Norway has had incredibly generous electric car subsidies. This has meant that the number of people changing to electric cars are so high that the tax from gas guzzlers is falling faster than they anticipated. Electric cars are already 77.5% of new cars sold. This compares to the UK at 15% of new cars being electric, and the USA 2.6%. I find the USA particularly strange as they are the country which has lead to the rise of Tesla- though admittedly given the rise speed that tesla has been growing, this is probably out of date. With tesla, if the numbers are just 3 years out of date the number of deliveries has trebled (if you look back to 2013, only 8 years, there is only 20,000 sales, yet in 2021 936,000 were sold 4700% growth in 8 years).
Continue reading “Is Norway having problems funding their country without combustion engine cars”Chevron and Exxon both spent years supressing battery cars should they get away with that?
It has been recognised in many circles but fossil fuels have been a problem for a very long time. Generally the argument has gone, there is nothing that can replace them.
What should we do about companies who were pushing the idea that was nothing to replace fossil fuels, while at the same time working to stop electric cars ever coming to market?
Some people might argue that in a free market society, you can do nothing. That has to be wrong. Exxon bought the lithium ion battery patent back in 1966, and then completely suppressed it -this is why the Sony Walkman only arrived in 1991, precisely 25 years after the patent was given when it expired. Chevron Texaco did something similar in 1999, when they bought the right to certain battery chemistry, and a particular type of battery plug in the hope of stopping that technology ever coming to market in the form of a battery for a car.
Car and fossil fuel companies cannot be allowed to get away with this. Indeed it has to be illegal.
Indeed if it isn’t, the free market system must change otherwise these companies will have the ability to make the fight against climate change that much harder.
There needs to be a way to inflict significant damage on a company which intentionally fights against the long-term human interests in order to maximize short term profits. Perhaps the only way to handle this is to fine the share holders? If the share holders know that they are going to be financially liable for any bad behaviour, this will force the value of the company down when ever they misbehave.
How can an average UK household reduce their carbon footprint?
The average UK household has a footprint of around 20 tonnes. Now it is true, that this is well below USA emissions as that is for 4 people – so average emissions of around 5 tonnes per head.
However, with relatively small adjustments, this can be cut dramatically. 12.3% of emissions come from heating, and a further 10.4% comes from electricity.
Furthermore, a significant cut can be made through replacing beef mince with Turkey mince. This can reduce your food carbon footprint by as much as 50%, and given that most mince is eaten in dishes with other foods, it is often unnoticeable
Continue reading “How can an average UK household reduce their carbon footprint?”Daily mail fear mongering over taxes on electric cars
The daily mail, a British tabloid newspaper, has a habit of writing sensationalist articles.
They have published an article today which states “Families could face new £765 annual green tax on cars as ministers plan new levies for electric vehicles to fill £34billion black hole left by the death of fuel duty” as its title – with details saying the figure comes from the AA later in the article (AA is a roadside rescue firm).
Now this is clearly click-bait. The article is written to make out that electric cars are going to have to be taxed far higher, in order to make up the governments funding. Now there are several problems with their arguement.
- The government spends roughly 1 trillion pounds a year, so 34 billion is roughly 3%. While this is significant, it is amongst the governments total spending, a rounding error. There are many places that the government could raise this money
- Public sector spending on roads in the United Kingdom reached 10.94 billion British pounds in 2019/20, an increase of 820 million British pounds when compared with the previous year.
- The improvement in air quality could see a noticeable improvement in health from a breathing point of view. Currently 11 billion is spent a year, on conditions caused or exacerbated by pollution. It would be conceivable, that the benefit to the countries health could alone increase productivity by 3%
- The reduction in carbon emissions is likely to lead to a reduction in money needed to be spent on mitigating the damage done
This is the standard form of article that the daily mail puts out, and indeed while there are very occasional articles that share concern for climate change, the daily mail has put out far more which take swipes at electric cars and any other way that the government might try to change our behaviour.
From an article as early as 2010, the writer claimed that the range will never be good enough bizarrely stating that they can drive their diesel car 800 miles on a tank – at motorway speeds, even assuming speeding that is 10 hours during which time you will need at least a handful of stops for food and a toilet break. Modern electric cars can gain 200 miles range or even more in 15 minutes charging.
Indeed, even last year they published an article claiming that 1 in 3 cannot afford an electric car. Now they quoted a figure of at least £2100 spent on their current car as the point at which electric cars would become affordable. By 2030 there are likely to be far more ‘runabout’ cars and similar, but the simple fact, is that most people will be spending at least £1500 on fuel a year. Given that electric cars last longer, and these people they are referring to, are likely to hold onto their car as long as possible, and probably do not buy new anyway we can assume the car is kept for at least 10 years. Electric charging is much cheaper, so you can be expecting to save at least £1200 per year, an amount that more than makes up for the initial higher price of purchase (the article states that entry level electric cars are around £5000 more expensive, so a purchaser will be better off after 4 – 5 years). There may have to be a change in car loan terms, to make borrowing more affordable, but this is all.
Articles on the difficulty of charging, range longevity and many more, are published every few weeks (or more regularly).
What is the daily mails problem?
Every country around the world seems to have a similar publication. Yes electric cars create slightly more emissions at manufacture (though this gap is narrowing) and yes they can be more expensive however prices are falling and the cost of ownership over the lifetime of the vehicle is significantly lower. Importantly environmental costs are far lower, and given the situation that the human race finds itself in, having to cut our emissions to zero pretty fast – caused I should note, largely by the sort of companies that newspapers like the daily mail praises constantly- we have no choice. The best impact that the daily mail can have is slowing the change. Given that the daily mail is based on a island, a place which stands to loose much from extreme global warming not least in terms of land. This sort of slanted analysis is only useful for confirming your biases.
It should be avoided (though the daily mail gives plenty of subjects to write on)
How much electricity does it take to reform fossil fuels? drive an electric instead
Conservatives estimates suggest that it takes 6kwh to reform one gallon of fuel (a gallon is roughly 4.54 litres). One gallon carries an average fossil fuel car roughly 24 miles.
How far will 6kwh carry an electric car? If you drive a porsche taycan you get around 3.6 miles per kwh, giving you a range of 21 miles, with a tesla 3 this range would increase to over 25 miles.
Continue reading “How much electricity does it take to reform fossil fuels? drive an electric instead”Why do electric car emission calculations include everything but combustion engine cars only the fuel they use?
There is a constant attempt to make electric cars sound less clean than they are. Now, for a start, in order for these calculations to work at all, the most polluting electricity is usually used. Next the amount of energy used to create the car and the emissions in this process is added.
The Daily Mail is claiming blue hydrogen is better fuel for cars: let’s see if it is (hint of course not)
As in the USA, some of the UK newspapers have an illogical hatred of electric cars. Perhaps chief amongst them, in the UK, is the Daily Mail. Now, I’m unsure what it’s problem is, but this article is littered with errors.
Continue reading “The Daily Mail is claiming blue hydrogen is better fuel for cars: let’s see if it is (hint of course not)”Building electric cars has a high carbon footprint: recycling can change this
Electric cars save carbon dioxide emissions over their lifetime. There are a significant number of fossil fuel producers and combustion engine car produces who will fudge their numbers and suggest the battery cars are actually worse for the environment than fossil fuel cars.
As you can imagine this is false. Electric cars are zero emission in themselves, so how dirty they are is entirely dependent on how dirty the electricity creation is. Detractors will use the dirtiest electricity in the world and round their estimates upwards, usually still coming out with electric cars slightly cleaner than combustion engines.
Continue reading “Building electric cars has a high carbon footprint: recycling can change this”One of the arguments against electric cars? – cobalt? think again
One of the ingredients used to create electric devices batteries, is cobalt. Cobalt is something that is often mined in central Africa, and there is a significant issue with child labour. However, this is a stupid argument against electric cars.
The electric car companies have been concerned about this, and so have reduced the amount they use.
However, a far more significant use of cobalt, is to remove the sulphur from petrol and diesel! The fossil fuel companies are arguing you should use electric cars because they use a little cobalt (this doesn’t need refilling, it isn’t used up), but at the same time are using vast amounts of cobalt to remove the sulphur from their exhausts- because it is bad to breathe in.
What is more ridiculous is that this process of removing sulphur uses up the cobalt, which it’s why the fossil fuel companies need so much. So far from saving cobalt, fossil fuels consume lots more and require a constant supply .