Switch To EVs Puts 500,000 Jobs At Risk
December 6, 2021
By Paul Homewood
Net Zero Watch bring a warning from the FT:
49 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
pardonmeforbreathing on Transatlantic air fares to jum… liardetg on Electric Van Sales In Dec… micda67 on Electric Van Sales In Dec… pardonmeforbreathing on President of European Central… glenartney on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Vernon E on Electric Van Sales In Dec… oldbrew on President of European Central… coralstrawberrydiome… on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Broadlands on John Robson’s History of… Devoncamel on Electric Van Sales In Dec…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
No surprise here and I would say this number is under guessed.
Who cares for half a million jobs for the deplorables?
There should be plenty of work with breakdown services bailing out stranded EV drivers unable to recharge in time.
It is even worse than that when you realize that switching to another form of transportation will require using petroleum products to get them to where they will be used. Even the manufacture of these vehicles needs renewable biofuels. And don’t forget that the disposal of “gas guzzlers” will need them as well. So there will be a lot of CO2 being added to the atmosphere to keep some out.
Adding CO2 to our atmosphere greens the planet and otherwise does no harm.
Those believing otherwise are mistaken, perhaps because of the brainwashing to which we are all exposed.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
There is NOTHING GOOD about today’s EVs apart from milk floats, for quiet running and good acceleration.
I would buy one, but only at gunpoint!
Electric Cars . . . The big lie Exposed . . .
A Comparison of Two equal sized Cars
Tesla Model ‘S’ versus Toyota Camry
All input variables included
Introduction . . .
Schneider-Electric
Welcome to the Schneider Electric Blog
Jacques Schonek
Transmission Losses vs Distribution Losses on the Transmission network, the percentage of network losses is lower than on the distribution network. Citizens Advice suggests that about 1.7% of the electricity transferred over the transmission network is lost, and a further 5-8% is lost over the distribution networks https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/144711/download
Electricity has to be transmitted from large power plants to the consumers via extensive networks. The transmission over long distances creates power losses. The major part of the energy losses comes from Joule effect in transformers and power lines. The energy is lost as heat in the conductors.
Considering the main parts of a typical Transmission & Distribution network
Here are the average values of power losses at the different steps.
· 1-2% – Step-up transformer from generator to Transmission line
· 2-4% – Transmission line
· 1-2% – Step-down transformer from Transmission line to Distribution network
· 4-6% – Distribution network transformers and cables. The overall losses between the power plant and consumers are then in the range between 8 and 15%.
This must not be mixed up with the efficiency of power plants like nuclear, coal-fired or natural gas turbine. These technologies are based on a thermodynamic cycle, which efficiency is in the order of 35%. This means that the combustion of nuclear, coal, or Gas, will produce heat, which will be converted into mechanical energy and then into electricity. (35% is the average efficiency of Gasoline Engines also) https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/
An ‘average’ of 12 % Line Loss and Transmission Loss will be used for these calculations.
Green Car Reports – Why it takes more Energy than your Battery holds
The real reason for the discrepancy is that you lose some energy to Heat to the onboard charging. According to Kia, for instance, it’s typical for the onboard charger to lose 14 percent or more of the energy input on the way to charging the cells in the battery pack. Factor in charger inaccuracies (Kia notes that 3 to 5 percent isn’t unusual) and you could end up ‘officially’ putting in well over 15 percent more energy than the battery’s capacity while restoring the charge to 100 percent.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098248_charging-an-electric-car-why-it-takes-more-energy-than-your-battery-holds
Green car congress – 05 September 2018
Unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, electric vehicles experience a loss of energy during “refueling,” with an energy loss of about 16% from the wall power to the battery during charging. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/09/20180905fotw.html#:~:text=Unlike%20conventionally%20fueled%20vehicles%2C%20electric,to%20the%20battery%20during%20charging.
Based on ‘averages’ and the KIA commentary – 16% will be used for this calculation
Energy Information Administration – USA
How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatt-hour of U.S. electricity generation?
In 2019, total U.S. electricity generation by the electric power industry of 4.13 trillion kilowatt-hours (KWH)
from all energy sources resulted in the emission of 1.72 billion metric tons
1.90 billion short tons—of carbon dioxide (CO2).
