Hundreds of jobs at risk after electric lorry start-up files for bankruptcy
By Paul Homewood
What was it they were saying about all of those green jobs?
Hundreds of British jobs are at risk after a Swedish electric truck start-up filed for bankruptcy.
Volta Trucks, which had been developing a 16-tonne all-electric vehicle, said it had filed for bankruptcy in Sweden after its main battery supplier collapsed.
Its UK division is also applying for administration and intends to appoint insolvency experts Alvarez & Marsal. The collapse puts roughly 600 British jobs at risk. The majority of Volta’s 850 staff were based in the UK, largely in the Midlands.
The company said: “Volta Trucks accomplished a great deal from a standing start in 2019, revolutionising commercial vehicle operations for a sustainable future.
“However, like all scale-ups in the EV manufacturing sector, Volta Trucks has faced challenges along the way.”
It is the latest electric vehicle company to run into difficulties. A wave of EV start-ups have emerged in recent years amid booming interest in green technologies and ready access to venture capital funding.
However, many of them have since gone bust as economic conditions worsened and interest rates have risen. Others have experienced lengthy production delays.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/17/600-uk-jobs-risk-swedish-electric-lorry-bankruptcy/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
‘Hundreds of British jobs are at risk after a Swedish electric truck start-up filed for bankruptcy.’
So the workers are now going to starve to death.
Wait . . . what? They’ll just get other jobs? So the ‘jobs’ aren’t really lost.
‘The company said: “Volta Trucks accomplished a great deal from a standing start in 2019, revolutionising commercial vehicle operations for a sustainable future.’
Wut? You are CLOSING! You sustained what ?!?! You lasted 4 years. How much capital did you burn through?
‘However, many of them have since gone bust as economic conditions worsened and interest rates have risen. Others have experienced lengthy production delays.’
Oh, yeah, it wasn’t their fault! EV startups aren’t a bad idea, it’s economic conditions and interest rates that’s the problem.
As soon as there is a real cost of money , these companies will go bust. When you are given money to waste for free its easy to make it look like things are OK.
Great news – the more these idiotic, engineeringly incompetent ventures fail, the quicker the return to reality
Government invests £200 million to drive innovation and get more zero emission trucks on our roads
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-invests-200-million-to-drive-innovation-and-get-more-zero-emission-trucks-on-our-roads
Net-Zero madness
Did you see this bit in that press release?
“…while also avoiding food price hikes caused by fluctuating petrol costs.”
You also of course avoid food price falls caused by fluctuating petrol prices whilst exposing consumers to food price hikes caused by all the new costs in electric lorries. This is the sort of ignorance/stupidity on which £200m is wasted.
Glen,
I pressume that if the government keep repeating the lie that electric vehicles are zero emission then it will become fact?
Seems to be a misuse of the word ‘invest’. Government spends taxpayers money on wishful thinking is the more accurate headline.
Might I suggest “wastes taxpayers money…..”? It was Gordon Brown that first used “investment” in the hope that people would be conned into believing there would be a “return”.,
Did not Dr Goebbels say that if you repeat a lie often enough it will become the truth? Seems to be working in the legacy media with regards to ‘investment’ by government. Not unlike pushing the wind and solar are cheaper lie.
I think what he said was:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
I wonder how much they had off the uk gov?
Don’t you mean “I wonder how much they had off the UK taxpayers”?
Sorry! Yes.
the other foriegn owned one will be next. not so much Arriving as departing.
None of its vehicles have yet made it into commercial production, and it has been forced to slash hundreds of jobs
https://news.sky.com/story/british-based-electric-van-group-races-to-secure-arrival-of-rescue-bid-12964266
I wonder if any EV has ever been produced and sold without subsidies?
Many, if not all, involve several types.
Investors and even governments are discovering the concept of opportunity costs. An old joke says the way to make a small fortune in said endeavor is to start with a large one.
Maybe the original Nissan Leaf?
Makes one wonder: did Henry Ford get subsidies for the Model T or did he just make cars at a price that people wanted, even if there were no fancy colours.
It seems funny that Henry went with black (cheaper ?) and now most autos are white (reflective and cheaper ?).
I had a very pretty blue Subaru Crosstrek but had to settle for white on a used F150 (Ford pickup).
Ford was not the first car maker. He discovered a way to make them much more cheaply via moving assembly lines. Supposedly he switched to black as the only choice because the black paint dried more quickly than the others.
Ernie’s milkfloat?
You beat me to it.
update comments
Without mentioning any names I had a friend (powertrain development) who worked for one of the ‘new’EV truck and bus manufacturers for a while. So little progress was made during his time spent there whilst at the same time hoovering up vast amounts of taxpayers cash I came to the conclusion that it was no more than money laundering. ( just my opinion, it may of course been legit although I dont believe the company has sold any vehicle yet). A famous irish based car came to mind.
This is the other big problem with be shocked by a real V attempting to pick winners. They tend to vastly overpay the staff, demand all sorts of non-commercial behaviours and exercise very little control over spending. Most civil servants and politicians would be shocked by a real VC-backed start-up.
All projects that require a subsidy to get it off the ground will fail, basic economics. Viable projects that are financed by venture capital, have a better chance of success, the venture capitalists are very astute and do not invest in losers, So all the subsidised projects, hydrogen, carbon capture, lithium mining in Cornwall and Weardale, the battery plant in Northumberland are going to fail.
No, the vast majority of VC investments are losers – most VCs work on 1 in 20 succeeding. The simple fact is that most businesses fail, and that’s a good thing, as it means people are trying lots of new ideas to see what works and what we might want. Governments try to pick winners based on their political preferences and invest in far fewer opportunities and with my money, given unwillingly.
Even worse, the low hanging subsidies have already been harvested by Elon Musk – and today he has troubles to produce the Cybertruck. https://www.carscoops.com/2023/10/elon-musk-admits-that-tesla-dug-its-own-grave-with-the-cybertruck/
Rolls Royce took £58 million for the E-FanX hybrid aircraft, that never flew. And Airbus a similar amount.
The E-FanX was too inefficient, too heavy (4x heavier), too hot inside, had no room for passengers, and increased Co2 emissions by 400%. Oh, and it could not fly.
Apart from that it was great. Especially great at fleecing Uk taxpayers of £58 million.
The E-FanX.
All that equipment could only power two engines.
And no room for passengers.
R
Reminds me of the fad for nuclear powered aircraft in the 50s and 60s. Every time they got enough power they had to add more radiation shielding so they needed more power…
An electric aircraft is not possible with current technology. The stupidity of the idea is difficult to surpass – let me try, an electric rocket.
To be followed by the elctric commuter aircraft start up. Denying the laws of physics with subsidies may work on the ground, but they will never fly, far, with a payload.
Electric aircraft can never work, until battery energy density increases ten-fold. Medium weight aircraft end up with an endurance of 1 hr.
Aircraft are very weight sensitive, because they have to expend energy to stay aloft, as well as more energy to move along. Think of a helicopter moving slowly. And batteries do not burn off with range, which normally make the aircraft lighter and lighter.
Do not invest in electric aircraft – they will not work.
R
In such situation, the only thing that would fly is money …
But they don’t plan on taking passengers they plan on taking more and more subsidy
“venture capitalists are very astute and do not invest in losers” On the contrary they invest in lots of losers. They thrive because they occasionally find a winner too, which pays for the whole shebang.
Governments never do find a winner. In fact I doubt that they even try to.
“Governments”, that is all the politicians, slithering serpents and associated hangers on wouldn’t know a winner if it came up and smacked them in the face. That’s why all these individuals are in the jobs they are in. It’s much, much easier to spend taxpayers’ money than to generate money. All they do, if they recognise winners, is to tax them as much as possible.
Battery supplier collapse causes would-be electric truck maker collapse. The house of cards effect?
Unlike a normal auto battery that a dozen companies make in various styles and power output.
Apparently, this lorry company made an early design mistake.
For all we know, the battery supplier collapsed because the electric truck maker didn’t buy enough batteries.
Which is riskier, an EV startup, or an EV battery startup?
Maybe one battery fire too many? Remember that Boeing 777 was delayed over a year because of battery problems.
Presumably this is the sort of tech company the government is forcing pension funds to invest rather than those risky fossil fuel companies?
“… revolutionising commercial vehicle operations for a sustainable future.”
Nothing says sustainable future like bankruptcy.
“16 tonne all electric vehicle”
So the battery would weigh in excess of 4 tonnes, that’s one heck of a fire when it happens.
Enough to destroy a motorway for weeks
Underground delivery areas??
So ecological national socialism also fails?