Rowan Atkinson, with an engineering background and a passion for cars, expresses skepticism about electric cars as the environmental solution they are claimed to be. He highlights the carbon emissions and resource-intensive manufacturing process of lithium-ion batteries and suggests exploring alternatives like hydrogen and synthetic fuels. Atkinson also advocates for prolonging the lifespan of existing cars and adopting a more sustainable business model in the automotive industry in his article for the Guardian.
Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems. Combine this, perhaps surprising, academic pathway with a lifelong passion for the motorcar, and you can see why I was drawn into an early adoption of electric vehicles. I bought my first electric hybrid 18 years ago and my first pure electric car nine years ago and (notwithstanding our poor electric charging infrastructure) have enjoyed my time with both very much. Electric vehicles may be a bit soulless, but they’re wonderful mechanisms: fast, quiet and, until recently, very cheap to run. But increasingly, I feel a little duped. When you start to drill into the facts, electric motoring doesn’t seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.
As you may know, the government has proposed a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The problem with the initiative is that it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe. Electric cars, of course, have zero exhaust emissions, which is a welcome development, particularly in respect of the air quality in city centres. But if you zoom out a bit and look at a bigger picture that includes the car’s manufacture, the situation is very different. In advance of the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021, Volvo released figures claiming that greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one. How so? The problem lies with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all electric vehicles: they’re absurdly heavy, many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them, and they only last about 10 years. It seems a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile’s fight against the climate crisis.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of effort is going into finding something better. New, so-called solid-state batteries are being developed that should charge more quickly and could be about a third of the weight of the current ones – but they are years away from being on sale, by which time, of course, we will have made millions of overweight electric cars with rapidly obsolescing batteries. Hydrogen is emerging as an interesting alternative fuel, even though we are slow in developing a truly “green” way of manufacturing it. It can be used in one of two ways. It can power a hydrogen fuel cell (essentially, a kind of battery); the car manufacturer Toyota has poured a lot of money into the development of these. Such a system weighs half of an equivalent lithium-ion battery and a car can be refuelled with hydrogen at a filling station as fast as with petrol.
If the lithium-ion battery is an imperfect device for electric cars, it’s a complete non-starter for trucks because of its weight; for such vehicles hydrogen can be injected directly into a new kind of piston engine. JCB, the company that makes yellow diggers, has made huge strides with hydrogen engines and hopes to put them into production in the next couple of years. If hydrogen wins the race to power trucks – and as a result every filling station stocks it – it could be a popular and accessible choice for cars.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Bravo, Debbie.
We’re talking about Zach Bridges, right?
Bridges’ asserts, “there are unsubstantiated concerns about transgender women having a physical advantage over cisgender women.,” Translated into English, it reads “there no proof that blokes have a physical advantage over women.” What a deluded self-serving cheat he is!
so transexual jornalist (Debbie Hayton) says transgender cyclist (Emily Bridges) “is no more a woman than I am”.
Do Ed Davey and Kier Starmer agree? Sit back, get the popcorn in and watch their heads explode trying to answer that.
The comparison with scientifically grounded young earth creationism is unfortunate.
‘Debbie’ Hayton’s comments are akin to gaslighting. He’s helped to normalise the ridiculous by dressing and living as a woman when he’s clearly not. He is certainly NOT transsexual because it’s a fantasy status. Hormones, surgery and wannabe claims don’t make people what they’re not and can never be.
With the MSM propagandising about the popularity of women’s football it won’t be long before money starts flooding into it ….. and women footballers’ earnings increasing substantially.
So how long will it be before a man, who failed to make the grade as a professional player, decides to don a frock and declare that he’s a woman …… in order to get a piece of the action in the “women’s” game?
I give it about 5 years.
Weird I can comment on this article but not the article about Denmark banning the burning of the Quran? Why?