This equaled about 0.92 pounds of CO2 emissions per Kilowatt-hour . . .
US Energy information. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11
0.92 lbs. of CO2 per KWH . . . Will be used for this examination
Calculation . . .
Tesla Model ‘S’
To cover 15,243 miles, I used 5,074 kWh of electricity, for an average of 333 watt-hours per mile (.333 KWH)
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090685_life-with-tesla-model-s-one-year-and-15000-miles-later
This ‘Consumption Reading’ noted above is based on the ‘Power Consumption Odometer’ IN the car . . .
NOT from the household meter and what you PAY for !
0.92 lbs. CO2 X 12 % (line loss) = .11 lbs. CO2 line loss
0.92 lbs. CO2 + .11 lbs. CO2 (line loss) = 1.03 lbs. CO2 up to charging station
1.03 lbs. CO2 X 16 % (battery charging loss) = .16 lbs. CO2 charging loss
1.03 lbs. CO2 (to charging station) + .16 lbs. CO2 (Charging Loss) = 1.19 lbs. CO2 per KWH charged battery
Tesla Model ‘S’ with Electric Engine
1.19 lbs. per KWH X .333 kwh per mile = 0.39 lbs. of CO2 per mile
XXXXXXXXXX
Toyota Camry with Gasoline Engine
Exprhttps://www.autoexpress.co.uk/toyota/camry/mpgess
98 grams per km. or 0.216 lbs. per km X 1.6 km to miles = 0.34 lbs. CO2 per mile
0.39 lbs. CO2 (Tesla) X 15 % = .05 lbs. CO2 per mile
Conclusion . . .
Tesla Burns 0.39 lbs. of CO2 per mile . . . Toyota Camry Burns 0.34 lbs. of CO2 per mile
Therefore . . .
Tesla model ‘S’ burns 15 % more CO2 than the Gas-Powered Toyota Camry
per Mile driven . . .
Full document . . . . https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry
Thanks for reading . . .
I think Tesla claim better than 0.333kWh/mile ?
Also, electricity in the USA emits a lot more CO2 per MW than electricity in the UK.
Taking both these into account would reverse the conclusion, but we also have to remember the CO2 emissions of manufacture are greater for the EV.
The Scientific data is all there for your review . . .
Yes and I am finding it slightly erroneous. If you used UK data for the CO2 emissions per kWh and the official Tesla kWh/mile figure the Tesla would come out better. The calculation uses the official Toyota figure for grams of CO2 per mile, but then uses an unofficial figure for the Tesla. Why do that?
At any rate the Tesla comes out better, as long as you ignore its manufacturing carbon footprint.
Because the odometer on the dashboard does not include the 12% line losses or the 16% charging losses . . . Slight of hand that is missed in all ‘Public Calculations’ . . . OHM’S law RULES . . . See the full article . . .
I wasn’t even questioning the transmission/distribution losses or the charging loss. I was questioning the Tesla kWh/mile figure and using the US CO2/kWh figure when you could have used the UK figure.
But now you mention it, I think the charging loss figure is exaggerated. I read that the charge/discharge cycle was 98% efficient.
I believe that transmission line losses are too low at 4%. Maybe for short transmission lines. This needs more digging. Many years ago the transmission (not necessarily “line”) losses were somewhere around 25%.
Curious George: there are both “transmission” and “distribution” losses. From memory the distribution loss is the larger figure. Again from memory, I don’t think the total of these losses is too far different to the figure claimed (in the UK), so I didn’t question it.
However, 25% is far too high, I have not seen a figure that high for the UK.
KB,
The charging loss figures come from ‘Pro EV’ sources . . .
