producing an EV is far from "green." Between 10 and 15 tons of CO₂ are released into the atmosphere just to build one of those wonderful lithium-ion batteries (ICCT 2020).
  And yes, they are more "eco" in the long run, but these guys need to do better in the manufacturing stage.
- Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEs):
  On the other hand, internal combustion vehicles (in their current form) come with a lower initial impact of between 7 and 9 tons of CO₂. True, you don't need to equip them with massive batteries that extract cobalt and lithium from the earth (EPA 2021).
Usage: Who breathes cleaner air?
- Electric Vehicles (EVs):
  They look good here. They emit nothing on the road. But before we get too excited, let's look at the energy source. If your energy mix includes fossil fuels (which it often still does), an EV can generate around 35-40 tons of CO₂ over its lifetime (200,000 km) (EEA 2021).
- Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEs):
  Here, fossil fuel cars do what they do best: pollute. We're talking about 40-50 tons of CO₂ for the same 200,000 km, so it's clear who wins in the "smoke in the atmosphere" category (EEA 2020).
End of Life: Who’s easier to recycle?
- Electric Vehicles (EVs):
  Recycling electric batteries is a... nightmare. On top of that, the technology isn't quite there yet, and recycling can add between 2 and 4 tons of CO₂ to the final footprint (ScienceDirect 2021).
- Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEs):
  ICEs are less complicated at the end of their life. Recycling them adds only 1-2 tons of CO₂. You know them, you love them, you remake them more easily (ACEA 2021).

Total over the lifetime (today):

Electric Vehicle (EV): 47-59 tons CO₂.
Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICE): 48-61 tons CO₂.

On paper, electric vehicles perform slightly better in usage, but overall... the differences aren't colossal. Now, let's move to the interesting part.

The Synthetic Fuel (e-fuels) Revolution: The chance for internal combustion vehicles

Have you heard of e-fuels? Synthetic fuels – produced through electricity – could reduce the CO₂ emissions from internal combustion cars by 90%. Let’s break it down.

Production: No significant change
- Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICE):
  Production remains the same, between 7-9 tons of CO₂, because synthetic fuels don't change how the cars are built (EPA 2021).
Usage: Here comes the magic
- Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICE) with e-fuels:
  If we switch to e-fuels, emissions during usage drop drastically to 4-5 tons of CO₂ for 200,000 km. Sounds good, right? (Fuels Europe 2022).
End of Life: Still the same
- Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICE):
  At the end, we’re left with 1-2 tons of CO₂ for recycling. Same cars, same story (ACEA 2021).

Total over the lifetime with synthetic fuels:

Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICE) with e-fuels: 12-16 tons CO₂.

Optimism for Electric Vehicles: A greener future?

Now let’s see how electric vehicles could evolve, because they too have potential. Although they aren't perfect today, a few improvements can make a big difference:

Solid-state and graphene batteries: A new hope
- Electric Vehicles (EVs):
  If we move to solid-state batteries (with solid electrolytes), emissions from production could drop by 40%. Meanwhile, graphene batteries (an advanced conductor material) could bring significant improvements in terms of fast charging and efficiency, offering a promising alternative for electric vehicles. This means that producing an EV could generate between 6 and 9 tons of CO₂ (ScienceDirect 2021).
Advanced recycling: The solution we’ve been waiting for
- Electric Vehicles (EVs):
  Advanced recycling of batteries could bring emissions from this process down to 1-2 tons of CO₂. Recycling becomes less painful (ScienceDirect 2021).
Renewable energy: The Achilles' heel
- Electric Vehicles (EVs):
  If EVs are powered by renewable energy, emissions during usage could drop to 10-15 tons of CO₂ over 200,000 km (Tesla Impact Report 2020).

Total over the lifetime with future technologies:

Electric Vehicle (EV): 17-26 tons CO₂.

Conclusion? More difficult than you'd think

When we add emerging technologies into the mix, things get interesting:

Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICE) with synthetic fuels:
Total lifetime emissions: 12-16 tons CO₂.
Electric Vehicle (EV) with improvements:
Total lifetime emissions: 17-26 tons CO₂.

What’s the idea?

My conclusion isn't just about vehicles – it’s about how we view data and understanding real needs. On paper, electric vehicles seem to be the obvious answer to the climate crisis, but upon closer analysis, synthetic fuels could completely redefine the game for internal combustion cars.

And here, the 'engineer' in me knocks on the 'strategist's' door...

And tells me that this is a perfect analogy for the challenges in strategy formulation.

Just as electric vehicles seem like the obvious solution at first glance, only a complete perspective can lead us to truly correct conclusions – and sometimes those conclusions can be surprising, especially when we talk about segmentation and identifying needs.

If we rely on traditional segmentations based on customer behavior – such as 'how, what, when, where… they buy,' 'how they use' the product or service, benefits sought, and then psychographic factors like attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyle or motivational needs – we risk drawing wrong conclusions and building strategy on flawed premises.

It is easy to confuse correlation with causation – just as it is easy to deceive ourselves into thinking that electric vehicles are inherently "green" just because they emit no pollutants during usage, without analyzing their total environmental impact – a comfortable illusion, but one that can have serious consequences.

Continuing the analogy, the real key lies in understanding fundamental needs and the desired outcomes of customers, not just relying on what appears to be their visible preferences or behaviors.

In short, we need to rely on more than appearances. If we really want to be strategists – whether we’re talking about cars or business – we need to look beyond obvious solutions and constantly ask ourselves if what we see is truly the right answer, meaning we should also be a bit of an engineer.

So, synthetic fuels or electric vehicles with advanced technologies? Maybe that's not the final answer, but what I do know is that only through a deep and complete understanding can we draw correct conclusions. Just as we should do in strategy formulation: try to see beyond seemingly perfect solutions and focus on the real, fundamental needs. Only then can we build solutions that are truly relevant and durable.

Does it make sense?