Skip to content

AEP’s Weekly Electric Car Rant

June 21, 2017

By Paul Homewood


AEP is on his regular electric car rant today.


Morgan Stanley is betting that electric cars will corner 70pc of the European vehicle market by the middle of century, leading to a drastic upheaval for the power sector and scramble for dominance of lucrative new technologies.

Global banks in London and New York are no longer debating whether the switch-over will occur. Research reports have shifted to granular analysis over what this means for large swathes of the economy, and who will be the winners and losers as the old edifice crumbles.

A report this week from Nicholas Ashworth and Carolina Dores at Morgan Stanley says a ratchet effect is underway. It is becoming more costly each year to develop petrol and diesel cars that comply with tightening rules on emissions of CO2 and particulates (NOx), yet the cost of EV batteries keeps falling. The crossover point will arrive in the mid-2020s.

They expect global EV sales to reach one billion annually by 2050, pulling ahead of internal combustion engines. The switch could take place much faster. A widely-cited report by Tony Seba and James Arbib at RethinkX argues that it will make no sense to manufacture fossil-driven cars, trucks, buses, or tractors within a decade.

I have already shown Tony Seba’s analysis to be nonsense.

However, the interesting bit is this graph from the Morgan Stanley analysis:



Even if electric car sales really do overtake conventional by 2050, the latter are still expected to be selling nearly as many as currently.

Hardly the disaster scenario for car manufacturers or oil companies that AEP usually tries to paint.

In any event, the notion that we can forecast what will happen in forty years time is plainly bunkum.

Would we have anticipated any of today’s technology in 1977? Very little, I suspect.

Would we have even dreamt of the internet, PCs, mobile phones, digital technology, and a host of other things that we now accept as part of modern life.

And I also suspect that many of the things imagined then have never taken off.

I certainly recall the experts back in the 1960s quite seriously telling us that by now we would all be flying around the skies in air taxis, living in 5-mile high towers, having robots doing all the house work, and eating synthetic food.

  1. AlecM permalink
    June 21, 2017 5:16 pm

    AEP has gone selectively mad.

  2. June 21, 2017 5:19 pm

    More range = bigger batteries = much higher cost of vehicle.

    Also: where is all the electricity supposed to come from? In the UK we’re just scraping by at peak times and there are very few electric cars.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 22, 2017 1:10 pm

      Not just that, what about the cost of the battery raw materials? Assuming we not talking lead-acid of course.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        June 22, 2017 1:26 pm

        Going to be a real problem meeting the increased production requirements of all those batteries, they are already experiencing large increases in prices.

  3. markl permalink
    June 21, 2017 5:28 pm

    Another model predicting future EV presence? Let’s see….. it’s not even at 1% now after almost a decade with all the early adopters/low hanging fruit already picked and bribes/subsidies to purchase and they think it will go to 50% in 3 more decades? Nothing more than wishful propaganda.

  4. June 21, 2017 5:40 pm

    I have a dream, butterflies and sunlit uplands (apart from in the areas given over to windfarms), clean green renewable electricity generators connected directly to battery charging centres, solving the surplus problem, with charged batteries transported to petrol stations, for quick swaps with empty batteries.

    Best of all, that gets renewables off the grid, and gets me out of paying for them, those with electric cars will have to pay for their clean green system, we can assure them that the price will be low thanks to the energy being free, established comprehensively by a blizzard of academic and NGO studies.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 22, 2017 1:14 pm

      Trouble is you are already paying for councils to put in EV charging infrastructure and providing it free to the EV owners. They should have to pay a fee to use it to cover the cost. I know what reply you will get if you complain – encouraging EV use is good because it will stop global warming but if you can nail them on that scam plan b will be air quality.

      You are spot on that switching batteries is the only way to make EVs work over longer distances.

  5. John F. Hultquist permalink
    June 21, 2017 5:54 pm

    Plan #1: I suggest you disconnect Britain from its rocky root in the North Atlantic and tow it down south of the Azores. Cover the entire area with solar panels, turbines, and batteries.
    Start now and by the time those 2 curves meet in 2050, you will be fine.
    Plan #2: Start building a dozen nuclear plants each year — start today.
    Plan #3: Move all the people to a place with better weather — Britain can be declared a heritage natural area with no over-night stays. Move 3.3% of the people away each year and by 2050 the island will be well on its way to being Paradise.