Green Car Reports – Why it takes more Energy than your Battery holds
The real reason for the discrepancy is that you lose some energy to Heat to the onboard charging. According to Kia, for instance, it’s typical for the onboard charger to lose 14 percent or more of the energy input on the way to charging the cells in the battery pack. Factor in charger inaccuracies (Kia notes that 3 to 5 percent isn’t unusual) and you could end up ‘officially’ putting in well over 15 percent more energy than the battery’s capacity while restoring the charge to 100 percent.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098248_charging-an-electric-car-why-it-takes-more-energy-than-your-battery-holds
Green car congress 05 September 2018
Unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, electric vehicles experience a loss of energy during “refueling,” with an energy loss of about 16% from the wall power to the battery during charging.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/09/20180905fotw.html#:~:text=Unlike%20conventionally%20fueled%20vehicles%2C%20electric,to%20the%20battery%20during%20charging.
Both quotes are from
https://www.academia.edu/49057069/Electric_Cars_Burn_31_More_Energy_than_Gas_Cars
KB,
The discharge rate is 98 %. Correct, however, to excite the electrons inside the Lithium-Ion battery, 16 % of the electricity delivered is wasted as HEAT.
Jim,
I have made this point before (including to our government department for Business and Industrial Strategy), you cannot use the average CO2 per unit hour of electricity as a basis for calculation of emissions by electric vehicles.
Any extra demand is met by generation types that can increase output to match that demand, which is not nuclear, or renewables, they are already at maximum available output. In practice this is almost all done by gas generation so the CO2 emissions due to charging evs is much higher than the average. Ditto for heat pumps.
A clear graphic view of this is available at https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ where the gas output graph matches the demand graph shapes.
Until the expansion of non CO2 emitting generation actual capacity (Not nameplate) matches the inevitable increase in grid demand due to government policies this will continue.
Essentially the grid should be de carbonised first, and only then should transport and heating be electrified. The government claims this will happen by 2035 but who will be in power then to see the inevitable failure of that prediction?
Iain+Reid: I see the point you are making, but I’m not sure I agree.
As I write, wind is supplying 29% of UK demand. Any EVs being charged right now are being charged with 29% wind power surely.
Ian + Reid,
De-carbonizing is a myth propagated by ‘The Big Green Machine’ . . . ALL forms of energy regardless of their source is poison to Planet Earth . . .
https://www.academia.edu/52039545/All_Electricity_Poisons_Planet_Earth
Furthermore . . . to all the believers in Decarbonizing . . . Please read this . . .
This came from a friend, you may have seen it already… pretty well done…
Batteries
Anonymous (couldn’t locate the author)
When I saw the title of this lecture, especially with the picture of the scantily clad model, I couldn’t resist attending. The packed auditorium was abuzz with questions about the address; nobody seemed to know what to expect. The only hint was a large aluminum block sitting on a sturdy table on the stage.
When the crowd settled down, a scholarly-looking man walked out and put his hand on the shiny block, “Good evening,” he said, “I am here to introduce NMC532-X,” and he patted the block, “we call him NM for short,” and the man smiled proudly. “NM is a typical electric vehicle (EV) car battery in every way except one; we programmed him to send signals of the internal movements of his electrons when charging, discharging, and in several other conditions. We wanted to know what it feels like to be a battery. We don’t know how it happened, but NM began to talk after we downloaded the program.
Despite this ability, we put him in a car for a year and then asked him if he’d like to do presentations about batteries. He readily agreed on the condition he could say whatever he wanted. We thought that was fine, and so, without further ado, I’ll turn the floor over to NM,” the man turned and walked off the stage.
“Good evening,” NM said. He had a slightly affected accent, and when he spoke, he lit up in different colors. “That cheeky woman on the marquee was my idea,” he said. “Were she not there, along with ‘naked’ in the title, I’d likely be speaking to an empty auditorium! I also had them add ‘shocking’ because it’s a favorite word amongst us batteries.” He flashed a light blue color as he laughed.
“Sorry,” NM chuckled, then continued, “Three days ago, at the start of my last lecture, three people walked out. I suppose they were disappointed there would be no dancing girls. But here is what I noticed about them. One was wearing a battery-powered hearing aid, one tapped on his battery-powered cell phone as he left, and a third got into his car, which would not start without a battery. So, I’d like you to think about your day for a moment; how many batteries do you rely on?”
He paused for a full minute which gave us time to count our batteries. Then he went on, “Now, it is not elementary to ask, ‘what is a battery?’ I think Tesla said it best when they called us Energy Storage Systems. That’s important. We do not make electricity – we store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?”
