AmericanThunder
Super Moderator
Found this article written by Quentin Wilson.
Couple of years old but very relevant and very eloquent.
Part 1.
All over the UK astonished drivers are asking the same question: who decided that banning the internal combustion engine was a good idea? July’s announcement that the government will ban sales of petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040 was dropped on industry and consumers as a total surprise while the PM was on holiday and Parliament was in summer recess. Worried voices asked the obvious question. Where did this incredible bombshell come from? Well, the responsibility for the most seismic change in personal mobility since the invention of the car rests with the environmental lawyers of Client Earth who, through the High Court, have forced the government to formulate hard proposals to reduce NO2 and particulate emissions from road transport across the UK. In 2015 the European Environment Agency published that now contentious headline figure of 40,000 premature deaths from nitrogen dioxide pollution that has terrified consumers and legislators alike and created the diesel hysteria we’ve seen throughout the last two years. But if you dig deeper into the EEA’s tables in that report the actual ‘Years of Life Lost’ as a result of NO2 exposure per capita across the population of Europe is actually only an average of 3 1/2 hours. Let me repeat that: an average of just three-and-a-half hours. If 40,000 people were really dying each year as a direct result of urban air pollution, our hospitals would be in melt down. But the media took this mischievous number on face value and the inaccurate ‘Premature Deaths’ headline was repeated many tens of thousands of times and has now become the new battle cry for the Green's war against the car and van.
Despite tiny numbers of people actually voting for green parties across Europe they’ve been waging a quiet class war against the internal combustion engine for years and their influence in Brussels and Westminster is amazingly powerful. Well financed (and with considerable help from the European Commission), they’ve managed to persuade the French and UK governments to sign the ultimate death warrant for the motor car as we know it. Millions of drivers in the UK are saying that they weren’t consulted at all and have watched the values of the diesel cars they were told to buy by a Labour government fall in value by a collective £35 billion. Quite rightly they’re saying that this situation isn’t fair at all. The 34 million driving consumers in the UK are alarmed, confused and have been financially disadvantaged. And they bought diesels only because they were told they were doing the right thing. Now they’re being told that in 23 years all cars and vans must be electric because the greens insist this the only way to clean our urban air. As a long-term electric car driver and passionate advocate, (I’ve owned five EVs over the last seven years) I’d love to say that I agree, but I don’t. And I wonder how many green evangelists and politicians have put as many electric miles under their wheels as I have? Not many, I bet.
And that gives me a special position in this debate. I know both the strengths and limitations of our current lithium battery technology and charging infrastructure and have to admit that unless we have a game-changing technological development in the next 23 years the modal shift to pure electrification just won’t be practical or possible. Where will we find enough rare earth metals to make 30 million batteries and the state funding for 10 million public rapid charging points? How will we generate enough renewable electricity to feed the enormous demand for clean electricity? Building more nuclear power stations isn’t a green option and nor are more coal fired power stations. We’ll need much greater battery density, much shorter charge times and feasible battery ranges from a short charge of at least 350 miles. Teslas may deliver much longer battery ranges but Elon Musk’s prices aren’t cheap. We’d all love to drive the wonderful Tesla Model S, Model 3 or Model X but at minimum prices of between £30k and £50k, it's beyond most of our finances. The £10,000 350-mile range mass-market EV is still a very long way off and our current battery technology is leagues away from that idealistic vision as well.
I know this because I drive an EV every single day. My Nissan Leaf will just cover 90 miles to one overnight charge and if I want to go further I need to stop at a rapid charger for 35 minutes, pay £7.50 and get my battery up to 80% charge again. If I want to cover 300 miles I have to charge three times and the same again to get home. Mainstream consumers just won’t put up with those constraints. For evangelical EV advocates like me, it may work but the 34 million UK drivers would swamp the network and bring down the National Grid in a heartbeat. To power 34 million electric cars and vans the grid will need to produce 22 extra Giga Watts, yet maximum capacity is 75 GW and peak demand is currently 60 GW. Base load is 35 GW so the extra power needed will bring electricity demand close to peak demand every single day - and probably every single night too. Can we really supply all that extra power? We really do need to think about the ramifications of all this very seriously indeed.
