It is becoming clear that in their frenzied determination to hit their arbitrary Net-Zero target, ministers have overlooked the enormous repercussions of weaning Britain off petrol – and onto electric cars.
First, let us address the economic challenges. In England alone, it is estimated it will cost £16.7 bn ($23.3 bn) to get the UK’s public charging network ready. The Government has allocated just £1.3 bn ($1.8 bn) UK-wide.
On top of that colossal figure, it has been calculated that getting the national grid ready for the scale of demand anticipated will require hundreds of billions of pounds. To illustrate why just look at the example of the Glasgow electric bus fleet (pictured).
The program is expected to be completed in 2023 – but already, it has been calculated that the full fleet will use the same electricity as it takes to power a town of 10,000 people. And that’s just one city.
Finally, there is the inescapable fact that electric vehicles will cost around £40bn in lost road taxes and fuel duty – a crucial source of income for the Treasury.
But the political ramifications are, if anything, even more alarming. The UK is already far too dependent on China, a brutal regime that indiscriminately tramples on human rights.
And switching to electric vehicles would massively increase that dependence: China not only produces 50% of the world’s electric vehicles – it is also responsible for 73% of the world’s batteries.
The Government talks of building one, or possibly two, battery factories. But China is opening a new mega-factory every few weeks. In short, when it comes to electric capacity, we aren’t even at the races.
Two hundred years ago, the industrial revolution ushered in a sustained period of economic growth and rising wages. But it was a revolution based on cheap energy – and, as we discovered too late, there were serious environmental consequences.
Now, we are facing the opposite problem. In their blinkered pursuit of Net Zero, British politicians risk making energy more expensive – a move that will hit the poorest the hardest and make leveling up nigh on impossible.
If the Government chose to concentrate on developing the UK’s already advanced hydrogen sector, we might stand a chance both of reducing our dependence on China and limiting the cost of Net-Zero.
Yet for some reason, ministers remain fixated on batteries, which despite all the green chest-beating will mostly end up in landfills.
If our plan for net-zero results in spiraling debt, higher taxes at home, and growing dependency on a brutal Chinese regime, surely it’s time for a complete rethink.
Read more at The Daily Telegraph ($)
The fanatics insist on a zero carbon level and the fall in line eunuchs are pursuing just that but. As we need CO2 for plant growth what will be the real cut off level? 1%, 2% or what?
Oh yes, they haven’t thought about that!
George, the other rather relevant thing the lefties haven’t explained is where will the extra electricity to charge electric cars come from? Coal and nuclear power generation is bad and must go, so what will replace all of that cheap, available and reliable electricity? Please don’t tell us wind and solar because when the sun goes down, the lights won’t be staying on let alone having power come down the line to recharge the car over night so we can get to work the next day.
The entire situation is farcical like the money skimming during the pandemic? Hydrogen has got to be the answer or they will build more dangerous short lived ultimately planet destroying nuclear power stations. We cannot safely dispose of nuclear waste steel drums and concrete last five minutes in real time as it is still on the planet out of sight is not safe. The perfect nuclear plant has already been supplied us 93,000,000 miles away safe distance! Solar panels on everyones house was scuppered purely because the big boys couldn’t make enough money from it! No improvement in sight Mamon is still God.
Philip, can you please explain what is dangerous about nuclear power stations and also, as you claim, they are short lived?
In fact, your entire comment does not make sense at all.
Just a comment about bureaucracies : Yesterday, a technician from Bell Canada drove an hour and a half to my home to install wireless Internet. After setting up his diagnostic equipment, he informed me that I was not eligible for service because my “sector” was fully subscribed. He left for his 90 minute drive home. I don’t know how this will end, but my confidence in corporations and bureaucracies sank below Death Valley. Big people talk big. Who holds them accountable? Other biggies.
Lord Bamford has developed a hydrogen version of his new diesel engine which produces zero emissions. His son Jack has supplied TFL with a fleet of hydrogen powered buses. The average car battery weighs around one ton…dead weight! What is wrong with our government being so hydrogen blind?!
The article made good points but left out one of the most important, consumer affordability. I’ll repeat one of my past posts. The typical cost of the less expensive electric vehicles in the UK is around 21,000 pounds. The medium annual house hold income in the UK is 23,256 pounds. So the expectation is to have families spending most of their yearly income to buy an electric vehicle. I will also point out that 23,256 pounds is the medium income. There are a large number of families at or below 15,000 pounds.
Electric buses, trucks and tractors are about as real as slot-car racing.
It is time to stop kidding ourselves and act like grown-ups.
They have kids mining Cobalt for the batteries of the electric cars and Biden the Stupid wants America to follow the same path into a so called Utopia but will find wasteland instead
The engineering says that from a carbon dioxide standpoint electric vehicles are a bad idea.
Googling “Efficiency of Electrical Power Transmission” brought back the statement: “17% loss moving the electricity from the generation site and another 50% from the local distribution.” 17% times 1.50 = 25% loss. (https://electricalnotes.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/total-losses-in-power-distribution-transmission-lines- part-1/)You can argue about whether these numbers are correct but that will only change the magnitude of the last sentence.
If you lose 25% of something then you need to start out with 1 divided by the .75 that is left, the amount you actually need is 33% more than required.
THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CAN USE 33% MORE FOSSIL FUEL THAN A REGULAR CAR WITH THE CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN CARBON DIOXIDE.
This is a front page story!
Looking up “Engine Efficiency” on Wikipedia® I see that newer diesel cars can achieve peak efficiencies of around 45%. This is the same order of efficiency as many of the power plants that are generating electricity.
It takes about 25 horsepower (19 Kilowatts) to move a car at 60 miles per hour and a modern automobile does a pretty good job of that with a self contained internal combustion engine.
Because of the electrical power transmission losses 33% more total energy will be used by the electrically powered vehicle to do the same job plus now you have to buy more electricity to heat and cool the electric vehicle. Think California buying power from Wyoming to power their electric cars.
Power transmission loss is why your cell phone and laptop chargers warm up.
The vehicle with the internal combustion engine gives you free heat as a by product and will power the air conditioner directly. The EV needs to carry another electric motor for the air conditioner.
As long as you are using fossil fuels to generate the electricity the electric vehicle uses, it will always create measurably more carbon dioxide because of the power delivery losses.