He flashed blue again. “Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.”
He lit up red when he said that, and I sensed he was smiling. Then he continued in blue and orange. “Mr. Elkay introduced me as NMC532. If I were the battery from your computer mouse, Elkay would introduce me as double-A, if from your cell phone as CR2032, and so on. We batteries all have the same name depending on our design. By the way, the ‘X’ in my name stands for ‘experimental.’
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium.
The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle batteries like me or care to dispose of single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive embedded costs.”
NM got redder as he spoke. “Everything manufactured has two costs associated with it, embedded costs and operating costs. I will explain embedded costs using a can of baked beans as my subject.
In this scenario, baked beans are on sale, so you jump in your car and head for the grocery store. Sure enough, there they are on the shelf for $1.75 a can. As you head to the checkout, you begin to think about the embedded costs in the can of beans.
The first cost is the diesel fuel the farmer used to plow the field, till the ground, harvest the beans, and transport them to the food processor. Not only is his diesel fuel an embedded cost, so are the costs to build the tractors, combines, and trucks. In addition, the farmer might use a nitrogen fertilizer made from natural gas.
Next is the energy costs of cooking the beans, heating the building, transporting the workers, and paying for the vast amounts of electricity used to run the plant. The steel can holding the beans is also an embedded cost. Making the steel can requires mining taconite, shipping it by boat, extracting the iron, placing it in a coal-fired blast furnace, and adding carbon. Then it’s back on another truck to take the beans to the grocery store. Finally, add in the cost of the gasoline for your car.
But wait – can you guess one of the highest but rarely acknowledged embedded costs?” NM said, then gave us about thirty seconds to make our guesses. Then he flashed his lights and said, “It’s the depreciation on the 5000 pound car you used to transport one pound of canned beans!”
NM took on a golden glow, and I thought he might have winked. He said, “But that can of beans is nothing compared to me! I am hundreds of times more complicated. My embedded costs not only come in the form of energy use; they come as environmental destruction, pollution, disease, child labor, and the inability to be recycled.”
He paused, “I weigh one thousand pounds, and as you see, I am about the size of a travel trunk.” NM’s lights showed he was serious. “I contain twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside me are 6,831 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each auto battery like me, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.”
He let that one sink in, then added, “I mentioned disease and child labor a moment ago. Here’s why. Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?”
NM’s red and orange light made it look like he was on fire. “Finally,” he said, “I’d like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not! This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects.
NM lights dimmed, and he quietly said, “There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing them become apparent.
I’m trying to do my part with these lectures. As you can see, if I had entitled this talk “The Embedded Costs of Going Green,” who would have come? But thank you for your attention, good night, and good luck.”
NM’s lights went out, and he was quiet, like a regular battery.
Surely you need to include the resource costs of building the renewable to produce electric, including mining, processing, manufacture, carbon fibre blades or metal and of course the enormous amount of concrete needed for establishing wind turbines.
i understand that it takes 5 years worth of resources for a solar panel which then last 20 years so it contributes positively in reducing CO2 for 15 years. Inverters and film on the panel would also reduce the power generated by around 2% a year.
I am not sure I have seen these figures-or whatever are deemed to be correct-in any article but perhaps the GWPF have produced something.,
There is also of course the political, environmental and ethical dimensions bearing in mind the coerced labour and that China owns many of the resources.
KB,
not at all, EVs are an extra demand which is met by gas.
The wind, solar (In winter very little) and nuclear plants’ output has already been used by the ‘normal’ load, there is no more to give for the additional ev load as they are at maximum available output.
As an example, 2020 was hailed as a good year for wind as it supplied a higher than normal amount of U.K. grid demand. What was not realised by the media is that demand was down due to covid. Wind gave it’s normal amount in general but gas generation was down so wind’s percentage rose, and was misinterpreted by most.
Demand is the key and high demand gives higher CO2 emissions, and incidentally reflects economic output as well to some degree.
Iain + Reid: I guess that is a good point, but ultimately the plan is that all electric will be low-carbon.
jimlemaistre: To be fair you should take into account the mining and refining that goes into fossil fuel extraction. Shale oil and fracking are not exactly environmentally friendly.
With UK gas fracking, there is a large resource under Oxfordshire. When they start fracking Oxfordshire I might go along with fracking Lancashire, but I want to see what happens to Oxfordshire first.
Coincidentally, I was chatting to someone today who had the misfortune to be stuck, with thousands of other motorists, for over 24hrs in heavy snow back in January 2003 when the entire length of the M11 and A14 was gridlocked because of the conditions. Imagine the same scenario with EVs as the motorists’ vehicle of choice. We wouldn’t be talking about jobs at risk but lives. And how long would it take to clear thousands of conked out battery vehicles from the roads even if gritters and snow ploughs could dance around the dead hulks to clear escape routes? Doesn’t bear thinking about really.
I was returning home on the A14 that day. I just managed to get through before heavily laden HGVs with no traction on a slight uphill section, clogged up both lanes. My colleague, who followed me about an hour later, spent a miserable night in his petrol car, but at least he could run his heater intermittently.
But there isn’t going to be snow any more, Mack, is there?
I’m sorry you mentioned the M11/A14. My worst ever journey was a 12-hour drive from Folkestone to Edinburgh half of which was caused by a closure of the A14 and no proper alternative routes onto the A1 which was itself subject to restrictions between Stamford and Grantham!
The same distance from near Dijon to the Tunnel had taken six hours including two comfort breaks. I still shudder at the thought. With an EV it would be impossible, snow or no snow!
KB,
To be fair also then, we must consider the Steel Hydro Towers, the Aluminum Power lines and the environmental damage caused running those lines. OH, and let’s Not forget the radiation from power lines and the HEAT released by the 12 % loss of energy during the transmission of that Electricity. There is No Panacea . . . ALL Energy . . . is poison to Planet Earth . . . Electricity has Always been and always will be an inefficient way of delivering power to point of usage.
We had a discussion at the golf club and there was unanimous agreement that we would not purchase an electric car until they can be fully charged in 20 minutes maximum and have a range of at least 600 miles.
“Switch To EVs Puts 500,000 Jobs At Risk”
They (& a lot more) will need to retrain as firefighters & scrap processors.
Ah, the broken window fallacy in action.
No, they will be re-trained as Unicorn handlers and builders of alternative vehicles such as Pumpkin coaches.
You can have a modern, industrial economy or you can have a net zero, green economy. You cannot have both.
Meanwhile “Electric car sales doubled in November to account for one in every five purchases as the switch away from petrol and diesel vehicles gathers pace”. That is according to the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/06/electric-car-sales-double-claim-one-five-purchases/
Who are these people buying EVs? (or is it that there is still a shortage of proper cars?)
People with more money than sense or virtue signallers with bells on. A minority of the driving population I suspect with a fair smidgeon of corporate customers. In the meantime, back in the real world, reliable second hand vehicle prices are rocketing. A pal of mine has just sold a diesel van for £5k more than he paid for it three years ago. Ching Ching!
Early EV buyers will be mostly the genuine enthusiast who can afford the luxury of a relatively expensive EV; and company car drivers being nudged along by company policy.
They are the are the low hanging fruit. Wider adoption will be more problematic.
Others will be more sceptical about long-term performance, practicality and convenience, economics of re-sale (spent batteries), costs when free leccy is no longer being dished out, and maybe (now) reliability of depending on leccy for transport (lessons learned from Storm Arwen).
Used car hyperinflation will be pushed by restriction of supply of new cars. It could also pushed by resistance to move to EVs amongst the more difficult-to-convert.
Suburb dwellers. EV for mum to do the school run and shops. But i expect most have a second larger family car for the longer runs. There’s definitely a market for EVs as a second car for city short journeys. Norway, with Europes largest EV ownership (subsidised) finds nearly all are 2nd cars.
And at some point the subsidies and tax breaks will end and a replacement for petrol tax will be added to running costs. It will be chaotic as ever when government tries to plan something complex.
Company cars. The tax is far less punitive for an EV.
Designed to encourage early uptake.
A mate is now in a hybrid Range Rover Sport instead of 3.0 diesel due to a personal tax saving of £6-7000 p/a. (He’s using it to fund a Porsche for his wife!)
What happens when everyone is on EV’s? The tax breaks and low running costs vanish, to be replaced by per mile pricing and revised charges.
Also things like the ULEZ in London.
Quite peculiar, 500 thousand jobs at risk, even though electric cars are much more expensive to manufacture, which means there’s more labour required to make a battery car than to make an internal-combustion engine car. Plus there are the jobs in the charging infrastructure, which will have to be many times bigger than refuelling infrastructure of conventional cars, since BEVs require longer times to charge than ICVs to refuel.
But of course the explanation is that few of these cars will be made in Europe, and all of the actual additional jobs in mining, metal refining, battery production, and scrap recycling will be moved to other countries.
“Switch To EVs Puts 500,000 High Paying Jobs At Risk”
Fixed it.
There is no such thing as a green job. There are only high-paying green jobs.
But there is a problem: there will be no switch to EVs. Ain’t gonna happen. They don’t meet people’s needs. Britain will become Cuba: vast numbers of will maintained antique cars.
Business opportunity: get into the auto parts salvage business. Get 40 acres and start laying in old dead cars. The parts will become gold.
I’ve made up my mind that I’ll buy my first EV the day after the first electric train pulls into my local station – on a line that still has mechanical, semaphore signalling!!!!
All trains are Electric . . . They run on the on-board diesel powered Electric power generator.
Far more efficient than Electric power from the grid. !00 % of the electricity produced goes directly to the engine. From the grid up to 18 % of the power produced would be lost in transmission. Regardless of the source be it Wind or Coal.
The engineers that run railways figured this out LONG AGO !
What’s increasingly clear is the ‘threat’ from so-called ‘climate change’ is tiny and speculative compared to the enormous, very real and imminent threats posed by policies intended to tackle ‘climate change’.
Fantasy ‘climate change’ threats
Sea level threat; 6” rise over the next century.
Literally irrelevant.
Warming threat; Perhaps a 1C-1.5C increase over the next century, and perhaps not.
Entirely manageable. Slow changes if any, so easy to adapt to.
Global sea ice threat; unknown as Arctic is down a bit while the (much larger) Antarctic is up a bit. Globally nothing unusual is happening.
No obvious threat to anyone or anything.
—————–
Real policy threats
Runaway energy prices.
Impact felt by everyone in the country, with the poorest hardest hit and companies rendered unable to compete on international markets. Huge job and economic threat.
EV’s
Disruption – and therefore uncertainty, almost certain. Significant grid capacity and affordability challenges.
National security.
Dependence on unreliable or imported energy supplied by intermittent wind or non-allied / hostile third parties, plus over-dependence on electricity are ALL maximum-level threats to national security. These threats are already here, now.
Utterly scandalous that such threats haven’t been addressed or debated by Parliament.
This is just a snap-shot. There’s obviously many more.
How bad are these real-life policy consequences compared to effectively non-existent threats from exaggerated claims perhaps decades into the future?
This is the lunacy in a nutshell. It’s possible that at some point climate change causes us costs and problems. But it’s far from certain that it will and extremely difficult to know what and how much they will cost us if they do occur. But the costs of Net Zero are certain and vast. We are spending £trillion to possibly avoid a cost we cannot know.
Bravo,Cheshire .Red! Bravo,Phoenix448
And if car ownership drops (particularly new car ownership) then those jobs are not replaced in our brave new electric world.
You are so right, Cheshire Red, in talking about fantasy climate change threats. While 25,000 delegates made fools of themselves at COP26 fretting over a hypothetical 1.5 or 2 degree rise in temperature, there are more and more signs we may now be in a cooling trend – coldest winter on record in Antarctica (since records started in 1957), a run of bitterly cold winters in the extreme north, as Paul has reported on this blog 2021 running lower than 1921 in the UK, ships icebound on the passage north of Russia and much more.
So why do we need EVs? China has cornered the mineral supplies for the batteries and will most likely undercut and put out of business European car manufacturers, ironically using cheap coal-fired electricity.