Because the cost to consumers, industry and the government will be enormous and the disruption to manufacturing, liquid fuels, parts supply chain, motor industry and oil production will add up to trillions and wipe away millions of jobs. Electric cars need far fewer moving parts and virtually no lubricants so a manufacturing, maintenance and parts supply industry that employs 800,000 will shrink dramatically. The UK economy is inextricably linked to all these sources of employment, GDP and tax revenue. Take all that economic activity away and you risk towing the UK economy out to sea and sinking it with gunfire. And that’s why banning sales of internal combustion engined cars and vans completely is such a radical step. Why the cliff edge? Why the complete ban? Let consumers and technology decide the direction our future personal mobility strategy rather than allowing a small coven of green warriors to decide for us. The risk is just too great and the effect on our economy too vast. And it will be vast. No more car engine plants, a 60% decline in the parts and repair industry, no more fuel stations and the loss of two million jobs - at that’s just for starters. New jobs will certainly be created by the new electric economy but the state will have to finance an entire electric charging infrastructure for the whole of the UK and significant sources of new clean power generation. Will the private sector finance all this? I don’t think so. The government will have to dig very deep to build this brave new era of electrification. And that could mean tax rises to pay for it all which could cause increased inflation and interest rates.
On the plus side, we will see more battery innovation and R&D so range and density will improve over time. We may see new materials like graphene used to create lighter, cheaper batteries but we’re already seeing the commodities industries buying up rare earth metals like cobalt and lithium and prices have risen 350% in the last few years. I like the idea of stimulating the market to develop and overcome its current technological shortcomings but this feels a lot like inventing perpetual motion and at the moment those technological solutions just aren’t there. We’ve had over 100 years to get the petrol and diesel combustion engine to where it is today and we’re expecting to completely reinvent an alternative power source and national delivery infrastructure in just 23 years. I know innovation isn’t linear but a quarter of a century doesn’t sound like nearly enough time at all.
Couple of years old but very relevant and very eloquent.
Part 1.
All over the UK astonished drivers are asking the same question: who decided that banning the internal combustion engine was a good idea? July’s announcement that the government will ban sales of petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040 was dropped on industry and consumers as a total surprise while the PM was on holiday and Parliament was in summer recess. Worried voices asked the obvious question. Where did this incredible bombshell come from? Well, the responsibility for the most seismic change in personal mobility since the invention of the car rests with the environmental lawyers of Client Earth who, through the High Court, have forced the government to formulate hard proposals to reduce NO2 and particulate emissions from road transport across the UK. In 2015 the European Environment Agency published that now contentious headline figure of 40,000 premature deaths from nitrogen dioxide pollution that has terrified consumers and legislators alike and created the diesel hysteria we’ve seen throughout the last two years. But if you dig deeper into the EEA’s tables in that report the actual ‘Years of Life Lost’ as a result of NO2 exposure per capita across the population of Europe is actually only an average of 3 1/2 hours. Let me repeat that: an average of just three-and-a-half hours. If 40,000 people were really dying each year as a direct result of urban air pollution, our hospitals would be in melt down. But the media took this mischievous number on face value and the inaccurate ‘Premature Deaths’ headline was repeated many tens of thousands of times and has now become the new battle cry for the Green's war against the car and van.
Despite tiny numbers of people actually voting for green parties across Europe they’ve been waging a quiet class war against the internal combustion engine for years and their influence in Brussels and Westminster is amazingly powerful. Well financed (and with considerable help from the European Commission), they’ve managed to persuade the French and UK governments to sign the ultimate death warrant for the motor car as we know it. Millions of drivers in the UK are saying that they weren’t consulted at all and have watched the values of the diesel cars they were told to buy by a Labour government fall in value by a collective £35 billion. Quite rightly they’re saying that this situation isn’t fair at all. The 34 million driving consumers in the UK are alarmed, confused and have been financially disadvantaged. And they bought diesels only because they were told they were doing the right thing. Now they’re being told that in 23 years all cars and vans must be electric because the greens insist this the only way to clean our urban air. As a long-term electric car driver and passionate advocate, (I’ve owned five EVs over the last seven years) I’d love to say that I agree, but I don’t. And I wonder how many green evangelists and politicians have put as many electric miles under their wheels as I have? Not many, I bet.