  6. Jack Broughton permalink
    June 21, 2017 6:03 pm

    Plan #3 is well underway already, except that only the richest 0.1 % are in it. Cur Phil Greedy will be sitting in his yacht worrying that this idea might catch on: imagine him surrounded by ex-BHS emigres! I’ll go if they give me a nice yacht too.

  7. spetzer86 permalink
    June 21, 2017 6:16 pm

    Wonder how that stacks up when viewed with articles like this?

    What’s the point of switching if you’re generating as much CO2 to start as you would if you just left well enough alone?

  8. John Palmer permalink
    June 21, 2017 6:35 pm

    Maybe I’m missing something here…. what happens when/if EV’s ever do build a market share and HM Treasury notices a huge drop in fuel duty and road/emissions taxes – and may even still be shelling-out for the incentive/discount for these things?
    After all they’ll be using the same infrastructure as FF vehicles, will still cause traffic issues, have accidents, need parking etc., etc. Do you think they might then be taxed?
    Surely not!!!

  9. June 21, 2017 7:38 pm

    Once the CO2 scam dies down sanity will return. Then there will be no need for EVs or diesel cars and petrol will rule the roost once again.

  10. Ian Miller permalink
    June 21, 2017 7:57 pm

    In as much as a blanket of CO2 is said to hold in heat at the earth’s surface allegedly preventing heat from escaping and thus warming the planet, surely this same blanket will insulate the planet from heat from the sun ?
    In other words, this CO2 blanket will hold in as much fossil fuel heat, as much as hold out the sun’s heat !
    In other words, CO2 emissions can only have a neutral effect on Climate, contrary to what the ‘authorities’ who wish to curtail us all, would desperately try to tell us.
    Furthermore, the amount of heat we create by burning fossil fuels has to be miniscule compared to the amount of heat from the sun continually barbecuing the earth’s entire surface, and without which, quite regardless of the amount of fossil fuel we burnt, the earth would still become a solitary frozen ball in space.

    • Ed Bo permalink
      June 21, 2017 8:29 pm

      The whole point of the “greenhouse” metaphor (and it is just a metaphor) is that these gases permit solar energy to pass in to the earth system virtually unimpeded, but block significant amounts of the energy from the surface that would escape upwards (in this case, by radiative absorption, not stopping upward convection).

      This much is easily confirmed in repeatable laboratory experiments. CO2 and H2O do not absorb the visible and shortwave infrared wavelengths found in sunlight, but do absorb substantial amounts of the longwave infrared wavelengths found in earth’s own thermal radiation.

      There are many, many problems with mainstream climate science. But this is not one of them. Until you educate yourself more, you just give fodder to alarmists who dismiss skeptics as know-nothings.

      • PJD LLOYD permalink
        June 22, 2017 2:32 am

        CO2 does not ABSORB infrared, it merely scatters it.

      • bea permalink
        June 22, 2017 6:40 am

        “…these gases permit solar energy to pass in to the earth system virtually unimpeded…”


        20% of incoming solar radiation is reflected by clouds
        6% of incoming solar radiation is reflected by Atmosphere
        4% of incoming solar radiation is reflected by surface

        AND INDEED

        19% of incoming solar radiation is


        by Atmosphere and clouds.

        Granted, clouds are not gas, but they form from the greenhouse gas known as water vapour.

      • Ed Bo permalink
        June 22, 2017 5:02 pm

        PJD — CO2 most certainly DOES absorb infrared radiation, as has been understood from repeatable laboratory experiments for over a century now. This is basic spectroscopy, and you really need to understand it.

        Overwhelmingly, scattering happens for much shorter wavelengths — at the violet end of the visible spectrum. It’s why the sky is blue!

      • Ed Bo permalink
        June 22, 2017 5:33 pm

        bea — Nothing you cited in any way contradicts what I said, that greenhouse gases permit solar energy to pass in to the earth system virtually unimpeded.

        Clouds are not gases (as you admit) or even vapor (vapor is simply a term for a gas below the critical temperature of the substance).

        The atmospheric reflection you cite is primarily from aerosol particles like sulfates, and Rayleigh scattering that occurs even without greenhouse gases.