And that gives me a special position in this debate. I know both the strengths and limitations of our current lithium battery technology and charging infrastructure and have to admit that unless we have a game-changing technological development in the next 23 years the modal shift to pure electrification just won’t be practical or possible. Where will we find enough rare earth metals to make 30 million batteries and the state funding for 10 million public rapid charging points? How will we generate enough renewable electricity to feed the enormous demand for clean electricity? Building more nuclear power stations isn’t a green option and nor are more coal fired power stations. We’ll need much greater battery density, much shorter charge times and feasible battery ranges from a short charge of at least 350 miles. Teslas may deliver much longer battery ranges but Elon Musk’s prices aren’t cheap. We’d all love to drive the wonderful Tesla Model S, Model 3 or Model X but at minimum prices of between £30k and £50k, it's beyond most of our finances. The £10,000 350-mile range mass-market EV is still a very long way off and our current battery technology is leagues away from that idealistic vision as well.
I know this because I drive an EV every single day. My Nissan Leaf will just cover 90 miles to one overnight charge and if I want to go further I need to stop at a rapid charger for 35 minutes, pay £7.50 and get my battery up to 80% charge again. If I want to cover 300 miles I have to charge three times and the same again to get home. Mainstream consumers just won’t put up with those constraints. For evangelical EV advocates like me, it may work but the 34 million UK drivers would swamp the network and bring down the National Grid in a heartbeat. To power 34 million electric cars and vans the grid will need to produce 22 extra Giga Watts, yet maximum capacity is 75 GW and peak demand is currently 60 GW. Base load is 35 GW so the extra power needed will bring electricity demand close to peak demand every single day - and probably every single night too. Can we really supply all that extra power? We really do need to think about the ramifications of all this very seriously indeed.
Because the cost to consumers, industry and the government will be enormous and the disruption to manufacturing, liquid fuels, parts supply chain, motor industry and oil production will add up to trillions and wipe away millions of jobs. Electric cars need far fewer moving parts and virtually no lubricants so a manufacturing, maintenance and parts supply industry that employs 800,000 will shrink dramatically. The UK economy is inextricably linked to all these sources of employment, GDP and tax revenue. Take all that economic activity away and you risk towing the UK economy out to sea and sinking it with gunfire. And that’s why banning sales of internal combustion engined cars and vans completely is such a radical step. Why the cliff edge? Why the complete ban? Let consumers and technology decide the direction our future personal mobility strategy rather than allowing a small coven of green warriors to decide for us. The risk is just too great and the effect on our economy too vast. And it will be vast. No more car engine plants, a 60% decline in the parts and repair industry, no more fuel stations and the loss of two million jobs - at that’s just for starters. New jobs will certainly be created by the new electric economy but the state will have to finance an entire electric charging infrastructure for the whole of the UK and significant sources of new clean power generation. Will the private sector finance all this? I don’t think so. The government will have to dig very deep to build this brave new era of electrification. And that could mean tax rises to pay for it all which could cause increased inflation and interest rates.
On the plus side, we will see more battery innovation and R&D so range and density will improve over time. We may see new materials like graphene used to create lighter, cheaper batteries but we’re already seeing the commodities industries buying up rare earth metals like cobalt and lithium and prices have risen 350% in the last few years. I like the idea of stimulating the market to develop and overcome its current technological shortcomings but this feels a lot like inventing perpetual motion and at the moment those technological solutions just aren’t there. We’ve had over 100 years to get the petrol and diesel combustion engine to where it is today and we’re expecting to completely reinvent an alternative power source and national delivery infrastructure in just 23 years. I know innovation isn’t linear but a quarter of a century doesn’t sound like nearly enough time at all.