        Any solar radiation that is reflected from the earth’s surface has obviously made it through the atmosphere unimpeded.

        My point stands, that greenhouse gases absorb very little in the solar spectrum, but a lot in the longwave infrared spectrum emitted by the earth’s surface.

      • nigel permalink
        June 22, 2017 9:37 pm

        Ian Miller

        Your point about CO2 is wrong, as the irradiation from the sun is qualitatively
        different from the emitted radiation from the Earth.

        However, if you were to make a larger point, that the atmosphere as a whole – which includes H20 molecules in both liquid and gas phase* – does impede or turn back greatly, in various ways, the passage of solar radiation down to the earth and sea, that would be entirely correct. Half of the energy from the sun does not penetrate directly, on average.

        Furthermore, the largest single input of energy into the atmosphere is the upwards transfer of heat from the surface by evaporation of water and subsequent condensation in the air.

        If you then found multiple cartoons which showed the “greenhouse gas effect” and which did not include the various processes involving H20, and which did not distinguish between continents and ocean, or between night and day, or between summer and winter, you would be on familiar territory.

        *continously changing back and forth, but staying aloft for ten days on average.

    • nigel permalink
      June 22, 2017 9:50 pm

      “…largest single input…”

      “…largest single NET input…”

    • McNeil permalink
      June 23, 2017 12:05 pm

      It’s a big subject but think of it this simple way;

      Some of the re-radiation from the surface interacts with carbon dioxide so that the energy is handed on in relay fashion. Each change of the baton (energy) occurs at successively lower temperature with altitude but the baton is unchanged. Arriving at the top of the atmosphere the baton is exactly equal to a new one being delivered at the bottom – at the higher temperature. Ad infinitum


      Without the greenhouse gases being present, the atmosphere would be isothermal – a pressure gradient at equal temperature. That temperature would be the colder of the two.

      The top of the atmosphere in this case is the escape altitude – thin air where the energy can pass with a low probability of interception. Add more carbon dioxide then you raise the probability and the altitude and the surface temperature. Ad infinitum.

      If you delve into the detail then the above becomes an over-simplification. Sometimes I think that is deliberate and sometimes I think effect is being confused with cause.

  11. McNeil permalink
    June 21, 2017 8:01 pm

    AEP would seem to have recently moved from always being wrong to always being righteous.

    • David Ashton permalink
      June 22, 2017 3:08 pm

      AEP’s written word has fallen in line with the globalists as he doesn’t wish to lose his invite to Davos. He doesn’t believe a word of this tosh that he writes.

  12. Dung permalink
    June 21, 2017 11:32 pm

    Even if AEP was right (and that would be a first) if EVs will be as economic as petrol cars by 2050, why not stop spending our cash on EV subsidies now and wait until 2050?
    I say we take off and nuke AEP from orbit, its the only way to be sure ^.^

  13. Athelstan permalink
    June 22, 2017 12:13 am

    I trust that, there will be a post on the latest “warmest evah!” well since 1976 any road…………Paul?

    • dave permalink
      June 22, 2017 8:10 am

      Slightly OT.

      Pollsters wrong again in USA. Desperately hyped for a Democrat win in Georgia special House of Representatives election…BUT…guess what? Trump’s side won again. That is four in a row, for these replacement contests.

      Of course, the “gerrymandering” of all Congressional districts is a wonder of crookedness (pun intended.)

      • June 22, 2017 12:14 pm

        There was that North Carolina district that was just a couple of miles wide and many miles long to get a certain group as a voting bloc. I think that has been somewhat fixed to the chagrin of those who conceived it.

  14. June 22, 2017 12:12 pm

    Electric cars powered by coal!! West Virginia can use the business!!

  15. June 23, 2017 8:16 am

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  16. Jack Broughton permalink
    June 23, 2017 10:32 am

    The Solihull chamber of commerce have obviously been watching Peter Kay’s Car Share. They are bringing in car sharing to improve the environment. The article was amusing in that all the advocates shown were directors etc, company car users, can just see them ferrying in the cleaners and other prols …… What they mean of course is that the prols should share their little cars. In some cases they even charge the prols to park.

    Cliamate and energy saving “My a***”.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: